ORIGINAL

Page 1

1

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August 30, 2004

2

RECEIVED

CLERK’S OFFICE

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

SEP 1 72004

STATE OF ILUNOIS

INTERIM PHOSPHORUS EFFLUENT

)

Pollution Control Board

STANDARD, PROPOSED 

35 ILL. ADM.

)

R04-26

5  CODE 304.123 (G-K)         

)  (Rulemaking-water)

6

7

Transcript of proceedings held in

8  the hearing of the above-entitled matter, taken

9  stenographically by Stacy L. Lulias, CSR, before

10  John Knittle, Hearing Officer, at the Michael A.

11  Bilandic Building, 160 North LaSalle Street,

12  Room N502, Chicago, Illinois, on the 30th day

13  of August, A.D., 2004, scheduled to commence at

14  9:30 a.m., commencing at 9:43 a.m.

16

18

19

20

21

24

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 2

1  APPEARANCES:

2

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,

3

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph Street

4

Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

5

(312) 

814-3956

BY: MR. JOHN KNITTLE, Hearing Officer

6

MR. ANAND RAO, Board Member

MS. ALISA LIU, P.E., Board Member

-AND-

8

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,

9

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19274

10

Springfield, Illinois 62794

(217) 524-8500

11

BY: MR. G. TANNER GIRARD, Ph.D., Board Member

12

-AND-

13

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,

2125 South First Street

14

Champaign, Illinois 61820

(217) 278-3109

15

BY: MR. THOMAS E. JOHNSON, Board Member

16

-AND-

17

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,

James R. Thompson Center

18

100 west Randolph Street

Suite 11-500

19

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(312) 814-3932

20

BY: MR. NICHOLAS J. MELAS, Board Member

21

***~~~*~

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 3

1  APPEARANCES:    

(Continued)

2

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

3

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

4

Springfield, Illinois 62794

(217) 782-5544

S

BY: MR. SANJAY SOFAT

MR. TOBY FREVERT

6

MR. ROBERT MOSRER

MR. PAUL TERRIO

~

--:~~:~~~

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 4

My

in

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Hello.

name is John Knittle. I am an attorney

assistant with the Illinois Pollution Control

Board. I’m serving as hearing officer of

this rulemaking proceeding. It is R04-26

the matter of Interim Phosphorus Effluent

Standard, Proposed 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.123,

Sections G through K.

If I’m not speaking up in the back

row, feel free to give me a wave and I’ll try

to do better. And also, we want to ask you

to turn off all the cell phones, if you can,

appreciate that

‘m joined at this rulemaking by

Tom Johnson, who is the presiding Board

member. we also have Board Member Tanner

Girard and Board Member Nick Melas with us,

as well as members of our technical staff,

Anand Rao and Alisa Liu

I’m going to give you a little

background on the proposal and then we’ll get

started after we handle some preliminaries.

I don’t know if you’ve heard, but we’re

waiting on an Agency witness, who should be

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page

here momentarily. We wanted to get started

just to get things moving before he showed

up.

4

In this rulemaking, the Agency

asserts it’s in the process of developing the

State numeric nutrient standards pursuant to

its triennial water quality standards review

and expects to file a nutrient standards

petition with the Board in early 2007.

10

The Agency is proposing this

11

effluent standard for phosphorus to limit the

12

higher concentrations of phosphorus that may

13

result in detrimental plant levels and algae

growth. The agency want the interim effluent

15

standard to apply until the Board adopts a

16

numeric water quality standard for

17

phosphorus.

18

The proposed phosphorus effluent

limit

of one milligram per liter as a monthly

20

average would apply to new or expanded

discharges from treatment works with a

designed average flow over one 

excuse me.

Receiving municipal or domestic wastewater

24

or a total phosphorus effluent load of 25

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 6

pounds per day or more

However, if the source can

demonstrate that phosphorus is not limiting

nutrient in the receiving water or that the

alternative phosphorus effluent limits are

warranted by the aquatic environment in the

receiving water, the one milligram per liter

limit would not apply

Also in its petition, the agency

noted there are currently 10 to 12 NPDES

permit holders for new or expanded wastewater

treatment facilities that are going to be

affected by the phosphorus limit uncertainty

therein. The Agency has provided us the

names of these permit holders. I’m going to

read them right now as provided by the

Agency

Village of Hampshire, Lake in the

Hills, Bloomingdale, the City of Plano,

Village of Minooka, City of McHenry, the

Village of Manhattan, City of Joliet,

Stable Creek Basin, Village of Algonquin,

Village of Lakemore, City of Peru, Coyne,

Frankfort North, Wauconda, and East Dundee.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 7

1

We’ve also heard from the City of Pana, the

2

Northshore Sanitary District, and the

3

Illinois Association of Wastewater Agencies.

4

We’ve taken steps to have all of

5

these entities added to the notice list. I

6

don’t know 

we had people working on trying

7.

to notify them prior to this hearing. If not

8

everybody was notified or if not everyone is

9

able to attend, they will be on the notice

10

list for the next hearing. It will be down

11

in Springfield. We’ll talk about that later.

12

The Agency also projected that

13

approximately 20 permits will be impacted by

14

this proposed rulemaking on an annual basis.

15

This hearing was properly noticed

16

pursuant to the Act and the Board’s

17

procedural rules. Also, Section 27(b) of the

18

Act requires the Board to request the

19

Department of Commerce of Economic

20

Opportunity to conduct an economic impact

study on certain proposed rules prior to the

adoption of those rules.

If the DCEO chooses

to conduct the

24

economic impact study, they have 30 to

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 8

45 days after the request to produce a study

of the economic impact of the proposed rules

and the Board must make this study open to

4

the public so they can take a look at it. If

5

they choose not to conduct the study, we have

to make their explanation

for not conducting

the study available

to the public at least

20 days prior to the rulemaking

hearing in

question.

In this rulemaking,

we’ve

requested

by a letter

dated June 15th, 2004,

12

that the DCEO conduct an economic impact

13

study for the above-referenced rulemaking.

14

The Board received a response from DCEO

15

indicating that it will not perform an

16

economic impact study on this rule.

This has been available

to the

public and the Board’s Chicago office since

August 2nd of 2004.

I also have a copy of it

20

sitting right there (indicating) if anyone

wants to take a look at it.

This hearing,

then, is also

being held to fulfill

the requirements

24

Section 27(b) of the Act. And at this point,

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 9

I want to ask if anybody has comments or

testimony or questions

regarding the decision

not to conduct the study?

I see nobody indicating

that they have

any questions,

so that fulfills

a portion of

the rulemaking here.

As far as today, I want to note

that we do have sign-up sheets for the notice

and service

list over there (indicating),

the

side of the room.

Those on the notice list

will receive only Board opinions and orders

and the hearing officer

orders.

Those on

the service

list will also receive these

documents plus other filings,

such as public

15

comments. And I also placed the Agency’s

16

prefiled testimony there as well. If anybody

needs a copy of that,

they should go up there

and grab one and take a look.

19

Besides the witness for the

parties,

if anyone wants to testify

today,

they would have to sign in on the appropriate

sign-up sheet here at the front of the room

or just wave your hand at me and identify

24

yourself and I’ll make sure you have a chance

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 10

1

to testify.

Please note that a written public

comment period will be set.

If anyone

doesn’t want to testify

today, they can

always provide public comments at a later

point in time.

Part 102 of the Board’s procedural

rules govern this hearing.

All information

that is not relevant

and not repetitious

or privileged

will be admitted.

All

11

witnesses will be sworn and subject to

12

cross-questioning.

After all testimony is complete,

14

we will allow the parties to provide any

closing statements

that they wish to make.

It probably will not happen in this case as

we have a second hearing that we’re going to

schedule for Springfield

at a later point in

time.

But they will have that opportunity,

20

if they so desire.

Again, anyone can ask a question.

Just raise your hand and let me know.

We ask

that you speak one at a time.

And if you

speak over each other,

the court reporter

~*~

*::*~~

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 11

not going to be able to get what you’re

saying, so we want to do it that way.

Also, please note that questions

asked by anyone with the Board are intended

to help build a complete record for this

Board’s decision and not to express any

preconceived notion or bias.

After all that is said, I want to

introduce Board Member Johnson and see if he

has any remarks he’d like to make at this

11

time.

12

BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON: Thank you.

John’s preliminary explanation,

and I’m not sure there’s any need to conduct

this hearing, but as long as they’re all

16

here, we’ll go ahead.

17

I want to welcome everyone and

18

thank you for coming to this first hearing on

19

Interim Phosphorus Effluent Standards and

assure you that we take this and all the

rules very seriously.

We’ll give this

proceeding, this rulemaking, all the careful

consideration

it deserves and issue an order

24

in a timely fashion. Thanks.

~fl5,\5~

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 12

1

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Thank you,

2

Member Johnson.

3

I want to introduce the parties

4

and have the attorneys introduce themselves

5

starting with Mr. Sofat.

6

MR. SOFAT: I’m Sanjay Sofat. I’m an

7

attorney with the Illinois EPA. And to my

8

left is Toby Frevert. He’s the manager of

9

the division of the water pollution. And to

10

my right is Paul Terrio, who is a hydrologist

11

with the U.S. Geological Survey. And we are

12

waiting on one person, Bob Mosher, who is the

13

manager of the water quality standards here

14

at the IEPA.

15

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: We have a

16

couple of attorneys who have been involved

17

with the proceedings to this point,

18

Mr. Harsh?

19

MR. HARSH: I’m Roy Harsh with the law

20

firm of Gartner, Carton & Douglas on behalf

21

pf the Illinois Association of Wastewater

22

Agencies.

23

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: And

24

Mr. Ettinger?

~S~t&~

4*~~-~-~

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 13

1

MR. ETTINGER: I’m Albert Ettinger,

2

Environmental Law and Policy Center on behalf

3

of the Environmental Law and Policy Center

4

here at Club and Prairie Rivers Network.

5

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Thank you,

sir.

Mr. Sofat, if you want to make your

7

opening statement and introduce any witnesses

8

you have?

9

MR. SOFAT: Can we go off the record

10

for a moment?

11

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Sure.

12

(Whereupon, a discussion was had

13

off the record.)

14

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: We’re back

15

on the record.

16

Mr. Sofat, you can make an opening

17

statement or present any witnesses.

18

MR. SOFAT: Good morning. I’m Sanjay

19

Sofat. I’m an assistant counsel with the

20

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.

21

With me today are three agency witnesses.

22

To my left is Toby Frevert, who is

23

the manager of the division of water

24

pollution within the bureau of water of the

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 14

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency.

Mr. Frevert is here

to respond to the policy

and later questioning.

4

To my immediate right is Paul

5

Terrio, who is a hydrologist with the U.S.

6

Geological Survey and has served as a water

7

quality specialist for the Illinois district

8

of U.S. Geological Survey. Mr. Terrio will

9

testify regarding the rationale behind the

10

proposed phosphorus effluent standard.

11

To Mr. Terrio’s right is Bob

12

Mosher, who is the manager of the water

13

quality standards unit within the division of

14

water pollution at the Illinois Environmental

15

Protection Agency. Mr. Mosher will testify

16

regarding the Agency’s interpretation of the

17

proposed language f or the phosphorus effluent

18

standard.

19

We are here today to testify in

20

support of our proposal that amends Part 304

21

of the Board regulations. The basic intent

22

of the proposal is to propose an effluent

23

standard for phosphorus until a numeric water

24

quality standard is adopted by the Board.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 15

The Agency believes

that this

2

interim standard for phosphorus would allow

3

the Agency to effectively address the Board

4

regulations regarding the offensive

5

conditions at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.203.

6

This proposal is consistent with

7

Title VII requirements of the Illinois

8

Environmental Protection Act. We think this

9

is a good proposal and one that deserves to

10

be adopted without substantial changes.

11

With that, I think we are ready to

12

present our proposal. And I think we are

13

ready to swear in the witnesses.

14

(Witnesses sworn.)

15

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: We swore in

16

the three witnesses. They’re all agency

17

witnesses Mr. Sanjay identified earlier.

18

MR. SOFAT: I think at this time we’ll

19

start with Paul Terrio. Mr. Terrio, I’m

20

going to hand you this document. Please look

21

it over for a few moments.

22

(Document tendered

23

to Mr. Terrio.)

24

MR. SOFAT: Mr. Terrio, do you

~c~*~: ~

~_~S -

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 16

recognize

this document that I have handed to

you?

MR. TERRIO:

Yes, I do.

4

MR. SOFAT: Would you please tell us

5

what this document is?

6

MR. TERRIO: This is the testimony

7

that I have filed for today.

8

MR. SOFAT: Is that a true and

9

accurate copy of your testimony that was

10

filed before the Board?

11

MR. TERRIO: Yes.

12

MR. SOFAT: Would you please present

13

your testimony to the Board.

14

MR. TERRIO: Again, my name is Paul

15

Terrio. I’m a hydrologist at the U.S.

16

Geological Survey in Urbana, Illinois. I’ve

17

worked with the USGS for just over 20 years.

18

The majority of that time has been here in

19

Illinois.

20

For the past 12 years, I’ve served

21

as the water quality specialist for the

22

Illinois district of the USGS. I hold a

23

degree in hydrology from the University of

Arizona.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 17

My testimony today will consist

2

brief statements regarding the rationale for

3

the proposed interim phosphorus standards,

4

including the role of phosphorus in the

5

aquatic environment, the reasoning behind

6

proposing for total phosphorus, and the basis

7

for the proposed effluent standard of one

8

milligram per liter.

9

Nitrogen and phosphorus are the

10

primary nutrients required for virtually all

11

plant life on Earth, both terrestrial and

12

aquatic, references Hem 1982, American Public

13

Health Association 1998, Terrio 1995.

14

These nutrients are each available

15

to water bodies naturally, as well as through

16

anthropogenic inputs to watersheds such as

17

commercial fertilizer and wastewater

18

effluent. Other elements, such as carbon and

19

potassium, are also required for biological

20

organisms, but are generally present in

21

natural waters in amounts sufficient to

22

support biological growth and are seldom

23

limiting nutrients.

24

A limiting nutrients is a nutrient

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 18

1

present in shortest supply and that which

2

will be exhausted first, limiting further

3

potential growth. The reference there,

4

O’Shaughnessy and McDonnell, 1973.

5

Nitrogen is also typically present

6

in concentrations sufficient to support algal

7

and plant growth, but might be the limiting

8

nutrient in some locations or at some times,

9

such as during low-flow periods when the

10

supply of soluble nitrogen is exhausted from

11

the water column. The reference is American

12

Public Health Association 1998, Dodds and

13

Welch 2000, Francoeur et al. 1999.

14

Because of its soluble nature and

15

plentiful sources, nitrogen concentrations in

16

Illinois water bodies are virtually

17

sufficient for aquatic plant growth. The

18

reference is Terrio 1995.

19

Concurrent non-limiting levels of

20

nitrogen and phosphorus can result in

21

excessive and problematic plant and algal

22

growth, a condition known as eutrophication.

23

In most fresh water environments, phosphorus

24

is considered to be the limiting nutrient or

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 19

the nutrient

in shortest supply.

And

references being American Public Health

Association,

Hem 1982, and U.S. Geological

Survey 1999.

Because the available supply of

phosphorus in water bodies is typically less

than that of nitrogen,

further reductions in

the sources of phosphorus might prevent the

occurrence of problematic or eutrophic

10

conditions in water bodies receiving

11

wastewater treatment effluents.

12

The presence and behavior of

phosphorus in the aquatic environment is

complex.

Reference, Hem 1985, U.S.

Geological Survey 1999.

Phosphorus can be

present in organic and inorganic form, in

plant and animal matter, absorbed to

18

particulate material, sequestered in benthic

sediments, or in the water column in

20

particulate and dissolved form.

Phosphorus is transformed and

cycled between organically bound forms and

oxidized inorganic forms and occurs in

24

natural waters and wastewater primarily as

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 20

phosphate.

References American Public Health

Association

1998 and Hem 1982.

Orthophosphate,

often referred to

4

as soluble reactive phosphorus, is the form

most readily available for incorporation

organic life forms.

However, because of the

7

continual cycling of phosphorus and the

presence of organic, inorganic,

soluble, and

absorbed phosphorus forms in water bodies,

10

the orthophosphate form alone does not

11

provide an accurate and complete assessment

12

of phosphorus in an aquatic environment.

Total phosphorus analysis provides

a more comprehensive quantification

because

it incorporates phosphorus present

undissolved,

particulate

and biological

17

forms.

18

Several investigations regarding

19

the practicality, feasibility, and economics

of treating municipal wastewater to low

levels of phosphorus have been or are being

conducted, including studies by the Illinois

Association of Wastewater Agencies (IAWA) and

24

the Water Environment Research Foundation. A

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 21

report commissioned by the IAWA titled

“Techinical Feasibility

and Cost to Meet

Nutrient Standards in the State of Illinois”

states that most existing treatment

facilities in Illinois could be retrofitted

or augmented with biological or biological

and chemical processes to achieve monthly

average effluent total phosphorus

concentrations

of 0.5 milligrams per liter

on a reliable and consistent basis.

11

Most existing wastewater treatment

facilities

would need additional

tankage to

incorporate anaerobic and anoxic systems into

14

the treatment process to increase phosphorus

15

removal.

Many Midwestern states (Indiana,

Wisconsin, Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio) have

some form of a 1.0 milligram per liter total

phosphorus effluent standard in place, while

20

other states, preferably, Minnesota, have

pending revisions to incorporate such a

standard.

Reference USEPA website,

23

http: /www. epa. gov/waterscience/wqs.

24

The costs of achieving an average

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 22

1

of 1.0 milligrams per liter total phosphorus

in affected sewage treatment plant effluents

may be estimated from recent examples.

4

Two principal methods for

phosphorus removal, biological

removal and

chemical precipitation

are available.

While

biological

phosphorus removal may be a

superior method in terms of lower final

effluent concentrations and minimal

10

operations and maintenance costs, this method

would probably entail higher capital costs,

12

would not be compatible with all existing

13

plant configurations and will not be

necessary to meet the proposed effluent

standard.

Biological phosphorus removal may

17

become the method of choice for new or

18

extensively updated plants looking to future

19

nutrient removal requirements beyond the

20

proposed effluent standard. These facilities

21

would be designed with additional tankage and

related needs.

Many existing plants would

have to add tankage to achieve biological

phosphorus removal, thus accounting for the

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 23

higher cost.

estimate of costs of this

method of phosphorus removal combined with

4

nitrogen removal is available, reference

Zenz, 2003, but this estimate is not

specifically

relevant to the instant proposed

7

phosphorus effluent standard.

The chemical precipitation

method

will therefore

usually be chosen for expanded

treatment plants.

The capital improvements

for chemical precipitation

equipment at

12

recently designed treatment plants in the

13

1 to 5 million gallon per day design average

14

flow range would cost $50,000 to $60,000 if

15

an existing building is available for

16

chemical storage tank and equipment housing,

17

and $200,000 to $300,000 if a new building

18

must be added.

19

Additional wastewater treatment

20

tankage is usually not required to install

21

this equipment, which consists of chemical

22

storage tank for the precipitation chemical,

23

secondary tank containment and a chemical

feed pump.

L.A. REPORTING(312) 419-9292

Page 24

Yearly chemical costs will vary

based on plant flow and phosphorus

3

concentration in the pre-phosphorus removal

4

final effluent. For an existing 5.9 million

5

gallon per day plant required to meet the 1.0

6

milligram per liter effluent standard, with

7

average operating flows at the design

8

capacity and using ferric chloride as the

9

precipitation chemical, the chemical cost is

10

approximately $50,000 per year.

11

Approximately 15 to 30 percent

12

more sludge by weight is generated when

13

chemical precipitation phosphorus removal is

14

applied. The increased amount and physical

15

characteristics of the sludge following

16

phosphorus removal may require an upgrade of

17

sludge handling facilities as well as

18

slightly increased sludge handling operations

19

and maintenance costs.

20

MR. SOFAT: Thank you.

21

Mr. Mosher, I’m going to hand you

22

this document. Please look at it for a few

23

moments.

24

L.A. REPORTING (312)419-9292

Page 25

(Document tendered

to Mr. Mosher.)

MR. SOFAT: Mr. Mosher, do you

recognize this document that I have handed to

you?

Yes, I do.

Would you please tell us

is?

MR. MOSHER:

MR. SOFAT:

what this document

MR. MOSHER:

this hearing

MR. SOFAT: Is it a true and accurate

copy of your testimony that was filed before

the Board?

MR. MOSHER: I believe it is.

MR. SOFAT: Would you please present

your testimony to the Board?

MR. MOSHER: My name is Robert Mosher

and I have been employed by Illinois EPA for

almost 19 years. I have been assigned to the

Water Quality Standards Unit for 18 of those

years and have participated in the

development and adoption of numerous

quality and effluent standards.

Prior to my employment by

water

the

for

The testimony I prepared

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 26

Agency, I worked for Montano Company in the

2

development of laboratory toxicity tests

3

using aquatic organisms and the determination

4

of aquatic toxicity values for individual

5

chemicals and industrial wastewater

effluents.

7

I hold a Master of Science degree

8

in zoology from Eastern Illinois University

9

where I specialized in the effects of

10

wastewater discharges on stream ecology.

11

My testimony today will describe

12

the proposed changes to the phosphorus

13

effluent standard. Underlying principles

14

behind the rule brought forth in Subsection

15

(g) are that certain wastewater discharges

16

are significant sources of phosphorus and

17

that facilities that are new or undergoing

18

expansion are opportune venues for building

19

in phosphorus removal capabilities.

20

Costs for the addition of

21

phosphorus removal equipment will be most

22

reasonable when they can be designed into the

23

original construction. Therefore, only new

24

or expanding municipal wastewater treatment

~

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 27

facilities

with a design average flow of

one million gallons per day are subject to

the proposed phosphorus effluent limit of

4

1.0 milligrams per liter total phosphorus on

a monthly average basis.

6

Likewise, other types of new or

7

expanded wastewater treatment facilities are

subject to a limit if they would discharge

9

phosphorus at the same pound loading as a

10

one million gallon per day municipal sewage

11

treatment plant. The value of 25 pounds per

12

day was determined from the pound loading of

13

a typical municipal wastewater effluent that

14

contains, with no special phosphorus removal

15

equipment in place, on average about 3.0

16

milligrams per liter total phosphorus. Both

17

the size of facilities covered and the

18

concentration of phosphorus to be met in

19

subject effluents have precedent in the

existing phosphorus effluent standard.

Subsection

(h) recognizes

the fact

that sometimes the generally

prescribed

23

phosphorus effluent limit will be either

24

unnecessarily stringent or not protective

afl~*~

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 28

1

enough depending on the nature of the

2

receiving water body. Phosphorus is

3

generally believed to be the nutrient in

4

shorter supply in freshwater ecosystems, that

5

is, the limiting nutrient factor, and,

6

therefore, its concentration may often limit

7

plant growth. If it can be demonstrated that

8

a water body receiving an effluent has algae

9

or noxious aquatic plant growth that is not

10

limited by phosphorus but rather another

11

nutrient or water quality factor, then no

12

phosphorus effluent limit must be imposed.

13

On the other hand, if it is

14

demonstrated that one milligram per liter

15

total phosphorus will be inadequate to

16

control noxious plant growth in the receiving

17

water and further phosphorus control below a

18

monthly average of 1.0 milligram per liter is

19

feasible at a facility, the Agency may impose

20

a lower phosphorus limit to protect that

21

water body.

22

Subsection (1) is intended to

23

clarify which wastewater treatment facilities

24

are not subject to the phosphorus effluent

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 29

1

limitation

Subsection (j) stipulates

that

3

compliance with the effluent phosphorus

standard fulfills

the obligation of the

discharger to meet water quality standards,

specifically,

the narrative standard

prohibiting

offensive conditions that

8

includes a statement on unnatural plant or

9

algal growth.

10

Subsection (k) recognizes that the

phosphorus effluent standard will likely

someday be supplemented by water quality

standards for phosphorus that may dictate the

removal of these proposed effluent limits or

15

other effluent phosphorus limits or water

16

quality based effluent limits. At such time,

17

the phosphorus standard will probably be

18

reworked to compliment the new water quality

19

standards.

20

MR. SOFAT: Thank you, Mr. Mosher.

That concludes the Agency’s presentation.

22

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Mr. Sofat,

do you want to offer those into evidence,

especially because of the references

L.A. REPORTING (312)419-9292

Page 30

contained?

2

MR. SOFAT: Sure.

3

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Terrio will

be Number 1.

5

(Documents marked as Terrio Exhibit

No. 1 and Mosher Exhibit Number

No. 2 for identification,

8/30/04.)

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:

Any

objections

to that?

11

Those will be admitted.

12

(Whereupon, Terrio Exhibit

13

No. 1 and Mosher Exhibit No. 2

were received

in evidence by

Hearing Officer Knittle.)

16

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Mr. Sofat,

you say you have no

further testimony to

present?

19

MR. SOFAT: Yes, that concludes the

20

Agency’s presentation. And we are ready for

21

any questions.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:

Does anybody

23

have any questions for these witnesses?

24

We can start with Board questions,

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 31

if you like?

Mr. Harsh, would you like to

start?

MR. HARSH:

Defer to the Board.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:

think we

prefer that you ask questions

now.

The

technical unit is still pondering.

7

MR. HARSH: I think we all are still

8

pondering.

I’d like to

note for the record

that we received this testimony last week

late, have really not had a chance to sit

down and discuss it at any great length.

It’s very brief,

surprisingly

brief,

and we

probably will have additional

questions for

these witnesses and the Agency at the next

hearing.

You mentioned that we have to

schedule a hearing in Springfield?

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:

Correct.

MR. HARSH: Will

the three Agency

witnesses be available

at the next hearing?

MR. SOFAT:

Yes.

22

MR. HARSH: 

With that, we’ll try to

23

begin.

24

MR. JOHNSON: I got one quick

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page

32

question.

2

MR. HARSH: Sure.

3

MR. JOHNSON: And just for Mr. Masher,

4

the testimony indicating that if it can be

5

demonstrated that this is not a limiting

6

factor, that it’s another nutrient and water

7

quality factor, then the phosphorus effluent

limit

no phosphorus effluent limit will be

imposed, how do you anticipate

doing that, by

10

way of an adjusted standard or 

what

procedure have you contemplated making that

demonstration?

13  BY MR. MOSHER:

14

A.

Well, there is a scientific procedure

that would demonstrate that phosphorus is or isn’t a

limiting nutrient,

and that test has been around for

a long time.

It’s a USEPA method that came out in

18  the l970s. And once the Agency saw the results of

that kind of a test, we feel that this rule would

allow us to make that decision just as an NPDES

permit decision.

MR. FREVERT:

I can even supplement

that, if you don’t mind.

24

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 33

BY MR. FREVERT:

I think it’s important to have that

provision as an escape valve to deal with a

4  situation to where we truly understand the science

5  and what’s going on in that particular stream, what

6  role that particular source played in that regard,

7  whether it demonstrates that it’s a significant

8  source or insignificant source.

9

In actual practice, I don’t

10  anticipate there being many opportunities for that

11 to take place, and indeed, if we had a wholesale way

12  of doing that, we wouldn’t be here today. It’s more

13  of an escape valve. But if somebody has the data

14  that can demonstrate it definitively, then we need

15  to make a different decision for that action, and we

16  can extend that decision.

BY MR. JOHNSON:

18

Q.

Well, that was my question. Is the

19 demonstration going to be made to you during the

20 permitting process, and the answer to that is yes.

21 BY MR. FREVERT:

We’re the ones that have to defend

that.

If we’re convinced that that’s sound science

24  and we can defend it, whatever the decision is,

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 34

we’ll deviate from this generic approach.

MR. THOMPSON:

Thank you.

BY MR. GIRARD:

Q.

Can I just clarify though? But still

5  it would be the applicants who would bring forward

6  the information and make the demonstration to you?

BY MR. FREVERT:

Somebody has to persuade us.

9

Q.

Right. You will not 

In most cases, motivation

to persuade

us to do something different

is going to be the

applicant that demonstrates that the phosphorus is

not a parameter

that shouldn’t

have money for

additional

approval to the extent that there’s a

special study suggesting that even more extreme

control will be over one milligram per liter

17  technology, and that may come from other sources.

18

But ultimately, when we draft

public notice to permit,

we then get technical

information from both permit applicants

and members

21 of the public. So in this circumstance, I would see

22  a case where if somebody truly understands the

23  stream and understands the effect of the discharge

24 on the stream wall enough to demonstrate either

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 35

something more is needed or something less is

warranted, it can go either way. And that provision

in the standard is intended to allow us to go either

way when we feel that the science and knowledge of

that particular

restraint

warrant something

different.

By practice,

I don’t see that happening

very often.

Q.

But primarily, in either case, it

would be the responsibility

of an outside group,

either

the applicant

or some group challenging

the

NPDES permit,

to bring that information

before the

Agency?

I think probably that’s the case.

Q.

So the Agency would not be making that

determination

on its own on every NPDES permit?

I would assume not, but as stated,

make that kind of a decision lapse, we would react

to it.

MR. GIRARD:

Thank you.

BY MR. RAO:

Just as a follow-up, the language that

you have proposed states that treatment

works

qualifying

under Subsection

Gl and G2 may

demonstrate.

So if some other group wants to bring

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 36

1  information to the Agency, does the language in any

2  way limit them from doing so.

3  BY MR. FREVERT:

4

A.

Again, my understanding of the real

5  world and how we operate is we take an application

6  and we take this information and we make our best

7  judgment as to what that opinion should look like

8  and the applicability of these provisions. That

9  goes out to public notice. In that time, any

10  citizen in the state can come in and say, well,

11 here’s some information to suggest your decision is

12  incorrect.

13

So I would assume in most cases a

14 permit applicant is going to be the party who

15 utilized this provision. The provision is there for

16  any citizen of the state that wants to tell us to

17  consider another approach.

18  BY MS. LIU:

19

Q.

Mr. Mosher, could you cite the USEPA

20 measure that you were talking about or making that

21 demonstration?

22  BY MR. MOSHER:

23

A.

We can give you an exact citation

24 later, but it’s called the selinastrum kepercranutum

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 37

(phonetic) bottle test.

It’s been around a long

time and has been used for several different

things.

One of which is toxicity testing of algae, and the

other is a procedure to decide the limiting nutrient

5  in a given water sample.

6  BY MR. RAO:

7

Will the Agency be opposed to having

the citation,

you know, that uses the amended

9  reference in the rules so that if any questions come

up from the JCAR (phonetic) or somebody saying how

to demonstrate is going to be made, would you

reference with a citation?

13  BY MR. MOSHER:

Our thinking

is that there might be

more than one valid method to do that.

That

citation would be one way, but there could be

others, so if we reference that in the rule, that

might limit unnecessarily.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:

That might

be something for you guys to think about and

get back to us on.

22

MR. SOFAT: Will do.

23

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Anything

further?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 38

BY MR. GIRARD:

14

15

16

17

18

19

MR. GIRARD: 

I do have a question.

Q.

Let me go ahead and ask mine because

I’m curious, and I don’t see the information here on

this, but you made reference to the fact that

phosphorus compounds are used to treat drinking

water, and what are the ranges of concentration

in phosphorus, you know, total phosphorus principles

that we see in drinking water systems throughout the

state now, can we just have some ballpark figures?

BY MR. MOSHER:

A.

I hesitate to go off the top of my

head on that, but we do have some data that was

provided to us by Dennis Stryker not too long ago.

And Dennis is a member of IAWA, and he runs the

Elmhurst Sanitary District, City of Elmhurst, and

that was really interesting data, and we could just

provide that to you as an exhibit.

Does that sound okay, Sanjay?

MR. SOFAT: Yes.

MR. GIRARD: Thank you. That’s all.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Mr. Harsh?

MR. HARSH: We’ll start with Mr.

Terrio, but if there’s other 

if Mr. Mosher

4

11

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 39

1

or Frevert are better equipped to answer the

2

questions, that’s fine with me.

3  BY MR. HARSH:

4

Q.

This is intended to be an interim

5  standard, is it not, Mr. Terrio?

6

A.

That’s correct.

7

Q.

With a final water quality standard to

8  be proposed at some point in time in response to

9  USEPA’s draft criteria document; is that correct?

10

A.

That’s right. I’m working with the

11  Illinois EPA on trying to determine what those final

12  nutrient standards and certain water, what those

13  numbers should 

what standard is applicable.

14

Q.

What is the applicable draft water

15  quality criteria number that would be applicable to

16  the State of Illinois that the USEPA has come up

17  with?

18

A.

The phosphorus standard in surface

19  waters, is that what you’re asking?

20

Q.

Yes.

21

A.

The USEPA’s criteria divides the

nation into different eco regions.

There are three

eco regions

the State of Illinois

has portions

24  three eco regions so that those numbers vary

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 40

1  depending what eco region you’re in.

2

For total phosphorus, the three

3  eco regions are eco regions 6, 7 and 9. Eco region

4  6, the USEPA’s criteria is .076 milligrams per

5  liter for total phosphorus, for ego region 7 it’s

6  .033, and for eco region 9, it’s .037.

7

Q.

Can you describe those regions

8  generally?

9

A.

If I get 

them straight.

10

I believe eco region 6 is the

11

southern part of the state.

The

12  BY MR. MOSHER:

13

A.

That’s the corn belt eco region,

14  northern two-thirds of the state. I guess I can

15  testify.

To the best of my knowledge,

17  region 6, eco region 6, is the northern two-thirds

of Illinois,

eco region 9 is the southern part, and

19  eco region 7 is just a very small part 

very

20 little identifying

very northern, northwest.

21 BY MR. HARSH:

22

Q.

You testified that you’re working on

23 that. Can you describe

I withdraw that question.

24

Did the State of Illinois request

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 41

additional

time from USEPA to develop and finalize

water quality standards in response to this USEPA

draft criteria?

BY MR. MOSHER

A.

In a way, we did

States all across the country made

that request, and then the EPA changed its policy to

allow each state to come forth with a plan for

nutrient standards adoption. And each state could

name a time frame that they thought they would need,

and so the end result was that instead of having to

meet a federal deadline of 2004, Illinois said in

our plan that we would meet the deadline in 2008.

And was that approved by USEPA?

A.

Yes, it was

Is Illinois

one of the first states,

in fact, to make such a submittal?

A.

I believe our nutrient standards

adoption plan was one of the first approved by the

USEPA across the nation, yes

Q.

And Mr. Terrio or Mr. Mosher, can you

describe what Illinois EPA has done to date in

general terms in carrying out this program?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 42

BY MR. TERRIO:

Well, I think there are a variety of

activities

that we’re undergoing.

Through a

4  cooperative agreement with the Illinois EPA, I am

5  now working on this issue almost full time. I’m

down at the Illinois

EPA office a couple days a

week.

We’re trying to analyze existing data that’s

available for either Illinois

EPA or other data

sources.

There are four Council on Food and

11  Agricultural Research projects that have been funded

12  to look, specifically, phosphorus in the aquatic

13  environment, phosphorus cycling, its sources,

14  transformation and the role that it plays in aquatic

15  environments. Those four projects are ongoing. We

16  won’t get the results of those until shortly before

17  we hope to have our standard developed. But the

18  results of those are going to be very important.

19

We’ve organized an Illinois

Nutrient Work Group, which is a large work group

21 comprised of government agencies, environmental

advocacy groups, acedamia.

We’re looking at kind of

the big picture of nutrient standards in the state

24  and out of that we’d form a nutrient science

~-:::::-~\~

fl;??~*~*Sa

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 43

1

committee, which is a smaller subcommittee where

2

we’re trying to look at the cause and effect

3

relationships of nutrients, algae growth, dissolved

4  oxygen in the environment. That’s a smaller

5  group 

or it started as a smaller group but it’s

6

expanding as we go because of the interest.

We hold

7

approximately quarterly meetings of the group.

8

We’re participating

in the USEPA

9

region 5 regional technical advisory group for

10  nutient standard development. They hold a couple

11 meetings a year, as well as conference calls

12  approximately on an monthly basis.

13

The Illinois EPA and USDS

14  cooperated on a study to implement some continuous

15 monitoring of dissolved oxygen, chlorophylls,

16  humidity, pH, temperature of eight sites throughout

17  the state from 2001 to 2003 that provided valuable

18  information on the diurnal changes and fluctuations,

19 as well as seasonal and year round concentrations.

20 Monitoring like that had not been down to that

21 extent in the state.

22

Prior to that, we tried to select

23  sites that would give us a wide variety of stream

24  types; land use conditions as far as, also, quality

L.A. REPORTING (312)419-9292

Page 44

1  of waters.

2

The Illinois EPA is doing some

3  additional diurnal monitoring of oxygen, 72-hour

4  studies, about 15 to 18 sites this summer so that we

5  can try to get a better handle on diurnal variations

6  during the warm, summer months which are often

considered to be a critical

period for their aquatic

streams as far as dissolved oxygen levels go.

And we’re also undergoing a couple

10  studies in a couple treatment plants where

11 phosphorus removal is going to be implemented trying

12  to do some before and after studies to see what

13  effects of that removal may be in the stream itself.

14

Q.

Part of that effort looks at the

15  existing water quality data for total and dissolved

16  and biological phosphorus that existed across the

17  state?

18

A.

That data is available at the data

19  sets that will be analyzed, that’s correct.

Q.

There’s reference in both your

testimonies

to phosphorus being the limiting

nutrient.

In general, what is the level of

24 which phosphorus becomes limiting?

:S:_

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 45

1

A.

I don’t think we can give a number.

2  Various numbers have been mentioned in the

3  literature. It varies too much with the

4  different 

the geographical location, the type of

5  water body, the habitat that’s present. I don’t

6  think that’s 

we’re working on trying to develop

7  that. That’s what we’re trying to come up with for

8   water bodies in Illinois. That’s what our target is

9  for our standards we’re equality trying to develop.

10

Q.

So presently, IEPA cannot state what

11  the limiting phosphorus value is for eco region 6,

12  eco region 7 or eco region 9?

13  BY MR. MOSHER:

14

A.

No, we’re not there yet. We can’t say

15  that.

16  BY MR. HARSH:

17

Q.

Have you reviewed, Mr. Mosher, the

18  data that’s being collected and publically available

19  by the Fox River study group on water quality in Fox

River?

21

A.

I personally have not.

Q.

Have you, Mr. Terrio?

BY MR. TERRIO:

24

A.

No, I haven’t.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 46

1  BY MR. HARSH:

2

Q.

Would it surprise you, Mr. Mosher, if

3  that data showed total phosphorus values at the

4  uppermost sample location, which is just at the 

5  Chain of Lakes as the values were always greater

6  than 0.706?

7

A.

That wouldn’t surprise me.

8

Q.

Would you expect to see similar levels

9  in other streams?

10

A.

Yes. You know, we do have extensive

11  monitoring networks across the state, and, you know,

12  I have seen that data, and, yes, often you see

13 phosphorus values higher than the national criteria.

14

Q.

Is that data summarized anywhere?

15

A.

Well, that data is in a data storage

16  network call Storette (phoentic) 

We periodically

17  come out with reports and so on, and it’s public

18 data. You can get it through contact with the

19 Agency, if nothing else.

20

Q.

If I understand it correctly, the

21  interim proposal is designed to prevent nuisance

22  algae growth problems; is that correct?

23

A.

Well, that’s the basis anytime you

24  regulate phosphorus or have a water quality standard

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 47

for phosphorus. Algae growth is the underlying bad

thing that happens in the environment

Q.

Has the Agency determined the

locations in Illinois

where such levels of algae

growth currently exist in rise to a nuisance?

Well, we have assessment programs at

the Agency and often our biologists

will make note

of that condition of unnatural algae growth. I

don’t believe there’s any central list of those

waters.

You’d have to go to different

documents

that pertain to water quality assessment,

such as

the 305(b) report, to find those incidences.

So the Agency is not submitting in

this record any evidence regarding where those

conditions exist?

No, we haven’t provided any of that

water quality data, and we note that what we’re

proposing is an effluent standard and not a water

quality standard at this time

Q.

An effluent limitation is designed to

prevent that kind of problem from arising,

is it

not?

A.

Q.

That’s correct

Do you have a list of waters where you

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 48

expect this type of problem to occur in the future

should the standard not be adopted by the Board?

No, we don’t.

4

Q.

How will the Agency determine that

5  there is excessive algal growth?

MR. FREVERT:

Maybe I can help by

supplementing your answer to some of these

questions.

BY MR. FREVERT:

10

A.

And I want to start by making it clear

11  that we are proposing the technology-based effluent

12  standard because we don’t have the wherewithal now

13  to analyze a very specific water quality basis of

14  the nutrient limitation or practically any discharge

15  in the State of Illinois.

16

We know in the State of Illinois,

as we do in most of the country, that nutrients

are

18  aquatic R and D elevated in places where we have

19 measurable deterioration of other water in aquatic

communities.

We have an obligation under

existing NPDES regulations

to establish permit

discharge limitations

sufficient

to make sure water

24  quality standards are nonexisting. And in this

.~.*~S4~*

.~ ~fl* M.,~

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 49

case, the real crux of the problem is our standards

addressing unification

in regarding narrative

standards.

The science is not there either at the

4  state level or the national level. So we’re

5  constantly encountering situations where there’s a

stream that may have an existing detrimental

impact

on the aquatic community based on

while the

stream may be in pristine

shape, on the threshold it

could possibly spill over into impact of the stream

10  with the addition of a larger nutrient discharge

11  that currently exists.

12

In that regard, it’s very

13  perplexing to make a permitting decision if you know

14  the nutrients are a significant environmental

15  factor, you don’t know the end point. And you can’t

16  derive the water quality based standard. But you

17  know there is readily available and reasonably

18 affordable technology to limit the existence of

19  nutrient discharge. That’s the primary driving

rationale.

That’s how it evolves behind this

21 proposal.

If we could carry it everywhere in

the State of Illinois

where there was a nutrient

24 problem and exactly what we had to solve that

~S**~n1~.

_.~,

\*~,-:~*~

*.~

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 50

nutrient problem or address it, we wouldn’t be here

with an interim standard.

We’re here with an

interim standard because we cannot answer those

4  questions. And those questions are the burden we

fact every time we make a permitting decision.

We trying to establish an interim

or incremental step that says in those places,

there’s going to be a significant

loading increase

or a large facility where technology is readily

10  available. We’re saying the potential to aggravate

11  an existing problem or the potential to create a

12 nutrient-based aquatic community. Based on that new

13  loading is significant enough to warrant that

14  relatively 

expenditures currently available 

15

We had no intent of saying we can

16  definitively say this is an exact answer to

17  everything. But it’s a prudent policy decision on

18  our part which lead to new and expanding facilities.

19  They have the economics of being able to incorporate

the additional

treatment in the design of their

expansion.

We’re specifically

saying we’re not

ready to require that expenditure of money on people

that have existing infrastructures

adequate and

24

There are a few places that are

L.A. REPORTING (312)419-9292

Page 51

increasing when we knew nutrients are a significant

problem.

We know there’s a major international

spotlighted

focus on nutrients.

And nutrient

4  reduction is, I believe, being implemented

throughout the Midwest.

It is prudent and responsive,

which would make this kind of a proposed

gives us

latitude

in making the permitting program work

rather than intentionally being in the state where

10  we ask the next question and we can’t answer it.

11

I cannot tell you in any

12  particular discharge that I have a numeric end point

13  to phosphorus target in the stream. And I can’t

14  tell you exactly what that translates into. But I

15  can tell you that it is prudent in the limited

16  standard facility whether it’s prudent technology

and reasonably affordable.

We should be doing that

18  consistent with the basis of environmental

19 perspective.

In that regard, I appreciate what

21 Roy is asking, and we’re studying it as diligently

as we can in understanding and quantifying exactly

what’s necessary in every place.

24

In those places where there aren’t

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 52

critical

decisions being made, our proposal is to

maintain the status quo.

Don’t make people spend

money.

You don’t know if it’s going to be a

significant

change or you don’t know what it will

do.

In those places where there’s significant

interest,

a new load, let’s do what we can to manage

that load.

In that regard, again, we’re

diligently

trying to get to the point we can make a

10 more definitive affirmative answer. Today we feel

11  it’s a serious interim policy where everybody 

what people’s expectations

are to a

13

Q.

I appreciate the policy response to

14  the question, but the 

and the quandary of the

15  Agency is for additional permits, and IAWA members

appreciate

that as well, but we’re here in a

17  rulemaking where there are certain burdens that have

18  to be met, so I’m going to continue with the list of

19  questions.

Mr. Mosher, you testified

that the

Agency could impose more stringent

interim

limitations

under this rule; is that correct?

Yes.

24

Q.

How would the Agency make a

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 53

determination

that a more stringent interim effluent

limitation

is required?

Well, I think we would use our

existing anti-degradation

standard to look at the

receiving water body or one of these cases where

there’s a new or expanded loading increase and if

that receiving water appears to be extremely

sensitive,

potentially

extremely sensitive to

phosphorus, and the facility were such that they

were a new facility or a significantly redesigned

facility where they could build in easily more

phosphorus controls, such as the biological

phosphorus removal method, in those cases then we

would ask for that and possibly get a limit down to

15 0.5

milligrams per year.

BY MR. HARSH:

Q.

So I take it then that you expect all

new and expanded plants to make that showing as part

of their anti-degradation?

They have to now.

That’s part of the

existing standard.

Q.

So to that extent, this proposal

doesn’t add anything over the current available

regulatory tool that the Agency has?

a~ a,~~4

~:.s

:S~aS

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 54

Well, the proposal in numeric terms,

in certain terms, does provide a guideline and

not a guideline,

but a standard, and Toby said a

4  little while ago that we didn’t anticipate there

would be too many instances where we would have to

deviate from the 1.0 effluent standard that we’re

proposing.

But if there is a special case, we have

existing standards that can guide us.

MR. RAO: May I ask a follow-up

10

question?

BY MR. RAO:

12

Q.

With regard to the anti-degradation

13  evaluation, if there’s an existing plan which is not

14  expanding but it’s going through a permit renewal or

15 an anti-degradation analysis for some other reason

16  and there is a problem in the receiving screen for

17  phosphorus, could the Agency then ask the existing

18  plan to address phosphorus?

MR. FREVERT:

I’d be happy to answer.

20  BY MR. FREVERT:

If there’s an existing water quality

problem that is turning the nutrient factor into a

safety factor, then we’re obligated to look at it

irrespective

of that opinion.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 

Our first chore is to protect the

stream and the eco system.

Anti-degradation

in the

federal model is sort of an older but a traditional

4  model over and above what’s necessary 

your

5  example suggests a restraining of that problem.

Anti-degradation

comes in where

strength does not have a problem.

It is better than

what’s necessary to support all the

the concept

here is you don’t want to allow your various streams

10  to deteriorate down to the point they just barely

11 support. And in that regard, that’s a blind new

12  low. Prior to them re-permitting an existing low,

we already authorized that, unless there’s reason to

14  believe that load is causing a problem, essentially,

15  they should be entitled to retain that.

16 Anti-degradation plans were going beyond 

then

you’re trying to speculate if this is not going to

18  deteriorate the condition of that system down to

either below or near the minimum necessary

20  projectives.

21

Q.

That brings me to Subsection 

(j)

where

22  the appropriate language that cites compliance with

23  Section 304.123 meets applicable requirements of

24  Section 304.105 and 302.203. So any existing

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 

treatment plant which is exempt from

the proposed

sections, can they assume there is compliance with

304.105 

and

A.

I’ll try to tell you in very common

lay terms.

It’s our understanding

to mean

interpret the narrative standard in an individual

burden or responsibility under that narrative

standard in a rational way during the interim period

until the signs developed so we can have a more

accurate, prudent standard. We’re basically saying

to you no expanding issue, one that is currently

available for technology, and that seems to me to be

the reasonable level of occurred toward complying

with that narrative standard

If you’ve got an existing facility

that’s functioning perfectly well and you don’t have

any major capital improvements new construction

necessary I don’ want to have to speculate, but

somewhere in that narrative standard is going to be

some additional burdens incorporated this time.

think that’s just a little premature

Three or four years from now when

not only what we’re doing but 

virtually every

other state in the union is doing to understand the

t

L.A. REPORTING (312)419-9292

Page 57

I

science a little bit better and we can quantify

because, in fact, relationships

are better now,

want to go back and re-interpret was an interim

proposal reasonable or not. And I’m comfortable.

think I have a responsibility to apply that interim

requirement. Some level of phosphorus reduction to

meet that narrative standard for new and expanding

sources.

For existing sources, I think it’s

premature to speculate and make them spend a

significant amount of money to put into something

that I think would be inadequate or overkill.

o the fundamental concepts of

this, I mean,. probably, in my mind, maybe that’s one

of the more important paragraphs of the entire

proposal in saying, under law, we cannot issue a

permit which violates 

that we think will result

in violations that aren’ warranted. Our water

quality standard here is the narrative standard that

hasn’t been given much quantification. We’re,

unfortunately, trying to speculate

Maybe in some areas we can

speculate on a narrative

standard where we

understand the science. In the case of nutrient, we

don’t understand the science well enough, our peers

I

t

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page

that,

now.

some

in our neighboring states don’t understand the

science well enough. Federal people who are

supposed to give us leadership don’t under the

science well enough to give us any more than

we’re operating a little bizarre

And we’re saying, based on

this is what we think makes sense to proceed

The new sources are going to get to apply the

technology. Existing sources are being given

assurance. We’re not going to make them do

anything. Keep your powder dry until we understand

what, if any, needs you’re going to have

Q.

Now, just for purposes of

clarification, is it okay with the Agency if that

particular language is limited to phosphorus at the

start? Right now, is there something in compliance

with 304.105?

A.

Well, you say now is one of them to

any

yes, that’s the intent that 

we thought it

was covered in that this was a phosphorus sub unit

it was incorporated in, but no problem making that

clear indication. That’s an issue that ultimately

will be evaluated to make sure we get the right line

and the tweaking necessary. We would advise you

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page

later.

But I’m comfortable with it.

I don’t want

anybody to misunderstand what I’m saying.

Q.

Your explanation helps.

4

A.

We’re here because you don’t

5  understand the science. It’s an unusual ruling.

The interim effluent standard proposal in lieu of

the water quality standards we will propose so you

understand the science.

And we are just trying to understand

10  what you don’t understand.

11  BY MR. JOHNSON:

12

Q.

Well, it seems to me, Toby, like

13  there’s a real potential here for whatever you do

14  when you’re not working on solid science, then

15  there’s a potential that what you’re requiring here

16  is you’re requiring the permittees to install more

17  than they need to, and then there’s also the

18  potential that you’re requiring them to install less

19  than what they’re ultimately going to need. And

20 that might be more problematic for the treatment

21 plants. If they go and they spend the money now and

22  then when the science is available 18 months from

23  now they find out that they’ve installed equipment

24  that is not going to be able to get them up to what

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 60

the permanent

not the interim, but the permanent

standards are going to be.

I’m sure you guys have

contemplated that

A.

And that’s the primary emphasis why

our proposal is restricted to those people that are

in the immediate expansion development stage,

they’re putting in new systems. There’s a certain

cost savings, economics incorporated

into their

designs. To the extent that it’s determined later

on they are necessary, I don’t believe there’s been

any

And probably the bulk of the

municipal and industrial facilities in the state can

have measurable phosphorus under this proposal are

not being asked to do anything at this point in time

other than follow the science and understand the

requirements in the future

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:

do you have any conclusion?

MR. HARSH:

I’d like to follow up on

that line of questions

BY MR. HARSH

Q.

Is it the Agency’s intent then that

Subsection (j)

means that a new and expanding plant

Mr. Harsh,

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 61

greater than a million gallons, POTW (phonetic) or

industrial

plant more than 25 pounds prior to

putting in phosphorus control that that plant would

4  also receive protection from 302.203 and be deemed

to be in compliance?

BY MR. FREVERT:

That is my intention.

Q.

For those plants that are not

undergoing expansion, the existing facility,

it’s

10  the Agency’s intent for the adoption of this rule

11 means that either the plant is in compliance with

12  the numeric water quality standard or that doesn’t

13  apply somehow; is that correct?

14

A.

Could you repeat that?

Q.

How does this language provide the

protection that an individual facility

is not

17  causing a violation of the narrative water quality

18  standard?

19

A.

I think I understand what you’re

saying.

The intent here is that in those

cases where there may be violations

of that

narrative water quality standard it’s an existing

24  facility and applies to all other permit provisions.

~~fl5

,~5

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 62

There’s no special study, no maximum daily load or

any other basis to conclude definitively

that that

one source is a significant

and causative agent to a

violation.

They are protected.

And we believe

until such time of a narrative standard or

I’m

sorry.

A numeric standard or additional

things are

in place, they’re not eligible

for permit limit

based on the narrative water quality standard.

Q.

So if an environmental group comes in

10  and comments on a draft NPDES permit renewal and

11  says this facility needs to put nutrient control

in, the Agency would cite this rule and say no

13  additional nutrient control is needed at this time

14 because of this provision because the plant is not

15  expanding?

16

A.

I think my answer to that question 

17 my reaction to that would be I’m doing to evaluate

18  that environmental group search paragraph (h) 

And

19  if I’m not persuaded under paragraph (h), their

petition

doesn’t hold water, then I’m not going to

21 put the phosphorus limit.

Q.

So it’s not a blanket pass from the

interim standard, and the application

of the

24 narrative water quality standard, you’re still going

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 63

to have to make permit decisions?

If you come to me with that position,

my role is to determine whether or not there’s a

4  phosphorus limit necessary in your parameters.

5

Q.

Does that mean 

If I have reviewed all the information

and I’ve concluded that this does not warrant the

limit because it complies with all other provisions,

I’m going to issue that permit without that

and

10  I’m going to conclude that all my responsibilities

11  to ensure any requirements other than narrative

standard for your discharge had been met.

But any

13 other party to this agreement, I guess, would appeal

14  that. That’s the Board’s decision. My decision is

15 what’s put in the permit and what I contend. But

16 you understand my policy. Unless that study telling

17  me definitively that that one source is significant

18  enough to contribute to the need for the limit, I

19  don’t intend to give them a limit. I intend to say

20 no. This is premature. They should not be changing

or disrupting their process in the interim with

additional

needs until such time as this science

gets worked out.

If they come in the next week and

24  say they need to expand, they’re going to get an

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 64

entirely different

answer.

2

And we’re essentially doing that

3  now. We get a lot of back and forth and a lot of

4  public comment and a lot of hearings based on this

5  information. But ultimately, we decide whether or

6  not to put a phosphorus limit in. And we’re trying

7  to give some direction and structure to that on a

8   wholesale basis.

9

Q.

Has the Agency developed any guidance

10  or internal rules, some rulemaking, for how an

11  applicant should show or how the Agency would

12  determine that a discharge is causing a violation of

13  the narrative water quality standards?

14

A.

No, we have not. And I’ll restate

15  that I believe that that particular provision

16  states 

should be open minded and receptive to

17  information with respect to these people, but I

18 don’t anticipate that much, if at all, because I

19  don’t know how to do it.

20

Q.

Toby, since the original adoption of

21 the narrative water quality standards, has the

22 Agency adopted any?

23

A.

Not that I’m aware of, no.

24

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 65

BY MR. MOSHER:

I should add that developing a water

quality standard for algae through a chlorophyll

4  measurement is one of the goals that we are working

on for nutrient

standards.

And, in fact, that’s one

of the parameters that USEPA would like states to

have eventually in their compliment of standards

dealing with nutrients.

So again, we don’t know

what that algae or chlorophyll standard should be

10  for Illinois right now. We’re working on it.

11

Q.

Probably out of order, but, I think,

12

Toby, you’re 

and maybe Mr. Mosher as well

13  talked about sensitive streams that might be in need

14  of more protection or might be on an imminent crusp

15  (phonetic) of needing more protection. Do you have

a list of those sensitive streams?

17  BY MR. MOSHER:

18

A.

No, we don’t. Not at this time.

19  BY MR. FREVERT:

20

A.

I wouldn’t know how in terms of a

phosphorus interim in general, I don’t even know how

to get a guidance for that.

I think that’s

why we’re investing significant

time and effort in

24  some basic research in trying to develop the science

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 66

to support the standards.

Unfortunately,

the USEPA, who

normally does a good job in developing science

4  behind national criteria missed the mark a little

5  bit in the case of nutrients, and sometimes it’s a

statistical

approach not a science approach.

So the states right now are kind

of struggling developing science.

There’s a fairly

good communication right now between the states that

10  we’re sharing information, we’re all learning from

11  one another. But as long as I’ve been in this

business, everybody knew nutrients was a significant

13  factor in aquatic eco systems but they didn’t

14  understand them well enough to quantify criteria

15  like the substances that are toxic.

16

Q.

Doesn’t the State of Illinois have a

phosphorus limitation

at one time, effluent

18  limitation on the Fox River of one milligram per

19  liter?

That’s correct.

21

Q.

What happened to that phosphorus

limitation?

Well, eventually,

there was another

24  rulemaking where that phosphorus limitation was

~

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 67

1  appealed.

Q.

Was that R87-6 adopted on April 12th,

1990?

4

A.

My recollection is that whole thing

took place somewhere in the ‘80s.

It may have

culminated in the l990s.

Q.

What was the reasoning or rationale

behind the repeal of the existing phosphorus

effluent limitation on the Fox River discharge?

10

A.

It’s itching me a little. I believe I

11  was involved in that rulemaking, but I believe it’s

12  probably been 15 years or plus.

13

Certainly, the POTW, the treatment

14  authority in the Fox Valley were not particularly

15  receptive to spending money on phosphorus in that

16  era from an economic perspective. I believe part of

17  the argument was there’s significant phosphorus

18  loading from other sources which may be sufficient

19  to cause existing conditions of events, any

20  measurable improvement.

21

Q.

I would suggest maybe we should review

it.

Wasn’t the determination made that there was

enough phosphorus present in the water from

Fox River so that phosphorus would not be a limiting

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 68

nutrient even if all of the point sources were

eliminated.

Again, I thought my earlier comments

4  indicated that POTW perception and perhaps even the

5  Agency’s at that time perception there was

significant phosphorus coming out of the Chain of

Lakes and other sources such that there really was

no limitation.

There was always fertilizer

that the

system could support and whatever the level of plant

10  and algae growth is going to be produced, I believe

11  that the case is ongoing.

As a matter of fact,

my Agency has

13  put substantial money into the Fox River study to

14  address that today. USEPA’s made available, I

15  think, in excess of $1 million, and I would say the

Fox River is a special case, probably the single

most important thing we’re looking at on Fox is

18  going to be nutrients.

19

Q.

At the present time, does the Agency

have any information to counter the previous

21 Pollution Control Board determination that the

phosphorus limitation of 1 milligram per liter

should not apply to the Fox River?

24

A.

That’s a question to me I’d be happy

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 69

to comment on.

2

This proposes we’re treating them

3  like the rest of the state, the existing sources.

4  We’re not asking for phosphorus at this time, new

5  and expanding sources we will possible.

6

Q.

For new and expanding sources, what

7  evidence is the Agency presenting in this rulemaking

8  to counter the prior Pollution Control Board

9  determination based on the rulemaking record that

10  lifted that limitation?

11

A.

Well, again, the yardstick we’re up

12  again 

the rules have said we cannot authorize

13  discharge of contaminants contribute toward the

14  water quality violation.

15

In the case of the recent facility

16  we dealt with in the Fox River Valley, the discharge

17  to the tributary to the Fox River, so we’re looking

18  at the potential not just for everybody’s

19  contributaries as well.

20

Q.

If I recall language, in looking at

21 it, the existing phosphorus limitation, effluent

22  limitation in 304.123, Subparagraph (f),

23  Subparagraph (7), a natural plant or algae growth

24  means the occurrence of the violation of the natural

fl~~

...~,

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 70

sludge standard applicable to a lake or

is that

2 type

when you talk about nuisance algae growth,

are you pleading that to the same type of growth

that’s referenced by this existing word rule?

5  BY MR. MOSHER:

I think that passage is not yet

updated in the narrative

standards at 302.203 were

updated a few years ago.

And that’s why the

language is a little

different.

I’m making a note

10  right now that we should modernize that language in

11 paragraph (7).

BY MR. FREVERT:

13

A.

I’ll just add to that.

14

If I’m reading this correctly,

15  that plant or algae growth may be violation of the

16  sludge standard, even if it’s restricted to the lake

17  already where there are multiple detrimental

affects,

including from plant and algae

19

Q.

When the Pollution Control Board

rejected the Agency’s request in R87-6 and the

Board’s language deregulate phosphorus discharges

upstream of the lakes and reservoirs

and continued

to impose the rule of sources over 25 miles away,

24  the Board noted that there would be relief

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 71

potentially available in the form of an adjusted

standard or regulatory relief, are you aware of any

municipality that’s come in and asked for such

4  relief?

5

A.

No, I’m not. I know there’s some down

state communities that 

phosphorus reduction and

7 that

they may be in excess of 25 miles from the

reservoir.

In the l980s, quite frankly while

10  the science may have been understood the role in the

potential

impact of nutrients

in streams,

all the

12  attention was given to lakes and reservoirs and it’s

13

not what it 

either regulatory or scientific

focus

14  on the effect of the stream situation.

15

My recollection is back in that

16  era we made our recommendations evaluating

17  phosphorus purely from the impact we were looking

18  for.

19

Q.

You’re not aware of any municipality

20  that availed itself the relief mechanism that the 

No, I know Champaign, Urbana,

Southwest Tributary,

Lake Shelbyville

and many more

25 miles away, they are practicing

phosphorus

24  removal. Mt. Vernon tributary, they’re practicing

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 72

1  phosphorus removal, and I don’t remember the

2  distance. Chamber (phonetic) is another down state

3  community that’s practicing phosphorus removal. I

4  believe their tributary to Lake Shelbyville. There

5  may be others. Those are the three that come to

6  mind.

7

Q.

I’ve asked the question do you have

8  a 

I guess in response to the hearing officer’s

9  request to identify the communities that you would

10  anticipate that would be growing in the future, the

11 Agency provided that information and that was read

12  into the record. Do you have a list of industrial

13  dischargers that may be impacted by this rule?

14

A.

I don’t believe we do. Typically,

15  industrial facilities don’t go to the classic

16  facility planning process to identify their growth

17 or development needs early on and share that

18  information with the Agency. Almost to the

19  contrary, industries sometimes like to keep it

20 fairly confidential in terms of expansions of

21 facilities.

22

Q.

Does the Agency know or have a list of

23  industrial dischargers that are greater than 25

24 pounds per day loading?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 73

Existing sources?

Yes.

I don’t.

I’ll leave that question to

4  Bob. He can tell you that.

5  BY MR. MOSHER:

There are some power plants or similar

industries

that have an extensive piping for cooling

purposes that use phosphorus as a way to prevent

corrosion of those pipes.

And the concentration

10  the phosphorus that’s maintained in those systems

11

about a 

in my experience, one particular power

12 plant recently permitted 

it was something like

13  three and a half million gallons a day of cooling

14  water in the discharge would have an equivalent

phosphorus concentration

to a 1 million gallon a day

16  sewage treatment plant. So that’s one example of an

17  industry. And that issue was of concern for us from

18  an anti-degradation viewpoint. And the industries

19 were asked to look for alternatives to using

phosphorus for that purpose.

And I think that

21  industry at least is aware of this situation

developing, and I believe they will be seriously

looking at replacement chemicals for that purpose.

24

Q.

Mr. Terrio, in your direct testimony,

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 74

you seem to be inferring that the choice of

treatment to meet the interim rule would be chemical

addition,

not biological

treatment; is that correct?

4  BY MR. TERRIO:

For some plants,

right, but there’s

stages in the construction

code.

Q.

How did you determine that that would

be the case?

My statement there was placed largely

10  on talking with design engineers at the Agency.

BY MR. MOSHER:

We interviewed some design engineers

13  for consulting engineering firms that are doing work

14  of this nature right now, and it seems to be the

15  trend that they will go with biological phosphorus

16  removal when designing a new facilities or extensive

17  expansion.

18

For other reasons also, but

19  certainly, to anticipate standards that may come

down the road in the next three or four years.

And

21 they seem to have some good reasons to go with the

biological phosphorus removal at those plants.

There was reference in the

towards

24 the end of your testimony, I think, on Page 7 to the

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 75

cost estimate from the Zenz study.

What was that

cost estimate, the Zenz study?

BY MR. TERRIO:

4

A.

Oh, boy. Going from memory, I want to

say that the numbers were, I think, about 5 billion

for capital and construction costs and 500 million

per year for operation and maintenance for the

800-plus given statewide.

And again, that’s

I

have the numbers before me.

10  BY MR. MOSHER:

11

A.

And we need to point out that those

12  estimates were for many, many treatment plants that

13  aren’t covered by our phosphorus effluent standard

14  proposal. In other words, existing, non-expanding

15  treatment plants, and also, that those figures were

16  for nitrogen removal also. Nitrogen and phosphorus

17  removal.

18

Q.

A little later in your testimony you

19  talk about the additional generation of 15 to 30

percent more sludge with chemical precipitation

and

21 that that increase in amount and physical

characteristics

might require an upgrade of

sludge-handling

facilities,

but yet you don’t

24  provide any cost associated with that. What portion

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 76

of the communities that you believe would have to

comply with this interim proposal would be faced

with upgrading their sludge-handling

facility?

BY MR. MOSHER:

Well, we ‘don’t have any breakdown of

number of facilities.

We were just pointing out

that depending on what kind of sludge-handling

that

facility

currently has or might have designed into

the new plant in the absence of phosphorus removal

10  that there could be some changes at some plants that

11 would result in additional costs. But we have no

further breakdown.

I think we’re going to find that

13  everything is very plant specific.

14

Q.

You don’t have the list of any

15  specific facilities or the costs associated with

16  those facilities?

17

A.

No. Again, this was information

18  gleaned from interviewing design engineers and them

19 telling us about their experiences with recent

projects that they have had.

And so as far as the

21 sludge, they’re telling us some facilities they’re

working with existing facilities

have adequate

sludge-handling

facilities,

so there isn’t any

24  additional costs for capital improvements.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 77

Q.

There would still be additional

operating costs, correct?

Yes.

Again, that could vary from a

4  very little bit of extra cost to somewhat more

depending on what they have already.

Q.

But the Agency doesn’t have that

figure?

No attempt was made to try to add all

the costs up for all the facilities

that we know are

10 undergoing plans or current expansions, no.

Q.

How many facilities are currently

12  upgraded or expanding and constructing with

13  phosphorus control?

14

(Brief pause.)

15  BY MR. MOSHER:

16

A.

I think we’d like you to repeat that

17  question.

18

Q.

How many plants are currently

19 undergoing construction to 

either they’re

expanding, new facilities,

or existing facilities

are putting in phosphorus control at the present

time?

I believe we talked with our permit

section and came up with a number of seven or eight,

,:~

‘55,

::55~,,,

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 78

1  and that really is kind of a rolling figure. As

2  facilities get completed and permitted, they drop

3  off that list, of course, and new facilities are

4  constantly being proposed, so I would make a safe

5  guess that in a given year recently, we may have ten

6  to 12 facilities like that.

7

Q.

Would those ten to 12 facilities be

8  facilities that would be greater than one million

9  gallons per day and less subject to this interim

10  rule, or were some of them smaller facilities?

11

A.

We believe those would be greater than

12  one million gallons a day.

13

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Let’s go off

14

the record a second.

15

(Whereupon, a break was taken,

16

after which the following

17

proceedings were had:)

18

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Is there

19

anyone out there in the audience that has any

20

desire to ask any questions aside from

21

Mr. Harsh and Mr. Ettinger?

22

I’m not seeing that anyone else

23

has any questions, so it looks like it’s just

24

Mr. Harsh. Mr. Ettinger, you said you’re not

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 79

going to have any at this point?

MR. ETTINGER:

I don’t think so.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:

The Board

has some questions but they’re fairly limited

5

in nature so we’re just going to push forward

and finish this off and not take a lunch

break.

That being said, Mr. Harsh?

I’ll

remind you three that you are under oath and

still,

and you may proceed.

BY MR. HARSH:

12

Q.

I don’t know who the appropriate

13 person is. Page 15 of the proposal under the

14  stakeholder public participation section, I note

15  that you stated that you provided 

the Agency

16 provided this to the Illinois Association of

17  Wastewater Agencies. The IAWA, as well as the

18  Illinois Municipal League request a stakeholder

19  meeting with the Agency prior to the filing of this

rulemaking proposal formally in writing?

21 BY MR. FREVERT:

I remember you asked for a delay in

the filing.

I don’t remember you asking for a

24  letter at the meeting.

5,~5,

,~5,,,,,

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 80

1

Q.

Was such a meeting held?

We had a meeting with the IAWA

sometime subsequent to the filing,

I believe, not

4  prior to.

5

Q.

Nor did you have a meeting with the

municipal league?

7

A.

I have yet to hear back from the

municipal league.

9

Q.

If a sore subject to this interim rule

10  installs chemical addition and then it proves that

11  biological treatment will be the treatment necessary

12  to meet whatever the final is, what will be the

13  savings or impact on that community?

14

A.

I don’t think I can answer that, and I

15  doubt that any design engineer could answer that

16 without more specifics of the individual situation

17 you’re talking about.

18

Q.

If chemical is not adequate to meet

19  the final nutrient regulation that comes out of our

20  ongoing effort and is necessary to install

biological

treatment,

doesn’t that mean that the

POTW will have installed

chemical addition,

capital

costs that will have to be replaced?

24

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 81

BY MR. MOSHER:

I think I can give a little

insight on

that.

4

The design engineers that we

5  talked to were telling me that even with biological

phosphorus removal designed into a plan that they

like to have the ability to also add chemical to

polish that process, and so it may turn out

and I

don’t know that those statements were covering

10  100 percent of facilities, but it may turn out at

least in some cases that the chemical addition will

12  still be desired in addition to biological

13  phosphorus removal.

14

Q.

Mr. Mosher, based on those

15  discussions, would it be the same size chemical

16  addition facilities?

17

A.

They have told me that the amount of

18  chemical added would be less if done in tandem with

19  biological phosphorus removal. But I don’t think

20 that means that the larger size equipment couldn’t

still be used.

Q.

If a stream has phosphorus levels that

are currently above the limiting value, then what is

24 the environmental benefit to be derived if POTW that

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 82

discharges to that stream is required to put in

2  interim phosphorus control under this rulemaking?

3

A.

Well, I think we testified that we

4  don’t know everything yet. We’re working on it.

5  But we do have an example that’s been with us for

6  many, many years, and that is limiting phosphorus at

7  Great Lakes tributary dischargers. And the idea

8  there was that you were protecting a water body

9  downstream by removing phosphorus in that basin.

10  And so even though we may not be able to say whether

11 or not we’ll get improvement in the receiving stream

12  directly discharged into, there may be bodies of

13  water further downstream that may benefit and would

14  fall under that success story that we had for the

15  Great Lakes in phosphorus control.

16

Q.

Mr. Mosher, are there any POTW5 in

17  Illinois that discharge directly to Lake Michigan

18  other tributaries to Lake Michigan?

19

A.

Ordinarily, no.

20

Q.

This is designed to be an interim

21 proposal until such time as Illinois adopts 

or

22 the results of the nutrient task force that’s been

23  testified to is finalized and comes up with a water

24 quality standard proposal and adopted by the Board;

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 83

is that correct?

BY MR. FREVERT:

That’s correct.

4

Q.

What is the Agency’s current time

frame for completing this work and being in a

position to propose a water quality standard to the

Board?

BY MR. MOSHER:

Well, I mentioned our nutrient

10  standards plan that we prepared for USEPA and that

11 the time frame was that by 2008 we would have water

12  quality standards in Illinois for nutrients.

13

Q.

That would be ready to propose or

14  through the process?

15

A.

We think the 2008 date is for adopted

16  standards. At least that was our prediction.

17  BY MR. FREVERT:

18

A.

Let me just comment here that we

19  have a nutrient standard development plan that we

submitted to USEPA and got approval for that one,

21  and that has those dates in there. We will make

that available so Bob doesn’t have to speculate on

those dates.

24

Q.

Thank you.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 84

1

Has the Agency given any

consideration

or would it consider putting a sunset

provision in this interim rule then?

I think I’m receptive to discussions

or something of that nature.

Certainly,

it’s

mean, the impetus for this is we’re partway through

a very important study and we don’t want to prejudge

too much.

But we need some guiding line to get us

through the next few years of a lot of permitting

10  complexities and possible situations where we simply

11  are not issuing any kind of proposal.

12

So in the spirit and the nature of

13  an interim proposal, we will entertain concepts on

14  how to make that interim thing clearer and more

15  comfortable to everyone.

16

Q.

That might be helpful because you are

17  proposing an interim standard based in large part on

18  a justification that is available technology. Other

19  states have a similar limitation. You’re currently

20 requiring, through the permitting process, a

21 number of POTWs to impose or install phosphorus

22  limitations.

23

How do you avoid this rulemaking,

24  essentially, coming up with an establishing best

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 85

available technology for the POTW industry if it

doesn’t have a sunset provision in it, I guess, is

our question?

4

A.

Well, I’ll be happy to answer that

question,

if I fully understood what you

Q.

Aren’t you by the fact, though,

running a risk of establishing

if the Board enacts

this interim rule a best available control

technology level for phosphorus treatment in

10  Illinois?

11

A.

Let me give you what I see as the big

12 picture response. I hope it will give you an answer

13  that you’re looking for. It’s the best answer that

14  I can give you.

15

On this interim basis, there’s an

16  obvious issue with Illinois streams. It’s not quite

17  so obviously exactly why and how to deal with the

18  POTW5 and industrial wastewaters in mass.

19

It’s clear there’s technology

20 available, and I would say relatively affordable

technology available to move forward.

There is some

salvage benefit to that, and it does enhance other

performance capabilities

to the POTW and industrial

24  wastewater facilities over and above phosphorus

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 86

1  removal, and recognizing there may be some potential

2  that is not necessary everywhere we’ve posed an

3  interim standard that only requires this technology

4  for large, new expansions.

5

So we’ve tried to restrict the

6  potential downside of this while moving forward with

7  the program. And I think perhaps what’s as

8  important as anything, you know, is the Agency’s

9  ongoing effort to understand the science of

10  nutrients better coupled with our commitment to do

11  some before and after study of these facilities to

12  demonstrate what, if any, measurable impact it has

13  on the stream. So five years from now, we will all

14 be able to issue more knowledge, and in the

15 meantime, a vast majority of public and industrial

16  facilities are not being required to expend money

17  that perhaps isn’t 100 percent guaranteed with the

18  outcome of the interim and take a major step, learn

19  from that, and that’s a broader policy based on that

20 knowledge.

21

Q.

This concept of interim limitation was

22  not in the Illinois EPA request for additional time

when it submitted it’s nutrient work plan to the

USEPA, was it?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 87

1

A.

This particular proposal is separately

2  from and in no way in the nutrient standards

3  development proposal. The proposal is here to

4  address a real world problem we have today with

5  existing standards, the obligation of the Agency to

6  assure NPDES standards and protect against those

7  standards not knowing how to interpret those

8  standards. The purpose of the interim standard so

9  to allow the NPDES program to continue to function.

10

Q.

To repeat my question, it’s not

11  contained in the Illinois EPA response to the USEPA?

12

A.

That’s correct.

13

Q.

Has anyone on the IEPA nutrient

14  science work group suggested an interim standard was

15  needed and should be proposed to the Board?

16

A.

I don’t know about that, but I know

17  the interim standard was the collective decision of

18  the Agency itself.

19

Q.

Did USEPA indicate in their approval

20 of the Illinois submittal that an interim standard

21 was necessary?

22

A.

Again, I don’t know that I can comment

23  directly on that, but I can assure you the USEPA

24  staff will reinforce with me their belief that is a

.~,s,,,.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 88

positive step forward and they’re supportive of it.

Q.

What apart from the environmental law

and policy letter dated February 2nd, 2004 to the

director of Illinois EPA has prompted this

rulemaking?

Probably hours and hours of scratching

our heads trying to address the narrative standards

and probably five to ten critical

permits which will

last two to three years.

Just the recognition of

10  the internal conflict we have with the existing

11 regulations and the ever increasing data that shows

12 phosphorus limits are elevated in many streams in

13  Illinois where the aquatic indexes are believed to

14  be less than it should be.

15

MR. HARSH: We’d like to make the

16

environmental law and policy letter I’ve

17

referenced an exhibit.

18

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Any

objection from anybody?

MR. ETTINGER:

I would like to comment

it’s an excellent letter.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:

Duly noted,

Mr. Ettinger.

24

What do you want to call it, Mr.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 89

1

Harsh?

2

MR. HARSH: The next exhibit number is

3

fine.

4

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: I will call

it Exhibit 3.

It’s admitted.

6

MR. ETTINGER: If he’s done, I do have

7

a question now, I’m sorry, to follow up on

8

Mr. Harsh’s 

are you done, Mr. Harsh?

9

MR. HARSH: I am subject to being able

10

to ask additional questions of these

11

witnesses, if necessary.

12

MR. ETTINGER: I’m just trying not

13

to

you’re done today is all I’m saying?

14

MR. HARSH: Yes.

15  BY MR. ETTINGER:

16

Q.

Mr. Frevert, Mr. Harsh asked you

17  questions about a sunsetting provision which

18  confused me in that the question implied that there

19  isn’t one in the rule currently. Reading the

20 language in front of me in (k) it says the

21 provisions of Subsection (g), (h), 

(i) and (j)

of

22  this section applied until such time as the Board

23  adopts a numeric water quality standard for

24  phosphorus. Is that a sunsetting provision?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 90

It certainly

is.

And, you know, that

2  was there from day one. To the extent people want

to work on that and give it more definition,

we’re

4  open to working with other people.

That was our intent from day one

when we proposed this interim standard, not a

permanent standard.

So that being said, we continue

8  to take any input or recommendations on how better

to word that.

So when you said that you wanted to

11 perhaps improve this language, you weren’t trying to

12  imply that there isn’t a sunsetting provision now,

you’re just saying that you’re open to improvements

14  in the wording of this sunset provision?

15

A.

Thank you. My lawyer told me the same

16  thing you just told me off the record.

17

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Thank you.

18

Mr. Harsh, do you have a copy of this

19

letter that you want us to see?

MR. HARSH:

Yes, I do.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:

Just for the

22

record, I think we had originally called the

23

prefiled testimony Agency Exhibit 1 and 2.

24

We’re just going to call it 

Exhibit 1

is

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 91

1

Terrio’s testimony, Exhibit 2 is Mosher’s

2

testimony and Exhibit 3 is now this letter.

3

MR. HARSH: Okay.

4

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Anything

5

further, Mr. Harsh?

6

MR. HARSH: No, sir,

7

MR. GIRARD: I have a question.

8  BY MR. GIRARD:

9

Q.

And this is for the panel, although it

10  will be probably be Toby that answers it.

11

Page 16 of the proposal, we were

12  talking about adopting the 1.0 milligram per liter

13  phosphorus concentration standard, but then you also

14  talk about how the Agency fully expects actual

15 performance levels to be incrementally better than

16  1.0 milligrams per liter, and even in the 0.5

17  milligram per liter range for extended periods.

18

How would that expectation be

19  carried out in the permitting process?

20 BY MR. FREVERT:

21

A.

I’m surprised this didn’t come up

22 earlier because I noticed Paul had it in his

23  testimony too.

24

In reality, these systems probably

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 92

1  would routinely perform most of the time much better

2  than the 1 milligram per liter as the ultimate

3  ceiling measurement performance. I would assume

4  over the long period of time you’re going to have

5  some blips here and there, but by and large,

6  long-term averages, you’re going to be significantly

7  lower than the one point. You look like that wasn’t

8   an answer so maybe I didn’t understand your

9  question.

10

Q.

Well, I can understand, you know,

11  you’re looking at a monthly average, but I was just

12  wondering how that expectation would be carried out?

13  I mean, I understand the variability, but it almost

14  sounds like a standard within a standard.

15

A.

What you would see was routine forms

16  from those facilities. And I think from my

17 understanding and experience with my counterparts

18  around the Midwest, I’m not aware of any state,

19  Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, any of them, that give

20  limits other than 1 milligram per liter. Most of

21 those people say their facilities are indeed

22 performing within that 1 milligram per liter and

23  significantly lower than 1 milligram per liter.

24

So the technology, while it will

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 93

have blips and you may brush up against the

1 milligram per liter,

over the long haul, you’re

going to be well under that effluent limitation.

4

Q.

But in terms of enforcement, there

would be no difference between someone that had a

6  monthly average consistently 0.9 milligrams per

liter and someone else who had a monthly average

8  consistently of 0.4 milligrams per liter?

9

A.

That’s correct. And indeed, when

10  we’re at inspections and any of our technology and

11 systems programs, there’s somebody that’s got a

12  system that’s operating in compliance with the

13  limit, but he has a potential to do even better when

14  we work with them to reach the better attainment.

15  You wouldn’t establish it an enforcement

16  requirement.

17

My experience over the years has

18  been treatment plant operators take pride in what

19  they’re doing. Number one, they’ve got to stay in

20  compliance and they have to keep their job, number

21 two, probably they’re able to do the best they can

22  for you. So most of these facilities that have

23  phosphorus removal we’re probably going to see DMR5

24  routinely come in with numbers measurably lower.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 94

1 Not

always, but most of the time measured lower.

MR. GIRARD:

Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:

Mr. Rao,

Ms. Liu, do you have anything?

BY MS. LIU:

Q.

I have some clarifying

questions just

on the language that you’ve proposed.

The new

Subsection

(g) refers to newer expanded discharges

not covered by Subsections

(e) through (f), and I

notice that Subsection (c) through (f) contained

definitions

in compliance states and adjustment

12  standards procedure and I was wondering if you would

clarify whether any of the provisions of (c) through

14  (f) would be applicable to these treatment works?

15  BY MR. FREVERT:

It’s been some time since I’ve

reviewed this draft and it’s been my recollection

that what the perception was all those other

19 subsections apply to facilities discharging

tributary or lake or river, and we’re not proposing

21 any change. What we’re doing is adding in addition

to that another list of requirements that protect

the stream itself.

So if somebody has a requirement

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 95

1  to remove phosphorus to protect the river, they have

2  to meet that irrespective of whether or not there’s

a secondary requirement to meet.

Q.

Wouldn’t some of those definitions

when you refer to federal compliance and adjusting

standards kind of cross over into this new section?

If somebody is looking for an adjusted

8 standard from this,

I would think they’d go to the

Board’s procedural rules.

I don’t know why we would

10  instructions for the adjusted standard regarding the

11  actual standard itself.

The other thing is, quite frankly,

13  right or wrong, we tend not to fuss around with 

14  regarding the regulation. So we don’t want to touch

15 it even though

some of these things is probably

16  old language. We’re just 

we’re not trying to bog

17  down the hearing re-visiting what we’re doing at

length.

We’re just trying to add a new policy.

19  BY MR. RAO:

20

Q.

One specific term that you have 

there’s a definition

for under (f) (6) is the

limiting nutrient.

And that term has been used in

Subsection (g) also.

Would it be all right for the

24 Agency if a similar definition is put down in

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 96

Subsection (g)?

BY MR. FREVERT:

Quite frankly, I think scientists

around pretty well gel around the motion that a

fresh water aquatic systems, phosphorus is almost

always the limiting nutrient.

You’re dealing with a

little

bit of archaic language.

Maybe in the mid

‘90s or early l980s we thought possibly there was a

system in Illinois

where nitrogen was the limiting

nutrient.

In reality,

they’re all

so to the best

11 of our knowledge, it’s all going to be phosphorus.

12 And that’s unnecessary language as to the statement.

Q.

An another question relating to

Subsection

(g), and already you have made some

references

as to how Subsection (g) would apply

16  that Subsection (g) (1) would apply to municipal and

17  our wastewater treatment works, and Subsection

(g) (2) to industry of this progress.

19

That’s not very clear from the

20  rule itself. Is that something that the Agency

wants to take a look at to see if anybody can make

the rules clearer?

What do you mean?

Q.

The way I 

was looking at it

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 97

1

A.

You mean this language isn’t clear?

2

Q.

Yes.

3

A.

What are you recommending?

4

Q.

I’m not recommending anything. I’m

5  just asking you that supposedly the municipal

6  treatment plants, which doesn’t, you know, trigger

7  the 1 million gallon per day flow under (g) (1), but

8  it’s still discharging more than 25 pounds per day.

9  Would that be subject to Subsection (g), if they’re

10  expanding?

11

A.

I know of 

well, that wouldn’t be

12  domestic wastewater, I guess, is the answer.

13  There’s no way to plan that 1 million gallons per

14  day can have that much phosphorus dominated by some

15  industrious source. Towns that small usually don’t

16  have 

we can go back and look 

17

Q.

We have submitted language in our

18  ammonia nitrogen rules because phosphorus 

it

19  depends on how you put those rules because the

20 language is not clear?

21

A.

Well, you think something like 

22 roughly the 25 pounds per day is our rule of thumb

23  equivalent to a million gallons per day. If you

24  want us to say a treatment 

you want us to

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 98

1  consider proposing a treatment works with the design

2  average flow of 1 million gallons per day or more,

3  or from the treatment works less than a million

4  gallons per day in excess of 25 pounds of

5  phosphorus. We’ll take that back and think about

6  it.

7

Q.

Just take a look at that language.

8  BY MS. LIU:

Q.

Along those earlier lines, another

10  possible scenario, if you do have a municipal

11  treatment works discharging a million gallons a day

12  and you return 1 million gallon per liter, when you

13  do the calculations, I ended up with about 8.3

14  pounds of phosphorus, does that sound right to you?

15  BY MR, FREVERT:

16

A.

Yes.

17

Q.

But under Subsection (g) (2), you have

18  25 pounds per day limit, and I was wondering 

19

A.

It’s 25 pounds per day untreated.

20  Your 8 milligrams per liter, I believe, equates

21 to 

your 8 pounds equates to 1 milligram. Without

22  the phosphorus treatment, the discharge would be

23  close to 3 milligrams.

24

Q.

So is it true that 25 pounds refers to

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 99

1  untreated?

2

A.

It refers to the untreated waste.

3  Without phosphorus removal, it would be 25 pounds.

4  If it progresses to the threshold of 25 pounds per

5  day or more without treatment, then you have to

6  provide treatment to bring them down. So if you

7  provide that treatment, you’re going to bring it

8  down to the 8-pound range.

9

Q.

Maybe we should make some sort of

10  clarification?

11

A.

Yeah, we’ll look at that language.

12

I think the important thing at

13  this stage is to understand. If our words didn’t

14  communicate it properly, we’ll absolutely work

15  through that.

16

Q.

Another situation were how the

17  treatment works municipal 

but one that is very

18  low, just under the 25-pound per day limit, going to

19  a 

is that something that would be permitted?

20

A.

Well, you know, paragraph 2, we’re

21 implying that those are industrial sources. I

22  suppose they could be non-industrial,

23  non-municipal, some miscellaneous-type source, but I

24  believe the language 

a significant source of

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 100

1  phosphorus.

2

Q.

Significant being 25 pounds?

3

A.

Significant being 25 pounds if you’re

4  non-domestic waste. If you’re domestic waste, you

5  add 25 pounds. So 25 pounds will be the threshold

6  for everybody.

7

And just to supplement while

8  you’re looking for more questions, part of our logic

9  by the 1 million gallons per day, that’s significant

10  enough waste 

you’re going to have 

you’re going

11  to need fairly sophisticated technology for

12  phosphorus removal.

13  BY MR. RAO:

14

Q.

And regarding the threshold language,

15  the way we’re now 

only expanding facilities would

16  be 

newer expanding would be subject to the rule,

17  but, you know, if there’s a facility that is not

18  increasing its design flow but making a wholesale,

19 you know, greater than a treatment plant?

20

A.

Major rehab?

21

Q.

Yes. That would be covered by this

22  rule or 

23

A.

Well, it extends to the point that a

24  significant capital investment is required. It

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 101

1  would be compatible with our logic of spend a lot of

2  money now. Now is the time to do it. If you don’t

3  have significant needs, we don’t want you to invest

4  the money because you won’t have the time to do a

5  better job of analyzing the situation. I don’t know

6  if you’re getting any major rebuilding or not, but

7  we’ll take that under advisement, if you want.

8  BY MS. LIU:

9

Q.

In the sunset provision under

10  Subsection (k), it refers to a future time when the

11 Board might adopt a numeric water quality standard

12  for phosphorus. There are actually already

13  numerical water quality standards for phosphorus

14 under 302.205 and 203.504 for certain water bodies.

15

A.

Lake Michigan.

16

Q.

Lake Michigan and 

17

A.

I don’t get it 

18

Q.

I was just wondering under Subsection

19  (k) here it doesn’t mention that there are others 

20 but you just added in the water quality standards

21 for phosphorus for general use waters?

22

A.

Keep in mind that sunset is only for

23 the provision we’re adding. It doesn’t cover the

24 phosphorus requirement for the lake. It’s already

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 102

1  in place, so...

2

Q.

Right. That’s what I was mentioning,

3  maybe we should just add 

4

A.

Well, I guess what I’m saying is the

5  existing phosphorus control requirement for a lake

6  and the water quality standard for lakes I don’t

7  believe are affected by paragraphs (g), (h), (i),

8

(j)

and (k).

9

Q.

While we’re on the subject, I was

10  wondering if you could identify the body, besides

11  Lake Michigan, that would fall under the criteria of

12  greater than 20 acres of water, whatever that is?

13

A.

Well, Shelbyville 

well, there’s

14  hundreds of lakes.

15

Q.

Maybe this is a historical question,

16 but I was wondering if you could explain the

17 different water quality standards for reservoirs

18  and for Lake Michigan with more than 5 milligrams

19 per liter and Lake Michigan is 7 micrograms per

20  liter?

21 BY MR. MOSHER:

22

A.

Yeah, I think I can answer that one.

23

Lake Michigan standards were

24  adopted long ago at the background level, and the

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 103

1  intent was let’s not make it any worse. And that’s

2  how we got that seven microgram value for Lake

3  Michigan. And other standards are similar. You’ll

4  see like the chloride and sulfate and some others.

5  They’re set really low. And that’s just under what

6  the lake was and is for those substances.

7

The .05 milligram per liter

8  phosphorus for down state lakes greater than 20,

9  that was a stab many years ago at what a protective

10 value would be. In other words, if we keep

11 phosphorus at or below that level, then we probably

12 won’t have algae booms and other noxious conditions

13  from algae plants.

14

Q.

Mr. Mosher mentioned the power plant

15  industry perhaps being involved in this. I was

16  wondering if you had an industry contact that we

17  might include on our notice so that we’re aware of

18  this?

19

A.

Alec Messina,

20

MS. LIU: Thank you.

21

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Are there

22

any questions from anybody else out in the

23

greater audience?

24

Seeing none, let’s go off the

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 104

1

record a second.

2

(Whereupon, a discussion was had

3

off the record.)

4

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: We are back

5

on the record after a short recess. After

6

talking to the court reporter, we found out

7

that the transcript will be ready on

8

September 10th. We’re going to have a status

9

conference on September 9th at 9:30 a.m. to

10

discuss the time for the second hearing and

11

we’ll pick a date and time thereafter.

12

I did get a question from somebody

13

out in the audience earlier about the notice

14

and service list of who’s on there. I don’t

15

have a printed copy of that right now, but I

16

would note that on the Board’s website, you

17

can access the notice and service list and

18

check for yourselves.

19

If you have any trouble, give me a

20

call. I’d be happy to talk with you any

21

time. My number 

±5

(217) 278-3111. That’s

22

all I have.

23

Mr. Johnson, anything further?

24

MR. JOHNSON: Nothing.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 105

1

HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE: Thank you

2

all very much for your time.

3

(Which were all the proceedings

4

had in the above-entitled cause

5

on this date.)

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Page 106

1  STATE OF ILLINOIS

SS.

2  COUNTY OF DUPAGE

3

4

I, STACY L. LULIAS, CSR, do hereby

5  state that I am a court reporter doing business in

6  the City of Chicago, County of DuPage, and State of

7  Illinois; that I reported by means of machine

8  shorthand the proceedings held in the foregoing

9  cause, and that the foregoing is a true and correct

10  transcript of my shorthand notes so taken as

11  aforesaid.

12

13

14

_____

______

Stacy L. Lulias, CSR

15

Notary Public,

DuPage County, Illinois

16

17  SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO

before me this t1~day

18  of~f~Qt~flj~(cA.D., 2004.

19

20  Notary Pu1~ic

r~~i

KIM$ERLYAMEEKS

23

N:TA~vPueuc~sTATEoFIwNoJs~

24

~~S:1V17~7

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

________________

_________________ 

________________

_________________

Page 107

addressing49:2

14:16 29:21 30:20 answer33:2039:1

42:14 44:7 48:18

abffity8l:7

adequatesO:23

60:2361:1068:5

48:750:3,16

48:1949:750:12

able7:9 11:1 50:19  

76:22 80:18     

70:20 83:4 86:8   

51:10 52:10 54:19  66:13 88:13 

96:5

59:24

82:10 

86:14 adjusted 32:10 71:1 agent 62:3

62:16 64:1 80:14

archaic 96:7

89:9 93:21      

95:7,10      

aggravate 50:10

80:15 85:4,12,13

areas 57:21

about7:11 27:15

adjusting95:5

ago 38:14 54:4

70:8  

92:8 97:12 102:22 

argument67:17

36:20 37:20 44:4 

adjustment 94:11

102:24 103:9

answers 91:10

arising 47:21

65:13

70:2 73:11 

Adm 1:4 4:7

15:5

agreement42:4

anthropogenic

Arizona 16:24

75:5,1976:19

admittedlO:10

63:13

17:16

around32:1637:1

80:17 87:16 89:17  30:11 

89:5

Agricultural 42:11 anticipate 32:9    

92:18 95:13 96:4

91:12,1498:5,13 adoptlOl:11   

aheadll:1638:3   

33:1054:464:18  

96:4

104:13

adopted 14:24

al 18:13

72:10 74:19    

aside 78:20

above

55:4

81:23

15:10 48:2 64:22

Albert 13:1

anti-degradation

asked 11:4

60:15

85:24

67:282:2483:15 AleclO3:19

53:4,1954:12,15

71:372:773:19

above-entitled 1:8

102:24

algae5:1328:8

55:2,6,16

73:18

79:22 89:16

105:4

adopting

91:12    

37:3 43:3 46:22

anybody 9:1,16

asking 39:19 51:21

above-referenced

adoption7:22

47:1,4,8 65:3,9

30:22 59:2 88:19

69:4 79:23 97:5

8:13

25:22 41:9,19

68:10 69:23 70:2

96:21 103:22

asserts5:5

absence 76:9

61:10 64:20

70:15,18 103:12

anyone 8:20 9:20

assessment 20:11

absolutely 99:14

adopts 5:15 82:21

103:13

10:3,21 11:4

47:6,11

absorbed 19:17    

89:23      

algall8:6,2129:9

78:19,22 87:13

assigned25:19

20:9

advise58:24

48:5

anything37:23

assistant4:3 13:19

access

104:17

advisement 101:7

Algonquin

6:22

53:23

58:11 60:15 associated 75:24

accounting 22:24

advisory 43:9

Ailsa 2:6 4:19

86:8 91:4 94:4

76:15

accurate 16:9 20:11

advocacy 42:22

allow 10:14 15:2

97:4

104:23

Association 7:3

25:11 56:10

affected6:1322:2

32:2035:341:8

anytime46:23

12:21 17:13 18:12

acedamia 42:22

102:7

55:9

87:9     

anywhere 46:14   

19:3 20:2,23

achieve

21:7 

22:23

affects 70:18

almost 25:19 42:5

apart 88:2

79:16

achieving 21:24

affirmative 52:10

72:18 92:13 96:5

appeal 63:13

assume 35:16 36:13

acres 102:12

affordable 49:18

alone 20:10

appealed 67:1

56:2

92:3

across 41:6,20

51:17 85:20

Along 98:9

appears 53:7

assurance 58:10

44:16 46:11

aforesaid 106:11

already 55:13 70:17 applicabffity36:8

assure 11:20 87:6

Act7:16,18 8:24

after4:228:1 10:13

77:596:14101:12 applicable39:13,14

87:23

15:8

11:844:1278:16

101:24

39:1555:2370:1

attainment93:14

action33:15     

86:11 

104:5,5

alternative6:5    

94:14       

attempt77:8

activities 42:3    

again 10:21 16:14  alternatives 

73:19  

applicant 34:12   

attend 7:9

actual33:9 

91:14   

36:452:865:8  

although9l:9    

35:1036:14 

64:11 attention7l:12

95:11        

68:3

69:11,12   

always 10:5 46:5  

applicants 

34:5,20

attorney 

4:2 12:7

actually 101:12

75:8 76:17 77:3

68:8 94:1 96:6

application 36:5

attorneys 12:4,16

add 22:23 53:23

87:22

amended 37:8

62:23

audience 78:19

65:2 70:13 77:8

against87:693:1

amends 14:20

applied 24:14 89:22

103:23 104:13

81:7 95:18 100:5 

agencies 7:3 12:22

American 17:12

applies 61:24

augmented 21:6

102:3        

20:23 42:21 

79:17

18:1119:220:1

applys:15,206:8

Augustl:1,13 8:19

added

7:5

23:18

agency 3:2 4:24

5:4

ammonia 97:18

57:5 58:8 61:13

authority 67:14

81:18 101:20

5:10,146:9,14,17 amount24:14

68:23 94:1996:15

authorize69:12

adding94:21     

7:12 13:20,21

57:1075:2181:17

96:16

authorized55:13

101:23       

14:1,15 15:1,3,16 amounts 17:21    

appreciate4:13   

available8:7,17

addition26:20    

26:1 28:1931:15 anaerobic2l:13   

51:2052:13,16   

17:1419:520:5

49:10 74:3 80:10  

31:1932:1835:12 analysis2O:13    

approach34:1    

22:623:4,15

80:22 81:11,12,16  

35:14 36:1 37:7   

54:15

36:17 66:6,6    

31:20 42:8 44:18

94:21        

46:19 47:3,7,13  analyze42:7 48:13 appropriate 9:21   

45:18 49:17 50:10

additional2l:12   

48:4 52:15,21,24  analyzed 44:19    

55:22

79:12     

50:14 53:23 

56:12

22:2123:1931:14  53:2454:1758:14 analyzingl0l:5  

approval34:14   

59:2268:1471:1

34:14 41:1 

44:3   

62:12 64:9,11,22 Anand2:64:19   

83:20 87:19     

83:22 

84:18 85:1

50:20 52:15 56:20  68:12,19 69:7   

animal 19:17    

approved 41:14,19  

85:8,20,21

62:6,13 63:22

72:11,18,22 74:10 annual 7:14

approximately 7:13

availed 71:20

75:19

76:11,24   

77:679:15,19   

another28:1032:6  

24:10,11 43:7,12 Avenue2:93:3

77:1 86:22 89:10  

84:1 87:5,18     

36:17 

66:11,23  

April 67:2     

average 5:20,22

address 15:3 50:1   

90:23 

91:14 

95:24

72:2 

94:22 96:13 aquatic 6:6 17:5,12  

21:8,24 

23:13

54:1868:1487:4  

96:20        

98:999:16     

18:1719:1320:12  24:727:1,5,15

88:7

Agency’s9:15

anoxic2l:13

26:3,4 28:9 42:12

28:18 92:11 93:6

________________

________________

Page 108

93:798:2    

believed28:3 88:13 

booms 103:12    

cell4:12      

Club 13:4

averages 92:6    

believes 15:1     

both 17:11 27:16  

Center 2:3,17 13:2 code 

1:5

4:7

15:5

avoid 84:23     

below 28:17 

55:19

34:20 44:20     

13:3         

74:6

aware 64:23 

71:2

103:11

bottle 37:1      

central 47:9     

collected 45:18

71:19 73:21 92:18 belt4O:13     

bound 19:22    

certain 7:21 

26:15

collective 87:17

103:17      

benefit8l:24 82:13 Box2:93:3     

39:12 52:17 

54:2 column 18:11 19:19

away 70:23 71:23   

85:22      

boy 75:4       

60:7 101:14    

combined 23:3

A.D1:13

106:18   

benthic 19:18    

break78:1579:7  

certainly67:13   

come34:17 36:10

a.ml:14,14 104:9  besides 9:19 102:10 breakdown 76:5,12  

74:19 84:5 90:1   

37:9 39:16 41:8

_______________

best36:640:16   

briefl7:231:13,13 Chain46:5 68:6    

45:7 46:17 63:2

B

84:24 85:8,13    

77:14       

challenging3s:10   

63:23 71:3 72:5

back4:9 13:14    

93:21 96:10    

bring34:535:11,24 Chamber72:2    

74:19 91:21 93:24

37:21 57:3 64:3  

better 4:11 39:1    

99:6,7       

Champaign 2:14  

comes 

55:6

62:9

71:1580:797:16  

44:555:757:1,2 brings55:21     

71:21        

80:1982:23

98:5 104:4      

86:10 90:8 91:15 broader 86:19   

chance 9:24 31:11  comfortable 

57:4

background4:21   

92:1 

93:13,14   

brought26:14   

change 52:4 94:21   

59:1 84:15

102:24       

101:5       

brush93:1     

changed4l:7   

comingll:1868:6

bad47:1      

between 19:22 66:9 build 11:5 53:11   

changes 15:10     

84:24

ballpark38:10    

93:5       

building 1:11 23:15  26:1243:18 76:10 commence 1:13

barely 55:10    

beyond 22:19 55:16  23:17 26:18    

changing 63:20   

commencing 1:14

based 24:2 29:16  

bias 11:7       

bulk 60:12     

characteristics

comment 10:3 64:4

49:7,16 

50:12   

big 42:23 85:11   

burden 50:4 56:7   

24:15 75:22     

69:1 83:18 87:22

58:6 62:8 64:4   

Bilandic 1:11     

burdens 52:17   

check 104:18     

88:20

69:9 81:14 84:17 billion 

75:5      

56:20      

chemical 21:7 22:6 comments 9:1,15

86:19       

biological 17:19,22 bureau 13:24     

23:8,11,16,21,22   

10:5 62:10 68:3

basic 14:21 65:24   

20:16 21:6,6 22:5 business 66:12    

23:23 24:1,9,9,13 Commerce 7:19

basically 56:10    

22:7,16,23 

44:16  

106:5        

74:2 75:20 80:10 commercial 17:17

basin 6:22 82:9    

53:12 74:3,15,22              

80:18,22 81:7,11  commissioned 21:1

basis 7:14 17:6    

80:11,21 81:5,12      

C

81:15,18     

commitment 86:10

21:10 27:5 43:12  

81:19       

c2:1 3:1 94:10,13  chemicals26:5   

committee43:1

46:23 48:13 51:18 biologists 

47:7   

calculations 98:13   

73:23       

connnon56:4

62:2 

64:8 85:15  bit 57:1 66:5 

77:4  

ca1146:16 88:24   

Chicago 1:12 2:4  

communicate 99:14

become 22:17     

96:7         

89:4 90:24 104:20  2:19 8:18 106:6  communication

becomes 44:24   

bizarre 

58:5

called 36:24 90:22  chloride 24:8 103:4  

66:9

before 1:1,9 5:2   

blanket 62:22    

calls 43:11     

chlorophyll 65:3,9  communities 48:20

16:1025:1235:11 blind55:11     

came32:1777:24  chlorophylls43:15  

71:672:976:1

42:16 44:12 

75:9 

blips 

92:5 

93:1    

capabilities 26:19  choice 22:17 74:1  

community 

49:7

86:11 106:17   

Bloomingdale6:19  

85:23       

choose8:5      

50:1272:3 80:13

begin3l:23

Board 1:1 2:2,6,6,8

capacit’y24:8

chooses7:23

Company26:1

behalf

12:20 13:2   

2:11,13,15,17,20 

capital

22:11 23:10 chore 

55:1

compatible

22:12

behaviorl9:12

4:4,15,16,175:9

56:1775:676:24

chosen23:9

101:1

behind 14:9 17:5    

5:15

7:18 8:3,14   

80:22 100:24   

circumstance 34:21 complete 10:13

26:14 49:20 

66:4

9:11 11:4,9,12

carbon 17:18

citation 36:23 37:8

11:5 20:11

67:8         

14:21,2415:3   

carefulll:22     

37:12,16     

completed78:2

being

8:23 19:2    

16:10,13 25:13,16 

carried 91:19 92:12 cite 36:19 62:12

completing 83:5

20:21 33:10 44:21  30:24 31:3 48:2  

carry49:22    

cites 55:22     

complex 19:14

45:18 50:19 51:4   

68:21 69:8 70:19 carrying4l:23   

citizen36:10,16   

complexities 84:10

51:9 52:1 58:9    

70:24 79:3 82:24 Carton 12:20    

City 6:19,20,21,23  compliance 29:3

60:15 78:4 79:8   

83:7 85:7 87:15  case 10:16 34:22   

7:1 38:16 106:6   

55:22 56:2 58:16

83:5 

86:16 89:9   

89:22 101:11     

35:8,13 49:1 54:7 clarification 58:14  

61:5,11 93:12,20

90:7100:2,3   

Board’s7:168:18  

57:23 

66:5

68:11   

99:10        

94:11 

95:5

103:15       

10:7 

11:6 63:14   

68:16 69:15 74:8 clarify 28:23 34:4  complies 63:8

belief 87:24      

70:21 95:9 104:16 cases 34:10 36:13   

94:13       

compliment 29:18

believe 25:14 40:10 

Bob

12:12 14:11    

53:5,13 61:22   

clarifying 94:6    

65:7

41:1847:951:4

73:483:22

81:11

classic72:15

comply76:2

55:14 60:10 62:4 bodies 17:15 18:16 causative 62:3    

clear48:10 58:22  

complying56:13

64:1567:10,11,16  19:6,1020:945:8 cause43:267:19   

85:1996:1997:1 compounds38:6

68:10 72:4,14

82:12 101:14

105:4 106:9

97:20

comprehensive

73:22 76:1 77:23 body 28:2,8,21 

45:5

causing

55:14 61:17 clearer 84:14 96:22  

20:14

78:11 80:3 98:20  

53:5 82:8 102:10  

64:12      

close 98:23     

comprised 42:21

99:24 102:7    

bog 95:16      

ceiling 92:3     

closing 10:15    

concentration 24:3

Page 109

27:18 28:6 38:7

73:9,15 91:13

concentrations 5:12

18:6,15 21:9 22:9

43:19

concept

55:8

86:21

concepts

57:12

84:13

concern

73:17

conclude

62:2

63:10

concluded

63:7

concludes

29:2 

30:19

conclusion 60:19

Concurrent 18:19

condition

18:22

47:8 55:18

conditions

15:5

19:10 29:7 43:24

47:15 67:19

103:12

conduct

7:20,23 8:5

8:12 9:3 11:14

conducted

20:22

conducting 8:6

conference

43:11

104:9

confidential

72:20

configurations

22:13

conifict 88:10

confused 89:18

consider

36:17 84:2

98:1

consideration 11:23

84:2

considered

18:24

44:7

consist 17:1

consistent 15:6

21:10 51:18

consistently 93:6,8

consists 23:21

constantly 49:5

78:4

constructing 77:12

construction 26:23

56:17

74:6 

75:6

77:19

consulting 74:13

contact 46:18

103:16

contained 30:1

87:11 94:10

containment 23:23

contains 27:14

contaminants 69:13

contemplated 32:11

60:3

contend 63:15

continual

20:7

continue 52:18 87:9

90:7

continued 3:1 70:22

continuous 43:14

contrary 72:19

contributaries

69:19

contribute

63:18

69:13

control 1:1 2:2,8,13

2:17 4:3 28:16,17

34:16 61:3 62:11

62:13 68:21 69:8

70:19 77:13,21

82:2,15 85:8

102:5

controls 53:12

convinced

33:23

cooling

73:7,13

cooperated

43:14

cooperative

42:4

copy 8:19 9:17

16:9

25:12 90:18

104:15

corn 40:13

correct3l:18

39:6

39:9 44:19 46:22

47:23 52:22 61:13

66:20 74:3 77:2

83:1,3 87:12 93:9

106:9

correctly

46:20

70:14

corrosion

73:9

cost2l:2 23:1,14

24:9 60:8 75:1,2

75:24 77:4

costs

21:24 22:10

22:11 23:2 24:1

24:19 26:20 75:6

76:11,15,24 77:2

77:9 80:23

Council 42: 10

counsel 13:19

counter

68:20 69:8

counterparts92:17

country 41:6 48:17

County

106:2,6,15

couple

12:16 42:6

43:10 44:9,10

coupled

86:10

course 78:3

court 10:24 104:6

106:5

cover 101:23

covered

27:17

58:20 75:13 94:9

100:21

covering 81:9

Coyne 6:23

create

50:11

Creek

6:22

criteria 39:9,15,2 1

40:4 41:3 46:13

66:4,14 102:11

critical

44:7 52:1

88:8

cross 95:6

cross-questioning

10:12

crusp 65:14

crux 49:1

CSR 1:9 106:4,14

culminated 67:6

curious 38:4

current

53:23 77:10

83:4

currently 6:10

47:5

49:11 50:14 56:11

76:8 77:11,18

81:23 84:19 89:19

cycled 19:22

cycling

20:7 42:13

D48:18

daily 62:1

data 33:13 38:13,17

42:7,8 44:15,18

44:18 45:18 46:3

46: 12,14,15,15, 18

47:17 88:11

date

41:22 83:15

104:11 105:5

dated 8:11 88:3

dates 83:21,23

day 1:12 6:1 23:13

24:5 27:2,10,12

72:24 73:13,15

78:9,12 90:2,5

97:7,8,14,22,23

98 :2,4, 11,18, 19

99:5,18 100:9

106: 17

days 8:1,8

42:6

DCEO

7:23 8:12,14

deadline 41:12,13

deal

33:3 85:17

dealing 65:8 96:6

dealt 69:16

decide

37:4 64:5

decision 9:2 11:6

32:20,21 33:15,16

33:24 35:17 36:11

49:13 50:5,17

63:14,14 87:17

decisions

52:1 63:1

deemed 61:4

defend 33:22,24

Defer 31:3

definition 90:3

95:21,24

defmitions 94:11

95:4

definitive 52:10

definitively 33:14

50:16 62:2 63:17

degree 16:23 26:7

delay

79:22

demonstrate 6:3

32:15 33:14 34:24

35:24 37:11 86:12

demonstrated

28:7

28:14 32:5

demonstrates

33:7

34:12

demonstration

32:12 33:19 34:6

36:2 1

Dennis 38:14,15

Department 7:19

depending 28:1

40:1 76:7 77:5

depends 97:19

deregulate 70:21

derive 49:16

derived 8 1:24

describe

26:11 40:7

40:23 41:22

deserves 11:23 15:9

design 23:13

24:7

27:1 50:20 74:10

74:12 76:18 80:15

81:498:1 100:18

designed 5:22 22:2 1

23:12 26:22 46:2 1

47:20 76:8 81:6

82:20

designing 74:16

designs 60:9

desire

10:20 78:20

desired 81:12

deteriorate 55:10

55:18

deterioration

48:19

determination 26:3

35:15 53:1 67:22

68:21 69:9

determine 39:11

48:4 63:3 64:12

74:7

determined 27:12

47:3 60:9

detrimental

5:13

49:6 70:17

develop 41:1 45:6,9

65:24

developed 42:17

56:9

64:9

developing

5:5 65:2

66:3,8 73:22

development 2

5:22

26:2 43:10 

60:6

72:17 83:19 87:3

deviate 34:1 54:6

dictate

29:13

difference 93:5

different 33:15

34:11

35:6

37:2

39:22 45:4 47:10

64:1 70:9 102:17

diligently 51:21

52:9

direct 73:24

direction 64:7

directly 82:12,17

87:23

director 88:4

discharge 27:8

34:23 48: 14,23

49:10,19 51:12

63:12 64:12 67:9

69:13,16 73:14

82:17 98:22

discharged 82:12

discharger 29:5

dischargers 72:13

72:23 82:7

discharges 5:21

26:10,15 70:21

82:1 94:8

discharging 94:19

97:8 98:11

discuss 31:12

104:10

discussion 13:12

104:2

discussions 81:15

84:4

disrupting 63:21

dissolved

19:20

43:3,15 44:8,15

distance

72:2

district

7:2 14:7

16:22 38:16

diurnal 43:18 44:3

44:5

divides 39:21

division 12:9 13:23

14:13

DMRs 93:23

document 15:20,22

16:1,5

24:22 25:1

25:4,8 39:9

documents 9:14

30:5 47:10

Dodds 18:12

doing 32:9

33:12

36:2 44:2 51:17

56:23,24 64:2

74:13 93:19 94:21

95:17 106:5

domestic

5:23 97:12

________________

Page 110

100:4       

27:23 28:8,12,24  

42:4,6,8 43:13   

example55:5 73:16 

express 11:6

dominated 97:14

29:3,11,14,15,16

44:2 86:22 87:11

82:5

extend 33:16

done 41:22 81:18

32:7,8 47:18,20

88:4

examples 22:3

extended

91:17

89:6,8,13      

48:11 53:1 

54:6

equality 45:9

excellent 88:21   

extends 100:23

doubt 80:15     

59:6 66:17

67:9  

equates 98:20,21  

excess 68:15 71:7  

extensive46:10

Douglas 12:20

69:2175:1393:3 

equipment23:11,16

98:4

73:7 74:16

down 7:10 31:12

effluents 19:11 22:2

23:21 26:21 27:15

excessive 18:21   

extensively22:18

42:6 43:20 53:14  

26:6 27:19     

59:23 81:20    

48:5       

extent 34:14 43:21

55:10,18 71:5   

effort44:14 65:23  equipped 39:1    

excuse 5:22      

53:22 60:9 90:2

72:2 74:20 95:17  

80:20 86:9    

equivalent 73:14  

exempt 

56:1

extra 77:4

95:24 99:6,8

ego 40:5

97:23

exhausted 18:2,10

extreme

34:15

103:8       

eight43:16 77:24  

era 67:16 71:16   

exhibit 30:5,6,12,13 extremely 53:7,8

downside 86:6   

either 27:23 34:24  

escape 33:3,13     

38:18 88:17 89:2 

________________

downstream 82:9

35:2,3,8,10 42:8

especially 29:24

89:5 90:23,24

82:13        

49:3 55:19 61:11

essentiallyss:14

91:1,2

f69:2294:9,10,14

draft

34:18 39:9,14  

71:13 77:19     

64:2 

84:24

exist47:5,15

95:21

41:3 62:10 94:17

elements 17:18

establish 48:22 50:6 existed 44:16

faced 76:2

drinking 38:6,9

elevated48:18

93:15      

existence 49:18

facifities 6:12 21:5

driving 49:19

88:12

establishing 84:24

existing 21:4,11

21:12 22:20 24:17

drop78:2

eligible62:7

85:7

22:12,2223:15   

26:1727:1,7,17

dry 58:11

eliminated 68:2

estimate 23:2,5

24:4 27:20

42:7   

28:23 50:18 60:13

Duly 88:22

Elmhurst38:16,16

75:1,2        

44:15 48:22 49:6  

72:15,21 74:16

Dundee 6:24

emphasis 60:4

estimated

22:3    

50:11,23 53:4,21   

75:23 

76:6,15,16

DuPage 106:2,6,15

employed 25:18

estimates 75:12

54:8,13,17,21

76:21,22,23

77:9

during 18:9 33:19

employment 25:24

et 18:13

55:12,24 56:15

77:11,20,20 78:2

44:6 56:8

enacts 85:7

Ettinger 12:24

13:1  

57:8 58:9 61:9,23  

78:3,6,7,8,10

encountering 49:5

13:1 78:21,24    

67:8,19 69:3,21   

81:10,16 85:24

end4l:11 49:15

79:2 88:20,23

70:473:1 75:14

86:11,1692:16,21

e2:1,1,153:1,194:9  51:1274:24    

89:6,12,15      

76:2277:2087:5  

93:2294:19

eachlO:24 17:14  

ended98:13    

eutrophicl9:9    

88:10 102:5     

100:15

41:8,9

enforcement 93:4

eutrophication

exists

49:11     

facility

28:19 50:9

earlierl5:1768:3   

93:15        

18:22       

expand63:24    

51:1653:9,10,11

91:22 98:9 104:13 

engineer 80:15

evaluate 62:17

expanded 5:20 6:11

56:15 61:9,16,24

early5:9 72:17 96:8 engineering74:13  evaluated58:23   

23:927:7 53:6,18  

62:11 69:15 72:16

Earth 17:11     

engineers 74:10,12 

evaluating

71:16   

94:8        

76:3,8 100:17

easily 53:11      

76:18 81:4    

evaluation 54:13  

expanding 26:24  

fact 27:21 38:5

East 2:9

3:3 6:24  

enhance 85:22

even

32:22 34:15   

43:6 50:18 54:14  

41:17 50:5 57:2

Eastern 26:8    

enough 28:1 34:24

65:21

68:1,4     

56:11 57:7 60:24  

65:5

68:12 

85:6

eco39:22,23,24    

50:13 57:24 58:2  

70:16 81:5 82:10  

62:15 69:5,6   

factor

28:5,11 32:6

40:1,3,3,3,6,10,13  58:463:1866:14  

91:1693:1395:15 77:12,2097:10   

32:749:1554:22

40:17,18,19 45:11  67:23 100:10   

events67:19     

100:15,16      

54:23 66:13

45:12,12

55:2

ensure 63:11

eventually 65:7

expansion

26:18  

fairly 66:8 72:20

66:13      

entail22:11      

66:23        

50:21 60:661:9   

79:4100:11

ecology 26:10    

entertain 84:13   

ever 88:11       

74:17      

fall

82:14 102:11

economic

7:19,20  

entire 57:14    

every 35:15

50:5  

expansions 72:20  

far 9:7 43:24 44:8

7:24 8:2,12,16   

entirely 64:1      

51:23 56:23     

77:10 86:4     

76:20

67:16

entities 7:5

everybody 7:8

expect 46:8 48:1

fashion

11:24

economics 20:19

entitled 55:15

52:11 66:12 100:6  

53:17

feasibifity 20:19

50:19 

60:8

environment

6:6

everybody’s 69:18

expectation 91:18

21:2

ecosystems28:4

17:5 19:13 20:12

everyone7:8 11:17

92:12

feasible28:19

effect 34:23

43:2   

20:24 42:13 43:4  

84:15

expectations 52:12

February 88:3

71:14

47:2       

everything 50:17

expects 5:8 91:14

federal4l:12

55:3

effectively

15:3

environmental

3:2

76:13 82:4

expend 86:16

58:2

95:5

effects 26:9 44:13

13:2,3,20 14:1,14

everywhere 49:22

expenditure 50:22

feed 23:24

effluent 1:44:6

15:8 42:21 49:14

86:2        

expenditures 50:14 feel4:1032:1935:4

5:11,14,18,24 6:5

51:18 62:9,18

evidence29:23

experience 73:11

52:10

11:19 14:10,17,22

81:2488:2,16

30:1447:1469:7

92:1793:17

ferric24:8

17:7,18 

21:8,19

environments

evolves 49:20

experiences 76:19

fertilizer 17:17 68:8

22:9,14,2023:7   

18:23 42:15    

exact 36:23 50:16  explain 102:16   

few 15:21 24:22

24:4,6 25:23   

EPA 12:7 25:18   

exactly49:24 51:14 explanation 8:6    

50:24 70:8 84:9

26:13 27:3,13,20  

39:11 41:7,22    

51:22 85:17     

11:13 59:3     

figure77:778:1

________________

________________

Page 111

figures38:1075:15

Frevert3:5 12:8

27:22 28:3 40:8

62:18 87:14

10:17 11:15,18

fjie5:8

13:22 14:232:22

generated24:12

groups42:22

12:1,15,2313:5

filedl6:7,1025:12

33:1,2134:736:3 generation75:19

growing72:10    

13:11,14 15:15

filing 79:19,23 80:3  

39:1 48:6,9 54:19 

generic 34:1

growth 5:14 17:22

25:10 29:22 30:3

filings 9:14      

54:20 61:6 65:19 geographical 45:4   

18:3,7,17,22 28:7  

30:9,15,16,22

final22:824:439:7

70:12 79:21 83:2

Geological 12:11

28:9,1629:943:3

31:4,16,17,18,20

39:11 80:12,19   

83:17 89:16 91:20  14:6,8 16:16 19:3  46:22 47:1,5,8    

37:19,23 38:22

finalize4l:1

94:15 96:2 98:15

19:15

48:5 68:10 69:23

60:18 72:8 78:13

finalized82:23

from5:217:1 8:14

gets63:23

70:2,3,15 72:16

78:18 79:3 88:18

find 47:12 59:23

16:23 18:10

22:3 

getting 101:6    

guaranteed 86:17

88:22 89:4 90:17

76:12

26:8 27:12 34:1

Girard2:11 4:17

guess4O:14 63:13

90:21 91:494:3

fine 39:2 89:3

34:17,20 36:2

34:3 35:19 38:1,2  

72:8 78:5 85:2    

95:17 103:21

finish79:6      

37:10 41:1 43:17  

38:2191:7,894:2  97:12 102:4     

104:4,10 105:1

firm 12:20

47:21 54:6

56:1

give 4:10,20 11:21

guidance 64:9

hearings 64:4

firms 74:13

56:22 59:22 61:4

36:23 43:23 45:1

65:22

held 1:7 8:23 80:1

first2:13 11:18    

62:22 66:10 67:16  58:3,463:1964:7 guide54:8      

106:8

18:241:16,19    

67:18,2370:18   

81:285:11,12,14 guideline54:2,3

Hello4:1

55:1

71:7,1773:17    

90:392:19104:19 guiding84:8    

help 11:548:6

five 86:13 88:8

75:1,4 76:18 77:3 given 37:5 57:19

guys 37:20 60:2   

helpful 84:16

flow 5:22 23:14

78:20 80:7 86:13

58:9 71:12 75:8

C-K 1:5

helps 59:3

24:2 27:1 97:7    

86:19 87:2 88:2   

78:5 84:1     

35:23      

Hem 17:12

19:3,14

98:2 100:18     

88:19 90:2,5   

gives 51:7      

G235:23      

20:2

flows 24:7      

92:16,16 95:8   

gleaned 76:18

________________

hesitate 38:12

fluctuations43:18

96:1998:3103:13 

go9:1711:1613:9

highers:1222:11

focus 51:3 71:13

103:22 104:12

35:2,3 38:3,12

h27:21 62:18,19

23:1 46:13

follow 60:16,20

front9:22 89:20

43:6 44:8 47:10

89:21

102:7    

Bills

6:19

89:7

fulfill 8:23

57:3

59:21 72:15 

habitat45:5

historical 102:15

following24:15

fulfills9:529:4

74:15,21 78:13  

half 73:13     

hold 16:2226:7

78:16

fu1142:5

95:897:16103:24 Hampshire6:18

43:6,1062:20

follow-up 35:21

fully85:5 91:14

goals65:4

hand9:23

10:22   

holders 6:11,15

54:9

function 87:9

goes 36:9

15:20 24:21 28:13 hope42:17 85:12

Food 42:10

functioning 56:16

going 4:20 6:12,15

handed 16:1 25:4

hours 88:6,6

force 82:22

fundamental 57:12

10:17 11:115:20

handle

4:22 44:5

housing

23:16

foregoing 106:8,9

funded 42:11

24:21

33:5,19

handling24:17,18

http 21:23

form 19:16,2020:4

further 18:2 19:7

34:11

36:1437:11 happen 10:16

humidity 43:16

20:10 21:18 42:24

28:17 30:17

37:24  

42:18 

44:11 50:8

happened 66:21

hundreds 102:14

71:1

76:12 82:13 91:5   

52:3,18 

54:14

happening

35:6

hydrologist 12:10

formally79:20

104:23

55:16,1756:19

happens47:2

14:5 16:15

forms 19:22,23 20:6 fuss

95:13

58:8,10,12 59:19

happy 54:19 68:24

hydrology 16:23

20:9,17 92:15

future22:1848:1

59:24 60:2 62:17

85:4 104:20

______________

forth26:1441:8

60:1772:10

62:20,2463:9,10

Harshl2:18,19,19

64:3

101:10

63:2468:10,18

31:1,3,7,19,22

IAWA2O:2321:1

forward34:5 79:5

_________________

75:4 76:12 79:1,5

32:2 38:22,23

38:15 52:15 79:17

85:21 86:688:1

90:2492:4,693:3

39:340:2145:16

80:2

found 104:6

g2:11 4:8 26:15

93:23 96:11 99:7

46:1 53:16 60:18

idea 82:7

Foundation 20:24

89:21 94:8 95:23

99:18 100:10,10

60:20,22 78:21,24 identification 30:7

four42:10,15 56:22

96:1,14,15,16,18

104:8

79:8,11 88:15

identified 15:17

74:20

97:7,9 98:17

good 13:18 15:9

89:1,2,8,9,14,16

identify 9:23 72:9

Fox45:19,19 66:18

102:7

66:3,9 74:21

90:18,20 91:3,5,6

72:16 102:10

67:9,14,24 68:13 

gallon 23:13 24:5

govern 10:8

Harsh’s 89:8

identifying 40:20

68:16,17,23 69:16

27:10 73:15 97:7

government42:21

haul 93:2      

IEPA 12:14 45:10

69:17

98:12

grab9:18

having37:741:11

87:13

frame 41:10 83:5

gallons 27:2 61:1

Grand 2:9

3:3

head 38:13

1111:44:715:5

83:11

73:13 78:9,12

great3l:12 82:7,15 heads88:7

Illinois 1:1,122:2,4

Francoeur 18:13

97:13,23 98:2,4

greater46:5 61:1

Health 17:13 18:12

2:8,10,13,14,17

Frankfort6:24

98:11 100:9

72:23 78:8,11    

19:220:1      

2:19 3:2,44:3 7:3

frankly 71:9 95:12

Gartner 12:20

100:19 102:12

hear 80:7

12:7,21 13:20

96:3       

ge196:4       

103:8,23     

heard4:237:1    

14:1,7,1415:7

free 4:10

general 41:23 44:23 group 35:9,10,24

hearing 1:8,10 2:5

16:16,19,22 18:16

fresh 18:23 96:5

65:21 101:21

42:20,2043:5,5,7

4:1,47:7,10,15

20:22 21:3,5

freshwater 28:4

generally 17:20

43:9 45:19 62:9

8:8,22 9:12 10:8

25:18 26:8 39:11

Page 112

39:16,23 40:18,24

41:12,16,22 42:4

42:6,8,19 43:13

44:2 45:8 47:4

48:15,16 49:23

65:10 66:16 79:16

79:18 82:17,21

83:12 85:10,16

86:22 87:11,20

88:4,13 96:9

106: 1,7,15

inunediate 14:4

60:6

imminent 65:14

impact 7:20,24 8:2

8:12,16 49:6,9

71:11,17 80:13

86:12

impacted 7:13

72:13

impetus 84:6

implement 43:14

implemented 44:11

51:4

implied 89:18

imply 90:12

implying 99:2 1

important 33:2

42:18 57:14 68:17

84:7 86:8 99:12

impose 28:19

52:21

70:23 84:21

imposed

28:12 32:9

improve 90:11

improvement

67:20

82:11

improvements

23:10 56:17 76:24

90:13

inadequate

28:15

57:11

incidences 47:12

include 103:17

includes 29:8

including 17:4

20:22 70:18

incorporate 2 1:13

21:21 50:19

incorporated 56:20

58:21 60:8

incorporates20:15

incorporation 20:5

incorrect 36:12

increase21:14 50:8

53:6 75:2 1

increased 24:14,18

increasing 51:1

88:11 100:18

incremental 50:7

incrementally

91:15

indeed 33:11

92:21

93:9

indexes 88:13

Indiana 21:16

indicate 87:19

indicated 68:4

indicating 8:15,20

9:4,9 32:4

indication 58:22

individual 26:4

56:6 61:16

80:16

industrial 26:5

60:13 61:2 72:12

72:15,23 85:18,23

86:15

99:21

industries

72:19

73:7,18

industrious 97:15

industry

73:17,21

85:1 96:18 103:15

103: 16

inferring 74:1

information 10:8

34:6,20 35:11

36:1,6,11 38:4

43:18 63:6 64:5

64:17 66:10 68:20

72:11,18 76:17

infrastructures

50:23

inorganic 19:16,23

20:8

input 90:8

inputs

17:16

insight 81:2

insignificant 33:8

inspections 93:10

install 23:20 59:16

59:18 80:20 84:21

installed 59:23

80:22

installs 80:10

instances

54:5

instant 23:6

instead 41:11

instructions 95:10

intend

63:19,19

intended 11:4 28:22

35:3 39:4

intent

14:21 50:15

58:19 60:23 61:10

61:21 90:5 103:1

intention 61:7

intentionally51:9

interest 43:6

52:6

interesting 38:17

interim

1:4 4:6 5:14

11:19 15:2 17:3

39:4 46:2 1 50:2,3

50:6

52:11,21

53:1 56:8 57:3,5

59:6 60:1 62:23

63:21 65:21 74:2

76:2 78:9 80:9

82:2,20 84:3,13

84:14,17 

85:8,15

86:3,18,21 87:8

87:14,17,20 90:6

internal 64:10

88:10

international 51:2

interpret

56:6

87:7

interpretation

14:16

interviewed

74:12

interviewing 76:18

introduce 11:9 12:3

12:4 13:7

invest 101:3

investigations

20:18

investing 65:23

investment 100:24

involved 12:16

67:11 103:15

irrespective54:24

95:2

issue

11:23 42:5

56:11 57:15 58:22

63:9 73:17 85:16

86:14

issuing 84:11

itching 67:10

.1

2:20 29:2 55:21

60:24 89:2 1 102:8

James 2:3,17

JCAR 37:10

job 66:3

93:20

10 1:5

John 1:10 2:5 4:2

Johnson 2:15 4:15

11:9,12 12:2

31:24 32:3 33:17

59:11 104:23,24

John’s

11:13

joined 4:14

Joliet 6:21

judgment 36:7

June 8:11

just

5:2

9:23 10:22

16:17 32:3,20

34:4 35:21 38:10

38:17 40:19 46:4

55:10 56:21 58:13

59:9 69:18 70:13

76:6 78:23 79:5

83:18 88:9 89:12

90: 13,16,21,24

92:11 94:6 95:16

95:18 97:5 98:7

99:18 100:7

101:18,20 102:3

103:5

justification 84:18

k4:8 29:10 89:20

101:10,19 102:8

keep 58:11

72:19

93:20 101:22

103: 10

Kentucky 21:17

kepercranutum

36:24

kind 32:19 35:17

42:22 47:21 51:7

66:7 76:7 78:1

84:11 

95:6

knew

51:1 66:12

Knittle 1:10 2:5 4:1

4:2 12:1,15,23

13:5,11,14 15:15

29:22 30:3,9,15

30:16,22 31:4,18

37:19,23 38:22

60:18 78:13,18

79:3 88:18,22

89:4 90:17,21

91:494:3 103:21

104:4 105:1

know 4:23 7:6

10:22 37:8 38:8

46:10,11 48:16

49:13,15,17 51:2

52:3,4 64:19 

65:8

65:20,21 71:5,21

72:22 77:9 79:12

81:9 82:4 86:8

87:16,16,22 90:1

92:10 95:9 97:6

97:11 99:20

100:17,19 101:5

knowing 87:7

knowledge 35:4

40:16 86:14,20

96:11

known 18:22

L 1:9 106:4,14

laboratory 26:2

lake 6:18 70:1,16

71:22 72:4 82:17

82:18 94:20

101: 15,16,24

102:5,11,18,19,23

103:2,6

Lakemore 6:23

lakes 46:5 68:7

70:22 71:12 82:7

82:15 102:6,14

103:8

land 43:24

language 14:17

35:21 36:1 55:22

58:15 61:15 69:20

70:9,10,21 89:20

90:11 94:7 95:16

96:7,12 97:1,17

97:20 98:7 99:11

99:24 100:14

lapse

35:17

large 42:20 50:9

84:17 86:4 92:5

largely 74:9

larger 49:10 81:20

LaSalle 1:11

last3l:10 88:9

late 31:11

later 7:11 10:5,18

14:3 36:24 59:1

60:9 75:18

latitude 51:8

law 12:19

13:2,3

57:15 88:2,16

lawyer 90:15

lay

56:5

lead 50:18

leadership 58:3

league

79:18 80:6,8

learn 86:18

learning 66:10

least 8:7

73:2 1

81:11 83:16

leave 73:3

left 12:8 13:22

length 31:12 95:18

less 19:6 35:1 59:18

78:9 81:18 88:14

98:3

let

10:22 38:3 83:18

85:11

letter 8:11 79:24

88:3,16,21 90:19

91:2

let’s

52:6

78:13

103:1,24

level 44:23

49:4,4

56:13 57:6 68:9

85:9 102:24

103:11

levels 5:13 18:19

20:21 44:8 46:8

47:4 81:22 91:15

lieu 59:6

life 17:11 20:6

lifted 69:10

like 11:10 31:1,1,9

36:7 43:20 59:12

60:20 65:6 66:15

69:3 72:19 73:12

77:16 78:6,23

Page 113

81:7 88:15,20

locations 18:8

47:4   

13:23 

14:12

mentioned3l:16

momentarilys:1

92:7,1497:21

logic 100:8 101:1

Manhattan6:21

45:283:9103:14

moments 15:21

103:4      

longll:1532:17  

many2l:1622:22 mentioninglO2:2   

24:23

likely29:11

37:1 38:14 66:11

33:1054:5 71:22

MessinalO3:19

money34:13 50:22

Likewise27:6

92:493:2 102:24

75:12,1277:11,18

met27:18 52:18    

52:3 57:1059:21

limit5:11,196:8,13 long-term92:6    

82:6,688:12    

63:12        

67:1568:1386:16

27:3,8,2328:6,12 look8:4,219:18   

103:9       

method22:8,10,17  

101:2,4

28:20 32:8,8 36:2

15:2024:2236:7

mark66:4

23:3,8 32:17

monitoring43:15

37:18 49:18 53:14

42:12 43:2 53:4

marked 30:5

37:15 53:13

43:20 44:3 46:11

62:7,21 63:4,8,18

54:23 73:19 92:7

mass 85:18

methods

22:4    

Montano26:1

63:19 64:6 93:13

96:21 97:16 98:7

Master26:7

Michael 1:10

monthlys:1921:7

98:1899:18

99:11

materiall9:18

Michigan2l:17

27:528:1843:12

limitation 29:1

looking 22:18 42:22 matter 1:3,84:6

82:17,18 92:19

92:11 93:6,7

47:20 48:14 53:2

68:17 69:17,20

19:17 68:12

101:15,16 102:11

months44:6 59:22

66:17,18,22,24

71:17 73:23 85:13 maximum 62:1

102:18,19,23

more 6:1 20:14

67:9 68:8,22

92:11 95:7

96:24 

may 5:12 22:3,7,16

103:3

24:12 33:12 34:15

69:10,21,22 84:19

100:8

24:1628:6,19

micrograml03:2

35:137:1552:10

86:21 93:3

looks44:14 78:23

29:13 34:17 35:23 micrograms 102:19

52:21 53:1,11

limitations48:23  

1ot64:3,3,484:9    

44:1349:6,854:9 mid96:7      

56:957:1458:4

52:2284:22    

101:1        

61:2267:5,18   

Midwest5l:592:18  59:16,2061:2

limited28:1051:15 low20:2055:12,12  

70:1571:7,10   

Midwestern2l:16  

65:14,1571:22

58:15 79:4

99:18 103:5

72:5,13 74:19

might 18:7 19:8

75:20 77:4 80:16

limiting 6:3 17:23

lower 22:8 28:20

78:5 79:10 81:8

37:14,18,19 59:20

84:14 86:14 90:3

17:2418:2,7,24

92:7,2393:24

81:1082:10,12,13

65:13,1475:22

97:898:299:5

28:5 32:5,16 37:4

94:1

86:1 93:1

76:8 84:16 101:11

100:8 102:18

44:21,2445:11

low-flowl8:9

maybe48:657:13

103:17

morningl3:18

67:24 8 1:23 82:6

Lulias 1:9 106:4,14

57:2 1 65:12 67:21 miles 70:23 71:7,23

Mosher 3:6 12:12

95:22 96:6,9

lunch79:6

92:896:799:9

milligram5:196:7

14:12,15 24:21

limits6:529:14,15

102:3,15

17:8 21:18 24:6

25:2,3,6,9,14,17

29:16 88:12 92:20

McDonnell 18:4

28:14,18 34:16

25:17 29:20 30:6

line 58:23 60:21

machine 106:7

McHenry 6:20

66:18 68:22 91:12

30:13 32:3,13

84:8        

made33:1937:11  mean56:557:13   

91:1792:2,20,22  

36:19,2237:13

lines98:9       

38:541:652:1   

63:5

80:21 84:6   

92:23 93:2 98:21

38:11,2440:12

list7:5,109:9,10,13

67:2268:1471:16

92:1396:2397:1

103:7

41:4,2145:13,17

47:9,24 52:18

77:8 96:14

means 60:24 61:11

milligrams 21:9

46:2 52:20

65:1

65:16 72:12,22

maintain 52:2

69:24 81:20 106:7

22:1 27:4,1640:4

65:12,1770:5

76:14 78:3 94:22

maintained73:10

measurable48:19

53:15 91:16 93:6

73:5 74:11 75:10

104:14,17     

maintenance 22:10

60:14 67:20 86:12

93:8 98:20,23

76:4 77:15 81:1

liter5:196:7 17:8

24:19 75:7

measurably93:24

102:18

81:14 82:16 83:8

21:9,1822:124:6 major5l:256:17

measure36:20

niillion23:1324:4

102:21 103:14

27:4,1628:14,18

86:18 100:20

measured 94:1

27:2,1061:1

Mosher’s91:1

34:16 40:5 66:19

101:6

measurement 65:4

68:15 73:13,15

most 18:23 20:5

68:2291:12,16,17 majorityl6:18    

92:3         

75:678:8,1297:7  21:4,1126:21

92:2,20,22,23    

86:15      

mechanism7l:20

97:13,23

98:2,3   

34:10 36:13 48:17

93:2,7,8 98:12,20 make8:3,6 9:24

meet2l:2 22:14

98:11,12 100:9

68:17 92:1,20

102:19,20 103:7

10:15 11:10 13:6

24:5 29:5 41:12

mind32:23 57:13

93:22 94:1

literature

45:3    

13:16 32:20 33:15

41:13

57:7 74:2   

72:6 101:22    

motion 96:4

little 4:20

40:20    

34:6 35:17 36:6   

80:12,18 95:2,3  

minded 64:16

motivation

34:10

54:4 56:21 57:1   

41:17 47:7 48:23 meeting 79:19,24  mine 38:3      

move 85:21

58:5 66:4

67:10   

49:13 

50:5

51:7   

80:1,2,5

minimal 22:9    

moving 5:2 86:6

70:9 75:18 77:4

52:2,9,24 53:18

meetings43:7,11  

minimum 55:19   

Mt 71:24

81:2 96:7

57:9 

58:10,23

meets 55:23

Minnesota 21:20

much

45:3 

57:19

Liu2:64:19 36:18

63:1

78:4 83:21  

Melas2:20 4:17   

Minooka 6:20     

64:18 84:8 92:1

94:4,5 98:8 101:8

84:14 88:15 96:21 member 2:6,6,11,15 miscellaneous-type

97:14 105:2

103:20       

99:9103:1     

2:204:16,16,17   

99:23      

multiple7O:17

load 5:24 52:6,7

makes 58:7

11:9,12 12:2

missed 66:4

municipal 5:23

55:14 62:1     

making 32:11 35:14  38:15      

misunderstand    

20:20 26:24 27:10

loading 27:9,12

36:20 48:10 51:8

members4:18

59:2

27:13 60:13 79:18

50:8,13 53:6    

58:21 70:9 100:18  34:20 52:15    

model 55:3,4     

80:6,8 96:16 97:5

67:18 72:24

manage

52:6

memory 75:4

modernize 70:10

98:10 99:17

location 45:4 46:4

manager 12:8,13

mention 101:19

moment 13:10

municipality 71:3

_______________

______________

Page 114

71:19        

18:10,15,2019:7  

37:439:1241:9  older55:3      

68:774:1875:14

must 8:3

23:18    

23:4 75:16,16    

41:18 42:20,23,24 once 32:18      

82:18 84:18 85:22

28:12        

96:9 97:18     

44:22 48:1449:10 one 5:19,22 6:7    

90:4 92:20 94:18

nobody

9:4

49:19,23 50:1    

9:18 10:23 12:12  

95:12 103:3,10,12

N

none 103:24

51:3 54:22

57:23  

15:9 17:7 27:2,10 others 37:17 72:5

N2:1 3:1      

nonexisting48:24   

62:11,13 

65:5

28:14 31:24 34:16  101:19 103:4

name4:2 16:14   

non-domestic 100:4  68:1 80:19 82:22  

37:3,15,16 41:16 out32:1736:9

25:1741:10   

non-expanding   

83:9,1986:23    

41:1953:556:11  

41:2342:2446:17

names

6:15

75:14        

87:2,13 95:22    

57:13 58:18 62:3  

59:23 63:23 65:11

narrative29:649:2 non-industrial

96:6,10

63:17

65:4,5

68:6 75:11 76:6

56:6,7,14,19 57:7  

99:22      

nutrients 17:10,14  

66:11,17,18 73:11  78:19 80:19 81:8

57:18,2261:17,23 

non-limiting 18:19   

17:23,2443:3    

73:16 78:8,12    

81:10 91:19 92:12

62:5,8,2463:11  

non-municipal

48:1749:1451:1  

83:2089:1990:2  

103:22 104:6,13

64:13,2170:7   

99:23        

51:365:866:5,12  90:592:793:19  outcome86:18

88:7        

normally 66:3     

68:18 71:11 83:12  95:20 99:17    

outside 35:9

nation 39:22 41:20 North 1:11 2:9 3:3   

86:10        

102:22      

over 5:22 9:9 10:24

national 46:13 49:4

6:24

nutrient-based

ones 33:22

15:21 16:17 34:16

66:4

northern 40:14,17

50:12

ongoing 42:15

49:9 53:23

55:4

natural 17:21

19:24  40:20      

N502 1:12       

68:11 80:20 86:9  

70:23 85:24 92:4

69:23,24     

Northshore 7:2              

only 9:11 26:23    

93 :2,17 

95:6

naturally 17:15

northwest 40:20

56:23 86:3 100:15 overkill 57:11

naturel8:1428:1

Notarylo6:15,20

oath79:9

101:22      

own35:15

74:14 79:5 84:5  

note

9:7 10:2 11:3  

objection 88:19   

open 8:3 64:16 90:4 oxidized 19:23

84:12        

31:9 47:7,17 70:9 objections 30:10   

90:13      

oxygen 43:4,15

near

55:19

79:14 104:16   

obligated 54:23   

opening 13:7,16

44:3,8

necessary 22:14

noted 6:10

70:24  

obligation 29:4

operate 36:5

O’Shaughnessy

51:23 55:4,8,19   

88:22        

48:21 87:5     

operating 24:7 

58:5

18:4

56:1858:2460:10 noteslO6:10

obvious85:16

77:293:12

______________

63:4 80:11,20   

nothing 

46:19

obviously 85:17

operation 75:7

86:2 87:21 89:11   

104:24      

occur 48:1

operations 22:10

P 2:1,1 3:1,1

need 11:14

21:12  

notice 7:5,9 9:8,10  

occurred 56:13

24:18       

Page 74:24 79:13

33:1441:1059:17 34:1936:994:10 occurrencel9:9  

operators93:18   

91:11

59:1963:18,24   

103:17104:13,17  69:24      

opiion36:754:24 Pana7:1

65:13 75:11 84:8 noticed 7:15 91:22 occurs 19:23    

opinions 9:11    

panel 91:9

100:11      

notified 7:8

off 4:12

13:9,13   

opportune

26:18  

paragraph 62:18

needed35:1 62:13

notify7:7

38:12 78:3,13

opportunities33:10

62:1970:11 99:20

87:15

notion 11:7

79:6 90:16 103:24 opportunity 7:20

paragraphs 57:14

needing

65:15

noxious 28:9,16

104:3

10:19

102:7

needs 9:17

22:22   

103:12      

offensive 15:4 29:7 opposed 37:7    

parameter 34:13

58:12 62:11 

63:22 NPDES 6:10 32:20

offer 29:23

order 11:23 65:11

parameters 63:4

72:17 101:3

35:11,1548:22

office8:1842:6

orders9:11,12

65:6

neighboring 58:1

62:10 87:6,9

officer 1:10 2:5 4:1

Ordinarily 82:19

part 10:7 14:20

networkl3:446:16 nuisance46:2147:5  4:49:12 12:1,15  organicl9:1620:6  

40:11,18,1944:14

networks 46:11

70:2

12:23 13:5,11,14

20:8

50:18 53:18,20

new 5:20 6:11

number 30:4,6

15:15 29:22 30:3

organically

19:22   

67:16 84:17 100:8

22:17 23:17 26:17  

39:15 45:1 

76:6

30:9,15,16,22   

organisms 17:20   

participated 25:21

26:23 27:6 29:18  

77:24 84:21 89:2  

31:4,18 37:19,23  

26:3       

participating43:8

50:12,18 

52:6

93:19,20 104:21   

38:22 60:18 78:13 

organized 42:19   

participation 79:14

53:6,10,18 55:11 numbers 39:13,24   

78:18 79:3 88:18 original 26:23   

particular 33:5,6

56:17 57:7 58:8   

45:2 

75:5,9

93:24  

88:22 89:4 90:17  

64:20        

35:5

51:12 58:15

60:7,24 69:4,6

numeric

5:6,16

90:2191:494:3  

originally 90:22    

64:15 73:11 87:1

74:16 76:9 77:20  

14:23 51:12 54:1   

103:21 104:4   

orthophosphate

particularly 67:14

78:386:494:7   

61:1262:689:23  

105:1        

20:3,10      

particulatel9:18

95:6,18       

101:11      

officer’s72:8    

other9:14 10:24   

19:2020:16

newer 94:8 100:16 numerical 101:13

often 20:3

28:635:7  

17:18 21:20 27:6 parties 9:20 10:14

next 7:10 3 1:15,20

numerous 25:22

44:6 46:12 47:7

28:13 29:15 34:17

12:3

1:10 63:23 74:20 nutient 43:10

Oh 75:4

35:24 37:4 38:24

partway 84:6

84:9 89:2

nutrient 5:6,8 6:4

Ohio 21:17 92:19

42:8 46:9 48:19

party 36:14 63:13

NICHOLAS 2:20

17:24 18:8,24

okay 38:19 58:14

54:15 56:24 60:16 pass 62:22

Nick4:17

19:1 21:3 22:19

91:3

61:2462:263:8

passage7O:6

nitrogenl7:918:5  

28:3,5,1132:6,16 o1d95:16      

63:11,13 67:18  

pastl6:20

________________

Page 115

Paul3:612:1014:4

persuade34:8,10

pipes73:9

98:10

previous68:20

15:19 16:14 91:22 

persuaded 62:19

piping 73:7

possibly 49:9 53:14 pre-phosphorus

pause77:14

pertain47:11

place2l:1927:15

96:8

24:3

peers 57:24

Peru 6:23

33:11 51:23 62:7

potassium 17:19

pride 93:18

pending 21:21   

petition 

5:9 6:9

67:5 102:1

potential 18:3

primarily 19:24

people7:6 50:22

62:20      

placed9:15 74:9    

50:10,11 59:13,15  

35:8

52:258:260:5  

pfl2:21      

places48:1850:7   

59:18 69:1871:11 primary 17:10

64:1790:2,4   

p1143:16      

50:2451:2452:5  

86:1,693:13    

49:1960:4

92:21      

phoentic 46:16

plan 41:8,13,19

potentially 53:8

principal

22:4

people’s 52:12   

phones 4:12      

54:13,18 81:6    

71:1        

principles 26:13

pers:196:1,7 17:8 

phonetic37:1,10   

83:10,19 86:23  

POTW61:1 67:13   

38:8

21:9,1822:1    

61:1 

65:15

72:2   

97:13        

68:480:22 81:24 printed 104:15

23:13 24:5,6,10  

phosphate 20:1   

planning 72:16    

85:1,23      

prior 7:7,21 8:8

27:2,4,10,11,16  

phosphorus 

1:4 4:6 Plano 6:19

POTWs 82:16

25:24 43:22 55:12

28:14,18 34:16   

5:11,12,17,18,24 plans55:1677:10  

84:21 85:18     

61:2 69:8 79:19

40:4 53:15 66:18   

6:3,5,13 11:19   

plant5:13

17:11   

pound27:9,12    

80:4

68:22 72:24 75:7   

14:10,17,23 15:2   

18:7,17,21 19:17 pounds 6:1 27:11  

pristine49:8

78:9 91:12,16,17   

17:3,4,6,9 18:20   

22:2,13 24:2,5    

61:2 72:24 97:8  privileged 10:10

92:2,20,22,23    

18:23 19:6,8,13   

27:11 28:7,9,16   

97:22 98:4,14,18 

probably 10:16

93:2,6,8 97:7,8,13  19:15,21 20:4,7,9  

29:8 

56:1

60:24   

98:19,21,2499:3  

22:11 29:17 31:14

97:22,23 98:2,4   

20:12,13,15,21    

61:2,3,11 62:14   

99:4 100:2,3,5,5   

35:13 57:13 60:12

98:12,18,19,20   

21:8,14,1922:1,5  68:9 69:23 70:15 powder 58:11     

65:11 67:12 68:16

99:4,18 100:9    

22:7,16,2423:3,7  70:18 73:12,16  

power73:6,11    

88:6,891:10,24

102:19,19 103:7   

24:2,13,16 26:12  

76:9,13 93:18    

103:14       

93:21,23 95:15

percent 24:11 75:20  26:16,19,21 27:3   

100:19 103:14  

practicality 20:19   

103:11

81:10 86:17     

27:4,9,14,16,18  plants 22:18,22   

practically 48:14  problem47:21 48:1

perception 68:4,5   

27:20,23 28:2,10   

23:10,12 44:10  

practice 33:9 

35:6

49:1,24 50:1,11

94:18        

28:12,15,17,20,24  53:18 59:21 61:8 practicing 71:23,24  51:2 54:16,22

perfectlys6:16    

29:3,11,13,15,17  

73:674:5,22    

72:3        

55:5,7,1458:21

perform 8:15 92:1   

32:7,8,15 34:12   

75:12,15 76:10  

Prairie 13:4      

87:4

performance 85:23  

38:6,8,8 39:18    

77:18 97:6 103:13 precedent 27:19  

problematic 18:21

91:1592:3     

40:2,542:12,13  

played33:6    

precipitation22:6

19:959:20

performing

92:22   

44:11,16,21,24  

plays 42:14      

23:8,11,22 24:9  problems 46:22

perhaps 68:4 86:7   

45:11 46:3,13,24 pleading 70:3     

24:13 75:20    

procedural 7:17

86:17 90:11     

47:1 51:13 

53:9

please 10:2 11:3

preconceived 11:7

10:795:9

103:15       

53:12,13 54:17,18  15:20 16:4,12   

prediction 83:16  

procedure 32:11,14

period 10:3 44:7

57:6

58:15,20    

24:22 25:7,15   

prefer 31:5      

37:4 94:12

56:8 92:4      

60:14 61:3 62:21 plentiful 18:15   

preferably 21:20  

proceed 58:7 79:10

periodically 46:16   

63:4 

64:6 65:21

plus 9:14

67:12   

prefiled 9:16 90:23 proceeding 4:5

periods 18:9 91:17  

66:17,21,24 67:8 point 8:24 10:6,18  prejudge 84:7     

11:22

permanent 60:1,1   

67:15,17,23,24   

12:17 39:8 49:15 preliminaries 4:22 proceedings 1:7

90:7        

68:6,2269:4,21   

51:1252:955:10 preliminary 11:13   

12:17 78:17 105:3

permit6:11,15    

70:2171:6,17,23  

60:1568:175:11 premature56:21   

106:8

32:21 34:19,20   

72:1,3 73:8,10,15  

79:1 92:7 100:23  

57:9

63:20    

process 5:5 21:14

35:11,15 36:14   

73:20 74:15,22  

pointing 76:6

prepared 25:9

33:20 63:21 72:16

48:22 54:14 57:16  75:13,16 76:9   

policy 13:2,3 14:2   

83:10        

81:8 83:14 84:20

61:24 62:7,10    

77:13,21 81:6,13  

41:7 50:17 52:11 prescribed27:22   

91:19

63:1,9,15 77:23   

81:19,22 82:2,6,9  

52:13 63:16 86:19 presence 19:12 20:8 processes 21:7

permits7:13 52:15  

82:15 84:21 85:9  

88:3,16 95:18   

present 13:17 15:12 produce8:1

88:8        

85:2488:1289:24 

polish8l:8

16:12 17:2018:1 produced68:10

permitted 73:12    

91:13 

93:23 95:1  

pollution 1:1 2:2,8

18:5 19:16 20:15 program4l:23

78:2 99:19     

96:5,11 97:14,18  

2:13,17 4:3 12:9   

25:15 30:18 45:5  

51:8 86:7 87:9

permittees 59:16

98:5,14,2299:3

13:24 14:14 68:21

67:23 68:19 77:21 programs47:6

permitting 33:20

100:1,12 101:12

69:8 70:19

presentation 29:21

93:11

49:13 

50:5

51:8   

101:13,21,24   

pondering 31:6,8

30:20

progress 96:18

84:9,20 91:19

102:5 103:8,11

portion 9:5 75:24

presenting 69:7

progresses 99:4

perplexing 49:13  

physical 24:14   

portions 39:23   

presently 45:10   

prohibiting 29:7

person 12:12 79:13

75:21

posed 86:2

presiding 4:15

projected 7:12

personally 45:21

Ph.D 2:11

position63:2 83:6

pretty 96:4

projectives 55:20

perspective 51:19

pick 104:11

positive 88:1

prevent 19:8 46:21

projects 42:11,15

67:16

picture42:23 85:12

possible69:5 84:10

47:21 73:8

76:20

_________________

________________

Page 116

prompted 88:4

publically45:18

quo

52:2

29:10

relief70:24 71:2,4

properly 7:15 99:14 pump 23:24

recognizing 86:1

71:20

proposal 4:2114:20 purely 71:17

recollection 67:4

remarks 11:10

14:22 15:6,9,12

purpose 73:20,23

R2:1,3,17 3:1

71:15 94:17

remember 72:1

46:21 49:21 52:1

87:8

48:18

recommendations

79:22,23

53:22 54:1 57:4

purposes 58:13

raise 10:22

71:16 90:8

remind 79:9

57:15 59:6 60:5

73:8

Randolph 2:3,18

recommending

removal 21:15

22:5

60:14 75:14

76:2 

pursuant5:6 7:16

range 23:14 91:17

97:3,4

22:5,7,16,19,24

79:13,20

82:21,24 

push 79:5

99:8

record 11:5 13:9,13

23:3,4 24:3,13,16

84:11,13 87:1,3,3

put57:1062:11,21

ranges38:7

13:15 31:9 47:14

26:19,21 27:14

91:11

63:15 64:6 68:13

Rao2:64:19 35:20

69:9 72:12 78:14

29:14 44:11,13

propose 14:22

59:7  

82:1 95:24 97:19

37:6 54:9,11 94:3

90:16,22 104:1,3

53:13 71:24

72:1

83:6,13

putting6O:761:3

95:19 100:13

104:5

72:374:16,22

proposed 1:4 4:7

77:21 84:2

rather 28:10 51:9

redesigned 53:10

75:16,17 76:9

5:18 7:14,21 8:2

P.E2:6

rational

56:8

reduction5l:457:6

81:6,13,19 86:1

14:10,17 17:3,7

P.02:9 3:3

rationale 14:9

17:2  

71:6

93:23 99:3 100:12

22:14,20 

23:6

_________________

49:20

67:7    

reductions 19:7

remove 95:1

26:1227:329:14

_______________

reach93:14

refer95:5

removing82:9

35:22 39:8 51:7  

qualifying 35:23

react 35:17

reference 18:3,11

renewal 54:14

56:178:487:15

quallty5:7,16

reaction62:17

18:18 19:1421:22

62:10

90:694:7

12:13 14:7,13,24

reactive2O:4

23:437:9,12,17

repeal 67:8

proposes 69:2

16:21

25:20,23

read 6:16 72:11

38:5

44:20

74:23

repeat 61:14 77:16

proposing 5:10

28:11 29:5,12,16

readily 20:5 49:17

referenced

70:4

87:10

17:6 47:18 48:11

29:18

32:7 

39:7

50:9

88:17

repetitious 10:9

54:7 84:17 94:20

39:15 41:2 43:24

reading 70:14

references 17:12

replaced 80:23

98:1

44:1545:1946:24

89:19

19:2 20:1 29:24

replacement73:23

protect28:2055:1  

47:11,17,1948:13 ready 15:11,13

96:15

report2l:1 47:12

87:6 94:22 95:1   

48:24 49:16 54:21  

30:20 50:22 83:13 referred 20:3    

reported 106:7

protected 62:4

57:18 59:7 61:12  

104:7       

refers 94:8 98:24  

reporter 10:24

protecting 82:8

61:17,23 62:8,24

real36:449:1 59:13

99:2 101:10

104:6 106:5

protection 3:2

64:13,21 65:3

87:4

regard 33:6 49:12

reports 46:17

13:20 14:1,15

69:1482:2483:6

reality9l:24 96:10

51:20

52:8 

54:12

request7:18 8:1

15:8 61:4,16

83:12 

89:23

really3l:11 38:17

55:11

40:2441:7 70:20

65:14,15

101:11,13,20

68:778:1 103:5

regarding9:214:9

72:979:18 86:22

protective

27:24    

102:6,17

reason 54:15 55:13

14:16 15:4 17:2

requested 8:11

103:9

quandary 52:14

reasonable

26:22   

20:18

47:14 

49:2

require 24:16 50:22

proves 80:10

quantification

56:13 57:4

95:10,14 100:14

75:22

provide 10:5,14

20:14 57:19

reasonably49:17

region4O:1,3,5,6,10 required 17:10,19

20:11 38:18 54:2

quantify 57:1 66:14

51:17

40:13,17,17,18,19

23:20 24:5 53:2

61:15 75:24

99:6

quantifying

51:22  

reasoning 17:5 67:7

43:945:11,12,12

82:1 86:16 100:24

99:7

quarterly 43:7

reasons 74:18,21

regional 43:9

requirement

57:6

provided 6:14,16

question 8:9 10:2 1

rebuilding 101:6

regions 39:22,23,24

93:16 94:24 95:3

38:1443:17 47:16

32:1 33:18 38:1

recall69:20

40:3,3,7

101:24 102:5

72:11 79:15,16

40:23 

51:10 52:14 receive 9:11,13

regulate 46:24

requirements 8:23

provides 20:13

54:10 62:16 68:24

61:4

regulation 80:19

15:7 22:19 55:23

provision 33:3 35:2

72:7 73:3

77:17  

received 8:14 30:14

95:14

60:17 63:11 94:22

36:15,15 62:14

85:3,5 87:10 89:7

31:10

regulations 14:21

requires 7:18 86:3

64:15 84:3 85:2

89:18 91:792:9

receiving 5:23 6:4,7

15:4 48:22 88:11

requiring

59:15,16

89:17,24 90:12,14

96:13 102:15

19:10 28:2,8,16

regulatory 53:24

59:18 84:20

101:9,23

104:12

53:5,7 54:16

71:2,13

research 20:24

provisions 36:8

questioning 14:3

82:11

rehab 100:20

42:11 65:24

61:24 63:8 89:21

questions 9:2,5 11:3 recent22:3 69:15

reinforce 87:24

reservoir 71:8

94:13

30:21,23,2431:5

76:19

rejected 70:20

reservoirs 70:22

prudentsO:1751:6

31:14 37:9 39:2

recently23:12

related22:22

71:12 102:17

51:15,16 56:10

48:8 50:4,4 52:19

73:12 78:5

relating96:13

respect64:17

public 8:4,7,18 9:14

60:21 78:20,23

receptive 64:16

relationships 43:3

respond 14:2

10:2,5 17:12     

79:4 89:10,17    

67:15 84:4     

57:2       

response 8:14 39:8

18:12 19:2 20:1

94:6

100:8 103:22 recess 104:5

relatively 50:14

41:2 52:13 72:8

34:19,2136:9

quick3l:24

recognition88:9

85:20

85:12 87:11

46:17 64:4 79:14 

quite 71:9 85:16

recognize 16:1 25:4 relevant 10:9 23:6

responsibifities

86:15 106:15,20   

95:12 96:3    

recognizes 27:21  

reliable 21:10

63:10

________________

________________

Page 117

responsibffity35:9

5:4 7:14 8:8,10,13

79:14 89:22

95:6

92:6,23      

something 

34:11

56:757:5

9:6 11:22 52:17

sections 4:8

56:2

signs 56:9

35:1,1,5 37:20

responsive 51:6

64:10 66:24 67:11 sediments 19:19

sign-up 9:8,22

57:10 58:16 73:12

rest 69:3

69:7,9 79:20 82:2

see 9:4 11:9 34:21

similar 46:8 73:6

84:5 96:20 97:21

restate64:14

84:23 88:5

35:638:4,944:12

84:19 95:24 103:3

99:19

restraining

55:5

Rulemaking-Water

46:8,12 85:11

simply 84:10

sometime 80:3

restraint

35:5

1:5

90:19 92:15 93:23 since 8:18 64:20

sometimes 27:22

restrict86:5

rules7:17,21,228:2

96:21 103:4

94:16

66:5

72:19

restricted

60:5

10:8 11:21 37:9

seeing 78:22 103:24

single 68:16

somewhat 77:4

70:16

64:1069:1295:9

seem74:1,21

sirl3:691:6

somewhere56:19

result5:13 18:20

96:22 97:18,19

seems56:12 59:12

sit3l:11

67:5

41:11 57:16 76:11 ruling 

59:5

74:14      

sites 43:16,23 44:4 sophisticated

results 32:18 42:16

running 85:7

seen 46:12

sitting 8:20

100:11

42:18 82:22

runs 38:15

seldom 17:22

situation

33:4 71:14 sore 

80:9

retain 55:15

R04-26 1:44:5

select43:22

73:21 80:16

99:16

sorry 62:6 89:7

retrofitted 21:5

R87-6 67:2 70:20

selinastrum 36:24

10 1:5

sort 55:3 99:9

return 98:12

__________________

sense 58:7

situations 49:5

sound 33:23 38:19

review5:7 67:21

sensitive53:8,8

84:10

98:14

reviewed45:17   

S2:1 3:1         

65:13,16     

size27:17 81:15,20 

sounds92:14

63:6 94:17

safe 78:4

separately 87:1

slightly 24:18

source 6:2 33:6,8,8

revisions 21:21

safety 54:23

September 104:8,9

sludge 24:12,15,17

62:3 63:17 97:15

reworked 29:18

salvage 85:22

sequestered 19:18

24:18 70:1,16

99:23,24

re-interpret 57:3

same 27:9 70:3

serious 52:11

75:20 76:21

sources 18:15 19:8

re-permitting

55:12  

81:15 90:15

seriously 11:21

sludge-handling

26:16 34:17 42:9

re-visiting 95:17

sample 37:5 46:4

73:22

75:23 76:3,7,23

42:13 57:8,8 58:8

right 6:16 8:20

Sanitary 7:2 38:16

served 14:6 16:20

small4O:19 97:15

58:9 67:18 68:1,7

12:10 14:4,11   

Sanjay3:5 12:6   

service9:9,13    

smaller43:1,4,5    

69:3,5,6 70:23

34:9 39:10 58:16   

13:18 15:17 38:19  104:14,17     

78:10        

73:1 99:21

58:23 65:10 

66:7

savings 60:8 80:13

serving4:4

Sofat3:5

12:5,6,6

South 2:13

66:9 70:10 74:5

saw32:18

set 10:3 103:5

13:6,9,16,18,19

southern4O:11,18

74:14 95:13,23  

saying 11:2 37:10  sets44:19       

15:18,24 16:4,8  Southwest7l:22

98:14 102:2

50:10,15,21 56:10 seven77:24 103:2

16:12 24:20 25:3

speak 10:23,24

104:15

57:15 58:6

59:2

several2O:18

37:2   

25:7,11,15 29:20

speaking4:9

rise 47:5

61:20 89:13 90:13 sewage

22:2 27:10   

29:22 30:2,16,19  special 27:14 34:15

risk85:7

102:4

73:16

31:21 37:2238:20

54:762:1 68:16

river 45:19,20

says 50:7 62:11

shape 49:8

solid 59:14

specialist 14:7

66:18 67:9,24

89:20

share72:17

soluble 18:10,14

16:21

68:13,16,23 69:16 scenario 98:10

sharing 66:10

20:4,8

specialized 26:9

69:17 94:20

95:1

schedule 10:18

sheet9:22

solve49:24

specific48:13 76:13

Rivers 13:4

31:17

sheets9:8

some4:22 18:8,8

76:15 95:20

road 74:20

scheduled 1:13

Shelbyvifie 71:22

21:18 35:10,24

specifically 23:6

Robert 3:6 25:17

science 26:7 33:4,23

72:4 102:13

36:11 38:10,13

29:6 42:12 50:21

role 17:4 33:6 42:14

35:4 42:24 49:3

short 104:5

39:8 43:14

44:2  

specifics 80:16

63:3 71:10

57:1,23,24 58:2,4

shorter 28:4

44:12 48:7 54:15

speculate 55:17

rolling78:1

59:5,8,14,22

shortest 18:1 19:1

56:20 57:6,21

56:18 57:9,20,22

room 1:12 9:10,22

60:16 63:22 65:24 shorthand 106:8,10

58:9 64:7,10

83:22

roughly 97:22

66:3,6,8 71:10

shortly 42:16

65:24 71:5 73:6

spend 52:2

57:9

round43:19

86:987:14

show64:11

74:5,12,21 76:10

59:21 101:1

routine 92:15

scientific 32:14

showed 5:2 46:3

76:10,21 78:10

spending 67:15

routinely92:1

71:13

showing 53:18

79:4 81:11 84:8

spill49:9

93:24

scientists 96:3

shows 88:11

85:21 86:1,11

spirit 84:12

row 4:10

scratching 88:6

side 9:10

92:5 94:6,16 95:4

spotlighted 51:3

Roy 12:19

51:21  

screen 54:16    

sign 9:21        

95:15 96:14 97:14 Springfield 2:10

rule8:1626:14

search62:18

significant26:16

99:9,23 103:4

3:47:11 10:18

32:1937:1752:22 seasonal43:19    

33:749:1450:8  somebody33:13   

31:17

61:1062:1270:4

second 10:1778:14

50:13 51:1 52:4,5

34:8,22 37:10

SS 106:1

70:23 72:13 74:2

104:1,10

57:10 62:3 63:17

93:11 94:24

95:7

stab 103:9

78:10 80:9 84:3  

secondary 23:23

65:23 66:12 67:17

104:12

Stable 6:22

85:8 89:19 96:20  

95:3        

68:6 99:24 100:2 someday 29:12   

Stacy 1:9 106:4,14

97:22 100:16,22

section 7:17 8:24

100:3,9,24 101:3

somehow 61:13

staff 4:18 87:24

rulemaking 4:5,14

55:23,24 77:24

significantly 53:10

someone 93:5,7

stage 60:6 99:13

________________

________________

_________________

________________

Page 118

stages74:6     

stated35:1679:15 submitted83:20   

19:15        

15:23,2416:3,6

stakeholder79:14 statement 13:7,17   

86:23 97:17    

swear 15:13      

16:11,14,15 17:13

79:18        

29:8 74:9 96:12  subniitting47:13  

swore 15:15      

18:18 30:3,5,12

standard 1:4

4:7

statements 10:15  

Subparagraph

sworn 10:11 15:14

38:24 39:5 41:21

5:11,15,16 14:10  

17:281:9     

69:22,23      

106:17       

42:145:22,23

14:18,23,24 15:2  states 21:4,16,20   

SUBSCRIBED  

system 55:2,18 68:9  73:24 74:4 75:3

17:721:19,22    

35:2241:6,16    

106:17       

93:12 

96:9

Terrio’s 14:11 91:1

22:15,2023:7

58:1 64:16 65:6

Subsection26:14

systems2l:1338:9

test32:16,1937:1

24:6 26:13 27:20  

66:7,9 84:19    

27:21 28:22 29:2  

60:7 66:13 73:10 testified 40:22

29:4,6,11,17     

94:11        

29:1035:2355:21 91:2493:1196:5  

52:2082:3,23

32:10 35:3 39:5,7 statewide 75:8    

60:24 89:21 94:8            

testify 9:20 10:1,4

39:13,18 42:17  

statistical66:6     

94:1095:2396:1     

T

14:9,15,19 40:15

43:1046:2447:18 status 52:2 104:8   

96:14,15,16,17  

take 8:4,21 9:18   

testimonies 44:21

47:1948:2,12   

stay93:19      

97:998:17 101:10  11:2033:11 36:5 testimony9:2,16

49:16 50:2,3

stenographically

101:18

36:6 53:17 79:6

10:13 16:6,9,13

51:1653:4,21

1:9

subsections94:9,19

86:1890:893:18

17:125:9,12,16

54:3,6 56:6,8,10  

step 50:7 86:18

subsequent 80:3

96:21 98:5,7

26:11

30:17 31:10

56:14,1957:7,18  

88:1        

substances66:15   

101:7        

32:473:2474:24

57:18,2259:6   

steps7:4       

103:6       

taken 1:8 7:4 78:15  

75:18 90:23 91:1

61:12,18,23

62:5

stffl3l:6,7 34:4

substantial 15:10

106:10

91:2,23

62:6,8,23,24     

62:24 77:1 79:10  

68:13      

talk7:11 70:2 75:19 testing 37:3

63:12

65:3,9 70:1  

81:12,21 97:8

success 82:14

91:14 104:20

tests 26:2

70:16 71:2

75:13 

stipulates 29:2   

sufficient

17:21   

talked 65:13 77:23 

thank 11:12,18 12:1

82:24 83:6,19   

storage 23:16,22   

18:6,17 48:23    

81:5         

13:5 24:20 29:20

84:17 86:3 87:8   

46:15        

67:18      

talking36:2074:10  34:235:1938:21

87:14,17,20 89:23 Storette46:16   

suggest36:11 67:21  80:17 91:12 104:6  83:24 90:15,17

90:6,7 91:13   

story82:14     

suggested87:14  

tandem8l:18    

94:2 103:20 105:1

92:14,14 95:8,10 

straight 40:9

suggesting 34:15

tank 23:16,22,23

Thanks 11:24

95:11 101:11

stream26:10 33:5

suggests

55:5

tankage 21:12

their8:644:7

50:20

102:6        

34:23,2443:23  

Suite2:4,18      

22:21,23 23:20   

53:19 60:8 62:19

standards 5:6,7,8

44:13 49:6,8,9   

sulfate 103:4

Tanner 2:11 4:16

63:21 65:7 72:4

11:19 12:13 14:13  51:13 

55:2

71:14 

summarized 46:14 target 

45:8 51:13   

72:16 76:3,19

17:3 21:3 25:20   

81:22 82:1,11   

summer44:4,6

task82:22

87:19,24

92:21

25:23 29:5,13,19   

86:13 94:23    

sunset 84:2 85:2   

Techinical2l:2    

93:20

39:12 41:2,9,18  streams 44:8 46:9   

90:14 101:9,22  

technical 4:18 31:6 themselves 12:4

42:23 45:9 48:24  

55:9

65:13,16   

sunsetting 89:17,24  34:19 43:9    

they’d 95:8

49:1,3 54:8 59:7   

71:11 85:16 88:12  90:12      

technology 34:17  

thing 47:2 67:4

60:264:13,21

Street 1:11 2:3,13

superior22:8

49:18 50:9 51:16

68:17 84:14 90:16

65:5,7 

66:1

70:7   

2:18       

supplement 32:22   

56:12 58:9 84:18  

95:12 99:12

74:19 83:10,12,16 strength 

55:7

100:7        

85:1,9,19,21 86:3 things5:237:262:6

87:2,5,6,7,8 88:7 stringent 27:24   

supplemented    

92:24 93:10     

95:15

94:12 

95:6

101:13  52:21 53:1      

29:12        

100:11      

think 15:8,11,12,18

101:20 102:17,23 

structure 64:7

supplementing

48:7 technology-based   

3 1:4,7 33:2 35:13

103:3       

struggling66:8   

supplyl8:1,1019:1  48:11        

37:2042:245:1,6

start 15:19 30:24

Stryker 38:14

19:528:4

tell

16:425:7 36:16  

53:3 56:21 57:5,8

31:238:2348:10 studies2O:2244:4  support 14:20    

51:11,14,1556:4  

57:11,1658:7

58:16        

44:10,12      

17:22 18:655:8   

73:4        

61:1962:1665:11

started

4:22 5:1   

study7:21,248:1,3  

55:11 

66:1

68:9  

telling 63:16 76:19  

65:22 68:15 70:6

43:5        

8:5,7,13,169:3  

supportive 88:1    

76:21 81:5     

73:20 74:24 75:5

starting 12:5

34:15 43:14 45:19 suppose 99:22    

temperature 43:16

76:12

77:16 79:2

state5:6 21:3 36:10

62:1 63:16 68:13

supposed58:3

ten78:5,788:8

80:14 81:2,19

36:16 38:10 39:16  75:1,284:786:11 supposedly97:5  

tend95:13      

82:3 83:15 84:4

39:23 40:11,14,24 studying 51:21   

sure 9:24 11:14   

tendered 15:22    

86:7 90:22 92:16

41:8,9 42:23

sub 58:20

13:11 30:232:2

25:1

95:8 96:3 97:21

43:17,21 44:17  

subcommittee 43:1  

48:23 58:23 60:2 

term 95:20,22

98:5 99:12 102:22

45:1046:1148:15 subject 10:11 27:2  surface39:18   

terms22:8 41:23  

thinking37:14

48:16 49:4,23    

27:8,19 28:24   

surprise 46:2,7    

54:1,2 

56:5

65:20 

THOMAS 2:15

51:9 56:24 60:13  

78:9 80:9 

89:9

surprised 91:21

72:20 93:4

Thompson 2:3,17

66:16 69:3 71:6   

97:9 100:16 102:9 surprisingly 31:13 terrestrial 17:11    

34:2

72:2 92:18 103:8  

submittal 41:17   

Survey 12:11 14:6

Terrio3:6 12:10

though 34:4 82:10

106:1,5,6       

87:20        

14:8 16:16 19:4   

14:5,8 15:19,19   

85:6 

95:15

Page 119

thought4l:10

transformation

93:3 95:21 97:7

41:1,2,14,2043:8

57:3

59:1

75:4

58:19

68:3 

96:8

42:14        

98:17 99:18 101:7  

65:6

66:2 83:10   

84:7 88:24 90:2

three 13:21 15:16  transformed 19:21   

101:9,14,18     

83:20 86:24 87:11  90:19 95:14 97:24

31:1939:22,24  

translates5l:14    

102:11 103:5    

87:19,23      

97:24 101:3,7

40:2 56:22 72:5  treat 38:6      

undergoing 26:17  USEPA’s39:9,21  wanted 5:1 90:10

73:13 74:20 79:9 

treating 20:20 69:2

42:3 44:9 61:9

40:4 68:14

wants 8:21 9:20

88:9       

treatment5:21 6:12  77:10,19     

uses37:8       

35:2436:1696:21

threshold 49:8 99:4

19:11 21:4,11,14

underlying 26:13

USGS

16:17,22   

warm 44:6

100:5,14      

22:2 23:10,12,19  

47:1        

using 24:8 26:3   

warrant

35:5

50:13

through 4:8 17:15

26:24 27:7,11

understand 33:4

73:19

63:7

42:3 46:18 54:14  

28:23 35:22 44:10  46:20 56:24 57:23 usually 23:9,20   

warranted 6:6 35:2

65:3 83:14 84:6,9  

50:20 56:1 59:20  

57:24 58:1,11    

97:15        

57:17

84:20 94:9,10,13   

67:13 73:16 74:2  

59:5,8,9,10 60:16 utilized 36:15    

wasn’t 67:22 92:7

99:15

74:3 75:12,15

61:19 63:16 66:14 U.S 12:11 14:5,8

waste 99:2 100:4,4

throughout38:9

80:11,11,21 

85:9

86:9 92:8,10,13   

16:15 19:3,14    

100:10

43:1651:5     

93:1894:1496:17  99:13      

_______________

wastewater5:23

thumb97:22    

97:6,2498:1,3,11 understanding36:4     

V

6:11 7:3 12:21

time

10:6,19,23    

98:22 99:5,6,7,17  

51:22 56:5 92:17 valid 37:15      

17:17 19:11,24

11:11 15:18 16:18  100:19      

understands34:22 Valley67:14 

69:16

20:20,23 21:11

29:16 32:17 36:9

trend74:15

34:23

valuable43:17

23:19 26:5,10,15

37:2 39:8 41:1,10 tributaries 82:18  

understood 71:10  value 27:11 45:11   

26:24 27:7,13

42:5 47:19 50:5  

tributary69:17

85:5

81:23 103:2,10

28:23 79:17 85:24

56:20 

60:15

62:5

71:22,24 

72:4

undissolved20:16

values26:4 46:3,5

96:17 97:12

62:13 63:22 65:18  82:7 94:20    

unfortunately    

46:13      

wastewaters 85:18

65:23 66:17 68:5 

tried

43:22 

86:5

57:20 66:2    

valve 33:3,13    

water 5:7,16 6:4,7

68:19 69:4 77:22

triennial 5:7

unification49:2

variability 92:13

12:9,13 13:23,24

82:21 83:4,11

trigger 97:6

union 56:24

variations 44:5

14:6,12,14,23

86:22 89:22 92:1

trouble 104:19

unit 14:13 25:20

varies 45:3

16:21 17:15 18:11

92:494:1,16

true 16:8 25:11

31:6 58:20

variety42:2 43:23

18:16,23 19:6,10

101:2,4,10 104:10

98:24 106:9

University 16:23

various 45:2 55:9

19:19 20:9,24

104:11,21 105:2  truly33:4 34:22    

26:8       

vary24:1 39:24    

25:20,2228:2,8

timely 11:24

try4:1031:2244:5

uuless55:13 63:16

77:3

28:11,17,21 29:5

timesl8:8

56:477:8

unnatural29:8

vast86:15

29:12,15,1832:6

Titlel5:7

trying7:639:11

47:8

venues26:18

37:538:7,939:7

titled 21:1

42:7 43:2 44:11  

unnecessarily 27:24 

Vernon 71:24

39:12,14 41:2

Toby3:5 12:8

45:6,7,950:652:9

37:18

very 11:21 31:13

44:15 45:5,8,19

13:22 54:3

59:12  

55:17 57:20 59:9 

unnecessary96:12

35:7 40:19,19,20

46:24 47:11,17,18

64:20 65:12 91:10  

64:6 65:24 88:7  

until5:15 14:23

42:18 48:13 49:12

48:13,19,23 49:16

today 9:7,20 10:4

89:12 90:11 95:16

42:16

56:9

58:11   

56:4 76:13 77:4   

53:5,7 54:21

13:21 14:19 16:7   

95:18        

62:5 63:22 82:21   

84:7 96:19 99:17  

57:17 59:7 61:12

17:1 26:11 33:12 turn4:1281:8,10   

89:22        

105:2        

61:17,23 62:8,20

52:10 68:14 87:4 

turning

54:22    

untreated 98:19

viewpoint

73:18    

62:24 64:13,21

89:13      

tweaking58:24

99:1,2

VII 15:7

65:2 67:23 69:14

told 81:17 90:15,16 two 22:4 88:9 93:21 unusual59:5

Village 6:18,20,21

73:14 82:8,13,23

Tom 4:15      

two-thirds 40:14,17 updated 22:18 70:7  6:22,23       

83:6,11 89:23

tool 53:24

type4s:448:1 70:2

70:8

violates 57:16

96:5 101:11,13,14

top38:12

70:3

upgrade24:16

violation6l:1762:4

101:20102:6,12

total5:2417:6   

types27:643:24   

75:22        

64:1269:14,24   

102:17

20:13 21:8,18

typical27:13

upgraded77:12

70:15

waters 17:21 19:24

22:1 27:4,16   

typically 18:5 19:6 

upgrading 76:3

violations 57:17

39:19 44:1

47:10

28:1538:840:2,5  

72:14       

uppermost46:4

61:22        

47:24 101:21

44:15 46:3               

upstream 70:22

virtually 17:10

watersheds 17:16

touch 95:14

Urbana 16:16

18:16 56:23

Wauconda 6:24

toward 56:13 69:13 ultimate 92:2

7 1:21       

_________________

wave 4:10 9:23

towards 74:23

ultimately 34:18

USDS 43:13

way 11:2

32:10

Towns 97:15

58:22 59:19 64:5 use43:24

53:3 73:8 waiting4:24 12:12   

33:11 35:2,436:2

toxic66:15

uncertainty6:13

101:21

wall34:24

37:1641:556:8

toxicity26:2,437:3 

under 35:23 48:21

used37:238:6

want4:1l 5:14 9:1

73:8 87:2 96:24

traditional

55:3

52:22 56:7 57:15  

81:21 95:22     

9:7 10:4 11:2,8,17  97:13 100:15

transcript 1:7

58:3 60:14 62:19

USEPA21:22

12:3 13:6 29:23

website2l:22

104:7 106:10    

79:9,13 82:2,14   

32:17 36:19 39:16  48:10 

55:9

56:18  

104:16

Page 120

week 31:10 42:7

63:23

weight 24:12

Welch 18:13

welcome 11:17

well 4:18 9:16

17:15 24:17 32:14

33:18 36:10 42:2

43:11,19 46:15,23

47:6 52:16 53:3

54:1 56:16 57:24

58:2,4,18 59:12

65:12 66:14,23

69:11,19 76:5

79:17 82:3 83:9

85:4 92:10 93:3

96:4 97:11,21

99:20 100:23

102:4,13,13

were 30:14 36:20

46:5

53:9,10

55:16

67:14 68:1

70:7 71:17 73:19

75:5,12,15 76:6

78:10,17 81:5,9

82:8 91:11 99:16

102:23 105:3

weren’t 90:11

West 2:3,18

we’ll 4:21 7:11

11:16,21 15:18

31:22 34:1 38:23

82:11 98:5 99:11

99:14 101:7

104:11

we’re 4:23 10:17

13:14 33:22,23

42:3,7,22 43:2,8

44:9 45:6,7,9,14

47:17 49:4 50:2

50:10,21,21 51:21

52:8,16 54:6,23

56:10,23 57:19

58:5,6,10 59:4

64:2,6 65:10,23

66:10,10 68:17

69:2,4,11,17

76:12 79:5 82:4

84:6 90:3,24

93:10,23 94:20,21

95:16, 16,17,18

99:20 100:15

101:23 102:9

103:17 104:8

we’ve 7:1,4 8:10

42:19 86:2,5

wherewithal

48:12

while 21:19 22:6

49:7 54:4 71:9

86:6 92:24 100:7

102:9

whole 67:4

wholesale 33:11

64:8 100:18

wide 43:23

Wisconsin

21:17

92:19

wish 10:15

withdraw 40:23

witness 4:24

9:19

witnesses 10:11

13:7,17,21 15:13

15:14,16,17 30:23

31:15,20 89:11

wondering 92:12

94:12 98:18

101:18 102:10,16

103:16

word 70:4 90:9

wording 90:14

words 75:14 99:13

103:10

work 42:20,20 51:8

74:13 83:5 86:23

87:14 90:3 93:14

99:14

worked 16:17 26:1

63:23

working 7:6 39:10

40:22 42:5

45:6

59:14 65:4,10

76:22 82:4 90:4

works 5:21 35:22

94:14 96:17 98:1

98:3,11 99:17

world 36:5 87:4

worse 103:1

wouldn’t 33:12

46:7 50:1 65:20

93:15 

95:4

97:11

writing

79:20

written 10:2

wrong

95:13

www.epa.gov/wa...

2 1:23

yardstick 69:11

Yeah99:11 102:22

year 24:10 43:11,19

53:15 75:7 78:5

Yearly 24:1

years 16:17,20

25:19,21 56:22

67:12 70:8 74:20

82:6 84:9 86:13

88:9 93:17 103:9

$1 68:15

$200,000 23:17

$300,000 23:17

$50,000 23:14

24:10

$60,000 23:14

0.4 93:8

0.5 21:9 53:15

91:16

0.706

46:6

0.9 93:6

033 40:6

037 40:6

05 103:7

076 40:4

1 23:13 30:4,6,13

68:22 73:15 90:23

90:24 92:2,20,22

92:23 93:2 96:16

97:7,7,13 98:2,12

98:21 100:9

1.0 21:18 22:1 24:5

27:4 28:18 54:6

91: 12,16

10 6:10

10th 104:8

100 2:3,18 81:10

86:17

102 10:7

1021 2:9 3:3

11-500

2:4,18

126:10 16:20 78:6

78:7

12th67:2

15 24:11 44:4

67:12

75:19 79:13

15th 8:11

16 91:11

1601:11

1825:20 44:4 59:22

1925:19

19274 2:9

19276

3:3

1970s

32:18

1973 18:4

1980s 71:9 96:8

1982 17:12 19:3

20:2

1985 19:14

1990 67:3

1990s 67:6

1995 17:13 18:18

1998

17:13 18:12

20:2

1999 18:13 19:4,15

2

2 30:7,13 90:23

91:1 96:18 98:17

99:20

2nd 8:19 88:3

20 7:13 8:8 16:17

102:12 103:8

2000 18:13

2001

43:17

2003 23:5 43:17

2004 1:1,13 8:11,19

41:12 88:3 106:18

2007 5:9

2008 41:13 83:11

83:15

203.504 101:14

2125 2:13

217 2:10,14

3:4

104:21

25 5:24 27:11 61:2

70:23 71:7,23

72:23 97:8,22

98:4,18,19,24

99:3,4 100:2,3,5,5

25-pound 99:18

27(b) 7:17 8:24

278-3109 2:14

278-3111 104:21

3

389:591:298:23

3.0 27:15

301:17:2424:11

75:19

30th 1:12

302.203

15:5 55:24

61:4 70:7

302.205 101:14

304 14:20

304.105 55:24 56:3

58:17

304.123 1:5

4:7

55:23 69:22

305(b) 47:12

312 2:5,19

35 1:44:7 15:5

45 8:1

5

523:13 43:9 75:5

102:18

5.9 24:4

500

75:6

524-8500 2:10

640:3,4,10,17,17

45:11 95:21

60601 2:4,19

61820 2:14

62794 2:10

3:4

7

7 40:3,5,19 45:12

69:23 70:11 74:24

102: 19

72-hour 44:3

782-5544

3:4

898:20,21

8-pound

99:8

8.3 98:13

8/30/04 30:8

80s

67:5

800-plus 75:8

814-3932 2:19

814-3956 2:5

40:3,6,18 45:12

9th 104:9

9:30 1:14 104:9

9:43 1:14

90s 96:8

$

Zenz23:5 75:1,2

zoology 26:8