\\Cluster2\Law\LAW INBOX\R08-9.tif

Questions for Rob Sulski
Questions for Roy Smogor
Questions for Chris Yoder
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
Adm. Code Parts 301,302,303 and 304
R08-9(Rnlemaking-Water)
NOTICE OF FILING
THIS FILING IS BEING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF;

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR THE

CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM

AND LOWER DES PLAINES RIVER

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL.

ADM. CODE 301, 302, 303, AND 304

)

R08-9

) (Rulemaking-Water)

)

METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT

OF GREATER CHICAGO'S PRE-FILED QUESTIONS TO

THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Questions on IEPA Statement of Reasons

On page 6, paragraph 2 of the Statement of Reasons, the IEPA states: "After designating

uses, States are obligated to look to the requirements of 40 C.F.R § 131.11 to establish criteria

sufficient to protect these uses. States must establish criteria, for the relevant parameter, that

protect the most sensitive use and must address all parameters necessary to protect the use."

What is IEPA's explanation for not establishing water quality criteria for bacteria

to protect the proposed designated uses, in accordance with your aforementioned

obligations?

On page 18 of the Statement of Reasons, the IEPA states that, "75 percent of the

waterway length consists of human-made canals where no defined stream channel existed

previously."

Please tell us what type of fish and benthic populations IEPA considers to be

indigenous to this type of a waterway. Please provide the basis for your response.

Page 19 of the Statement of Reasons refers to the characteristics of the CAWS which

caused it to be designated Secondary Contact Use and Indigenous Aquatic Life Use in the early

1970s.

With the exception of TARP decreasing the frequency of wet weather CSO

loading to the CAWS, have any of these limiting characteristics described on page

19 been eliminated?

On page 33, paragraph 3, of the Statement of Reasons, IEPA states: "The most severe

physical barriers to waterway recreation exist in CSSC from its confluence with the Calumet-Sag

Channel down to its confluence with Des Plaines River."

THIS FILING IS BEING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

Given that the severe physical barriers to watezway recreation outlined on page 33

are the same for both segments of the CSSC, explain and provide reasons why

IEPA proposed two different recreation uses (Incidental Contact Recreation and

Non-Recreational) for the same watezway?

In referencing the CAWS, on page 34, paragraph 4, of the Statement of Reasons, the

IEPA states: "Many of the activities are promoted and occur from March through early

November."

Please explainwhat is meant by "promoted."

On page 34, paragraph 4,

of the Statement of Reasons, the IEPA states that these

activities "Include small human-powered watercraft boating, fishing and other shoreline uses

such as wading."

How many times was the recreational use category "wading" observed in the

CAWS during the 2003 recreation and navigation surveys?

What percentage did wading constitute of the total observed recreational activities

in the CAWS during the field surveys?

On page 35, paragraph 4, of the Statement of Reasons, the IEPA states: "All CAWS and

Lower Des Plaines River reaches are subject to an average of about fifteen CSO events a year,"

and that, "Bacterial levels in the watezways exceed the draft federal water quality bacteria

criteria nearly everywhere in the waterways following CSO events."

Identify the agencies that provided information on the number of CSO events and

the bacteria levels in the waterw.ays following these events.

Is historical data available that-confirms the number of CSO events and bacterial

water quality relative to the proposed bacterial standard in the watezways?

If the

answer is yes, provide a reference(s) for the information.

On page 40, paragraph 3, of the Statement of Reasons, the IEPA states: "For the Calumet

River segment currently designated as General Use, the portion of the Calumet River from

Torrence Avenue to the O'Brien Locks and Dam is being proposed for designation as Incidental

Contact Recreation, because some smaller craft recreational boating is believed to occur in this

portion."

Explain what the IEPA intended by using the phrase, "some smaller craft boating

is believed to occur in this portion."

Please quantify "some."

. C.

On what basis does the IEPA "believe" smaller craft boating occurs?

Does the IEPA have any recreational data for the segment to verify that this

recreational activity does actually occur?

If there is no recreational data available, how did the IEPA determine the

recreational use?

On page 42, paragraph 2, of the Statement of Reasons, the IEPA states: "The Agency

declines to propose a numeric standard at this time" for bacterial water quality.

Given the absence of sound science how has IEPA arrived at effluent limits when

no associated water quality criteria have been developed?

10.

On page 43, paragraph 2, of the Statement of Reasons, the IEPA states: "As of today,

USEPA has not determined what the indicator organism should be" for all surface waters.

In light of the above, what assurance can IEPA offer that their proposed effluent

fecal coliform standard provides any protection to recreational users, while there

is a lack of scientific foundation for secondary contact recreation activities?

11.

On page 43, paragraph 2, of the Statement of Reasons, the IEPA states:, "When U.S.

EPA detennines the indicator organism, Illinois EPA has committed to the Board to initiate

another rulemaking to address U.S. EPA's decision with regard

to the bacterial standard for Lake

Michigan." On page 44, paragraph

1, the IEPA further states: "Unfortunately, U.S. EPA's work

plan includes no provision to assess health risks and fonnulate criteria associated with any

secondary or lesser exposure conditions than primary contact recreational activities."

What is the basis for IEPA to initiate this rulemaking when there is no compelling

data based on sound science indicating that the USEPA recreational water quality

standards developed for primary contact recreational water, such as Lake

Michigan, are applicable to incidental contact recreation in the CAWS?

12.

On page 44 of the Statement of Reasons, IEPA acknowledges that an epidemiologic

study and a risk assessment study commissioned by the District will, "allow comparison between

the risk associated with the specific types

of human contact recreation occurring in the CAWS

during both dry and wet weather."

Having acknowledged that sound scientific information is not available and that

studies commissioned by the District will provide data within 24-30 months that

will fill the scientific void, what justification does

IEPA have for moving forward

at this time to make recommendations?

13.

On page 46 of the Statement of Reasons, the IEPA states: "Waters designated as Chicago

Area Waterway System Aquatic Life Use A Waters are capable

of maintaining aquatic-life

populations predominated by individuals

of tolerant or intermediately tolerant types ..."

Given the use of the word "or," does this statement mean that a waterway could

be designated Aquatic Life Use A even if it is only capable of maintaining

tolerant types

of aquatic life?

If so, what would be the difference between Aquatic Life Use A and B waters in

terms

of the types of aquatic life they can support?

Please give examples of fish and benthic organisms that are considered

intermediately tolerant and therefore could thrive in Use A waters but not Use B

waters. (provide literature citations to support your response.)

14.

On page 47, paragraph 3, of the Statement of ReasoJ;ls, the IEPA states: "Aquatic life use

attainability (Le., biological potential)

of the CAWS and the lower Des Plaines River depends

primarily

on physical habitat conditions."

Identify the physical habitat conditions upon which the aquatic life use

attainability depends.

Are the physical conditions (for example, lack

of suitable substrate, cover, flow,

depth, pools, riffles and the like) the major enviromnental stressors precluding

attainment

of aquatic life uses in the CAWS and the lower Des Plaines River?

15.

On pages 57, final paragraph, of the Statement of Reason, the IEPA states: "The

proposed dissolved oxygen standards are based on criteria and corresponding justification in U.S.

EPA's national-criteria document. .." Table 8 of the USEPA Criteria Document lists the

acceptable

I-day minimum DO concentration for warm water species as 3.0 mglL. The IEPA

proposes a minimum

of3.5 mglL.

Please explain why the IEPA has chosen not to adopt the USEPA criteria for the

CAWS which are designated for

mod~rate

and limited aquatic life use?

Of the fish and benthic species which you expect to find in Use A and Use B

waters, please identify the ones that can survive

in waters with a I-day minimum

DO of 3.5 mglL, but will not survive at

the-3-,{)-mgl-Ir-lev€l---and-prev~.e{}-thHata

sources or literature citations used to derive your response.

Was the USEPA document meant to prqvide DO criteria for man-made canals?

16.

Given that the current

DO standard for the Calumet-Sag Channel allows for a minimum

daily

DO of 3.0 mglL.

How many significant fish kills have been reported to the IEPA in the past five

years for the Calumet-Sag Channel?

What fish species were killed in each event?

If any fish kills have occurred, has IEPA determined that they have adversely

affected the long-term health

ofthe fish population in the Calumet-Sag Channel?

Can you explain why a higher minimum daily DO standard is now needed for the

Calumet-Sag Channel?

17.

The IEPA proposal for Aquatic Life Use A specifies a daily minimum DO

of 5.0 mglL

for the months

of March through July.

Please identify the fish and benthic species living in Aquatic Life Use A waters in

the CAWS that need this high of a DO concentration to thrive (please provide

some aquatic ecology literature citations to support your response).

Which of these fish and benthic species are currently found in the Calumet-Sag

Channel?

18.

On page 55

of the Statement of Reasons, the IEPA indicates that the Unnatural Sludge

standard (Section 302.403) is to serve the "necessary purpose

of preventing future additional

accumulations

of unnatural pollutants."

In practical terms, how does the IEPA propose to distinguish between legacy and

recent accumulation

of sediment?

19.

On page 61 of the Statement of Reasons, the IEPA states: "During periods when wet

weather causes CSO discharges to impact the CAWS and Lower Des Plaines River, dissolved

oxygen can drop to zero. .... it is highly likely the proposed dissolved oxygen standards will be

violated.

may be necessary for MWRDGC to implement additional flow augmentation and

aeration treatment technologies in order to achieve compliance with these dissolved oxygen

standards."

Has IEPA confinned whether CSOs or re-suspended sediment (as "described on

page 33

of the Statement of Reasons), or both cause the DO depletion during wet

weather?

Would IEPA consider allowing a wet weather exception to the standards due to

the unique hydrological conditions that apply to operating the system during wet

weather?

If not, why?

20.

On page 82

of the Statement of Reasons, the IEPA states: "Chicago Area Waterway

System and Brandon Pool Aquatic Life Use B waters listed in 35 lAC 303.235 'should use the

option

of 8 RAS to determine the summer daily maximum and period average." It further states:

"The Chicago Area Waterway System Aquatic Life Use A waters listed in 35 lAC 303.230

should use the option

of 8 RAS plus white sucker to determine the summer daily maximum and

period average."

Is it correct to say then that the only difference between Aquatic Life Use A and B

waters is the presence

of the white sucker species of fish?

How was this rationale applied to standard derivations other than temperature,

such as DO?

21.

Starting on page 92

of the Statement of Reasons, effluent bacteria standards for

discharges to the CAWS are desclibed

by IEP

On page 93, the IEPA states: "In the proposal,

the Agency included an effluent standard for the disinfection

of all existing effluents discharged

to Incidental Contact Recreation waters and Non-Contact Recreation waters

by the recreational

season 2011 as specified in the language above."

With respect to indicator and pathogenic microorganisms, what scientific data

proves that wastewater effluent disinfection will result in measurable

improvements

bacterial water quality in the CAWS?

Did IEPA take into account the impacts of all of the sources of microorganisms to

the CAWS including lingering effects

of wet weather in their assessment of water

quality improvement and risk reduction expected to result from effluent

disinfection? Please provide the details

ofthis analysis.

What science is available to demonstrate the public health benefits to justify the

costs

of achieving the effluent disinfection that is required in IEPA's proposal?

What scientific basis exists to prove that requiring effluent disinfection at all

. the District WRPs will not result in other undetermined significant environmental

impacts?

What scientific evidence demonstrates that there is currently a public health

concern for recreators in the waterways proposed as Incidental Contact or Non-

Contact Recreation?

Explain the benefit and justification for requiring bacterial standards for effluent

that is being discharged to a waterway without a water quality standard?

22.

On pages 92-93

of the Statement of Reasons, IEPA states,

"It

was noted at stake1)older

meetings that there were activities, such as sculling, being performed as early as March and as

late as November. It was determined that disinfection needed to correspond to these known

recreational activities." Later, on page 98, IEPA states, "In addition to bacterial standards to

protect human health

..."

Does IEPA have any evidence to support that disinfection would protect

recreators participating in these activities, such

as sculling?

Please describe the number of disease outbreaks that have been reported to the

IEPA in the past three years from people recreating

in the CAWS?

How many total individuals were affected?

Were these outbreaks, if any, conclusively attributed to exposure to water in the

CAWS?

Based on your data and infonnation, please estimate the total number of people

that IEPA believes would become ill due

to CAWS exposure in the next three

years, without disinfection at the District WRPs.

23.

On page 100, paragraph 2,

of the Statement of Reasons, the IEPA states: "In the August

26, 2005 report 'Technical Memorandum 1WQ:

Disinfection Evaluation,' MWRDGC provided a

cost estimate to disinfect the effluent at the North Side, Stickney and Calumet treatment plants

total present worth between $963 million and $2,702 million for capital costs and operation and

maintenance costs."

Based upon the estimated number of current CAWS recreators, and the

infonnation the IEPA currently has on risk assessment, how many incidents

illness are likely to be prevented ammally by effluent disinfection at District

WRPs?

Based upon these figures and the number of illnesses that you estimate might be

reduced when disinfection is practiced, what is the cost in tax dollars annually

for

each possibly preventable illness?

Did you conclude from this analysis that the costs of effluent disinfection are

justified by the estimated benefits?

Is IEPA aware that it will take longer than three years to construct disinfection

facilities at the District's WRPs that discharge to the CAWS due

to the size of the

facilities that provide a scale upon which the preferred technology has never been

tested?

Is IEPA aware that if the facilities are built as a precautionary measure for the

three-year interim period and the public health studies indicate that there is not a

need to operate the facilities, the hundreds

of millions of dollars of capital costs

cannot be recovered?

Has IEPA considered delaying any disinfection requirement until the ongoing

epidemiological study regarding this issue is completed?

Ifnot, why not?

Questions Regarding IEPA Attachment No. R, "Analysis of Physical Habitat

Quality and Limitations to Waterways in the Chicago Area," by Edward Rankin

On Page 2 of Attachment R, Analysis of Physical Habitat Quality and Limitations to

Waterways in the Chicago Area

by Edward Rankin, (page numbers not present) the report

indicates that "cover type scores" are listed in Table 3 and were "collected

as part of a planned

revision to the QHEI."

Was this revised QHEI metric used to evaluate the CAWS, rather than the

traditional QHEI method?

Has this revised method replaced the original QHEI at this time?

Has the revised method been peer-reviewed and utilized successfully in this

region?

On pages 3-5 of the Analysis of Physical Habitat Quality and Limitations to Waterways

in the Chicago Area Report, there,is a large difference in the QHEI scores reported in the second

column

of Table 2 (not labeled) and the second column of Table 3 for the Calumet-Sag Channel

at Route

83 (42.0 and 54.0, respectively) and Cicero Avenue (37.5 and 47.5, respectively).

Similarly, there are different scores listed for "Sharon," (which appears to be a misspelling

Sheridan Road) and Dempster Street on the North Shore Chatmel. The remaining stations show

the same QHEI scores in each table.

Is this an error? Please explain the discrepancy.

Did Mr. Rankin use the QHEI scores from Table 2 or Table 3 when he evaluated

the Calumet-Sag Channel and suggested a tier classification?

On page 6, paragraph 2, of the Analysis of Physical Habitat Quality and Limitations to

Waterways in the Chicago Area Report, there is a discussion of habitat conditions that are not

feasible

to restore, "such as ongoing activities that maintain the water in an altered state (e.g.,

chatmel maintenance for ag [sic] drainage, flood control)... " This condition would apply

to all

of the CAWS (with the exception of the Calumet River upstream of the O'Brien Lock and Dam

to Lake Michigan) since its flow

is controlled by the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of

Greater Chicago.

Does IEPA agree with Mr. Rankin's statement in his report that habitat cannot be

feasibly restored

if the waterway is in an "altered state" for flood control?

On page 6, last paragraph, the Analysis of Physical Habitat Quality and Limitations to

Waterways in the Chicago Area Report, Mr. Rankin states, "In the following section we will

examine each waterbody and summarize the physical limitations and the suggested tier under

which it would fit in the Ohio model."

Please describe the recommended categories that Mr. Rankin used from the Ohio

tier model.

Were Mr. Rankin's recommendations based on actual QHEI scores or on his

professional judgment?

If based on QHEI scores, what scores are associated with each of the

recommended Ohio tier categories?

On page 10 of the Analysis of Physical Habitat Quality and Limitations to Waterways in

the Chicago Area Report, Mr. Rankin states: "The Cal-Sag Channel had QHEI scores in the fair

range, largely because

of the limestone rubble and coarse materials left behind in the littoral

areas from the construction

of the channel." However, on

p~ge

4 QHEI scores in the Cal-Sag

Channel were listed as 42 and 37.5, both

of which are <45, and fall into the "poor" category

according to Table 1 on page 2

ofthe report.

Do you agree that QHEI scores of 42 and 37.5 fall in the "poor" category

according

to QHEI protocol?

If the correct QHEI scores were applied to the Calumet-Sag Channel in the same

mamler

as the rest of the CAWS, would this change Mr. Rankin's recommended

category for the Calumet-Sag Channel?

Questions for Rob Sulski

As the project manager of the CAWS, please explain the following:

How was data quality and representativeness addressed in the UAA?

Were all of the surveys performed in accordance with USEPA, IEPA or other

generally-accepted quality control procedures?

On page 3 of your pre-filed testimony, in referring to the Chicago Area Waterway

System, you state: ''Thismodified river system has served Illinois in excess

of 100 years in

multiple and to a great extent competing, perhaps even conflicting, ways."

Explain what are the "competing" and "conflicting" ways?

Did IEPA set priorities for these competing and conflicting uses when they

developed their proposed regulatory approach?

If yes, please identify how the

uses were prioritized.

On Page 3-4, of your pre-filed testimony, you state: "There was and continues to be

sound reasoning to custom tailor water quality standards for this system to coincide with its own

unique configuration and functions as we establish environmental uses and goals

to achieve and

protect its ecological and recreational potential. The system must still support other critical

functions, particularly urban drainage, flood control and navigation."

What are the IEPA's current procedures for establishing microbial water quality

standards for the CAWS that are tailored to the use

of the waterway?

Please explain how the functions of the waterway including urban drainage, flood

control, and navigation affect the microbial water quality

of the CAWS.

Do you foresee that the current physical conditions and primary functions of the

CAWS and Lower Des Plaines River could be changed to accommodate more

recreation uses in the near future?

If so, please explain.

On page 4 of your pre-filed testimony, in reference to the CAWS, you state: "Its potential

continues to be somewhat tempered by its unique physical and habitat characteristics

as well as

lingering, albeit diminishing, legacy contamination from prior decades of neglect."

Is "legacy contamination" referring to polluted sediments?

What evidence is there in the record that "legacy contamination" is diminishing?

On Page 6 of your pre-filed testimony, you present the six "factors" identified in the

UAA model that preclude a waterbody from achieving Clean Water Act goals. Please explain

whether and how the following issues were addressed while considering the six factors identified

in the UAA model:

Sediment re-suspension caused by commercial navigation (barge traffic) in the

CAWS can cause increased levels

of metals and persistent organics in the

waterway, and can lead to depletion

of dissolved oxygen in the water column.

WRPs account for the majority of the flow in the CAWS. Restrictions on Lake

Michigan supplemental water limit the ability to maintain flow for aquatic life or

to dilute WRP effluents.

Historically impacted sediments contribute to high levels of SOD in stagnant.

reaches

of the waterway.

Important requirements for flood control, navigation, and effluent discharge

preclude conversion to natural state.

Large stretches of CAWS are steep lined banks.

Capture and treatment, including disinfection, of CSO outfalls and other non-

effluent discharge points is operationally and economically impractical.

On page 7 of your pre-filed testimony, you state: UAA factors 3,4, and 5 limit "aquatic

life potential" in the lower Des Plaines River.

Please explain or define "aquatic life potential" as it relates to the CAWS.

Do factors 3, 4, and 5 limit the aquatic life potential in the Chicago Area

Waterway System?

If yes, please explain how.

On page 8 of your pre-filed testimony, you state: "After consideration, Illinois EPA

decided that the Brandon Pool warranted no recreational use protection

..." and proposes to

designate the reach

as Non-Recreational.

Identify the reason(s) used by the IEPA for designating the Brandon Road

navigational pool

as Non-Recreational.

State each reason why the entire Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal should not be

considered as Non-Recreational, and specify support in the record for such

reasons.

On page 9 of your pre-filed testimony, you state: "Illinois EPA's proposed use

designations incorporate additional habitat and aquatic life and recreational data not available at

the conclusion

of CDM's contract obligatIons toward the CAWS UAA. The additional data can

be found in Attachments Sand MM of the Statement of Reasons."

Attachments Sand MM appear to deal with the Lower Des Plaines River. What

new data from the CAWS

were used? Where in the record are the data located?

Has any biological data collected in the CAWS after 2002 been considered in

IEPA'sproposal? Ifnot, please explain.

On page 9 of your pre-filed testimony, you state: [for the CAWS] "...

CDM

recommended two aquatic life uses, one composed of a fisheries consisting of some important

sport fish species, and another where straight-walled, deep-draft shipping channels limit the

fisheries to predominantly tolerant species."

Define "important sport fish species."

What are the important sport fish species?

Define "predominantly tolerant fish species."

Identify which fish species should be included in a community of predominately

tolerant fish.

Explain why some important sport fish species were included in one of the

aquatic life use categories?

Explain what environmental and/or other factors were used by the IEPA in

determining the difference between the two aquatic life uses proposed for the

CAWS?

Why does the IEPA not include the phrase "some important sport fish species" in

the definition

of CAWS Aquatic Life Use A Waters in IPCB R08-9?

Do "important sport fish species" and "predominantly tolerant fish species" have

different dissolved oxygen requirements?

10.

On Page

of your pre-filed testimony, you state: the protected uses of the CAWS

include "hand-powered hoating and wading."

Define what specifically is included in the definition of "hand-powered boating".

11.

On page 11 of your pre-filed testimony, you state that the CAWS UAA demonstrates

through recreational surveys and other investigations that " ...primary contact recreation is not

attainable..." in the CAWS. According to Attachment B, the UAA Report at Table 4-52, page 4-

85, there were limited observations

of swimmers and "hand-powered boaters" observed in the

Cal-Sag Channel and csse (0 and

respectively, according to the UAA Report at Table 4-42,

page 4-70). At page

3-3, the UAA Report clearly warns ofthe dangers to hand-powered boating

in the

csse. In light of this, please answer the following:

Can you give examples of primary contact activities?

Does IEPA consider kayaking or any other recreational activities reported in the

UAA

as primary contact activities?

Has IEPA developed a list of primary contact activities that are not suitable for

the CAWS?

How many observed recreators constitute frequent enough occurrence to warrant

protecting for a given use?

Did all stakeholder participants in the UAA agree that primary contact recreation

does not occur and is not attainable in the CAWS?

What prompted the IEPA to disregard the warning in the UAA Report that hand-

powered boating in the CSSC and Cal-Sag ChamIel is dangerous and propose that

this activity is a designated use in these waterways?

What basis or recreational evidence did IEPA have for upgrading the csse to

Incidental Contact Recreation in the proposed standards, when the CAWS UAA

Report recommended that the CSSC be designated Recreational Navigation?

Explain in detail the reasons and science behind the IEPA's decision to reject this

recommendation

What data, in addition to what is presented in the UAA report (Attachment B),

were used to determine the current level

of recreators on the CAWS? The UAA

Report indicates very low usage in some areas, yet most all

of the CAWS was

designated the highest

of the secondary recreational uses.

Did IEPA consider any quantitative data regarding commercial barge traffic in the

CAWS similar to the recreational observation data that was analyzed?

If so, what

were IEPA'sconclusions regarding commercial use

the CAWS?

Where recreational uses are known to be dangerous or in conflict with existing

'navigational uses, what is IEPA's position on designating these uses even when

water quality standards alone carnIot protect them?

Should such use be

prohibited?

12.

On page 12 of your testimony, you state: "The reach of Calumet River from Torrence

Avenue to the O'Brien Lock and Dam is being proposed for designation as Incidental Contact

Recreation, because some smaller craft recreational boating occurs there." And, on page

11 of

your pre-filed testimony, you list activities ranging from fishing to small craft recreational

boating

as requiring Incidental Contact Recreational Use standards.

What basis did IEPA have for determining which recreational activities would be

appropriate for the various categories of recreational use?

Please state all reasons and cite to all data in the record that IEPA has and used to

determine that recreators participating in these activities are exposed to similar

quantities

of water and experience a similar risk of ingesting water?

Is it your opinion or that of the IEPA that someone fishing from the shore is likely

to ingest the same amount

of water as someone kayaking in the channel?

13.

Currently, the U.S. Coast Guard can issue a reckless behavior ticket for non-motorized

boating in the CSSC because

of the dangers associated with barge traffic and lack of points for

exit (see IEPA attachment

JJ). The proposed standards designate the CSSC as limited contact

recreational waters from its easternmost point

of origination to its junction with the Cal-Sag

Channel, and then designate it

as non-recreational water to its confluence with the Des Plaines

River.

What properties of the CSSC upstream of its confluence with the Cal-Sag

Channel are going to change previous to the promulgation

of these use

designations to ensure the safety

of non-motorized boaters in this reach of the

CSSC?

14..

On page

12 of your testimony, you state that IEPA is recommending two different

recreational water uses for the Calumet River.

is recommending that the segment in the

Calumet River from Torrence Avenue to the O'Brien Lock and Dam be designated

as Incidental

Contact Recreation because smaller craft recreational boating occurs, and that the segment in the

Calumet River from Torrence Avenue to Lake Michigan be designated

as Non-Contact

Recreation. Non-Contact Recreational Use is defined as " ...any recreational or other water use

in which human contact

with the water is unlikely, such as pass through commercial and

recreational navigation, and where physical or flow conditions make direct human contact

unlikely or dangerous."

Explain why IEPA decided to recommend two different recreational water uses

for the Calumet River?

Do the smaller craft recreational boats in this segment have to be docked in the

waterway or just passing through the waterway?

Are the physical or flow conditions that make direct human contact unlikely or

dangerous present

the segment of the Calumet River from Torrence Avenue to

the O'BrienLock and Dam?

Explain why the segment of the CAWS from Torrence Avenue to the O'Brien

Lock and Dam was not designated as Non-Contact Recreation?

Explain what recreational activities or other factors occur in the two Calumet

River segments that allowed the Illinois EPA

to recommend two different

recreational water uses for the waterway?

15.

On page 13 of your testimony, you state: "Illinois EPA has concluded that the Chicago

Sanitary and Ship Canal downstream

of the junction of the Calumet-Sag Channel and the

Brandon Pool are not appropriate

for Incidental Contact or Non-contact Recreational Uses," and

thereby were designated

as Non-Recreational Use Waters.. Non-Recreational Use Waters are

"dominated by shipping traffic, are composed

of vertical-walled, deep-draft channels and are

lined with private industrial facilities that

do not allow public access to the waterways." The

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal above the junction with the Calumet-Sag Channel has similar

physical features and waterway uses

as the downstream section of the waterway (see Attachment

B, UAA Report, Section 4.4, page 4-69). Widespread commercial navigation occurs in the

.segment

of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal above the junction ofthe Calumet-Sag Channel

(see UAA

RepOlt, Section 4.4.1, page 4-70). The walls along the banks are vertical (see

Attachment B, UAA Report, Section 4.4, page 4-69). The waterway

is a deep-draft channel

lined with private industrial facilities that

do not allow public access to the waterway (see

Attachment

B, UAA Report, Section 3.1.1.1, page 3-3).

Because the waterway segments are alike, explain why the IEPA assigned a

higher recreational use (Incidental Contact Recreation) for the segments

of the

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

from the junction of the Calumet-Sag Channel

to the South Branch of the Chicago River?

Will pass through commercial and recreational navigation be allowed in non-

recreational waters? If so, what is the difference between non-contact recreation

and non-recreation waters?

16.

On page 13 of your testimony, you state: "In other reaches, the existing aquatic life falls

short

of its attainable biological potential. In reaches where attainable uses are not being met

Illinois EPA has concluded that low dissolved oxygen and high temperatures are major water

quality constraints."

Please explain how IEPA determines the "attainable biological potential" of a

waterway.

Define "low dissolved oxygen."

Define "high temperatures."

How was it determined that low dissolved oxygen and temperature were the

limiting constraints on existing aquatic life?

Please cite to scientific data in the record confirming that low dissolved oxygen

and water temperature are the major stressors for the waterway segments in the

CAWS where attainable aquatic life uses are not being met.

The UAA report concludes that major habitat limitations occur throughout the

cAWS. Did IEPA consider physical habitat impairment as a major water quality

constraint in the waterway system?

If not, please explain why it failed to do so.

Does the IEPA

be~ieve

that poor physical habitat is the primary reason that

waterway segments in the CAWS are not meeting the aquatic life use goals

of the

Clean Water Act? Please explain.

17.

Describe the fish and benthic invertebrate communities that have the potential to occur in

CAWS Aquatic Life Use A Waters.

18.

Describe the fish and benthic invertebrate communities that have potential to occur in

CAWS Aquatic Life Use B Waters.

19.

On pages

16 and 17 of your testimony, you state that IBI scores in ALU A waters

"generally range from 22 to 30, which are expected in waterways with poor

to fair habitat

attributes," while

ALU B waters "IBI scores generally are below 22, which are to

be expected

in waters with very poor to poor habitat attributes."

Given the wide range of IBI scores calculated for each station (according to

Figure 5-2

ofthe UAA Report), which values were used to categorize the CAWS?

Was a median or mean value employed?

How did IEPA address this variability in IBI scores?

20.

On pages 16 and

17 of your pre-filed testimony you discuss the fact that IEPA used

QHEI and IBI values for determining the proposed aquatic life uses for the CAWS.

Why was the abundant benthic invertebrate and sediment quality data contained

in the UAA not used by the IEPA in the process

of detennining the aquatic life

uses for the CAWS?

21.

On page

16 of your testimony, you state that "QHEI scores in the CAWS ALU A waters

generally range from 40 to 55."

Why was a QHEI of 40, which includes some stations that would be described as

"poor," used

as the cut-off, as opposed to setting the boundary at 46, where the

"fair" habitat descriptor begins?

Under what circumstances would a station that scored less than a QHEI of 40 be

classified as ALU A, in spite

of the low score?

What specific habitat metrics in the QHEI for Aquatic Life A Waters cause the

physical habitat value

to be higher than in Aquatic Life Use B Waters?

22.

On Page 18 of your testimony, you state: The UAA found that attainable uses were in

some cases not achievable without overcoming dissolved oxygen, temperature and bacteria

limitations. Waterway aeration, waterway flow augmentation, effluent cooling and effluent

disinfection are the recommended options for overcoming the limitations."

However, you

acknowledge on Page 7

of your testimony that " ...UAA factors 3, 4 and 5 limit aquatic life

potential and preclude possibilities for safe primary contact recreation."

What is the scientific basis upon which you conclude that the proposed options

are the cost-effective options for achieving proposed use designations?

Because primary contact recreation in the waterway is excluded in the IEPA's use

designation proposal, what leads you to conclude that the benefits

of effluent

disinfection outweigh the cost to tax payers and overall adverse impact to the

environment?

Has the IEPA studied the unintended environmental consequences that will result

from effluent disinfection and artificial supplementatiOll

of dissolved oxygen?

Does IEPA believe that such considerations are relevant? Did the IEPA weigh

these environmental costs against the alleged benefits

of effluent disinfection and

artificial supplementation

of dissolved oxygen? If so, how?

23.

On page

18 of your testimony, you state that: "In order to reduce bacteria levels, effluent

disinfection would be required at all domestic wastewater treatment works discharging into water

designated for Incidental Contact and Non-contact Recreation Use." Also, on Page 19, you state

that: MWRDGC has indicated that

if they were to undertake disinfection at their facilities they

would likely use

UV treatment, but would be free to select between any available technologies

that would meet the 400 fecal coliforms per 100 mL requirement

of 35 Illinois Administrative

Code Section 304.224.

What bacteria level will remain in the CAWS if disinfection at all of the MWRD

plants were implemented?

To what extent will reduction of bacteria concentrations to this level decrease

human risk

of illness?

What is the current health risk to incidental contact and non-contact recreators due

to bacteria levels in the CAWS, without disinfection?

Does IEPA have data to show that effluent disinfection will result in reduction of

bacteria in the waterway?

What data does IEPA have to demonstrate that imposition of indicator effluent

limits on the District's WRPs will reduce the levels

of pathogens in the

waterway?

Data published in peer-reviewed technical literature indicates that there is no

statistically significant correlation between pathogens and indicators in surface

water bodies. How does IEPA protect the public by establishing effluent criteria

for indicators?

What evidence does IEPA have that the indicator effluent criteria for fecal

coliform will protect recreational users

of the CAWS from pathogen exposure and

pathogen related illness?

Does IEPA have data to demonstrate that the effluent fecal colifonn criteria will

protect the recreational users under both dry and wet weather conditions?

What data did you analyze to determine the microbial pollutant loads from

different sources

in the waterway?

What data do you have to demonstrate the microbial pollutant loads from different

sources in the waterway during dry and wet weather conditions?

What knowledge do you have of the relative contribution of sources other than the

District's effluents on microbial pollutant loads in the CAWS during wet weather

conditions?

What data does the IEPA have to demonstrate that if the fecal coliforms in the

District's effluents meet the IEPA discharge criteria, then different reaches

of the

waterway would be free

of pathogens and safer for recreational use?

Are you aware of any outbreaks of disease associated with the recreational use of

the waterway?

Why would non-contact recreation require the same bacterial criteria as incidental

contact recreation?

What are the fecal colifonn densities in receiving water upstream of the WRPs

and

in major tributaries to the CAWS? To what extent do pathogens in these

waters contribute to the overall risk to CAWS recreators?

The USEPA has dropped the fecal coliform bacteria as an .indicator of health risk

and the scientific community is currently questioning other bacterial indicators.

Can you explain the rationale for eliminating the fecal colifonn indicator and

revising the national criteria for bacterial water quality standards and its

applicability to the CAWS?

The USEPA's Municipal Wastewater Disinfection

EPN625/1-86/021

Manual

requires disinfection in those instances where significant disinfection benefits

outweigh the environmental risks and costs. Have these conditions been

demonstrated or even considered in the CAWS? If so, where in the record is it

documented?

24.

During the stakeholder process, IEPA requested that the District undertake a microbial

risk assessment in wet and dry weather

order to evaluate the need for disinfection at water

reclamation plants. Why is the IEPA proposing bacterial effluent standards before the results of

these studies are published?

25.

The Clean Water Act requires that revised or new water quality standards shall consist of

the designated use and the water quality criteria necessary to protect that use [33 U.S.C.

§1313(c)(2)(A)].

Do you think it is justified to establish a designated use without setting

appropriate criteria to protect the designated use? If so, please state the reasons

why and cite to appropriateauthOlity

26.

On page 19

of your testimony, you state that: Technology-based effluent disinfection has

been a long-standing requirement for and has been successfully used by domestic wastewater

treatment facilities throughout the State, dating back to the original 1970s Board regulations."

Define the word "successfully" in this statement?

Are you aware that in 1976, EPA deleted the fecal coliform standard from its

definition

of secondary treatment, stating that the benefits achieved by

disinfection should be weighed against the environmental risks and costs? Did

the IEPA do so in this case?

Can disinfection designed to remove indicators be effective in the removal of

pathogens and in the reduction of pathogen risks?

What are the risks associated with microbial pathogens compared to those

associated with disinfection by-products (DBPs) which are persistent chemicals

and some

of which have relevant toxicological characteristics?

Does IEPA have an inventory of probable DBPs that have the potential to form in

the CAWS and to cause adverse health effects?

Has IEPA perfonned a risk assessment for exposure to DBPs?

Considering post-disinfection re-growth of bacteria, relatively poor virucidal or

protozoa effectiveness of certain technologies, and generation of persistent DBPs,

what evidence is in the record that wastewater disinfection will yield improved

effluent and receiving water quality?

27.

On page 20 of your testimony, you state that: "Under Section 27 of the Environmental

Protection Act, the Board is also required to take into account the economic reasonableness of

rulemaking proposals before it. To assist the Board with this mandate, the Agency encouraged

stakeholders to present information quantifying the economic impacts upon their individual

operations. That information was used

by the Illinois EPA in formulating our petition and is

intended to assist the Board as it considers the rulemaking proposaL"

How is economic reasonableness defined?

Did IEPA use the economic impact information in formulating its petition? If

yes, please explain in detail the basis of its determination that the rules proposed

are economically reasonable.

Questions for Roy Smogor

Do you consider yourself an expert in the designation of aquatic life uses in waterways of

the nature of the CAWS and Lower Des Plaines River, that is effluent based waterways, and

development

of dissolved oxygen standards protective of aquatic life in waterways of that

nature?

If so, please describe your background, particularly with respect to aquatic life uses and

dissolved oxygen standards. Also, please provide a list

of your publications in the field of

aquatic life uses and dissolved oxygen standards in effluent based waterways.

On page 3, paragraph 1 of your pre-filed testimony, you state: "Illinois EPA proposes

that the lowest applicable level

of biological potential service as the aquatic-life goal for the

remaining part

of the Chicago Area Waterway System and part of the lower Des Plaines River,

these waters are collectively called "Chicago Area Waterway System and Brandon Pool Aquatic

Life Use B

Waters." This final level

of biological potential represents the capability to maintain

aquatic-life populations predominated

by individuals of tolerant types that are adaptive to the

unique physical conditions, flow patterns, and operational controls designed to maintain

navigational use, flood control, and drainage functions in deep-draft, steep-walled shipping

channels."

Is the only difference identified in the definitions between A and B Waters that

the aquatic life in B Waters reside in deep-draft, steep-walled shipping channels.

Please define "deep-draft".

Please define "shipping channels".

Please explain why the IEPA proposes that the Calumet-Sag Channel, Little

Calumet River, and the Calumet River from the O'Brien Lock and Dam to

Torrence Avenue be classified as CAWS Aquatic Life Use A Waters in IPCB

R08-9.

Please explain what characteristics differentiate these waterways from the CAWS

Aquatic Life Use B Waters.

On Page 2 and 3 of your pre-filed testimony you discuss the aquatic life use designations

applied to the CAWS. You testify that ALU A Waters are predominated by "individuals

tolerant or intermediately tolerant types... ," while ALU B Waters are "predominated by

individuals of tolerant types ..."

Please define "intermediately tolerant aquatic life organisms".

Please explain how "tolerance" is determined for aquatic life organisms.

Please describe the fish and benthic invertebrates in an aquatic community

predominated

by tolerant and intermediately tolerant types.

Please identify the species that were included as tolerant, intermediately tolerant,

and intolerant that are adaptive to the unique physical conditions flow patterns,

and operational controls necessary to maintain navigational use, flood control, and

drainage functions

of the waterway system.

What specific species of fish does IEPA believe can be supported in ALU A

versus ALU B waters?

Does IEPA have any scientific data or evidence indicating DO requirements for

the fish species that they expect

to find in ALU A waters? If so, please identify

that scientific data.

Is the enhanced seasonal DO requirement proposed for ALU A waters meant to

protect early-life stages?

Is there data or evidence of fish spawning in all of the waters proposed to be

designated ALU A?

If so, please discuss it and indicate where it is presented.

Has IEPA analyzed the CAWS fish data to determine life stages present in

various waterways?

Do the proposed !EPA designated Aquatic Life Uses for the CAWS fit within the

long-term fisheries management strategies that the Illinois Department

of Natural

Resources have for the CAWS?

In discussing the final designation ofthe Chicago Area Waterway System and part of the

Lower Des Plaines River

as Chicago Area Waterway System and Brandon Pool Aquatic Life

Use B Waters, on Page 3, paragraph

1, of your pre-filed testimony you state; "This final level of

biological potential represents the capability to maintain navigational use, flood control, and

drainage functions in deep-drafi, steep-walled shipping channels."

Please explain why the Calumet-Sag Channel, in view of the fact that it fits this

physical description, is not defined as Aquatic Life Use B Waters in the IEPA's

proposed aquatic-life use designations.

On page 3, paragraph 2, of your pre-filed testimony, you state: "Illinois EPA primarily

bases these proposed aquatic-life uses and designations on direct measurements and observations

of the chemical and physical conditions in these waters and on how foreseeable improvements in

these conditions--or lack thereof--relate to the potential biological condition. Illinois EPA also

considered direct observations, including measures

of biological integrity, of the types, life

stages, and relative numbers

of aquatic organisms that have lived or currently live in the Lower

Des Plaines River and the Chicago Area Waterway System. Although understanding

the past

and present biological conditions

of these waters provides essential context, the primary

responsibility in defining and designating aquatic-life uses is

to consider what level of biological

condition represents a reasonable and attainable goal from now into the foreseeable future."

Please define "biological condition."

Please define "reasonable goal."

Please define "foreseeable future."

Please explain what is the process/methodology used by the Illinois EPA to

determine the different levels

of biological condition that are reasonable and

attainable in a waterway in the CAWS

from now and into the future?

Do you foresee that improvements in the physical conditions of the CAWS or that

any functional change from navigational use, flood control, and urban drainage,

which are the primary uses

of the CAWS, could happen in the foreseeable future

(i.e.

10 years)?

In contrast to your pre-filed testimony on page 3 regarding the basis for' the !EPA's

proposed aquatic life uses, page 5-8

of Attachment B, the UAA report, states that the 75th

percentile IBI scores were used to designate the aquatic life use tiers for the CAWS. The

IEPA

used the Ohio Boatable IBI in the UAA report

to assist with conclusions concerning aquatic life

use designations.

Are you aware that on November 8, 2006, Ohio EPA published

"2006 Updates to

Biological Criteria for the Protection ofAquatic Life: Volume II and Volume II

Addendum Users Manual for Biological Field Assessment of Ohio Surface

Waters"

and

made

available

the

internet

at:

http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/documents/BioCrit88

Vol2 Updates2006.pdf

Are you aware that on page

of this document, two modifications to the

calculation

of the Ohio boatable IBI that were published in the original volume

of October 30, 1987 (updated January 1, 1988), as follows:

Volume

II, P. 4-56, Modifies Table 4-6

Metric 'FishNumbers' should read:

>450

200-450

<200

Footnote c (see Appendix B) should have been changed to (see Table 4-

10).

Are you aware of this modification to the calculation of the Ohio Boatable IBI?

Are you aware that this modification corrects errors in the calculation of the Ohio

Boatable IBI that would be present

if such an IBI were calculated without the

modifications being taken into account?

Were the modifications in the 2006 Update to Vol.

taken into account for

calculation

of the values of the Ohio Boatable IBI that were used for the UAA

Report (Attachment B)?

Would you consider an error in calculation of an IEI value that was >4 IEI units

to be significant?

If not, why not.

Would you consider significant calculation errors in IBI values as sufficient

reason for reassessment

of the IEPA's decisions on Aquatic Life Use

designations?

Could the calculation errors potentially change the Aquatic Life Uses that were

designated for certain waterways?

Ifnot, why not?

Would you agree that Table 4-11 on page 4-17 of Attachment B, the UAA Report,

contains an inaccurate IEI scoring measure for "fish number" and special scoring

procedures (special procedures should be used when relative numbers are less

than

200/1.0

lon, not

20010.3

Ian.).

Is IEPA able to provide IEI scores that were reported for CAWS in a tabular

form, so the calculations can be more easily compared?

If the IEPA standards proposal is based on flawed Ohio IEI calculations, do you

agree that the calculations should be corrected before proper Aquatic Life Use

designations can be made?

Why was the Ohio Boatable IEI chosen as a guide to evaluate. the fish

communities in the CAWS when this IEI was initially created

in Ohio and

calibrated using Ohio fish data?

Why did the IEPA choose to

base

the aquatic life use designations on the Ohio

Boatable IEI rather than just using it

as a guide?

How do the fish communities in the CAWS compare to the fish communities that

were initially used to calibrate the Ohio Boatable IBI?

Is it your opinion that the metrics used to calculate the Ohio Boatable IEI are

applicable to the CAWS?

Would you agree that an IEI calibrated to fish data collected from the immediate

region in and around CA

WS be more accurate in describing that fish community

and assessing its condition?

Please describe how metrics used to calculate the Ohio Boatable IEI are

applicable to the CAWS.

What are the possible sources of error that could occur in using an IBI calibrated

for another region?

Are you aware that the original IBI by Karr et al. in 1986 and used by IEPA and

IDNR in the 1980s and

19908 was formulated using data from the CAWS as part

of the total Illinois. data set. (Reference:

Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch,

P.L.

Angenneier, P.R. Yant, and 1.J. Schlosser, Assessing Biological Integrity in

Running Waters. A Method and Its Rationale, Illinois Natural History Survey

Special Publication

5, 1986)?

Was the IBI formulated by Karr, et al. considered as an appropriate measurement

for the CAWS?

If not, why not?

Please explain what chemical conditions exist in the CAWS.

Please explain the process by which measurements and observations of chemical

and physical conditions in the CAWS were related to potential biological

conditions.

Please explain how the Illinois EPA used chemical conditions in the CAWS for

proposing aquatic life uses?

How was QHEI used?

Was the QHEI modified for use in the CAWS which is unique and not a typical

boatable river system?

Impervious surfaces have been demonstrated to have significant impacts on

aquatic life indices when greater than

15 percent of a watershed is impervious.

Cook County has been estimated to have. over 40 percent impervious surfaces.

How did you account

for this extreme watershed modification in your approach?

AA.

How did you account for limitations to biological communities in the CAWS

posed by thick layers

of silty sediments that contain legacy contaminants that are

often stirred up

by commercial and recreational boat traffic?

BB.

Were

ivtBI or other macroinvertebrate indices generally used during the UAA

process?

If so, please explain how they were used.

CC.

Was macroinvertebrate data collected by the Metropolitan Water Reclamation

District

of Greater Chicago (District) and IEPA used along with QHEI and IBI

scores

to determine the potential ALUs of various segments of the CAWS? If

not, why not?

DD.

Has the IEPA analyzed any sediment chemistry or toxicity data in the CAWS?

EE.

Is it possible that sediment toxicity can be a factor in what ALU is attainable for a

given waterway?

If so, how did IEPA evaluate this?

FF.

Do you have an opinion as to whether sediment contamination affects fish and

invertebrates in the CAWS?

If so, what is that opinion?

GG.

Were sediment contamination data evaluated during the UAA process?

If so,

please explain how.

If not, why not?

HH.

Please explain how the benthic invertebrate and sediment quality data were used

by IEPA in the process of determining the aquatic life uses for the CAWS.

II.

Would you consider habitat the limiting factor for fish and macroinvertebrates in

ALU A waters, given the "unique physical conditions, flow patterns, and

operational controls

..." that are present?

JJ.

Where in the documentation that IEPA has put into the record for this rulemaking

is the methodology and basis for the Aquatic Life Use designations that were

made? Please cite to specific exhibits

in the IEPA's proposal and supporting

testimony.

KK.

Is the documentation relied upon

by the IEPA to determine the ALU detailed and

complete enough for someone outside the agency to

be able to replicate or verify

the methodology and supporting information that was used?

On page 4 of your pre-filed testimony you state: "The dissolved oxygen standards being

proposed for the Chicago Area Waterway System and the Lower Des Plaines River are

consistent with the standards already recommended to the Board by Illinois EPA in the pending

rulemaking, R04-25."

In making this statement, did you take into account that the CAWS are unique

among waterways in the state and are not designated "general use waters" as is

the case in Rulemaking R04-25?

Would you agree that the CAWS are not capable of supporting general use

biological communities?

If so, please explain why you support a general use

dissolved oxygen standard in the CAWS and Lower Des Plaines River.

Did you account for behavior

of the system under wet weather conditions in

proposing this dissolved oxygen standard for the CAWS and Lower Des Plaines

River?

In your opinion, is it reasonable to prescribe DO standards for CAWS which are,

nearly universally, substantially higher than existing standards

in other states?

proposing this standard, did you consider that it may potentially lead to

propagation and proliferation

of less tolerant species than are currently found in

CAWS?

Would you agree that there is a risk that occasional CSOs, flow stagnation, higher

temperature regimes, and oxygen demand

fTom resuspended sediments can

combine to very quickly and unpredictably impact these less tolerant fish

populations and negate the benefits

of the additional aeration that will be required

to achieve the standards?

If not, why not?

Millions of dollars are being spent to construct and maintain an electronic barrier

to prevent invasive species from entering the Great Lakes basin from the

Mississippi River basin.

In light of this concern and expenditure, in your opinion

is it appropriate to propose standards for the CAWS that will provide

environment that is potentially more conducive to the survival and propagation of

invasive species? Please explain the basis for your opinion.

. Attachment B, the CAWS UAA Report, recognizes that Water quality

improvements, like re-aeration, will not lead to attainment

of aquatic life uses

because

of habitat limitations. In view of that, please explain how the IEPA

proposed dissolved oxygen criteria will lead

to attainment of the IEPA proposed

aquatic life uses.

Attachment B, CAWS UAA Report, page 5-8, states that the CAWS is

functionally similar

to the Cuyahoga River Ship Canal in Ohio, yet the IEPA

proposed dissolved oxygen criteria are much more restrictive within the CAWS

than those assigned

to the Cuyahoga River. Please explain how the IEPA has or

has not considered this comparison?

In determining the DO standard, did you consider the dissolved oxygen model

results previously conducted by the District and the fact that additional modeling

will be conducted in 2008 to evaluate integrated strategies that incorporate

multiple control strategies?

If not, why not?

USEPA cites the additive and synergistic temperature effects on dissolved oxygen

levels in natural environments. The UAA states that water temperatures within

the CAWS likely contribute to lower dissolved oxygen levels. Did IEPA consider

the seasonally stagnant and thermally stratified conditions known

to occur within

the CAWS

as it relates to the IEPA proposed dissolved oxygen criteria?

Has the IEPA considered the affect of stratification and bidirectional flow on low

dissolved oxygen in developing criteria for the CAWS?

If not, why not?

In determining the DO criteria and proposed DO standards, did you consider the

Representative Aquatic Species (RAS) list that was developed by Mr. Chris

Yoder for evaluation

of temperature standards in the various Aquatic Life Use

waterways.

If not, why not?

Based on Mr. Yoder's RAS list, would you agree that it is reasonable that, if these

RAS 8 or

RAS 8 + white sucker lists were appropriate for use in determining

protective temperature standards in ALU A versus B waters, they should also be

used to evaluate dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations?

Did IEPA take these RAS lists into consideration when they detennined proposed.

DO standards to protect the proposed aquatic life uses?

Please summarize the data that the Agency has collected on presence and growth

of early life stages in the CAWS to support the basis of the proposed DO

standards?

Where can these data be found and where can a complete description of the

specific methodology that was applied

to the CAWS be found in the pre-filed

record?

Please summarize the expected benefits in tenns of enhanced growth rates,

increased presence

of early life stages,

etc.

that you anticipate will occur if the

proposed

DO standards are implemented for all of the proposed Aquatic Life Use

designations.

On page 4, paragraph 1, of your pre-filed testimony, you state: "The dissolved oxygen

standards being proposed by the Illinois EPA are based primarily on criteria and corresponding

justification in U

.s.

EPA'snational-criteria document published in 1986. Illinois EPA used this

document

as a foundation from which to interpret and incorporate more-recent infonnation

specifically applicable to the dissolved oxygen needs

of aquatic life in Illinois waters". What

was the more recent information that was used by the Illinois EPA for establishing dissolved

oxygen standards in the CAWS?

On page 5, paragraph 3, of your pre-filed testimony you state: "For the Chicago Area

Waterway System Aquatic Life Use A Waters, Illinois EPA proposes dissolved oxygen

standards similar

to those for the Upper Dresden Island Pool, but designed to protect for less-

optimal fish growth that is consistent with the proposed aquatic-life use designation."

Please define "less-optimal fish growth."

Does less-optimal fish growth relate to a specific life stage of a fish or to the

larvae, young, and adult?

How do you define suboptimal growth conditions for fish?

10.

On page 6, paragraph 1, of your pre-filed testimony, you state: "Therefore, because

suboptimal growth

of fishes is a characteristic of the lower biological potential of these waters,

the proposed dissolved oxygen standards based on daily minima alone provide sufficient chronic

protection for allUfe stages in Chicago Area Watery System Aquatic Life Use A Waters."

Please define what is meant by "lower biological potentia1."

Please describe what would constitute a "higher biological potential."

Please provide examples of waterways in the area that have higher biological

potential, and explain why these waterways have a higher biological potential.

11.

On page

6, paragraph 2, of your pre-filed testimony, you state: "For the third set of

waters, called Chicago Area Waterway System and Brandon Pool Aquatic Life Use B Waters,

the proposed dissolved oxygen standards are consistent with the incrementally lower biological

potential

of these waters compared to Chicago Area Waterway System Aquatic Life Use A

Waters."

Please define "incrementally lower biological potential."

Please explain why the Illinois EPA believes that CAWS Aquatic Life Use B

Waters have

an "incrementally lower biological potential." Please provide

citations

to whatever supporting materials were relied upon to corne to this

conclusion.

What is the difference in the aquatic community in a "lower biological potential"

waterway and an "incrementally lower biological potential" waterway?

What are the differences in the two aquatic communities that support a different

dissolved oxygen standard for each waterway?

What are sOllle examples of the different aquatic communities?

Where are the differences in aquatic communities that formulate the basis for the

decision to propose different

DO standards for Aquatic Life Use A and Aquatic

Life Use B waters, documented in enough detail that they can verified and

checked? Please cite to where that information can be found in the record.

12.

In discussing CAWS ALU A waters, on Page 5, paragraph 3, of your pre-filed testimony,

you state: "For sufficient protection under such limited growth situations, U.S. EPA's 1986

national-criteria document provides a chronic criterion

of 5.0 mglL as a daily mean average

across seven days, for early life stages. For other life stages, U.S. EPA provides an analogous

criterion

of 4.0 mglL." Further, on Page 6, paragraph 1, of your pre-filed testimony, you state:

"Illinois EPA judges that this level

of protection is sufficient to attain the already limited growth

potential

offish in these waters."

Why does IEPA propose criteria that are more protective than those set forth in

the U.S. EPA's 1986 national-criteria document for the CAWS?

What is the scientific basis for IEPA to propose dissolved oxygen standards of

above 5.0 mglL at all times for early life stage and seven day averages of daily

minima above 4.0 mglL for other life stages in the CAWS?

Why has IEPA proposed chronic standards that are based on 7-day averages of

daily minima rather than 7-day average of the daily means as they have indicated

is recommended in the USEPA 1986 criteria document?

Questions for Scott Twait

Do you consider yourself an expert in the development of water quality standards for

waterways

of the nature of the Chicago Area Waterway System (CAWS) and Lower Des Plaines

River?

If so, please describe your background, particularly with respect to physical, chemical,

and bacterial water quality standards. Also, please provide a list

of your published materials in

the field

of water quality standards for effluent dominated waterways.

On page 2 of your pre-filed testimony you state: "In most cases, identical numeric water

quality standards are necessary to protect all

of the proposed aquatic life use designations. The

exceptions to this are temperature, dissolved oxygen, and ammonia."

you based the specific numeric standards.on species known to exist in the

CAWS, please identify the parameters for which this was done.

Is there any testimony or documentation in the record where a clear and

complete explanation is provided for the methodology and basis for the proposed

dissolved oxygen and ammonia standards?

Is the documentation in the record sufficiently detailed and complete that

someone outside the IEPA could replicate or verify the methodology and data

upon which these standards are based?

If yes, please identify the documents in

the record where this infonnation is located.

Explain why identical numeric water quality standards are necessary for the

protection

of all of the proposed aquatic life uses.

Explain the reasons why temperature, dissolved oxygen, and ammonia water

quality standards are not identical for the different aquatic life use proposed for

the CAWS in IPCB R08-9. Please reference all documents in the record

upon

which you relied to make this detennination.

On page 3 of your pre-filed testimony, you state: "There are a number of water quality

.standards where the most recent U.S.A. EPA National Criteria Document was found to be the

same as or consistent with the current water quality standard on the books for the General Use

Designation."

Given that the CAWS are not general use waters and do not support biotic indices

as high as would be found in general use waters, do you expect that these

standards are more protective than is necessary? Please provide the basis

of your

answer.

If the General Use standards are changed in the future to become more protective

of fish populations typically found in these waters, this could lead to a further

increase in level

of protection in CAWS by virtue of having applied general use

standards to CAWS. Does this seem reasonable given the dissimilarity between

CAWS and General Use waters?

If so, please explain the basis for your answer.

On Page 4 of your pre-filed testimony, you state: "The federal criterion states that a pH

range

of 6.0 to 6.5 will be unlikely to be harmful to fish unless the free carbon dioxide present is

in excess of 100 parts per million."

Why does the IEPA choose the proposed pH standards of 6.5 to 9.0, instead of

requiring pH of 6.0 to 9.0 and free carbon dioxide less than 100 ppm, which

should have equal protection to fish according to the federal criteria but allow

more flexibility for compliance?

On page 6 of your pre-filed testimony, you state: "The proposed Cadmium water quality

standard is the same

as the General Use water quality standard."

Are you aware that the IEPA imposed the General Use cyanide standard on the.

CAWS despite the fact that the CAWS are not designated General Use waters and

the IPCB has granted adjusted standard R95-14

to raise the chronic limit from 5.2

to 10.0 I-LglmL based on specific fish species that are present in northeastem

Illinois rivers including the CAWS?

What was the IEPA's rationale for ignoring the IPCB's previous finding on

cyanide in the CAWS?

On page 6 of your pre-filed testimony, you state: "Contaminated sediment is scoured and

resuspended by barge traffic." Your further state

at pages 6 and 7: "Based on an analysis of the

data, the Agency believes. that a legacy

of contaminated sediment prevents full attaimnent of the

Clean Water Act aquatic life use in these waters and is the primary reason that the chronic

national criterion cannot be met in the segments

ofthe CAWS."

In light of the fact that the proposed hardness-based chronic standard equation for

dissolved cadmium often results in a concentration very close (within O.OlllglL)

to the method detection limit (0.3

I-LglL), is the the compliance data for this

constituent reliable?

On page 9 of your pre-filed testimony, you state: "There is currently no chloride standard

applicable to the Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Uses segments

of the CAWS

and Lower Des Plaines River. The.proposed chloride water quality standard is exactly the same

as the current General Use

water quality standard

of 500 mglL. The General Use chloride

standard has not been updated since the original adoption. The U.S. EPA's National Criteria

Document recommends a Criterion Maximum Concentration

of 860 mglL and a Criterion

Chronic Concentration

of 230 mglL."

Given that you indicate that the Federal criterion for CI allows a maximum

concentration

of 860 mglL, and given the highly urban environment and limited

aquatic habitat found in the CAWS what justification do you offer for setting the

CAWS standard for

CI at 500 mglL, over 40% lower than the Federal criterion?

. On page 11 of your pre-filed testimony, you describe the methodology the IEPA used for

the development

of temperature standards in the CAWS and the lower Des Plaines River, which

includes a Represented Aquatic Species (RAS) list

of fish. You state that the IEPA determined

that the CAWS Aquatic Life Use A and B Waters should use the option

of the 8 species RAS list

developed for the lower Des Plaines River by the Midwest Biodiversity Institute. You further

state that the eight species are representative

of the fish species

fo~nd

in Secondary

Contact/fudigenous Aquatic Life Use Waters. The only difference in the

RAS list is that the

Illinois EPA included an additional species, white sucker, for CAWS Aquatic Life Use A

Waters. Except for the white sucker, the fish community

is the same.

Because the fish community is similar in CAWS Aquatic Life Use A and B

Waters, please state the reasons why the

IEPA proposed a different aquatic life

use for CAWS Aquatic Life Use A Waters.

On Page 14, of your pre-filed testimony, you state: "The proposed thermal water quality

standards are more stringent than the current Secondary Aquatic and Indigenous Aquatic Life

water quality standards for all months. The proposed thermal water quality standards are also

more stringent than the current General Use Standards

for the months April through November,

especially when considering the period average. During the remaining months, the proposed

standards are approximately equivalent to the existing General Use Standards."

Are the fish in the current General Use waters less protected April through

November because

of less stringent thermal standards, or are the proposed

thermal standards for the CAWS and Lower Des Plaines River overly protective?

What is the rationale for applying thermal standards to the CAWS and Lower Des

Plaines River that are more stringent than or even equivalent

to general use

standards?

What is the rationale for switching back and forth between District effluent and

Route

83 on the CSSC as background temperature in October?

10.

On page 16 of your pre-filed testimony, while addressing bacteria, you state: "While the

Agency is proposing that the Board adopt specific recreational use designations applicable within

the CAWS and Lower Des Plaines River, we are recommending deferral

of adopting any

numeric bacterial water quality standards until sound information is available to support such a

standard.

As a precautionary measure to protect our recreating public, however, we are

proposing to require wastewater treatment facilities discharging into any segments listed

Incidental Contact Recreation and Non-Contact Recreation to employ disinfection practices after

a reasonable compliance period."

In light of the fact that recreational uses have been occurring for decades without

disinfection, preliminary studies indicate that risks are very low and

implementation of disinfection will not occur prior to the completion of the

remaining health studies, please state the basis for requiring disinfection

wastewater treatment effluents.

Are you aware of significant health risks or incidence of illness resulting from

current recreational use

of the CAWS?

Do federal and State laws allow establishment of an effluent water quality limit if

no water quality standard is promulgated for the waterway receiving the effluent?

Water quality standards (which include designated uses and criteria to protect the

use) serve the dual purposes

of establishing the water quality goals for a specific

waterbody and serve as the regulatory basis for the establishment

of water quality

based treatment controls and strategies beyond the technology-based levels

treatment required by sections 301(b) and 306 of the CWA. In the absence of

criteria, what is the basis for the proposed technology-based treatment limitation

.of400/100mL for fecal coliforms which is for protection

of General Use waters?

Technology based treatment requirements under section 301(b) of the Act

represent the minimum level

of control that must be imposed in a permit issued

under section 402 (NPDES)

of the Act. For POTWs, effluent limitations shall be

based on secondary treatment and on the "best practicable waste treatment

technology" (BPT). Although BPT limitations generally apply to industrial

discharge categories, EPA's "Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment

Standards, and New Source Performance Standards [Page 2282]" states that in

specifying BPT limitations, EPA must first consider the cost

of achieving effluent

. reductions in relation

to the effluent reduction benefits.

Did IEPA consider non-water quality environmental impacts, including,

but not limited to, energy requirements, emissions

of greenhouse gases

and Hg during power generation, potential introduction

of disinfection by-

products into the CAWS, etc. in establishing disinfection

of wastewater

treatment effluent limits?

If yes, please identify all such factors considered

and conclusions reached.

In proposing the technology-based effluent limitation

of 400/1 OOmL for

fecal coliforms, has the IEPA determined the risk reduction benefits?

Has the IEPA determined that the benefits of disinfecting discharges to the

CAWS

justify the costs of achieving the effluent reductions? If yes,

please describe the facts considered and conclusions reached.

11.

The seasonal ammonia standard is for the period March through October, while the

enhanced seasonal DO standard is March through July.

If both standards are supposed to be

more protective

of early life stages, please explain why they do not have the same applicable

time period.

12.

How will IEPA deal with excursions from the dissolved mercury standards given that

atmosp4eric deposition is the likely cause?

13.

Attachment 1 (Letter to Marcia T. Wilhite), appended to your pre-filed testimony, states

on page 1: "U.S. EPA has reviewed the new and revised water quality standards identified above

and the information submitted

by Illinois EPA in support of these amendments and hereby

approves all

of the new and revised standards identified above pursuant to Section 303(c) of the

CWA and Federal regulations at 40 CFR 131.21." Section

1313(c)(2)(A)of the CWA, 33

U.S.C. §1313(c)(2)(A),.also requires that revised or new water quality standards

shall

consist of

the designated use

and

the water quality criteria necessary to protect that use.

Do you deem the proposal consistent with the requirements of the CWA and 33

U.S.C. §1313(c)(2)(A)?

14.

Please identify the cases where the General Use Standards are actually necessary to

protect the kinds

of aquatic life that are likely able to sustain populations in the CAWS.

Questions for Chris Yoder

On page 9 of your testimony, you state: "Using existing field and historical data, I

developed potential RAS lists for three designated use options that were considered

by the

contractors during the Lower Des Plaines UAA process." Midwest Generation has been

annually monitoring the fish community in the lower Des Plaines River for over 20 years.

Did you include the extensive historical fish data from Midwest Generation when

you compiled the RAS lists? If not, please explain your reasoning.

Respectfully Submitted,

METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION

DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO

BY:

,&~lJ!.,&L<>Jzj/#

Frederick M. Feldman, Attorney

Dated: January 18, 2008

Frederick M. Feldman

Ronald M. Hill

Margaret T. Conway

MWRDGC

100

Erie Street, Rm 301

Chicago, Illinois 60611

Tel: 312.751.6587

Fax: 312.751.6598

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR THE

CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM

AND LOWER DES PLAINES RIVER:

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

TO 35 Ill.

Adm. Code Parts 301,302,303 and 304

)

R08-9

(Rnlemaking-Water)

NOTICE OF FILING

To:

see attached service list

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

that on January 18, 2008, the undersigned filed with

the Illinois Pollution Control Board the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District

Greater Chicago'sPre-Filed Questions to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, a

copy

of which is hereby served upon you.

I HEREBY CERTIFY

that I served this Notice and the above referenced

documents by placing copies in an envelope, postage prepaid, and

depo~iting

it in the

U.S. Mail, at 100 East Erie Street, at or before 5:00 p.m. on January 18,2008.

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District

of Greater Chicago

MWRDGC

Frederick

M. Feldman

Ronald M. Hill

Margaret T. Conway

100 East Erie Street

Chicago,

IL 60611

(312) 751-6583

THIS FILING IS BEING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

John Therriault, Assistant Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James

R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500 .

100 West Randolph

Chicago, IL 60601

Marie Tipsord, Hearing Officer.

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James

R. Thompson Center

Suite 11-500

100 West Randolph

Chicago, IL 60601

Deborah

J. Williams, Assistant Counsel

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield,

IL 62794-9276

Stefanie Diers, Assistant Counsel

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield,

IL 62794-9276

Matthew

J. Dunn, Chief

Office

of the Attorney General

Environmental Bureau North

69 West Washington Street, Suite 1800

Chicago, IL 60602

William Richardson, ChiefLegal Counsel

Illinois Department

of Natural Resources

One Natural Resources Way

Springfield,

IL 62702

Drinker, Biddle, Gardner, Carton

Richard Kissel

Roy M. Harsch

191 N. Wacker Drive

Suite 3700

Chicago

IL 60606-1698

Brown, Hay,

Stephens LLP

Claire A. Manning

700 First Mercantile Bank Building

205 South Fifth Street

P.O. Box 2459

Springfield, IL 62705-2459

Service List

Hodge, Dwyer, Zeman

Katherine

D. Hodge

Monica T. Rios

3150 Roland Avenue

P.O. Box 5776

Springfield,

IL 62705-5776

Mayer, Brown LLP

Kevin

G. Desharnais

Thomas

W. Dimond

Thomas V. Skinner

71 S. Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL 60606-4637

Ross

Hardies

Charles

W. Wesselhoft

James T. Harrington

150 North Michigan Avenue

Suite 2500

Chicago,

IL 60601-7567

City

of Geneva

Robert VanGyseghem

1800 South Street

Geneva,

IL 60134-2203

McHenry County Defenders

Jerry Paulsen

Cindy Skrukrud

132 Cass Street

Woodstock, IL 60098

Chemical Industry Council

of Illinois

Lisa Frede

2250

E. Devon Avenue

Suite 239

DesPlaines, IL 60018-4509

Barnes

Thornburg

Fredric

P. Andes

Erika

K. Powers

1 North Wacker Drive

Suite 4400

Chicago,

60606

Thorn Creek Basin Sanitary District

James

Daugerty, District Manager

700 West End Avenue -

Chicago Heights, IL 60411

Commonwealth Edison Company

Sharon Neal

125 South Clark Street

Chicago,

IL 60603

American Water Company

Tracy Elzemeyer, General Counsel

727 Craig Road

St. Louis, MO 63141

Hedinger Law Office

Margaret P. Howard

2601 South Fifth Street

Springfield, IL 62703

Chicago Legal Clinic, Inc.

Keith

Harley

Elizabeth Schenkler

205 West Monroe Street

Floor

Chicago,

IL 60606

Vermillion Coal Company

Frederick D. Keady, P.E., President

1979 Johns Street

Glenview, IL 60025

Fred

Hubbard

16 West Madison

P.O. Box

Danville, IL 61834

Naval Training Center

Georgia Vlahos

260lA Paul Jones Street

Great Lakes, IL 60088-2845

Blackwell Sanders, LLP

W.e. Blanton

4801 Main Street

Suite 1000

Kansas City, MO 64112

City of Joliet

Department

of Public Works and Utilities

Dennis

Duffield, Director

921 E. Washington Street

Joliet,

IL 60431

American Bottoms RWTF

Kay Anderson

One American Bottoms Road

Sauget, IL 62201

Sierra Club

Jack Darin

E. Lake Street

Suite 1500

Chicago,

IL 60601-7447

Bloomington Normal Water Reclamation

District

Bob Carter

P.O. Box 3307

Bloomington, IL 61702-3307

Fox Metro Water Reclamation District

Tom Muth

682 State Road 31

Oswego, IL 60543

Andrews Environmental Engineering

Kenneth

W. Liss

3300 Ginger Creek Drive

Springfield, IL 62711

Environmental Law

Policy Center

Albert Ettinger, Senior Staff Attorney

Jessica Dexter

E. Wacker

Suite 1300

Chicago, IL 60601

Evanston Environment Board

Vicky McKinley

223 Grey Avenue

Evanston,

IL 60202

Office of Lt. Governor Pat Quinn

Marc Miller, Senior Policy Advisor

Jamie

S. Caston, Policy Advisor

Room 414 State House

Springfield,

IL 62706

Franzetti Law Firm, P.C.

Susan M. Franzetti

lOS. LaSalle Street, Suite 3600

Chicago, IL 60603

Ecological Monitoring and Assessment

Irwin Polls

3206 Maple

Leaf Drive

Glenview, IL 60025

Dr. Thomas

J. Murphy

2325 N. Clifton Street

Chicago, IL 60614

City of Chicago

Mayor's Office

of Intergovernmental Affairs

Cathy Hudzik

121 N. LaSalle Street

.City

Hall~Room

406

Chicago, IL 60602

Beth Steinhorn

2021 Timberbrook

Springfield,

IL 62702

Huff& Huff, Inc.

James Huff, Vice President

915 Harger Road, Suite 330

Oak Brook, IL 60523

Natural Resources Defense Council

Ann Alexander, Sr. Attorney

Q1 North Wacker Drive

Suite 609

Chicago, IL 60606

Prairie Rivers Networks

1902 Fox Drive, Suite 6

Champaign,

IL 61820

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Frederick M. Feldman, an attorney, hereby ce11ify that true copies of the

foregoing Metropolitan Water Reclamation District

of Greater Chicago's Pre-Filed

Questions to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency were filed electronically and

via First Class Mail, by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail depository located at 100

East Erie Street, Chicago Illinois in an envelope with sufficient postage prepaid, on

January 18,2008 to the following:

John Therriault, Assistant Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

Suite 11-500

100 West Randolph

Chicago,

IL 60601

Marie Tipsord, Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James

R. Thompson Center

Suite 11-500

100 West Randolph

Chicago,

IL6060 1

And that true copies

of the foregoing Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater

Chicago'sPre-Filed Questions to the IlIlnois Environmental Protection Agency were mailed

by First Class Mail, by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail depository located at 100 East

Erie Street, Chicago Illinois in an envelope with sufficient postage prepaid, on January 18,

2008 to the following:

Deborah J. Williams, Assistant Counsel

I1Iinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021 North Grand Avenue

East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

Stefanie Diers, Assistant Counsel

IIlinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O.

Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

Matthew 1. Dunn, Chief

Office of the Attorney General

Environmental Bureau North

69. West Washington Street, Suite 1800

Chicago, IL 60602

William Richardson,

Chief Legal Counsel

Illinois Department

of Natural Resources

One Natural Resources Way

Springfield, IL 62702

Drinker, Biddle, Gardner, Carton

Richard Kissel

Roy M. Harsch

191 N. Wacker Drive

Suite 3700

Chicago

IL 60606-1698

Brown, Hay,

Stephens LLP

Claire

Manning

700 First Mercantile Bank Building

205 South Fifth Street

P.O.

Box 2459

Springfield,

62705-2459

Hodge, Dwyer, Zeman

Katherine D. Hodge

Monica T. Rios

3150 Roland Avenue

P.O. Box 5776

Springfield, IL 62705-5776

Mayer, Brown LLP

Kevin G. Desharnais

Thomas W. Dimond

Thomas V. Skinner

71 S. Wacker Drive

Chicago,

60606-4637

Ross

Hardies

Charles W. Wesselhoft

James

Harrington

150 North Michigan Avenue

Suite 2500

Chicago, IL 60601-7567

City

of Geneva

Robert VanGyseghem

1800 South Street

Geneva,

60134-2203

McHenry County Defenders

Jerry Paulsen

Cindy Skrukrud

132 Cass Street

Woodstock, IL 60098

Chemical Industry Council

of IIJinois

Lisa Frede

2250 E. Devon Avenue

Suite 239

DesPlaines, IL 60018-4509

Barnes & Thornburg

Fredric

P. Andes

Erika

Powers

1 North Wacker Drive

Suite 4400

Chicago, IL 60606

Thorn Creek Basin Sanitary District

James

Daugerty, District Manager

700 West End Avenue

Chicago Heights,

IL 60411

Commonwealth Edison Company

Sharon Neal

125 South Clark Street

Chicago, IL 60603

American Water Company

Tracy Elzemeyer, General Counsel

727 Craig Road

81.

Louis, MO 63141

Hediriger

Law Office

Margaret

P. Howard

2601 South Fifth Street

Springfield, IL 62703

Chicago Legal Clinic, Inc.

Keith

Harley

Elizabeth Schenkler

205 West Monroe Street

Floor

Chicago, IL 60606

Vermillion Coal Company

Frederick

D. Keady, P.E., President

1979 Johns Street

Glenview, IL 60025

Fred

L. Hubbard

16 West Madison

P.O. Box

,Danville, IL 61834

Naval Training Center

Georgia Vlahos

2601 A Paul Jones Street

Great Lakes, IL 60088-2845

Blackwell Sanders, LLP

W.e. Blanton

4801 Main Street

Suite 1000

Kansas City, MO 64112

City

of Joliet

Department of Public Works and Utilities

Dennis

Duffield, Director

921 E. Washington Street

Joliet, IL 60431

American Bottoms RWTF

Kay Anderson

One American Bottoms Road

Sauget, IL 62201

Sierra Club

Jack Darin

E. Lake Street

Suite 1500

Chicago, IL 60601-7447

Bloomington Normal Water Reclamation

District

Bob Carter

P.O. Box 3307

Bloomington, IL 61702-3307

Fox Metro Water Reclamation District

Tom Muth

682 State Road

Oswego, IL 60543

Andrews Environmental Engineering

Kenneth

W. Liss

3300 Ginger Creek Drive

Springfield,

IL 62711

Environmental Law

Policy Center

Albert Ettinger, Senior Staff Attorney

Jessica Dexter

35 E. Wacker

Suite 1300

Chicago, IL 60601

Evanston Environment Board

Vicky McKinley

223 Grey Avenue

Evanston,

IL 60202

Office of Lt. Governor Pat Quinn

Marc Miller, Senior Policy Advisor

Jamie

S. Caston, Policy Advisor

Room 414 State House

Springfield, IL 62706

Franzetti Law Firm, P.C.

Susan

M. Franzetti

lOS. LaSalle Street, Suite 3600

Chicago, IL 60603

Ecological Monitoring and Assessment

Irwin Polls

3206 Maple Leaf Drive

Glenview,

IL 60025

Dr. Thomas

J. Murphy

2325 N. Clifton Street

Chicago, II. 60614

City

of Chicago

Mayor's Office of Intergovernmental Affairs

Cathy Hudzik

121 N. LaSalle Street

City Hall-Room 406

Chicago, IL 60602

Beth Steinhorn

2021 Timberbrook

Springfield, IL 62702

I-luff

Huff, Inc.

James Huff, Vice President

91-5 Harger Road, Suite 330

Oak Brook, IL 60523

Natural Resources Defense Council

Ann Alexander, Sr. Attorney

101 North Wacker Drive

Suite 609

Chicago, II. 60606

Prairie Rivers Networks

1902 Fox Drive, Suite 6

Champaign, IL 61820

By:,

~m~~)'JIj)

Frederick M. Feldman, Attorney