1
1
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
2
3
IN THE MATTER OF:
4
WATER QUALITY AMENDMENTS TO)
5
35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.208 )
(e)-(g),302.504(a),
)
6
302.575(d), 303.444
) R02-11
309.141(h); and PROPOSED ) (Rulemaking-Water)
7
35 Ill. Adm. Code 301.267, )
301.313, 301.413, 304.120, )
8
and 309.157
)
9
10
11
12
The following hearing was held before
HEARING OFFICER MARIE TIPSORD, taken before
13
Francine Buonavolanto, CSR, a notary public
within and for the County of Cook and State of
14
Illinois, at 100 West Randolph Drive, Suite
9-040, Chicago, Illinois, on the 29th day of
15
January 2002, A.D., scheduled to commence at
the hour of 9:30 a.m.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
2
1
A P P E A R A N C E S:
2
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
100 West Randolph Street
3
Suite 9-040
Chicago, Illinois 60601
4
(312) 814-8917
BY: MS. MARIE TIPSORD, HEARING OFFICER
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
3
1
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Good
2
morning, my name is Marie Tipsord and I've been
3
appointed by the Board to serve as a hearing
4
officer in this proceeding entitled, In the
5
Matter of Water Quality Triennial Review
6
Amendments 235 Illinois Administrative Code
7
302.208, 302.504, 302.575, 303.444, 309.141(h)
8
and proposed 35 Illinois Administrative Code
9
301.267, 301.313, 301.413, 304.120 and 309.157.
10
This is Docket No. R02-11.
11
To my right is Dr. Tanner Girard,
12
he's the leading Board member assigned to the
13
matter.
14
Also present to my far right is Board
15
member Michael Tristano, who is also assigned
16
to this rule. Dr. Ronald Flemal will be
17
joining us soon and he too is a board member
18
assigned to the rule.
19
To my immediate left is Anand Rao and
20
to his left Alisa Liu. They are from our
21
Technical Unit.
22
Also in the audience is Cathy Glenn,
23
she is Ronald Flemal's assistant.
24
The purpose of today's hearing is to
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
4
1
hear pre-filed testimony of the Illinois
2
Environmental Protection Agency and to allow
3
questions to be asked of the Agency.
4
There are three persons who will be
5
testifying on behalf of the Agency. As the
6
pre-filed testimony is not lengthy, we will
7
have the testimony read into the record.
8
We will allow all of the Agency
9
witnesses to testify before questions are
10
asked. Anyone may ask a question, however, I
11
do ask that you raise your hand and wait for me
12
to acknowledge you.
13
After I have acknowledged you,
14
please, state your name and who you represent
15
before you begin your questions.
16
Please speak one at a time. If you
17
are speaking over each other, the court
18
reporter will not be able to get your questions
19
on the record.
20
Please note that any questions asked
21
by a Board member or staff are intended to help
22
build a complete record for the Board's
23
decision and not to express any preconceived
24
notions or bias.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
5
1
As no other pre-filed testimony was
2
received, we will allow anyone else who wishes
3
to testify the opportunity to do so as time
4
allows.
5
I have placed a list at the side of
6
the room for persons who wish to testify today
7
to sign up. At the back of the room, there are
8
also sign-up sheets included on the notice and
9
service list as well as copies of the current
10
notice and service list.
11
If you wish to be on the service
12
list, you will receive all pleadings and
13
pre-filed testimony in this proceeding.
14
In addition, you must serve all of
15
your files of the persons on the service list.
16
If you wish to be on the notice list, you will
17
receive all Board orders in the rulemaking.
18
If you have any questions about which
19
list you wish to be placed on, please, see me
20
at a break. Are there any questions about the
21
procedures we are going to follow-up on today?
22
I see none at this time I would ask Dr. Girard
23
if he wishes to say anything.
24
DR. GIRARD: Yes, I would. Good
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
6
1
morning everyone. I would like to on behalf of
2
the Board welcome everyone to the hearing this
3
morning. We particularly welcome members of
4
the public, who are contributing their time and
5
energy to this effort to better protect human
6
health and the environment of Illinois. We
7
look forward to the Agency's testimony today
8
and questions from other participants. Thank
9
you.
10
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Thank you,
11
Dr. Girard. At this time, we will proceed
12
with opening statements and we'll start with
13
the Agency.
14
MR. SOFAT: Good morning, I am Sonjay
15
Sofat and I'm an assistant counsel with the
16
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. I
17
work with the Bureau of Water.
18
With me today are three agency
19
witnesses; to my right is Robert Mosher, who is
20
the manager of the Water Quality Standards
21
Unit/Section within the Division of Water
22
Pollution Control at the Illinois Environmental
23
Protection Agency.
24
Mr. Mosher will testify regarding the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
7
1
concepts presented in the Agency's proposal
2
before the Board.
3
To my immediate left is Clark Olsen,
4
who is a toxicologist in the Water Quality
5
Standards Unit/Section of the Division of Water
6
Pollution Control.
7
Mr. Olsen will testify regarding the
8
process used by the Agency to develop the
9
proposal.
10
To Mr. Clark's left is Alan Keller,
11
who is a supervisor of the Northern Municipal
12
Unit of the Permit Section of Division of Water
13
Pollution Control.
14
Mr. Keller will testify regarding the
15
BOD/CBOD part of the proposal.
16
The agency has made last-minute
17
changes its BOD/CBOD part of the proposal.
18
Those changes are contained in the Agency's
19
Errata Sheet marked as Agency Exhibit 1.
20
I move that the Agency's Exhibit 1 be
21
admitted into the record if there are no
22
objections.
23
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Are there
24
any objections to the errata sheet being
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
8
1
admitted? Seeing none, I will mark it as
2
Exhibit 1.
3
MR. SOFAT: Thank you. The Agency
4
has brought along some documents that we filed
5
with the Board. They are available on that
6
table next to the wall. Also, there is a
7
sign-up sheet.
8
In case we run out of the documents
9
that we brought along, if you'll just sign your
10
name and address we can send those to you.
11
We are here today to testify in
12
support of our proposal that amends Parts 302,
13
303, and 309 of the Board regulations and
14
proposes Parts 301, 304 and 309.
15
A significant portion of this
16
proposal is a result of the Agency's attempt to
17
review and refine the numeric water quality
18
standards based on the best available current
19
knowledge. This proposal also contains
20
corrections to certain existing Board
21
regulations.
22
We believe this proposal is
23
consistent with Title VII requirements of the
24
Illinois Environmental Protection Act. We
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
9
1
think this is a good proposal and one that
2
deserves to be adopted without substantial
3
changes.
4
We would like to thank the
5
participants who reviewed the Agency draft
6
proposal and provided their comments.
7
With that, I think we are ready to
8
present our proposal. I think we are ready to
9
swear in the witnesses.
10
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Before you
11
do that, is there anyone else who would like to
12
make an opening statement at this time?
13
I'm Albert Ettinger, I work for the
14
Environmental Law & Policy Center. With me is
15
Cindy Scrubadude(phonetic) who is working with
16
the Sierra Club on this matter. I also
17
represent the Sierra Club. I just want to say
18
we have some questions. We're not going to be
19
objecting. The fact that I ask a question
20
about something doesn't mean that I have a
21
major problem with it, but I'm here to find out
22
what the effect of the proposal is.
23
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Thank you,
24
Mr. Ettinger. Then let's have your witnesses
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
10
1
sworn and we'll proceed.
2
(Whereupon, the witnesses
3
were duly sworn.)
4
MR. SOFAT: I think at this time, I
5
would like to start with Robert Mosher.
6
ROBERT MOSHER,
7
called as a witness herein, having been first
8
duly sworn, was examined and testified as
9
follows:
10
EXAMINATION
11
BY MR. SOFAT:
12
Q. Mr. Mosher, I'm going to hand you
13
this document. Please look over that for a few
14
minutes while I hand out the copies.
15
Mr. Mosher, do you recognize this
16
document that I have handed to you?
17
A. Yes, I do.
18
Q. Would you please tell us what this
19
document is?
20
A. It's my pre-filed testimony on this
21
matter.
22
Q. Is that a true and accurate copy of
23
your testimony that has been submitted to the
24
Board?
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
11
1
A. I believe it is.
2
Q. Could you present your testimony to
3
the Board today?
4
A. Okay. My name is Robert Mosher and
5
I'm the manager of the Water Equality Standards
6
Section within the Division of Water Pollution
7
Control at the Illinois Environmental
8
Protection Agency.
9
I've been with the Illinois EPA in
10
excess of 16 years. Almost all that time has
11
been spent in my current capacity where my
12
primary responsibility is the development and
13
implementation of water quality standards.
14
I have a Master's Degree in Zoology
15
from Eastern Illinois University where I
16
specialized in stream ecology.
17
My testimony will cover three topics.
18
First, I will discuss the background
19
information concerning the development of the
20
instant proposal before the Illinois Pollution
21
Control Board.
22
Second, I will provide a brief
23
discussion on the concepts contained in various
24
sections of the Illinois EPA's proposal.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
12
1
Third, I will discuss the Illinois
2
EPA's plans for successful implementation of
3
this proposal.
4
The Federal Water Pollution Control
5
Act Amendments of 1972, 33 USC Code Sections
6
1251 through 1387, is commonly known as the
7
Clean Water Act.
8
Pursuant to the Clean Water Act
9
states are required to revise and update their
10
water quality standards to ensure that they are
11
protective of public health and welfare,
12
enhance the quality of water and promote the
13
purposes of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1313(c)(2)(A) is
14
the reference.
15
The process of reviewing the state's
16
standards is called the triennial water quality
17
standards review. The changes to the water
18
quality and effluent standards in the instant
19
proposal are one element of Illinois EPA's
20
current triennial review of water quality
21
standards.
22
In September 2000, the Agency shared
23
a packet of information concerning this
24
rulemaking with a number of stakeholders
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
13
1
involved in water quality standards affairs.
2
These entities included municipal and
3
industrial dischargers, environmentalists and
4
other governmental agencies. A few helpful
5
comments were received and were employed to
6
clarify the intent of this proposal.
7
There were no adverse comments, and
8
generally speaking, the changes to the Board
9
regulations that encompass this proposal should
10
not be controversial since they represent the
11
current state-of-the-art in water quality
12
standards.
13
The GLI rulemaking(R97-25) introduced
14
Illinois stakeholders to several of the
15
concepts leading to the new and revised
16
standards for the General Use waters proposed
17
here.
18
The instant rulemaking is the result
19
of careful consideration regarding the
20
appropriateness of selected aspects of the GLI
21
for General Use waters of the state.
22
This proposal is divided into five
23
parts. Part I proposes adoption of new aquatic
24
life acute and chronic water quality standards
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
14
1
for benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and
2
xylene(s) (BETX) for both General Use waters
3
and the Lake Michigan Basin.
4
Part II contains revised acute and
5
chronic water quality standards for Zinc,
6
Nickel, and weak acid dissociable cyanide.
7
Part III proposes that most General
8
Use metals water quality standards be specified
9
in terms of dissolved concentration rather than
10
the total concentration used in the existing
11
standards.
12
Part IV contains corrections to the
13
GLI regulations at 35 Illinois Administrative
14
Code 302.504(a), 302.575(d), and 309.141.
15
Part V proposes to update the Board
16
regulations at 304.120 to reflect that the
17
carbonaceous component of BOD5 be regulated in
18
treated domestic waste effluents.
19
I will cover the first four Parts of
20
the Illinois EPA's proposal and Al Keller,
21
manager of the Agency's Northern Municipal
22
Permit Unit will testify to Part V of the
23
proposal.
24
Part I: We intend for all the newly
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
15
1
derived standards to either replace existing
2
General Use Standards or to be added as newly
3
listed substances under 35 Illinois
4
Administrative Code 302.208(e) and (f).
5
Each substance addressed has both an
6
acute and a chronic value proposed. The
7
regulatory constructs in 302.208(a) through (d)
8
will apply to newly added or revised standards.
9
Several new STORET numbers are
10
necessary because many metals standards are now
11
proposed to be in the dissolved rather than the
12
total form.
13
Standards to protect aquatic life for
14
BETX substances will also be inserted in the
15
Lake Michigan Basin water quality standards
16
where none now exist.
17
For the Lake Michigan basin these
18
standards will be based on sensitive species
19
from both cold and warm water.
20
Additionally, benzene will have a
21
General Use human health standard inserted at
22
302.208(f) identical to the Lake Michigan Basin
23
human health standards that already exists.
24
Part II: A goal of the triennial
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
16
1
review of standards that led to this proposed
2
rulemaking before the Board was to update
3
General Use water quality standards for toxic
4
metals found at 35 Illinois Administrative Code
5
302.208(g).
6
These metals have quote, one number
7
unquote, standards adopted in the 1970s as
8
opposed to quote two number, unquote, acute and
9
chronic standards that have been the preferred
10
method of adopting standards for the last 15
11
years or so.
12
Nickel and Zinc fall into this
13
category. Selenium and silver are also
14
considered to be significantly toxic metals and
15
still exist as one number standards in
16
302.208(g).
17
New standards for selenium and silver
18
are not proposed at this time because debate is
19
still ongoing about just how standards for
20
these metals should be derived.
21
USEPA is pursuing these issues and
22
when a consensus is reached at the national
23
level, Illinois EPA will propose updated
24
standards for these metals.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
17
1
National consensus had not been
2
achieved at the time the Agency filed its
3
petition with the Illinois Pollution Control
4
Board.
5
Part III: The national consensus
6
indicates that the dissolved form of metals is
7
the toxic component to aquatic organisms.
8
It is widely believed that filterable
9
metals are likely to be complexed with other
10
water constituents and will have little toxic
11
influence.
12
For this reason, GLI water quality
13
standards for metals were adopted in dissolved
14
form and the Agency's petition in this matter
15
lists metals water quality standards as
16
dissolved metal.
17
Since most researchers reported total
18
metals when relating the concentrations that
19
organisms were exposed to in toxicity tests,
20
USEPA did some experimentation to determine the
21
percentage of these reported concentrations
22
that was actually dissolved metal.
23
The result of this endeavor was a
24
table of metals conversion factors. These were
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
18
1
published by USEPA under the GLI.
2
For example, if the final acute value
3
for a given metal in the total form is 2.0 mg/L
4
and the conversion factor is 0.8, as determined
5
from measuring total vs. dissolved metal under
6
the conditions of laboratory toxicity tests,
7
then the dissolved metal final acute value is
8
1.6 mg/L.
9
The proposed water quality standards
10
have been converted to dissolved metal
11
concentrations through the use of the stated
12
conversion factor.
13
The BETX substances have no such
14
toxicity relationship between dissolved and
15
suspended components. The total form is
16
presently considered to be that which should be
17
regulated. Our proposal designates total BETX
18
substances as the water quality standards.
19
Federal regulations at 40 Code of
20
Federal Regulations 122.45 require that NPDES
21
permit limits for metals be established as
22
total measurable metal.
23
When water quality based effluent
24
limits are required in a permit, this would
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
19
1
mean converting the dissolved metal water
2
quality standard value into a total metal
3
value.
4
A translator factor is used for this
5
purpose and in the absence of site-specific
6
data concerning the ratio of total to dissolve
7
metal, consists simply of the reciprocal of the
8
conversion factor. This means that if a mixing
9
zone is not involved in a Water Quality Based
10
Effluent Limit, the total metal limit would be
11
what the water quality standard would have been
12
in the, quote, total metal, unquote, form.
13
That is, the differential between
14
total and dissolved metals in the toxicity
15
tests would not be factored out.
16
We have included a site-specific
17
metals translator provision in the proposed
18
Illinois Pollution Control Board regulations.
19
This would allow dischargers to
20
measure the ratio of dissolved to total metal
21
in their effluent and thereby apply to the
22
Agency for establishment of total metal Water
23
Quality Based Effluent Limits based on this
24
effluent specific relationship.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
20
1
Effluents will therefore essentially
2
be regulated on their potential to discharge
3
dissolved metals at levels consistent with the
4
water quality standards yet within the bounds
5
of the total metals effluent standards at
6
35 Illinois Administrative Code Part 304.
7
At this time recalculated standards
8
are not being proposed for six metals, arsenic,
9
cadmium, copper, lead, mercury and trivalent
10
chromium, found at 35 Illinois Administrative
11
Code 302.208(e).
12
Lead and mercury standards were
13
updated in 1996. There had been no indication
14
that the arsenic copper and trivalent chromium
15
standard are in need of revision and cadmium is
16
currently under federal review.
17
However, it is appropriate to convert
18
these standards to the dissolved form to
19
conform to USEPA guidance. This simply
20
involves the application of the correct
21
conversion factor.
22
The other substances in 302.208(e)
23
are not amenable to regulation in the dissolved
24
form. TRC(total residual chlorine) is by
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
21
1
nature an inclusive parameter. Hexavalent
2
chromium standards were adopted as total metal
3
in the Board's GLI rulemaking. It may be best
4
to continue to regulate this substance in the
5
total metal form.
6
Part IV: Additionally, we propose
7
several corrections to recently adopted Board
8
regulations. The GLI rulemaking intended to
9
list metals standards in the dissolved form.
10
The conversion factors that
11
accomplish this were inadvertently left out,
12
however. We now correct this mistake by
13
inserting the proper conversion factors into 35
14
Illinois Administrative Code 302.504(a).
15
Section 302.575 was missing several
16
pieces of essential information that we also
17
now correct. 35 Illinois Administrative Code
18
303.444 is a site-specific regulation that is
19
no longer pertinent given the changes to the
20
General Use cyanide standards and therefore we
21
propose that the Board delete this regulation.
22
We are also proposing to replace
23
language at 35 Illinois Administrative Code
24
309.141(h)(3) with a more accurate instruction
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
22
1
for implementing the metals translator in NPDES
2
permits.
3
The proposed changes to the standards
4
give rise to several issues regarding the
5
implementation of water quality standards in
6
NPDES permits and in other Agency programs.
7
The Illinois EPA intends to provide
8
the Board a draft Agency rule for implementing
9
water quality based effluent limits at hearing
10
under R02-11.
11
This rule will later pass through the
12
Joint Committee for Administrative Rules
13
approval process before or becoming finalized.
14
The Agency rule will allow the Board
15
and stakeholders to envision how the new Board
16
water quality standards will be implemented in
17
the day-to-day activities of the Agency.
18
This concludes my pre-filed
19
testimony. I will be supplementing this
20
testimony as needed during the hearing. I
21
would be happy to address any questions.
22
23
CLARK OLSEN,
24
called as a witness herein, having been first
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
23
1
duly sworn, was examined and testified as
2
follows:Do you recognize this document?
3
EXAMINATION
4
BY MR. SOFAT:
5
Q. Mr. Clark, I'm going to --
6
HEARING OFFICER: I think it's
7
Mr. Olsen. His first name is Clark.
8
MR. SOFAT: I'm sorry. Mr. Olsen,
9
I'm going to hand you this document. Would you
10
please look at it for a few moments.
11
Mr. Olsen, do you recognize this document?
12
A. Yes, I do.
13
Q. Would you please tell us what this
14
document is?
15
A. This is my pre-filed testimony with
16
respect to the matter at hand.
17
Q. Is this a true and accurate copy of
18
your testimony that was pre-filed with the
19
Board?
20
A. Yes, it is.
21
Q. Would you please present your
22
testimony today?
23
A. My name is Clark Olsen and I've been
24
employed by the Illinois Environmental
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
24
1
Protection Agency for over 20 years.
2
I work in the Water Quality Standards
3
Unit of the Division of Water Pollution Control
4
as a toxicologist.
5
I have been involved with water
6
quality standards issues throughout my career
7
with the Agency and have participated in
8
several previous rulemakings of this type.
9
I have a PhD in Biology from the
10
University of Miami, Florida and have done
11
postdoctoral research in toxicology at North
12
Carolina State University.
13
My testimony will discuss the
14
development process of the instant proposal
15
before the Illinois Pollution Control Board.
16
THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
17
Early in the year 2000, I began to
18
gather toxicity data for the instant proposal.
19
I developed numeric values suitable for water
20
quality standards for several substances using
21
USEPA sanctioned methods.
22
New aquatic life acute and chronic
23
standards were derived for benzene,
24
ethylbenzene, toluene and xylenes. These are
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
25
1
called the BETX substances, BETX. For both
2
General Use and Lake Michigan Basin waters and
3
human health standards were developed for
4
General Use Waters.
5
New General Use aquatic life acute
6
and chronic standards were derived for Zinc,
7
Nickel and weak acid dissociable cyanide.
8
There are presently single number
9
standards for Zinc and Nickel for General Use
10
waters and current practice recommends acute
11
and chronic numbers.
12
In general, I followed the procedure
13
laid down by USEPA in the Guidelines for
14
Deriving Numerical National Water Quality
15
Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic
16
Organisms and Their Uses, parenthesis (the
17
Guidelines) end of parenthesis, 1985
18
parenthesis again(NTIS PB85-227049) end of
19
parenthesis, which have been followed in
20
standards' development by the USEPA and by
21
other states.
22
These guidelines have also been used
23
as a basis of the procedures in 35 Illinois
24
Administrative Code Part 302 Subpart E and
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
26
1
Subpart F for deriving water quality criteria.
2
In the full USEPA method, often
3
referred to as Tier I, the minimum database
4
consists of toxicity data for representatives
5
of 8 parenthesis (reduced to 5 in Subpart F)
6
end of parenthesis, different groups of
7
animals.
8
A statistical procedure then finds
9
the 5th percentile of the distribution of the
10
data. That is, 95% of the organisms are
11
considered less sensitive than the one at the
12
5th percentile level.
13
For the acute criterion, this number
14
is divided by 2 and in the chronic criterion it
15
is used as is.
16
However, the chronic criterion is
17
often derived by using an acute to chronic
18
ratio, parenthesis (ACR) end of parenthesis,
19
obtained from data for several species when
20
adequate chronic tests are not available for
21
all the specified groups of organisms.
22
In the proposed standards presented
23
here, the quality of the databases available
24
does not always allow use of the Tier I
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
27
1
procedure for all substances and so a default
2
(Tier II) procedure is used.
3
The Guidelines process involves
4
several steps. First, data for each substance
5
was obtained from the USEPA AQUIRE, that's
6
spelled A-q-u-i-r-e, database and any other
7
sources that were found coincidentally.
8
USEPA Ambient Water Quality Criterion
9
documents and Great Lakes Water Quality
10
Standards Initiative documents were also
11
consulted for all substances.
12
Second, the data was tabulated as
13
directed by the Guideline.
14
Third, much of the original
15
literature, mostly journal articles, where the
16
original data was presented was obtained from
17
our library or other libraries so that the data
18
could be verified.
19
This was especially necessary for the
20
data for the most sensitive species since this
21
data is most important in determining the
22
actual level of the criterion.
23
Fourth, statistical calculations were
24
made by use of a spreadsheet according to the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
28
1
equations in the Guidelines.
2
Finally, documents were prepared for
3
each of the substances and are part of the
4
package submitted.
5
With the exception of the BETX
6
parameters, the standards for the substances in
7
this rulemakeing are to apply only to General
8
Use waters.
9
Therefore, I used data from only
10
warm-water organisms in the derivations for
11
Zinc, Nickel and cyanide standards.
12
Trout, salmon and other cold-water
13
species were included in the development of the
14
BETX standards for the Lake Michigan Basin, but
15
not for General Use waters because these
16
species do not occur in Illinois waters outside
17
of Lake Michigan.
18
Additionally, only species with
19
reproducing wild populations in the Midwest
20
were utilized in the derivations.
21
Metals that have toxicity influenced
22
by water hardness have standards expressed as
23
an equation containing a factor for the slope
24
hardness relationship.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
29
1
Slope values for Nickel and Zinc in
2
our proposed standards are the same values as
3
found in the most recent national criteria
4
documents for GLI standards.
5
Given that all these substances had a
6
large database of toxicity test results when
7
the national criteria were published, the
8
additional tests I found should have very
9
little impact on the slope value and we
10
therefore saw no need to change them.
11
Of all the substances considered in
12
this rulemaking, only benzene is believed to
13
have significant human health
14
effects-cancer-such that a separate human
15
health standard is necessary since such
16
standards are lower than those necessary to
17
protect aquatic life.
18
I reported human health criteria for
19
the other BETX substances under the individual
20
summaries for the purpose of demonstrating that
21
these values are much higher than the standards
22
protective for aquatic life.
23
The metals likewise are not harmful
24
to humans at the concentrations regulated for
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
30
1
aquatic life. The Human health standard for
2
benzene is the same as the Lake Michigan
3
standard in 302.504(a).
4
There are currently acute and chronic
5
General Use standards under the weak acid
6
dissociable cyanide form.
7
The reason they are being readdressed
8
stems from the fact that they were taken
9
directly from USEPA national criteria document,
10
which means that cold-water species such as
11
trout and salmon were used in the criteria
12
derivation.
13
Since General Use waters are
14
virtually all warm water habitats, these
15
standards have come under scrutiny.
16
The Metropolitan Water Reclamation
17
District of Greater Chicago obtained
18
site-specific relief from the Illinois
19
Pollution Control Board several years ago for
20
weak acid dissociable cyanide based on the
21
premise that warm water species were not as
22
sensitive. The site-specific standards they
23
obtained are very similar to the values we
24
propose.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
31
1
The R88-21 rulemaking (Toxics)
2
recognized that total cyanide was not
3
representative of the toxic component of this
4
substance. Total cyanide laboratory analysis
5
measures complexed forms of cyanide, such as
6
some of the iron-cyanide compounds that are
7
known to be nontoxic.
8
Free cyanide is a rough equivalent of
9
dissolved metals, but unfortunately free
10
cyanide is difficult to measure and other
11
weakly bound forms of cyanide not measurable as
12
free cyanide are probably also toxic.
13
A few analytical methods measure
14
forms of cyanide that are not all inclusive as
15
is total cyanide. One of these, weak acid
16
dissociable cyanide was chosen as the best
17
available alternative.
18
A primary reason for revising the
19
cyanide standard is because the original R88-21
20
two number cyanide standard was derived using
21
cold-water species.
22
New data from native warm water
23
species is considered in this update because no
24
search for new data has been conducted to our
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
32
1
knowledge since the early 1980s. We are
2
retaining weak acid dissociable cyanide as the
3
best available form to regulate.
4
This concludes my pre-filed
5
testimony. I will be supplementing this
6
testimony as needed during the hearing. I
7
would be happy to address any questions at that
8
time.
9
MR. SOFAT: Thank you, Mr. Olsen.
10
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Excuse me,
11
before we proceed, I just want to note for the
12
record that the Guidelines mentioned and the
13
information from the USEPA that you discussed
14
in your testimony, Mr. Olsen, was all apart of
15
the original proposal filed with the Board and
16
the exhibits; is that correct?
17
MR. OLSEN. Yes.
18
19
20
21
ALAN KELLER,
22
called as a witness herein, having been first
23
duly sworn, was examined and testified as
24
follows:
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
33
1
EXAMINATION
2
Q. Mr. Keller, I'm going to hand you
3
this document and ask you to review it for a
4
few moments.
5
Mr. Keller, do you recognize this
6
document that I just handed to you?
7
A. Yes, I do.
8
Q. Would you please tell us what this
9
is?
10
A. This is my pre-filed testimony
11
concerning the BOD/CBOD issue.
12
Q. Is that a true and accurate copy of
13
the document that was filed with the Board?
14
A. Yes, it is.
15
Q. Would you please present your
16
testimony today?
17
A. Yes. My name is Alan Keller and I'm
18
supervisor of the Northern Municipal Unit of
19
the Permit Section of the Division of Water
20
Pollution Control.
21
I have worked for the Agency since
22
June 1972. I have worked in the Permit Section
23
my entire career with the Agency and have been
24
responsible at one time or another with all the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
34
1
permit programs.
2
In my present capacity, I manage a
3
unit, which reviews construction permits and
4
NPDES permits for municipal and semi-public
5
facilities and also perform other duties
6
associated with municipalities.
7
I also serve on two design criteria
8
groups, which establish the specific design
9
criteria for sewers, lift stations and
10
treatment plants for municipal facilities.
11
One group is the Agency Division of
12
Water Pollution Control Design Criteria
13
Committee and the other group is the Wastewater
14
Design Criteria Committee for the Great
15
Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State
16
and Provincial Public Health and Environmental
17
Managers.
18
I have a Bachelor of Science Degree
19
in Civil Engineering from the University of
20
Illinois concentrating in Environmental
21
Engineering and I am a Registered Professional
22
Engineer in Illinois.
23
My testimony will discuss the
24
reasoning behind the development of the CBOD5
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
35
1
test.
2
THE REASONING BEHIND CBOD5 TEST
3
The Agency has interpreted the intent
4
of 35 Illinois Administrative Code 304.120 with
5
respect to compliance with the respective 5-day
6
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) effluent
7
requirements to be the 5-day carbonaceous
8
biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5).
9
35 Illinois Administrative Code
10
309.141 allows the Agency to establish the
11
terms and conditions of each NPDES permit and
12
directs the Agency to ensure compliance with
13
the effluent limitations under Sections 301 and
14
302 of the Clean Water Act.
15
40 Code of Federal Regulations 133
16
provides for the use of CBOD5 for determining
17
compliance with the definition of secondary
18
treatment requirement.
19
This regulation was revised in the
20
September 20, 1984 Federal Register to allow
21
for the use of CBOD5.
22
The Agency has implemented the use of
23
CBOD5 in lieu of BOD5 in NPDES permits since
24
1986 and also incorporates ammonia nitrogen
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
36
1
water quality based effluent limits where
2
appropriate.
3
At treatment facilities where
4
complete nitrification occurs and treatment
5
facilities where no nitrification occurs, the
6
CBOD5 would not be substantially less.
7
The use of the BOD5 test on raw
8
sewage or influent only measures the
9
carbonaceous demand in the sample because
10
insufficient nitrifying bacteria would be
11
present during the 5-day test period.
12
It normally takes about ten days for
13
a sufficient number of nitrifying bacteria to
14
develop to have a measurable effect on the BOD5
15
test. (See Attachment 1 as part of my
16
pre-filed document).
17
However, in a treatment process where
18
partial nitrification occurs, large numbers of
19
nitrifying bacteria are present and
20
nitrification can occur during the effluent
21
BOD5 test.
22
The BOD5 test is designed to measure
23
the carbonaceous demand in a sample and to
24
measure the efficiency of a treatment process
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
37
1
by comparing the carbonaceous demand before and
2
after the treatment process.
3
In treatment processes that do not
4
nitrify or completely nitrify the use of the
5
BOD5 test on both the influent and effluent
6
will provide satisfactory results.
7
However, in treatment processes that
8
partially nitrify the use of the BOD5 test on
9
both the influent and effluent will compare the
10
carbonaceous demand in the influent with the
11
carbonaceous and nitrogenous demand in the
12
effluent.
13
Such a procedure would provide no
14
useful information on the carbonaceous removal
15
efficiency in a treatment process.
16
An accurate determination of the
17
removal efficiency of a treatment process in
18
which partial nitrification occurs would
19
require the carbonaceous demand of the influent
20
to be measured by the BOD5 test and the
21
carbonaceous demand of the effluent to be
22
measured by the CBOD5 test, which suppresses
23
the nitrogenous demand.
24
Requiring the BOD5 test on the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
38
1
influent and the CBOD5 test on the effluent of
2
all facilities would allow a uniform policy on
3
carbonaceous removal throughout the state.
4
The effluent from a treatment plant
5
consists of many components, the Agency
6
believes that the quality of the effluent can
7
best be assessed and controlled when each of
8
the components are analyzed and controlled
9
individually.
10
The characteristics of the effluent
11
can best be assessed when the CBOD5 test is
12
used to measure the carbonaceous demand and
13
where ammonia nitrogen effluent standards are
14
appropriate use the ammonia nitrogen test to
15
measure the nitrogenous demand.
16
This procedure would be more logical
17
than trying to measure the combined
18
carbonaceous and nitrogenous demand with the
19
BOD5 test, which has been proven to provide
20
inconsistent and misleading results.
21
In addition, the attached figures
22
depict the influence of nitrification on the
23
BOD test Attachment 1 was taken from Metcalf
24
and Eddy's, Wastewater Engineering: Treatment
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
39
1
Disposal, Reuse Second Edition, Page 90.
2
Attachment 2 was taken from Metcalf
3
and Eddy's, Third Edition, Page 76. The Third
4
Edition also states the following: Because the
5
reproductive rate of the nitrifying bacteria is
6
slow it normally takes from 6 to 10 days for
7
them to reach significant numbers and to exert
8
a measurable oxygen demand.
9
However, if a sufficient number of
10
nitrifying bacteria are present initially, the
11
interference caused by nitrification can be
12
significant.
13
When nitrification occurs in the BOD
14
test erroneous interpretations of treatment
15
operating data are possible.
16
The Agency regulates the nitrogenous
17
biochemical oxygen demand of wastewater by
18
incorporating the ammonia nitrogen water
19
quality based effluent limits in NPDES Permits
20
as appropriate under Sections 304.105 and
21
304.122 of Subtitle C: Water Pollution.
22
This concludes my pre-filed testimony
23
I will be supplementing this testimony as
24
needed during the hearing. I would be happy to
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
40
1
address any questions.
2
MR. SOFAT: Thank you, Mr. Keller.
3
This concludes Agency's proposal.
4
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: For the
5
record, since we read the testimony into the
6
record, I would like to admit Attachment 1 as
7
Exhibit No. 2 in the hearing record and
8
Attachment 2 as Exhibit No. 3 in the hearing
9
record so that they are in the hearing record
10
and I have copies of those.
11
MR. SOFAT: Okay. Thank you.
12
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Is there
13
any objections to that? I see none.
14
Attachment 1 of Mr. Keller's testimony will be
15
admitted as Exhibit No. 2 and Attachment 2 will
16
be admitted as Exhibit No. 3. If we can go
17
off the record for just one second?
18
(Discussion held off the record.)
19
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Back on.
20
At this time then are there any
21
questions for the Agency? And it might be best
22
if we organize them in such a way that we go in
23
order of the rule.
24
If you have general questions, we'll
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
41
1
ask general questions. And if we can, just for
2
ease of the record, if that doesn't work out,
3
it doesn't, but if we can do that.
4
MR. ETTINGER: If I'm the only one
5
with questions, we'll save a lot of time here.
6
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Go ahead.
7
We'll start with you.
8
MR. ETTINGER: My name is Albert
9
Ettinger, E-t-t-i-n-g-e-r, I'll give you a card
10
later. The first question I had had to do with
11
this Page 7 of the testimony here.
12
You mentioned the IEPA intends to
13
provide the Board a draft Agency rule for
14
implementing water quality based effluent
15
limits at hearing under R02-11 and here we are,
16
where is it?
17
MR. MOSHER: It's still under
18
development and we intend to present that at
19
the March hearing in Springfield.
20
MR. RAO: I have a brief follow-up to
21
that question. You also mentioned the proposed
22
changes to the standard for several issues
23
regarding the implementation of the proposal
24
standards, would you please in a briefly
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
42
1
explain or summarize what those implementation
2
issues are and how you plan to resolve them?
3
MR. MOSHER: Okay. The Board's rules
4
as they now exist and then with the changes
5
that we propose have several aspects that the
6
Agency really needs and some instruction.
7
And I think the people looking at
8
what the Agency does would like to know what
9
procedures the Agency uses to turn, in some
10
cases, these water quality standards into NPDES
11
permit limits.
12
For example, many of the metals are
13
based on the hardness of the ambient water and
14
we need to provide an instruction of where
15
we're going to get that hardness data and how
16
it will be used to plug into the formula in the
17
Board's regs and then come up with either a
18
permit limit or just interpreting ambient water
19
quality data under these standards. So there
20
has to be some procedures.
21
The Agency, for example, will use
22
hardness data from the nearest downstream
23
available station on the receiving stream for
24
the discharge and that kind of sets that matter
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
43
1
clear that that's where we're going to try to
2
get the hardness data.
3
And then it would provide
4
alternatives if you don't have data from that
5
ideal spot where else would you get it? How
6
would you either use an average of that data or
7
some other statistic of that hardness data.
8
And we go on through the rule and describe what
9
we're going to do.
10
One of the main parts of this
11
implementation Agency rule will be how the
12
Agency will do what is called a reasonable
13
potential analysis to determine if a certain
14
substance needs to be regulated in that NPDES
15
permit.
16
Is there a reasonable potential for
17
it to exceed the water quality standard. If
18
so, we have to put limits in that permit for
19
that substance.
20
And that involves a statistical
21
procedure. We intend to spell all that out and
22
it will take many, many pages to do that.
23
One final thing to mention is we will
24
have an instruction on how the Agency will do
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
44
1
the metals translator now that we will have
2
dissolved metals water quality standards, but
3
yet we still have to regulate metals on a total
4
metal basis.
5
How will we require data to be
6
provided to us so that we will do that properly
7
and protect the receiving stream for the
8
dissolved metals water qualify standard?
9
That's going to involve a lot of --
10
well, some effluent monitoring for dischargers
11
who want to take advantage of that metals
12
translator provision.
13
So this is going to be a lengthy
14
document and we feel that it belongs as Agency
15
rules. We would like to suggest that the Great
16
Lakes Initiative Rulemaking came up with a
17
similar Agency rules document for water quality
18
based effluent limits.
19
And this document will be for General
20
Use waters and it will parallel the existing
21
Agency rule, which is part 352 in the Illinois
22
Administrative Code.
23
So there will be a parallel system of
24
how the Agency will do its business.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
45
1
MR. ETTINGER: I'll get back to
2
asking questions if I can just make this
3
comment in pointing out a problem here which is
4
to the effect of some of these rules.
5
This raises a concern which is that
6
it's hard to understand until we look at your
7
implementation rules or the effect of the
8
standard changes and will be difficult to
9
understand without looking at your
10
implementation rules; is that correct?
11
MR. MOSHER: No. The Board's rules,
12
of course, are water quality standards and they
13
stand by themselves. Yes, the Agency has to
14
use those standards to set permit limits. You
15
know, it's a matter of what comes first.
16
Properly, I think the Board's rules
17
come first. We can study those right now,
18
answer questions. And at the next hearing,
19
we'll give out this draft document for Agency
20
rules.
21
Possibly there will be enough
22
interest or questions that we'll have to have a
23
meeting between the Agency and interested
24
parties to explain that. It's difficult to say
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
46
1
where the discussions belong. I believe in the
2
GLI process, we did a similar thing to what
3
we're trying to do here.
4
MR. ETTINGER: In the GLI process,
5
didn't the Board openly say part of what you
6
thought should be rules should go in the
7
Board's standards?
8
MR. MOSHER: I wasn't too active in
9
that, so I don't know if I can answer that
10
question.
11
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Before we
12
proceed, if it would be possible I realize that
13
you're looking at March 6, but if it would be
14
possible for those to be ready perhaps before
15
the hearing and sent to the service list prior
16
to the hearing so people can have a chance to
17
look at them?
18
MR. SOFAT: We'll do that. We'll
19
send them before the hearing date.
20
MR. ETTINGER: Yeah, I think we'll
21
have to discuss this eventually. I will say I
22
am a little concerned that we're going to be
23
presented with what we're told will be a very
24
complex document and probably won't have much
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
47
1
time before March to look at it. I know we all
2
enjoy these hearings, but going about it the
3
way we're going, a third hearing, you know --
4
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I would
5
just note that we have not yet gone to first
6
notice with these rules, which means we're
7
going to have at least one more hearing in any
8
event because we will have to have it if
9
nothing else the economic statement hearing so
10
we will have to have at least one more hearing
11
in any event.
12
MR. ETTINGER: All right. Looking
13
now at the BETX rules. I have some sort of --
14
I'm trying to figure out the practical effect
15
of these rules. As I understand this overview
16
of the derivation process when you write a
17
permit now you're using numbers that have been
18
derived using one of the formulas in the water
19
quality standards, Tier I or --
20
MR. OLSEN: Yes, we've been using
21
BETX numbers for some years now. They
22
fluctuated around somewhat because of data
23
interpretation and new data becomes available
24
and so on.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
48
1
MR. ETTINGER: I think I have the
2
second to the last one of these. I would just
3
like to give people a copy of one of these so
4
that we know the sort of thing we're looking
5
at. And I guess we'll mark this as an exhibit.
6
Is that okay?
7
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: For the
8
record, I've been handed an Illinois Register
9
notice of public information listing derived
10
water quality criteria and we'll go ahead and
11
admit this as Exhibit 4 if there's no
12
objection. I see none. We'll mark this as
13
Exhibit 4.
14
MR. ETTINGER: We're asking all the
15
witnesses collectively, is this the sort of
16
document that's generated now regarding these
17
standards?
18
MR. OLSEN: You're missing one
19
parameter in here by the way, you didn't get
20
the ethylbenzene.
21
MR. ETTINGER: Bottom of Page 2?
22
MR. OLSEN: I think they are out of
23
order or something. Okay. Here it is.
24
MR. ETTINGER: Is this the last one
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
49
1
or second to the last one?
2
MR. OLSEN: No. They come out
3
quarterly. Anyway, those numbers -- well, as I
4
said they have fluctuated a bit. I don't think
5
they changed much though.
6
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Excuse me,
7
before we proceed, could I ask for the record
8
if we know what the Register citation for this
9
is? Do we know what Illinois Register this
10
appeared in at least by date?
11
MR. ETTINGER: I can't really tell
12
you. This was actually faxed to us by the
13
Agency some time ago. The date it was faxed to
14
us was November 22, 2000, so I assume it was
15
public before then but I don't know how much
16
before it was learned.
17
MR. OLSEN: Excuse me, Madam Hearing
18
Officer, we often will fax out my copy. And we
19
eventually will maybe get a copy from the
20
Illinois Register with the actual date of
21
publication, but we usually will send
22
interested parties something, you know, just
23
what we've done ourselves. So do you want us
24
to find out what the actual publication date
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
50
1
for this one was?
2
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: If we could
3
that would be helpful because then we can look
4
at an original rather than the copies.
5
Sometimes they are not clear and as you pointed
6
out, Mr. Olsen, they may be out of order too.
7
That would be helpful. And that will be fine
8
to let us know in March.
9
MR. ETTINGER: What is the practical
10
effect as your understanding of adopting the
11
water quality standard here as opposed to
12
operating under this Illinois Register criteria
13
procedure?
14
MR. MOSHER: Well, the substances in
15
this list published in the Illinois Register
16
are derived water quality criteria under 35
17
Illinois Administrative Code 302.210.
18
They address a water quality standard
19
and narrative water quality standard that says
20
water should be free of toxic substances and
21
toxic amounts essentially.
22
We have used the four BETX substances
23
again and again in permits and this system of
24
deriving water quality criteria under the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
51
1
narrative standard publishing in the Illinois
2
Register is a little ungainly.
3
It's a little hard for people to go
4
to the Board's regs and it's impossible to go
5
to the Board's regs. You can see the narrative
6
standard, but you can't see all the
7
calculations that Clark does and the final
8
numbers that eventually get used in permits.
9
So we thought since we used these
10
four substances again and again in NPDES
11
permits that the time had come to establish
12
them as water quality standards numerically in
13
the Board's regulations.
14
We had the freedom in proposing this
15
to the Board to use what we thought were the
16
latest and best methodologies to do the
17
derivation.
18
We also went back and looked for any
19
new data that appeared in the literature and
20
these standards are what we think are the best
21
we could do right now.
22
Once the Board adopts them, of
23
course, they won't change. We won't react to
24
new data anymore until it becomes apparent that
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
52
1
we need to go back to the Board and propose a
2
revision to those standards.
3
MR. ETTINGER: My understanding is
4
that these numbers in this document that you
5
published change from time to time based on new
6
data. How do you decide that the science is
7
firm enough or how do you decide you want to
8
propose a water quality standard as opposed to
9
continuing to make changes?
10
MR. OLSEN: Well, there's no firm way
11
of saying we're at the -- that the number won't
12
change much in the future, but I think for
13
several of these substances at least there is a
14
fairly big data base and we can say well, this
15
is pretty close to what it should be.
16
I mean, this is just a -- you know,
17
it's a construct, it's a human construct. We
18
cannot be absolutely sure that these numbers
19
are safe in the environment and safety factors
20
and so on are involved.
21
And, so, at some point as Bob says,
22
we have used these a lot and it would be just
23
nice if the public knew what the number was and
24
we'll keep it that way for 5, 10, 15 years or
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
53
1
something like that.
2
MR. ETTINGER: Looking at this Page 2
3
of this overview of standards derivation
4
process -- that's Exhibit F, I'm sorry.
5
You make reference to the currently
6
published -- in the last full paragraph in the
7
middle of the --
8
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Excuse me,
9
Mr. Ettinger. I'm sorry to interrupt, but
10
that's Exhibit F in the Agency's proposal,
11
correct?
12
MR. MOSHER: Right.
13
MR. OLSEN: I believe so.
14
MR. ETTINGER: It says here the
15
currently published Illinois Register 14428
16
September 2001 water quality criteria for BETX
17
and General Use waters are as follows: And is
18
that based on a document like Exhibit 4 only a
19
more recent copy of it? Is that where these
20
numbers come from?
21
MR. MOSHER: Yes.
22
MR. OLSEN: Well, actually the
23
exhibit that you showed is just a summary that
24
we put in the Illinois Register. I have the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
54
1
whole worksheet, the whole document, which is
2
part of the record, this record.
3
Also, which is like -- and there can
4
be 5, 10 pages long with all the bibliography
5
of all the data. Every bit of data is
6
tabulated and then what data we've actually
7
used.
8
There's more data in there than we've
9
actually used just to show you what else is
10
available, but then we'll say why we didn't use
11
some of the data.
12
And then it goes through the data
13
reduction processes and we don't actually have
14
the spread sheet read on there, but we do that
15
on the computer so that's just a few key
16
strokes.
17
MR. ETTINGER: Most of the numbers,
18
just glancing through here, are fairly close
19
between the last Illinois Register and the
20
proposal except there's a couple that seem to
21
vary that General Use -- I'm sorry, the human
22
health standard that is on Page 1 of Exhibit F
23
seems to say 0.31 and the human health water
24
quality criteria for benzene it says .021. Am
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
55
1
I comparing apples and oranges there or has the
2
science changed it that much?
3
MR. OLSEN: Well, we decided just to
4
keep it the GLI number. They have the same
5
number in both places. GLI actually used the
6
lower risk number 10 to the minus 5th instead
7
of 10 to the minus 6.
8
So if you're familiar with a cancer
9
risk based criteria and/or standard development
10
of course that makes quite a bit of difference.
11
MR. ETTINGER: So previously or as of
12
last September you were using, shall we say, a
13
more cautious cancer standard and now you're
14
going with the GLI standard because and/or
15
which is less protective?
16
MR. OLSEN: That's right.
17
MR. RAO: May I ask a follow-up
18
question on that? Mr. Olsen, the purpose of
19
human health standard ambient micrograms per
20
liter is based on incidental water consumption
21
and ingestion of organisms under GLI, can you
22
please explain why the human standards for
23
benzene was not set at the Tier I human cancer
24
criterion in July, which was, I think, 12
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
56
1
micrograms per liter --
2
MR. OLSEN: First of all --
3
MR. RAO: -- you know, 12 micrograms
4
per liter for the open waters of Lake Michigan?
5
MR. OLSEN: The open waters of Lake
6
Michigan are also drinking waters so that would
7
add more exposure. What this is based on is
8
only very incidental actual contact with the
9
water and mostly it's based on fish
10
consumption.
11
MR. RAO: Are there any situations
12
where any of these General Use waters are also
13
used for drinking water?
14
MR. OLSEN: Well, if they were used
15
for drinking water, we would have to develop a
16
criterion, our number, but the very few places
17
in Illinois -- well, perhaps I should let Bob
18
answer that.
19
MR. MOSHER: The drinking water
20
sources are protected under the Subpart C
21
standard. I'm not exactly sure how benzene is
22
handled and I think we're probably going to
23
have to go back and research an answer to your
24
question on that.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
57
1
MR. RAO: What Subpart C standard are
2
you talking about, the food processing --
3
MR. OLSEN: Yes.
4
MR. RAO: -- and Public Water
5
Environmental Standards?
6
MR. MOSHER: Yes.
7
MR. RAO: It would be helpful if you
8
could take a look at those standards and see
9
what supports it.
10
MR. OLSEN: Okay.
11
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD:
12
Mr. Ettinger, if you would like to continue?
13
MR. ETTINGER: Sure. I'll display my
14
ignorance by saying are any of those BETX
15
substances bioaccumulative?
16
MR. OLSEN: Well, to a small degree
17
if the cancer risk assessment number is such a
18
low number that when you work it into the
19
equation even a small amount of
20
bioaccumulation -- these aren't ordinarily
21
considered bioaccumulative like PCBs and things
22
like that, but they do obviously get into the
23
organism and contaminate to whatever degree of
24
the flesh of the fish.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
58
1
So if a cancer number is such a low
2
number, the final water quality criterion still
3
will be quite a low number.
4
MR. ETTINGER: Just to compare the
5
benzene and these two things again, is the
6
Great Lakes benzene standard here, is that
7
based solely on drinking water or is that also
8
based on fish consumption.
9
MR. OLSEN: Well, there are two
10
numbers. One based I think -- there are two
11
numbers, one should be for the open waters of
12
the Great Lakes and of Lake Michigan, which is
13
designated as a drinking water source.
14
And there is another number which is
15
designated for the few streams and few little
16
places around Ben Harbors, which are designated
17
as drinking sources, but there is still fishing
18
going on there. And, you know, splashing in
19
the water, canoeing or boating.
20
MR. ETTINGER: The .31 is the number
21
that they developed for the GLI to protect
22
fishermen who eat the fish as opposed to the
23
.012, which was to protect the drinking water.
24
MR. OLSEN: I'm not sure I'm with
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
59
1
you.
2
MR. ETTINGER: The number we have
3
here for general human health is the .31
4
standard but you're proposing from what I
5
gather also the GLI standards for harbors and
6
the tributaries are not drinking water sources,
7
is that correct, Mr. Olsen?
8
MR. OLSEN: No. The 021 was based on
9
fish flesh -- mainly fish consumption also in
10
this document.
11
MR. ETTINGER: That's what I'm
12
confused by. So the .021 in the Illinois
13
Register document, that was based on fish flesh
14
consumption?
15
MR. OLSEN: Yes, but the risk level
16
for General Use waters is 10 to the minus 6 and
17
it's somewhat contradictory. The waters for
18
the Great Lakes are based on a risk level of 10
19
to the minus 5th.
20
However, for bioaccumulative
21
substances the numbers really -- for substances
22
that really bioaccumulate to a great degree may
23
not make that much difference. It's just that
24
we're dealing with something that doesn't
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
60
1
bioaccumulate that much but still obviously
2
there will be some in the flesh of the fish if
3
there's benzene in the water.
4
MR. ETTINGER: Forget I ever brought
5
up the bioaccumulative concept. The difference
6
between the standard you were using last
7
September or September 2001 and this proposed
8
standard has to do with the cancer
9
risk consumption analysis --
10
MR. OLSEN: We're just going with the
11
Great Lakes number for uniformity sake.
12
MR. MOSHER: You have to realize that
13
the General Use Subpart F procedures for
14
deriving these criteria that you presented to
15
the Board as Exhibit 4 were adopted in 1990, I
16
believe.
17
They were a late '80s work project,
18
Great Lakes Initiative came and took another
19
look at this and said, well, it really doesn't
20
have to be that low. Here's Great Lakes
21
Subpart E derivation procedures. It is the
22
latest way to do this. And we said we should
23
go with that. It's more the state-of-the-art
24
derivation.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
61
1
MR. ETTINGER: As I understand the
2
state-of-the-art is that they decided to use a
3
different cancer risk factor in the GLI than
4
they did in the 1990 analysis.
5
MR. OLSEN: That's right.
6
MR. ETTINGER: You talked about
7
cyanide. On cyanide I understand that the
8
basic changes is that you threw out the Trout
9
from the analysis here; is that correct?
10
MR. OLSEN: Well, for the General Use
11
standard, yes, we just stayed away from
12
so-called cold-water species.
13
MR. ETTINGER: Is the Agency aware of
14
cold-water species in waters outside of Lake
15
Michigan and Illinois?
16
MR. MOSHER: We've looked into that
17
quite a bit over the years and we're confident
18
that there aren't self sustaining populations
19
of cold-water species, Trout and Salmon
20
specifically, in waters other than Lake
21
Michigan and Illinois. There are, of course,
22
several spots in the state where DNR stocks
23
those on a put intake basis so fishermen can
24
catch them before summer comes and the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
62
1
temperatures get too high for them to survive.
2
But we do not consider those
3
populations natural or sustained, so we don't
4
believe there is a reason to protect for
5
cold-water species in the General Use waters.
6
MR. ETTINGER: So the Agency believes
7
that all the trout stocked by DNR and in other
8
waters in Northern Illinois are dying in the
9
summer if they are not caught?
10
MR. MOSHER: There is some evidence
11
that at least in some summers that they
12
over-summer and survive, but the evidence for
13
their reproduction, to my knowledge, is
14
nonexistent.
15
MR. ETTINGER: I believe this was
16
Mr. Olsen's testimony, he said, only species
17
with reproducing wild population utilized
18
derivation, do I understand that to mean that
19
you had some data on warm-water species that
20
you didn't use because they didn't reproduce in
21
the Midwest?
22
MR. OLSEN: Well, I don't use Western
23
species for instance, and I don't use foreign
24
species. Although, we have a provision that if
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
63
1
it seems as though the foreign species would
2
come from habitats that were similar to ours
3
and when we do our own criteria, we'll use data
4
for that just to try to fill in the data and
5
give us a general idea of the range of data
6
that's available. So does that answer your
7
question?
8
MR. ETTINGER: I believe so. Does
9
the Agency have any -- strike that.
10
How does the Agency deal with a
11
situation where somebody wants a permit to
12
discharge into one of these waters in which the
13
DNR is stocking the water with cold-water
14
species?
15
MR. MOSHER: I can't think of a time
16
when that has happened. At least in the direct
17
area of the stocking. If it ever did happen,
18
we would have to go by the Board's water
19
quality standards. There is the
20
anti-degridation regulation that could be
21
imposed at such a time.
22
MR. ETTINGER: In addition to fish in
23
looking at these cyanide standards you looked
24
at mussels. What is the sensitivity to mussels
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
64
1
with cyanide as opposed to warm-water fish?
2
MR. MOSHER: We're going to have to
3
check the database to see if we did use muscle
4
data in the cyanide analysis. Can we have a
5
minute to do that?
6
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Yes.
7
MR. OLSEN: Well, I don't see any
8
muscle data here or there just wasn't any.
9
MR. ETTINGER: If nobody else has
10
anything about cyanide I'm going to talk about
11
metals now or a question about metals.
12
First, we had a question about the
13
cadmium standards. I understand it and correct
14
me if I'm wrong, your language here says but
15
not to exceed 50 micrograms per liter; is that
16
correct?
17
MR. MOSHER: Yes.
18
MR. ETTINGER: Why is that being done
19
or proposed?
20
MR. MOSHER: As I recall, 14 years
21
ago or so, these hardness based water quality
22
standards for metals were new and, of course,
23
we had no experience with them. We noted that
24
if hardness of the ambient water were to be
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
65
1
very high then the acute standard for cyanide
2
could also be very high and approach or exceed
3
50. And we put that in there as a precaution.
4
Given that lack of experience as this
5
was adopted in 1990 and we've had eleven or so
6
years to implement that cyanide standard, we
7
had found that we never had to worry about
8
issuing a permit with a water quality based
9
daily maximum limit anywhere near 50 for
10
cyanide. It never happened.
11
MR. ETTINGER: Excuse me. You were
12
saying cyanide when I think you mean to say
13
cadmium.
14
MR. MOSHER: Oh, I'm sorry, I mean
15
cadmium. And so between the fact that it never
16
happens in our experience and that we have
17
learned to trust the formula standards is being
18
established in a protective and widely regard
19
as such, we decided that that extra precaution
20
we threw in wasn't necessary. The lead
21
standard that was updated in 1996 used to have
22
a similar ceiling to it, which we did away with
23
when we updated it in '96.
24
MR. ETTINGER: Do you know of any
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
66
1
dischargers who are doing this 50 micrograms
2
per liter of this cadmium limit?
3
MR. MOSHER: I don't know of any.
4
Maybe Al --
5
MR. KELLER: I don't know of any.
6
MR. RAO: I have a follow-up. Is the
7
upper limit of 50 micrograms per liter, is that
8
health based limit or is it some arbitrary
9
standard?
10
MR. MOSHER: I believe it was the
11
pre-1990 cadmium water quality standard. I'm
12
not exactly sure, but I will check that and
13
report back. I believe that was the case and
14
that's why we picked 50 as the maximum it could
15
ever be.
16
MR RAO: You also mentioned in your
17
experience in the last ten years or so that you
18
have not come across hardness levels high
19
enough to exceed the 50 micrograms per liter,
20
would it be possible for you to give some
21
information as to the typical hardness level in
22
the state?
23
MR. MOSHER: Yeah, I could put a
24
summary based on actual data. But just in
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
67
1
general for right now we deal with hardness
2
values quite a bit. There's a north, south
3
decrease in hardness as you go from Northern
4
Illinois to southern Illinois. We feel that's
5
mainly based on the ground water that tends to
6
flow into streams.
7
Southern, Illinois having sandstone
8
as the first layer of bedrock that you come to
9
and then as you go further north you're more
10
likely to get limestone.
11
And, typically, a hardness -- if I
12
just had to pick a number for Illinois, 250
13
milligrams per liter hardness is fairly
14
typical.
15
It varies quite a lot. There's a
16
stream in Southern, Illinois where 50
17
milligrams per liter would be typical.
18
But that's the very southern tip.
19
And as you work north it increases. There's
20
some northern Illinois streams that go up to
21
300, 350 typically. If you would like I can
22
submit some examples.
23
MR. RAO: A number of these are based
24
on hardness and I just want to know what the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
68
1
standard would be?
2
MR. MOSHER: We did supply I believe
3
in Exhibit F when we come to the metals we use
4
a hardness of 250 milligrams per liter to
5
express what the standard would be plugging in
6
that hardness value to the formula.
7
MR. RAO: In some of the attachments
8
I see you have used the hardness of 50
9
milligrams per liter.
10
MR. MOSHER: Sometimes we use 50
11
because the national criteria documents use 50
12
to express. And I want to correct myself, it's
13
not Attachment F, it's a one-page attachment
14
and that's G. That's the one that uses 250 to
15
express what the metals standard would be under
16
that hardness condition.
17
MR. ETTINGER: On Page 21 of Exhibit
18
F you discussed the cadmium calculation in the
19
Federal level, are you following that process?
20
MR. MOSHER: We're trying to keep up
21
with that. When we were working on this
22
proposal USEPA published a draft national
23
criteria for cadmium and it was an update from
24
their previous document which is from the mid
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
69
1
'80s and the public comment period was ongoing
2
at that time. I have not seen an update of the
3
status of that lately. Again, we could find
4
that out easily enough and report back.
5
MR. ETTINGER: How does the current
6
Illinois cadmium standard compare with the
7
existing Federal criteria?
8
MR. MOSHER: The current Illinois
9
cadmium general standard and the mid '80s
10
Federal criteria?
11
MR. ETTINGER: Yes.
12
MR. MOSHER: I have to trust my
13
memory here, but I believe we took the Federal
14
criteria. We may have modified it a little bit
15
by removing one of the species that was
16
important in that Federal calculation.
17
And, again, that's 14 years ago and I
18
will have to go back and check that, but what
19
I'm saying is I believe the Board's current
20
cadmium general standard is fairly similar to
21
the 1980 something national criteria.
22
MR. ETTINGER: Is that true for the
23
acute?
24
MR. MOSHER: I would think it's true
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
70
1
for both acute and chronic. That's something
2
that can be easily be checked and we can come
3
back with that.
4
MR. ETTINGER: Now, we go to dissolve
5
metal versus total. I have a couple of
6
questions here. Does it vary from element to
7
element or is there one translator for
8
dissolved metal?
9
MR. ETTINGER: Are you referring to
10
the conversion factor?
11
MR. MOSHER: Yes.
12
MR. ETTINGER: What is that?
13
MR. MOSHER: The conversion factors
14
are unique. USEPA has published a lot and we
15
have taken the most recent list and directly
16
included those conversion factors in these
17
proposed standards.
18
MR. ETTINGER: You convert it once
19
from -- one way and convert it back again?
20
Now, explain that a little better.
21
MR. MOSHER: In the absence of a
22
site-specific data for the effluent or
23
receiving stream, we intend to just take the
24
inversion of the conversion factor we come back
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
71
1
to our old total metal value and apply that as
2
the permit limit if there were no mixing zone
3
and if there were no site-specific data
4
provided to us by the discharger who wanted to
5
take the metal translators.
6
So the old total is being used of
7
course now and the dischargers are meeting
8
those permit limits, but some of them are
9
having trouble meeting that limit based on the
10
total metal standard.
11
They will have the opportunity to
12
prove to us that their discharge will meet the
13
new dissolved metal standard in the receiving
14
stream.
15
MR. ETTINGER: Let's imagine for the
16
sake of my example that the conversion for a
17
given metal is 50 percent dissolved, and that's
18
the standard cookbook USEPA, I have a total
19
limit now of one milligram per liter, if I
20
apply that conversion factor on my next permit
21
would I get two milligrams per liter?
22
MR. MOSHER: No. You would go back
23
to the existing total standard. We're changing
24
it to dissolve. So in your example, the new
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
72
1
standard is going to be half of what the
2
existing total was. We simply take the
3
inversion of that and go back to the same
4
permit limit.
5
MR. ETTINGER: So you shake it to the
6
left and shake it to the right and come out the
7
same place before?
8
MR. MOSHER: Correct.
9
MR. ETTINGER: But for example using
10
my example in this particular metal if only 25
11
percent was dissolved that would be an unusual
12
case, but then you would be able to come out
13
with a different permit?
14
MR. MOSHER: Right.
15
MR. ETTINGER: Because now you would
16
not be undoing everything that you've just
17
done?
18
MR. MOSHER: Correct.
19
MR. ETTINGER: Is the Agency going to
20
look at cases in which they believe that the
21
gram conversion factor may be too low? In
22
other words, if you went to dissolve you would
23
find the percentage of dissolve was higher than
24
what you would expect just using the USEPA
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
73
1
formula?
2
MR. MOSHER: Those were calculated by
3
going back to laboratory toxicity test, which
4
are the basis of standards to begin and the
5
USEPA said they'll go back and recreate some of
6
those measure totals and dissolved and see what
7
the difference was and that's why he came up
8
with those factors.
9
They are laboratory factors and what
10
it all means is -- we all now agree that
11
dissolved metal is the toxic form, the question
12
should have been based on everything recreated,
13
all that to get where they should have been in
14
the first place.
15
MR. ETTINGER: I guess my question
16
is, is it only going to work to dissolve a
17
higher percentage rather than a lower
18
percentage than what they came out with in the
19
USEPA laboratory or could it happen that the
20
dissolve is a higher percentage than the
21
national figures that USEPA has published.
22
MR. MOSHER: I'm trying to think that
23
through.
24
MR. ETTINGER: Let's try and use an
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
74
1
example, maybe it will work. We decided that
2
the USEPA number that comes from that chart
3
that you've got is 50 percent, if we have a
4
metal in the number in the water we will assume
5
that 50 percent is dissolved and 50 percent is
6
not.
7
A particular discharger wants to
8
prove that in this particular case less than 50
9
percent is dissolved so he should have a lesser
10
cadmium, is it possible in the case of some
11
Illinois dischargers that it's actually more
12
than 50 percent as to a particular metal that
13
the number could actually be higher than what
14
the USEPA figure gives?
15
MR. MOSHER: I think the answer to
16
that question is going to be that that
17
discharger can make no use of the metal
18
translator procedure and we'll fall back to the
19
standards as it appears in the Board's rules
20
using the conversion factors.
21
MR. ETTINGER: Just in general, what
22
kind of factors cause and dissolve the total to
23
vary from one water body to another or one
24
discharger to another?
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
75
1
MR. MOSHER: It has a lot to do with
2
other contents in the effluent or water body
3
organic substances like humic acid, which are
4
very common. That's the stuff that after
5
leaves break down it's a tea color that some
6
waters have and that's present everywhere.
7
Those organic substances tend to
8
complex with metals. I'm not a chemist, but
9
they latch on to the metals, bend them up and
10
they no longer can penetrate the gills of a
11
fish or whatever.
12
Suspended solids and even things like
13
clay particles can do the same thing to some
14
degree. So municipal effluents have some of
15
these kind of things in them given their
16
nature, the result of treated organic waste and
17
there's still some organic particles in those
18
effluents and that's a good thing in terms of
19
metals.
20
MR. ETTINGER: As I understand it,
21
there's a provision for this metal conversion
22
factor in the existing GLI rules; is that
23
correct?
24
MR. MOSHER: Yes.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
76
1
MR. ETTINGER: And you proposed to
2
strike that from the portion that covers the
3
existing GLI rule and substitute this new
4
309.257?
5
MR. MOSHER: Yes.
6
MR. ETTINGER: How do you decide
7
whether to look at the conversion factor for
8
the effluent or receiving one?
9
MR. MOSHER: USEPA as a guidance
10
document that's been out for several years.
11
MR. RAO: Is that in your attachment?
12
MR. MOSHER: I believe it is. When
13
our implementation Agency rules come out, it's
14
going to tell people how the Agency will apply
15
this and we're going to be very dependent on
16
that document.
17
MR. ETTINGER: Just to be clear, the
18
discharger is not going to have the choice or
19
the receiving water in deciding which number he
20
likes best?
21
MR. MOSHER: If there's no mixing
22
zone.
23
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I would
24
like to ask a follow-up to the next sentence
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
77
1
there. I assume that your implementation rules
2
will also address what your review of an
3
approval will constitute at that time?
4
MR. MOSHER: Yes, a number of samples
5
that we will have to have from the discharger,
6
but then again it will lead into a Federal
7
guidance document and the equations that are
8
found within that document.
9
MR. ETTINGER: Would you also take a
10
look at this and see if it might be possible to
11
do a cross reference with your rules with this
12
section.
13
MR. SOFAT: I will do that.
14
MR. ETTINGER: Just to be clear, if
15
the discharger doesn't think this conversion is
16
going to help him he does not have to do the
17
conversion?
18
MR. MOSHER: That's correct.
19
MR. ETTINGER: You're not going to
20
look at the conversion factor and say you
21
should do a tighter limit, the Agency is not
22
going to do that?
23
MR. MOSHER: No.
24
MR. ETTINGER: As to this rule, in
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
78
1
some cases at least, we're going to let the
2
discharger pick whether they like the number
3
better from the effluent or receiving water; is
4
that correct?
5
MR. MOSHER: That's what Federal
6
guidance allows. Now, ordinarily one would
7
think the effluent would be the more stringent
8
case because you have not had the mixing of the
9
ambient water with the natural goodies that are
10
mixed up with that water. So you would think
11
it's an advantage to the discharger if they
12
have a mixing zone to measure in the stream
13
itself.
14
MR. ETTINGER: Unless what the
15
discharger is putting out is dirtier than the
16
ambient water?
17
MR. MOSHER: In terms of suspended
18
solids that usually is the case in Illinois in
19
terms of BOD from my recollection, ambient
20
waters have about the same BOD as a 10, 12
21
discharger.
22
MR. ETTINGER: I had one more
23
question. Some of the conversion factors that
24
you have proposed like for example Nickel for
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
79
1
acute standard is .998, does that make a big
2
difference coming up with a number?
3
MR. MOSHER: No, it doesn't. I guess
4
that's what it's telling us when you take some
5
Nickel salt off the shelf and dissolve it in
6
some water in the laboratory and expose
7
organisms in this water to see how toxic it is.
8
We're taking USEPA and applying them.
9
You're correct.
10
MR. ETTINGER: When you're looking at
11
the hardness factor are you looking at the
12
influent or stream?
13
MR. MOSHER: Stream.
14
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr Ettinger
15
has offered in the matter of site-specific
16
rulemaking for the sanitary district Decatur,
17
Illinois R85-15, 1987 Illinois Env. Lexis 424.
18
Is there any objection? I see none. We have
19
copies of that coming down too.
20
Mr. Ettinger, if you would like to
21
continue.
22
MR. ETTINGER: Yes. My -- we
23
discussed earlier pertaining to all of these
24
rules and proposals that these had earlier been
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
80
1
submitted to the public for review prior to you
2
going to the Illinois Register with it; is that
3
true?
4
I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't very
5
clear. I believe you said that at least it's a
6
part of this that you discussed the proposals
7
as the standard with various interested parties
8
before the Agency formally made its proposal;
9
is that correct?
10
MR. MOSHER: Yes.
11
MR. ETTINGER: Is that true with
12
regards to the BOD/CBOD portion of the
13
proposal?
14
MR. MOSHER: No.
15
MR. ETTINGER: As I understand it,
16
just as a matter of BOD, CBOD is a fraction of
17
the total BOD; is that correct?
18
MR. OLSEN: That's true.
19
MR. ETTINGER: I gather also because
20
of the fact that the nitrifying critters
21
generally take longer to start going that NBOD5
22
is closer to total BOD5 than BOD30 is to
23
NBOD30?
24
MR. KELLER: That would depend on the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
81
1
number of nitrifying organisms.
2
MR. ETTINGER: In general, do you
3
know what the ratio is of CBOD5 to the total
4
BOD5?
5
MR. KELLER: The total BOD5 or --
6
MR. ETTINGER: Let's just strike that
7
and start over. As to any particular
8
discharger, do you know what fraction of the
9
total BOD5 is CBOD5?
10
MR. KELLER: Are you talking influent
11
or effluent or just a nitrifying plant or a
12
non-nitryifying -- there's a lot of different
13
scenarios that I don't know which one you're
14
asking about?
15
MR. ETTINGER: Very good
16
clarification. We'll talk about effluent for
17
now.
18
MR. KELLER: Okay.
19
MR. ETTINGER: Just looking at
20
effluent as to any particular dischargers, do
21
you know what the ratio is of CBOD5 to BOD5?
22
MR. KELLER: Again for a nitrifying
23
facility that completely nitrifies.
24
MR. ETTINGER: Well, so it would
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
82
1
depend as to how much it nitrifies as to what
2
the ratio is as of CBOD5 to BOD5?
3
MR. KELLER: Yes, that's correct.
4
MR. ETTINGER: What kind of range are
5
you familiar with?
6
MR. KELLER: I really haven't
7
evaluated that range.
8
MR. ETTINGER: Le's give you some
9
credit here, you are the guy who is chiefly in
10
charge of writing the CBOD permits for all of
11
northern Illinois; is that correct?
12
MR. KELLER: Correct.
13
MR. ETTINGER: So you've looked at a
14
lot of sewage treatment plants, right?
15
MR. KELLER: Right.
16
MR. ETTINGER: But you don't know
17
what the ratio is of CBOD5 to total BOD5.
18
MR. KELLER: We have been requiring
19
monitoring the CBOD5 since 1986 and not had the
20
corresponding effluent data that you're asking
21
about.
22
MR. ETTINGER: So you agree that to
23
the extent that CBOD5 is not the same as BOD5
24
that this proposal represents a weakening of
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
83
1
the tool?
2
MR. KELLER: No. We do not believe
3
that.
4
MR. ETTINGER: Well, let's see here.
5
As I understand it, right now the BOD5 limit is
6
10 and 20 depending on the pollution ratio; is
7
that correct?
8
MR. KELLER: The BOD on it is 30
9
actually. If the pollution ratio show greater
10
than 5 to 1, it's 20. If it's greater than 5
11
to 1 and the population quotes are greater than
12
10,000 and if pollution ratio is less than 5 to
13
1 it is 10.
14
MR. ETTINGER: Thirty is the number
15
that is the secondary contact definition under
16
the Federal definition under secondary
17
treatment?
18
MR. KELLER: Correct. It's the
19
secondary treatment definition.
20
MR. ETTINGER: That question was even
21
poor by my standards. The Federal definition
22
of what constitutes secondary treatment as to
23
BOD is 30 BOD5; is that correct?
24
MR. KELLER: Correct.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
84
1
MR. ETTINGER: And so as to these
2
plants with the large amounts of pollution as
3
to BOD5, the limit that you put in the permit
4
is 30?
5
MR. KELLER: It typically is COBD5 at
6
25 as allowed by that same definition.
7
MR. ETTINGER: So you may get
8
compensation there from BOD5 to CBOD5 based on
9
the Federal regulation?
10
MR. KELLER: Correct.
11
MR. ETTINGER: And that's 133.102 the
12
definition of secondary treatment?
13
MR. KELLER: I believe that's the
14
correct number.
15
MR. ETTINGER: And so the Federal
16
government when they allow you to substitute
17
CBOD5 to BOD5 it's used as a 25 milligram per
18
liter CBOD5 in place of a 30 milligram per
19
liter BOD5; is that correct?
20
MR. KELLER: Correct.
21
MR. ETTINGER: But as to the limits
22
in the Board's rules where it currently states
23
20 BOD5 or 10 BOD5 you're not making any
24
compensation or conversion factor so to speak
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
85
1
for BOD?
2
MR. MOSHER: Correct.
3
MR. ETTINGER: What does the Agency
4
do in terms of writing a permit element for BOD
5
that ensures BOD standards?
6
MR. KELLER: Well, the standards for
7
BOD5 are basically technology based and based
8
on the pollution ratio and receiving treatment.
9
MR. ETTINGER: You don't look --
10
MR. KELLER: In addition for those
11
receiving streams may have a lower pollution
12
ratio. We do evaluate ammonia nitrogen as it
13
has the effects on the --
14
MR. ETTINGER: Do you ever go in and
15
calculate on a plant by plant basis what the
16
BOD5 or CBOD5 levels should be?
17
MR. KELLER: No.
18
MR. ETTINGER: You only computed to
19
the Board as an effluent standard described by
20
the Board?
21
MR. KELLER: Correct.
22
MR. ETTINGER: Are you aware of the
23
Streeter Philips(phonetic) model?
24
MR. KELLER: Yes. Could I go back
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
86
1
and correct? There have been a couple of
2
permits albeit a very few in just the exception
3
where the dissolved oxygen was taken into
4
account and receiving stream and we did lower
5
the standards to, again, another
6
technology-based type standard. So we had
7
lowered a couple of permits.
8
MR. ETTINGER: So when you mean
9
another technology based standard you went to
10
20 to 10 in that case?
11
MR. KELLER: Correct.
12
MR. ETTINGER: Have you -- I'll ask
13
the whole panel here, you said you did not in
14
general know the ratio as CBOD5 and BOD5 as to
15
any sewage treatment without -- strike that.
16
I'll start over.
17
Without knowing anything more about
18
the sewage treatment plan, you could not give
19
me the ratio of CBOD5 to BOD5 just from knowing
20
its a sewage treatment?
21
MR. KELLER: No.
22
MR. ETTINGER: And I assume that
23
would also hold true for an industrial
24
discharger that you would not know the ratio
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
87
1
for CBOD5 to BOD5?
2
MR. KELLER: No.
3
MR. ETTINGER: Have you any
4
information as to what the range could be of
5
CBOD, you know, the ratio between CBOD5 and
6
BOD5 other than what was put in your attachment
7
to your testimony?
8
MR. KELLER: No. As part of my
9
testimony, I did state this for those that
10
completely nitrified and those that do not
11
nitrify at all the CBOD value is very, very
12
close to that BOD value.
13
MR. ETTINGER: Most dischargers fall
14
somewhere in between?
15
MR. KELLER: A lot of them do
16
depending on the load at the time, a number of
17
things can surface, things like that.
18
MR. ETTINGER: Looking at your -- at
19
what is I think Attachments CC to your Exhibit
20
F, there's a reference in the second column,
21
this is biochemical oxygen demand and it's from
22
this standard methods book, Exhibit CC.
23
MR. KELLER: Okay.
24
MR. ETTINGER: Looking at the second
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
88
1
column, it says nitrogenous demand can be
2
estimated directly from hormonal nitrogen?
3
MR. KELLER: Correct.
4
MR. ETTINGER: Do you know how to do
5
that?
6
MR. KELLER: Yes.
7
MR. ETTINGER: How does it work
8
roughly?
9
MR. KELLER: Basically, you determine
10
the calibrates with what the ammonia nitrogen
11
concentration is and the amount of nitrogen
12
demand would be 4.6 times that concentration
13
for the complete nitrogenous demand.
14
MR. ETTINGER: Let's say I've got one
15
milligram per liter of ammonia, would I
16
multiply that times 4.6 in BOD?
17
MR. KELLER: It would be 4.6, like,
18
pounds of oxygen demand or whatever figure it
19
was, that would be oxygen demand.
20
MR. ETTINGER: In most Illinois
21
dischargers they have an ammonia discharge
22
limit that is one or above or some part of the
23
year, don't they?
24
MR. KELLER: Most do, yes.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
89
1
MR. ETTINGER: In the document that I
2
marked as Exhibit 5, which is the Board's
3
opinion on the third to last page we see a note
4
in the Board's opinion that indicates that in
5
this particular case, Decatur's effluent CBOD5
6
is approximately 61 percent of the BOD5.
7
MR. KELLER: Yes, okay.
8
MR. ETTINGER: Does that accord with
9
your understanding of something within the
10
range of Illinois dischargers?
11
MR. KELLER: I really haven't
12
evaluated anything to elect that. Decatur has
13
a high industrial compound in their waste water
14
which may influence this very much.
15
MR. ETTINGER: How does the Agency go
16
about setting ammonia limits for a discharger?
17
MR. KELLER: Well, we look at the
18
water quality standards for ammonia, we look at
19
PH and temperature of the receiving water
20
downstream of the discharge, we look at the
21
availability of mixing; and then we fall back
22
on whether or not the treatment plant has been
23
nitrifying or meeting a low level of ammonia in
24
the past; and we calculate ammonia permit limit
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
90
1
protective of that water quality standard for
2
the stream.
3
MR. ETTINGER: Now, is that ammonia
4
water quality limit based on a toxicity of
5
ammonia?
6
MR. KELLER: Well, yes. The standard
7
is based on ammonia toxicity to aquatic life.
8
MR. ETTINGER: Do you make any
9
separate calculations as to how much BOD load
10
the ammonia will add to the water?
11
MR. KELLER: No. The water quality
12
standard does not take into account anything
13
like that.
14
MR. ETTINGER: Are you familiar with
15
how the 30 limits were chosen by the Board.
16
MR. KELLER: Not exactly. That was
17
about three months before I started that
18
actually.
19
MR. ETTINGER: I brought copies, but
20
I could tell you it was originally picked by a
21
Board decision made on March 7, 1972, which for
22
some reason or another it's not on Lexis and
23
I'm not sure how I came up with this, but you
24
might want to look at that.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
91
1
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Excuse me,
2
Mr. Ettinger, could you give us the rulemaking
3
number as well?
4
MR. ETTINGER: Yes. It was a little
5
confusing because there was three different
6
rules, R70-80, R71-14 and R71-20 -- I'm sorry
7
R70-8.
8
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Thank you.
9
MR. ETTINGER: Have you looked at the
10
technological capacities of sewage treatment
11
plants in Illinois?
12
MR. KELLER: Yes.
13
MR. ETTINGER: And you looked at the
14
cost?
15
MR. KELLER: We looked at the cost
16
only through the facility plant reviews where
17
engineers present that information for new
18
treatment plant expansions.
19
MR. ETTINGER: In general, do you
20
have any understanding as to how much it costs
21
to have a plant, say, produce CBOD level of 8
22
versus 10?
23
MR. KELLER: No. We never really
24
evaluated that.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
92
1
MR. ETTINGER: Do you know how much
2
it costs to go from 20 to 10?
3
MR. KELLER: From 20 to 10 would
4
basically require an additional unit of
5
filtration basically to try and physically
6
remove solids from the waste water and the
7
associated BOD.
8
Usually when you go from a 20 to a 10
9
effluent standards are in all cases basically.
10
There's also a low flow receiving stream and
11
you're also going to be nitrifying at that
12
facility with the discharge parts of the BOD.
13
MR. ETTINGER: I realize this varies
14
from plant to plant and varies over time, but
15
is there some rule of thumb you use in the
16
industry as to what the cost is?
17
MR. KELLER: Some of the recent small
18
sized plants from around a half million gallons
19
to one million gallons may cost and I would
20
have to really give you a range but it's
21
somewhere between 5 and $10 per gallon, I
22
believe. That's based on some prices we've
23
seen recently.
24
MR. ETTINGER: And you don't have any
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
93
1
information as to what the cost is of removing
2
CBOD on industrial facilities.
3
MR. KELLER: No. We've never been
4
involved with cost and industries like that.
5
It's more by them and there's no grant program
6
associated with those projects so ...
7
MS. LIU: Can I ask a clarifying
8
question?
9
MR. KELLER: Yes.
10
MS. LIU: You said 5 to $10 a gallon?
11
MR. KELLER: If you have a one main
12
gallon per day treatment plant, it may cost you
13
between 5 and 10 gallons -- $10 million rather.
14
And that's really a ball park number
15
depending on how much of the plant has to be
16
renovated and how much you can use at the
17
plant.
18
Recently, I have seen -- it cost
19
about $8 million for one main gallon per day
20
plant. And it was a brand new site so
21
everything was --
22
MR. TRISTANO: Is that a one-time
23
cost or --
24
MR. KELLER: That's the actual
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
94
1
construction cost. You also have your annual
2
operation maintenance cost and that plant
3
typically would be a 20 year design life.
4
MR. ETTINGER: Do you have any
5
information as to whether a plant that could
6
meet a 10 CBOD limit versus a 8 CBOD limit?
7
MR. KELLER: Typically, again,
8
depending on the actual load, a plant would
9
probably produce an eight part CBOD limit if
10
it's going to be versus 10.
11
The units in which you put out on the
12
field don't really refine that much. It goes
13
from 200 raw sewage to say 3 parts which is
14
equivalent to a secondary treatment.
15
Typically, most mechanical plants
16
will also produce a 20 and they'll produce a
17
30. And that's where your 10, 12 limits come
18
in or just the degree of magnitude.
19
MR. ETTINGER: If a plant already has
20
to nitrify because of ammonia toxicity could it
21
add much cost meaning a lower CBOD limit?
22
MR. KELLER: How low are you talking
23
about?
24
MR. ETTINGER: Let's say we have a
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
95
1
plant that had to nitrify and it qualifies for
2
a 20 CBOD not because of the pollution, but
3
because of either nitrify or ammonia, is it
4
likely to hit the 10 CBOD anyway?
5
MR. KELLER: No.
6
MR. ETTINGER: What extra equipment
7
would you need to hit the CBOD limit that you
8
would to remove a low ammonia?
9
MR. KELLER: You would need to remove
10
more solids and remove that associated BOD with
11
the solids.
12
MR. ETTINGER: I think I'm done for
13
today.
14
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Would you
15
identify, please?
16
MR. DUBIO: Dennis Dubio from Joliet,
17
Illinois. My question is for Mr. Keller.
18
Al, a plant that has had a permeant
19
process reduced since 1986 that would be
20
correct to assume it has a CBOD limit in its
21
permit?
22
MR. KELLER: Yes.
23
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Go ahead,
24
Mr. Ettinger.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
96
1
MR. ETTINGER: Is there anything in
2
this rule that requires that there be an
3
ammonia limit for you to use a CBOD limit as
4
opposed to BOD limit?
5
MR. KELLER: Not in this rulemaking,
6
no.
7
MR. ETTINGER: The wording of the
8
rule, I'm not sure I got the last one, is
9
interesting. It says compliance with the BOD
10
in numeric standard will be determined by the
11
analysis of the carbonation, (biochemical
12
oxygen demand), by that, do you mean to use 10
13
CBOD instead of 10 BOD.
14
MR. KELLER: We mean to use possibly
15
20 CBOD versus 20 BOD or 10 CBOD versus 10 BOD.
16
MR. ETTINGER: The wording is curious
17
in that it doesn't really set any sort of
18
conversion factor because it just seems to say
19
that you can substitute one for the other, but
20
that's the intention that you basically put a C
21
in front of the BOD?
22
MR. KELLER: Correct. It does also
23
recognize the last sentence, the Federal
24
Resister that we've passed in 1984, I believe,
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
97
1
as far as the definition of secondary
2
treatment.
3
MR. ETTINGER: Because if you went to
4
30 CBOD you violate the Federal law?
5
MR. KELLER: Correct.
6
MR. ETTINGER: That's all I have.
7
MR. RAO: I have a general question
8
regarding the economic impact of the proposed
9
regulations. In the statement of the Agency it
10
has indicated that the regular community to --
11
the impact on the regular community would be
12
minimal because the dischargers are already
13
complying with the proposed rules.
14
First, would you please clarify in
15
that statement you're referencing just to the
16
BETX standard or also referencing to the new
17
standard proposal for Nickel and Zinc?
18
MR. MOSHER: Well, anybody subjected
19
to the BETX water quality standards as
20
translated into impetus permit limits is
21
providing treatment.
22
Usually these are underground storage
23
tank, fuel tank, clean-up sites where the
24
ground water is being pumped to the surface,
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
98
1
treated and then discharged to the surface
2
water.
3
And the treatment methodologies used
4
now are adequate to meet the proposed
5
standards. As far as the Zinc and Nickel
6
standard goes, we, from our knowledge of metals
7
concentrations in effluents, we believe that
8
with the metals translator all the dischargers
9
that I'm aware of would meet the new Zinc and
10
Nickel dissolved water quality standards in the
11
receiving stream.
12
Cyanide, of course, we're raising the
13
standard so as far as economic impact there,
14
there could be a few cases positive for
15
dischargers in a way in economic impact.
16
So, again, generally changing total
17
metals to dissolve metals standards, there are
18
a few municipal dischargers in the state right
19
now that are having trouble with the copper
20
limits that we set based on the existing water
21
quality standard.
22
I know of four that have come to
23
light. We feel that the metals translator
24
procedure that would be allowable under this
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
99
1
new rule would benefit those dischargers that
2
they would now be shown to be meeting the
3
appropriate water quality standard in the
4
stream. And of course that's a positive
5
economic effect on those four dischargers.
6
MR. RAO: In reviewing the proposed
7
standards specifically Nickel and Zinc standard
8
that you proposed, based on the typical
9
hardness of 250 milligrams per liter the acute
10
standards for Nickel is 179 micrograms per
11
liter compared to 1000 micrograms per liter
12
which is the current standard.
13
So the difference -- the standard for
14
being reduced significantly. So are you saying
15
that most of the standards would be able to
16
meet the significantly lower standards without
17
upgrading their treatment plan?
18
MR. MOSHER: Yes, with the use of the
19
metals translator. Yes, I believe most of them
20
and I'm not aware of any that wouldn't so I'm
21
saying most of them would be able to meet the
22
new standard.
23
It is significantly lower. And,
24
again, remember that the Nickel and Zinc
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
100
1
standards came to us from the original Board
2
back in the early '70s before the science of
3
toxicity testing was really well established.
4
And if you go back to the record at
5
that time those values were established based
6
on the personal judgment of a few individuals.
7
And it wasn't much of a science back then.
8
MR. RAO: I have no problem with the
9
science or the basis of the standard. I just
10
wanted to get some information about how it
11
could impact the dischargers of complying with
12
the lower number.
13
MR. MOSHER: I'm certainly not aware
14
of any dischargers that I know would not be
15
able to meet these.
16
MR. RAO: I have a question for
17
Mr. Olsen. In deriving the numbers for BETX
18
compounds, in your calculations that you have
19
submitted in the exhibits, which are
20
attachments to your proposal, first you have to
21
use calculations based on Subpart E and Subpart
22
F procedures, and the final proposed numbers
23
were picked for -- some of them I think you
24
picked the calculations using Subpart F and for
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
101
1
some using Subpart E.
2
Can you explain what's the ratio the
3
Agency uses for using a specifically procedure?
4
MR. MOSHER: Well, when I calculate a
5
number I have to use Subpart F if it's a
6
general use water. If I do occasionally, I
7
don't think we've ever actually done it, but if
8
we did it for Lake Michigan, we would have to
9
use Subpart E.
10
But the Board can make a decision on
11
either one. So this is -- I guess I can say
12
we're getting a little work to do. But Subpart
13
E should be the better thing, but because of
14
time lag and so on we still have Subpart F.
15
You know, things have moved along a little bit
16
in the year since then. I would suggest that
17
we use Subpart E, but I think these are the
18
Board's rules so we have shown you the
19
calculations that are the suggestion.
20
MR. RAO: Because the actual values
21
that you calculated using Subpart E and Subpart
22
F, some of the number standards are higher than
23
the values that you calculated.
24
So are you saying it's up to the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
102
1
Board to look at those numbers and pick what we
2
think is appropriate?
3
MR. MOSHER: Well, since these are
4
Board standards, they are not -- you know, they
5
are a little bit beyond what we do. You tell
6
us how to do things when we do them on a
7
case-by-case basis for permits and over the
8
years, but if you're going to publish
9
something, then it's your standards, so we're
10
showing you what the calculations are and what
11
our recommendations are, but there's really, as
12
far as we're concerned and the USEPA is
13
concerned, I guess there's no stringent
14
pressure on you to do it one way or the other
15
way as far as -- the legal status of those
16
rules are. We know what our legal status is,
17
but, you know, we don't know exactly what your
18
legal status is.
19
MR. RAO: For example, the General
20
Use for chronic criterion for toluene was
21
calculated to be 230 micrograms per liter using
22
Subpart F and 600 micrograms per liter using
23
Subpart E and the proposed standard is 600
24
micrograms per liter.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
103
1
MR. OLSEN: Yes.
2
MR. RAO: So in this particular case,
3
are you saying the Board should look at both
4
the numbers and then decide which one to use?
5
MR. OLSEN: Yes.
6
MR. MOSHER: I think what we mean to
7
say in this proposal, we come out and propose
8
certain numbers. Those numbers in our
9
professional judgment are the numbers that we
10
would have the Board adopt.
11
The thing that Clark is trying to say
12
is when we use the existing Board regulations
13
we are held to Subpart F if it's a General Use
14
water and we derive on water quality criterion.
15
We have no choice. Those are your regulations.
16
But when we're proposing something to you,
17
we're not bound by that. We do the best method
18
that's available to us whether it's Subpart E,
19
Subpart F or because we've heard from USEPA
20
yesterday that they decided they found a new
21
scientific fact and we can take that and
22
propose it to you.
23
MR. RAO: If that's the case, would
24
it be possible for the Agency to take a look at
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
104
1
those numbers and give us a little bit more
2
scientific explanation as to why you picked one
3
number instead of the other, you know, just
4
looking at the number for toluene, we had a
5
Subpart E number, which is 230 micrograms per
6
liter which is significantly less than the
7
Subpart -- I'm sorry, the Subpart F number
8
which is 230 micrograms per liter is
9
significantly less than what you proposed as
10
the 600 micrograms per liter.
11
So if you can tell us what methods
12
you used to pick this higher number it would be
13
helpful to the Board to look at those.
14
MR. OLSEN: Could I comment just a
15
little bit more? I would suggest that what
16
we're doing is using arbitrary procedures. I
17
mean, in the end they have to be arbitrary, but
18
they are loosely tied -- they are tied in
19
general to what we think is safe in the water,
20
but we cannot say whether one is safer than the
21
other.
22
It's just that in the development of
23
Subpart E, it was felt that this seems to be a
24
little bit more reasonable and that's based on
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
105
1
the Great Lakes Initiative.
2
And I don't think there's anything
3
more than that because it's very hard to say
4
whether something is safe in the environment
5
because you're usually dealing with orders of
6
magnitude rather than a factor of several, two
7
or three fold. That's the way biology is.
8
We just cannot say whether something
9
is completely safe in the environment because
10
we cannot in fact even measure what safety is
11
in the environment.
12
MR. SOFAT: I think we will get back
13
to the Board on that question.
14
MR. RAO: I have a similar question
15
regarding the proposed Lake Michigan standards
16
for toluene and xylene. Both the proposed
17
standards for Lake Michigan are higher than the
18
General Use standards.
19
MR. OLSEN: Well --
20
MR. RAO: Let me look at the numbers
21
here. The proposed standards for toluene for
22
Lake Michigan is 610, chronic standard and the
23
proposed standards for toluene for General Use
24
is 600 micrograms.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
106
1
MR. OLSEN: Could I have the numbers
2
in front of me so I don't have to try to
3
remember them?
4
MR. RAO: Yes.
5
MR. OLSEN: Excuse me, again, we were
6
comparing chronic numbers?
7
MR. RAO: Both acute and chronic.
8
MR. OLSEN: Okay. I had some charts
9
that had these all nicely laid out, but
10
unfortunately they are not right in front of me
11
at this moment.
12
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Olsen,
13
maybe it would help if we just read this into
14
the record and when you have a chance to look
15
at this you can get back to us at the March
16
hearing.
17
MR. OLSEN: We could do that for the
18
March hearing.
19
MR. RAO: So you can take a look at
20
the proposed numbers for Lake Michigan --
21
MR. OLSEN: What I would like to do
22
is say that I admit that these numbers, you
23
know, bounce around, fluctuate around because
24
you're using these procedures that tell you in
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
107
1
a cookbook sort of way, well, you do this and
2
then you do this and then you do this.
3
And they just come out differently
4
when you do the different procedures. We would
5
probably suggest that the Board adopt Subpart E
6
just to cross the Board, but that's a long
7
process as you know to go through this Board
8
proceeding. So we're just suggesting that
9
probably Subpart E is the best way for you to
10
go. I can't do that down state, but you can do
11
that if you'd like because --
12
MR. RAO: Actually --
13
MR. OLSEN: -- that's your
14
privilege.
15
MR. RAO: -- my question regarding
16
those proposed standards were my understanding
17
was Lake Michigan standards were more stringent
18
than the General Use standards and since we
19
have higher numbers for Lake Michigan, I wanted
20
to know --
21
MR. OLSEN: Well, they should be, but
22
the trouble is the way you pick and choose the
23
data when you go through these procedures you
24
can come out with something that's different.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
108
1
That's the problem.
2
MR. MOSHER: I think what we'll try
3
to do is come up with a one-page table and show
4
each proposed standard and what its origin was
5
and then comment to why we went that route and
6
keep it all on one page.
7
We did try to do that in Attachment
8
F. It's, of course, very lengthy and complex,
9
but we'll produce that one-page table for you.
10
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Go ahead.
11
MR. POLLS: My name is Irwin Polls.
12
I have a follow-up on I guess it's Exhibit F
13
specifically under the derivation of the
14
ethylbenzene. It says in here regarding the
15
Illinois method that was used you used Tier II
16
rather than Tier I. This is for Mr. Olsen, is
17
that -- the reason was that you didn't have
18
enough species to use Tier I.
19
MR. OLSEN: That is correct. The
20
data base for ethylbenzene is rather meeker
21
compared to the other chemicals.
22
MR. POLLS: Now, for the chronic
23
standard, it states here that you use Tier III.
24
Can you explain the difference between Tier III
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
109
1
and Tier II?
2
MR. OLSEN: That's the default that
3
was under Subpart -- using Subpart F. That was
4
the default under Subpart F you can divide by
5
25. Actually, it gets more complicated.
6
MR. POLLS: So the Tier III, the
7
reason why you're using Tier III is because you
8
did not have enough data to use Tier I or Tier
9
II?
10
MR. OLSEN: That's correct. If you
11
have an acute to chronic ratio that gives a
12
good idea of some relationship between those
13
two, but we don't even have that for
14
ethylbenzene under the way the rules are
15
written so we use the default.
16
MR. POLLS: So actually the acute to
17
the chronic ratio was not for ethylbenzene?
18
MR. OLSEN: It's a default acute to
19
chronic ratio I should say.
20
MR. POLLS: Which is called Tier III?
21
MR. OLSEN: Yes.
22
MR. POLLS: Now, is that also used
23
for the chronic standard for xylene, it says
24
here --
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
110
1
MR. OLSEN: I'm not sure. I couldn't
2
quite hear you. There's a little noise
3
outside.
4
MR. POLLS: Under total xylene, is
5
this the default method the same default method
6
that was used for calculating the chronic for
7
ethylbenzene?
8
MR. OLSEN: Yeah -- no. We could
9
have used the Subpart F default, but we went
10
ahead and just used the Subpart E. So, again,
11
there's a matter of choice, but what we just
12
presented here is a Subpart E because it seemed
13
very reasonable. It was a -- it looked like a
14
typical kind of ACA.
15
MR. POLLS: How can you explain in
16
the summary in Exhibit F under total xylene, it
17
says the chronic data says it's an inadequate
18
calculation criteria for General Use except by
19
the default method.
20
So what you're saying you did not use
21
the default method in xylene?
22
MR. OLSEN: There were ACRs, but
23
there wasn't enough for a Tier I, which is very
24
seldom that you find that.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
111
1
MR. RAO: The last question, this is
2
regarding the conversion factor for cadmium
3
under Section 302.504.
4
I think there is a typographical
5
error in the conversion factor if you can take
6
a look at it and make sure you have the right
7
numbers?
8
MR. MOSHER: Okay. We'll do that.
9
MR. RAO: Thank you.
10
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Are there
11
any further questions for the Agency?
12
MR. ETTINGER: We're looking for
13
another typo.
14
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Can we go
15
off the record for a second?
16
(A short break in proceedings.)
17
Back on.
18
MR. ETTINGER: 302.575 B, we think
19
there's an I missing at the last word after
20
tropic level.
21
MR. OLSEN: Yes, that's correct.
22
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Are there
23
any other questions?
24
MR. POLLS: For the record, when you
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
112
1
calculated the acute and chronic standards for
2
BETX, the only data that was used was for
3
warm-water species, all cold-water species were
4
removed in the database when you were looking
5
at General Use?
6
MR. OLSEN: Yes.
7
MR. POLLS: Thank you.
8
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Anything
9
further?
10
Okay. There's a second hearing
11
scheduled for March 6, 2002, in Springfield,
12
Illinois at Room 403, that's the Board's office
13
in Springfield in our hearing room there.
14
The purpose of the hearing will be to
15
continue to offer additional comments and
16
testimony and we will again probably start with
17
Agency follow-up testimony before proceeding
18
with the pre-filed testimony at that time.
19
Testimony should be pre-filed by
20
February 20th and served on the service list at
21
that time, and I will allow the mailbox rule to
22
apply, so simply just place them in the mail on
23
February 20th.
24
Are there any other questions?
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
113
1
MR. ETTINGER: We had a few questions
2
about these Tier things, should we do those in
3
writing?
4
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Why don't
5
you do those in writing on February 20th as
6
well and then the Agency can respond at the
7
March 6th hearing.
8
If anyone else has technical
9
questions or additional questions for the
10
Agency, if they would like to submit them in
11
writing that they would do it by the February
12
20th date.
13
I'm sure it will be very helpful to
14
the Agency to prepare for the March 6th
15
hearing.
16
I want to thank you all for your
17
attention and your cooperation. This has been
18
a good hearing. Thank you very much. We are
19
adjourned.
20
21
(Whereupon, these were all the
22
proceedings had at this time.)
23
24
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
114
1
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
2
) SS:
3
COUNTY OF C O O K )
4
5
I FRANCINE BUONAVOLANTO being first
6
duly sworn,on oath says that she is a court
7
reporter doing business in the City of Chicago;
8
and that she reported in shorthand the
9
proceedings of said hearing, and that the
10
foregoing is a true and correct transcript of
11
her shorthand notes so taken as aforesaid, and
12
contains the proceedings given at said hearing.
13
14
______________________________
15
Certified Shorthand Reporter
16
17
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO
18
before me this______day
19
of________________, 2002.
20
21
22
_______________________
23
Notary Public
24
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292