1
1
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
2
In the Matter of:
)
3
)
WATER QUALITY TRIENNIAL REVIEW:
)
4 AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE
)
302.105, 302.208(e)-(g), 302.504(a), ) R02-11
5 302.575(d), 309.141(h); and
)
PROPOSED 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 301.267, )
6 301.313, 301.413, 304.120, and
)
309.157.
)
7
8
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held
9 in the hearing of above-entitled matter,
10 taken stenographically by STACY L. LULIAS, CSR,
11 before MARIE E. TIPSORD, hearing officer, 100 West
12 Randolph Street, Room C-500, Chicago, Illinois, on
13 the 25th day of July, A.D., 2002, at the hour of
14 10:30 a.m.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2
1 A P P E A R A N C E S:
2
HEARING TAKEN BEFORE:
3
Illinois Pollution Control Board,
4
100 West Randolph Street
Room C-500
5
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 814-4825
6
BY: MS. MARIE E. TIPSORD, Hearing Officer
7
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD MEMBERS
8
9 Mr. G. Tanner Girard
10 Mr. Ronald Flemal
11 Mr. Nicholas Melas
12 Mr. Michael Tristano
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
3
1
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Good
2 morning. My name is Marie Tipsord, and I have been
3 appointed by the Board to serve as hearing officer
4 in this proceeding entitled In the Matter of Water
5 Quality Triennial Review: Amendments to 35 Ill.
6 Adm. Code 302.105, 302.208, 302.504, 302.575,
7 303.444, 309.141; and proposed 301.267, 301.313,
8 301.413, 304.120, and 309.157; docket number R02-11.
9
To my right is Dr. Tanner Girard,
10 the lead Board Member assigned to this matter; and
11 to my left is Dr. Ronald C. Flemal; to Dr. Girard's
12 right is Member Michael Tristano. Both
13 Member Tristano and Dr. Flemal are also assigned to
14 this ruling. Also we have with us today Board
15 Member Nicholas Melas.
16
In addition, in the audience
17 today, we have from our technical unit
18 Anand Rao, Alisa Liu. We also have Amy Antoniolli,
19 who is Mr. Melas's assistant, and Member Tristano's
20 assistant, William Murphy, and Cathy Glenn, who is
21 Member Flemal's assistant.
22
This is the third or fourth
23 hearing in this proceeding. I've lost track. The
24 purpose of today's hearing is two-fold.
4
1
First, this ruling-making is
2 subject to Section 27(b) of the Environmental
3 Protection Act. Section 27(b) of the Act requires
4 the Board to request that the Department of Commerce
5 and Community Affairs conduct an economic impact
6 study, ECIS, on certain proposed rules prior to the
7 adoption of those rules.
8
If DCCA chooses to conduct an
9 ECIS, DCCA has 30 to 45 days after such a request to
10 produce a study of the economic impact of the
11 proposed rules. The Board must then make the ECIS,
12 or DCCA's explanation for not conducting its study,
13 available to the public for at least 20 days before
14 public hearing on the economic impact of the
15 proposed rules.
16
In accordance with Section 27(b)
17 of the Act, the Board has requested by a letter
18 dated March 12, 2002 that DCCA conduct an economic
19 impact study for the above-referenced rule-making.
20
The request letters reference a
21 letter dated March 10, 2000 from DCCA. DCCA
22 notified the Board in that letter that it would not
23 be conducting an economic impact study on rules
24 pending before the Board during the remainder of
5
1 FY 2000 because it lacks, among other things, the
2 financial resources to conduct such studies.
3
In the request letter, the Board
4 asks that if they notify the Board within ten days,
5 they're going to attempt to conduct an economic
6 impact study on the proposed ruling.
7
The Board further stated that if
8 they were not notified within ten days, the Board
9 would rely on the DCCA March 10, 2000 letter as it
10 required explanation for not conducting an economic
11 impact study.
12
The ten days have passed, so we
13 will accept comment on DCCA's March 10, 2000 letter,
14 which is available at the back of the room.
15
Secondly, today we have pre-filed
16 testimony from the Illinois Environmental Protection
17 Agency, Mr. Robert Mosher, and from the
18 environmental groups in this proceeding represented
19 by Dr. Cynthia Skrukrud.
20
After the testimony of each, we
21 will allow questions to be asked. We will take both
22 sets of testimony as if read, so I will be entering
23 them as an exhibit in this proceeding.
24
Anyone may ask a question;
6
1 however, I do ask that you raise your hand, wait for
2 me to acknowledge you. After I have acknowledged
3 you, please state your name and who you represent
4 before you begin your questions.
5
Please speak one at a time. If
6 you are speaking over each other, the court reporter
7 will not be able to get your questions on the
8 record. Please note that any questions asked by a
9 Board Member or staff are intended to help build a
10 complete record for the Board's decision and not to
11 express any preconceived, notion or bias.
12
In addition to the pre-filed
13 testimony, we will allow anyone else who wishes to
14 testify the opportunity to do so as time allows.
15 I've placed a list at the back of the room for
16 persons who wish to testify today to sign up.
17
Also at the back of the room there
18 are sign-up sheets with the notice and service list
19 as well as the current notice and service list in
20 this proceeding. There are also copies of the
21 Board's opinion in order in this ruling. If you
22 have any other questions, please feel free to ask me
23 at the break.
24
At this time, I would ask --
7
1 Dr. Girard, is there anything you'd like to add?
2
DR. GIRARD: Yes, good morning. On
3 behalf of the Board, I'd like to welcome everyone to
4 this hearing this morning. The Board greatly
5 appreciates the amount of time and effort that
6 various people have put into this rule-making. We
7 look forward to your testimony and questions this
8 morning. Thank you.
9
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Thank you.
10
Dr. Flemal or Member Tristano?
11
With that, we'll proceed first
12 with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
13
Could we have the witness sworn,
14 please?
15
(Witness sworn.)
16
MR. SOFAT: Good morning. I'm Sonjay
17 Sofat. I'm an assistant counsel with the Illinois
18 Environmental Protection Agency. With me today are
19 three Agency witnesses.
20
To my right is Alan Keller, who is
21 the supervisor of the Northern Municipal Unit of the
22 permit section of the Division of Water Pollution.
23
To my left is Robert Mosher, who
24 is the manager of the Water Quality Standards Unit
8
1 within the Division of Water Pollution Control at
2 the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
3
Mr. Mosher will be available to
4 answer any questions regarding his pre-filed
5 supplement testimony or any follow-up questions.
6
To Bob's left is Toby Frevert, who
7 is the manager of the Division of Water Pollution
8 Control at the Illinois Environmental Protection
9 Agency.
10
The Agency appreciates this
11 additional opportunity to supplement its testimony
12 on a very important area of the Agency proposal, the
13 Cyanide Standard.
14
The Agency strongly supports the
15 Board's decision to proceed to first notice with the
16 proposed standards for BETX substances, acute and
17 chronic standards for zinc and nickel, GLI rules,
18 Section 309.157 with both changes, and changes in
19 Section 304.120 regarding the Board's decision that
20 the proposed Cyanide Standard is not justified, the
21 Agency has pre-filed Bob Mosher's testimony that we
22 believe addresses most of the Board's concerns
23 raised in the June 20, 2002 opinion.
24
The Agency respectfully requests
9
1 the Board to consider this testimony and strongly
2 urges that the Board adopt the Agency's proposed
3 Cyanide Standard. Thank you.
4
Mr. Mosher, I'm going to give you
5 this document, and if you can just look at it for a
6 few moments.
7 BY MR. SOFAT:
8
Q. Mr. Mosher, do you recognize this
9 document?
10
A. Yes, I do.
11
Q. Would you please tell us what this
12 document is?
13
A. This is my pre-filed testimony
14 concerning the weak acid dissociable cyanide
15 proposal for update of that water quality standard.
16
Q. Is that a true and accurate copy of
17 your testimony that has been filed with the Board?
18
A. Yes, it is.
19
MR. SOFAT: I move to present the copy
20 of Bob Mosher's testimony to be marked as an exhibit
21 and be admitted into the record, if there are no
22 objections.
23
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Are there
24 any objections?
10
1
Seeing none, we will mark the
2 testimony of Robert Mosher as Exhibit Number 17.
3
At this, I'll open it up for
4 questioning. Are there any questions of Mr. Mosher?
5
MR. ETTINGER: Well, I'll have some.
6
I'm Albert Ettinger. I represent
7 the Environmental Law & Policy Center, the Sierra
8 Club, and Prairie Rivers Network.
9
Actually, first I have a
10 procedural inquiry I guess I should make of the
11 Board or of the Hearing Examiner.
12
Since the cyanide proposal was not
13 accepted for first notice, if it were, or some part
14 of it, to be accepted now, would it then go back to
15 first notice, or what would be the procedure?
16
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: We, frankly,
17 have not discussed that, and I really can't answer
18 that. It would depend upon several factors.
19 BY MR. ETTINGER:
20
Q. I have a question first about total
21 cyanide.
22
As I understand your description
23 of the weak acid dissociable cyanide, this includes
24 some cyanide, but not all of the total cyanide; is
11
1 that correct?
2
A. That's correct.
3
Q. What do we know about the toxicity of
4 the forms of cyanide that are not measured by the
5 acid dissociable method?
6
A. Well, we know it takes a stronger acid
7 to bring those components into solution. They are
8 locked up with other molecules, and it's thought
9 that they aren't toxic to aquatic life because of
10 that.
11
Q. What studies have we cited that we
12 know that those complexes are not toxic to aquatic
13 life?
14
A. Well, the National Criteria Document
15 for Cyanide goes into a discussion on that issue.
16
Q. I believe the National Criteria
17 Document says that these compounds are probably less
18 toxic than free cyanide.
19
Does it say anywhere that these
20 compounds are not toxic?
21
A. It is my understanding from reading
22 through that document several times that there are
23 compounds of cyanide that are not thought to be a
24 problem for aquatic life toxicity.
12
1
Q. But there are some compounds that are
2 a problem for aquatic life?
3
A. That's correct, the compounds that are
4 more easily liberated from the molecular binding.
5 And that can be a problem for aquatic life because
6 of that.
7
Q. Is it your belief that only free
8 cyanide, only cyanide which has been freed in some
9 way, can be a problem for aquatic life?
10
A. Well, I think that's generally true
11 for toxic substances, that what we're worried about
12 is how -- what is their ability in the environment
13 to become freed up and therefore become toxic.
14
Q. So it's your testimony that cyanide is
15 never toxic as long as it's in a compound with
16 something else?
17
A. I don't think I want to go that far,
18 but I do want to make sure everyone recognizes that
19 there are degrees of binding. There are strong
20 bonds and weaker bonds, and by regulating weak acid
21 dissociable cyanide, we have, I believe,
22 conservatively encompassed the bound-up cyanide that
23 is of concern.
24
Q. I guess my question is, do you know of
13
1 any studies on the toxicity of the cyanide that is
2 still bound up?
3
A. No, I don't know of any.
4
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Excuse me.
5
Sort of a follow-up question, you
6 were both talking about the National Criteria
7 Document on Cyanide, is that a part of this record?
8
THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.
9
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Could you
10 tell me, was that part of the statement briefings,
11 because I don't -- that title didn't jump out when I
12 was going through the exhibit list.
13
DR. SKRUKRUD: Exhibit Y.
14
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Okay. I
15 just wanted to double-check, because the title of it
16 is actually USEPA Ambient Water Quality, and it
17 doesn't say National Criteria. So I wanted to get
18 that straight to be sure I was looking at the right
19 document.
20 BY MR. ETTINGER:
21
Q. Now, when they do these criteria
22 documents, basically they're dealing with pure --
23 I mean, when they're looking at specimens in these
24 National Criteria Documents, they're looking at pure
14
1 water, free cyanide, and the effect of that on the
2 organism; is that correct?
3
A. That's correct.
4
Q. So we're not looking at any cumulative
5 effects of having more than one pollutant in the
6 water because the only thing that's in the water is
7 cyanide?
8
A. That's correct, yes.
9
Q. And there's no other cyanide in the
10 solution that they're looking at other than free
11 cyanide?
12
A. When they set up those laboratory
13 experiments, they're careful to do that. It becomes
14 very difficult to test combinations, and, you know,
15 mixtures. And so all of the cyanide toxicity tests
16 that I'm aware of, to my knowledge, they all started
17 out with a simple chemical compound of cyanide such
18 as potassium cyanide. They mix that in pure water
19 and they're getting a free cyanide solution.
20
Q. So none of those tests tell us
21 anything about the toxicity of cyanide when it's in
22 a compound with other chemicals?
23
A. Those tests don't, no.
24
Q. Do we know anything about the toxicity
15
1 of a total cyanide?
2
A. There are observations. And, again, I
3 go to the National Criteria Document, that because
4 those forms are so strongly bound, that they are
5 either nontoxic or much less toxic than free
6 cyanide.
7
Q. But have we got any study that
8 measures how much less toxic they are than free
9 cyanide?
10
A. I don't believe so. I would refer,
11 again, that anyone interested in that would read
12 through the National Criteria Document for -- I
13 don't recall everything that's in that document, but
14 that would be a good source to explore.
15
Q. Does the weak acid dissociable method
16 release cyanide from ferrocyanide complexes?
17
A. Well, it's my understanding that the
18 iron cyanide complexes that you're referring to are
19 some of the stronger bound forms of cyanide. And I
20 don't want to overstep my knowledge. I'm not a
21 chemist, but that is my understanding, that those
22 are the strongly bound forms, and that the weak acid
23 dissociable cyanide test does not measure
24 strongly-bound forms.
16
1
Q. Now, there is elements in your
2 testimony regarding protection of trout, and I think
3 we suggest that there would be -- strike that.
4 Forget that.
5
Are you aware of the regulation
6 saying that water quality standards must protect the
7 most sensitive use?
8
A. I think that's generally a principle
9 that we strive for in water quality standards, yes.
10
Q. Now, in this proposal, you're
11 proposing to change both the acute and the chronic
12 standard; is that correct?
13
A. That's correct.
14
Q. Dr. Sheehan testified in the ammonia
15 proceeding, I think we all remember that, that he
16 was comforted with regard to the trout that do exist
17 in Illinois because they were only changing the
18 chronic standard in that proceeding. But, in this
19 proceeding, we are changing both the chronic and the
20 acute standard.
21
Do you see any problems with
22 regard to the trout and other salmonid species that
23 do exist in Illinois with regard to changes in the
24 acute standard?
17
1
A. I'm not concerned because of the
2 distribution of trout stocking in Illinois, and
3 because of the actual levels of cyanide in Illinois.
4 Number one, I'm not aware of any place, any stream
5 or lake, that has cyanide levels that would approach
6 our proposed acute standard, and certainly not --
7 streams that are stocked with trout are far from any
8 industrialized areas that would just by chance
9 contribute cyanide. So, no, I'm not concerned that
10 we will have trout going belly-up because of cyanide
11 in Illinois.
12
Q. Now, let me pursue something you said
13 there. You say there's no streams in Illinois that
14 have levels of cyanide anywhere close to the acute
15 standards that you're proposing here?
16
A. Yes, that's correct.
17
Q. Are there any waters in Illinois that
18 have levels of cyanide that are close to the chronic
19 standards that you're proposing?
20
A. No. Occasionally, we will detect
21 total cyanide in our Illinois monitoring networks at
22 IEPA.
23
Total cyanide, of course, measures
24 more than would be covered by the standard. So
18
1 that's a conservative type of thing to look at.
2 You're not exactly measuring what the standard is
3 when you measure total cyanide. You're measuring
4 more things.
5
And, occasionally, I've seen in
6 some of the rivers and canals that receive
7 industrial effluence or large municipal effluence
8 cyanide values that are at or close to the proposed
9 chronic standard for weak acid dissociable cyanide.
10 But that's a rarity. Those detections of cyanide
11 are very few and far between.
12
Q. So, to your knowledge, this change in
13 the standard will not affect any discharge?
14
A. Well, the change in the standard, as
15 we tried to bring out in my testimony, is one of not
16 so much discharging cyanide or having cyanide in our
17 waters, but the limitations of the laboratory
18 methodology that dischargers use to measure cyanide
19 is the problem. And that is that there is a
20 chemical interference that we know about that causes
21 cyanide to be measured sometimes in affluence when
22 it's not believed to be there. And the detection
23 limit of cyanide; in other words, what's the minimum
24 detection limit the lab feels comfortable with
19
1 reporting, most labs cannot get down to that 5.2
2 parts per billion level, and, therefore, lab results
3 usually are unavailable to tell us if a discharger
4 has cyanide over the existing chronic standard, or,
5 you know, whether the lab is just incapable of
6 getting that resolution. So those are the two
7 problems that I see exist.
8
Q. Let's ask first about -- are you
9 familiar with whether there have been any new
10 analytic methods designed for cyanide since the
11 Water Reclamation District proceeding?
12
A. USEPA has been working on something,
13 and we got a little bit of information about it, but
14 they've never pursued it, to my knowledge, to go so
15 far as to propose it or even get comments from
16 people on the usefulness of that new method.
17
Q. New method of detecting what?
18
A. It was a new method of measuring
19 cyanide in a laboratory that was supposed to get
20 right to the toxic components of cyanide.
21
Q. Well, have you ever -- are you aware
22 of any new methods that have been adopted by USEPA
23 since 1996 for detecting cyanide?
24
A. No, I'm not aware.
20
1
MR. ETTINGER: I'd like to offer as an
2 exhibit Method OIA-1677.
3
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Is there any
4 objection to the exhibit?
5
Seeing none, we will admit it as
6 Exhibit Number 18.
7 BY MR. ETTINGER:
8
Q. Do you know how cyanide is detected in
9 the other states that have salmonid species and are
10 continuing to use the current level that's
11 recommended by USEPA for cyanide criteria?
12
A. Well, I know of a few states. Let's
13 see.
14
Pennsylvania told me that they are
15 now using free cyanide, but the person I talked to
16 couldn't tell me how they were handling the lab
17 difficulties of measuring free cyanide.
18
They apparently had a test that
19 was not USEPA approved, which I see as a big
20 drawback.
21
Q. Well, have you ever tried calling,
22 say, the State of Michigan asking them what they're
23 doing?
24
A. No, I hadn't called Michigan.
21
1
Q. Well, I might suggest you do that,
2 because I called them up and they told me about this
3 new method which had been adopted.
4
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Albert, I'm
5 going to ask that you be sworn in at this point.
6
Could you swear him in?
7
(Witness sworn.)
8 BY MR. ETTINGER:
9
Q. I'd like for you to look at page 1 of
10 this detection method.
11
It says, the method -- and look at
12 1.4.
13
It says, the method detection
14 limit (MDL) is .5 micrograms per liter, and the
15 minimum level (ML) is 2.0 micrograms per liter with
16 this method.
17
Do you have any reason to believe
18 that that's untrue?
19
A. I'm looking at this for the first
20 time, and, usually, USEPA is pretty reliable, but I
21 haven't read the document and I don't know if I have
22 any concerns.
23
Q. I point then to page 3 of this
24 document in which they did a warning in the middle.
22
1
MR. HARSCH: Madam Hearing Officer,
2 on behalf of the Illinois Association of Wastewater
3 Agencies, the witness has already testified that
4 he's not familiar with the document. This is the
5 first time he's seeing the document.
6
If Mr. Ettinger wants him to
7 testify regarding the document, he ought to testify
8 regarding the document, not continue to ask
9 questions to somebody who has just seen the document
10 for the first time, with all due respect.
11
MR. ETTINGER: With all due respect,
12 I'm simply going to -- I'm obviously not asking the
13 witness what the document means, I agree with you.
14 I'm going to be asking him, and my question will be,
15 and Mr. Harsch will want to pose his objection
16 again, says, the cyanide ion, hydrocyanic acid, all
17 cyanide salts, and most metal-cyanide complexes are
18 extremely dangerous.
19
Do you know any reason that that
20 statement is untrue?
21
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Before you
22 answer, Mr. Mosher, I'm going to rule on Mr.
23 Harsch's objection.
24
Since this is a rule-making, we
23
1 understand that Mr. Mosher is just looking at this
2 document. We will allow him to answer the question
3 now.
4
THE WITNESS: Yes, I'm aware that
5 cyanide is a dangerous substance.
6 BY MR. ETTINGER:
7
Q. Well, are you aware that most
8 metal-cyanide complexes are extremely dangerous, or
9 do you have any reason to believe that the statement
10 made here in the USEPA-approved method is not true?
11
A. I think you need to understand the
12 nature of the warning, and is it intended for
13 aquatic life or is it intended for humans that work
14 in laboratories.
15
Q. Okay.
16
Do you have any reason to believe
17 that something that is toxic to humans working in
18 laboratories is not toxic for aquatic life?
19
A. I know of examples where that is true.
20 I would cite the example of chlorine, that humans
21 drink chlorine in the tap water every day and it's
22 not harmful, and chlorine is very toxic to aquatic
23 life.
24
Q. All right, that's going the other way.
24
1 Thank you.
2
You also -- do you know -- I guess
3 so that the -- as I understand the Agency's
4 proposal, correct me if I'm wrong, you're not really
5 concerned about cyanide in Illinois water when
6 you're concerned about those that the testing
7 methods are not adequately sensitive that we're now
8 using and it's causing some problem; is that
9 correct?
10
A. No. My job is to be concerned with
11 all kinds of toxic substances in Illinois water, and
12 cyanide is one of those things.
13
And my job has me look over data
14 to determine what the proper water quality standard
15 could be, and I've done that for cyanide to the best
16 of my ability. But to say I'm not concerned I think
17 is a false statement.
18
Q. Well, none of the dischargers -- no
19 Illinois discharger, to your knowledge, is having a
20 problem meeting cyanide standards at this point?
21
A. Very few Illinois dischargers are
22 regulated for cyanide. Of those who are, I'm aware
23 that in at least one case, some detections beyond
24 the permit limit were encountered. Whether to say
25
1 that facility has a problem with cyanide in the fact
2 that they've actually discharged quantities and are
3 causing exceedences of water quality standards in
4 the receiving stream, that I can't say.
5
I can say that, occasionally, a
6 sample comes through that measures weak acid
7 dissociable cyanide above a permit limit.
8
Q. Tell me a little bit about this
9 chlorine interference, how does it interfere with
10 the cyanide?
11
A. Well, that was detailed in a
12 site-specific regulation a few years ago that was
13 from the Metropolitan Wastewater District of
14 Chicago. And they did a pretty good job, I thought,
15 of documenting the fact that in their effluence from
16 their civics treatment plants, something, and they
17 thought that it might be chlorine, if my memory
18 serves me, was somehow messing up the cyanide
19 analysis and they were measuring cyanide where it
20 really didn't exist.
21
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Excuse me,
22 just if I may interject for the record, the
23 rule-making that Mr. Mosher is referring to is,
24 R95-14.
26
1 BY MR. ETTINGER:
2
Q. This is R95-14. I'd like to just,
3 since we brought that up, read you a sentence from
4 this and see whether any further research has been
5 done. The sentence in the opinion states --
6
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Excuse me,
7 could you specify which opinion, because there were
8 three separate opinions.
9
MR. ETTINGER: I'm sorry.
10 BY MR. ETTINGER:
11
Q. The February 1, 1996 opinion in that
12 proceeding states, the District observes that during
13 the Summer of 1994, when the correlation between
14 chlorination/dechlorination was becoming evident, it
15 undertook a study of the fate of WAD cyanide
16 concentrations during the treatment process,
17 including sampling prior to and after chlorination.
18
The results verified that
19 chlorination causes an increase in the reported WAD
20 cyanide concentrations, although it remains
21 uncertain whether the increase is caused by an
22 analytical interference or by a chemical reaction
23 that produces new cyanide.
24
Are you aware of whether there
27
1 have been any studies that have resolved the
2 question as to whether or not the chlorination
3 causes an analytical interference or whether it
4 produces new cyanide?
5
A. No, I'm not.
6
Q. Now, I have a question with regards to
7 the Black Shiner and Iowa Darter:
8
Did USEPA test any members of the
9 genus of either the Black Shiner or the Iowa Darter
10 in developing the cyanide standard?
11
A. I'd have to look.
12
(Witness perusing
13
the document.)
14 BY THE WITNESS:
15
A. No, they didn't.
16 BY MR. ETTINGER:
17
Q. On page 8 of your testimony you state,
18 USEPA Region 5 Management has assured the Agency
19 that mussel data should not enter the derivation
20 process as a driving factor until the controversies
21 are resolved and reasonable experts agree that the
22 mussel data is legitimate.
23
How did Region 5 make this
24 assurance known to you?
28
1
A. We had a meeting with them, I believe
2 it was this spring, discussing many topics, and I
3 brought that up to ask them their position. These
4 were the managers of the Region 5 Water Office.
5
Q. And what specific individuals?
6
A. Joan Karnowskus.
7
Q. And was she the one who made that
8 statement?
9
A. Yes.
10
Q. The State of Ohio, you mentioned, has
11 a standard which is similar to the standard being
12 proposed here.
13
Are you familiar with the Ohio use
14 designation system?
15
A. Somewhat familiar.
16
Q. They have a lot more categories of
17 uses than Illinois, don't they?
18
A. Yes, they do.
19
Q. And do we know what standards -- what
20 uses this particular cyanide standard applies to in
21 Illinois?
22
A. It was my understanding from reading
23 the Ohio regulations that this applied to all the
24 waters in Ohio other than Great Lakes basin waters.
29
1
Q. Is Illinois EPA now asking dischargers
2 to monitor for cyanide at the 5 microgram per liter
3 level?
4
A. No, because we recognize that as
5 something that would be very difficult for the
6 dischargers, as they would have trouble finding a
7 lab that could get down to that level.
8
Q. So, in fact, the only reason for
9 making this change has already been accomplished by
10 your telling the dischargers that they don't have to
11 measure to that detection level anyway?
12
A. The primary reason for making this
13 change is that when we review water quality
14 Standards and look at the data, we want to derive
15 and have adopted a standard that is the most correct
16 standard possible. That's the primary reason we're
17 making this suggestion.
18
There are other reasons, which
19 I've already gone over, which are also good reasons
20 for doing it. But without reason number one, in
21 that the data tell us that this is the proper warm
22 water cyanide standard, without that reason being
23 correct, the others aren't valid.
24
Q. But you don't have any data in this
30
1 that's relevant to any of the endangered species in
2 Illinois, do you?
3
A. I don't know of any data anywhere from
4 any endangered species. They don't test endangered
5 species.
6
Q. Do they test the genus of endangered
7 species?
8
A. Every now and then, yes.
9
MR. ETTINGER: I'd like to offer one
10 other exhibit here.
11 BY MR. ETTINGER:
12
Q. This is a permit that was issued by
13 Illinois EPA last fall. I'd like you to just turn
14 to page 7 of this permit. It has monitoring
15 requirements and minimum detection limit figures.
16
Looking down at cyanide, you'll
17 note that the minimum detection now is
18 10 micrograms per liter; is that correct?
19
A. That's correct.
20
Q. Is that, to your knowledge, the
21 standard practice of the Agency to require that
22 detection limit for cyanide already?
23
A. Yes.
24
Q. Looking down at mercury, the detection
31
1 limit there is 2 micrograms per liter?
2
A. No, that's not correct. It's 0.2.
3
Q. I'm sorry, 0.2.
4
How does that relate to the
5 mercury standard in Illinois?
6
A. That detection limit is adequate to
7 assess attainment of the acute and chronic mercury
8 standards for general use waters, but it's not
9 adequate to assess the human health standard.
10
Q. Does it bother the Agency that you
11 have detection limits for mercury which were a
12 multiple of the human health standard?
13
A. I think this is a somewhat similar
14 case to cyanide, in that we have to wait for
15 laboratory technology to catch up with water quality
16 standards sometimes. And, for mercury, very
17 recently, USEPA has adopted a new lab method that
18 will allow minimum detection limits --
19
Q. Very recently as in two years ago?
20
A. Yes.
21
Q. Does the Illinois Environmental
22 Protection Agency intend to propose to weaken the
23 human health standard for mercury because it only
24 intends to require a minimum detection limit of
32
1 .2 micrograms per liter?
2
A. No, because we feel that the existing
3 mercury human health standard is appropriate from
4 our knowledge at this point.
5
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Excuse me,
6 at this point, just some housekeeping. Is there any
7 objection to admitting the permit of the North Shore
8 Sanitary District issued on September 18, 2001 as
9 Exhibit 19?
10
Seeing none, that will be marked
11 as Exhibit 19. Thank you.
12 BY MR. ETTINGER:
13
Q. Finally, on page 10 of your testimony,
14 you note that the reason for a proposal raises the
15 chronic standard from 10 to 11 micrograms per liter
16 stems from additional toxicity studies being found
17 since 1996.
18
Could you just identify for the
19 record which those studies are?
20
A. Okay. Exhibit Z of our original
21 proposal lists some additional studies that we found
22 that were either not found by the National Criteria
23 Document authors or were newer than that document.
24 And it would take me a little while to tell you
33
1 which ones those are, but the reason the standard
2 can be where it is now is that we have more species
3 tested since the National Criteria Document was
4 published. When you have more species information
5 available, that essentially your safety factoring is
6 lessened and the standard can get a little bit
7 higher because of that reason.
8
MR. ETTINGER: Can I have like a
9 two-minute break to just talk to Cindy and see
10 whether I have anything else?
11
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Sure.
12
(Brief pause.)
13
MR. ETTINGER: I think we've covered
14 everything now. Thank you.
15
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Are there
16 any other questions?
17 BY MR. HARSCH:
18
Q. Mr. Mosher, has USEPA and
19 Fisherman Wildlife entered into a memorandum of
20 understanding which both agencies agreed to jointly
21 review USEPA's Criteria Documents for Water Quality
22 Standards as they would impact endangered species?
23
A. Yes. There's a memorandum of
24 agreement between those two agencies.
34
1
Q. So the likely optima of that may be
2 revisions to the National Criteria when that
3 complication process is completed in the next two
4 years; is that correct?
5
A. Yes.
6
MR. HARSCH: Thank you very much.
7
MR. SOFAT: Madam Hearing Officer, my
8 Agency has some questions for Albert.
9
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Of Albert,
10 let me just make that clear?
11
MR. SOFAT: Albert Ettinger.
12
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Sure.
13 BY MR. MOSHER:
14
Q. I'd like to ask you a few things about
15 the cyanide method that you have given us as an
16 exhibit.
17
Are there any laboratories in
18 Illinois that are performing that test?
19
A. I don't know.
20
Q. Do you know what the qualifications of
21 that method are in terms of interferences such as we
22 saw with the other cyanide methods?
23
A. No.
24
Q. Do you have any idea about
35
1 laboratories even outside of Illinois or any --
2 well, let me ask that question first.
3
Are outside laboratories doing
4 that test that you know of?
5
A. I was told by Sylvia Heaton at the
6 Michigan Department of Environmental Quality that
7 they are using it in Michigan.
8
Q. The Michigan State Laboratory or a
9 private lab?
10
A. No. I called her, asked what they
11 were doing, and she said there was a new method. I
12 can give you her number.
13
Q. Does this new laboratory method have
14 anything to do with what a water quality standard
15 should be as far as protecting aquatic life?
16
A. The method contains information which
17 I find interesting that is relevant to that topic
18 that somebody should figure out insofar as it says
19 that the metallic compounds, if you are in effect in
20 your proposal are assuming are completely harmless
21 may not be, then that is something I would certainly
22 want to look at before I adopted the standard that
23 you are proposing.
24
But other than that, the reason
36
1 that we looked at the analytical method was not to
2 look at the soundness of the standard, but instead
3 to appraise your argument that the Illinois standard
4 should be weakened because of the lack of analytic
5 methods that are available to test the current
6 standard.
7
Q. Does this new USEPA lab method measure
8 ferrocyanide complex?
9
A. No.
10
MR. MOSHER: Thanks.
11
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Anything
12 further?
13
All right, then let's move on to
14 Dr. Skrukrud's testimony. We'll have her sworn in
15 please.
16
(Witness sworn.)
17
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: And if
18 there's no objection, we will admit Dr. Skrukrud's
19 testimony as Exhibit Number 20.
20
Is there any objection?
21
Seeing none, that testimony will
22 be marked as Exhibit Number 20.
23
Are there any questions for
24 Dr. Skrukrud? Identify yourself for the record,
37
1 too, please.
2
MR. CALLAHAN: My name is Mike
3 Callahan, and I'm here on behalf of the Illinois
4 Association of Wastewater Agencies.
5
Madam Hearing Officer, I was sworn
6 during the second hearing. I would intend to adjust
7 my comments accordingly here. Would you care to
8 swear me again?
9
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Yes.
10
(Witness sworn.)
11
MR. ETTINGER: Excuse me. Are we
12 hearing testimony or --
13
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: He has some
14 questions for Dr. Skrukrud.
15
MR. ETTINGER: Well, it seems like
16 he's swearing himself in as testimony, in which
17 case, I would have liked to have had pre-filed
18 testimony.
19
MR. CALLAHAN: I think some of my
20 questions --
21
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Excuse me,
22 could we go off the record for just a second.
23
(Whereupon, a discussion
24
was had off the record.)
38
1
MR. CALLAHAN: I'd like to submit here
2 for the Board's review Dr. Skrukrud's graph that she
3 included as Attachment 1 in her pre-filed testimony,
4 on which I've indicated some numbers which I think
5 are appropriate. And the sheet on the front is a
6 table that summarizes the data taken directly from
7 her graph.
8
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: If there's
9 no objection, we will admit this as Exhibit Number
10 21.
11
Seeing none, it will be marked as
12 Exhibit Number 21.
13
MR. CALLAHAN: May I just stay here
14 for the sake of convenience?
15
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Sure.
16 BY MR. CALLAHAN:
17
Q. Dr. Skrukrud, I would first of all
18 like to call your attention to your testimony. On
19 page 2 toward the end of the first paragraph, you
20 make a statement about halfway through that
21 paragraph.
22
In fact, as we explained in the
23 post-hearing comments, the dissolved oxygen standard
24 continues to be violated in many Illinois waters.
39
1 While we do not know the cause of these violations,
2 many of the affected waters receive significant
3 discharges from sewage treatment plants and other
4 discharges of oxygen pollutants.
5
The fact that you don't -- do I
6 understand that sentence to mean that you do not
7 understand necessarily the exact cause of all of
8 these violations?
9
A. Yes, that's what we stated. We do not
10 know the causes of these violations.
11
Q. Could some of these violations be
12 caused by urban and rural non-point source storm
13 runoff?
14
A. Yes.
15
Q. Could some of these violations have
16 been caused by channel morphology modifications,
17 perhaps with the lack of overhanging bank
18 vegetation? The example that I will give would be a
19 channel which has been artificially structured so
20 that there's an excessive wetted perimeter of flow
21 within the channel. Water is very thin. In the
22 summer it heats very quickly. Warm water contains
23 less oxygen than colder water.
24
So channel morphology and
40
1 hydrological modifications could be contributing to
2 some of these dissolved oxygen deficits, would that
3 be a possibility?
4
A. Channel morphology could contribute to
5 dissolved oxygen.
6
Q. Could anoxic siltation deposits
7 contribute to some of these oxygen violations?
8
A. Yes.
9
Q. What about the unfortunate incident of
10 just naturally decaying vegetation and foreign
11 waters, could they not under some circumstances
12 contribute to these dissolved oxygen violations?
13
A. Yes.
14
Q. So there would be a variety of things
15 other than wastewater treatment plant discharges
16 that could infect these water quality dissolved
17 oxygen violations to which you're referring?
18
A. Yes.
19
Q. Let's move down to the second
20 paragraph. This is talking about your graph in
21 Attachment 1, the sampling of the DuPage River done
22 in August of last year. The last sentence in that
23 paragraph indicates that large quantities of
24 discharge from sewage treatment plants upstream
41
1 could have contributed nutrients and
2 oxygen-demanding fluids leading to this violation.
3
That's your statement, correct,
4 did I read that correctly?
5
A. Yes, you read it correctly.
6
Q. So by the nature of that statement, we
7 could also say that these discharges could not have
8 contributed to these violations? If they could,
9 then they might not have as well; is that correct?
10
A. Yeah, yeah.
11
Q. Let's take that a step further.
12
What if the oxygen-demanding
13 parameters released by these treatment plants did
14 not contribute but perhaps their nutrients did,
15 would that be a realistic assessment?
16
A. Say that again. You said the
17 nutrients would contribute, but their --
18
Q. Oxygen-demanding load did not.
19
A. I don't know quite how that would get
20 teased out. I mean, if the effluence contains both,
21 you know, certainly the breakdown of nutrients can
22 deplete, can result in a consumption of oxygen.
23
Q. The breakdown of the nutrient can
24 result in the uptake of oxygen?
42
1
A. Yes. Or the metabolism, if you want
2 to say it, the metabolism of nutrients in the water
3 by organisms in the water can result in a
4 consumption of oxygen.
5
Q. Right.
6
A. But at the same time, if there's vital
7 oxygen-demanding components in the effluent, those
8 are also going to play a role. So I don't know how
9 you could tease the two out, definitely.
10
Q. It would be a very specific kind of
11 thing?
12
A. Right.
13
Q. But the presumption would be made
14 that if a discharger was discharging a BOD of
15 2 milligrams per liter and a phosphorus
16 concentration of 3 or 4 milligrams per liter, that
17 we might expect the nutrient impact to far exceed
18 the oxygen demand impact?
19
A. Yeah, potentially. And --
20
Q. Okay, fine.
21
The last paragraph on the second
22 page, you, in a way, characterize -- I don't believe
23 it was my testimony, I think it was my
24 cross-examination and discussion with Albert at the
43
1 second hearing.
2
You've indicated here that I said
3 a BOD and an effluent of 10 milligrams per liter
4 would be readily attainable. Do you --
5
A. That was taken from the transcript of
6 the hearing.
7
Q. From the transcript, okay.
8
I think in the event that -- if my
9 memory is correct, and I think it is, I think I was
10 referring to a tertiary treatment plant, as I
11 recall, and not necessarily looking at a secondary
12 treatment process effluent capability of 10
13 milligrams per liter.
14
The reason that we have tertiary
15 treatment in this industry is to make the difference
16 between the secondary capabilities and what is
17 required for zero low flow stream discharge.
18
So one way or another, I just
19 wanted to clarify that. That I am not on the record
20 intentionally of indicating that a secondary
21 treatment process can consistently produce a
22 10 milligram per liter BOD.
23
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Did you have
24 a follow-up to that?
44
1
MR. KELLER: Just for clarification on
2 that, Mr. Callahan is referring to page 132 of the
3 testimony, and it does refer to treatment plants
4 discharging to zero flow streams, which would the
5 10/12 effluent versus the 20/25 effluent.
6
MR. CALLAHAN: Right.
7
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Could you
8 identify yourself for the record?
9
MR. KELLER: Alan Keller, EPA.
10 BY MR. CALLAHAN:
11
Q. All right, a little housekeeping
12 there. That 10 milligram was an anticipated
13 tertiary effluent, certainly not an evaluation of
14 the secondary process.
15
The last paragraph of your written
16 testimony, the second sentence reads, the Agency
17 should be required to develop implementation rules
18 for the dissolved oxygen standard and consider the
19 contribution which nitrogenous BOD makes the total
20 BOD load in a typical effluent.
21
Aren't you a member of the
22 Illinois EPA Nutrient Science Advisory Group with me
23 that is addressing the development of nutrient
24 standards in this state?
45
1
A. Yes, I am.
2
Q. And hasn't that group been in session
3 now assembled for probably maybe just a little over
4 a year?
5
A. Yes. I don't think I was at the first
6 meeting, so I don't know --
7
Q. But you have been at the subsequent
8 meetings?
9
A. Yes.
10
Q. Well, at those subsequent meetings,
11 haven't we discussed the applicability of the
12 existing dissolved oxygen standard in Illinois to
13 specifically address the requirements of nutrient
14 control as well as possibly being appropriate for
15 the growth of our state; hasn't that been an issue
16 that's been discussed?
17
A. Yes, but I don't quite see how that's
18 relevant here in terms of what is in my testimony
19 here.
20
When I was discussing the
21 nitrogenous BOD in a discharge --
22
Q. Well, I --
23
A. Can I finish?
24
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Let her
46
1 finish, please.
2 BY THE WITNESS:
3
A. One of the main reasons why we are
4 concerned that that part of the discharge be looked
5 at was because there are permits granted without
6 ammonia limits. And so our concerns are specific
7 with the ammonia component of the effluent.
8
And I'm not sure that we focused
9 on ammonia in the nutrient hearings because -- the
10 ammonia because we already have a water quality
11 standard for ammonia.
12
Q. Well, I might take exception with you
13 on that, because I believe, again, if you'll review
14 the transcript of the last hearing, Albert
15 cross-examined me at great length about this. And I
16 indicated that the group I thought, and it was
17 certainly my intention, was looking at addressing
18 nitrogenous oxygen demand as a component of the
19 nutrient management strategy that we were trying to
20 put together at this time.
21
A. I guess I have it understood that that
22 has been a main component of our discussions.
23
Q. Well, I bring that all up because my
24 question was how you would make such a statement as
47
1 you have when you've been a part of the proceedings
2 that have been addressing the development and
3 reassessment of our oxygen standard for
4 approximately half a year or so at this point.
5
Now, you brought up the idea once
6 again about showing that there were no ammonia
7 limits in some of the NPDES discharge currently
8 issued with the state, if that's correct.
9
Part of your testimony, and we
10 just discussed that briefly here, and I assume that
11 you once again are referring to the situation
12 involving, amongst others, Beardstown, Illinois, as
13 presented at the spring hearing?
14
A. That was a permit that we presented as
15 an example of a permit that happened with ammonia.
16
Q. Right. And you recall our discussion
17 about the discharge, to whose capability, and the
18 compliance of that situation with the existing
19 rights in the State of Illinois?
20
A. I'm sorry, I cannot recall that
21 conversation.
22
Q. Well, I believe it was discussed at
23 length at that hearing that there was incredible
24 pollution capability at Beardstown, and that's the
48
1 reason that the -- the discharging of the Illinois
2 River. I don't say this at all authoritatively, but
3 I believe it was about 1000-to-1 pollution
4 capability in that town.
5
A. What I do recall is that we've had
6 discussions earlier in these proceedings that the
7 current Illinois water quality standard for ammonia
8 is focused on the issue of the toxicity of ammonia.
9 It doesn't address the oxygen demands.
10
Q. Right, I would agree with you
11 100 percent, and I would also agree that that is
12 totally inadequate. And that is why I'm advocating
13 the point that we look at this as part of the
14 eco management strategy and not try to back the word
15 onto a process by which we evaluate the capacity as
16 a secondary treatment.
17
I would like to turn now to your
18 graph, which I have taken the liberty of marking a
19 little bit here along with the table that I've
20 prepared.
21
If we look at the first
22 presentation of data, the titles across the top of
23 this indicate maximum. And these are
24 approximations. If you pardon my hen scratching,
49
1 you can see on the curves where I've tried some of
2 the various components of maxima and minima, time of
3 day, revoke temperature, and dissolved oxygen
4 concentration.
5
By and large, the maximum for
6 August 2 through August 5 were 98.5, 10.8, and 11.2.
7 The time of day that those were measured was
8 principally about 6 p.m., 5 to 6 p.m. And the
9 temperature at the time of the maximum concentration
10 respectively was 27, 28, 28, 28 and 3 centigrades.
11
Now, this may be off a degree or
12 two. I've tried to extrapolate the best I could
13 from your graph. But I think it's fine for
14 illustrative purposes.
15
The fourth column are numbers that
16 I copied off of the Yellow Springs Instrument
17 Corporation's calibration curve for a YSI dissolved
18 oxygen meter. And at 540 feet of elevation, these
19 would be the oxygen saturation concentrations at
20 those temperatures.
21
Now, admittedly, there are other
22 things such as salinity, which is in effect a
23 component of dissolved solids; barometric pressure;
24 a number of things that would really give us a very
50
1 specific dissolved oxygen saturation concentration.
2 But the numbers I'm giving here could be within two
3 or three-tenths of a part from a million from what
4 the actual number would be given the conditions
5 under which the measurements were taken.
6
These saturation numbers by and
7 large -- well, I think almost without exception are
8 considerably less than the maxima that were measured
9 on those days, are they not?
10
MR. ETTINGER: You're just asking if
11 the numbers --
12 BY THE WITNESS:
13
A. Yes.
14
MR. ETTINGER: -- you've written in
15 one column are larger or smaller than the other?
16
MR. CALLAHAN: Right.
17 BY THE WITNESS:
18
A. Yes, they are.
19 BY MR. CALLAHAN:
20
Q. Where would this oxygen come from?
21
A. What are you asking?
22
Q. Well, this is in excess of a
23 saturation concentration of the water that we would
24 expect to result from simple diffusion to cause the
51
1 water atmosphere inferior. Where does this oxygen
2 come from?
3
A. I have to tell you I'm by no means an
4 expert in this. That it can come from biological
5 activity.
6
Q. Photosynthesis?
7
A. Yes.
8
Q. So we're supersaturating the solutions
9 on photosynthesis, and that could be borne out by
10 the fact that these samples were all taken and these
11 maxima were collected late in the afternoon. That
12 would be the maximum period of solar radiation on
13 that water, correct?
14
A. Yes.
15
Q. I agree with you, yes. I would agree
16 with that observation.
17
Correspondingly then, the minimas
18 that we find that are woefully below what we presume
19 to be -- by the way, what is our water quality
20 standard for dissolved oxygen?
21
A. Our standard is 5 and then 5.0
22 milligrams per liter, and then no less than
23 6 milligrams per liter for a period of 12 or
24 18 hours.
52
1
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: 16.
2
THE WITNESS: 16 hours. I would split
3 the difference then.
4 BY MR. CALLAHAN:
5
Q. The standard is not less than five --
6
A. At any time.
7
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Excuse me,
8 let me clarify that. I have the Rule in front of
9 me. It's Section 302.206.
10
Dissolved oxygen shall not be less
11 than 6.0 milligrams per liter during the 16 hours of
12 any 24-hour period, nor less than 5.0 milligrams
13 per liter at any time.
14
MR. CALLAHAN: Right.
15 BY MR. CALLAHAN:
16
Q. So given that current standard on the
17 book, the minimum concentration that we're finding
18 on the bottom half of this from the 2nd through the
19 5th of August is considerably below what our current
20 standard would allow; is that correct?
21
A. Yes, that's why we presented this data
22 as evidence that we are having problems in the
23 State's waters where the DO levels are dropping
24 below the standard.
53
1
Q. At what time of the day were those
2 measurements taken?
3
A. Roughly 8 a.m.
4
Q. So we have very high oxygen
5 concentration relative to saturation values at the
6 conclusion of the period of maximum solar radiation,
7 and then we have a standard-violating situation
8 after a prolonged period of darkness.
9
Would you agree that that is a
10 eutrophication dissolved oxygen signature?
11
A. Yes.
12
Q. How would this look different if it
13 were related to a sustained and continuous discharge
14 of oxygen in the air?
15
A. As the only component?
16
Q. In other words, if we just assume that
17 this is a signature of eutrophication caused by
18 nutrient release -- I think that's what you just
19 said. Too many nutrients going in.
20
If it were caused instead by an
21 unrestricted overly-generous release of carbonaceous
22 oxygen demand, how would that curve look?
23
A. Once again, you're asking me to tease
24 out in the real world something that can -- that's
54
1 all mixed together. So, in this case, I think that
2 we can see, because of this signature, that there's
3 a nutrient component that's causing this up and down
4 levels of DO. But --
5
Q. So --
6
A. Can I finish?
7
Q. Yes.
8
A. But there can't -- it's hard for us
9 to tease out of what we have in this graph here what
10 is the underlying BOD demand.
11
Q. Right.
12
A. So --
13
Q. Well, let me suggest to you, being
14 under oath, that if this were a curve in response to
15 a sustained release of carbonaceous oxygen demand,
16 that the main value would be significantly less than
17 what we're seeing right now. And that the amplitude
18 defining the minima and the maxima would also be
19 significantly less than what we're seeing?
20
MR. ETTINGER: You don't have an
21 answer.
22
MR. CALLAHAN: No. It's a suggestion.
23 Take it as you may. I will say I'm under oath.
24
55
1 BY MR. CALLAHAN:
2
Q. But we agree principally then that
3 this is in response to nutrient enrichment?
4
A. I think we have agreed that nutrient
5 enrichment certainly plays a part in what we see in
6 this situation here. I don't think that we can say
7 it is the only thing.
8
Q. Are you familiar with the 1986 USEPA
9 National Criteria Document for Dissolved Oxygen?
10
A. Yes, but don't ask me to quote from
11 it.
12
MR. CALLAHAN: I may be able to
13 just -- would you, Mr. Harsch -- somewhere in there
14 I believe you'll find that Criteria Document. It's
15 in the briefcase.
16
This is the same kind of document
17 that we have been discussing here for toxic cyanide
18 and that we discussed several months ago for a
19 moment the basis of recommendation for a water
20 quality standard.
21
And I would be glad to enter this as
22 part of an exhibit.
23
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Yes, please
24 do.
56
1 BY MR. CALLAHAN:
2
Q. While I'm looking this up, do you have
3 any data from the DuPage River on these sites in the
4 winter?
5
A. I personally don't. I don't know what
6 other data the conservation foundation and the
7 USEPA, who were doing this study, what they might
8 have available.
9
Q. Okay, all right.
10
A. I do know, but I don't have it with
11 me, there are Sierra Club volunteers who have been
12 monitoring the DuPage River, who monitor throughout
13 the course of the year, so there is potential data
14 available.
15
Q. I would ask you to take a look at
16 Table 8 in the 1986 Criteria Document on page 34.
17
This is the recommended
18 distribution of dissolved oxygen standards. By that
19 document, based upon the presence and the absence
20 of early life stages of fish for cold water and warm
21 water species, and I think you'll find that it's
22 much more complicated than we have in the state
23 right now, isn't it?
24
In fact, this is the document that
57
1 we've been discussing at the nutrient meetings for
2 approximately the last six months how we might apply
3 this in a more meaningful manner to either validate
4 or modify our existing dissolved oxygen standards
5 thereby coming up with a good basis for the
6 formation of some very appropriate nutrient
7 standards to prevent this very eutrophication on the
8 DuPage River that you rejected.
9
A. Did you have a question for me about
10 the table?
11
Q. Yes, I'd like to ask you what that
12 number right there is (indicating) and what it's
13 indicating; it's a one-day minimum of?
14
A. I will read what's in the table, but I
15 have to tell you that I'm only looking at the table,
16 so I don't know the context of what was before it.
17
Q. Well, I wouldn't ask you a question
18 that misconstrued.
19
A. So I'm being asked to read what is the
20 one-day minimum -- the table's entitled Water
21 Quality Criteria for Ambient Dissolved Oxygen
22 Concentration One-Day Minimum Warm Water Criteria
23 For Other Life Stages, and the figure reads 3.0
24 milligrams per liter.
58
1
Q. Right.
2
So given the fact that these
3 occurred, the minima are all greater than 3, given
4 the fact that these occurred in August, the
5 presumption would be that they probably are
6 violations of the water quality standard during the
7 period of early life stage presence.
8
But if we were to take that
9 document on its face value, that wouldn't
10 necessarily be a water quality standard violation
11 during the month of November, December, or whenever
12 there would not be early life stages present, would
13 it?
14
A. You're asking me to imply that this
15 data collected in August --
16
Q. No, I'm just asking you to evaluate in
17 terms of those numbers.
18
The 3 -- right, I mean --
19
A. I really don't think that's
20 appropriate. I shouldn't be -- data that's
21 collected during summer months, I have no way of
22 knowing -- no way of saying that's appropriate
23 for --
24
Q. I withdraw my question. I don't want
59
1 to put you in a bad position.
2
A. Thank you.
3
Q. Let's back up one more question.
4 Well, I think that'll be it.
5
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: If there's
6 no objection, we will admit the Ambient Water
7 Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen as Exhibit
8 Number 22.
9
MR. CALLAHAN: Thank you very much.
10
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Seeing none,
11 it will be admitted as Exhibit Number 22.
12
MR. ETTINGER: I have a question of
13 Mr. Callahan since he's made himself a witness.
14
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Can we
15 finish with -- make sure there's no other questions
16 of Dr. Skrukrud?
17
MR. ETTINGER: I'm sorry.
18
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Are there
19 any other questions for Dr. Skrukrud?
20
MR. HARSCH: Yes, ma'am.
21
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Let's start
22 with Mr. Harsch.
23 BY MR. HARSCH:
24
Q. Ms. Skrukrud, when you testified at
60
1 the second hearing regarding the Fox River study,
2 that we found out had not been reduced to writing,
3 who prepared that work at the McGraw Foundation?
4
A. Peggy.
5
Q. Who did the work at the McGraw
6 Foundation on the study you testified to at the
7 second hearing regarding the Fox River?
8
A. I just needed to clarify my head that
9 we had talked about it in the second hearing,
10 because I know we then supplied some information in
11 our post-hearing comments.
12
The researcher at the Bax McGraw
13 Institute's name is Nick Santucci, S-A-N-T-U-C-C-I.
14
Q. You're a member of the Fox River Eco
15 Partnership, right?
16
A. Fox River Ecosystem Partnership?
17
Q. Yes.
18
A. Yes. I've been a member as a
19 representative of McHenry County Affairs.
20
Q. Has his study been reduced to writing
21 since that hearing? I believe at that hearing you
22 testified that --
23
A. Yes, I believe that we -- you know,
24 Albert has our post-hearing -- we filed post-hearing
61
1 comments on April 12. I have it with me, but I
2 think you've got the attachments. And I think that
3 we -- maybe I can look through it. We filed some
4 written materials as Exhibit 5 to our post-hearing
5 comments.
6
Q. Since I wasn't served, what is the
7 answer to my question; was that study reduced to
8 writing?
9
MR. ETTINGER: No, 5 is the 305(b)
10 report.
11
THE WITNESS: Sorry.
12
MR. ETTINGER: Let me see. There
13 was --
14
THE WITNESS: Here it is. Exhibit 8.
15
MR. ETTINGER: Exhibit 8.
16
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: So the
17 answer is, yes, it was reduced to writing, and it's
18 been submitted as part of the record?
19
THE WITNESS: Yes
20
MR. ETTINGER: Yes.
21 BY MR. HARSCH:
22
Q. Were you present when he presented his
23 conclusions to the Fox River Eco Group in February?
24
A. No, I was not, because I had already
62
1 previously attended another one of the many
2 presentations he's given on this study.
3
Q. But you're aware that presentation
4 occurred to the Group?
5
A. I know he was giving the presentation,
6 I can't --
7
Q. It's written under the Fox River
8 Ecosystem, and it was not in their monthly
9 publication or quarterly publication?
10
A. We -- what we submitted as Exhibit 8
11 is the Winter Edition of the Fox River News, and
12 that included a guest column by Vince Santucci.
13
Q. But that's not -- he hasn't reduced
14 his report to writing?
15
A. He's certainly writing it. He's --
16 no, he has not finalized his report.
17
Q. It's my understanding from the people
18 that were present in February that he explained that
19 the data that he had found in the Fox River below
20 DO levels at nighttime were indicative of the
21 possible need to re-visit and revise the minimum DO
22 standards in Illinois.
23
Did he make the same statement at
24 the presentations that you attended?
63
1
A. No, he did not.
2
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Harsch,
3 we need to have you sworn in if we haven't already
4 done so.
5
(Witness sworn.)
6 BY MR. HARSCH:
7
Q. You did not hear him make that
8 statement at the meeting you were at?
9
A. No, I did not.
10
MR. HARSCH: I will provide for the
11 record an affidavit of individuals who were present
12 at that meeting -- the report is yet to be reduced
13 to writing -- in which it's reported that he made
14 that statement. And I think it goes to some
15 substantial -- provides some substantial weight
16 against the use of his conclusion to the way they've
17 been presenting in this proceeding.
18
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Any other
19 questions?
20
MR. HARSCH: No further questions.
21
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Go ahead.
22 BY MR. KELLER:
23
Q. I'd like to refer page 2 of your
24 testimony on the last paragraph concerning the
64
1 16 milligrams liter proposal.
2
A. Oh, great, we get to talk about what
3 we're actually proposing.
4
Q. I think you proposed that.
5
A. Yes.
6
Q. Was that just an arbitrary value that
7 you chose, or what is the basis for that value?
8
A. No, it wasn't -- it wasn't arbitrary.
9 I wanted to -- hold on a second. I had a page
10 turned to this so I could answer that question and
11 then it got moved around.
12
It wasn't arbitrary. For one, as
13 we stated in our post-hearing comments of April 12,
14 the federal rule that defines secondary treatment
15 for technology-based limits states that 25
16 milligrams per liter CBOD5 may be substituted for
17 30 milligrams per liter BOD5.
18
So our proposal that mirrors that
19 for the case where you currently have a 20 milligram
20 per liter BOD standard, we would propose that a
21 16 milligram per liter CBOD5 standard be put in
22 place.
23
Q. So this is a new technology-based type
24 standard, or did you review any data from any
65
1 treatment plants that have a 20/25 effluent standard
2 to show they can meet that number or what?
3
A. Well, again, we gave as an example in
4 our post-hearing testimony of April 12 that this is
5 the kind of scenario that Wisconsin uses when
6 they -- they allow the use of a 16 milligram per
7 liter CBOD5 standard to replace a BOD standard of
8 20 milligrams per liter.
9
Q. Did you review any data though from
10 treatment plants that have a 20/25 standard to see
11 if they can meet that number?
12
A. No, not systematically. We could do
13 that.
14
Q. So you don't know if this is really
15 achievable? I mean, Mr. Callahan --
16
A. I've looked at a lot of discharge
17 monitoring reports recently.
18
Q. I think part of the basis of that
19 though is, from Mr. Callahan's previous testimony
20 that was really taken out of context, for 10/12
21 tertiary treatment facilities versus facilities that
22 were allowed to discharge 20/25 pursuant to
23 304.120(b); is that correct?
24
A. What are you asking me?
66
1
Q. Part of your basis for saying that
2 this was achievable was that Mr. Callahan said that
3 10 was achievable?
4
A. Yes.
5
Q. And 10 represents treatment technology
6 for a tertiary treatment plant versus an advanced
7 secondary treatment plant such as 20/25?
8
A. So he clarified for us today.
9
Q. Right.
10
A. I guess I would assume that because
11 Wisconsin is able to do it this way that we would be
12 able to do it this way.
13
Q. Would additional treatment be
14 necessary by dischargers if they had to meet this
15 16 versus 20/25; do you know?
16
A. I don't know.
17
MR. KELLER: I have no further
18 questions.
19
THE COURT: Are there any other
20 questions for Dr. Skrukrud.
21 BY DR. GIRARD:
22
Q. I have a clarifying question about
23 this issue dealing with 304.120(a) and compliance
24 with the 30 milligrams per liter BOD5, and we've got
67
1 the 304.120(b), which says you can supply that now
2 by measuring 25 milligrams per liter of CBOD5.
3
So you've said you were mirroring
4 that requirement by coming up with the 16 milligrams
5 per liter of CBOD5 to comply with the requirement in
6 304.120(b) cannot exceed 20 milligrams per liter of
7 BOD5.
8
Now, primarily, are you saying you
9 did the same ratio, the 25 over 30, is the same as
10 16 over 20?
11
A. No, it's not exactly the same ratio.
12
Let me see. 16 over 20 is 80
13 percent. 25 over 30 -- it's not exactly the same.
14 I just calculated it out.
15
Q. So 16.7 something?
16
A. Yeah.
17
Q. But question is, how did get the
18 number? They were asking for an arbitrary, how did
19 you come up with 16?
20
A. One, following the federal regulations
21 for 25 and 30; two, looking at what Wisconsin has
22 done in the situation of 20 milligrams per liter BOD
23 standard that they substitute 16 milligrams per
24 liter CBOD.
68
1
Q. But they use the ratio and basically
2 round it to that?
3
A. Are you asking me what did Wisconsin
4 do?
5
Q. Well, I'm just wondering how you came
6 up with 16. I'm not sure specifically -- if you say
7 you went to Wisconsin, that's fine.
8
A. Yeah, basically, you know, we looked
9 at what Wisconsin did. But I don't know whether
10 they -- what they did was just kind of mirror what
11 was in the federal rule for different concentrations
12 of BOD.
13
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Anything
14 further?
15
Mr. Ettinger, you have a question?
16
MR. ETTINGER: There are plants that
17 have the 20 BOD level limit now that are tertiary
18 plants?
19
MR. CALLAHAN: That I can't tell you.
20 I don't know.
21
MR. KELLER: What's the statement
22 again?
23
MR. ETTINGER: There are plants that
24 have the 20 BOD5 limit that are tertiary plants now,
69
1 aren't there? He said, I don't know.
2
MR. KELLER: That would not be true.
3
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: We need to
4 have him sworn over.
5
(Witness sworn.)
6 BY MR. ETTINGER:
7
Q. There is no tertiary plant in the
8 State of Illinois that has a BOD5 limit now of 20?
9
A. There may be tertiary plants that have
10 a standard of 20. I'm going to ask what you stated
11 before.
12
Q. I don't want to go through the record.
13
My question now is, are there
14 tertiary plants that have a BOD5 limit of 20?
15
A. The tertiary treatment requirement
16 that is under 120(c), which requires 10 and 12. If
17 they're required to have tertiary, they have a 10/12
18 BOD of suspended solids.
19
Q. Would they be required to have
20 tertiary for ammonia and have a 20 BOD?
21
A. That would be a nitrification
22 facility.
23
Q. Right.
24
A. That's not a tertiary facility.
70
1
Tertiary treatment would be
2 additional solid removal from the plant through
3 either filtration or additional settling capacity in
4 the treatment plant.
5
Q. Well, that's interesting.
6
So you're telling us then that a
7 plant that's sufficient to remove ammonia won't
8 necessarily get you down to 10 BOD5 -- or 10 CPOD5?
9
A. Yes, but they also have additional
10 treatment such as filtration for additional
11 clarification.
12
Q. I see I settled this Fox River case
13 too early.
14
The question then is, are you
15 saying that there are no tertiary treatment plants
16 in Illinois that have a 20 BOD5 limit?
17
A. There may be plants that have tertiary
18 treatment with a 20/25 standard.
19
Q. Yeah, there are.
20
A. There may be.
21
MR. FREVERT: Can I supplement that
22 answer?
23
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: She'll swear
24 you in, Toby.
71
1
(Witness sworn.)
2
MR. FREVERT: Technologies used to
3 remove nitrification are different technologies than
4 the technologies used to get down to 12 milligram
5 per liter suspended solids.
6
Al's language is saying
7 tertiary -- the terminology he's using to define
8 that design that lowers suspended solids to 12.
9
Nitrification is usually a
10 secondary activated sludge process or beefed up
11 single stage activated sludge process. But they're
12 different technologies to address different
13 components.
14
And, typically, a plant with 10/12
15 nitrification has both of those technologies. A
16 plant at the present time that doesn't have a
17 10 milligram per liter BOD limit and only has a
18 20 milligram BOD limit may still need to design for
19 nitrification for a normal reduction. But they
20 would use a different technology and it would be a
21 different design than a plant that was designed and
22 built to remove ammonia and also remove suspended
23 solids below the 25 milligram per liter level down
24 to the 12 milligram per liter level.
72
1 BY MR. ETTINGER:
2
Q. So how does the ammonia limit affect
3 BOD?
4
A. I believe that's part of the objective
5 we're trying to get at here. The rule we're dealing
6 with specifically defines technology-based
7 requirements for the parameters that the United
8 States Government's Clean Water Act defined as
9 secondary treatment plants. That's biochemical
10 oxygen demand and suspended solids.
11
In the State of Illinois, other
12 than the Illinois River, to the best of my
13 knowledge, there are no technology requirements for
14 ammonia. Ammonia reduction is driven by a water
15 quality need not a technology-based rule.
16
And when we incorporate ammonia
17 limits, they're permitted because we've assessed the
18 water quality impact and concluded there is a need
19 to reduce ammonia in the discharge or that water
20 quality standard will not be achieved.
21
In the case of BOD and suspended
22 solids, unless we know there's a specific dissolved
23 oxygen problem that warrants the dissolved oxygen
24 analysis and supplemental carbonaceous or
73
1 nitrogenous BOD reduction, we need that DO standard.
2
We have routinely applied BOD and
3 suspended solid standards based on the technology
4 rule. We have not done a water quality analysis of
5 dissolved oxygen. Part of the reason for that is
6 the fact that when those standards were set, the
7 start of my lifetime, the 1970s era, they were
8 consciously attempting to meet the minimum federal
9 standard nationwide and in those smaller streams
10 incrementally reduce those technology limits so we
11 had a cushion and safety that we were not to those
12 point source discharges creating DO problems without
13 doing a DO analysis.
14
But it did not relieve us of the
15 obligation if indeed that assumption is wrong, those
16 technology-based numbers are inadequate, we still
17 have the authority and the obligation to lower those
18 numbers below the 10/12 or 20/25, whatever they may
19 be.
20
Typically, in doing that, we do
21 that as the result of a water quality analysis.
22 Typically, they're going to be in the form of TMDL
23 analysis these days.
24
But, routinely, we do not do that.
74
1 Routinely, we rely on this technology-based
2 standard to specify what the permit limit is.
3
Q. What about the 20 standard, that's not
4 the technology-based standard, is it?
5
A. It is a technology-based standard.
6 The Pollution Control Board 30 years ago said for
7 plants over a certain size, and we feel like it's
8 economically appropriate and capable and appropriate
9 to go an increment below that 30 number instead of
10 the 20.
11
Q. Well, what is the number that's
12 based -- is it a size number or a dilution level?
13
MR. KELLER: 20/25?
14 BY MR. ETTINGER:
15
Q. The 20/25, there's not a dilution
16 level also involved there; is there not a water
17 quality component now built in or supposed to be
18 built in for that 20 BOD limit?
19
A. My recollection, again, and I haven't
20 personally been involved in this case, so my
21 recollection is 20 is driven by a population
22 equivalent of over 10,000. Medium and larger plants
23 we hold to a 20 standard. Plants with 5 to 1
24 dilution can operate at 30. And then my
75
1 recollection is there's a cutoff to go to 20 if
2 you're indeed over 10,000 PE's, there may even be a
3 dilution ratio. The 10 is definitely driven by a
4 dilution ratio.
5
Q. However, the dilution is the water
6 quality component, it's not strictly a
7 technology-based limit?
8
A. That is a generic decision or policy
9 decision the Board made that this is sufficiently
10 conservative enough. It's economically achievable.
11 We can operate this way functionally and keep the
12 machinery of the permit issue and business going
13 without any alarm or concern we're compromising
14 water quality, but we've got the water quality
15 approach to back it up in those few incidents where
16 there may be -- that may not prove to be adequate.
17
Q. Well, you're not suggesting that
18 Illinois ever calculates what the total dissolved
19 oxygen effect will be of a discharge?
20
A. In an area where we know there's a
21 documented dissolved oxygen problem and there are
22 significant sources in there that need to be
23 reduced, we have historically -- I know 20 years ago
24 we did this. We would do dissolved oxygen analysis
76
1 of some of the streams that had multiple sources on
2 them. And we would look to what extent those
3 treatment plant numbers were adequate or whether
4 they should be lowered further, and what, if any,
5 other sources we need to attack.
6
Currently, we're doing that more
7 or less to total maximum daily load analyses that
8 the United States Government has decided is the high
9 priority these days.
10
Q. And Illinois has completed no total
11 maximum daily load analyses?
12
A. That's correct. We have not completed
13 any, but we are looking at DOs specifically in that
14 context right now for instance on I believe it's the
15 east branch of the DuPage and Salt Creek.
16
Q. And the Illinois EPA did issue a
17 permit to the Fox River Water Reclamation District
18 with the limit of 20 BOD now CPOD for its west
19 sewage treatment plant?
20
A. In that facility, those BOD standards
21 were driven by 304.120, technology-based
22 requirements. They were not driven by any water
23 quality justification we had available.
24
Q. What technology-based -- I do not
77
1 understand the 20 technology-based limit. How is
2 that a technology-based limit when it includes
3 dilution as a factor to be considered?
4
A. A facility -- in my own engineering
5 background, a facility using the same stage
6 biological treatment, general rule of thumb is
7 30 is a routinely achievable performance level for
8 secondary activated sludge systems. In reality, you
9 can beef up that design with additional tanking,
10 additional aerations, and additional design
11 parameters where you can get that technology where
12 it routinely and reliably performs at a 20 level as
13 well.
14
Just take the next step down from
15 the 20 level to a 10 level, you probably can't do
16 that merely by beefing up the design of those
17 technologies. You have to add a supplemental
18 technology. And that's my understanding of the
19 thought process and the recollection about the
20 existing standard --
21
Q. Well, let's look at what the Board
22 said in the past rather than try and remember what
23 the Board said in the past.
24
My question is simply though, you
78
1 can have two plants which were equivalent in terms
2 of population level, but one would have a 30 BOD
3 level and one would have a 20 BOD level because of
4 the difference in dilution?
5
A. That's correct, that's a safety
6 factor. And you can design and operate that
7 30 milligram per liter level plant cheaper than you
8 can design and operate that 20 milligram per liter
9 level plant.
10
Q. Has IEPA ever looked at whether these
11 plants consistently make 16 CBO5?
12
A. Over the years, we have done some
13 analysis of performance levels and reliability
14 levels of activated sludge systems. I don't believe
15 we've done that for a number of years, and I don't
16 believe even then we specifically looked at if this
17 20 number was dropped to some other number, 18, 16,
18 15, whatever, would the percentages of compliance
19 and the reliability of compliance significantly
20 change, we don't have that information yet.
21
If the Board were to entertain,
22 and I think the Board is free to check those numbers
23 on anything they want, they were entertaining
24 changing those numbers, and we think that's some
79
1 hard and fast information they'd want to have. You
2 know, what the impact is of actually changing the
3 numbers, not merely the test.
4
Q. Well, they are in effect changing the
5 numbers by going from BOD5 to CBOD5.
6
A. Again, my recollection of that is that
7 we -- we actually regulate for the most part
8 carbonaceous BOD now rather than total BOD. And
9 that particular switch was made at the time the
10 United States Government modified the secondary
11 treatment definition, and the CFR indicate that
12 based on the parameters you're removing and the type
13 of technology you're implying, CBOD was a more
14 direct test of the efficiency of what the plant was
15 designed to do.
16
That's the basis for our change
17 then and that's the basis for our trying to
18 recognize that, to get the change recognized in the
19 regulations today.
20
Q. It's getting hot. I think we've all
21 had enough fun for today; however, the new Illinois
22 305(b) report is due out any day; is that correct?
23
A. That 305(b) report will come back from
24 our print shop on August 7, I believe, and be
80
1 available shortly thereafter.
2
Q. Have you seen -- well, what is going
3 to be listed for dissolved oxygen on the Fox River?
4
A. I don't remember. I probably should
5 have specifically looked at that when I reviewed the
6 report, but I didn't.
7
Q. And Illinois EPA is issuing permits
8 for 20 BOD now CPOD5 dischargers discharging into
9 Fox River?
10
A. I believe our position at this time is
11 we're supporting and encouraging a local watershed
12 group assessment of the Fox River and its future
13 needs. Should that ever show signs if it's not
14 progressing well or not doing what it's intending to
15 do, we will shift gears and do a total maximum daily
16 load analysis to determine what in the future is
17 necessary to make sure dissolved oxygen standards
18 for the Fox River are attained.
19
Until that time, permits we have
20 issued in the last year or two have been driven
21 primarily by 304.120, technology-based standard. We
22 have not felt that we had enough information or data
23 or documentation to justify and support any
24 particular permitted discharge in that area having
81
1 their BOD standard reduced below the standard
2 specified by the technology limits of
3 part 4.
4
However, I think we've also put
5 everybody on notice we're specifically looking at
6 that, and that may change in the future. We're not
7 trying to dodge the issue. We're also not trying to
8 pre-judge the science and the study.
9
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Anything
10 further from Mr. Callahan?
11
Seeing nothing further, I'll go
12 off the record for just one minute.
13
(Whereupon, a discussion
14
was had off the record.)
15
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: The comment
16 period will close 30 days after the Board receives
17 the transcript. I'll put the hearing officer order
18 out specifying that date.
19
Once again, I want to admonish
20 everyone to be sure they have the most current
21 service list. And I will say in fairness to the
22 Agency, they have the most current service list and
23 still left someone off when you served the
24 testimony. Please be careful, double-check.
82
1 Mr. Harsch and Ms. Deely have not been receiving
2 testimony and items, and they are clearly on the
3 service list. So we need to be sure they get their
4 information.
5
At this time, I'd like to thank
6 everyone for your attention. I appreciate it.
7
Dr. Girard, do you have anything
8 you'd like to add?
9
DR. GIRARD: No, thank you.
10
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Thank you
11 very much. We're adjourned.
12
(Which were all the proceedings
13
had in the above-entitled cause
14
on this date.)
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
83
1 STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS:
2 COUNTY OF DUPAGE )
3
4
STACY L. LULIAS, being first duly
5 sworn on oath says that she is a court reporter
6 doing business in the City of Chicago; that she
7 reported in shorthand the proceedings given at the
8 taking of said hearing and that the foregoing is a
9 true and correct transcript of her shorthand notes
10 so taken as aforesaid and contains all the
11 proceedings given at said hearing.
12
13
14
STACY L. LULIAS, CSR
15
79 West Monroe Street, Suite 1219
Chicago, Illinois 60603
16
License No.: 084-004349
17
18 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO
before me this 7th day
19 of August, A.D., 2002.
20
Notary Public
21
22
23
24