1
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
2
3 IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
4 TRIENNIAL REVIEW OF
)
SULFATE AND TOTAL
)
5 DISSOLVED SOLIDS WATER
) R07-9
QUALITY STANDARDS:
) (Rulemaking - Water)
6 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 )
ILL. ADM. CODE
)
7 302.102(b)(6),
)
302.102(b)(8),
)
8 302.102(b)(10),
)
302.208(g), 309.103(c)(3), )
9 405.109(b)(2)(A),
)
409.109(b)(2)(B),
)
10 406.100(d); REPEALER OF 35 )
ILL. ADM. CODE 406.203 and )
11 Part 407; and PROPOSED NEW )
35 ILL. ADM. CODE
)
12 302.208(h)
)
13
14 Proceedings held on March 7, 2007, at 10:34 a.m., at the
Illinois Pollution Control Board, 1021 North Grand Avenue
15 East, Springfield, Illinois, before Marie E. Tipsord,
Hearing Officer.
16
17
18
19
Reported By: Karen Waugh, CSR, RPR
20
CSR License No: 084-003688
21
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
11 North 44th Street
22
Belleville, IL 62226
(618) 277-0190
23
24
Keefe Reporting Company
1
APPEARANCES
2
3 Board Members present:
4 Chairman G. Tanner Girard
Board Member Thomas E. Johnson
5
6 Board Staff Members present:
7 Anand Rao, Senior Environmental Scientist
8
9
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BY: Mr. Sanjay K. Sofat
10
Assistant Counsel
Division of Legal Counsel
11
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
12
On behalf of the Illinois EPA
13 Also present: Robert G. Mosher
Brian T. Koch
14
Toby Frevert
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Keefe Reporting Company
2
1
INDEX
2 WITNESS
PAGE NUMBER
3 IEPA
Robert G. Mosher
11
4 Brian T. Koch
22
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Keefe Reporting Company
3
1
EXHIBITS
2
3 (No exhibits were marked.)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Keefe Reporting Company
4
1
PROCEEDINGS
2
(March 7, 2007; 10:34 a.m.)
3
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Good morning. My
4 name is Marie Tipsord, and I've been appointed hearing
5 officer in this rulemaking, R07-9, entitled "Proposed
6 Amendments to 35 Ill. Admin Code 302.102(b)(6),
7 302.102(b)(8), 302.102(b)(10), 302.208(g), 309.103(c)(3),
8 405.109(b)(2)(A), 405.109(b)(2)(B), 406.100(d); Repealed,
9 35 Ill. Admin Code 406.203, Part 407, and Proposed New 35
10 Ill. Admin Code 302.208(h)."
11
To my right is Dr. Tanner Girard -- he is the
12 presiding board member in this rulemaking -- and to my
13 left is Mr. Thomas Johnson, also a board member here
14 observing today. To Dr. Girard's right is Anand Rao from
15 our technical unit, and I believe that's all of us from
16 the Board today.
17
We are going to proceed first, and the purpose of
18 today's hearing is to hear the prefiled testimony of the
19 IEPA. I have spoken with the Agency, and I agree that
20 since this testimony is short, they're going to go ahead
21 and read the testimony into the record for ease of all of
22 us here today. After we finish with both testifiers, we
23 will then proceed to questions, and we'll start with the
24 prefiled questions, which Albert Ettinger on behalf of
Keefe Reporting Company
5
1 the Environmental Law & Policy Center, Prairie Rivers and
2 the Sierra Club of Illinois prefiled a motion for leave
3 to prefile questions. Is there any objection to that
4 motion?
5
MR. SOFAT: No.
6
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Okay. Seeing
7 none, I will accept those prefiled questions, so after we
8 finish the testimony, we'll go to those prefiled
9 questions. Anyone may ask a follow-up to those
10 questions, and after we're through with those questions,
11 anyone may ask a question of the Agency. If you want to
12 ask a question, please raise your hand, wait for me to
13 recognize you and then state who -- your name, who you
14 represent and then ask your question. Please don't speak
15 over one another, as it makes it difficult for the court
16 reporter to get everything down. Any questions by the
17 Board or staff should not be viewed as any prejudgment or
18 any bias. It's merely our opportunity to make sure the
19 record is complete in this proceeding. And with that,
20 Dr. Girard?
21
CHAIRMAN GIRARD: Good morning. On behalf
22 of the Board, I welcome everyone to this hearing to
23 consider changes to the Illinois water quality standards
24 for sulfate, total dissolved solids and mixing zones. We
Keefe Reporting Company
6
1 look forward to the testimony and questions today. Thank
2 you.
3
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Thank you. All
4 right. With that, are there any opening statements?
5
MR. SOFAT: Yes, I will make a statement.
6 Good morning. I am Sanjay Sofat, an assistant counsel
7 with the Illinois IEPA. With me today are three Agency
8 witnesses. To my right is Toby Frevert, who is the
9 manager of the Division of Water Pollution within the
10 Bureau of Water at IEPA. Mr. Frevert will respond to any
11 policy-related questions. To my immediate left is Robert
12 Mosher, who is the manager of the Water Quality Standards
13 Unit within the Division of Water Pollution at IEPA.
14 Mr. Mosher will testify regarding the Agency's proposal
15 to delete the water quality standard for total dissolved
16 solids and several sections of Subtitle D of the board
17 regulations. He will also testify regarding proposed
18 changes to the Board's mixing zone regulations at 35 Ill.
19 Adm. Code 302.102.
20
To the left of Mr. Mosher is Brian Koch, who is a
21 toxicologist in the Water Quality Standards Unit of the
22 Division of Water Pollution Control at Illinois EPA.
23 Mr. Koch will testify regarding procedures used in the
24 derivation of the Agency's proposed sulfate standard for
Keefe Reporting Company
7
1 aquatic life use and livestock watering use. He will
2 also testify regarding the Agency's interpretation of the
3 proposed language for the sulfate standard.
4
The Agency has brought copies of Bob Mosher and
5 Brian Koch's testimony that the Agency has filed before
6 the Board. They are available on the back table. Also
7 there's a sign-up sheet. If we run out of documents, if
8 you give your name and address, we can mail those to you.
9
We are here to testify in support of the Agency's
10 proposal that amends Parts 302, 309, 405, 406 and 407 of
11 the Board's regulations. Changes to Part 302 of the
12 Board's regulations include an aquatic life based sulfate
13 standard that depends on the hardness and chloride
14 concentrations of the receiving stream, a chronic sulfate
15 standard for livestock watering use, deletion of the
16 general use water quality standard for total dissolved
17 solids and amendment to the mixing regulations. Changes
18 to Parts 309, 405 and 406 of the board regulations would
19 ensure that mine discharges are subject to the Subtitle C
20 water quality standards. The Agency is proposing to
21 delete Part 407 of the board regulations, as it is
22 obsolete and does not serve any purpose in the Agency's
23 permitting decisions.
24
This agency's proposal is consistent with the
Keefe Reporting Company
8
1 Title VII requirements of the Illinois Environmental
2 Protection Act. We believe this is a scientifically
3 sound proposal and one that deserves to be adopted
4 without any changes. Thank you.
5
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Thank you,
6 Mr. Sofat. I also would like to mention that there are
7 sign-up sheets to the right for the notice and service
8 lists. If you place yourself on the notice list, you
9 will receive information about all board orders and
10 hearing officer orders. The service list entitles you to
11 service of all documents, including prefiled testimony,
12 and it also requires you to serve all of your documents
13 on others. You can sign up here or you can also sign up
14 on the Board's Web site at www.ipcb.state.il.us, and I
15 also would note that all -- anything filed with the Board
16 in this proceeding will be linked almost immediately or
17 as quickly as we can on our Web site, so if you want
18 to -- ever want documents that maybe haven't been served
19 on you or that you think you might want to look at, they
20 are available on our Web site and you can download them
21 from our Web site at any time.
22
So with that, Mr. Sofat -- does anyone else want
23 to make an opening statement or identify themselves for
24 the record at this time? Okay. We'll go ahead and swear
Keefe Reporting Company
9
1 in your persons testifying and go ahead with the
2 testimony.
3
(Witnesses sworn.)
4
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Excuse me. I note
5 that, Toby, although identified as someone who was going
6 to be testifying, you were not sworn in.
7
MR. FREVERT: I have to leave about 11:30
8 for about an hour, so I'll be gone for a while, and if
9 there's some testimony I need to give after that, I'll be
10 happy to, but I didn't want to look like I was going to
11 swear in and rudely just get up and leave your hearing as
12 a witness.
13
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Okay. Well, let's
14 go ahead and swear you in, because we know we're going to
15 anyway.
16
(Witness sworn.)
17
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Okay. Go ahead,
18 Mr. --
19
MR. SOFAT: The Agency will start with
20 Robert Mosher.
21
Mr. Mosher, I'm going to hand you this document.
22 Please look over the document and -- for a few moments.
23
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Excuse me. Let's
24 go off the record for just a second.
Keefe Reporting Company
10
1
(Discussion held off the record.)
2
MR. SOFAT: Mr. Mosher, can you just read
3 your testimony?
4
MR. MOSHER: My name is Robert Mosher and I
5 have been employed by the Illinois Environmental
6 Protection Agency for over 21 years. For almost the last
7 20 years I have been the manager of the Water Quality
8 Standards Unit. My duties in this capacity are primarily
9 to oversee the development of new and updated water
10 quality standards and, together with others in the
11 Division of Water Pollution Control, to apply those
12 standards in NPDES permits and Section 401 water quality
13 certifications. I have a B.S. degree in zoology and
14 environmental biology and an M.S. degree in zoology from
15 Eastern Illinois University.
16
In my testimony today I will discuss the current
17 regulatory environment that necessitates changes to water
18 quality standards for sulfate, total dissolved solids, or
19 TDS, and mixing zones. First I will relate the general
20 benefits that the Agency's proposed changes will bring to
21 our system of water quality standards and water quality
22 based effluent limitations in NPDES permits. Second, I
23 will discuss the deletion of the water quality standard
24 for total dissolved solids. Third, I will explain the
Keefe Reporting Company
11
1 changes proposed for mixing zone standards and the basis
2 for these in terms of the reasoning behind the changes
3 and the discharges that would benefit from these changes.
4 Finally, I will cover the reasons for the deletion of
5 portions of 35 Illinois Administrative Code -- or IAC --
6 Subtitle D, mine-related water pollution regulations.
7
General use water quality standards for sulfate,
8 currently at 500 milligrams per liter, and TDS, at 1,000
9 milligrams per liter, have existed in Illinois
10 regulations since 1972. These standards were adopted to
11 protect aquatic life and agricultural uses; however, few
12 modern studies were available to determine appropriate
13 values. Adopted standards stemmed more from the opinion
14 of a few experts than from documented scientific
15 experiments. Because coal mine effluents in particular
16 are often high in sulfate, a special standard was
17 developed that is unique to mine discharges and is found
18 in Title 35, IAC, Subtitle D, mine-related water
19 pollution. Adopted in 1984, this sulfate standard of
20 3500 milligrams per liter also was not documented by the
21 kind of aquatic life toxicity or livestock tolerance
22 studies that are now expected in standards development.
23 Under existing general use water quality standards,
24 permitting many mine discharges without the special rules
Keefe Reporting Company
12
1 provided in Subtitle D would be problematic because many
2 mines cannot meet general use sulfate and TDS standards
3 in effluents at the point of discharge and do not qualify
4 for conventional mixing zones. Other industries also
5 have difficulty meeting the general standards and many
6 have received adjusted standards or site-specific water
7 quality standards relief from the Illinois Pollution
8 Control Board given that regardless of the source,
9 sulfate and many of the other constituents of TDS are not
10 treatable by any practical means.
11
A solution to this dilemma was to reevaluate the
12 sulfate and TDS standards that account for most of the
13 permitting problems. Studies of aquatic life communities
14 downstream from high sulfate and TDS discharges appeared
15 to show that organisms incur no detrimental effect from
16 concentrations of these pollutants higher than the
17 existing water quality standards. Since no national
18 criteria exist for these pollutants and few other states
19 even have sulfate and TDS standards, a long process was
20 begun to gather existing information on sulfate aquatic
21 life toxicity. When available data proved inadequate to
22 derive a standard, new studies were commissioned with
23 sponsorship from USEPA, the Illinois Coal Association and
24 Illinois EPA. At the same time, investigations on the
Keefe Reporting Company
13
1 tolerance of livestock to sulfate in drinking water were
2 begun.
3
This new research into sulfate toxicity found
4 that, as suspected, high sulfate concentrations pose a
5 problem of osmotic -- or salt -- balance for some
6 organisms. Many organisms, including all species of fish
7 tested and many invertebrate species, are very tolerant
8 of sulfate, so much so that no known existing
9 concentration in Illinois would cause harm. Other
10 species, including the invertebrate water fleas, Daphnia
11 and Ceriodaphnia, and scud, Hyalella, have a harder time
12 maintaining salt balance under high sulfate conditions,
13 which leads to toxicity. Unlike other toxicants that
14 have ongoing effects that lead to mortality over extended
15 time periods, sulfate-induced mortality occurs relatively
16 quickly but with no apparent residual effect. The new
17 research also found that two common constituents of
18 natural waters, chloride and hardness, are key to an
19 understanding of the toxicity of sulfate. Brian Koch
20 will further explain in his testimony how sulfate
21 standards were developed to protect both aquatic life and
22 livestock water uses.
23
While sulfate was being evaluated, it became
24 increasingly obvious that TDS is a very inappropriate
Keefe Reporting Company
14
1 parameter for use in water quality standards. TDS is the
2 sum of all dissolved substances in water and is dominated
3 by the common ions of sulfate, chloride, sodium, calcium,
4 carbonate and magnesium in various proportions. Our
5 investigations into sulfate toxicity reinforced the
6 notion that it makes little sense to have a standard that
7 covers all these substances together when the toxicity of
8 each constituent is really what is important. For
9 example, a water sample with a high chloride and TDS
10 concentration of 2,000 milligrams per liter is acutely
11 toxic to some species of aquatic life, but a sample with
12 high sulfate at the same TDS concentration is nontoxic.
13 In my experience with toxicity testing with ambient
14 waters and effluents, I am not aware of an instance where
15 common ions other than sulfate or chloride cause
16 toxicity. With protective sulfate and chloride standards
17 in force, salt toxicity is effectively regulated and
18 there is no need for a TDS standard. Illinois EPA is
19 therefore proposing that the TDS water quality standard
20 be deleted along with the adoption of the new sulfate
21 standard. The existing chloride standard is considered
22 to be protective of uses without being overprotective and
23 therefore is not proposed to be changed by our proposal.
24
Mixing zone standards at 35 IAC 302.102 dictate
Keefe Reporting Company
15
1 the conditions under which the Agency may allow dilution
2 of an effluent by its receiving water. As regulations
3 change, the realities of mixing needs must be reassessed.
4 Sulfate is part of a small group of substances for which
5 treatment is usually infeasible and for which mixing
6 becomes an important option in regulation. The other
7 common substances for which treatment does not exist are
8 chloride, boron and fluoride. It is not uncommon for
9 discharges from coal mining operations as well as other
10 activities to exceed these water quality standards and
11 require some mixing zone allowance to achieve attainment
12 of standards in the receiving stream.
13
Most high sulfate discharges from coal mines
14 occur during wet weather events that bring sediment-laden
15 water into treatment ponds, and from there the water is
16 discharged to water bodies where water quality standards
17 apply. The ponds function to remove sediment and, if
18 necessary, control pH, but sulfate and chloride are not
19 reduced. Water from the unmined or reclaimed watershed
20 also enters streams during sedimentation pond discharge
21 events and provides dilution for these effluents. At
22 many mines this is a simultaneous process; in other
23 words, rain makes both the effluent and the receiving
24 stream flow and lack of rain means both sources do not
Keefe Reporting Company
16
1 flow. For the past few years, Illinois EPA has granted
2 wet weather discharges allowed mixing zones for sulfate
3 and sometimes chloride with consideration of these
4 upstream flows. We now propose to augment the mixing
5 regulations to make them clear in this regard. The
6 changes to the mixing standards will allow mixing if it
7 is verifiable that upstream dilution will always exist
8 when an effluent is discharged.
9
Two aspects of the mixing regulations found at 35
10 Illinois Administrative Code 302.102 are proposed for
11 change. The first of these is the prohibition at
12 302.102(b), paragraph 6 and 10, preventing any receiving
13 stream being entirely used for mixing. The existing
14 standard dictates that a zone of passage, an area not
15 impacted by the mixture of effluent with the receiving
16 water, must be preserved for use by aquatic life whenever
17 mixing is allowed. This is a concept recognized in
18 regulations nationwide as a precept of mixing zones.
19 However, there is one circumstance of mixing of effluent
20 with receiving water that practically and physically
21 cannot include a zone of passage. Many discharges of
22 stormwater, particularly those from mines, are located
23 high in the watershed where only a few square miles or
24 less of drainage area supplies the receiving stream.
Keefe Reporting Company
17
1 These receiving streams are so small and narrow that
2 stormwater-driven effluent will mix completely across the
3 stream channel and leave no zone of passage as would have
4 been physically realized in a wider stream. Under a
5 strict interpretation of the existing mixing standards,
6 these discharges would not be allowed mixing and a large
7 segment of discharges would not be able to exist.
8
If the Agency's proposal to do away with the
9 zoning of passage requirement in very small streams high
10 in watersheds is to be functional, a method of defining,
11 quote, very small streams, unquote, is needed. With the
12 help of the Illinois State Water Survey, the Illinois EPA
13 proposes that a concept similar to the commonly used and
14 well understood 7Q10 flow be adopted to identify these
15 streams. Quote, small, unquote, may be equated with a
16 stream's ability to maintain flow. Streams very high up
17 in watersheds will typically dry up during periods of
18 little rainfall and then fill with water again when
19 rainfall returns. The more often a stream is dry, the
20 more hostile that habitat will be to aquatic life.
21 Streams losing all flow for at least one week -- a
22 one-week period of nine out of ten years on average will
23 present only a very limited habitat for aquatic life.
24 This will consist of organisms that can live out their
Keefe Reporting Company
18
1 life cycles in a relatively short time and then survive
2 dry conditions as eggs or dormant stages. Fish will use
3 these headwater streams on a migratory basis, with a few
4 pioneering species possibly using them only seasonally as
5 spawning or feeding areas. Streams identified as 7Q1.1
6 zero flow are defined as having no flow for at least
7 seven consecutive days in nine out of every ten years.
8
Under our proposal, wet weather discharges to
9 streams determined to be 7Q1.1 zero flow will be allowed
10 the entire stream volume for mixing. Aquatic life that
11 may inhabit the stream at the time of discharge will be
12 protected because an analysis of the effluent and the
13 amount of flow expected in the stream during discharge
14 events will be required in order to determine that the
15 available mixing will reduce effluent concentrations to
16 below water quality standards. For streams that have
17 been determined to have adequate dilution potential for a
18 given discharge, the force present in these
19 stormwater-driven effluents will be sufficient to cause
20 near instant mixing to occur. Therefore, aquatic life
21 will not be exposed to concentrations over the water
22 quality standards. Fish will be able to migrate through
23 the area of mixing with no ill effects.
24
The other change to mixing zone regulations is to
Keefe Reporting Company
19
1 delete the statement in 35 IAC 302.102(b), paragraph 8,
2 that prohibits mixing in streams that have a 7Q10 flow of
3 zero. The stormwater mixing I just described depends on
4 this change as well as non-stormwater discharges that
5 have unique characteristics. The existing definition of
6 dilution ratio at 35 Illinois Administrative Code 301.270
7 states that dilution ratio is to be determined from the
8 7Q10 stream flow or the lowest flow that is present when
9 discharge occurs, whichever is greater. This implies
10 that for noncontinuous dischargers, the allowed stream
11 flow to be used in the mixing-based permit limit
12 calculation is the flow expected when the discharge
13 occurs.
14
Under our proposal, these flows must allow for a
15 zone of passage, which is 75 percent of the stream flow
16 if the dilution ratio is 3 to 1 or greater and the stream
17 7Q1.1 is greater than zero. Many effluents are
18 continuously discharged and consequently the default
19 stream flow for calculating dilution is 7Q10. These
20 would include sewage treatment plants, power plants and
21 most industrial discharges. However, some facilities
22 outside these general categories produce effluent only
23 periodically, and where it can be demonstrated that
24 effluent will only be discharged at times and in
Keefe Reporting Company
20
1 quantities that will be sufficiently diluted by the
2 stream flow present at the time of discharge, that stream
3 flow may be used for the mixing granted. Deleting the
4 sentence, quote, "Mixing is not allowed in receiving
5 waters which have a zero minimum seven-day low flow which
6 occurs once in ten years," unquote, enables the
7 definition of dilution ratio to guide the Illinois EPA in
8 granting mixing. Discharges that can be withheld until
9 sufficient stream flow exists or naturally are only
10 produced in tandem with higher stream flows will benefit
11 from this clarification.
12
It is important to note that all other aspects of
13 the mixing zone regulation, and for that matter all other
14 water regulations, are still in force and work together
15 with the changes proposed. Especially important is the
16 reference to the provisions of 35 IAC 304.102, which
17 stipulates that the best degree of treatment must be
18 provided to effluents before mixing may be allowed.
19
With the changes proposed for sulfate and TDS and
20 the deletion of Subtitle D mine exemptions to water
21 quality standards, Illinois EPA is proposing to regulate
22 all types of discharges in an equitable manner. Water
23 quality based permit limit decisions will now be required
24 in lieu of the special exemptions formerly allowed for
Keefe Reporting Company
21
1 mines. Additionally, as a housekeeping measure, an
2 outdated portion of Subtitle D unrelated to water quality
3 standards will also be deleted.
4
The changes to standards proposed in the Illinois
5 EPA's petition are based on sound science and assure the
6 protection of designated uses of waters of the state.
7 These modernized standards will benefit mines and other
8 dischargers of sulfate and other dissolved salts that are
9 not amenable to treatment. Permit limits issued using
10 the new sulfate and mixing regulations will be
11 protective, yet not overly so, and will cause no
12 unnecessary burden on economic activity. The Agency
13 requests that the Board adopt this proposal.
14
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Thank you,
15 Mr. Mosher.
16
MR. SOFAT: Mr. Koch, would you read your
17 testimony into the record?
18
MR. KOCH: My name is Brian Koch and I have
19 been employed by the Illinois Environmental Protection
20 Agency for over one year. I work as a toxicologist in
21 the Water Quality Standards Section of the Division of
22 Water Pollution Control. I have a B.A. and M.S. in
23 zoology from Southern Illinois University Carbondale with
24 specialization in fisheries ecology and aquatic
Keefe Reporting Company
22
1 toxicology respectively. My primary responsibility at
2 the Agency is to derive water quality standards and
3 criteria through the implementation of USEPA and Illinois
4 EPA methodologies. My testimony will discuss procedures
5 utilized in the derivation of new sulfate water quality
6 standards for two designated uses, aquatic life use and
7 livestock watering.
8
My employment with Illinois EPA began in January
9 of 2006, whereupon I was immediately assigned to become
10 familiar with the procedures utilized in the derivation
11 of updated sulfate standards. Prior to my employment,
12 personnel from Illinois EPA, USEPA and Illinois Natural
13 History Survey spent several years reviewing literature
14 and conducting research in support of standards
15 derivation. Critical issues such as data selection and
16 statistical analyses had already been completed, thereby
17 providing a foundation for the new standards. It has
18 been my responsibility to obtain a complete understanding
19 of the formal guidelines Illinois EPA used to derive the
20 proposed aquatic life standards, as described by the
21 USEPA document entitled "Guidelines for Deriving
22 Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the
23 Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses," Exhibit
24 L of the Agency's proposal. The guidelines are followed
Keefe Reporting Company
23
1 in standards development by USEPA and other states and
2 are also used as a basis for procedures in 35 Illinois
3 Administrative Code Part 302, Subpart E and Subpart F,
4 used in deriving water quality criteria.
5
A key component in standards derivation is the
6 gathering and assessing available toxicity data for the
7 substance of interest. Given that sodium is the
8 predominant cation in Illinois waters, the Agency
9 searched for sodium sulfate aquatic life toxicity data
10 that was reputable and representative of Illinois fauna.
11 The Agency searched the USEPA ACQUIRE database as well as
12 other sources and compiled a database of toxicity values.
13 Upon consultation with USEPA and ADVENT-ENVIRON, a
14 consultant employed by the Illinois Coal Association,
15 several of the studies were deemed unacceptable for use
16 in standards derivation. An explanation for the approval
17 or rejection of each study is provided in the
18 justification document, Exhibit K of the Agency's
19 proposal. Dr. Charles Stephan, the primary author of the
20 Guidelines document, took precedence in this evaluation
21 of toxicity data and compiled a final list of final
22 values -- sorry -- compiled a list of final values
23 considered valid for sulfate standards derivation,
24 Exhibit M of the Agency's proposal. Upon review of
Keefe Reporting Company
24
1 acceptable data, it was apparent that fish are quite
2 tolerant of sulfate, while invertebrates are much more
3 sensitive due to problems in maintaining osmotic balance.
4 Of all tested species, the amphipod Hyalella azteca was
5 most sensitive to sulfate. However, data on this species
6 was limited and warranted further research to determine
7 the extent of sulfate toxicity. At this time it was also
8 noted that sulfate toxicity to invertebrates may be
9 dependent on water chemistry. In order to supplement
10 knowledge of sulfate toxicity, Dr. David Soucek of the
11 Illinois Natural History Survey was contracted to conduct
12 laboratory toxicity testing on multiple invertebrate
13 species exposed to sodium sulfate at various
14 concentrations of hardness and chloride. Detailed
15 reports of Dr. Soucek's research as well as additional
16 toxicity values generated from this research have been
17 provided in the justification document, Exhibits P
18 through U of the Agency's proposal.
19
Dr. Soucek's research was instrumental in the
20 derivation of new sulfate aquatic life standards, as it
21 verified that sulfate toxicity to aquatic invertebrates
22 is dependent on hardness and chloride concentrations of
23 water. Additionally, the research characterized sulfate
24 toxicity to previously untested invertebrates, thereby
Keefe Reporting Company
25
1 increasing the data set and providing a more accurate
2 estimation of sulfate toxicity to sensitive species. A
3 fortunate by-product of Dr. Soucek's research was the
4 finding that chronic exposures of sulfate to the water
5 flea, Ceriodaphnia dubia, did not result in reduced
6 survival compared to acute exposures. Because sulfate
7 toxicity is exerted through the inability of an
8 invertebrate to maintain osmotic balance with surrounding
9 water, it is believed that sulfate does not exhibit
10 traditional chronic toxicity similar to substances such
11 as heavy metals or pesticides. Whereas chronic effects
12 of other substances typically occur at concentrations a
13 factor lower than acute thresholds, Dr. Soucek has
14 self-sustaining Ceriodaphnia dubia cultures inhabiting
15 water with sulfate concentrations that are one-half to
16 one-third of acute thresholds. The unique toxicodynamics
17 of sulfate therefore required a sulfate-specific
18 adjustment factor when converting from the LC50 level of
19 effect, which is the concentration lethal to 50 percent
20 of tested organisms, to the protective level of effect, a
21 procedure to be further described in my testimony.
22
All aspects of Dr. Soucek's research, as well as
23 acceptable data from other sources, were used to derive
24 the new acute sulfate standards. As previously stated,
Keefe Reporting Company
26
1 the procedures used in deriving numerical standards are
2 described in the Guidelines document. A detailed account
3 of the data and equations used in the derivation of
4 sulfate standards can be found in Attachment I of the
5 Agency's proposal, pages 9 through 15.
6
When data is available to show that acute
7 toxicity to two or more species is related to a water
8 quality characteristic, a final acute equation must be
9 calculated in order to describe the relationship. Such
10 was the case with sulfate, where sulfate toxicity to
11 Hyalella azteca and Ceriodaphnia dubia was quantified in
12 respect to hardness and chloride concentrations of test
13 water. Sulfate LC50 values for the two species were
14 measured or estimated at various concentrations of
15 hardness and chloride and were then transformed into
16 equations with hardness and chloride-specific slopes
17 accounting for these relationships. Two separate
18 equations were required due to the finding that sulfate
19 was increasingly toxic at low chloride concentrations but
20 decreasingly toxic at concentrations intermediate and
21 higher, therefore requiring different slopes. With the
22 two equations in place, LC50 values for all valid tests
23 within the database were then normalized at specific
24 concentrations of hardness and chloride, whereupon GMAVs,
Keefe Reporting Company
27
1 genus mean acute values, and FAVs, final acute values,
2 were then calculated. The FAVs are the values that each
3 equation solves to when the normalized hardness and
4 chloride concentrations are entered into the final
5 equations. Two critical components of the sulfate
6 standards derivation warrant further discussion, the FAV
7 equations that account for hardness and chloride
8 concentrations and the adjustment factor that the FAV
9 equation is multiplied by in order to reach a protective
10 effect level.
11
By definition, the FAV is the value protective of
12 at least 95 percent of the species at the LC50 level of
13 effect. Because sulfate toxicity is dependent on water
14 chemistry, the FAVs are expressed in the form of two
15 equations accounting for different ranges of hardness and
16 chloride. An important concept to grasp is that a
17 standard cannot be set at the FAV effect level, as this
18 concentration would result in at least 50 percent
19 mortality in highly sensitive species, as well as lesser
20 mortality in more tolerant species. To achieve a
21 sufficient level of protection, an FAV or FAV equation is
22 multiplied by an adjustment factor that translates the
23 LC50-based FAV into a value that is representative of a
24 no observable effect concentration, NOEC, which is the
Keefe Reporting Company
28
1 test concentration that did not result in mortality
2 greater than that observed in the control. The default
3 adjustment factor value of 0.5 is used when insufficient
4 data is available for a substance. This default factor
5 was derived by taking the geometric mean of the NOEC to
6 LC50 ratios of over 200 tests on various toxicants. In
7 the instance of a substance with atypical toxicity, such
8 as sulfate, a pollutant-specific adjustment factor may be
9 calculated if the data set is of sufficient quantity and
10 quality and includes results from sensitive test species.
11 The pollutant-specific adjustment factor for sulfate was
12 derived by taking the geometric mean of NOEC to LC50
13 ratios from the two most sensitive species, Hyalella
14 azteca and Ceriodaphnia dubia. The analyses resulted in
15 an adjustment factor of 0.65, which is of greater
16 specificity and accuracy for sulfate toxicity than the
17 general multiplier of 0.5. The sulfate-specific
18 adjustment factor was incorporated into both standards
19 and serves to assure that an appropriate amount of
20 protection is provided to aquatic life.
21
The outcome of the Agency's efforts with sulfate
22 was the development of two acute aquatic toxicity
23 criterion equations for sulfate at specified ranges of
24 hardness and chloride. The adoption of these equations
Keefe Reporting Company
29
1 will allow for the calculation of site-specific sulfate
2 standards that are dependent on water quality
3 characteristics. By entering hardness and chloride
4 measurements from a specific site into the appropriate
5 equation, the resulting value will be the protective
6 concentration of sulfate at that specific site under
7 those water quality characteristics. The calculated
8 aquatic life standards are not to be exceeded at any time
9 but may be superseded by the livestock watering standard
10 if applicable.
11
The existing general use and Lake Michigan basin
12 aquatic life standard for sulfate was adopted in 1972.
13 There is no existing livestock standard, but it is
14 implied that the 500 milligrams per liter aquatic life
15 standard was thought to be protective of livestock, as
16 the McKee and Wolf (1972) water quality criteria document
17 used in support of standards adoption listed 500
18 milligrams per liter as a concentration protective of
19 livestock. Upon early stages of developing the newly
20 proposed aquatic life standards, it was apparent that the
21 higher aquatic life standards may conflict with the
22 attainment of other designated uses such as livestock
23 watering. At the onset of my employment, it was my
24 responsibility to research the effects of sulfate on
Keefe Reporting Company
30
1 livestock watering to determine if the newly proposed
2 aquatic life standards would threaten attainment of this
3 use. ADVENT-ENVIRON also participated in literature
4 review and supplemented the database. A listing of the
5 toxicity endpoints and respective studies that were
6 considered are listed in Exhibit E of the Agency's
7 proposal. Additionally, full-text versions of studies
8 integral to selection of the proposed livestock standard
9 are attached in the justification document, Exhibits F
10 through J of the Agency's proposal.
11
A review of the literature found that livestock
12 are acutely tolerant of sulfate within the range of
13 calculable aquatic life sulfate standards. Acute
14 exposure to concentrations within this range may result
15 in cathartic effects for several days, but these effects
16 will diminish as animals acclimate to elevated sulfates.
17 Prolonged exposure to these same concentrations, however,
18 would likely lead to adverse effects on livestock, as
19 well as the economy of impacted livestock operations.
20 Based from literature review, the Agency concluded that a
21 chronic standard of 2,000 milligrams per liter sulfate
22 would be protective of livestock watering, as surface
23 waters supporting this concentration would not lead to
24 adverse effects on livestock or economic impacts to
Keefe Reporting Company
31
1 livestock operations. It must be emphasized that this
2 standard is applicable only in areas where water is
3 withdrawn or accessed for purposes of livestock watering.
4 In many of these waters, aquatic life standards will
5 require that sulfate concentrations are maintained below
6 the 2,000 milligrams per liter livestock standard.
7 However, for livestock waters where the instantaneously
8 applied aquatic life standard is calculated to be above
9 2,000 milligrams per liter, a 30-day average sulfate
10 standard of 2,000 milligrams per liter will apply for
11 protection of livestock.
12
The 2,000 milligram per liter chronic standard
13 was determined upon review of recent studies where cattle
14 chronically exposed to drinking water showed increasingly
15 deleterious effects at concentrations from 2,360
16 milligrams per liter to 3,000 milligrams per liter
17 sulfate. At 2,360 milligrams per liter sulfate, cattle
18 have been shown to have decreased dress-out parameters,
19 signifying that exposure to drinking water at this
20 concentration may result in economic losses to livestock
21 operations. As concentrations reach 2,500 milligrams per
22 liter cattle have poor conception, and at 2 ,600
23 milligrams per liter cattle have been found to have
24 decreased weight and body condition. As sulfate
Keefe Reporting Company
32
1 concentrations approach 3,000 milligrams per liter,
2 cattle drink less water and become more prone to
3 polioencephalomalacia, a neurological disorder which
4 leads to anorexia, blindness, seizures, and eventually
5 death.
6
To verify the suitability of this proposed
7 standard, Dr. Gavin Meerdink from the Department of
8 Veterinary Medicine at University of Illinois
9 Champaign-Urbana was contacted. Dr. Meerdink has
10 performed consultations for livestock operations
11 throughout the state and has often dealt with the issue
12 of sulfate in livestock water and feed. Dr. Meerdink was
13 supplied with all values collected from literature review
14 and was informed of our plans of implementing 2,000
15 milligrams per liter sulfate as a chronic 30-day average
16 standard. Dr. Meerdink questioned the validity of the
17 older studies. He stated that much more has been learned
18 regarding the complexity of sulfur compounds and
19 ruminants over the last 30 years and that the recent
20 studies likely had better detail in experimental design.
21 He stated that sulfur compounds within the ruminant are a
22 complicated issue, as much variability can be attributed
23 to the sulfur content of feed as well as the ability of
24 rumen microbes to convert sulfur compounds into sulfides.
Keefe Reporting Company
33
1 Although limited animal taxa are represented in the
2 literature, Dr. Meerdink acknowledged that cattle are a
3 suitable study organism, as sulfur compounds in
4 monogastric animals, such as pigs and rats, are much less
5 of an issue. In summary, Dr. Meerdink stated that a
6 2,000 milligrams per liter sulfate standard would
7 adequately protect livestock. He related that
8 unacclimated animals may exhibit diarrhea for several
9 days immediately after initial exposure but will suffer
10 no economically significant weight loss or other adverse
11 condition. In his experience, livestock will soon adapt
12 to the higher sulfate water and the temporary symptoms
13 will disappear. Dr. Meerdink also stated that he would
14 feel uncomfortable setting a standard at concentrations
15 significantly higher than 2,000 milligrams per liter of
16 sulfate.
17
The development of updated sulfate standards
18 required modifications to the regulatory language in
19 302.208. The following is a summary of regulatory
20 changes that reflect the updated sulfate standards for
21 aquatic life and livestock watering. The previous
22 numerical standards for sulfate and TDS have been
23 stricken from 302.208(g). Sulfate regulations now exist
24 in 302.208(h)(1) to (3), beginning with the livestock
Keefe Reporting Company
34
1 standard listed in 302.208(h)(1). The 2,000 milligram
2 per liter livestock standard will be implemented as the
3 average concentration not to be exceeded over a 30-day
4 period in waters that are withdrawn or accessed for
5 purposes of livestock watering. Sulfate concentrations
6 are allowed to instantaneously exceed 2,000 milligrams
7 per liter in these waters providing aquatic life
8 standards are not exceeded and the 30-day average does
9 not exceed 2,000 milligrams per liter sulfate.
10
Water bodies not utilized for livestock watering
11 are exempt from this standard but are regulated by
12 sulfate aquatic life standards calculated in
13 302.208(h)(2)(A) or 302.208(h)(2)(B). The calculation of
14 the standard is subject to use of a specific equation
15 dependent on hardness and chloride concentrations within
16 the water body. The equation in 302.208(h)(2)(A)
17 calculates sulfate aquatic life standards for waters
18 where hardness is between 100 and 500 milligrams per
19 liter and chloride between 25 and 500 milligrams per
20 liter. Upon entering hardness and chloride
21 concentrations from the receiving water into the provided
22 equation, the resulting value will be the sulfate
23 concentration not to be exceeded at any time. Section
24 302.208(h)(2)(B) contains the equation that calculates
Keefe Reporting Company
35
1 sulfate standards when hardness is between 100 and 500
2 milligrams per liter and chloride is greater than or
3 equal to 5 milligrams per liter but less than 25
4 milligrams per liter. Additionally, in the occasion that
5 hardness and chloride concentrations are outside of the
6 previously described ranges, the sulfate -- the following
7 sulfate standards must be met. Pursuant to Section
8 302.208(h)(3)(A), if the hardness concentration of waters
9 is less than 100 milligrams per liter or chloride
10 concentration of waters is less than 5 milligrams per
11 liter, the sulfate standard is 500 milligrams per liter.
12 Pursuant to Section 302.208(h)(3)(B), if the hardness
13 concentration of waters is greater than 500 milligrams
14 per liter and the chloride concentration of waters is 5
15 milligrams per liter or greater, the sulfate standard is
16 2,000 milligrams per liter. The Agency believes the
17 proposed aquatic life and livestock standards are
18 scientifically sound and will serve to efficiently --
19 effectively protect the environment from adverse amounts
20 of sulfate.
21
This concludes my prefiled testimony. I will be
22 supplementing the testimony as needed during the hearing
23 and would be happy to address any questions.
24
MR. SOFAT: Thank you, Mr. Koch.
Keefe Reporting Company
36
1
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Thank you.
2
MR. SOFAT: That ends the Agency's
3 testimony.
4
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Okay. With that,
5 let's go ahead and move to the prefiled questions from
6 the Environmental Law & Policy Center, Prairie Rivers
7 Network and Sierra Club. Would you prefer to read the
8 question and then have them answer it?
9
MS. COLLINS: Sure, that would be fine.
10
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Okay. And you
11 need to identify yourself for the court reporter.
12
MS. COLLINS: My name is Glynnis Collins,
13 G-L-Y-N-N-I-S, Collins. I'm representing Prairie Rivers
14 Network.
15
The first question we had for the Agency, at page
16 7 of the --
17
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Excuse me. You're
18 going to have to speak up.
19
MS. COLLINS: Sorry. At page 7 of the
20 statement of reasons it is stated that this is the
21 triennial review. What is the reason for this proposal
22 being designated as a triennial review unlike other water
23 quality standard proposals that the Agency from time to
24 time has proposed to the Board?
Keefe Reporting Company
37
1
MR. SOFAT: I will answer that question.
2
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: In which case we
3 need to have you sworn in.
4
MR. SOFAT: Okay.
5
(Witness sworn.)
6
MR. SOFAT: On page 11, what we have is we
7 identify the sections of Clean Water Act that require the
8 Agency to periodically review those standards, water
9 quality standards, and all we are indicating here is that
10 this particular proposal is pursuant to Section 3 --
11 well, I think it's 303(c)(2)(A) of the Clean Water Act,
12 so I'm not sure what other regulations you are alluding
13 to.
14
MS. COLLINS: I don't think we had any
15 questions about other regulations; just that this seemed
16 to be a pretty specific modification, so why would this
17 count as a review of -- the triennial review of all the
18 water quality standards?
19
MR. SOFAT: In the past we have proposed
20 regulations; for example, phosphate effluent standard,
21 BTEX rulemaking that we did. We did all of those
22 rulemakings under the triennial review section of the
23 Clean Water Act. It is simply that you -- states you
24 need to go back and review your existing standards and
Keefe Reporting Company
38
1 see which standards are up for renewal because the
2 science has changed or there's some other reason to do
3 that. So in this case we found that we need to -- the
4 science that -- you know, the science behind the adopted
5 sulfate standard was not reflective of what the standard
6 stands for. In other words, the standard is for the
7 aquatic life use, and we found out that it's for
8 livestock and we intended to update that standard. Thank
9 you.
10
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Anything further?
11 Okay. Identify yourself for --
12
MR. GONET: I'm Phil Gonet of the Illinois
13 Coal Association. Are these questions available to us
14 here?
15
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: They were
16 available on-line. Did you bring any additional copies?
17
MS. COLLINS: I didn't. I apologize.
18
MR. SOFAT: We can make copies.
19
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: We can get copies
20 if you give us just a second. We'll go off the record
21 for just a second and we'll see if we can't get some
22 copies before we go on, okay?
23
(Brief recess taken.)
24
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: All right. We'll
Keefe Reporting Company
39
1 go to question number 2.
2
MS. COLLINS: Are other water quality
3 standard proposals planned by the Agency that it is
4 anticipated will be filed within three years?
5
MR. FREVERT: I'll answer that one. Yes,
6 there are. Several things are underway. Certainly we're
7 wrapping up a file review of secondary contact use
8 classification for streams in northeastern Illinois. I'm
9 very confident that will go to rulemaking before the
10 Board within three years. In addition to that, we're
11 working with a number of outside people to investigate
12 redesign of the entire aquatic life use classification
13 system. I don't know the exact timing of that, but
14 that's an important standard upgrade that we're pursuing
15 as rapidly as we can. Of course there's a dissolved
16 oxygen standard currently before the Board. USEPA is in
17 the process of revisiting and reissuing bacterial
18 criteria sometime upon receipt of that new federal
19 guidance on how to deal with such bacteria. I suspect
20 that will trigger a ruling. And then from time to time
21 critical issues pop up that need immediate attention, so
22 there's almost always a stream of some kind on the
23 standard modification.
24
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Anything else?
Keefe Reporting Company
40
1 Question number 3?
2
MS. COLLINS: It is stated on -- at page 8
3 of the statement of reasons that the current total
4 dissolved solids standard is unnecessary for the
5 protection of aquatic life. What forms of TDS have been
6 found to be present in Illinois waters?
7
MR. MOSHER: Total dissolved solids is the
8 sum of the concentration of all dissolved substances
9 found in water. For most Illinois waters, TDS is
10 dominated by substances comprising water hardness. The
11 main constituents of hardness are calcium, magnesium,
12 carbonate and bicarbonate. For other waters receiving
13 significant human-induced inputs, sodium, sulfate and
14 chloride can become major components of TDS. Less
15 significant components of TDS include potassium, nitrate
16 and barium.
17
MS. COLLINS: Thank you.
18
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Go ahead.
19 Question number 4.
20
MS. COLLINS: Are all forms of TDS that have
21 been found to be present in Illinois waters covered by a
22 specific numeric standard for the constituent chemicals?
23
MR. MOSHER: No. Of the most common
24 substances that make up TDS, only sulfate, chloride,
Keefe Reporting Company
41
1 barium and for some waters nitrate are covered by water
2 quality standards. These constituents have potential to
3 be present in harmful concentrations. Based on Illinois
4 EPA's experience reviewing ambient and effluent water
5 quality data, the remaining major constituents have not
6 been found in harmful concentrations.
7
MS. COLLINS: If it's all right, I have two
8 follow-up pieces to this.
9
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Absolutely. Go
10 ahead.
11
MS. COLLINS: One is some of the
12 constituents without numeric standards that we're
13 concerned about are aluminum, magnesium, sodium, calcium,
14 potassium; calcium particularly because it significantly
15 increases the toxicity of sulfate, we're told by
16 Dr. Soucek. Can the Agency respond to the concern that
17 calcium might be -- removing the TDS standard could
18 result in problems with calcium?
19
MR. MOSHER: Yeah. I mean, what you said
20 about calcium significantly increasing the toxicity of
21 sulfate is a debatable statement, I think, because
22 really, sodium, calcium, magnesium paired with sulfate
23 are really not toxic. I mean, they're all of a very low
24 level, and then that toxicity increases as you go to
Keefe Reporting Company
42
1 potassium and other metals. Copper sulfate, you know,
2 would be much, much more toxic, not because of the
3 sulfate but because of that metal. So I don't know that
4 Dr. Soucek -- you know, I'd be interested to see where
5 that's quoted, number one. Number two, all of the
6 investigations Dr. Soucek did were coupled with hardness
7 of the water. Calcium is the main constituent along with
8 magnesium, and so he did all his experiments with various
9 concentrations -- increasing concentrations of calcium
10 and magnesium and found that for the range of hardness in
11 Illinois that we normally would see, the calcium and
12 magnesium only makes sulfate less toxic.
13
So, yeah, true, we don't have standards for
14 calcium, magnesium, the other things that you mentioned,
15 but the question, I think, is do we ever need them, and
16 you could concoct some solution of some of these things
17 at some extremely high concentration, and, yes,
18 everything in the world is toxic at some high
19 concentration, but the things that we don't have water
20 quality standards for, these very common things, what
21 we're saying is we never expect to see those
22 concentrations. If for some odd reason some discharger
23 would approach us -- there's no existing discharger I
24 know like that, but if some discharger were to come and
Keefe Reporting Company
43
1 say, we want to build a new plant and discharge a high
2 concentration of potassium or extremely high
3 concentrations of calcium, we would then evaluate that
4 based on the other things at our disposal, such as the
5 antidegradation regulation, such as whole effluent
6 toxicity regulations, such as the regulations that
7 require the best degree of treatment to be provided. We
8 would question why there had to be such high
9 concentrations to begin with in an effluent. So that
10 all -- the bottom line answer there is there are these
11 substances that we just don't believe it's worthwhile to
12 have water quality standards for because we just don't
13 ever think we'll see them.
14
MS. COLLINS: Okay. That leads into the
15 second follow-up I had to this question, which is we're
16 particularly concerned with discharges from cooling
17 towers and scrubbers and wonder if the Agency can tell us
18 a little more about what components of TDS are in those
19 discharges and at what levels and whether the Agency
20 might need to require whole effluent toxicity testing or
21 special measures to assure that those discharges are okay
22 given the removal of the TDS standard.
23
MR. MOSHER: Well, we deal with two major
24 kinds of scrubbers. One type of system is used by oil
Keefe Reporting Company
44
1 refineries and other industrial air scrubbers that remove
2 sulfur from emissions through the use of soda ash. The
3 by-product of that, the waste product, so to speak, is
4 sodium sulfate, and of course that's exactly the chemical
5 that was used in the testing, so we're very confident
6 that the oil refineries in the state that are now either
7 already switched over to that system of reduced sulfur
8 emissions in the air or are getting there or will be
9 doing that in the next few years, that the effluent that
10 is very high in TDS is almost entirely composed of sodium
11 sulfate, and we have a good handle on that through our
12 research for this proceeding.
13
The more -- The older type of air scrubbing for
14 sulfur, coal-fired power plant type system, uses
15 limestone to capture the sulfate -- or the sulfur out of
16 the air, and you end up with gypsum, calcium sulfate and
17 of course some magnesium sulfate. Those substances
18 aren't very soluble and you end up with a precipitate.
19 The gypsum is at the bottom of the settling pond or in a
20 dry system. As it comes out, it can be reused for gypsum
21 wallboard or other products. You know, there's a use for
22 that substance. So we don't see that as being a
23 dissolved solids type issue.
24
There's a -- You mentioned not only air scrubbers
Keefe Reporting Company
45
1 but cooling towers, and there are an awful lot of cooling
2 towers out there for all kinds of different industries,
3 and what's going on in cooling towers is evaporation, and
4 they start out with a source water, whether that's city
5 water or well water or surface water, and they evaporate
6 that sometimes up to six cycles of concentration and then
7 they want to discharge that to a surface water, and we're
8 mindful in those cases when we permit those facilities
9 that we have to look at that source water. If the source
10 water is of a quality that can be concentrated up to six
11 times and discharged into the waters of the state and
12 still meet water quality standards, then that's an
13 acceptable thing and we permit that. Where that is not
14 the case -- and we do have issues arise like that -- when
15 those facilities are permitted or before they're
16 permitted, we have to look for alternatives. We have to
17 ensure that whatever comes out of that cooling tower is
18 going to be acceptable, and that's a major part of what
19 we do on a day-to-day basis through the antidegradation
20 program on facilities that aren't built yet and then
21 looking through our whole effluent toxicity program on
22 facilities that already exist. So we're mindful of the
23 things that you ask in your question and it's a
24 significant part of what we do on a daily basis.
Keefe Reporting Company
46
1
MS. COLLINS: Thank you.
2
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Go ahead.
3 Question number 5.
4
MS. COLLINS: And now I'll be sticking to
5 the list.
6
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: That's quite all
7 right.
8
MS. COLLINS: At page 10 of the statement of
9 reasons, it is stated that the proposed aquatic-based
10 sulfate standards are concentrations not to be exceeded
11 at any time. What does it mean that a standard is not to
12 be exceeded at any time?
13
MR. MOSHER: Many water quality standards,
14 including those listed in 35 IAC 302.208(g), are not to
15 be exceeded in waters at any time. This means that any
16 sample of water tested must meet the standard with no
17 averaging allowed.
18
MS. COLLINS: And then on to question 6,
19 what as a practical matter occurs if a sample is taken
20 showing that the standard has been exceeded?
21
MR. MOSHER: A sample that exceeds the
22 concentration of a given substance specified in the water
23 quality standard would be considered in violation of the
24 water quality standard. For example, the acute standards
Keefe Reporting Company
47
1 of 35 IAC 302.208(e) and the standards of 302.208(g) are
2 violated in any sample concentration -- or I'm sorry --
3 if any sample concentration exceeds the standard value.
4
MS. COLLINS: At page -- Question 7, at page
5 10 of the statement of reasons it is stated that studies
6 suggest that extended exposures to drinking waters high
7 in sulfate may lead to weight loss, disease and death of
8 livestock. To address this potential problem, the Agency
9 proposes a 2,000 milligrams per liter standard for water
10 to be used for livestock watering. Why is a standard of
11 2,000 milligrams per liter thought by the Agency to be
12 protective of livestock?
13
MR. KOCH: The chronic sulfate standard of
14 2,000 milligrams per liter was chosen upon review of the
15 literature as well as consultation with an expert in this
16 field. In regards to sulfate, cattle are believed to be
17 the most sensitive of Illinois livestock due to their
18 complex digestive systems. Recent studies have suggested
19 that chronic exposure to drinking water with sulfate
20 concentrations between 2,360 and 3,000 milligrams per
21 liter may adversely affect cattle. A chronic standard of
22 2,000 milligrams per liter was chosen to allow for a
23 margin of safety from the lowest observable adverse
24 effect concentration. A water margin of safety is not
Keefe Reporting Company
48
1 needed for protection of untested animals since cattle
2 are believed to be most sensitive. The Agency contacted
3 an expert in Illinois livestock operations for an opinion
4 on the proposed standard. Dr. Gavin Meerdink, a
5 now-retired professor for University of Illinois at
6 Champaign-Urbana, has personally dealt with sulfate
7 issues at livestock operations throughout the state for
8 several years and supports implementation of a 2,000
9 milligram per liter chronic sulfate standard.
10
MS. COLLINS: And question 8 you've really
11 answered already, unless you want to elaborate.
12
MR. RAO: May I ask a follow-up question to
13 the previous one? Mr. Koch, in your testimony you refer
14 to Dr. Meerdink's endorsement of the standard proposed
15 for livestock. Did Dr. Meerdink submit any written
16 recommendations regarding the sulfate standards or is
17 that --
18
MR. KOCH: No, he never submitted a written
19 recommendation as far as what concentration it should be.
20 We contacted him -- Bob Mosher and I contacted him and we
21 spoke to him about the issue we're having and explained
22 to him what the standards are and what they served to
23 protect, and we told him that we were looking at the
24 literature and it seemed that 2,000 would be an
Keefe Reporting Company
49
1 appropriate standard, and he agreed with that. He says
2 that in his experience, cattle that are subjected to
3 2,000 milligrams per liter, they typically will --
4 they'll have diarrhea initially but after a few weeks
5 they'll get over it. He said typically that occurs only
6 in unacclimated cattle. For example, when you move new
7 cattle to a different source of water, you know, from
8 basically low sulfate to high sulfate, they'll have those
9 bouts of diarrhea but they'll get over that. He says
10 they won't have any adverse effects.
11
MR. RAO: Thank you.
12
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I actually have a
13 follow-up. Dr. Meerdink was at U of I for a number of
14 years?
15
MR. KOCH: Uh-huh.
16
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: How did and why
17 did you choose to contact him? Was there some literature
18 he had provided that led you to him?
19
MR. MOSHER: No. This must be four years
20 ago when we were at the early stages of putting this
21 together. We recognized that -- well, we could read in
22 the Board opinion in 1972 that sulfate was thought to be
23 an agricultural issue because of the livestock drinking
24 water, and so I called up U of I Department of Veterinary
Keefe Reporting Company
50
1 Science and I said to the receptionist, "Do you have
2 someone who is involved in these types of issues?" I
3 explained it to her and she said, "Oh, yeah,
4 Dr. Meerdink," and at that time he was still a professor.
5 He's since retired. But that's how I got a hold of him,
6 and we've had many conversations with him since.
7
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Thank you. Miss
8 Collins, question 8 is answered, did you say?
9
MS. COLLINS: I think, unless you have any
10 more specifics you want to provide.
11
MR. KOCH: No, I'll just state our answer.
12 The Agency is only aware of the studies that have been
13 referenced within the filed rulemaking.
14
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question number 9.
15
MS. COLLINS: Is a standard necessary to
16 protect wildlife from exposure to drinking water that is
17 high in sulfate?
18
MR. KOCH: The Agency did not find any
19 published studies on the effects of sulfate on wild
20 animals. Nonetheless, it is known that sulfate is an
21 issue to ruminant animals more so than non-ruminants.
22 This is due to the presence of microbes within the
23 ruminants and their ability to convert sulfur into
24 sulfides. Deer are the only wild ruminant in the state
Keefe Reporting Company
51
1 that may exhibit sensitivity to sulfate similar to that
2 of cattle. However, wild deer have the ability to
3 relocate and drink from different watering sources,
4 whereas cattle are subject to the same watering source.
5 It is therefore believed that cattle in livestock
6 operations are the organisms most susceptible to sulfate
7 in Illinois.
8
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Go ahead.
9
MS. COLLINS: Question 10, at page 11 of the
10 statement of reasons mine discharges are discussed, and
11 it is indicated that the Agency intends to limit
12 discharges -- I think he means from mines to times and
13 places where a significant amount of water from the
14 unmined portion of the watershed also enters the stream
15 during the discharge, thus providing the necessary
16 dilution to ensure compliance with applicable standards.
17 How does the Agency limit discharges from the mines so as
18 to do this?
19
MR. MOSHER: Permit limits for substances
20 discharged at mines may be adjusted for allowed mixing
21 that is based on the amount of dilution water present
22 when the mine discharge occurs. Mine or other types of
23 discharges that are caused by storm events lend
24 themselves to this type of mixing allowance, although
Keefe Reporting Company
52
1 discharges demonstrated to be controllable such that the
2 effluent will only be released when dilution exists may
3 also be considered for mixing. Limits may be calculated
4 based on the flow of water predicted to be present in the
5 receiving stream from the contribution of the watershed
6 outside of the permitted mine area. This compared with
7 the discharge from the mine through the NPDES permitted
8 outfall will yield a dilution factor. The background
9 receiving stream concentration of the parameter for which
10 mixing is granted must also be known in order for the
11 permit limit to be calculated. In these instances, a
12 prohibition on dry weather discharge is included in the
13 permit. Alternatively, the receiving stream can be
14 gauged and the permit would contain a condition that
15 allows a discharge only when a given amount of flow is
16 present in the receiving stream. Permit limits are set
17 based on the upstream flow measured with prohibitions
18 placed on effluent flow when a certain dilution ratio is
19 not achieved. The guiding principle is that discharge
20 from the mine or other regulated facility must not cause
21 water quality standards in the receiving stream to
22 exceed -- to be exceeded.
23
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Go ahead.
24
MS. COLLINS: Thank you. Question 11, are
Keefe Reporting Company
53
1 mines limited to discharges during precipitation events?
2 If so, how are such events defined and how does the
3 Agency measure the amount of dilution that will be
4 available following such events?
5
MR. MOSHER: Some mines discharge during dry
6 weather conditions. At these mines, permit limits will
7 either be set at water quality standards with no mixing
8 allowed or will recognize dilution that is present at the
9 time of discharge pursuant to the mixing zone regulations
10 at 35 IAC 302.102. Mines that are granted mixing for wet
11 weather discharges only will have permit limits based on
12 the dilation ratio present during those events. Often a
13 proportional flow relationship between the mine outfall
14 and the receiving stream can be calculated based on the
15 watershed area of the mine basin and the unaffected
16 watershed of the receiving stream; in other words, a wet
17 weather dilution model. Alternatively, the receiving
18 stream and effluent outfall can be gauged and the permit
19 written to allow a given amount of mine discharge only
20 when a given amount of receiving stream flow is present.
21 Permit limits are based on the dilution ratio and
22 whatever amount of zone of passage that is dictated by
23 the mixing zone regulations applicable to the site. If
24 mixing is granted through use of a wet weather dilution
Keefe Reporting Company
54
1 model, the permit will specify that no discharge may
2 occur during dry weather unless all water quality
3 standards are met in the effluent.
4
MR. RAO: Can I ask a follow-up question?
5 Mr. Mosher, on page 5 of your prefiled testimony -- I
6 know it's not numbered, but I think it occurs on page
7 5 -- you state that Illinois EPA has granted wet weather
8 discharges allowed mixing zones for sulfate and sometimes
9 chloride with consideration to upstream flows in the past
10 few years. Can you be a little bit more specific and
11 tell us, you know, what was the receiving stream and what
12 particular source received this permit?
13
MR. MOSHER: Well, I can't name the names
14 right now. We could --
15
MR. RAO: If you can --
16
MR. MOSHER: -- go and look into that.
17
MR. SOFAT: Can we just give an example?
18
MR. RAO: Yeah, that would be helpful. That
19 way, if we want to see how the Agency permitted these
20 discharges, you know, it would be an example to see how
21 it's done.
22
MR. SOFAT: Okay. We can do that.
23
MR. MOSHER: Yeah. There's been an interim
24 period that we've undergone in permitting coal mine
Keefe Reporting Company
55
1 discharges for the last couple years. USEPA has said
2 that they consider parts of Subtitle D to be illegal and
3 that they refuse to okay permits that are put together
4 with that, so we have looked at mixing in the receiving
5 stream as an alternative to the sulfate and chloride
6 provisions of Subtitle D, so our permitting process the
7 past couple years has been a blend of those regulations,
8 which we hope to rectify and consolidate here with this
9 proposal.
10
MR. RAO: Okay. Thank you.
11
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question number
12 12.
13
MS. COLLINS: How is the flow in the
14 receiving water monitored so as to assure that necessary
15 dilution is present?
16
MR. MOSHER: Well, we consulted our manager
17 of mine permits on that one. He has put conditions in
18 NPDES permits for coal mines that require the discharge
19 and/or the receiving stream to be capable of measuring
20 the flows. There isn't any specific way that he requires
21 that. There's -- would be a number of ways you could
22 engineer the discharge to be adjustable or hold back
23 water. The stream gauging of course is pretty
24 standardized on a receiving stream.
Keefe Reporting Company
56
1
MS. COLLINS: Just to follow up for
2 clarification, is it now or is it envisioned in the
3 future that receiving water gauging would always be
4 required for these kind of permits?
5
MR. MOSHER: Not always. That type of thing
6 I think would be -- it is complicated to not only build
7 that at the mine but also to permit it and to monitor
8 compliance from the Agency's aspect, and we would reserve
9 that level of effort for situations that don't lend
10 themselves to this concept I referred to as a wet weather
11 model; the wet weather model being if the only inputs to
12 a discharge, a mine discharge or whatever kind of
13 discharge, are from wet weather runoff -- in other words,
14 there aren't any other effluents going into these ponds
15 or whatever that could occur during dry weather, it's
16 simply rainwater -- then this model comparing the acreage
17 of the unaffected watershed versus the acreage of the
18 mine basin is a valid way of determining what the
19 dilution ratio is, we believe.
20
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Go ahead.
21
MS. COLLINS: 13, how is the amount of the
22 discharge measured and controlled?
23
MR. MOSHER: Again, as our mine permit
24 manager interpreted that question, it was just -- the how
Keefe Reporting Company
57
1 is left up to the permittee, how they want to build
2 structures or gauges or however to measure effluents in
3 receiving streams.
4
MS. COLLINS: But again, it's not
5 necessarily the case that every -- each of these
6 discharges is required to have the quantity of discharge
7 monitored?
8
MR. MOSHER: I believe in the mine program
9 that those quantities are often estimated from, again,
10 the area of acreage of basin. There's other reasons than
11 this to want to know how much effluent is being
12 discharged besides just this dilution ratio concept, so
13 that -- those requirements have been there for quite a
14 while. Again, when we encounter situations -- and every
15 permit is unique -- we look and see what's going into the
16 mine discharge, what is the composition of that mine
17 effluent. If it's towards the more simple case of it's
18 just runoff, then taking that dilution ratio based on
19 acreage to acreage, upstream watershed to mine basin
20 acreage, is what we will use and we have been using, and
21 it's only when it -- when things get complicated that we
22 have to look further than that.
23
MR. RAO: I had a related question.
24 Mr. Mosher, on page 7 of your testimony you state that
Keefe Reporting Company
58
1 the force present in stormwater-driven effluents will be
2 sufficient to cause near instant mixing. Are
3 stormwater-driven effluents like discharge from mines?
4 Are they discharged at a much higher rate than an
5 effluent from POTW or are these discharges controlled in
6 some way?
7
MR. MOSHER: Well, stormwater at mines or
8 anywhere else involves a treatment pond, and those
9 treatment ponds are perched and the water exiting the
10 pond has got some head behind it, goes through the pipe
11 and enters the receiving stream. Those are forceful
12 discharges, more so than other types. It -- well, a
13 sewage treatment plant could be situated the same way,
14 where there would be head and there would be force behind
15 the discharge, or not, but these sedimentation pond
16 effluents are always like that. They are always located
17 above that receiving stream up in the mined area.
18 There's a little distance involved. There's a drop in
19 elevation. And what we intend with our -- my statement
20 there is that that type of forceful effluent coming out
21 of a discharge pipe meets up with stormwater runoff in
22 the stream itself, in the bed of the stream, and the two
23 are mixing in a very confined area, so unlike our
24 conventional mixing where you have a larger stream -- the
Keefe Reporting Company
59
1 larger the stream, the more true this is going to be --
2 larger streams, that mixing tends to be less forceful,
3 tends to not diffuse as quickly, tends to remain
4 segregated, and the mixing is a much lower energy type
5 situation than the stormwater.
6
MR. RAO: Thank you.
7
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Go ahead.
8 Question 14.
9
MS. COLLINS: Regarding the proposed change
10 to 35 Illinois Administrative Code 302.102(6), what is
11 the justification for not requiring a zone of passage for
12 those streams that have a zero flow an average of nine
13 out of ten years?
14
MR. MOSHER: The concept of a zone of
15 passage existing in very small streams is not supported
16 by the realities of physical mixing. The momentum of
17 effluents entering streams that are only up to five or
18 six feet in width is such that the effluent will mix
19 almost instantly with the entire stream flow. No zone of
20 passage unimpacted by the effluent exists. When
21 allocating mixing to effluents that discharge to very
22 small streams, it is not realistic to calculate limits
23 based on a zone of passage that doesn't exist. Streams
24 that do not have flow for a minimum of seven consecutive
Keefe Reporting Company
60
1 days each year for an average of nine out of ten years
2 are termed 7Q1.1 zero flow streams. These are headwater
3 streams that fit any definition of small. Aquatic life
4 habitat in these streams is limited due to the
5 intermittent flow. The lack of a zone of passage will
6 not adversely impact aquatic life because aquatic life is
7 limited to begin with, and the near instant mixing
8 attained between an effluent and a very small stream
9 means that water quality standards will be met within a
10 few feet of the end of pipe.
11
MR. RAO: Mr. Mosher, if that's the case
12 that -- if there's near instant mixing and meet the
13 standards within a couple of feet from the pipe, is there
14 a need for a mixing zone?
15
MR. MOSHER: Yes, there still is the need.
16 The effluent itself will be given permit limits for
17 sulfate or chloride in the case of coal mines or a few
18 other things for other discharges. Those limits will be
19 higher than the water quality standard. Whenever we
20 grant an NPDES permit with effluent limits higher than
21 the water quality standard, there has to be the concept
22 of mixing recognized and there -- you know, the rules
23 have to, you know, account for that.
24
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question number
Keefe Reporting Company
61
1 15.
2
MS. COLLINS: Regarding the proposed change
3 to 35 Illinois Administrative Code 302.102(8), currently
4 discharges to waters with a 7Q10 flow of zero must meet
5 water quality standards at the point of discharge or end
6 of pipe. What is the justification for eliminating this
7 limitation on dilution?
8
MR. MOSHER: Many existing coal mines as
9 well as other types of discharges discharge to zero 7Q10
10 flow streams only during periods when a substantial
11 dilution ratio exists between the receiving water and the
12 effluent. Many discharges are the result of stormwater
13 runoff and only flow during wet weather events when the
14 stream is also experiencing flow. Some facilities may
15 produce effluent only seasonally or only in small
16 quantities that can be stored on site. These effluents
17 can be controlled to discharge only when dilution exists
18 in the stream to allow water quality standards to be met
19 given the provisions of the mixing zone regulations. The
20 proposed change to 35 IAC 302.102(b), paragraph 8, aligns
21 the regulations with the existing definition of dilution
22 ratio in Part 301. Section 301.207 says, quote,
23 "Dilution ratio means the ratio of the seven-day once in
24 ten year low flow of the receiving stream or the lowest
Keefe Reporting Company
62
1 flow of the receiving stream when effluent discharge is
2 expected to occur, whichever is greater, to the average
3 flow of the treatment works for the design year,"
4 unquote. Modification of paragraph 8 allows effluents to
5 receive mixing using the lowest stream flow present when
6 effluent discharge exists.
7
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question number
8 16?
9
MS. COLLINS: If this proposal is adopted,
10 how does the Agency intend to write permits for
11 dischargers that may discharge during dry weather
12 conditions?
13
MR. MOSHER: If dry weather in this question
14 means a discharge that would be expected to occur any day
15 of the year, permits for these facilities will be written
16 such that no mixing is granted unless flow exists in the
17 receiving stream at 7Q10 conditions, whereupon a mixing
18 zone may be available.
19
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question --
20
MS. COLLINS: And 17, is it intended by the
21 Agency if this proposal is adopted to require permit
22 limits that require meeting water quality standards at
23 the end of pipe for dischargers that may have dry weather
24 discharges to waters with a 7Q10 flow of zero? If so,
Keefe Reporting Company
63
1 what would be the Agency's regulatory basis for such
2 limits?
3
MR. MOSHER: If a discharger has no ability
4 to control when the discharge may occur and that
5 discharge is to a 7Q10 zero flow stream, then no mixing
6 zone may be allowed and the permit limits will require
7 the effluent to meet water quality standards at end of
8 pipe.
9
MS. COLLINS: 18, will the proposed changes
10 to the mixing zone rules of 35 Illinois Administrative
11 Code 302.102 have any effect as to dischargers that may
12 discharge during low stream flow conditions?
13
MR. MOSHER: Discharges that will occur
14 during low stream flows will be allowed mixing only when
15 dilution to meet water quality standards is available.
16 Otherwise permit limits will be set at the water quality
17 standard at the end of pipe.
18
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question 19.
19
MS. COLLINS: 19, currently, in writing
20 permits under 302.102(8), what is the Agency's practice
21 in writing permits where the dilution is less than 3.1 --
22 sorry -- 3 to 1 during low flow conditions but greater
23 than zero?
24
MR. MOSHER: Illinois EPA acknowledges that
Keefe Reporting Company
64
1 the existing mixing zone regulations are silent on the
2 percent of stream water to be used for mixing when
3 dilution ratio is less than 3 to 1. We evaluate mixing
4 on a case-by-case basis in these circumstances. We've
5 had conversations recently, Glynnis, of exactly how that
6 has gone through our permits issuance process. In my 21
7 years of doing this, that was one of the first things I
8 looked at in regulations and said, well, what do I do
9 now, and in practice at the Agency, we looked back
10 through the files to a time before I or other people
11 worked there and said, well, what did our predecessors
12 do? Our predecessors gave more often than not 50 percent
13 as the level. We try to be consistent in doing that, but
14 we recognize that, again, those regulations don't
15 specify. There can be cases where our agency would
16 choose to not use 50 percent. We would look at, again,
17 case by case, what are the factors present and what makes
18 the most sense as to what to allow.
19
MS. COLLINS: 20, please provide an example
20 of the calculation of a sulfate water quality standard
21 under proposed Illinois -- 35 Illinois Administrative
22 Code 302.208(h) using values for hardness and chloride
23 that are typical of Illinois streams.
24
MR. KOCH: Typical concentrations of
Keefe Reporting Company
65
1 hardness and chloride throughout Illinois streams are 250
2 and 25 milligrams per liter respectively. By
3 incorporating these values into the aquatic life equation
4 in 302.208(h)(2)(A), the sulfate concentration not to be
5 exceeded will be 1,701 milligrams per liter. At this
6 calculated acute concentration, the chronic livestock
7 standard of 2,000 milligrams per liter is not pertinent.
8 It should be noted that the 1,701 milligrams per liter is
9 an estimate based on hardness and chloride concentrations
10 throughout the state. Due to higher water hardness in
11 northern areas, streams in northern Illinois will likely
12 have sulfate standards close to 2,000 milligrams per
13 liter while southern streams would have sulfate standards
14 closer to 1,500 milligrams per liter. Please refer to
15 Exhibit V of the Agency-filed rulemaking for calculations
16 of acute sulfate standards at various concentrations of
17 hardness and chloride.
18
MS. COLLINS: Thank you.
19
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question 21.
20
MS. COLLINS: 21, it appears that under
21 proposed 35 Illinois Administrative Code 302.208(h)(3)(B)
22 that the sulfate standard will be 2,000 milligrams per
23 liter in all cases when the chloride concentration is
24 greater than 500 milligrams per liter. Is this correct?
Keefe Reporting Company
66
1
MR. KOCH: No, this is not correct. I think
2 it was just a misprint. What you meant to say is
3 hardness -- when the hardness is greater than 500
4 milligrams per liter.
5
MS. COLLINS: Okay. Thank you.
6
MR. KOCH: But to answer it correctly, if
7 the chloride concentration is greater than 500 milligrams
8 per liter, then the chloride standard of 500 milligrams
9 per liter will be violated. Pursuant to
10 302.208(h)(3)(B), if the hardness concentration is
11 greater than 500 milligrams per liter and the chloride
12 concentration is 5 milligrams per liter or greater, the
13 sulfate standard is 2,000 milligrams per liter. That
14 hardness concentration of above 500 milligrams per liter,
15 a standard of 2,000 milligrams per liter was selected
16 because limited test data suggests that toxicity begins
17 to increase at these higher concentrations. Currently
18 there is no data that suggests a standard of lower than
19 2,000 milligrams per liter is necessary at hardness
20 concentrations greater than 500 milligrams per liter.
21 More testing would be needed to calculate an equation for
22 the rare occasions that hardness is significantly higher
23 than 500 milligrams per liter.
24
MS. COLLINS: Thank you.
Keefe Reporting Company
67
1
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question 22.
2
MS. COLLINS: Finally, what is or was the
3 purpose of Part 407, which the Agency proposes to repeal?
4
MR. MOSHER: Well, we have it from our mine
5 permits manager that that section is no longer pertinent
6 to the current realities of permitting mines. Quite a
7 while ago there was a different permitting system in
8 place, and the section that is proposed to be deleted out
9 of Part 407 -- or I think it's the entire section we
10 intend to delete -- was there only to convert those
11 old-style permits into NPDES permits, and once that was
12 completed, once all the five-year cycle of renewing mine
13 permits ran its course, then that Part 407 was -- is no
14 longer necessary. They're all currently permitted under
15 the NPDES permit system. We don't need that anymore, so
16 it's kind of a housekeeping thing.
17
MS. COLLINS: Well, thank you very much.
18
MR. SOFAT: Thank you.
19
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Are there any
20 other questions for the Agency? Let's go off the record
21 for just a second.
22
(Discussion held off the record.)
23
MS. HIRNER: My name's Deirdre Hirner, and
24 I'm the executive director of the Illinois Environmental
Keefe Reporting Company
68
1 Regulatory Group, and I have just a couple of quick
2 questions. On page 13 of the statement of reasons,
3 Section 4 entitled "Technical Feasibility and Economic
4 Justification," last paragraph says, "This is a
5 significant cost savings for those entities as well as to
6 the Board and Agency, which together as representatives
7 of state government must hear and respond to these
8 petitions." Then on the last page of Bob Mosher's
9 testimony, second -- there's no page number, I'm sorry,
10 but it's the second to the last sentence -- it says, "And
11 will cause no unnecessary burden on economic activity."
12 My question is, what serves as the basis for these
13 statements? Has the Agency prepared a detailed economic
14 analysis of the impact on the mining industry similar in
15 nature to the science-based testimony provided or similar
16 to that stated regarding impact on the livestock
17 industry?
18
MR. MOSHER: Well -- excuse me one minute.
19 Well, there's no formal economic impact, to answer part
20 of your question. We do note that over the years there's
21 been many adjusted standards, site-specific rulemakings
22 before the Board dealing with sulfate and total dissolved
23 solids that all of the existing ones that now exist would
24 be unnecessary under the proposal, and we interpret that
Keefe Reporting Company
69
1 to mean that that would preclude the need for future
2 adjusted standards or site-specific regulations from
3 these types of industries, not only coal mines but
4 several other types of industries. We've heard -- As our
5 permitting issues have unfolded with USEPA and coal mine
6 permits, we've heard from the coal mines that of course
7 the Subpart D exemptions to sulfate and chloride
8 standards were necessary for the functioning of coal
9 mines. We hear that. We believe that in most cases --
10 of course we haven't looked at all cases of coal mines
11 yet, the existing ones, and of course we don't know what
12 the future will hold for different mines in different
13 locations, but we believe that many and probably most of
14 those mines will suffer no economic hardship because of
15 our rules, and in fact, our rules taking the place of the
16 Subtitle D, sulfate and chloride, provide a way for mines
17 to continue to exist. So, no, we don't have the dollars
18 and cents added up, but we are very aware of the -- you
19 know, the conditions across the state and how the
20 existing standards certainly cause economic impact. Our
21 proposal certainly reduces that by a lot.
22
MS. HIRNER: So in similar fashion, as a
23 follow-up, on page 13 where it says, "The Agency
24 anticipates that the proposal would require a small
Keefe Reporting Company
70
1 number of existing mines to employ additional controls to
2 meet water quality based permit limits," so the -- so
3 we -- would I carry your answer over to answer my
4 question of has the Agency prepared an economic analysis
5 relative to the cost of these additional controls?
6
MR. MOSHER: No, we don't have -- again, we
7 don't have the dollars and cents. What we do have is an
8 ongoing program with a professor from Southern Illinois
9 University Carbondale in the mine program there to
10 identify ways in which noncompliant mines or new mines
11 can be designed such that they will be compliant. Those
12 are management rather than treatment things that mines
13 can do, and we're hopeful that that will be very useful
14 and will minimize the cost to mines that are not
15 currently compliant with these proposed standards.
16
MS. HIRNER: So these standards will apply
17 only to currently operating or future -- or mines opened
18 in the future?
19
MR. MOSHER: Well, yes. Since they're
20 general use standards, they apply to all waters of the
21 state except for a very select few waters in the north
22 part of the state, but, yeah, I mean, everyone must
23 comply with these water quality standards.
24
MS. HIRNER: Thank you. That's all.
Keefe Reporting Company
71
1
BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON: Just a follow-up.
2 You and I have recently been involved in a site-specific
3 rule with respect to ExxonMobil's plant in Joliet, and I
4 guess whether there's a detailed economic analysis on
5 paper, that site-specific rule that we promulgated in
6 that instance was -- expended Board resources and
7 expended Agency resources and certainly expended the
8 proponent's resources as well. That rulemaking would not
9 have been necessary if this proposed rule is adopted; is
10 that correct?
11
MR. MOSHER: For the most part. Now, there
12 is a -- the unique thing about ExxonMobil was that it
13 initially discharged into secondary contact and
14 indigenous aquatic life water with a set of standards and
15 then the water flows under a bridge and it becomes a
16 general use water. We're changing general use, not
17 secondary contact, so ExxonMobil would still have a bit
18 of an issue and would have still had to come in for
19 relief. However, as Toby Frevert mentioned, our future
20 plans are to change the water quality standards for the
21 secondary contact waters, do away with that category
22 altogether. We anticipate that the same standards we're
23 proposing today for TD -- well, no standard for TDS and
24 the new sulfate standard will be proposed also for the
Keefe Reporting Company
72
1 new designation of the lower Des Plaines River and the
2 Chicago waterways, so eventually there would be no need
3 at all for ExxonMobil to come in for relief.
4
BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON: Thanks.
5
MR. RAO: I had a follow-up question too.
6 On page 6 of your testimony you had mentioned that under
7 a strict interpretation of the existing mixing standards,
8 a large segment of the current discharges mainly from
9 mines would be affected by the current rules. Can you
10 tell us how many, you know, mine discharge permits are --
11 currently exist in the state that are affected by these
12 rules?
13
MR. MOSHER: Well, the number we can come up
14 with later for you. Just about every coal mine will have
15 some sulfate or chloride above the existing water quality
16 standards, so they will either need a mixing zone or they
17 won't be able to meet those existing standards. Just
18 about every one. Sulfate is just, you know, part of the
19 geology around coal and there's no getting away from it.
20
MR. RAO: Yeah. I just wanted to know the
21 number of mines.
22
MR. MOSHER: Right. But we'll get you the
23 number of mines. All -- Just about all mines -- and I'll
24 ask our mine permit manager if he knows of any coal mines
Keefe Reporting Company
73
1 that are not -- you know, would meet 500 sulfate or 500
2 chloride with no mixing. I'll ask him that question
3 also.
4
MR. RAO: Thank you.
5
MR. HUFF: I'm James Huff, H-U-F-F, and I'm
6 here today on behalf of ExxonMobil, Joliet refinery, as
7 well as Citgo, Lemont refinery. I did have two follow-up
8 questions. One is, Mr. Mosher, you just indicated that
9 you anticipate that the changes in the secondary contact
10 will be similar or the same numbers as on the primary
11 contact for sulfate and TDS. What -- Has the Agency
12 considered changing the secondary contact now
13 simultaneously for TDS and sulfate, and what was the
14 thought process for not doing that?
15
MR. MOSHER: I don't know if Toby heard that
16 whole question, but that -- he's of course the manager
17 and has been very active in the works rulemaking, not a
18 proposed rulemaking, for Chicago waterways and the lower
19 Des Plaines River, and he can correct me if he wants to,
20 but it was his desire that the upcoming rulemaking for
21 the secondary contact waters was to be distinct and that
22 we would not try to change any standards in those waters
23 now; we would just wait and do it all at one time. So
24 did that answer your question?
Keefe Reporting Company
74
1
MR. HUFF: Yes. And the second question,
2 would you expect that the hardness and chlorides in the
3 Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal are similar to those that are
4 found in the lower Des Plaines River?
5
MR. MOSHER: Well, given that there's a
6 boundary line at the I-55 bridge where that water body
7 goes from one use category to the other, you know,
8 there's no difference in the water quality really as it
9 goes from the north side of the bridge to the south side.
10
MR. HUFF: Well, that's all the lower Des
11 Plaines there.
12
MR. MOSHER: Okay.
13
MR. HUFF: And the Chicago Sanitary Ship
14 Canal, if you go upstream by Lemont, in that area.
15
MR. FREVERT: The majority of the flow in
16 the lower Des Plaines River is from the ship canal and
17 it's not from the Des Plaines River, so I would assume
18 that basically water chemistry like chloride is going to
19 be dominated in the lower Des Plaines more so by what's
20 coming out of the Chicago waterway than what's coming
21 down the Des Plaines River. Nevertheless, they both are
22 subject to fairly significant de-icing operations and
23 chloride is elevated in the winter.
24
MR. HUFF: So the answer is yes, you'd
Keefe Reporting Company
75
1 expect the chloride and the hardness to be similar
2 between those two water bodies.
3
MR. FREVERT: I suspect they were. One of
4 our guys has looked at that, but I don't remember off the
5 top of my head. Probably similar.
6
MR. HUFF: Thank you.
7
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Are there any
8 other questions?
9
MS. SKRUKRUD: I just had a couple of
10 questions for Bob Mosher, just some clarification
11 questions. My name is Cindy Skrukrud, S-K-R-U-K-R-U-D.
12 I'm with the Sierra Club. Bob, on page 5, at the top of
13 page 5 there's a -- you have a statement that it's not
14 uncommon for discharges from coal mining operations as
15 well as other activities to exceed these water quality
16 standards. I wondered if you could elaborate on what
17 other activities.
18
MR. MOSHER: Okay. Oil refineries
19 certainly, that's exasperated in recent years because of
20 the air pollution requirements. There are specific
21 industries that have as by-products or waste products
22 sulfates. We mentioned the fact that simple cooling
23 water gets concentrated. There's groundwater in the
24 state that people use for different reasons, drink, water
Keefe Reporting Company
76
1 livestock. Coming up out of the ground doesn't mean
2 1,000 TDS. You know, that's just a fact of life. But
3 really, on the -- in the industrial sector, there are
4 just lots of different processes that result in sulfates
5 or high TDS, and I would say in most of those cases that
6 high TDS is because of sulfate much more so than anything
7 else.
8
MS. SKRUKRUD: Thanks. Then at the bottom
9 of page 7, here you're talking about continuously
10 discharging effluents and then you gave the examples of
11 sewage treatment plants, power plants and most industrial
12 discharges. Then the next sentence says, "However, some
13 facilities outside these general categories produce
14 effluent only periodically," and I just wondered if you
15 could give some examples there.
16
MR. MOSHER: Well, the sentence probably
17 should have been, looking at it again, that both outside
18 and within those categories. Let me give you a couple
19 examples within the categories. Sewage treatment plants,
20 there are some facilities like camps or state parks,
21 shower units, that are only used seasonally and are very
22 small and use lagoons as treatment, and those lagoons can
23 be manipulated to store effluent for the entire year and
24 only discharge whenever the operator sees fit or whenever
Keefe Reporting Company
77
1 his permit would say that he has -- that he should
2 discharge, so that qualifies my statement. There are
3 some industrial discharges that could behave the same
4 way. If we consider, like, a cannery, a vegetable
5 cannery, to be an industrial discharge, which I guess it
6 is, then they may only run that cannery for two weeks
7 when the crop comes in.
8
Facilities outside that are things that you
9 really don't think of as being an industry, and I have an
10 example. Natural gas is stored underground during the
11 warm months so that it can be withdrawn and used during
12 the cold months. Geologic formations are -- in some
13 places are such that they can do that, and when they
14 bring that -- the gas back up out of the ground, it might
15 have water that has to be removed before it can be -- the
16 gas can be used, and that water can have some chlorides
17 or sulfates or other TDS that they picked up underground,
18 very small quantities of water, water that could be
19 stored by the facility for an entire year waiting for
20 that receiving stream to have some, you know, high flows
21 from storm events, and then that water could be
22 discharged in maybe a matter of days and easily be
23 diluted. The water quality standard easily could be met
24 even though it's a 7Q10 zero flow stream. So that's an
Keefe Reporting Company
78
1 example of that kind of controlled discharge.
2
MS. SKRUKRUD: Okay. Thank you.
3
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Rao?
4
MR. RAO: Yeah, I have a few. Mr. Mosher,
5 on page 6 of your testimony you state that you developed
6 this concept of 7Q1.1 flow streams with the help of
7 Illinois State Water Survey, and are you aware if
8 Illinois State Water Survey has identified a map of these
9 7Q1.1 streams?
10
MR. MOSHER: Well, they're willing and
11 waiting to do that. We are in touch with Mr. Vernon
12 Knapp at the Water Survey. He has done the 7Q10 maps
13 that we've been using, the harmonic flow -- harmonic mean
14 flow maps that we've been doing and are part of the
15 regulation, and we are waiting to give him the go-ahead
16 to develop either maps or equations that would identify
17 what streams are 7Q1.1 zero flow streams. That's going
18 to be a grant that he will need. He'll need some money
19 to do that work, and it probably wasn't prudent to have
20 him do that before we even had this hearing, because when
21 we are waiting for someone to say that concept isn't
22 good, we don't like that, it shouldn't be part of board
23 regulations. We're at the stage now where Mr. Knapp
24 can -- we can make a phone call and he can begin that
Keefe Reporting Company
79
1 process, if we find the money, right? But -- So it's
2 just a matter of what comes first. You know, we want to
3 hear if there's any comments about this concept before we
4 go through that exercise and spend that money.
5
MR. RAO: Okay. I just want to get an idea
6 as to how many stream segments or streams that are in
7 the --
8
MR. MOSHER: Well, yeah. I've talked to
9 Mr. Knapp and he's aware that we're going to have another
10 hearing in April, and he's agreed that if we enter into
11 this contract with him that he would be able to come and
12 provide some expert testimony as to what his vision or
13 what his initial results at least would say to that
14 watershed size.
15
MR. RAO: Yeah, that will be helpful if you
16 can swing it.
17
MR. FREVERT: I'll just supplement that. As
18 a general rule of thumb from my experience here in
19 central Illinois anyway, any stream that has less than
20 maybe 20 square miles of drainage area probably does go
21 dry annually. Not every year, but in a normal year,
22 so -- and obviously there's going to be some variation,
23 but I wouldn't expect a great deal of variation from one
24 location to another. And there -- you know, there's
Keefe Reporting Company
80
1 literally thousands and thousands of miles of drainage
2 ways that have just a few square miles of drainage ways.
3
MR. RAO: Thank you. I had a question for
4 Mr. Koch. Mr. Koch, Attachment 1 to the statement of
5 reasons discusses the derivation of equations, and the
6 statement of reasons at page 10 explains that Dr. Soucek
7 developed the equations for sulfate standards, and when
8 we are looking at Exhibits P, Q, R, S, T and U, which are
9 authored by Dr. Soucek, we didn't find any of those final
10 equations in his documents. Just curious as to whether
11 Attachment 1 was also prepared by Dr. Soucek, or was it
12 prepared by you?
13
MR. KOCH: I've got -- You mean Attachment
14 I?
15
MR. RAO: Yeah. I don't know. It looks
16 like -- It's the first attachment.
17
MR. MOSHER: 1. Okay.
18
MR. SOFAT: This one. "Facts and Support"?
19
MR. RAO: Uh-huh. Yes.
20
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Which is 1A, sort
21 of, marking.
22
MR. KOCH: Okay. And your question is that
23 you --
24
MR. RAO: Who prepared that document,
Keefe Reporting Company
81
1 whether it was prepared by the Agency or Dr. Soucek?
2
MR. KOCH: We prepared this document, "Facts
3 and Support."
4
MR. RAO: And so the equations were derived
5 by you using the information generated by Dr. Soucek? Is
6 that --
7
MR. KOCH: Technically, since I started here
8 in January of last year, by early spring the equations
9 were already formulated by Dr. Soucek and Dr. Chuck
10 Stephan from USEPA, so what they did is they took
11 Dr. Soucek's data and they basically came up with a
12 formula, which gave us the FAV equation. What I did is I
13 just came -- when I came in here, I kind of kept up to
14 speed on what they were doing, I learned what they did,
15 but I never actually made the actual equations, but I
16 followed everything they did. I know what they did.
17
MR. RAO: Okay. And also, this final report
18 submitted by Dr. Soucek -- I think it was dated January
19 9, 2004 -- to the Agency, I think -- I don't know what
20 the exhibit number is. Has this report been -- you know,
21 has it undergone any kind of peer review other than by
22 IEPA and USEPA personnel?
23
MR. MOSHER: I could probably answer that.
24 That final report was the first contract entered into
Keefe Reporting Company
82
1 with Dr. Soucek. After he completed that work, USEPA
2 entered into another contract with him so that the first
3 report is a final report and then the next four reports
4 are from the USEPA contract. There's a first, second and
5 third quarter draft and then another final report for
6 that part of the work. I forgot the rest of the
7 question.
8
MR. RAO: Has it been peer reviewed?
9
MR. MOSHER: Oh, peer reviewed. Dr. Soucek
10 has a paper in a peer review journal based on a lot of
11 his work, and I think he's even going for more papers
12 as -- you know, he's writing more papers now, so we can
13 get you that paper and contact Dr. Soucek and find out if
14 other papers are published or in review, in peer review
15 journals, but I know of one for sure and we'll get a copy
16 of that.
17
MR. RAO: Thank you.
18
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Anything else?
19
MR. RAO: I'm done.
20
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Anything else?
21 All right. Let's go off the record for just a second.
22
(Discussion held off the record.)
23
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Let's go back on
24 the record. I want to thank everyone today. I think we
Keefe Reporting Company
83
1 got some good information in the record, and I appreciate
2 the Agency's testimony and their answers to questions and
3 good questions that were asked. Our next hearing is
4 scheduled for April 23, 2007. It's at 10 a.m. in room
5 9031 at the Thompson Center in Chicago, Illinois. The
6 prefiling -- The testimony for that hearing should be
7 prefiled by April 9, 2007, and I'll put out a hearing
8 officer order to that effect. Again, I remind you that
9 prefiled testimony will be linked and available on the
10 Web site shortly after we receive it, and so if you
11 aren't on the service list and want the testimony, or at
12 least to look at it, it will be there. With that, I
13 think we're adjourned for today. Thank you very much,
14 everyone.
15
(Hearing adjourned.)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Keefe Reporting Company
84
1 STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS
2 COUNTY OF BOND
)
3
4
I, KAREN WAUGH, a Notary Public and Certified
5 Shorthand Reporter in and for the County of Bond, State
6 of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I was present at the
7 Illinois Pollution Control Board, Springfield, Illinois,
8 on March 7, 2007, and did record the aforesaid Hearing;
9 that same was taken down in shorthand by me and
10 afterwards transcribed, and that the above and foregoing
11 is a true and correct transcript of said Hearing.
12
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand
13 and affixed my Notarial Seal this 15th day of March,
14 2007.
15
16
17
__________________________
18
Notary Public--CSR
19
#084-003688
20
21
22
23
24
Keefe Reporting Company
85