This meeting is being recorded. All right. Good morning, everybody. We are in day two of the appeal, the administrative appeal by Aidan and Sarah Morrell. From B.A. H13D is an appeal from a DPC closeout decision letter of a zoning complaint CE-24-107. and it is April 29th at approximately 10 o'clock. So Mr. Gil, we are in the middle of your case. Thank you very much, Ben. We'd like to call Jane Williams to the stand. To what extent she, I don't know if she has a camera or not. I hope so. Mrs. Williams whenever you're available just confirm with us verbally or visually that you are able to hear my questions. Grant. Yes. There we go. Yeah. Yeah a little bit. This way, I need to swear you in, please. If you would raise your right hand. She just got disconnected. Oh, no, never mind. It's just a video. There we go. Right. Can you hear me, Ms. Williams? There we go. Thank you very much. I saw when we swear our firm under the penalties of perjury that responses given in statements made should be truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes. Thank you. Please state your name and address for the record. I'm Jane Williams. I live at 3812 50 Street West in Roseville, California. I. All right. So I presume, yeah, okay. Thank you. Your witness. Thank you. Mrs. Williams. Uh, could you please explain to the hearing examiner your general professional and educational background? Certainly. So I have a degree in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles. And I have for the last 33 years worked in a field where I routinely do the US EPA for their failure to issue rules under the federal command area. And those are both the section 129 rules, which governs incinerators, and the section 112 rules, which governs both the emissions of the period pollutants and hazardous air pollutants from major industrial sources across the country known as section 112. And I also have worked across the country on a number of helping community groups that are working on incinerators find out what are the emissions make these incinerators and what are the public health impacts of those incinerators? I'm hearing Xana, I would object here and ask for a proper relevance. There are no such operations occurring at the Grace Campus. There were none at the time that DPC inspected the property for zoning compliance. Again, this was a close-out letter as to any ongoing activities there in violation of zoning regulations. This is an economist who, by her proper of experience, makes her career suing the EPA. I think we are going far afield of this subject matter, this appeal, and whether or not it's arbitrary and capricious and contrary of law for the DPC to issue the letter. The proper here is that she's speaking to the manner in which these types of facilities are regulated at a federal level in order to inform the hearing examiner as to any possible ambiguities that might exist in the county level and establish whether or not there was an arbitrary and capricious decision making, as it relates to DPC's review or lack thereof of this facility, it's basically established that this type of facility needs to have proper review and has certain impacts that we're not considered by DPC. All right, so it doesn't go to the truth of whether or not there is an emissions violation, which we all know at the time there wasn't. Yeah, we're not speaking to that, yes. All right. So it doesn't go to the truth of whether or not there is an emissions violation, which we all know at the time there wasn't. Yeah, we're not speaking to them. Okay. All right. I'm glad to go ahead, Tom. Yeah, Madam Hewis, I would just say that I just – I guess I need to understand the scope of this hearing from the hearing examiner's perspective with this ruling. If what comes to light is just a comparison of federal versus state or local laws with regards to admissions and the procedures, that's fine. We're going to keep it within the legal regulation level. So nothing pertaining to what occurred on the site. I mean, she's in California. She could have no idea about what is happening on the grace campus. Right. It's all procedural. OK. Before we continue, ma'am, your microphone has a little bit of a. Thank you. Yeah. It's difficult to hear sometimes. And I think the reason it might be is because you might have noise suppression enabled in your Zoom settings. So if you could check your audio settings to confirm that, I think it might be muting your own words on occasion. Before we could take it. Just afraid it was just me. Yeah. in your zoom settings. So if you could check your audio settings to confirm that, I think it might be muting your own words on occasion before we could take it. Just afraid it was just me. Yeah, it wasn't just you. I just want to make sure that it's clear. Just confirm with the Mrs. Williams after you've checked your audio settings as to whether or not you could see anything about that. You don't say anything? We may do anything. I don't know. Okay, then we're just going to proceed and hopefully if there's anything that is difficult to hear, we'll just ask for you to repeat it. So why are you speaking here today? Members of the community had called me concern about what type of facility this is that we are grace is interested in adding, getting permission to have at their facility and what types of impacts, what types of emissions those facilities could have and how those facilities are regulated. Are you familiar with this type of facility? I am. Are you familiar with any circumstance where a facility of this type expands in size over a period of years? Objection, as soon as facts not net evidence and to the form of the questions leading to witness. Refrace. How are you familiar with this type of facility? So over the last 50 years, these types of facilities have been proposed in a number of different communities. Maybe you ought to lay the foundation from what type of facility she's talking about. Could you please describe what type of facility this is in your estimation? Well, not estimation. Your professional experience. I'm going to object again. I mean, this is in hypothetical. There is a permit, again, which it is our contention and we have a continuing objection to anything related to the permit because it's about what was operating on the site at the time. DPC cannot be an error for a prospective activity. But secondarily, it seems like there's a lot of postulation as to what this actually is as opposed to what the permit actually is submitted for. That's why I wanted her to, that's why I wanted the foundation. And I'm objecting to the question, because these type of facilities, like how many times are we going to hear that term? Well, I want to know what she's testifying to. Well, I have to object. I'm objecting to Mr. Gill's question, not your direction, Madam. No, no, I know. I'm going to let her answer, because if she goes on to testify, I need to know what facility she's testifying to, what type of facility, not the instrument. OK. Please answer the question, ma'am. If you remember the question. Okay. I remember the question. So these facilities have various names. All different kinds of references. So the question is extremely relevant. In their current incarnation, they're often called iralysis units, which are a type of incinerator. And so I have worked on these both these iralysis units and incinerator units that are regulated under Section 129 of the Pinair Act now for over 30 years. So I have seen many different types of facilities that are covered by section 129 of the PNR Act is number of different rules in the act depending on what types of feedstock your paralysis unit or your incinerator is accepting and what size it is. How are you aware that a pyrolysis unit is otherwise an incinerator? Well, so paralysis units have been proposed across the country for decades. Over half. Well, so paralysis units have been proposed across the country for decades, over half the country. And so when the senior team, the senior commitments, particularly in 19 and 4th, in 1990, EPA included around in some of its section 29 rules and various states including health learning and other states included arousal units in their definition of incineration as well. So when I saw the proposed permit, the proposed air permit or or the facility I could see and was extremely familiar with the type of industrial incinerators that this was. I think it'd be for it. Does this type of facility combust solid waste? Objection. Objection. Madam here, is there a minute? I couldn't even hear the question. Could you say does this type of facility combust solid waste? This this facility doesn't exist The questions that are being asked Are purely hypothetical. Yeah, it doesn't exist. So not only have we not narrowed down We're now hearing about California what they're doing, and it doesn't even seem like this witness can speak with specificity about this pilot plant that has separate treatment from the EPA than anything she's described. Okay, I'm going to agree with Mr. Cole right here. We need to get her into this particular type of unit at this location? That's what I was trying to ask to the extent that there is a type of unit that's going to be installed or has previous been installed and what sort of review DPC is supposed to engage in in order to determine that use. That's why I'm asking her about the combustion. And could I have a proper as to what understanding this witness has at all about what Howard County in the State of Maryland Department of Planning and Zoning is supposed to do regarding these type of facilities? All right. All right. I mean, I would ask her that question. Are you familiar, ma'am, with any of the regulations in Howard County regarding this facility? I'm not familiar with the planning. Howard County would have local land use laws. Many counties across the United States have laws regarding consideration units, which restrict for foot buffer zones around them or prohibit them. I'm not familiar with those regulations and how it's telling your state that. And with that, Madam hearings there, I'm gonna have to move again. This witness is not relevant to these proceedings. I understand why the petitioner wanted to put it in, put them in, but this is not relevant. I don't know how more explicit you can get than the witness saying. I don't know what regulation CPC was supposed to apply. Mr. Gail? Well, as I profored in the beginning, I am trying to establish her familiarity with regards to federal rulemaking and how this type of facility is reviewed in a general sense to establish whether or not DPC was expected to go ahead and review it more thoroughly. I did not expect her to answer yes to the Howard County regulations. She isn't being put forward as a legal expert in that regard. I expected her to speak as to her experience generally with this type of facility and establish whether or not DPC was supposed to review this more thoroughly than it did. And this is a facility that doesn't exist yet. This is a witness in California, maybe never even visited the state of Maryland, much less review any of the regulations that upstairs needs to apply. And third, the letter at issue is about ongoing existing operations by DPC. I understand that hearing the examiner is allowing the appellant some room to talk about prospective activities. Like this is just so far outside of the realm of even speculation, it's not relevant here. All right, we're going to pass over the issue of the fact whether it exists or not, and there's a violation or not. Okay? I am more concerned with the fact that this witness doesn't seem to have any familiarity locally. I don't wanna know what the EPA does in California. Can she testify as to what the EPA does in Maryland? I don't think so. We can ask the question. Okay, let's ask. And in what circumstances have you been involved in discussions with EPA and other states beyond California? Why can't we just ask about Maryland? Yeah, just ask about Maryland. Okay, and have you had any familiarity with EPA enforcement in Maryland before? Yes, I have. It's really important to understand that the rules and regulations that issue here are federal rules and regulations that apply across the United States, that each state of the United States are obligated to follow. Their federal regulations, not states, they're a local regulations. So based on your experience, the same rules that apply in California also apply in Maryland. Yes, the implementation of the Federal Clean Air Act applies across the United States. When I'm talking about the EPA and not talking about the California EPA, I'm talking about the federal EPA. And Madam here in Xamara, I'm injecting again because the EPA makes their decision and their decisions are appealable in their own right. DPC makes its decisions. That's what we're here now. Yeah so Mr, Mr. Guil? Yes. I clearly misunderstood the proffered scope of this witness. Okay. Okay. So I thought she was going to be testifying as to federal regulations versus state and local procedures or regulations. So she's clearly not going to be testifying as to state or local procedures. So her testimony will be limited as to what procedures federal government, the EPA, goes through prior to licensing, certifying whatever the rate-ward is here, this type of facility. Yes. I didn't, I wasn't suggesting that she was going to make a comparative analysis between this and the county. Right. I was just saying that these are the type of process that is expected at a federal level where there is a lot more federal rule making and a lot more analysis about pyrolysis units. Has the applicant, you can answer Mr. Cole, has the applicant applied for a permit? The applicant has had their permit reviewed by the EPA, the EPA has determined that the Clean Air Act Section 129 rules are not applicable to the pilot plan. Okay. And I think that is in the documents here. And so Ms. Williams is going to testify as to why their letter of approval or in applicability is wrong? I wasn't going to ask her for a truth value as to that statement at all. I was asking her just to analyze or provide an analysis of how this is reviewed at the federal level. All right, Mr. Cole. I got you. When I make these objections, I always think about what the decision order is going to look like and how you could ever rely on this witness to say DPC made in there. We are good. We are good. I fail to see the relevancy here. Well, if the hearing examiner won't allow any further testimony from the witness regarding federal rules, she's not going to be able to speak as the county rules. So I'd like a minute with my clients. Right, please understand my concern stems from the fact that we are not quite there as to whether or not we have a letter from EPA that says the Clean Air Act Section 129 is not applicable to this particular to the application that is ongoing at the moment. If all this whims is going to do is tell me that the procedures for what gave rise to the letter from EPA are ABC and D, that is not really an issue here in front of me. So yes, would you want to take a like five minute break? Yeah, I'd like to take a moment with my clients to see whether we have any further questions. Okay, let's do that. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm sorry. We're recording. Is this hear that comment? I did. Do you have any opinion as to EPA exemptions on this type of facility? I do. I'm very familiar with the existing rule that mentioned the exemptions. Could you please describe your opinion as it relates to EPA exemptions of this type of facility? So this particular facility would be governed by the other solid waste incinerator role in your section 120 note, thus including Simpson for laboratory scale incineration of pyrolysis facilities. Congress did not allow for any exemptions in the Civil Clean Air Act just passed in the regulation itself. However, this particular facility is not a laboratory scale. In the record of both the EPA and the facilities proposed, the permit application or their proposed permit, facility is referred to as a pilot scale paralysis unit. So by its own admission and the state's own admission, it would not be eligible for an exemption for a laboratory scale unit. A laboratory scale unit for a smaller than pilot unit. The witnesses is welcome to disagree with the EPA, but the EPA made its decision on this. The EPA's decision is not relevant to DPC's inspection of the property or any violations of the zoning regulations, which by the witness's own admission she has zero knowledge. PPC did not rely upon EPA's determination, but EPA did make that determination, which again is appealable under the Federal Administrative Appeals Act. It's very difficult to hear you, ma'am. I don't know if your microphone's on. That's really my phone. So are you arguing that the finding of no violation by DPC is predicated solely on the one inspection. My position and my position throughout, and I apologize if I have not been clear, is that all of the witnesses' testimony is about a prospective activity that is not occurring on site. No, no, no. I'm asking you a different question. Correct. All right, sorry. I'll listen. Right. I'm asking you whether it is your position, your client's position here today, that the finding of no violation letter by DPC is predicated solely on the one inspection by DPC. that, yes, there are no violation was based off of their physical inspection of the property. Yes, that one inspection. That they refer, yeah, in the way. Okay. All right. Thank you for that answer. And. I'd like a point of clarity. He objected to the last portion of my witnesses testimony. I don't think I had a ruling as far as I'm allowed. No, you did that. So I might ask another question that might inform your decision. All right. Okay, go ahead. Mrs. Williams, are you familiar with whether or not DPC had taken into consideration any determinations by EPA or Maryland with regards to their – Maryland being the Maryland Department of Environment with regards to their review of pyrolysis units. Not that I'm aware of. Okay. Madam hearings there, and I think that's a good answer. I'm intentionally just – my objection. Can I answer that? I think Ms. Gail intentionally just endorsed my objection. Can I answer that? You did answer. I wanted her to answer honestly. If she's not familiar with that, then she's not familiar with it. But my objection continuing, and why we took the five-minute break, is the relevance of this witness. I don't know how many more fishing expeditions we're going to go on. I'm not sure Mr. Gail is going to go much further here. Okay. I have an application to object. No, no, I understand. I understand, but let's see. I'm not sure Mr. Geal is going to go much further here. Okay. I have an application to object. No, no, I understand. I understand, but let's see if we're going to go any further. No, I don't have any further questions for this witness. How I read the room. So, okay. All right, let's see. Do you have any cross-master calls? I do not. Okay. All right. Thank you Ms. Williams. Thank you. I don't know if she's available in there or not, but I would call Shannon Jones next if she's currently available in the WebEx. I'm here. and for I'm here. And for the extent that the hearing examiner considers it at all I would move as of 22 into the record and that's Jane Williams to CV. Is that in the binder or was that? That's in the binder. Okay. Yeah. It's for CV. So accepted. Here's let's see. Here's Ms. Jones. Okay, Ms. Jones. I need to swear you in. Please. Thank you so much. I saw him is where a firm under the penalties of perjury that the response is given in statements made to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you. Please stay true. Sorry. You're good. Fan in Jones. And you're addressing. Please. 1-1-0-0-0-0- you, Mr. Jones. Dr. Jones, my apologies. Could you please describe for the hearing examiner your educational and professional background? Yes, so I received a PhD in toxicology from the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill in 2012. Prior to that, I received a bachelor's degree in molecular biology and I currently served as a faculty member at the University of Richmond. Again, my expertise is in toxicology. I specifically study the toxicity of inhaled pollutants. And is a full version of your professional background available in your curriculum beta? Yes. And that's exhibit 26, which I will preemptively so I don't forget about it. Move into Evans. So accept. Mr. Jones, do you have any concerns regarding the proposed recycling facility at W. Org race location here in this case? Objection of relevance. And I need a little foundation. What does she know about it? Do you have any opinions as to any health impacts that would arise worth of writing? How is she familiar with it? OK. How are you familiar with this facility? Are you? I am familiar in that I received a coffee of the permit for the facility that that describes the goal of the city and the action that would be carried out by the facility. So I reviewed the permit that was I that I received after communication with Mr. Guil and Shemiko Preston. Have you reviewed any other documents associated with with this case? I am familiar with the process of paralysis which is explained in the permit and You reviewed any other documents associated with this case. I am familiar with the process of paralysis, which is explained in the permit and the use of a plain list thermal oxidizer, which is also included. This is the permit application that we're talking about to the that you previously reviewed. This is marked as I believe 12, 1. Yes, that's correct. And with that foundation, I am going to object to the relevant to this witness. She did not reference any review of DBZ's close out letter, which is the subject of this appeal. And it certainly appears that yet again, the testimony is going to be about perspective activity, not activity existing on the site when DBZ it. More specific than this is Jones. I'm sorry, I was saying this. Dr. Jones, did you review any other exhibits presented to you other than exhibit 121? Yes, I did. Do you review exhibit seven, which was the 30 year, or sorry, building 30 history letter from WR Grays. Yes, I did. Which it come. Let me, oh, sorry. Did you review Exhibit 6, which is the DPZ zoning approval letter? I'm not sure if I received that, but I did reveal the history of building that. No, they're, I'm sorry. Okay, no, Madam here in Zama, I am going to object to counsel telling the witness what they should say. Did you review Exhibit 9 which is DPC letter request for reconsideration? I did not. I review the history of building 30 and I review the permit application. Did you review exhibit 10 which is the commercial alteration permits? Yes. Did you review exhibit 11 which is the WR Grace Bill in 30 permits? Yes. Do you have any expert opinion with regards to the impacts of the proposed facility in the permit that you review? Madam Hinges, I did have my objection, Mr. Geo asked questions that were attempted to be curative. A lot of this is my obligation to my client in terms of what this case is about. This witness, I think it is fair to ask as a preliminary matter that witnesses testifying as to whether or not DPCs close out letter was arbitrary, capricials, and contrary to law to at least to have read that letter. And this witness has not. And this witness once tested by about a permit about future anticipated activity, which is appealable and its own right and is a separate consideration that is not the subject of this appeal. And so I eject the relevant to this witness. The Howard County Code contemplates when reviewing whether or not there's going to be a particular type of facility at this location, the sort of health impacts that might occur to visceral properties. Dr. Jones and Padma Swami would also testify that they are both speaking to the health impacts to the community that would occur in the circumstance and why it is important for DPC to conduct a full investigation. And that was not what was appealed. What was appealed was the finding by DPC that there were no violations on the site when they inspected it. Can you put a six up? I'm not in the zoom hearing so I can pull it up if I join the zoom hearing. Can you pull up a six? Can you share exhibit six? Yeah Yeah. Okay Dr. Jones will you take a moment and read this letter? Yes. It's very blurry on my end. I don't know if she can see it easily on her underdog. I can see. OK. Madam Hings, I read just so my client's position is clear. And I think this is important is the date at the top of that page. It's somewhat confusing because the appeal is about a letter dated September 13th, 2024. That is the close out letter. The letter that is on the screen right now is September 21st, 2023. That was not appealed within. Okay, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Where's the 24th? I wanted to exhibit eight. Exhibiting. I'm sorry that is. Yeah. So Madam here, I think that that is where we're not aligning on this where because of the September dates it gets confusing. This is why I referenced the parcel decision about sort of the re-ignition of a prior decision to try to bring it up to appeal. The September 21st 2023 letter is long since past the appeal deadline. The September 13th 2024 letter is what is written on the appellance appeal petition. Right, I'm sorry, that was my- I just read the exhibit number wrong, I'm sorry, that was my error. To my end, and I- we have spoken a lot about this in 2023 and 2024, the exhibit 6 is not a zoning approval letter under DPC's regulations for the county. This is an internal letter since to MDE describing to them what they internally believe was operational or was going to be operational for the purpose of MDE review at the behest of the applicant which is attached to the same exhibit. This is the September 6 request where the applicant requests that DPC send this letter to them. That's not the determination. And there's no way that in my mind that that can be piggybacked and argue that all they made this zoning determination a year ago and we can't challenge it. They didn't make a zoning determination until we challenged it and that's an exhibit eight. And exhibit six is basically their internal declaration to a third party and there was obviously no way for anyone to know that there was a determination being made. So and I appreciate that. I understand your position. It was my error. I have exhibit eight circles that just misspoke. Well, I do think it's important for a person to look at exhibit six of their guards to how the agency is operating. It's just not the decision that's being appealed. I understand. Because it's not a decision to me. And so we want Dr. Jones to look at the exhibit eight, which is said, Dr. Jones, well, we've been kibbutzing. have you taken the opportunity to read this letter? Yes. And did you read exhibit six as well? I did. Let refresh your recollection as to anything else that you have reviewed with the documents sent to you. So I reviewed exhibits since I received them exhibit seven, ten eleven and thirteen. Madam Hings there I don't know if we're prepping the witness as we're asking the witness questions you know I think the ultimate question is whether or not she has an opinion as to whether or not DPCs close out letter was an error. That's why we're here. Right. So we're getting there. Okay. But I need to clarify. Dr. Jen, as you were asked whether you had reviewed Exhibit 9, which was the request for reconsideration, you said you had not, but you just now indicated that you had reviewed exhibit 9, which is correct. So I received these files two weeks ago and I did not memorize their exhibit number just what the documents included. So I had to compare exhibit numbers with the title of the document and that's what I was familiar with. That's not the. So you reviewed exhibit nine, which is a letter of reconsideration. I just didn't recognize the exhibit number, but rather the name of the document. OK. All right, Mr. Guilheres. Thank you. Mm. Asking again, Dr. Jones, do you have any concerns as to the proposed recycling facility that you have reviewed in these documents? Objection, same as before, as to relevance. Concerns about the permit is not about D.P.Z. evaluation of ongoing operations of W.R. Griggs. I'm going to continue to allow him a little latitude here. And I'll also note again, I understand Mr. Cole have a difference in this regard. I believe that DPC's review is in part contingent on a determination of neighboring impacts whenever they're looking at the type of facility that they're looking at. And that's why we have health testimony. Ma'am, do you remember the question that I asked you? Yes. Could you please answer the question? As a toxicologist, I do have concerns about the Planes project that was submitted in the Permit Application. Could you please describe the concerns that you have? The concerns are related to the potential health effects of individuals that are exposed to particular matter matter that would be released upon completion of the project and any materials that are combusted through paralysis. And pyrolysis in your understanding is a type of incineration activity. That is correct. That is correct. If we can stop with the leading questions, like that they're happening over and over again, I understand these witnesses are not completely familiar with what's going on, but if they could just be open questions, is pyrolysis a type of incineration facility to you? Of Jess? That by its very form is a leading question. It can be, what is paralysis? All right. What is paralysis? Paralysis by definition is the combustion of material in the absence of oxygen. What is combustion? It's the burning of material or incineration. What is incineration? It's describing when material is heated to a very high temperature for the purpose of disposal. And what is burning? Heating material to a very high temperature. In this case, we would be talking about organic material, or material that contains carbon atoms. How does incineration occur in the absence of oxygen? In the case that they are proposing is to heat the material to a very high temperature and a vacuum that is without the presence of oxygen. But that's not taken into account the presence of oxygen in the material that's being incinerated. Is there a presence of oxygen in the material being incinerated? Yes. What type of material is being incinerated? What they're proposing is to incinerate plastic waste material and plastic by definition is organic material. It means it contains organic elements that are including carbon and oxygen. What other elements are in the plastic that they are proposing to incinerate? They're mostly hydrocarbons. So for durability that contain carbon atoms, hydrogen atoms, sometimes nitrogen, sometimes nitrogen also can include chlorine. What type of byproducts come about as a result of these recycling processes? Anytime that carbon containing material is heated to a very high temperature, even in the absence of oxygen, materials like volatile organic compounds are going to be released that could include benzene, talluene, some gases are going to be emitted, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, there are also other waste materials that could be potentially released including dioxins and furions and even some heavy metals such as mercury. Does this type of facility release PM 2.5? Yes, well the process of paralysis itself could actually is likely to release particulate matter 2.5. And what is PM 2.5 beyond the description of particulate matter? So particulate matter in general is basically what people would describe as sit or material that is released in the form of particles when material is burned. Particulate matter comes in different sizes. It could be PM 2.5, PM 5 or PM 10 and those numbers refer to the size of the particles and the smaller the particles, which would include PM2.5 and smaller are of concern when it comes to health. So when organic material is combusted, different materials are going to be released into that mixture. One of them being PM2.5. And PM2.5, because of its size, can reach the deepest part of lung tissue where it's likely to reside without being cleared and it's going to cause a massive inflammation and impacts to the person that's breathing it in. And what amounts of these materials must exist in order to have such an impact? It depends on the person, humans are varied in their genetics and their pre-existing health conditions. So we can have a spectrum of responses even that the smallest detectable amount of particulate matter. So even at very low concentrations, these compounds can have impacts on human health. Again, there are going to be members of the human population that are going to be very sensitive, even to very minute amounts of these chemicals or gases or pollutants. What type of people would be particularly sensitive? The very young and the very elderly, and there are also individuals who could have genetic mutations that make them susceptible to very small or very low concentrations, especially when it comes to dioxin in particular matter. So we're talking about the very young, the very old and individuals who have a genetic predisposition or changes in their DNA that are going to make them more susceptible. Do these types of materials have any sort of bioaccumulate effects? Yes, so especially when we think about dioxins, again, dioxins are chemicals that are produced. When organic material then includes plastics. When their burned dioxins are released, and dioxins are known as persistent organic pollutants, that means that once they're released, they resist degradation in the environment, they also resist degradation in the human body, and there are no safe levels of dioxid exposure. Because they do bioaccumulate, they accumulate in the environment and they accumulate in fat tissue and humans. And so, again, even if you're considering very minute amounts that are produced, they're likely to, again, persist in the environment and persist in the body, and there's no safe level of dioxin exposure in humans. Does W. O'Grace's facility propose any type of mitigation to these impacts? I believe they do, but it's hard to predict if those mitigations going to be successful. Given that the amounts of dioxin or particulate matter that are released, at this point they are only estimates and not a clear picture of what will actually be produced. Why are they not a clear picture? Because it's going to depend on what kind of plastics are produced. Some plastics are going to have more oxygen atoms present than others. So not all plastics are good candidates for paralysis, meaning that depending on what's being burned is going to change what particulates are produced. And so it's really hard to mitigate when it's unclear how much of which of those toxicants are going to be released. depends on what's being incinerated Are the mitigation efforts that you reviewed capable of removing everything that is being burned to those facilities? To my knowledge and expertise know why not Again, just to reiterate it depends on what material is being incinerated. And when you have exploratory or pilot research projects, again, you're going to be burning a lot of variety of different plastics with different compositions. Some of those plastics are going to have more oxygen presence than others. And so that's going to lead to incomplete combustion. Again, that's going to release an unpredictable amount of particulate. So it's really hard to say that everything is going to be mitigated when you're not, when it's not clear what's actually going to be produced. Are you familiar with the proximity of residential properties to this facility? Based on the documents that I reviewed, there will be residential homes within about 200 feet of the proposed facility. Is this within the, I'd call it, the limit of disturbance of any materials that would emit from this facility? So it is likely based on that distance that any particulates that are released, that the people living nearby will be exposed. Yes. To what extent would they be exposed based in your review? Again, there is no safe level of exposure when it comes to material like dioxin. And so you not only have to consider the individual pollutants, but the combined effects of those pollutants. when organic material is burned, there's going to be a mixture of materials released. So you cannot just consider the individual toxic effects of an individual compound. But rather the additive and cumulative effects of daily exposure, even during working hours of this proposed pilot plant. So there'll be daily exposure, additive exposures and cumulative exposures. You stated that children in the very elderly would be particularly at risk, but are people outside of those ranges of age also at risk from any impacts? Yes, so when it comes to toxicant exposure, the data will fit a standard normal distribution, right? There will be individuals at each extreme who are going to be very susceptible, not a susceptible, but most individuals are going to fall in the middle of that normal standard distribution, where there will be some effects even if they're not extreme. So all individuals living within living in close proximity to that facility will be affected. Again, some will be more, some will be less, but everyone will be affected to some degree. Based on your review of the documents that you've seen, is this type of facility going to be research scale based on basis. I don't know what basis a toxicologist would have to speak to the scale of the laboratory versus pilot plant versus whatever else. Yes, no, and fill in the Yeah, yes, no one fell on the blank and yes, I you know in terms of the laboratory versus pilot plant versus whatever else. Yes, no, and fill in the blank. Yes, no one fill in the blank. And yes, in terms of the basis, she's a toxicologist. She's familiar with this type of facility because it comes up frequently in her work. I'm just saying that. And then why? So do you understand the hearing is eminors direct of them? No, could you repeat? Okay. She asked you to provide an answer in the form of yes, no, or why? Yes, no, and why rather. The question to repeat my question, which I actually just let them turn it thought about that for a moment, I'm sorry. Are you aware whether or not this facility that you were reviewed is a research scale facility or a lab scale or what type of scale you're looking at? Am I answering just yes or no? Yes. Okay. Maybe regard to answer yes or no to my rephrased question. What type of scale are you looking at based on your on the review of your documents and why? Based on my review of the documents, what was proposed as a pilot scale facility? And why? Why is it proposed as a pilot scale? Or why do you believe that it is a pilot scale facility? Oh, based on what was provided to me in the documents that I received from Miss Seguillo and from Shemiko Preston. Just based on my understanding of the permit application, I guess. Well, what I'm trying to ask, ma'am, I'm trying not to leave, but... Well, then I'm going to object in advance. I would ask that you not. Well, okay, I'm not going to leave. I'm asking you for your opinion as to what type of scale this is, and why you believe it's that scale. Not, you, do you understand the question? Yes. So based on my understanding, there's a potential for a larger scale emissions because of the nature of the permits. So there is likelihood for, for a production to be upscaled. Is that what you're asking? That's an answer. I don't think I can tell you that's what I'm asking, but that's an answer that I can answer. Okay. Okay. What did you mean by upscaled? So, Tip, again, with these, there are a lot of these pilot plants that are in production or process across the country. And looking at the history of pilot plants, there is a high likelihood that activity at those plants is likely to be scaled up. The purpose is to- I'm joining the purpose of a pilot plant. I understand that Madam Hearing's Amnesty, but the answer to this question, and I understand that this hearing has been in the space of speculation to begin with, but now we're not even talking about anything anyone has applied for. She is testifying that she thinks that at some time in the future someone might try to make this an even larger scale. Well, she testified that, and I think we've all agreed that the permit is for a pilot scale program. Not the subject of this appeal, but yes, the permit is for a pilot. Right. And the original use clearly delineated that nothing other than a pilot scale program could proceed. And I asked her when she used the term upscale, what that meant. And where I'm trying to get with that is by upscale do you mean an increase in floor area of the use or an increase in the amount of admissions Increasing the amount of questions. Mr. Colm. Yes, thank you. Dr. Jones, I apologize. I could not find your CV when I was looking through the binder. But I just have one question. Are you the member? Are you a member of... Is it this one? It was that one, yes. Are you a member of any boards? Could you clarify what kind of board? So I know there are medical boards, there are sometimes professional societies. I guess I'll ask the question a different way. Are you a member of any professional organization that has guidelines for expert witnesses? I am a member of the Society of Toxicology and American Association of Immunologists, and I have not prior to this serves in an expert witness. Are you familiar? And I'm not also a medical doctor, so I don't belong to any medical boards. That's fine. Are you familiar with any guidelines for expert witnesses that those organizations that you described have? I'm not at this time. Are you familiar with the term reasonable degree of scientific certainty? Yes. Would you, if your testimony were to be transcribed, would you be comfortable saying that all of the things that you've testified to as to the grace plan, you are testified to to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty? Yes. You said often, could, would maybe, I'm curious, what if anything have you done to investigate the feedstock that would be utilized for at this pilot plan? I'm not directly directly investigated feedstock, but in my past research, I'm very familiar with the combustion overganment material, which is what feedstock is. And there's different types of feedstock you can put into these paralysis operations, correct? Yes, which is already what I mentioned that the products can vary therefore the emissions can vary. And certainly there are more innocuous feedstocks that you could use versus some more noxious versions of feedstock, correct? That is correct, but none are zero. There are no zero emissions feedstocks if that makes sense Certainly, and I would say you would agree with me that most human activity has some sort of noxious effect of some sort or another correct in terms of creating environmental hazards. I gotta object to that. I think that's outside the scope of our expertise to speak to most human activity in all areas of life. She's a toxicologist. I'm gonna allow it. Thank you. So I specifically study the combustion over organic material. Okay and so I can speak I can speak to the combustion of carbon containing material. Are you familiar with the emissions from highways in your line of work. Yes. And are you familiar that this community that you are testifying on behalf is approximately 200 feet from Maryland Route 32? Yes. And what type of emissions are generated by a state highway like Maryland 32? So there's going to be rotinal dust. There's going to be diesel exhaust particles released. And other vehicular emissions released. Anything else? Volatile organic compounds, partic particularly matter? If you were to monitor the air, should the grace facility ultimately be approved and operating? If you were to operate the air to test the air, would you be able to differentiate those, and I apologize, I am not a toxicologist, so I'm going to get my words mixed up. But those emissions generated by the highway versus those emissions generated from the plant. You could. Dioxins aren't likely to be released during close to highways. Okay. So there are going to be materials that are released from the plant that aren't found, you know, like, Bollock's, there are going to be different materials produced. So you could distinguish between the two. And so you could, if this permit were approved, monitor to test for the emissions that you are expressing concern about, correct? Yes. Now the question that I was most interested in, you were never asked, which is, do you have an opinion as to whether or not the September 13th, 2024 letter from the Department of Planning and Zoning was an error? I don't have an opinion. I'm here to just your expertise related to combustion products. Well, I'm glad we're here to determine if this letter was an error. So that's why I asked you that question. You have no opinion as to whether or not it was an error, correct? You prepared for this hearing, Dr. Jones. I've just, if you don't have an opinion, you can go on. I don't have an opinion. And is a Department of Planning and Zoning tasked with monitoring emissions from a plant like this? Objection. Does she know? I mean, the question implies that. Well, as proof she knows. Do you know Dr. Jones, whether or not a Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning is responsible for evaluating whether or not emissions from such a plant would be safe? I'm not familiar. No. No, no, no. So you don't know whether or not a department of planning and zoning in your work as a toxicologist. You don't know whether or not a department of planning and zoning carries that responsibility for evaluating emissions. That is outside this couple of my expertise. Do you know whose responsibility is to evaluate emissions and whether or not they're safe? Well, that's the Department of Environment, Equality, or the EPA. Oh, all right. So the entities that are responsible for evaluating the safety of emissions are either the Maryland Department of the Environment or the EPA, correct? That's typically who evaluates risk. Yeah, when it comes to air pollutants, yes. And they hire people such as yourself, right? They hire toxicologists. The EPA does, yes. And so when you reviewed a permit, is there a reason why the permit is submitted to the MDE and not Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning? Could you repeat the question? Yeah, my question is fairly simple because just as a premise for my question, Dr. Jones, we're here to evaluate whether or not the Department of Planning and Zoning made a mistake. And you testified at length about emissions from the prospective pilot plant at grace. And you did that based off of a permit application. Yes. And that permit application goes to who? The the party the MD and what does the MDE do? Based on information given they're supposed to evaluate risk and I did see that they there is an environmental justice score. And if this is unsafe for the community would MDE issue a permit? But that's based on current production, not what's being proposed. No, Dr. Jones, I mean, would you... I'm sorry, good. Yeah, would you agree with me that the permit application is for proposed activity? Yes, and that's what I'm speaking to was being proposed. Yeah, and why does MDE have a permit application to approve it or deny it, correct? Yes. And my question to you is would MDE approve a permit that would harm the community in the way that you've described. But they have to be given all the information to make that decision. And so what I'm saying is. Do you know better than MDE what information they need to make their decision? So most times when there's a case like this, there is a help impact statement and that I wasn't made aware of. So to make the best decision, they have to have the best information available. And so in reviewing what I, in reviewing the materials that I received, I just think that there was, there's not enough information to make that decision. So if based on the previous information that a decision was made, I propose that enough information about emissions was submitted to make a confident decision that there'll be no human health impacts. Have you contacted MDE? I'm not. Well, you're concerned about the community, correct? Objection. Yes. Then why have you not contacted MDE if they're the ones making the decision? I'm going to object again. I asked, I got her here and she is speaking in this hearing as an expert witness for this case. We did not retain her to act as a lobbyist on our behalf to MDE. And Madam Hearing, this goes to, if I am going to hear Mr. Gile put on a witness about a prospective activity that was not the subject of D.P.Z.'s close out letter, I do believe I'm entitled to clarify for the record exactly where each role is and if this witness has the concerns that she does and is only here because she's paid to criticize the D.P.Z.. I feel comfortable, and I feel that I should be able to ask on behalf of my client, why she didn't express those concerns to MDE who is making that decision. Well, let's ask a little bit different question. Would you discuss with us a scope of your employment? Were you employed to do other than analyze the permit application? Were you employed to proactively present to EPA or MDE on behalf of your client? Is that question to me? Yes, she was asking you. To me? Yes. I had asked. I had a little more specific. No, no, Mr. Gio, it's my turn. I'll clarify. Dr. Jones, where you paid to only testify as to the DPC permit and not engage with MDE. That is correct. I was not asked to engage with MDE. I was asked to evaluate the potential health defects of plastics incineration. And that concern is not one that you have been paid to raise with MDE. No. Are you here voluntarily? Yes. OK, so you're here voluntarily. I mean, then it goes back to my other question. If you're here voluntarily, why are you not engaging with M.D. That is not what I was asked to do. That's outside the scope of what I was asked to do in this particular role. To close out Dr. Jones, you would agree with me that M.D.E. is the entity that has the obligation and responsibility legal responsibility to evaluate the permit application. Correct? Yes. Not the Howard County Department of Planning and Zone. Correct? So can you repeat the question? I'm sorry. Certainly and you know you said before that you didn't know what Howard County DPC's responsibility was. But I'll walk us through this again. The permit that you reviewed was submitted to the Maryland Department of the Environment, not Howard County DPC, correct? To my knowledge, yes. And it is the role of the Maryland Department of the Environment to evaluate emissions and whether they are harmful to the surrounding community, not DPC, correct? Correct. No further questions. Thank you. Mr. Guil? I don't need any recrossweas. We fixed a matter of employment. All right. Dr. Jones, thank you very much for appearing here today. Okay. We're not going to. Well, my next witness isn't available until 1230. So we can take a break in the start with Mr. Cole's case and then I don't know what we want to do with regards to prepared statements from her or whatever, but we can work that right now if we want to. Okay. So you only have one witness left. I have two but the other late witnesses apparently delayed in traffic. He's not here at the moment. Okay, so you only have one witness left? Well, I have two, but the other late witnesses apparently delayed in traffic. He's not here at the moment. Okay, so you have two witnesses. Two witnesses, one would be LA witness and one would be another expert witness. Okay. There are quotes. All right. And Madam here, an example where I struggle with this and I represented this to Mr. Gil before is that I'm about to put on my case, which is in response to the petitioner's case. And not only is it intended to be responsive to all of the evidence that they put on, it's also not intended to have a rebuttal in the middle of it. I understand Mr. Gil saying that there is a prepared statement, but any questions that he might seek to ask on redirect any cross that I might have, that is not how these matters are intended to proceed. This case was scheduled to start at 10. I understand that there are scheduling difficulties. I don't know how we can handle this fairly, but I am looking to protect my clients' interest and making sure that we're not sort of in a spin cycle of having their case be put back on, and then I have a witness that I need to bring back because of something that they said. I understand your position. However, it is not unusual to have different parts of opposition cases be heard at different times. So to witness they're unavailable, one due to an employment conflict, one due to a transportation conflict. With regards, so we're fairly certain either one of those will be able to hear what your presentation is. Let's start with your case. And as soon as I might have a different suggestion here because we're probably going to need to take some time for people to eat anyway. And don't assume that yet. Okay. Well, it's only 11. I don't know if it's 1120. And I don't I I'm sympathetic to Mr. Coles position here. I don't want him to have to do this piece. Melee either we talked about this in our previous hearing that he said, oh, somebody can be taken out of turn if they need to. If I could have a moment with my clients to figure out whether or not the lay witness is closer we can at least get them in and then maybe he starts then and we have our last expert witness or maybe we take a brief recess until she is able to speak at 12.30. But we do have this until 4. And while I don't, of course, want everyone to be here until 4. I don't know how long Mr. Coles presentation is. I'm guessing it's probably not over 3 hours if he has 3 witnesses. So we'll certainly be finished by that point. But I think before we make any particular decision, I'd like to speak with my clients and see if I can get the lay witness here before he has to start his presentation. Sure, let's take a break, but we're not going to take a lunch break at 1119. Okay, Madam Hearing, is there a five minutes? Yeah, five minutes. Five minutes. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the. Yes. They are unavailable. The way all parties have agreed to handle it is when the witnesses ask cross not direct correct okay so at the moment where we are because the witnesses are still unavailable we are going to go to Mr. Cole to present his case in chief. Thank you very much Madam Hearing Examiner. Our first witness is Dr. Manu Raghu. Alright, so I'm gonna ask you first. Could you spell your name please? My last name is Rego R-E-G-O. Rego Manu Rego. So let's start with the M. The M? Your first name? Manu. M-A-N-U. M-A-N-E. You. At you. You. And your last name? Rego R-E-G-O. Thank you. I didn't just wear you in, sir. Do you sell and we swear our firm under the penalties of purge rate that the responses given in statements may be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Please state your name and business address for the record. My name is Manurego and my other CSA is 8146 in West Iblee, Bar truth. I do. Thank you. Please state your name and business address for the record. My name is Manuel Rego. My address is 8146 in West Side Boulevard in Fulton, Maryland. Thank you very much, sir. All right. What is your role at WR Grace? I work in the Department of Licensing, so I license technology to customers around the world. And how long have you worked for the company? I've been with Grace 11 years and a half. You're familiar that we're here to talk about the research and development uses on the site, correct? Yes. When did research and development uses begin on the site? According to the records that I've seen, it started in 1958. That was when Building One was a build. And then after that, Building Two was built in 1959, I believe, and then Building 16 in 1968. and built in in 1962. 1968 was Billings 22 and Billings 30 was 1993. And all of the buildings that you've just described have they contained research and development operations since the dates that you've identified. Yes. And there's been a lot of discussion about a proposed operation at the Grace site, which building would that be proposed to go into? Building 30. Do these uses require events, these research and development uses? Vents? Vents. Yep. So the research and development buildings that you've described, they all have vents of something. Yeah, they all ventilated and have a fixed regulation for a ventilation. And those regulations are implemented and monitored by the mail and department of the environment. Correct? Yep. Now, we discussed the research development uses that they've been in a continuous and uninterrupted fashion since origination. I have one follow-up question just in terms of the changing zoning regulations here in Howard County. Have these research and development uses been an operation on the site, the Grace site, since 2013. Yes, I actually doing 2013 and since, I was always being 1, 2, 16, 22, and 30 that are on the buildings. Now you've heard witnesses put on by the appellants in this case regarding emissions from the proposed site. It is grace's position that the proposed site are not the subject of this appeal, but for the purposes of responding to that testimony. Was there anything you heard that you disagreed with? Well, several things I disagreed with her. Number one, they were there all the time equating. Who's her? Dr. Jones, sorry. With Dr. Jones. The she was equating is in a race and combastic and parliosis is the same thing. Just a simple basic chemistry, combastic requires oxygen, a lot of oxygen. Typically produces majority of CO2 and water, majority, there will be other chemicals that will be produced during the combustion, but as I said, majority CO2 and water. For paralysis, the majority of the molecules that produce is more of a breaking of molecules. The majority of molecules that we produce will be not CO2 and what will be organic components, organic breakdowns of large molecules. And it can produce and CO2. It can produce some oxygenates depending on she was right on that, on having internal oxygen, for example, from plastic or contains oxygen, can produce those oxygenates or some little bit of CO2, but all that is managed by the process that we developed. The other thing that she mentioned is that we are producing dioxins, that we are not producing dioxins. The other thing that she mentioned is that we have a lot of particular matter that will be a problem for the community. And no particular matter produced in this process because it's managing the process. The design of the process is managed to eliminate all those things from going to the air. And finally, the amount of, she was talking about VLC is volatile organic compounds. And we actually wrote in the permit, 0.2 pounds per day of organic volatile compounds that could be leaking to the atmosphere. That was actually a worst case scenario for the permit because that's what we are required in the permit to work in works, works case scenarios. The reality is that that amount will be 100 times low, simply because the thermal oxidizer is extremely efficient. It's a state of the art thermal oxidizer. All the, all the emissions that our neighbors are going to see is only CO2 waterung water, nothing else. CO2-ung water. Thank you. No further questions for this witness. All right. I have a few questions. You said that incineration produces carbon dioxide and water. And that these pyrolysis Doesn't do that it produces organic compounds instead. Is that correct summation of yours has to know? Not quite I said majority majority of the instantaneously producing CO2 on water. There's majority and the paralysis can produce on CO2 as well If there is some internal oxygen, but the majority of the products are not that. Are C2 and water not organic components? Or CO2 at the very least? CO2, yeah, you can call it organic component. No, it's actually not organic because once you oxidize carbon, it's not organic molecule. What sort of organic components would be present whenever you are operating a pyrolysis facility? Well, pyrolysis facilities are many times of pyrolysis facilities. The ones that people talk about in the public, right, these days are ones that are producing oils. So pyrolysis oils, which typically is 40 carbon atoms between 20 and 40 carbon atoms. The one that we are, the one the installation that we are putting together is not, we don't call it paralysis because we believe it's not quite a paralysis. It's a catalytic system, catalytic chemical system that produces monomas, goes directly to back to the building blocks. And those monomas are collected. And they actually separate, we are separating liquids and gases with a trap, with a very efficient trap. They're separated. The liquids are managed through the liquid stream that is, as we all we all do with organic liquids, it goes to a chemical company that deals with them. And the gases will be, will be going through a thermal oxidizer, so it will eventually become CO2 and water. And how is internal oxygen managed by the process that you say is implemented at this facility? Internal oxygen comes are particularly primarily with polyethylene terapoli, which is the plastic you see in the bottles, in the Coca-Cola bottles. So that's the PET, right? The, it also comes with some biomass. If you have some biomass in your feedstock, you can also have some oxygen. All the feedstocks are analyzed extensively before they are introduced. So we know exactly what outputs are going to be. Are there types of feedstocks that you don't allow to operate or to be implemented in this facility? We will not allow to operate the feedstocks or contain PFAS. Are there any types of feedstocks that you would personally decide not to implement at this facility for whatever reason? Yes, there could be feedstocks outside the processing window of the process and then we will not go with those. For example, if it contains a lot of polystyrene, we will decide not to do those because it has a lot of liquid and our customers don't really like that. And how is the design of this described as a state of the art facility? How is it intended to eliminate these organic particles from the pyrolysis? Okay, so the as soon as it comes out of the reactor, when the reactor is like it contains the catalyst and it contains the plastic that we are introducing in the reactor. That is a very fast reaction. In about a few seconds, it gets converted into gases at the temperature of the operation gases, which is about 150 degrees. Not that high as she was mentioned, that she was referring to 800, which is how other people do it. We operate a lower temperature. But anyway, that temperature, all our outputs are gases. But now we are going through a trap minus 20 degrees trap, very, very, very extensive cooling. And we are separating liquids and gases. The gases will be tested. We are going to sample. We are going to take some samples of those gases and to do some testing in the lab to see outputs. And then that gas goes directly to the thermal oxidizer where it becomes CO2 and water. And this thermal oxidizer is a state of the art, 99.99% efficient, no flame, flameless. And over the sign, so there is no risk of exposing on any kind of risk of that kind. And then the liquids are separated, I also analyzed and then separated and disposed off in our regular system. The state of the art thermal oxidizer that you described is, as I understand it, not something that is currently at this facility, is that correct? We have thermal oxidizers, but this one is state of air, so this is the latest. So, when did you install the thermal oxidizers that you're currently using? When I came to this facility back in 2013, there was already a thermal oxidizer. And are you operating in the same capacity with regards to feedstock that you were operating in 2013? Pretty much. Well, it's pretty much. Well, you say feedstock, whether you refer to. You described a particular feedstock that you were going to implement into this system and you said that certain types of feedstocks you wouldn't. But we don't use this facility. We don't have this facility today. So in the past, you did not have this facility. No. You had general ventilation in your buildings. You had general thermo-doxidizers in your buildings. For other research projects, yeah. Have you previously been operating this type of plant at this facility? No, but we have a similar process. Actually, we copy a lot of the process that we are using here is copied from. We call it fluidized cracking system that we've been using for 80 years, not 60 years in that facility. Okay, so what is the difference between that facility, what's what I want to use? Operation. Not operation, the machinery, but what's the difference between what you were using 60 years ago and this new implementation? Yes, it's actually the output of that facility is liquid solely. So the only producer in liquid is maybe a small amount of gases but mainly liquids. But they have a reactor, they have a reenerator. It's a fluidized system. Fluidized meaning that solids when you fluidize them become liquids. So they have a reactor like that. We don't have a reactor that is fluidized. A reactor is more of a highly different part. And we call it this potted. Those reactors are, we have two reactors, one, but eventually the re-inheration system for the catalyst is the same. It's a copy of the other system. In general, the process is very similar. Was the previous, I shouldn't say previous, I don't know if you're going to still operate it or not. But is the machinery that you currently have at the site for the past 60 years, whatever you want to call it, does that produce any sort of aerosolized materials, anything that's being vented out into the air? I think I will have to tell you a little now because that's a different business. I work in the special together businessgatheres business and that's for the refining technologies business. So I cannot answer that question really, don't know. Are you familiar with whether or not there's any other facility that you, any other machinery at the facility that was ventilating any sort of organic compounds or CO2 water, anything that goes to the thermal oxidizer? Any materials? I do, I do. And that's part of my business. We, as I said, we do testing, but I didn't say it. But we do also, we have reactors to do testing of our catalysts. And some of that needs to be invented to, instead of being invented to the atmosphere, is going through a thermal oxidizer. And how regularly does that occur? Oh, every day. To what extent, how many, what's the level of... I have no idea what the capacity is of the capabilities of the systems. I cannot tell you a number because I don't know. Do you know if this proposed facility is going to be greater or lesser than in terms of levels of operation than the previous machinery that you're describing? Compared to the whole site. Compared to those types. I think it will be lower. So you're saying that you're currently emitting more into the atmosphere than you proposed to? We see it two. More CO2, more of any type of any, any, no organic compounds. CO2. So the more of any type of a mission. Of the action. Of the, the, the witness has said many times CO2. I understand Mr. Gil wants him to say something different, but he is saying CO2. That's, that's not, I'm not trying to get him to answer something different. I just wanted to have an understanding in terms of what he's describing that it's specifically CO2. It's a thermal oxidizer. The output of thermal oxidizer is CO2 always. There could be a little bit of volatile and reliable compounds, so that depends on the efficiency of the thermal oxidizer. The efficiency the current and thermo, the one that we are discussing here, the new one is much better than anything else that we have before. Are you familiar with any circumstances where you would let me strike and rephrase. You said that it's the state of the art and that the measurements that you had provided to in your permit application are the worst case scenario. It's a worst case scenario. What sort of circumstances would you expect to see in the worst case scenario? Not to see in. Sorry. In what circumstances would you expect to see the worst case scenario? Is it regular? Is it something that requires a specific type of feed stock implementation? When would you expect to see that type of output? I'm going to have objectives. I really don't know. Okay. We don't know how to answer that question. The supplier is saying that the specifying 99.99% efficiency, we took 99% for the permit because we normally work on worst case scenarios. When does the worst case scenario occur if ever? Objects., no one necessarily answered that he doesn't know when that would occur. Does the same question yet? I don't know many further questions. Just very brief redirect, just one question. We talked about thermal oxidizers. And I think we've talked past thermal oxidizers. And I just want to make as clear as possible. We've heard all of these types of emissions that might be created by the paralysis process. What does the thermal oxidizer do? Thermal oxidizer takes the older gases that are coming from the process and is converting them into CO2 on water. The efficiency, as I said, is 99.99%. The temperature is very high, around 1400 Fahrenheit. Sometimes I use centigrade sorry, but in this case it's Fahrenheit, it's 1400 Fahrenheit and at that temperature there is no even NOX produce. The nitrogen doesn't react with oxygen so the the water is coming out of the thermologues is nitrogen not NOX. So it's mainly CO2 and water. Thank you no further questions. I have a I'm sorry clarification NOX is nitrogen oxide what is the is a is a sorry? I student uses lung Technic was long is NOX is NO Or NO 2 and to talk about those two we we've called it NOX. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you, sir Our next witness is Mr. Rob Vogel. Good morning, Mr. Vogel. Good morning. I need to swear you in, sir. Do you solemnly swear a firm under the penalty of the perjury that the response is given in statements made shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Please state your name and business address for the record. Yes, my name is Robert Vogel. My address is 3,300 Northridge Road, Ellicott City, 210430. Thank you. Mr. Vogue, how are you employed? I'm a professional civil engineer. How long have you worked in Howard County Land Use Zoning and Development Manors? I'm afraid to say 40 years. And have you previously had the opportunity to test five before the Howard County hearing. Now what is your involvement with WR Grace? About 2017, I prepared and processed a site development plan for a kind of a flex warehouse, pump house building located close to Graystrod. And that was the last red line to the STP for WR Grace, correct? Correct. The most recent. And in that capacity, did you evaluate the uses allowed on the site and the prior site development plans approved for the property? I did. And what you are to describe the purpose of the Red Line submission. Now I do want to talk about non-conforming uses. Now what is your understanding about the uses on the WR Grace site? So do you want me to go into the whole zoning history? I just described before getting into the zoning history just say what uses are on the site. So they have WR Grace is a PEC zone property and their uses are research and development. Primarily they have other auxiliary buildings the building obviously that I just mentioned was an auxiliary building to the other uses that you just heard about. And you just heard from the representative of WR Grace that this parcel has been used for research and development. What is your understanding in terms of not to repeat everything he said, but the historical use of the site? How long back does it go? Yeah, so I did just to prepare all my own. For this case, I did review the county aerial photogrammetry that goes back to the 50s just from observation of those images. Somewhere between 1952 and 1963, the imagery, you can see that these buildings were being constructed and this campus was under construction. If you go to SDAT, they have a date of 1968 in that document. But the deed that I researched is that WR.R. Grace actually acquired the property in October of 1955. So that's the history of that. It was, at the time it was purchased and at the time of the original use of the property, the property was in some of residential at that time. And was research and development ever a permitted use on the site, meaning was it ever a use explicitly allowed on the zoning regulations for the zone in which it was situated? Sure. I believe it was operating under conditional use probably at that time, a special, was called a special exception. Then in 1985 the regulations were revised, or regulations the PEC district was in effect. And the PEC district, as uses permitted as matter of right, number three was engineering and scientific research or development facilities, and that was part of the 1985 regulations. So it was originally a special exception or conditional use nowadays, and then became a permitted use. Is that correct? That is correct. And when did this use become non-conforming? It became non-conforming with the zoning change in 2013 and that's when it became non-conforming. To your knowledge has that use persisted in a continuous and uninterrupted fashion since that day? Yeah, I'm somewhat familiar with the site just having obviously been around in Howard County doing what I do for those number of years. And I am not aware during the time I've observed this property that it's ever changed. Again, I was involved in 16, 17, 18 with the property as far as adding the flex building. But I am not aware that they were ever not functioning or operating. And now I think there might be some confusion around this point. Does a use need to go through a confirmation of a nonconforming use in order to continue to operate and be legal? It does not. The regulations in section 129 are pretty clear about that, is the nonconforming use. There are times that there are expansions or extensions or changes to conditional use. That's separate criteria. That is, and those have to do with the physical enlargement of buildings, parking areas, and that sort, and that is described in section D, no, I'm sorry, section E of 129 in nonconforming uses that speaks to extensions and large and its alterations of nonconforming uses. The buildings are not proposed to change in size shape. And these buildings that contain research and development uses, you have not been involved in any red line STPs for those buildings since 2013, correct? That is correct. And based off of your testimony, am I correct in saying that if there were an enlargement of one of those research and development uses, and uses that there may need to be a confirmation and expansion of a non-conforming use. Correct, generally, confirmations, and I think that was your original question was regarding confirmations. We have requested confirmations in the past, and that's generally been if a property is changing hands such as this, right? And the purchaser wants to make sure that this now nonconforming use can be continued that a purchaser to protect themselves will request a confirmation by the county, generally otherwise not. So it's customarily used in the transactional context to confirm that the law, as it applies to that use, will allow the use to continue to exist. That is correct. And based off of that, does WR-GRACE have a legal non-conforming use for research and development uses on the site? Yes. Now, is a non-conforming use limited to whatever forms of research and development they were conducting at the time the use became non-conforming? No, the non-conforming use is the research and development component and that is the research and development is actually in the definitions, in the zoning regulations. This is not substantially different. And obviously research and development changes, evolves, projects change and evolve that are being researched. You could also equate it to Johns Hopkins EPL, that's probably the largest PEC property in the county and the largest employer. No different than that. Things change, projects change, evolve, and that's just part of research and development. And you mentioned Johns Hopkins APL. Johns Hopkins has a legal non-conform use of the same kind as WR Grace. They do, and there's own PEC as well. And they have not received a confirmation of non-conform use either, have they? Not to my knowledge. And what is the definition for the use category under the Howard County Zoning regulations for research and development? The definition is, hold on a second, research and development laboratory, a structure or group of structures used primarily for applied and developmental research, where product testing is an integral part of the operation in goods or products may be manufactured as necessary for testing evaluation and test marketing. That is the definition and the zoning regulations. Now, a balance of argued that any change in the use requires an extension or enlargement of the non-conform use. We discussed this before, but could you address that? I'm sorry, could you repeat that? Certainly. the appellants have argued that any changes in the use require an extension or enlargement of the nonconforming use. Do you agree with that? I do not. For the reason that I mentioned the definition in section 129 of nonconforming use, I think is pretty clear. And then again, referencing section 129E where it speaks specifically to extensions and largements and alterations of nonconforming uses. So my opinion would be that anything they're doing within their buildings, they're permitted to do under the, if it's in accordance with research and development. And there also may be an argument that if a parcel was of a larger size and a portion of that parcel was sold off, that that would constitute an enlargement of an onconform use. Would you agree with that? If part of the property was sold off. Yeah, it's a larger parcel the building remains the same The the area of the non-conform use remains the same, but the parcel itself becomes smaller Would that constitute an enlargement of a non-conform use? No, that's not an expansion or no There's also been argument related to the original special exception and if I track the appellant's argument It is that having received an original special exception, which then would be a conditional use, that the zoning making it a permitted use left the special exception unaffected and that grace was obligated to seek a modification of their special exception in order to continue to operate. Would you agree with that? So the original special exception is gone because it was accommodated in the PEC zoning from 85 to 2013. So it is now a nonconforming use. It doesn't go back and revert back to an old special exception. That's kind of void at this point. And would modifications to the inside of the building in which a non-conform use operates? Would that require a modification of a non-conform use? No, not based on the definitions in 129 now. What is your understanding as to how the Cedar Creek community came into existence? It is my understanding that it was a portion of the property or was obtained from WR Grace. It was subdivided off of the WR Grace property itself and went through the subdivision process on its own. And did WR Grace rezone the property? I don't believe so now. Did WR Grace participate in the zoning hearing before the zoning board? No. Did the sale of this property affect WR Grace is non-conforming use in any way? No. No further questions for you. Thank you, Mr. Vogel. Thank you for being here, Mr. Vogel. We spoke about, or you spoke about section 129E, and that's where I wanna focus on this for a moment. E1 states that the hearing authority may authorize the extension or enlargement of a nonconforming use or the alteration of outdoor use areas or of a structure containing a nonconforming use with or without conditions, subject to several other provisions. How do you reconcile extension and enlargement being separated in terms in this segment of the regulations? The hearing authority may authorize the extension or enlargement of a nonconforming use or the alteration of outdoor use areas or of a structure containing a nonconforming use. So none of those things are occurring. The structure is not being modified, it's It's not being extended, it's not being enlarged, and not altering the outdoor use area. Let me provide more specificity than... How would a use be extended other than enlargement? This is speaking to physical enlargement of a structure, so that is from my understanding that is not what's being done. I understand and in the regulation would you read an or without an and slash as being disjunctive in your interpretation of that ordinance? That is to say if something says X or Y can X also be Y? Objection to the form of the question. I don't know if Mr. Gilles is making a legal argument, but I do believe Mr. Vogel has answered his question as to how he interprets the regulations. I'm going to overrule. Go ahead and answer Mr. Vogel. I don't understand your question, so if you could rephrase that. On what circumstances would you expect something to be extended without being enlarged? An extension of a building would be an expansion of a building. The regulations, as I read them, say extension or enlargement. So the regulations contemplate on extension occurring without enlargement and vice versa. How would an extension occur without an enlargement? I don't interpret that the same as you do. I interpret this as an extension or an enlargement. So a physical extension or a physical enlargement. Is there a physical extension that could be appended to a user to a building without enlarging that building? And if you're extending the building, you're enlarging the building. Well, it's not the extension of the building. It's the extension of a nonconforming use. I'm going to object again. I think they're just arguing now. I'm asking it reads, the author has the extension or large of a nonconforming use. It's not saying the extension or large of a building, the definition says extension or large a non-conforming use. Is there a circumstance where there could be an extension of a non-conforming use without a physical enlargement of a building, that's it. Not based on my interpretation of this, no. If a hypothetically here, if a building had a tennis court inside it, and that tennis court was 50% of that building's operations. And the person owning that building installed a second tennis court. Would you consider that to be an extension of the previous tennis court use? So within the same building? Within the same building? No, I have.'s no two tennis courts instead of one. No, I would not. What would you describe two tennis courts as being if not an extension? As I already stated, my interpretation is the extension, expansion is a physical extension or expansion of the building. So what happens within the confines, I don't interpret that as being. So if a bathroom gets enlarged within the building or a use changes or walls are demised and are reset, I don't see that as meeting what you're trying to interpret. And you don't read the operative or as being a distinction of two different terms, you think they're the same term? I think or here are relating to two terms that are quite similar and just restating the same or similar language. For the research and development use in particular, I don't have the particular definition pull them in front of me on my internet, freaking out. I apologize. But the way you read it stated that in relevant part, a majority of the building or the use is being used for research and development purposes. Do you recall that definition as being correct? Can you read that definition? Structure or group of structures used primarily for applied and developmental research where product testing is an integral part of the operation and goods or products maybe manufactured isn't necessary for testing evaluation and test marketing. How do you define primarily? It's primary use. It's majority of the use. So if there is a use that is 100% of a building and then something else is implemented into it and accessory use such that the main use is 90% of the total building now You would still define that as primarily that main use. Yes. If the secondary use were implemented and it is not defined as an accessory use, would you consider that a new use? No, I would consider an accessory use, as you mentioned. Well, if the use in question is under the regulations, not defined as an accessory use. If it cannot be defined as an accessory use, would you define it as a secondary principal use within that facility? And what is... You need to give me more definition, understand what you're trying to, where you're heading, but if you give me more. If it's your race research facility, decided that it was going to split apart one of its buildings and convert them into apartments for tenants to do not work in the facility. my understanding of the regulations would be that such a use, irrespective of any enforcement action, would not be an accessory use to the research facility, would be a separate principal use of apartment buildings. Yeah, so in your case it's a use that is not permitted by the zoning code. Well, let's say that the use is not permitted by the zoning code regardless of what it is. And it's not defined as an accessory use. You would accept under that sort of hypothetical that apartments are neither accessory nor permitted in this use category. This is a zoning category, yes? If somewhere to try to establish a use that is not permitted by that zoning, it would be problematic. Yes. Despite the fact that the majority of the building would still be research and development and therefore principally research and development use. If in your case that you gave that someone is proposing apartments on a PEC zone property within a building unrelated to the use, I would think that would be a problem. If W.R. Grace were to implement a full blown incinerator set aside discussions of pyrolysis, they were to implement an actual full combustion incinerator in one of their buildings and they were pulling in waste but in waste materials and they were burning those waste materials. Would you consider that incinerator to be an accessory use to WR grace? I'm going to object as soon as facts not in evidence that that is not any bit of what the evidence has been in this case. He praised it as a hypothetical. Okay and And I am objecting because there is a foundation for objecting, speculative questions and questions that are not relevant to the evidence. So if I'm a rule that I still have to make the objection. You're good, Mr. Cole. Thank you. So if someone were to propose a use that is not permitted by the zoning, then there would be a problem. In your case, I do not know that this proposal is proposing an full commercial scale incinerator from testimony that I've heard is that they're proposing to do more research on on a process. So it would it seems to me it would be fall under the research and development category. What they are proposing is a pyrolysis unit and they would argue that pyrolysis unit is and I think I'd be charitable to them here research and development that's their. And our argument is that a pyrolysis unit in the circumstance is not research and development that it's a separate type of use and then needs to be analyzed accordingly. Mr. Gail, could you keep your voice up? Sorry, I need to lean forward. That the pyrolysis is a different type of facility than research and development. And it needs to be analyzed as such, which is why I looked at the incinerator because that cuts aside any sort of definitional argument that I believe I understand your testimony to say that if they were to implement something like an incinerator, that that would not be in your estimation in research and development use. Yeah, to be clear, my opinion would be if it were a commercial scale operation of something other than research and development or would fall into the research and development, then it's not permitted use, since it's not permitted. And commercial. Commercial scale is important here. I think that would have to be the primary use. So how do you define commercial scale? Large scale commercial operation. Functioning commercial operation. I would think it would then this would be a different type of project. Do you define commercial as being necessarily related to scale? I'm going to split hairs. going to split hairs and in this case from what I hear and I can only to split hairs. And in this case from what I hear, and I can only give my opinion of what I hear that this is a process still being developed and it's in the research and development phase, it is not what I would define as a commercial scale operation. you would accept again, hypothetically, a circumstance where a person is operating something, any type of business. And they only sell one object of that business a month. It's not large scale. But they're still selling it for commercial purposes. They're still making money off of it. Would you interpret low-scale, low output of a particular product for the purposes of financial enrichment to be commercial? In this case, and I understand your questions, but I don't understand their R&D process and how that functions. I understand where you're heading. I'm not prepared to tell you what that scale is and I think where you're heading. So we can keep talking about it, but that is not my expertise. I'm just trying to understand what you mean whenever you use particular terms like commercial scale. So I will give you commercial scale. I go to the Howard County landfill. That is a commercial scale operation. They do various things at the landfill at large scale. It's not experimental. It's not research. It's not development. It is a set process, they're doing composting, they're doing this, they're doing that, they do many different functions, but that is not a research and development type project. So in my mind, that's how I would, that's how I interpret it. Again,'m sure you're you see it differently, but Because of the fact that research and development research and development under this regulation Describe something is being primarily a certain use it would be the case I think and I think based on your testimony that something that is 95% research and development would remain a majority research and development use even a 5% or something else Is that correct? Can you restate that? I'm sorry. If the use had a particular site where 95% in terms of square footage, in terms of total hours, manpower use, any sort of measurement you want to use, 95% research and development, 5% something else. You would still look at that 95% and say that it's research and development. Yes? I think that you have to look at the entire facility. In this case, the entire facility is research and development. But that 5% if that 5% were not research and development, even if it's an accessory use, if it was a cafeteria. You wouldn't look at the cafeteria within that research and development facility as being research and development, would you? Sure, I would. You would be. The entire facility's research and development and has auxiliary uses and accessory uses in it. Allow the way I'm listening. OK, so yes. I would just answer the question. I don't mean to interrupt. We'll restart your study. I'm done. Like I said, again, I'm because I'm familiar with the applied physics lab. The applied physics lab has many different functions going on there to support staff or do various functions. The entire PEC property is a research and development operation. I understand the facility is. And that's my question because there is, in fact, the previous conditional use application for expanding this to include something like the cafeteria. When they were applying for it in that conditional use they did not list the cafeteria as being research and development. The list it does is an accessory cafeteria use. It was accessory to the research and development but it's defined as its own type of use. Am I correct in understanding that type of operation is defined as a separate accessory use to research and development in the regulations? I'll restate what I said earlier. I think there are a lot of functions that happen in a research and development facility that we just talked about the definition, various buildings various buildings and etc And all of those things are captured under the research and development some of those things are auxiliary or supplemental or accessory but they They the facility is a research and development facility If you were to look at the use in a vacuum Would you define a cafeteria as being research and development fits in its own building? If you were to look at the use in a vacuum, would you define a cafeteria as being research and development? If it's in its own building? If it were in its own building on a campus, on a research and development campus? No, it's an open and it's a campus site. I mean, we're getting out there. I mean, if it's a cafeteria on its own site, it's a commercial restaurant cafeteria. This cafeteria in this case would be on campus it's part of the research and development facility. I understand it's part of the research and development facility. Would the cafeteria be defined under the zoning regulations as a research and development use stand-alone? Objection asked and answered. We're circling around the same poll Mr. Vogel was given the same answer every time it was asked But I don't feel it was answered. I think that he's described the facility generally Yes, okay if the cafeteria is on this on the campus within the campus and its own building part of another building it is accessory and part of the research and development facility. Are there any sort of structural alterations that could occur inside a building? Actually, I feel like I've already asked that question. I withdraw that question. I don't have any further questions for this witness. Thank you. Yeah, this is redirect. So Mr. Bowie, you've been asked a lot of legal definition questions without actually referencing the definition. Mr. Geel had referenced the term incinerator, which actually is in the zoning regulations. And I'm going to read it to you and ask you if this use for the proposed permit would be an incinerator. A facility using controlled flame combustion for the thermal destruction of solid waste. Is that what's being proposed? That is not from my observations and listening to this hearing, no, that is not what's being proposed. And in fact, solid waste is defined as well as garbage, refuseble, construction debris, demolition debris, land clearing debris, and other discarded material. Is that not what I've heard? No. OK, thank you. And then there was a lot of circling around enlargement and expansion and extension. My question for you is, and again, I'm not going to believe there's too much, but is it possible that an extension of a building pertains to its length and that an enlargement of a building pertains to its height? I'm not understanding. Okay. Well, I just, we were spending time about whether or not the two were different words, but I was just curious if expansion, I'm sorry, extension, because I was looking up the definitions as we were sitting here, is vertical and enlargement might be horizontal. It could be vertical, could be additional floors. It's any way to increase, if you're increasing, I guess maybe another way to put it, increasing the volume of the building? And when DPC, because as additional background, you've been involved in a number or strike that, have you been involved in petitions for confirmation or expansions of nonconforming uses? I have. And when DPC is evaluating nonconforming uses and expansions, are they looking at the inside of the building? Not once. Every time it has been expansion of parking area, expansion of a building, adding a building. And that's why I'm familiar with this section E is because there are certain criteria that we have to meet in order for those to be approved. So none of those cases that I have been involved in in the past, have we ever spoken about the internal demising or uses within the building. So pertaining to the extension discussion of a cafeteria, which I think is cruel and unusual this close to lunchtime, the DPC would not look and say, all right, this much of the building is your cafeteria. This square footage right here is where you have your beakers and your thermal oxidizer, and this part of the building is where your bathrooms are. So the research and development use isn't a cafeteria and isn't a bathroom. They don't do that analysis, do they? No, and that's what I spoke of when I was earlier when I was talking about the bathrooms and different rooms and walls that we've never gotten involved in any of that. And just about Mr. Gilles' questions about the cafeteria being located in a different building. The you are viewing this as a research and development campus. Is that correct? Correct. And that the uses on that site as they pertain to the operations on the site are being viewed in the context of all of the other uses on the site. Is that correct? That is correct. And to the extent that a cafeteria is a by-right use on the site, you would not require an extension or enlargement, correct? That's correct. No further questions for this witness. Thank you. Mr. Vogel, thank you. Thank you. And for our last witness we would call Ms. Linda Eisenberg. Yeah. I don't know if we want to take a five minute recess and have our last witness at 1230 just to make sure that she doesn't miss her window. Oh, does she only have a window? It's only a small window, but we should get back to work, yeah. So I feel like we take a five minute recess and she speaks at 1230, we can get her and then presumably, Aiden Morelle will be here at this point and then we have Linda speak. So my witness has time, time concerns as well. I'm willing to facilitate or rather it's the hearing examiner's determination, but your witness that has the tight window will have- I'm concerned as well. Would it be, I'm willing to facilitate, or rather, it's the hearing examiner's determination, but your witness that has the tight window will have her come in, and then I guess Miss Eisenberg will just tell me what her availability is going forward. We can have Mr. Morelle speak after her. He won't have any talk once he gets here. Hard-sabotu 30. Okay, there certainly won't be any issue with the no doubt. Great. The combined prepared statements from both of them will probably take less than 15 minutes. Okay. It's your discretion, Madam Hearing. All right. We'll take a five minute break. And we'll call our last witness at all, not last witness. Last expert witness at 1230 and I'll see where Mr. Morelle is. Ms. Eisenberg, we'll get you out on time. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I don't know if I need that as a formal introduction, but I have sent the document along for a prepared statement. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. Great. Thank you. Perfect. Great. Thank you. Perfect. Great. Thank you. Perfect. Thank you. Perfect. Mr. Guillaume. Oh, wait, are we waiting on this? She's, she's, she's. She's ready. We're just going to have her reader prepared state. We are recording. We are recording. Mr. Guillaume. your microphone's off again. Dr. Swamy, good afternoon, and I need just where you are. Is your audio on? Can you hear me now? I can hear you now, thank you. All right, I solemnly swear an affirm under the penalties of perjury that the response is given in statements made. Should we be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Can you repeat it again? Sure, I swear. No, I just said it all. You just said it through I saw them. I swear or firm onto the penalties of perjury that the response given and statements made will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes. Great. Would you state your name and business address for the record? My name is Dr. Padmaswami and you need my address of where I work or my business address? I work at 1811, Prince Philip Drive, Sweet 311, only Maryland 20832. Thank you so much. All right, I understand that you have a statement that you're going to read into the record. Yeah. Before we do that, I have one question for her, which is to state her residential address to because I think it's important that both addresses on the record. Okay. I just think it's other than that. Yes. Your prepared statement, ma'am, the euro. We agreed to have you read it off so you can you can just read your statement into the right. If you want her resident chicken stated. Yeah, I'd like her to state her residential address as well. Always look at my ass off and then I look at my back my head is terrible. Should I share my residential address? Yes please. Okay it is 7920. Lawn care passionately about issues that impact child health. I also have a background in public health. I am currently in private health. I'm a pediatrician who has been in practice for over 10 years. I'm a pediatrician who has been in practice for over 10 years. I care passionately about issues that impact child health. I also have a background in public health. I am currently in private practice and have worked at two different academic centers doing research and teaching medical students and pediatric residents and I have also practiced medicine internationally with under-resourced children. I am speaking here today as a citizen who was concerned for potential ill effects the proposed plastic recycling activities could have on the health of the people, especially the children. One of the children in my community is Reese Morral, and she happens to live in the Cedar Creek community. Little Reese is only a couple of months older than my son, Arya, and this summer they both been going outside and wanting to play together. However, for Reese, she has a rare interstitial lung disease, which is why I am here today. And I'm not only here for Reese, but also for my son, Arya, and the other kids in the community. Thank you for allowing me to speak today. The opinions that I express are my own and not the position of my employer. The plastic recycling activities that have been proposed by WR Grace would result in ambitions that are harmful to human health. WR Grace listed nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and volatile organic compounds in their application. In addition to these, fine particulate matter and greenhouse gases are likely to be emitted from this type of activity. And here are some examples of how these compounds can be harmful to children. Nitrogen dioxide is a fine, gaseous pollutant that can penetrate deeply into the lower airways and cause damage at a cellular level. This can cause airway inflammation, cough, and wheezing. Exposure may make it more likely for someone, especially a child, to develop asthma and can lead to reduced lung function. For people with existing lung conditions, including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, interstitial lung disease, and more exposure can lead to disease exacerbations and hospitalization. Nisrogen dioxide can also contribute to the formation of fine particulate matter. However, despite the number of inhalers that we prescribe as doctors and the mechanisms of action that the different inhalers have, until we clear the inciting chemical, this type of asthma is very, very challenging to treat. Fine particulate matter, or PM with a subscript of 2.5, is a particular and similar properties. And this particulate matter is very likely to be released from plastics recycling activities. It is 30 times smaller than the diameter of a single human hair and therefore can penetrate very deeply into the lungs. It can damage the heart and blood vessels and the lower airways of the lungs. It can cause or exacerbate asthma or other lung conditions, and there's no safe level of exposures to this PM 22.5. While we are all exposed to STEM level due to air pollution from traffic, etc. and living near an industrial industrial source of this particular matter emission can pose increased risk of developmental or exacerbation of lung conditions, including asthma. And this particular matter just doesn't pertain just to the lungs, but can also impact mental health. A study recently published in August of 2024 looked at particular matter in the air in 9 to 11 year olds and found that children exposed to high particulate matter in the air had higher rates of anxiety and depression. Another compound volatile organic compounds can also air take the lungs in the respiratory system. Exposers can lead to cough, shortness of breath, and chest tightness as well as its aspirations of one disease. According to the American Lung Association, people who have increased vulnerability due to health harms from nitrogen dioxide and, particularly matter 2.5, including infants, children and adolescents, Pag pregnant people, adults older than 65, parent or former smokers, people with preexisting lung conditions, including asthma, which affects 8% of children and 9% of adults in Maryland, people of color and people who are impacted by poverty. Please consider that people who fall into many of these categories live in this neighborhood. And I just want to also point out on the other side of W.R. Grace is Robinson Overlip, which is an under-resource community of color, which is also going to be impacted by this facility. Plastics burning and recycling and associated emissions pose risks to people of all ages. Some of the primary harms are respiratory. They're also developmental harms, mental health harms, potentials of risks of cancer, nervous system damage, and impacts on fertility. I am concerned about the impacts of these activities occurring so close to a residential neighborhood. It can be hard to predict the quantity and concentrations that will result from these activities, but even small increases in these emissions and cause short and long-term harm to human health and may risk both the development and exacerbation of lung diseases. Knowing that emitted compounds can be damaging, I urge you to consider the impact that these activities can have on people, especially children. And I'm particularly concerned about kids like Reese, who has a rare lung disease that may be exacerbated by these activities, resulting in increased symptoms, hospitalization, and disease worsening and progression. However, this is not just an exceptional situation and I don't want to write this off because of that, these exposures can harm anyone, especially infants and children, including my son Arya. We're talking about the potential for causing or worsening diseases like asthma and more and this can also impact the health of adults too. All children should have access to clean and healthy air to grow and develop to their fullest potential. Their parents should not have to worry if they're breathing toxic air or wonder if they should allow them to play outdoors and have a normal childhood. Please consider the potential harmful impacts of these activities on children like Reese and Arya and for all the children that are living in this community. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. No cross examination. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. And last we'll call Edemorelle to the stand who has a small prepared statement. Mr. Gilgit, just so I'm prepared, was that written statement? Wait, no, that was what we were discussing before. That written statement was not submitted to the hearing examiner. Her statement was submitted to the hearing examiner. The first one was this. His statement is prepared, but it wasn't written down. down. It's just something that what we were discussing before. That written statement was not submitted to the hearings, Amner. Her statement was submitted to the hearings. The first one was. His statement is prepared, but it wasn't written down. Wonderful. Thank you. It's just something that what we've talked about that he'd be able to speak to. Understood. No problem. He needs to write this down, then, yeah. Does not. Otherwise, yeah. On my accord. I solemnly swear or affirm under the penalties of perjury that the responses given in statements made will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yes. Please state your name and address for the record. Good morning, Morrell. 7956, the line of day circle. And then the phone. Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to speak briefly from my experience engaging directly with the Department of Planning and Zoning on this matter. After DPC initially found no zoning violation here, I requested a meeting to discuss our concerns in person. I met with Linda Eisenberg and Jeff Goins. They were generous with their time and I appreciate the chance to speak candidly. During that meeting I laid out what I thought was a pretty simple point. Even if grace has been doing some form of research and development continuously for years, it matters what kind of research and development they're doing. Not all R&D is created equal. There's a big difference between, say, bench scale inquiry involving benign materials and a pilot plant testing high temperature chemical conversion of plastics. But DPC's response was more or less that their hands were tied. I'm gonna object to here say to the extent that it's being offered for truth of the matter asserted any representative of DPC. This is an administrative proceeding. Okay, I'm gonna let him, right, yeah. Fair enough, less for the truth of the matter asserted, Peter, as well. But DPC's response more or less that their hands were tied. They said that as long as what WR Grace is doing still fits within the broad category of research and development under the zoning regs, then there was nothing more they could look at. No further scrutiny was necessary. That was the end of the inquiry. And they specifically told us that because the physical footprint of the building wasn't expanding, this wasn't considered a new use just a continuation of what's already allowed. To me that was surprising because what the law actually requires and what I tried to express to the DPZ is that zoning bodies have to look beyond the broad classifications. The fact that something falls under the umbrella of a very broadly defined R&D category doesn't end the conversation. You have to look at what kind of R&D it is, how it operates, what new risks or characteristics it might introduce, and whether that differs in nature and intensity from prior use. The McKimmy case, which I don't know if is in our materials, but it can provide a site as well, makes this exact point. It cautions against use using the lowest common denominator, saying in that that case that a parking lot is a parking lot is a parking lot. The court rejected that approach because it hides important distinctions. The same is true here. You can't say research and development as research is development is research and development. And pretend there's no difference between testing flavor profiles and burning plastic at high temperatures with the missions going into the air. Whether you're researching chocolate flavoring or combusting polymers at 900 degrees, both may be labeled R&D on paper, but once smells like brownies and the other like benzene. The law doesn't care what the use is called, it cares what it does. The failure to distinguish between radically different activities under the same broad label doesn't just get it wrong here. It creates a very dangerous precedent for zoning enforcement everywhere in the country. If DPC can't scrutinize the specific nature and character of a use simply because it shares a general classification, then there's nothing stopping a company with a non-conforming R&D designation from researching explosives, saring gas, or any other high-risk material in a residential corridor. No matter the danger. So long as that label still says R&D. That's not what the zoning code says, and it's not what our communities expect. In fact, the zoning code expressly states that extension includes any change and the type of activities associated with the nonconforming use. That's in section 129. This is not just changes to the building footprint. The code requires a factual inquiry into whether the activities, impacts, and scale are material different. Material-y different. That's consistent with the entire purpose of nonconforming use law. To gradually phase out outdated or incompatible uses, not to grant open-ended licenses to evolve them in whatever direction the company finds convenient. That's what I worried most about with the DPC's handling of this in this instance. It wasn't that they reached a difficult conclusion after careful analysis of the activities involved. It's that they never made that analysis to begin with. They looked at a broad label, not any of the substance. What's equally concerning is that when we try to raise the health and environmental impacts of the new facility, DPC continued to point us to MDE. Said essentially this is MDE's job, not something we can do anything about. But respectfully, that's not how zoning is supposed to work. MDE may have jurisdiction to decide whether the emissions from graces pilot plant satisfy some bare minimum air quality thresholds, which are by nature broadly designed as bare minimums to accommodate diverse uses like airports or tire fractures in a broad range of diverse use cases without regard to location. But Zoni authorities still have to determine whether a given use is appropriate at a specific location. That's not MDE's job, that's DPC's job. DPC has a duty one that can't be delegated to examine not just whether a facility meets the bare minimum environmental thresholds, but whether it's compatible with the surrounding area. Whether it imposes new risks, whether it violates the limits of a non-conforming use, and whether residents of this county deserve a deeper look at what is actually being proposed, that never took place here. Ultimately, if graces operations changed in character scale and environmental risk, and the nature, use, and intensity of that use, I think the record shows that they have at W.R. Grace's facility, then that's precisely the kind of extension and change in use that triggers zoning scrutiny under Section 129. The definition is there and it's black and white. And it's our job to make sure the zoning code is enforced based on what it actually says, not based on convenience and assumptions. We need some form of review to have taken place here, and unfortunately that still hasn't happened. Well it's likely true that some form of R&D has been performed at this facility. There has been literally no assessment by DPC of what that prior use was and how it compares to this new and proposed use. We've simply looked at a broad classification and stated that if it meets this definition, that ends the inquiry and there's nothing more to do. We deserve more than that. All right. Thank you, sir. We agreed no cross? No cross, you get cross. Yeah, just one question. Do you contend that the existing operations on the WR Grace site are in violation of the Howard County zoning regulations? I don't know much about the existing operations because they've been quite obfuscated until this point, but I would just be saying that there has been no comparison to those whatsoever. I know for a fact I have not made that comparison. I've made it as best I could with the limited information available. What I do know from meeting with DPC is that they have very little idea of what's going on and they're say I don't know it looks like fancy equipment and it seems like it's R&D and this new thing seems like R&D so I guess that's the same. So no I can't contend that what they are currently doing is in violation or not in violation because I haven't had a chance to review that scope nor is the DPC. And so just so I understand your position that when DPC is called for a zoning violation, you would have them go into the buildings and monitor the operations in any building in the county to determine what type of activities are being undertaken. If your question is do I think that they should be having an understanding of what a use is before making a determination that yes, I do think they should have that understanding? And how would they get that understanding? Site visit, but preferably it would be involved with someone with more technical expertise if in this situation it's called for to understand, is this actually the same type of research and development that what that Grace claims they've always been doing? And would a representative of the landowner or operator in conversation with DPC satisfy that? In this case Grace's one page letter of here are the things that we've been doing to date. Does that satisfy the inquiry? Is that your question? No, no, no, no. My question was broader than that. So, in DPC visits a site, they'll often have conversations with the operators on the site. My question for you is, does the inquiry that you believe DPC should undertake, I'm just curious about the parameters of that. Would that be an interview with the operator or the property owner or would they need to hire outside experts to come and monitor what's going on? I imagine it's going to be a fact-specific decision based on the nature of the use involved. If someone's always been a chocolate tier and they're making chocolate, yeah, that probably satisfies it. If it's something more technically complex, there's probably a higher threshold of what you need to understand before making that determination. So if the existing operations on the site were of a similar nature to any different operation that is going to be undertaken, that would satisfy your concern in terms of the parameters of a nonconform use. Run that by me one more time? Sure. There was, and you know, this is where we get crosswise because you weren't here for the other witness. You know what, I'm going to withdraw that question. Thank you, Mr. Morrell. I don't have any questions. All right, Mr. Morrell. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Examiner. Thank you both. Alright, so we're're gonna move back to the size and book All right, I need to swear you in yeah, do you sell me swear affirm under the penalties of purgary that the responses given and statements May will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes Please take your name and business address for the record. Linda Eisenberg, 3430, Courthouse Drive, Ellicott City, Maryland. Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Eisenberg. What is your title? Director of Planning and Zoning. And you signed the September 13th, 2024 letter that is the subject of the appeal, correct? I did. Now, I understand from you that the person that actually inspected the site, Jeff Goins, is no longer with the Department of Planning and Zoning. That is correct. And so I'm going to ask you questions about the zoning complaint review process, and your understanding as to this letter. And I anticipate being very brief. First, in the abstract, not about this specific letter, what is the zone and complaint review process with DPC? Sure, the zoning complaint review process is a complaint comes in. There's a form that's filled out from our online. That complaint is then submitted. The complaint is then filed. and then within so many days, the complaint, we go out with an inspector. We do a visual inspection. If it's a use complaint, we observe what we can typically from outside observation. If we need to go in, we will go in to, if it's a business, let's say that has public access, will in and we'll walk around the business to see if what's being conducted on site is within the allowable use for that particular zoning district and we see if there's any issue involving that particular use if we see that anything is out of the ordinary and that's not allowed then we would issue a notice of violation and How is it conducted in this case? In this particular case for this particular one a Notice of an NNOB came in a complaint came in on would you like me to go through the timeline that I have? So we please. So we received a complaint from Nana Ade, Ade, on August 8th alleging that W.R. Grace is conducting scientific research and development, which is not permitted, use in the 2014 Zoning Regulation for Plan Employment Center. Uses permitted as a right were deleted from PEC and the zoning regulations in the comprehensive zoning effect of August 2014. Based on the permitted data obtained from MDE, WR Grace is engaged in a use prohibited in the 2014 section, and then they cite 116 PEC zoning regulation. They are currently conducting a pilot scale scientific chemical research under MDE permit and then they cite the permit number on 27 013 a issued in 2019, which is using the facility for prohibited use and is incompatible with adjacent neighborhoods, 70 meters from the buildings. Furthermore, WR Grace has applied for another air permit from MDE to burn plastics in building three, which will have carcinogenic emissions and extension of the existing prohibited use. And then they added a supplemental narrative. So in this case, Mr. Goins, who was at the time the Chief of the Division of Zoning and Research went to go visit the site and go do an investigation. That initial investigation, he went and drove out to the site on August 26th, and he attempted to inspect the property, but was prohibited. And I'm going by his notes again, so I'm just reading the notes that are in the system from his initial investigation. And just for clarification, those are records kept in the ordinary course of business for the department. Correct. Correct. Correct. The security staff provided Jeff with contact information for the site manager because he was prohibited and entering the site. So again, you know, trying to enter the property, he wanted to visually see what he could see from the outside. And this was specifically pertaining to building 30, which is where the research and development for this particular use was going to be conducted. And so he could not be able to get a good visual look with gaining access to the interior of the site. And it's fenced off. So my energy is he could not, again, gain good visual access at that time from that site. So again, he contacted WR Grace and was referred to from the notes the Assistant General Council for WR Grace and that was Apple Chapman and spoke with them on August 30th, which would again be in a typical course of action you would be reaching out to someone who could grant you access to a particular set that you need to investigate. And so he did speak with the General Counsel and Schedule Inspection for September 9th of 24. Also, in addition to that, so again, since we aren't experts at all things, we do our best to get a rudimentary understanding of what we're inspecting. And you know, some things are very easy to understand. And you know, from your day to day course of action, and as you've been doing this a long time, what you're looking at, some things, again, going to the chocolate tier, I can understand what chocolate making is by looking at it. Some things with research and development aren't as clear to us. So we do do our research part to going out into field inspection, especially with things that were not as familiar with. But given that this was a particular case that was being heard before MDE and the head head several hearings, we did reach out to our contact Susan Dorsey with the Maryland Department of the Environment prior to the site inspection on September 6th. And they agreed to have a staff member available to go out with Mr. Goins. Unfortunately Unfortunately, in his particular notes, he did not have the name of the staff person that should go out with them to the site at the time to go ahead and inspect the site with them who would have a better understanding of what to look for on the site in terms of the different research and developments that they were permitted to do from MD because as it was stated in the complaint letter and we had also issued other nonconforming news standard. Nonconforming, confirmation of nonconforming uses to WR Grace for other air quality permits in the past. So we did take someone with MDE out with us to do that site inspection. So then on September 9th, Mr. Goins met with Apple Chatman and also WR Grace Representatives at that time on the property and inspected Building 30s. We could get a better understanding of what that site was being used from what type of research and development. In addition, we did obtain a letter from WR Grace asserting that that building had been continually used for research and development since 2013. And the reason 2013 is a pivotal date is because that is when, as we had talked about with Mr. Vocals' testimony, was pivotal for when research and development was taken out of the PEC zone and then made this a nonconforming use. So at that point in time, you know, from the case notes, no, there were no issues with any non-research and development or anything that went out of the bounds of what is in our broad definition of research and development being conductive, what was observed. According to the notes was bench testing in building 30 that falls under our research and development definition that was observed and therefore a non-notice violation was issued after that date. And so just to be clear, Mr. Gawens and the MDE staff person went inside the building? Correct. And the staff person came with knowledge of what air permits had been issued for grace in the past. That is my understanding. And they had knowledge of what operations were already existing on the site. I can't attestify to that, but my understanding is at least they did understand what air quality permits for being had been issue broadly speaking and went bench testing looked like an R&D. Okay. And when issuing this letter of September 13th, 2024, that was based on existing operations. That is correct. It was not based off of prospective operations on the site. That is correct. And rather, DPC will potentially have a secondary opportunity to evaluate prospective operations to the extent there's any modifications to site development plans or use changes on the site. Is that correct? That's correct. No further questions for this witness. Thank you. I have a few. When you described it September 9th inspection and you said they expected building 30 was this an internal or external inspection. Can you move a little closer? I always keep leaning back. I'm sorry. Was that captured by the recording? Are you familiar with any period of time in which this inspection occurred like how long it was? I do not have the exact duration in the notes that the inspection took place, but let me see if there's a time frame in here. No time frame is given for the length of duration that the inspection took place in the notes. Acknowledging this is here, say, and then I don't mind that it's here, say, did Jeff go and inform you or anyone else as to the extent of his review whenever he went out there verbally? I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. Whenever he went out to review the property, did he give you any sort of verbal description of what he had done whenever he was at the property? We had a conversation. What was the substance of that conversation? Just what he observed. And as to I just testified that he witnessed just bench testing of the site and didn't see any. At that time, no structural changes had occurred internal to the building 30. Where you familiar with any of the alteration permits that were pulled for building 30 augmentations. I have heard of that building permits were pulled but nothing had happened at that time yet. So you did not see any installation of any garage doors or change to the roof of the building or anything like that as described in the commercial alteration permits? My understanding is that they're not witnessed and they're not put into the ComCate report from the inspection at that time. You said that you tried to achieve a rudimentary understanding of what you were looking at whenever you go to inspect something that's complex. Do you have any sort of environmental or health experts that are on call to pull them in as specialists whenever you go to review something? We do not have anyone on call. If they were needed, we could always, you know, go to our counterparts at the health department, or if we need to just reach out to MDE, I'm sure we could always call someone to have them come in if we needed to. And you said that there was somebody from MDE who had come out with you on. Correct. The person that we were working with with on the air quality permit who came to the initial request with Susan Dorsey, that's who we reached out to. And she referred someone to come with us. Are you familiar with the name of the person who had come out to visit at any point? No, that was not in the case notes. Were there, was there any record of that person's name anywhere in any documentation? I do not have that. Did Jeff go and mentioned that person's name or any other qualifications to you and any communications? I do not have those. Do you recall any other communications from any member of WR Grace or MDE that would allow you to recall who this person was that came out that has everything? I do not have that in my notes today. Do you normally expect such information to be recorded in the ordinary course of business when conducting site investigations? Have the person, let me have a person's name. To have information as to the expert who comes out with you. We have never, to my knowledge, I've never had an expert command on a case with us before, since I've been planning director, but I mean I'm sure this is something we could ask for from MDE. You just told me a moment ago that you would reach out to the town. No, so we could reach out. So this is the first time that you've ever had any situation like this where you needed to have an expert come out? Since I have been here. How long have you been in this position? A little more than a year and a half. And that, did you have any other employment with Howard County government prior to your current position as a director? No. Are you familiar with any of your predecessors reviews of any complex properties that involve them bringing out any experts? No. Did you request or did you know if anyone else requested any sort of write-up or information from the NDE liaison? What when NDE liaison, whose name we do not know, came out to the property with Jeff. Do you know if they had immortalized their review in any sort of communication to him? I do not. Are you aware of any information that you have been given subsequent to their review by your contact and MDE? Can you say that, OK? Did anyone in MDE inform you at any point subsequent to the site visit what they had found? No. So the only information that you have with regards to the Jeff Goen's determination that there's no non-conformity is this documentation that he had provided for this closeout letter. That is correct. And this closeout letter is the letter dated September 23rd, sorry September 13th, 2024. That is correct. I have no further questions. No redirect. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Let's see. They're closing the case. That concludes the respondent's case. OK. Any rebuttal witnesses? I don't know if any rebuttal witnesses. All right. Then the evidentiary portion of this hearing will deem to have been— I'm sorry. I do have one thing to confirm. I'd like to have a read through of the exhibits that we submitted just to make sure that I didn't overlook an exhibit that I wanted to admit. I'm going to accept everything on this list. OK. All right. In the three editions are 26, 27, and 28, which you submitted today. Yes. OK. I don't know if I have that list. Is that anywhere? I think it's an internal list that they have made. Oh, OK. It's just exhibits 1 through 20. No, no, I can't from you. I think I came from you. did it? I took the screen shot at it so I can That's if you think that would be fine. Yeah, but it's just exhibits 0 through 28 presumably. Correct. That's what I heard. Okay. And they're all submitted and I don't have any further issue. My apologies for interrupting. Right. I'm accepting them all. Okay. Okay. So the evidentiary hearing this matter will do and have been concluded. We are in agreement among counsel that we're not going to do closing arguments and in lieu thereof, everyone's going to file memorandums of law. So we're in agreement with the two counsel, the appellants. The random laws May 16th by close of business. The responsive memo from Grace is due June 2nd, and any rebuttal, Memorandum of Law would be due June 13th. All right. Is current agreement in that regard? Correct. All right. That being said, upon receipt of the memorandum sublaw, the record will officially close and a decision and order will be forthcoming after that. And I thank everybody for their participation here today. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you.