ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February 24, 2005
IN THE MATTER OF:
CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION and
)
PDV MIDWEST REFINING, L.L.C.,
Petitioners,
vs.
)
PCB 05-85
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent
Report of proceedings had at the Illinois
Pollution Control Board Hearing, held at 100 West
Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois, on the 24th day of
February, A.D., 2005, commencing at the hour of
9:00 a.m.
Page 2
1 APPEARANCES:
2
Mr. Bradley P. Halloran
Mr. Anand Rao
3
Ms. Alisa Liu, P.E.
(Illinois Pollution Control Board)
4
100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11-500
5
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 814-8917
6
Mr. Jeffrey C. Fort
7
Ms. Letissa Carver Reid
(Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, LLP)
8
233 South Wacker Drive
Suite 8000
9
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(312) 876-2380
10
Mr. James A. Day
11
Mr. Darin E. LeCrone
Mr. Scott A. Twait
12
(Illinois Environmental Protection Agency)
1021 North Grand Avenue East
13
Springfield, Illinois 62794
(217) 782-0610
14
ALSO PRESENT: Ms. Brigitte Postel
15
Mr. James E. Huff, P.E.
Mr. Claude W. Harmon
16
Ms. Stacy Ford
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page 3
1
INDEX
2
3 WITNESS
PAGE
4
5 MR. CLAUDE W. HARMON
6
Examination by Ms. Carver Reid
17
7
8 MR. JAMES E. HUFF, P.E.
9
Examination by Ms. Carver Reid
27
10
11
EXHIBITS
12
13 PETITIONERS’ EXHIBIT
PAGE
14
No. 1 through 15
18
15
16
17
18
1~9
20
21
22
23
24
Page 4
MR. HALLORAN: We’re on the record.
Good morning, everybody. My name is Bradley
Halloran. I’m a hearing officer with the
Illinois Pollution Control Board, also
assigned to this matter. It’s entitled
--
It’s PCB 05-85, CITGO Petroleum Corporation
and PDV Midwest Refining, L.L.C., are the
petitioners, vs. The Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency, the respondent.
Today is February 24th, 2005.
It’s approximately 9:05. I don’t see any
members of the public here that are not
affiliated with the parties, so we’ll move
on. I do want to introduce Ms. Alisa L±Uand
Anand Rao from my technical unit.
MS. FORD: I’m not .affiliated with a
MR.
MS.
MR.
MS.
MR.
Ms.
HALLORAN: And you’re from Exxon?
FORD: Mobil
HALLORAN: Mobil. But you’re a
Okay. Fine. And your name?
FORD: Stacy Ford.
HALLORAN: F-O-R-D?
FORD: F-O-R-D.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
party
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
member
Page 5
1
MR. HALLORAN: Do you wish to make any
2
kind of public comment or statement?
3
MS. FORD: No.
4
MR. HALLORAN: Thank you. We’re going
b
5
to run this hearing pursuant to Section 104,
6
Subpart B, and Section 101, Subpart F, of tli.e
7
Board’s procedural provisions. I also want
8
to note for the record that this hearing was
9
properly noticed. This hearing is intended
10
to develop a record for the Pollution Control
11
Board. I will not be making the ultimate
12
decision in this case. I’m here to rule on
13
any evidentiary matters and make sure the
14
hearing goes without a hitch.
15
With that said
--
But I do want to
16
note that this hearing has been changed from
17
Room 11-512. We are now in Room 5-85, and
18
it’s been properly noticed all through the
19
hallway. And I apologize we had to change
20
rooms; I didn’t realize this many people were
21
going to show. This is beyond my
22
expectations from the parties. But in any
23
event, here we are. I apologize for the
24
tight quarters.
Page 6
1
But with that said, would the
2
parties like to introduce themselves?
3
Ms. Carver Reid?
4
MS. CARVER REID: Letissa Carver Reid
5
and Jeffrey Fort of the law firm
6
Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, 8000 Sears
7
Tower, Chicago 60606, on behalf of the
8
petitioners, CITGO Petroleum Corp. and PDV
9
Midwest Refining, L.L.C.
10
MR. HALLORA.N: Thank you. Mr. Day?
11
MR. DAY: James Day. I’m from the
12
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
13
division of legal counsel, representing the
14
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. We
15
have here, also on behalf of the Agency,
16
Mr. Darin LeCrone and Mr. Scott Twait.
17
MR. HALLORAN: Thank you very much.
18
We’ll just proceed as a normal hearing in
19
this matter. Mr. Fort has suggested he wants
20
to do an opening, and, Mr. Day, you have the
21
opportunity as well.
22
Mr. Fort?
23
MR. FORT: Thank you, Mr. Hearing
24
Officer. CITGO
--
Or the petitioners, CITGO
Page 7
and PDV Midwest, appreciate the opportunity
to be before the Board and the Agency and
working with both agencies on this project.
The variance that we are seeking
is part of a significant project by CITGO for
environmental improvement. As the record
shows, CITGO has entered into a consent
agreement with U.S. EPA in four states,
including Illinois. The Lemont Refinery is
among three of the refineries covered by this
consent decree
The consent decree calls for
significant emission reductions from these
sources owned and/or operated by CITGO and
related entities. A major part of the
substantial reduction in sulfur dioxide
nitrous oxide emissions required in that
consent decree will come at the Lemont
Refinery. So this project, overall project,
has a significant environmental benefit to
the people of the State of Illinois, and
CITGO is firmly committed to meeting its
obligations under that consent decree.
This variance deals with total
and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page 8
1
dissolved solids in the wastewater and is
2
required only because of additions of total
3
dissolved solids to the Chicago Ship Canal
4
and Illinois River that arise completely
5
separate from and independent of the present
6
or future discharges of TDS by the CITGO
7
Lemont Refinery.
8
CITGO has included a substantial
9
amount of equipment in its design and
10
adjusted its design to minimize the
11
environmental effects of its wastewater
12
discharges from the wet gas scrubber, which
13
is the principal air emission reduction
14
technology being employed under the consent
15
decree. CITGO has been able to modify the
16
design and to achieve compliance with all
17
other wastewater parameters except for total
18
dissolved solids. And the TDS issue is not
19
caused by CITGO or the consent decree, but by
20
the snowmelt from road deicing activities.
21
As the Board knows, the test for
22
variance relief is whether or not the burden
23
on the petitioner outweighs the adverse
24
effect on the public. Here we believe the
Page 9
1
record will show that there is no adverse
2
effect on the public as a result of grant of
3
this variance, yet there would be a
4
substantial burden on the petitioner if this
5
variance is not granted.
6
There is no adverse effect from
7
the sulfate or TDS levels that are projected
8
to result from the wet gas scrubber. IEPA,
9
in fact, is evaluating doing a water quality
10
rule change in light of these findings, which
11
we’ve included as Exhibit 10 to our evidence
12
here.
13
The relative effect of the TDS
14
discharge here is within the sampling
15
sensitivity of the instrumentation to sample
16
for TDS. We can do a mass balance
17
calculation, and we know that due to
18
snowmelt, there had been elevated levels of
19
TDS in the Illinois River. One cannot model
20
and verify it just because of the variability
21
in the sampling instruments.
And
Jim Huff’s
22
testimony will address that further.
23
Most importantly, there’s no
24
practical alternative to avoid the TDS and
Page 10
1
the discharge from the wet gas scrubber. We
2
approached IEPA about doing a deep well
3
injection, and that was rejected. CITGO
4
investigated sewering the discharge either to
5
the MSD, who told us they did not have the
6
capacity to handle the discharge, and the
7
existing wastewater treatment plant at the
8
refinery also does not have the capability of
9
handling this discharge from the wet gas
10
scrubber.
11
Existing tankage at the refinery
12
is not adequate nor available during the
13
runoff conditions, the very time that there
14
may be an issue in the Illinois River; and
15
that is, in part, due to upgrading of runoff
16
patterns in residential developments. Again,
17
Jim Huff’s testimony and Exhibit 5 are going
18
to go to those factors.
19
CITGO is under a very tight
20
compliance schedule for the Lemont Refinery
21
and subject to stipulated penalties by
22
U.S. EPA in Illinois under the consent decree
23
if we do not make that schedule, and the
24
schedule is included as Exhibit 2. Time is
Page 11
1
lacking to do a refiling of the variance
2
petition with all the details requested even
3
though most of those details have been
4
discussed with the air division and the water
5
permitting division of Illinois EPA before we
6
filed this variance.
7
We requested a hearing in order to
8
expedite the Board ruling on this request and
9
to stay on schedule under the consent decree.
10
And we do appreciate the Agency and the Board
11
working on this tight schedule with us.
12
We’ve worked closely with IEPA and believe
13
they will issue a favorable recommendation
14
based upon the additional information and
15
additions provided in this record with
16
respect to this variance petition.
17
All the information that has been
18
provided informally to the Agency is included
19
in our exhibits and testimony today, and I
20
would particularly call your attention to
21
Exhibits 2 through 6. We had several
22
discussions with the Agency about the
23
conditions for this variance. The language
24
in Exhibit 7 was modified from that presented
Page 12
in a petition to address the Agency comments.
The Board questions anticipated
many of the facts that we were going to
present. We revised our presentation to be
responsive to the specific questions raised
by the Board and to the questions raised by
the Agency’s recommendation. And that comes
in the testimony of Mr. Harmon and Mr. Huff.
The revised compliance plan
focuses on a continued monitoring and
fine-tuning of the extent of TDS issues in
the Illinois River. This provides data that
is not otherwise routinely collected by IEPA
and we believe will enhance the understanding
of the snowmelt conditions. We believe this
will provide information that the Agency
might not otherwise have the funding to
undertake and could lead to better
understanding of the snowmelt phenomenon and
perhaps yield ideas on how to reduce that
impact
During this time, CITGO will be
evaluating ways to restrict its discharge
during those events. We project being in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page 13
1
compliance, through whatever method becomes
2
necessary, within the five-year period of
3
this variance.
4
To answer a couple of the
5
questions of the Board, the relief is just
6
for TDS, total dissolved solids, not for
7
sulfates. The refinery address is 135th
8
Street and New Avenue in Lemont. Before the
9
site-specific rule change was adopted, the
10
refinery, then owned by Unical (phonetic),
11
underwent a series of variances relating to
12
ammonia nitrogen. Those variances led to and
13
were resolved by the site-specific effluent
14
standard at 35 Illinois Administrative
15
Code 304.213 for ammonia nitrogen, which were
16
adopted in rule-making proceedings, R84-13,
17
R93-8, and R98-14.
18
Last of all, we would ask the
19
Agency to confirm that they support the
20
variance and the conditions being presented
21
today based on this record.
22
MR. HALLORAN: Thank you, Mr. Fort.
23
Mr. Day?
24
MR. DAY: I would like to take this
Page 14
1
opportunity to clarify some of the procedural
2
history and how that relates to the Agency’s
3
current position with respect to the
4
petition. At this point, at the opening of
5
the hearing, I am unable to grant Mr. Fort’s
6
request that the Agency state its support for
7
the petition.
8
As required by the Illinois
9
Environmental Protection Act and the rules
10
promulgated thereunder, our agency did
11
complete a review of this petition, and we
12
found two marked defects that prevented us
13
from recommending that the petition be
14
granted. The first of those, which of course
15
was noted in our recommendation for denial,
16
was that the consent order relied upon for
17
the justifications for seeking this variance
18
did not appear to be final or entered by a
19
court as the petition stood as filed.
20
Secondly, the compliance plan
21
included in the petition was lacking. That
22
compliance plan appeared at pages 11 and 12
23
of the original petition.
24
Based on those two issues, as
Page 15
1
Mr. Fort described, we’ve been in
2
communication with the applicant, the
3
petitioner, for many weeks now; and we have
4
had the opportunity to negotiate and review
5
all of the evidence and testimony which is
6
expected to be provided today.
7
Assuming that those exhibits meet
8
with our expectations and the testimony
9
follows what we’ve been led to expect, it is
10
a safe presumption that at the close of
11
today’s hearing, our agency will be in
12
support of this petition.
13
MR. HALLORAN: Okay. Thank you.
14
And with that said, I do want to
15
add that our technical unit has been
16
feverishly wading through the prefiled
17
testimony that was filed on February 17th,
18
and it may be necessary during the
19
posthearing briefing that they may have
20
additional questions regarding the prefiled
21
testimony or the testimony that’s about to
22
take place today. So I just want to let
23
everybody know that.
24
With that said, Ms. Carver Reid,
Page 16
1
do you want to address the prefiled
2
testimony?
3
MS. CARVER REID: Actually, we’d like
4
to enter the prefiled testimony of Mr. Claude
5
Harmon and Mr. James Huff, have it
6
transcribed into the record as if read here
7
today, so that we can be expeditious in this
8
matter and avoid delay by reading the actual
9
testimony that’s already been filed into the
10
record.
11
MR. HALLORAN:
And
you’ll give the
12
court reporter a copy of that?
13
MS. CARVER REID: Yes.
14
MR. HALLORAN: Mr. Day, do you have
15
any objection to that?
16
MR. DAY: No, I don’t.
17
MR. HALLORAN: Sure. That will be
18
done. We’ll give the prefiled testimony to
19
the court reporter, and she can transcribe it
20
into the record as if read.
21
MS. CARVER REID: Actually, I’d like
22
to swear in the witnesses and just have them
23
verify the content of the testimony.
24
MR. HALLORAN: Sure.
Page 17
1
MS. CARVER REID: Our first witness is
2
going to be Mr. Claude Harmon.
3
(Witness sworn.)
4 WHEREUPON:
5
CLAUDE W.
HARMON
6 called as a witness herein, having been first duly
7 sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
8
EXAMINATION
9 BY MS. CARVER REID:
10
Q.
Mr. Harmon, will you state your name
11 and spell your last name for the record?
12
A.
My name is Claude Harmon, H-A-R-M-O-N.
13
Q.
By whom are you currently employed?
14
A.
CITGO Petroleum Corporation.
15
Q.
Will you please state your business
16 address?
L
17
A.
135th Street and New Avenue, Lemont,
18 Illinois.
19
Q.
And the zip code?
20
A.
60439.
21
Q.
Mr. Harmon, what is your current title
22 at CITGO?
23
A.
I’m the environmental manager at the
24 Lemont Refinery.
Page 18
1
Q.
And how long have you been in that
2 position?
3
A.
Since ‘94.
4
Q.
Was your testimony prefiled in this
5 matter on February 17th, 2005?
6
A.
Yes.
7
Q.
Is this that same prefiled testimony?
8
A.
Yes.
9
Q.
Do you verify that your prefiled
10 testimony is true and correct?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
Exhibits marked 1 through 15 were
13 filed in support of your prefiled testimony. Do you
14 verify that the contents of Exhibit 1 through 15 is
15 true and correct?
16
A.
Yes.
17
MS. CARVER REID: At this time we
18
request that the prefiled testimony of Claude
19
Harmon be transcribed into the record as if
20
read.
21
MR. HALLORAN: Any objection, Mr. Day?
22
MR. DAY: No.
23
MR. HALLORAN: So be it.
24
Page 19
1
TESTIMONY OF CLAUDE
HARMON
2
My name is Claude Harmon. My current position
3 is Environmental Manager for the Lemont Refinery.
4 have had this responsibility since August 1994. I
5 have been in the environmental field for 30 years
6 including 16 years with the Illinois Central
7 Railroad, two years with Morton International and
8 12 years at the Lemont Refinery, which was first
9 owned by UNO-VEN when I began and is now operated by
10 CITGO. I received a Bachelor of Science degree in
11 Environmental Biology from Eastern Illinois
12 University. I am affiliated with various
13 environmental committees. I am a member of the
14 National Petroleum Refiners Association. I am a
15 member of the Illinois Association of Environmental
16 Professionals. I am also a Certified Hazardous
17 Materials Manager with the National Registry of
18 Environmental Professionals.
19
The purpose of my testimony is to describe the
20 current efforts by CITGO and the Lemont Refinery to
21 reduce the Lemont Refinery’s air and water
22 emissions. The Illinois Pollution Control Board
23 (the “Board”) already is aware of the Lemont
24 Refinery’s efforts to achieve the ammonia nitrogen
Page 20
1 standard through regulatory proceedings (R84-13,
2 P33-8 and R98-l4), which led to the current
3 site-specific limitation for ammonia nitrogen for
4 the Lemont Refinery at 35 IAC 304.213. Last fall,
5 CITGO and PDV Midwest Refining, L.L.C. (collectively
6 referred to as “CITGO”) completed negotiations with
7 U.S. EPA and the environmental authorities for
8 Illinois, Georgia, Louisiana, and New Jersey to
9 substantially reduce emissions of 502 and NOx, by
10 23,000 and 7,000 tons respectively, from three
11 refineries including the Lemont Refinery and two
12 asphalt plants. For the Lemont Refinery, the
13 estimated SO2 and NOx emission reductions are 15,000
14 and 1,100 tons respectively. That agreement was
15 embodied in a consent decree that was approved on
16 January 26, 2005; a copy of that signed consent
17 decree is submitted as Exhibit 1.
18
The consent decree includes an ambitious
19 construction and compliance schedule for the Lemont
20 Refinery. To achieve the necessary reductions, the
21 Lemont Refinery must install a wet gas scrubber in
22 the Fluidized Catalytic Cracking Unit (“FCCU”), as
23 well as substantial support equipment and controls.
24 This requires a major construction project extending
Page 21
approximately 20 months. Exhibit 2 is a copy of the
compliance schedule for the Lemont Refinery to
comply with the consent decree. Stipulated
penalties and other sanctions may be imposed if
CITGO does not meet the consent decree schedule.
As described in our variance petition,, to meet
the emission requirements of the consent decree, we
are installing the wet gas scrubber in the FCCU, as
well as other equipment at the Lemont Refinery.
(See Exhibit 3 (construction permit drawings
depicting the new equipment to be installed and a
description of the same.)) The result is to
increase the amount of total dissolved solids
(“TDS”) in the Lemont Refinery treated wastewater.
Exhibit 4 is a copy of the Variance Petition filed
in this matter on November 8, 2q04, which contains
further information
One of the critical path items is to obtain a
construction permit from the water division of
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“IEPA”)
Exhibit 5 is a copy of the application for that
construction permit. On December 3, 2004, we
submitted that construction permit application,
consistent with the overall construction schedule.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page 22
1 In preliminary conversations with the water division
2 of IEPA, we learned of two critical issues that pose
3 challenges for the consent decree schedule. First,
4 IEPA will not grant the construction permit without
5 also issuing a modified National Pollutant Discharge
6 Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit. Second,
7 because there has been an exceedance of the TDS
8 standard in the past, in association with snowmelt
9 runoff, carrying road salt and similar compounds
10 into the streams, IEPA could not issue a NPDES
11 permit for this project unless CITGO obtained a
12 variance from the Board. Hence, the variance
13 petition was filed soon after the consent decree was
14 announced publicly.
15
The Board has before it that variance petition.
16 I will not repeat what we already have presented in
17 this record. But I will respond to some of the
18 questions propounded by the Board, as well as
19 confirm certain information that we presented to
20 IEPA since we began this petition process.
21
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY
22
(Responses to Board Questions 4a, 4b)
23
No specific projects are being developed that
24 would increase the production rate, hence there is
Page 23
no impact on the amount of TDS and sulfates
discharged
The chemical used in the wet gas scrubbing
process was described as “Caustic” in the
construction permit application submitted to IEPA in
December 2004 (Exhibit 5)
.
“Caustic” references a
Sodium Hydroxide solution
PROJECTED WATER QUALITY IMPACTS
(Responses to Board Questions 6a, 6b, 6c, 6d)
TDS tests for the wastewater treatment plant
(“WWTP”) discharge are run on a weekly basis. Below
are monthly averages for year 2004:
Yr 2004
TDS (ppm)
January
2493
February
2644
March
2183
April
2244
May
1977
June
1474
July
1680
August
1504
September
1699
October
2003
November
1948
December
1597
Sulfate is not a parameter that is routinely
tested for the WWTP discharge.
The proposed design flow rate was described in
the construction permit application submitted to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page 24
1 IEPA in December 2004 (Exhibit 5)
.
The expected
2 concentrations of both TDS and sulfates in the purge
3 water from the wet gas scrubber were described in
4 the construction permit application submitted to
5 IEPA in December 2004 (Exhibit 5)
.
Projected
6 increases in both TDS and sulfates in the discharge
7 after the wet gas scrubber begins operation are
8 described in James Huff’s December 2004 report
9 “Impact of CITGO’s Proposed Discharge on Water
10 Quality” (Exhibit 6.)
11
DETAILED COMPLIANCE PLAN
12
(Responses to Board Questions 9a, 9b)
13
The proposed wet gas scrubber will impact the
14 TDS and sulfate levels in the refinery’s effluent
15 once the unit becomes operational. The expected
16 concentrations of both TDS and sulfates in the
17 discharge are described in James Huff’s December
18 2004 report “Impact of CITGO’s Proposed Discharge on
19 Water Quality” (Exhibit 6) and the construction
20 permit application submitted to IEPA in December
21 2004 (Exhibit 5)
22
The negotiated compliance plan, completed to
23 the satisfaction of IEPA, has been submitted to the
24 Board as Exhibit 7. The proposed TDS compliance
Page 25
1 plan requires that extensive TDS data be taken from
2 the Des Plaines River at the 1-55 Bridge during the
3 winter months. Following two seasons of stream
4 testing, the Lemont Refinery will be able to size
5 the required holding tank or basin for the wet gas
6 scrubber discharge during periods of high salinity.
7 The project for the retention system would commence
8 by March 1, 2009. The project would be completed by
9 the winter season beginning December 1, 2009.
10
OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
11
(Response to Board Question lOf)
12
Currently, the only option for a managed
13 release program would entail using the storm water
14 basin (“SWB”) for retention. The SWB is used to
15 collect site storm water runoff and drainage from
16 naturally existing waterways. Over the last few
17 years, a pronounced increase in storm water volume
18 has occurred due to residential developments near
19 the northwest facility boundary. The runoff from
20 these developments feeds into the naturally existing
21 waterways that terminate within the Lemont
22 Refinery’s boundaries and ultimately end up in the
23 SWB. Due to a special condition in the Groundwater
24 Management Zone Approval Letter, issued by the
Page 26
Bureau of Water Permit section, the SWB water level
must be managed below l2’9” due to the groundwater
gradient. Because of the existing difficulties
associated with managing the water level below 12’9”
with the additional burden created by the increased
storm water runoff volume from residential
developments, to try to retain the wet gas scrubber
effluent during periods of snowmelt and deicing
would not be a viable option at this time. However,
strategies to divert the residential runoff prior to
crossing the Lemont Refinery boundaries are being
pursued. If a diversion project is implemented,
retention of the wet gas scrubber effluent (due to
snowmelt conditions) in the SWB may be feasible.
MS. CARVER REID: We have a second
witness that I’d also like to verify, do the
same and verify his testimony as well.
MR. HALLORAN: Okay. Do you want to
do that now? Or I thought we’d take care of
Mr. Harmon first and then
--
Let’s take care
of Mr. Harmon first
Do you have any direct, such as it
is, of Mr. Harmon?
MS. CARVER REID: No, I don’t.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page 27
MR. HALLORAN: Mr. Day?
MR. DAY: No questions for Mr. Harmon.
MR. HALLORAN: I’m going to turn it
over to the technical unit, Mr. Rao or
Ms. Liu.
MR. FORT: If I could just make a
point here, it may be that some of the
questions that are directed at Mr. Harmon,
Mr. Huff is going to be also
--
or maybe even
in a better position to answer, because they
worked together on this project.
MR. HALLORAN: Let’s swear him in.
(Witness sworn.)
WHEREUPON:
JAMES E. HUFF, P.E.
called as a witness herein, having been first duly
sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
EXAMINATION
BY MS. CARVER REID
Q.
Mr. Huff, will you please state your
name and spell your last name for the record?
A.
James E. Huff, H-U-F-F
Q.
By whom are you currently employed?
A.
The consulting firm Huff & Huff, Inc.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page 28
1
Q.
Will you please state the business
2 address for Huff & Huff, Inc.?
3
A.
512 West Burlington Avenue, LaGrange,
4 Illinois 60525.
5
Q.
And can you tell us when Huff & Huff,
6 Inc., was founded?
7
A.
1979.
8
Q.
Mr. Huff, was your prefiled testimony
9 filed in this matter on February 17th, 2005?
10
A.
My understanding, yes.
11
Q.
Is this a copy of that same prefiled
12 testimony?
13
A.
Yes, it is.
14
Q.
Do you verify that your prefiled
15 testimony is true and correct?
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
As you are aware, Exhibits 1 through
18 15 were filed in support of your prefiled testimony.
19 Do you verify that the contents of Exhibits 1
20 through 15 is true and correct?
21
A.
To the best of my knowledge, yes.
22
MS. CARVER REID: At this time we
23
request that the prefiled testimony of
24
James E. Huff be transcribed into the record
Page 29
1
as if read.
2
MR. HALLORAN: Mr. Day, any objection?
3
MR. DAY: No.
4
TESTIMONY OF JAMES E. HUFF
5
My name is James E. Huff. I am Vice President
6 and part owner of Huff & Huff, Inc., an
7 environmental consulting firm founded in 1979. I
8 received a Bachelor of Science in Chemical
9 Engineering in 1970 from Purdue University and was
10 awarded a Masters of Science in Engineering from the
11 Environmental Engineering Department at Purdue
12 University in 1971. I am a registered Professional
13 Engineer in Illinois as well as in New Jersey.
14
I currently serve on the Board of Directors for
15 the American Council of Engineering Companies-IL and
16 served three years as Chair of the Illinois
17 Environmental Protection Agency Liaison Committee
18 for the same organization. I also serve on the
19 Illinois Statewide Nutrient Science Committee, which
20 is charged with proposing state nutrient standards,
21 and am the lead consultant for the Northeastern
22 Illinois Planning Commission (“NIPC”) for evaluating
23 Facility Planning Amendment requests for consistency
24 with NIPC’s Water Quality Management Plan.
Page 30
My work experience includes two years with
Mobil Oil as an Advanced Environmental Engineer
during the construction and start-up of the Joliet
Refinery. My responsibilities at the Joliet
Refinery included the construction oversight and
start-up of the wastewater treatment facilities,
technical support for the wastewater treatment
including sampling, discharge monitoring reports,
and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(“NPDES”) permit preparation. From this experience,
I am familiar with refinery operations and the
associated wastewater treatment, as well as the
Des Plaines River
After leaving Mobil in the fall of 1973, I was
employed for three years at ITT Research Institute
in the Chemical Engineering Department, working on
advanced wastewater treatment projects including
catalytic oxidation of cyanide in petroleum
wastewaters. I also assisted in preparing the
Economic Impact/Cost-Benefit Analysis on a proposed
total dissolved solids (“TDS”) rule change in
Illinois. I then spent four years with Armak
Company, now called Akzo Nobel Chemicals. I was the
Corporate Manager of Environmental Affairs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page 31
1 responsible for regulatory compliance and
2 engineering design of environmental systems at nine
3 manufacturing facilities in the United States and
4 Canada including fatty amines plants in McCook and
5 Morris, Illinois.
.6
For the last 25 years at Huff & Huff, Inc., I
7 have been involved in over 30 environmental impact
8 studies associated with the impact of wastewater
9 discharges on receiving streams throughout the
10 United States. Some of these studies have involved
11 TDS, sulfates, and chlorides. Surveys I have been
12 involved with in Illinois have included the
13 following streams: Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal,
14 Des Plaines River, Casey Fork Creek, Aux Sable
15 Creek, Flint Creek, Mill Creek, Thorn Creek, Kent
16 Creek, Fox River, Mississippi River, Deer Run Creek,
17 Salt Fork of the Saline River, Cedar Creek, Tyler
18 Creek, Kishwaukee River. These stream surveys have
19 included water quality, fish, macroinvertebrate,
20 mussels and sediment quality. I also have completed
21 mixing zone studies on the large streams listed
22 above.
23
I have worked with the Lemont Refinery for the
24 past 22 years on various wastewater issues including
Page 32
1 two adjusted standards relating to ammonia, a mixing
2 zone study, collection of macroinvertebrates in the
3 Ship Canal, modeling of ammonia from the Lemont
4 Refinery all the way down the Illinois River,
5 preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention
6 Plan for the Lemont Refinery, and preparation of
7 environmental training modules for a variety of
8 subjects.
9
I have been retained by CITGO Petroleum
10 Corporation’s Lemont Refinery to assist in the
11 evaluation of alternatives for the wastewater stream
12 generated by the new FCC wet gas scrubber,
13 identifying water quality impacts, preparing the
14 construction permit and NPDES permit modification
15 applications, and providing technical support on the
16 variance petition. A copy of my resume is presented
17 in Exhibit 8.
18
Presented herein is a description of the areas
19 I have investigated that are related to the variance
20 petition, which incorporates questions raised by the
21 Illinois Pollution Control Board (the “Board”) and
22 Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“IEPA” or
23 the “Agency”) in these same areas.
24
Page 33
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
The requested variance is for TDS in the
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and the Des Plaines
River. The wet gas scrubber discharge will contain
significant sodium sulfate, which essentially is the
source of the TDS subject to the variance request.
To the 1-55 Bridge, the Des Plaines River is
classified as a Secondary Contact waterway with a
TDS water quality standard of 1,500 mg/L. From the
1-55 Bridge downstream, the Des Plaines River is
classified as General Use with a TDS water quality
standard of 1,000 mg/L
There are no water quality standards on sodium.
The sulfate General Use water quality standard is
500 mg/L. There is no Secondary Contact water
quality standard for sulfate. The proposed
discharge will not cause or contribute to a sulfate
water quality exceedance, and therefore a variance
for the sulfate component is not requested.
EXISTING WATER QUALITY DATA
(Responses to Board Questions 7a and lOb; IEPA
Recommendation Comments 15 and 19)
The Lemont Refinery has collected TDS samples
from the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal weekly from
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page 34
1 1998 to 2005. Exhibit 9 presents these eight-plus
2 years of data, collected upstream of the Lemont
3 Refinery’s wastewater discharge. To date, no TDS
4 water quality exceedances were recorded in 1998,
5 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2005. In 2002,
6 one exceedance occurred on March 8, 2002 when a TDS
7 level of 1,636 mg/L was recorded.
8
A previously submitted document entitled
9 “Impact of CITGO’s Proposed Discharge on Water
10 Quality” (Exhibit 6) contains TDS data collected by
11 the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of
12 Greater Chicago (“MWRDGC”) on the same waterway from
13 2000 to 2002. At the Lockport Lock & Dam,
14 downstream of the Lemont Refinery outfall, on TDS
15 exceedance (1,595 mg/L) was documented on January 4,
16 2001.. (The Lemont Refinery recorded 1,408 mg/L on
17 January 5, 2001.) At the next station, Jefferson
18 Street in Joliet, one TDS exceedance (1,535 mg/L)
19 was recorded on February 24, 2000. Further
20 downstream at the Empress casino, one exceedance
21 (1,867 mg/L) was recorded also on February 24, 2000.
22 At the 1-55 Bridge, where the General Use water
23 quality standard begins, the 1,000 mg/L standard was
24 exceeded on the following dates: 3/16/2000
-
1,902
~
:_:..:,~:_~~_~_ ~~::_~___
~
:
Page35
1 mg/L, 1/25/2001
-
1,194 mg/L, 2/1/2001
-
1,075 mg/L,
2 2/8/2001
-
1,139 mg/L. The last three occurred over
3 three consecutive sampling events, implying that the
4 TDS excursion was persistent for at least 15 days.
5
A review of all the TDS data (Exhibits 6 and 9)
6 reveals that all of the elevated TDS readings occur
7 in the winter, and are attributable to snowmelt
8 runoff carrying salt runoff from highway deicing
9 activities. The Agency’s Recommendation Comment 15
10 states that no information has been provided between
11 the discharge and downstream water quality standard
12 violation. Assuming during snowmelt the streams are
13 at their harmonic mean flow, the flow at the 1-55
14 Bridge would be 3,690 cfs. This is a conservative
15 flow estimate. At 1,000 mg/L TDS, this translates
16 into 20,000, 000 pounds per day of TDS passing
17 beneath the 1-55 Bridge. The Lemont Refinery wet
18 gas scrubber will contribute an average 215,000
19 pounds per day, or approximately 11 mg/L, or 1
20 percent of the total loading under this scenario.
21 According to Standard Methods, the precision of the
22 TDS test method with a known sample TDS
23 concentration of 293 mg/L when tested in 77 samples
24 yielded a standard deviation of 21.20 mg/L. In
Page 36
essence, the contribution from the Lemont Refinery
will be less than the precision of this test when
the Des Plaines River exceeds 1,000 mg/L. Note,
when the 1,902 mg/L TDS was recorded in the
Des Plaines River, this is equivalent to 38,000,000
pounds per day of TDS, and the Lemont Refinery’s
contribution would be on the order of 0.6 percent of
the total loading
There is a strong correlation between the
upstream TDS readings and the downstream TDS
readings. This is to be expected as TDS is
considered a “conservative” pollutant; that is,
there is little or no reduction due to chemical or
biological processes. In addition, the
preponderance of flow at the 1-55 Bridge originates
from the Chicago Area, so there is limited
dilutional effects until further downstream.
TOXICITY/FUTURE POSSIBLE CHANGES IN WATER QUALITY
Water quality standards historically have been
developed based on toxicity. As TDS is composed of
a variety of anions and cations, there are no
“toxicity” values that can be applied to the generic
TDS parameter. Sulfates and chlorides make up the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 majority of the anions, and these compounds
Page 37
1 typically are regulated. In Illinois for General
2 Use waters, TDS, sulfates and chlorides all are
3 regulated.
4
Several years ago, IEPA began a detailed review
5 of these water quality standards that by early 2004
6 led the Agency to hold a stakeholders’ meeting. The
7 Agency, at this point, believed that technical data
8 supported elimination of the TDS water quality
9 standard and increasing the sulfate General Use
10 limit to approximately 1,800 mg/L. Information
11 provided to the stakeholders by the Agency on this
12 issue is included in Exhibit 10.
13
U.S. EPA’s review of the Agency’s work has lead
14 to additional toxicity testing by the State of
15 Illinois, which is ongoing and expected to be
16 completed by September 2005. If the additional
17 toxicity tests are consistent with the previous
18 research, the Agency is expected to propose these
19 changes in water quality standards in the fourth
20 quarter of 2005.
21
The Agency’s efforts are relevant to the Lemont
22 Refinery’s petition, as it goes to the environmental
23 impact the proposed discharge will have; that is,
24 sodium sulfate, at the proposed levels discharged,
Page 38
1 will not impact the aquatic community in the Chicago
2 Sanitary and Ship Canal or in the Des Plaines River.
3 There is no adverse effect on aquatic life due to
4 TDS and sulfate levels.
5
PROJECTED EFFLUENT CONTRIBUTION
6
(Responses to Board Questions 6 and 11
7
The projected effluent contribution was
8 described in my report, “Impact of CITGO’s Proposed
9 Discharge on Water Quality” (Exhibit 6), and will
10 average 215,000 pounds per day of TDS. The loadings
11 were further described in the construction permit
12 application submitted to IEPA in December 2004
13 (Exhibit 5), and also in the~NPDES permit
14 modification application submitted to the Agency in
15 August 2004 (Exhibit 11)
.
Exhibit 12 is a copy of
16 the existing NPDES permit.
17
PROJECTED WATER QUALITY IMPACTS
18
(Responses to Board Questions lob, lOc, lOd, be)
19
The projected incremental increase in both TDS
20 and sulfates in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal
21 and in the Des Plaines River were described in my
22 December 2004 report “Impact of CITGO’s Proposed
23 Discharge on Water Quality” (Exhibit 6). This
24 analysis was done based on the 7-day, 10-year low
Page 39
1 flow rates in the streams, and relied on the 1992
2 mixing zone study completed by Huff & Huff, Inc.,
3 for the Lemont Refinery. (This mixing zone study
4 was provided to the Board as part of the Lemont
5 Refinery’s Ammonia Adjusted Standard request,
6 R93-8.) The effluent design has not changed since
7 that study, and remains valid with the added flow of
8 274,000 gallons per day from the wet gas scrubber.
9
ALTERNATIVES
10
(Responses to IEPA Recommendation Comment 17 and
11
Board Questions 8 and lOf)
12
Huff & Huff, Inc., considered several
13 alternatives for this 274,000 gallons per day
14 stream. Deep well disposal initially was evaluated
15 along with direct discharge. The Agency determined
16 that the injection of this waste stream would
17 constitute a Class I underground injection well in
18 Illinois. (See Exhibit 13.) Class I wells require
19 injection beneath a cap rock that will prevent
20 migration upwards into higher aquifers.
21 Northeastern Illinois does not have a cap rock above
22 the Mount Simon formation used for disposal wells
23 throughout the Midwest, and therefore this
24 alternative was not viable.
Page 40
Based on the TDS stakeholders’ meeting in early
2004, direct discharge appeared to be the logical
alternative to deep well disposal. I had
anticipated that the Agency TDS and sulfate rule
change would have gone to the Board by mid-2004,
which possibly would have made this variance request
unnecessary. This did not happen, and the Agency
position that the addition of this wastewater stream
would contribute to the existing TDS violations that
periodically occur due to salt runoff from highway
deicing activities leads to this variance request.
The Board has heard numerous requests over the
years for variances from the TDS water quality
standards and these requests consistently have found
evaporation technology cost- and energy-prohibitive.
The evaporation costs are described in Exhibit 14.
These costs were derived from Rhodia’s adjusted
standard request, using scale-up factors.
TDS COMPLIANCE PLAN AND SCHEDULE
Exhibit 7 is a proposed TDS compliance
commitment, which includes tasks and schedules. The
plan calls for extensive TDS data collection from
the Des Plaines River at the 1-55 Bridge during the
winter months. After two seasons of stream testing,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page 41
1 the Lemont Refinery will be in a position to size
2 the necessary holding tank or basin for the wet gas
3 scrubber discharge during periods of high salinity.
4 Physical construction of the holding tank or basin
5 would begin by March 1, 2009, and construction would
6 be complete f or the winter season beginning
7 December 1, 2009.
8
RESPONSES TO BOARD QUESTIONS 5, 7b, lOb, lUe, 12
9
5. Clarify whether Best Available Technology
10 (“BAT”) applies only to ammonia.
11
In the testimony of Robert Stein of Aware
12 (R98-14), Mr. Stein compared the entire wastewater
13 treatment facilities to the federal BAT
14 requirements. Mr. Stein concluded: “olur analysis
15 of the Lemont Refinery wastewater treatment system
16 indicates that it exceeds the BAT technology for
17 refinery wastewater treatment as presented in the
18 1982 U.S. EPA Development Document.” The BAT
19 determination applied to the total wastewater
20 stream, not just those that applied to ammonia.
21
7b. Have modeling studies been completed to
22 better define the impact on water quality
23 violations?
24
As noted earlier, TDS is considered a
Page 42
1 conservative pollutant, so modeling after mixing
2 essentially is a mass balance. A mass balance
3 approach was used to predict the incremental change
4 and average TDS and sulfate levels with the addition
5 of the proposed discharge. This was presented in my
6 December 2004 report, “Impact of CITGO’s Proposed
7 Discharge on Water Quality” (Exhibit 6). The mixing
8 zone study from 1992 was utilized in this same
9 report.
10
lOb. Please comment on the impact of the
11 sulfate loading.
12
The sulfate impact is presented in my December
13 2004 Report “Impact of CITGO’s Proposed Discharge on
14 Water Quality” (Exhibit 6), and will amount to an
15 average of 142,000 pounds per day.
16
be. Please indicate if the current and
17 amended NPDES permits allow for mixing of
18 Outfall 001.
19
The mixing zone study was part of the record in
20 the Lemont Refinery’s Adjusted Standard request
21 (R93-8), and was incorporated in P38-14. This
22 mixing zone study was an integral part of the
23 ammonia adjusted standard, which was relied upon by
24 the Agency in the issuance of the NPDES permits.
Page 43
1 Based on this, the answer is yes, the current and
2 amended NPDES permits allow for mixing.
3
12. Would you propose interim effluent limits
4 on TDS and sulfates? Would you propose monitoring?
5
A proposed TDS compliance plan has been
6 submitted as Exhibit 7. This compliance plan
7 includes extensive stream monitoring.
8
Interim effluent limits are not proposed.
9 First, no water quality violations of the sulfate
10 water quality standard will occur; therefore, there
11 is no basis for sulfate effluent limits.
12
For TDS, it is clear that the TDS water quality
13 violations are due solely to salt runoff from
14 highway deicing activities. The proposed discharge
15 will not change this fact. Limiting the discharge
16 from the Lemont Refinery, if possible, would not
17 change the number of TDS water quality violations in
18 the Ship Canal or at the 1-55 Bridge, as the FCC wet
19 gas scrubber will be contributing on the order of
20 1 percent of the total salinity loading during these
21 excursions.
22
The Agency historically has taken the position
23 that the occurrence of water quality exceedances
24 downstream of a discharger of the same pollutant
Page 44
1 does not necessarily lead to a more restrictive
2 permit limit or enforcement action. As noted by the
3 Agency in a letter from Dean J. Studer, Supervisor,
4 Southern Municipal Unit, Permit Section of IEPA, to
5 Steven Davis, Galesburg Sanitary District, November
6 15, 2004:
“tI
he intent of the Agency was, and
7 still is, that a District action must be responsible
8 for a violation of the water quality standard before
9 it is considered a permit violation.” (See
10 Exhibit 15.) The Lemont Refinery request also would
lb seem similar to the Village of Wauconda’s recent
12 NPDES permit, where the Agency, with knowledge of
13 dissolved oxygen violations downstream, concluded
14 that lowering the effluent BOD5 limit was not
15 necessary “since it is believed that this effluent
16 will not cause or contribute to a violation of water
17 quality standards.” (Response to Comments,
18 Questions and Concerns regarding the Village of
19 Wauconda’s NPDES Permit, at p. 13.) As further
20 noted by the Agency, “this informatin is limited;
21 the extent to which it is representative of normal
22 stream conditions and its relationship to Wauconda
23 discharge is unknown.” The Agency included
24 dissolved oxygen monitoring in the NPDES permit for
Page 45
1 Wauconda to collect additional data, and the Lemont
2 Refinery’s Compliance Plan includes a similar data
3 gathering period.
4
The Lemont Refinery will have no control over
S the TDS concentrations, so the only possibility to
6 control the pounds per day discharged is by limiting
7 the discharge rate. This means the Lemont Refinery
8 essentially would have to hold treated effluent.
9 Presumably, if the Des Plaines River TDS is greater
10 than 1,000 mg/L at the 1-55 Bridge, the Lemont
11 Refinery would have to cease all discharge. Today,
12 there is no storage capacity at the Lemont Refinery
13 to achieve this. concept. As described earlier in my
14 testimony, these violations appear to occur for over
15 15 consecutive days, but less than 22 days. The
16 Lemont Refinery will have to come up with in excess
17 of 4,000,000 gallons of capacity to isolate the wet
18 gas scrubber during these periods of elevated TDS
19 levels at the 1-55 Bridge. Currently, this excess
20 capacity does not exist, and the actual number of
21 days that would require holding wet gas scrubber
22 water currently is poorly understood. The requested
23 compliance time frame is for the collection of the
24 necessary data to properly size this holding
Page 46
1 basin/tankage. Providing some interim effluent TDS
2 limit will provide no benefit to the receiving
3 water, based on the Agency-generated information
4 contained in Exhibit 10.
5
MR. HALLORAN: Any cross?
6
MR. DAY: No.
7
MR. HALLORAN: Thank you.
8
Now I’ll turn it over to the
9
technical unit. Mr. Rao or Ms. Liu?
10
MS. LID: I don’t have anything right
11
now.
12
MR. PAO: Same here.
13
MR. HALLORAN: So these are the only
14
two witnesses that are here today?
15
MS. CARVER REID: Yes, sir.
16
MR. HALLORAN: Off the record for a
17
minute.
18
(Discussion off the record.)
19
MR. HALLORAN: We’re back on the
20
record.
21
Mr. Day, it appears that CITGO
22
has
--
petitioners have rested their case in
23
chief.
24
Is that correct, Ms. Carver Reid?
Page 47
1
MS. CARVER REID: I have one more
2
item. I would like to, at this time, enter
3
what has been marked as Exhibits 1 through
4
15, in support of the prefiled testimony,
5
into the record as evidence in this
6
proceeding today.
7
MR. HALLORAN: Mr. Day, any objection?
8
MR. DAY: No.
9
MR. HALLORAN: The written testimony
10
itself will be transcribed into the
11
transcript. The exhibits will not. They
12
will just be a part of the record. Is that
13
fair enough?
14
MS. CARVER REID: Yes. Thank you.
15
MR.. HALLORAN: Mr. Day, you’re on.
16
MR. DAY: With the entry of these
17
exhibits and the submission of the testimony
18
of Mr. Harmon and Mr. Huff, the petitioner
19
has met with the expectations that I
20
described earlier of our agency. The defects
21
that we had noted in our initial review of
22
the testimony have been cured, and our agency
23
is prepared to support the petitioner at this
24
point; and we will enter no further testimony
Page 48
1
here today.
2
MR. HALLORAN: Okay. Thank you,
3
Mr. Day. You’ve rested your case in chief?
4
MR. DAY: Yes.
5
MR. HALLORAN: Any rebuttal from the
6
petitioner?
7
MS. CARVER REID: No.
8
MR. HALLORAN: Any closings from the
9
petitioner or the respondent?
10
MS. CARVER REID: No.
11
MR. HALLORAN: Okay. We can go off
12
.
the record.
13
(Discussion off the record.)
14 BY MR. HALLORAN:
15
Q.
We’ve been off the record talking
16 about posthearing briefs. And we’ve agreed that it
17 appears that the technical unit from the Illinois
18 Pollution Control Board will have your questions, if
19 any, submitted to the petitioner on or before
20 March 3rd.
21
And then we’ve decided that we’re
22 going to be filing simultaneous posthearing briefs
23 or responses, such as they are, on or before
24 March 15th. And there’s been an agreement that the
Page 49
parties will overnight their responses or briefs on
March 14th so everybody will have it on March 15th.
Basically the no-mailbox rule will apply
March 21st, simultaneous replies, if any, are due
then. And I’m going to set public comment; the
close for that is
--
public comment is due on or
before March 4th
I think that’s about it. But I do
have to make a credibility determination. And based
on my legal expertise, observations, I find that
there are no credibility issues with the witnesses
that have testified here today
Have I forgotten anything?
It doesn’t look that I have. So
in any event, thanks for coming. And this hearing
is now concluded. Thank you.
(Which were all the proceedings
had in the above-entitled cause.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
‘17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page 50
1 STATE OF ILLINOIS
SS.
2 COUNTY OF COOK
3
4
Kathy A. O’Donnell, being first duly sworn,
5 on oath says that she is a Registered Professional
6 Reporter doing business in the City of Chicago,
7 County of Cook and the State of Illinois;
8
That she reported in shorthand the
9 proceedings had at the foregoing Illinois Pollution
10 Control Board hearing;
11
And that the foregoing is a true and
12 correct transcript of her shorthand notes so taken
13 as aforesaid and contains all the proceedings had at
14 the said Illinois Pollution Control Board hearing.
17
KATHY A. O’DONNELL, RPR
18
CSR No. 084-004466
19 SUBSCRIBED AND SW,QRN TO
b~for~me this
I
day of
20
_______________
,
A.D., 2005.
23
NOTA Y PUBLIC
OFFICIAL SEAL
24
KIMBERLY A MEEKS
NOTARY PUBLIC
-
STATE OF ILLINOIS
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:12/17/07
Page 51
A
able
8:15 25:4
about 10:2 11:22
15:21
48:16 49:8
above 31:22 39:21
above-entitled 49:18
According 35:21
achieve
8:16
19:24 20:20
45:13
Act
14:9
action
44:2,7
activities 8:20 35:9 40:11
43:14
ACTIVITY
22:2 1
actual
16:8
45:20
Actually 16:3,2 1
add 15:15
added
39:7
addition 36:14 40:8 42:4
additional 11:14 15:20
26:5 37:14,1645:1
additions 8:2 11:15
address 9:22 12:1 13:7
16:1 17:16 28:2
adequate 10:12
adjusted 8:10
32:1 39:5
40:17 42:20,23
Administrative
13:14
adopted 13:9,16
advanced
30:2,17
adverse 8:23 9:1,6
38:3
Affairs
30:24
affiliated 4:13,16 19:12
aforesaid 50:13
after 22:13
24:7 30:14
40:24 42:1
Again
10:16
agencies 7:3
agency 1:11 2:12 4:9 6:12
6:14,15 7:2 11:10,18,22
12:1,16 13:19 14:6,10
15:11 21:20 29:17
32:22,23 37:6,7,11,18
38:14
39:15
40:4,7
42:24 43:22 44:3,6,12
44:20,23 47:20,22
Agency’s
12:7
14:2 35:9
37: 13,21
Agency-generated
46:3
ago 37:4
agreed 48:16
agreement 7:8 20:14
48:24
air
8:13 11:4 19:21
Akzo 30:23
Allsa2:3 4:14
allow
42:17 43:2
along 39:15
already 16:9 19:23
22:16
alternative 9:24
39:24
40:3
alternatives 32:11 39:9
39:13
ambitious 20:18
amended
42:17
43:2
Amendment
29:23
American 29:15
amines 31:4
ammonia 13:12,15 19:24
20:3 32:1,3 39:5 41:10
41:20 42:23
among 7:10
amount 8:9 21:13
23:1
42:14
analysis
30:20 38:24
41:14
Anand
2:2 4:15
and/or
7:14
anions
36:21,24
announced
22:14
answer 13:4 27:10
43:1
anticipated
12:2 40:4
anything 46:10 49:13
apologize
5:19,23
appear
14:18 45:14
APPEARANCES 2:1
appeared
14:22 40:2
appears 46:21 48:17
APPLICABLE 33:1
applicant 15:2
application 21:21,23
23:5
23:24 24:4,20 38:12,14
applications
32:15
applied
36:22 41:19,20
applies 41:10
apply 49:3
appreciate 7:1 11:10
approach 42:3
approached 10:2
Approval
25:24
approved
20:15
approximately4:11 21:1
35:19 37:10
April
23:15
aquatic 38:1,3
aquifers 39:20
Area
36:16
areas
32:18,23
arise 8:4
Armak
30:22
asphalt 20:12
assigned
4:5
assist
32:10
assisted
30:19
associated 26:4 30:12
31:8
association 19:14,15 22:8
Assuming 15:7 35:12
attention 11:20
attributable 35:7
August 19:4
23:17 38:15
authorities 20:7
Aux 31:14
available
10:12 41:9
Avenue 2:12 13:8 17:17
28:3
average 35:18 38:10 42:4
42:15
averages
23:12
avoid 9:24 16:8
awarded 29:10
aware
19:23 28:17 41:11
A.D 1:22
50:20
a.m 1:24
B
B 3:11 5:6
Bachelor 19:10 29:8
back 46:19
balance 9:16
42:2,2
based 11:14 13:21 14:24
36:20 38:24 40:1 43:1
46:3 49:9
Basically 49:3
basin
25:5,14
41:2,4
basin/tankage 46:1
basis 23:11 43:11
BAT 41:10,13,16,18
becomes
13:1 24:15
before
7:2 11:5 13:8
22:15 44:8 48:19,23
49:7 50:19
began 19:9 22:20
37:4
begin 41:5
beginning 25:9 41:6
begins
24:7 34:23
behalf
6:7,15
being 8:14 12:24 13:20
22:23 26:11 50:4
believe
8:24 11:12 12:14
12:15
believed
37:7 44:15
below 23:11 26:2,4
beneath 35:17 39:19
benefit 7:20
46:2
best 28:21 41:9
better 12:18 27:10 41:22
between 35:10
36:9
beyond 5:21
biological 36:14
Biology 19:11
Board 1:1,18
2:3 4:4 5:11
7:2 8:21 11:8,10 12:2,6
13:5 19:22,23
22:12,15
22:18,22 23:9 24:12,24
25:11 29:14 32:21,21
33:21 38:6,18
39:4,11
40:5,12
41:8 48:18
50:
10,
14
Board’s
5:7
BOD5 44:14
both
7:3 24:2,6,16 38:19
boundaries
25:22 26:11
boundary 25:19
Bradley
2:2 4:2
Bridge
25:2 33:7,10
34:22 35:14,17 36:15
40:23 43:18 45:10,19
briefing 15:19
briefs 48:16,22 49:1
Brigitte 2:14
burden 8:22 9:4 26:5
Bureau 26:1
Burlington
28:3
business 17:15
28:1
50:6
C2:6
C
calculation
9:17
call 11:20
called
17:6 27:16 30:23
calls 7:12
40:22
Canada 31:4
Canal 8:3 31:13 32:3
33:3,24 38:2,20 43:18
cap 39:19,21
capability 10:8
capacity 10:6 45:12,17
45:20
care
26:19,20
carrying 22:9
35:8
Carver
2:7 3:6,9
6:3,4,4
15:24 16:3,13,21 17:1,9
18:17 26:15,24 27:19
28:22 46:15,24 47:1,14
48:7,10
case 5:12 46:22 48:3
Casey 31: 14
casino 34:20
catalytic
20:22 30:18
catious 36:21
cause 33:17 44:16 49:18
caused 8:19
Caustic 23:4,6
cease 45:11
Cedar
31: 17
Central 19:6
certain 22:19
Certified 19:16
cfs 35:14
Chair 29:16
challenges
22:3
change 5:19 9:10
13:9
30:21 40:5 42:3 43:15
43:17
changed
5:16 39:6
changes 36:18 37:19
charged 29:20
chemical 23:3 29:8 30:16
36:13
Chemicals 30:23
Chicago 1:20
2:5,9
6:7
8:3 31:13 33:3,24 34:12
36:16 38:1,20 50:6
Page
52
chief 46:23 48:3
chlorides 31:11 36:23
37:2
CITGO
1:5
4:6 6:8,24,24
7:5,7,14,22 8:6,8,15,19
10:3,19 12:22 17:14,22
19:10,20 20:5,6 21:5
22:11 32:9 46:21
CITGO’s
24:9,18 34:9
38:8,22 42:6,13
City 50:6
clarify
14:1 41:9
Class
39:17,18
classified 33:8,11
Claude 2:15
3:5
16:4
17:2,5,12 18:18 19:1,2
clear 43:12
close 15:10 49:6
closely 11:12
closings 48:8
code 13:15 17:19
collect
25:15
45:1
collected 12:13 33:23
34:2,10
collection
32:2 40:22
45:23
collectively 20:5
come 7:18 45:16
comes 12:7
coming 49:15
commence
25:7
commencing 1:22
comment
5:2 35:9
39:10
42:10
49:5,6
comments 12:1 33:22
44:17
Commission 29:22
commitment 40:2 1
committed 7:22
Committee 29:17,19
committees 19:13
communication 15:2
community 38:1
Companies-IL 29:15
Company 30:23
compared 41:12
complete 14:11 41:6
completed 20:6
24:22
25:8 31:20 37:16 39:2
41:2 1
completely
8:4
compliance 8:16 10:20
12:9 13:1 14:20,22
20:19 21:2 24:11,22,24
31:1 40:19,2043:5,6
45:2,23
comply 21:3
component 33:19
composed 36:20
compounds 22:9 36:24
concentration
3 5:23
concentrations24:2,16
45:5
concept 45:13
Concerns 44:18
concluded
41:14 44:13
49:16
condition
25:23
conditions 10:13 11:23
12:15 13:20 26:14
44:22
confirm 13:19 22:19
consecutive 35:3 45:15
consent 7:7,11,12,18,23
8:14,19 10:22 11:9
14:16 20:15,16,18 21:3
21:5,7
22:3,13
conservative 35:14 36:12
42:1
considered 36:12 39:12
41:24 44:9
consistency 29:23
consistent 21:24 37:17
consistently 40:14
constitute 39:17
construction 20:19,24
2 1:10,19,22,23,24 22:4
23:5,24 24:4,19 30:3,5
32:14 38:11 41:4,5
consultant
29:21
consulting
27:24 29:7
Contact
33:8,15
contain
33:4
contained
46:4
contains 21:16 34:10
50:13
content 16:23
contents 18:14 28:19
continued 12:10
contribute
33:17 35:18
40:9 44:16
contributing
43:19
contribution
36:1,7 38:5
38:7
control 1:1,18
2:3 4:4
5:10
19:22 32:21 45:4,6
48:18 50:10,14
controls
20:23
conversations 22:1
Cook 50:2,7
copy 16:12 20:16 21:1,15
21:21 28:11 32:16
38:15
Corp 6:8
Corporate
30:24
Corporation
1:5
4:6
17:14
Corporation’s 32:10
correct 18:10,15 28:15
28:20 46:24 50:12
correlation 36:9
cost 40:15
costs 40:16,17
Council 29:15
counsel 6:13
County 50:2,7
couple 13:4
course 14:14
court 14:19 16:12,19
covered 7:10
Cracking 20:22
created
26:5
credibility 49:9,11
Creek 31:
14,15,15,15,15
3 1:16,16,17,18
critical 21:18
22:2
cross 46:5
crossing 26:11
CSR 50:18
cured
47:22
current
14:3 17:21 19:2
19:20 20:2 42:16 43:1
currently
17:13 25:12
27:23 29:14 45:19,22
cyanide 30:18
D3:1
D
Dam 34: 13
Darin 2:11
6:16
data 12:12 25:1 33:20
34:2,10
35:5
37:7 40:22
45:
1,2,24
date
34:3
dates
34:24
Davis 44:5
day 1:20 2:10 6:10,11,11
6:20 13:23,24 16:14,16
18:21,22 27:1,2 29:2,3
35:16,19 36:6 38:10
39:8,13 42:15 45:6 46:6
46:2 1 47:7,8,15,16 48:3
48:4 50:19
days
35:4
45:15,15,21
deals 7:24
Dean 44:3
December
21:22 23:6,19
24:1,5,8,17,20
25:9
38:12,22 41:7 42:6,12
decided
48:2 1
decision 5:12
decree
7:11,12,18,23 8:15
8:19 10:22 11:9 20:15
20:17,18 21:3,5,7 22:3
22:13
deep
10:2 39:14 40:3
Deer
31:16
defects 14:12 47:20
define
41:22
degree 19:10
deicing 8:20 26:8 35:8
40:11 43:14
delay 16:8
denial
14:15
Department 29:11 30:16
depicting 21:11
derived 40:17
Des 25:2
30:13 31:14
33:3,7,10 36:3,5 38:2
38:21 40:23
45:9
describe
19:19
described 15:1 21:6
23:4
23:23 24:3,8,17 38:8,11
38:21 40:16 45:13
47:20
description
21:12 22:21
32:18
design 8:9,10,16
23:23
31:2 39:6
detailed
24:11 37:4
details 11:2,3
determination 41:19 49:9
determined
39:15
develop 5:10
developed
22:23 36:20
Development41:18
developments 10:16
25:18,20 26:7
deviation
35:24
difficulties 26:3
dilutional 36:17
dioxide 7:16
direct
26:22 39:15 40:2
directed
27:8
Directors
29:14
discharge 9:14 10:1,4,6,9
12:23 22:5 23:11,22
24:6,9,17,18
25:6
30:8
30:9 33:4,17 34:3,9
35:11 37:23 38:9,23
39:15
40:2 41:3 42:5,7
42:13 43:14,15 44:23
45:7,11
discharged
23:2 37:24
45:6
discharger
43:24
discharges 8:6,12 31:9
discussed 11:4
Discussion 46:18 48:13
discussions
11:22
disposal
39:14,22 40:3
dissolved 8:1,3,18 13:6
21:13 30:21 44:13,24
District 34:11
44:5,7
diversion 26:12
divert 26:10
division 6:13 11:4,5
21:19 22:1
document
34:8 41:18
documented
34:15
doing 9:9 10:2 50:6
done
16:18 38:24
down 32:4
downstream 33:10 34:14
Page
53
34:20 35:11 36:10,17
43:24 44:13
drainage
25:15
drawings 21:10
Drive
2:8
due 9:17 10:15 25:18,23
26:2,13 36:13 38:3
40:10 43:13 49:4,6
duly 17:6 27:16 50:4
during
10:12 12:22,24
15:18 25:2,6 26:8 30:3
35:12 40:23 41:3 43:20
45:18
E
E2:11,15 3:1,8,11 27:15
27:22 28:24 29:4,5
earlier
41:24 45:13 47:20
early 37:5 40:1
East 2:
12
Eastern
19:11
Economic
30:20
effect
8:24
9:2,6,13 38:3
effects 8:11
36:17
effluent 13:13 24:14 26:8
26:13 38:5,7 39:6 43:3
43:8,11 44:14,15 45:8
46:1
efforts 19:20,24 37:2 1
eight-plus 34:1
either
10:4
elevated 9:18 35:6 45:18
elimination 22:6 30:9
37:8
embodied
20:15
emission
7:13 8:13 20:13
21:7
emissions 7:17 19:22 20:9
employed 8:14 17:13
27:23 30:15
Empress 34:20
end
25:22
energy-prohibitive 40:15
enforcement 44:2
Engineer
29:13 30:2
engineering 29:9,10,11
29:15 30:16 31:2
enhance 12:14
enough
47:13
entail
25:
13
enter
16:447:2,24
entered
7:7 14:18
entire
41:12
entities 7:15
entitled 4:5 34:8
entry
47:
16
environmental 1:10 2:12
4:8 6:12,14 7:6,20 8:11
14:9 17:23 19:3,5,11,13
19:15,18 20:7 21:20
25:10 29:7,11,17 30:2
30:24 31:2,7 32:7,22
37:22
EPA
7:8 10:22 11:520:7
41:18
EPA’s 37:13
equipment
8:9 20:23 21:9
21:11
equivalent
36:5
essence 36:1
essentially 33:5 42:2
45:8
estimate
35:15
estimated 20:13
evaluated
39:14
evaluating 9:9
12:23
29:22
evaluation
32:11
evaporation 40:15,16
even 11:2
27:9
event
5:23 49:15
events
12:24 35:3
everybody
4:2 15:23 49:2
evidence 9:11 15:5 47:5
evidentiary 5:13
Examination 3:6,9
17:8
27:18
examined
17:7 27:17
exceedance 22:7 33:18
34:6,15,18,20
exceedances
34:4 43:23
exceeded
34:24
exceeds
36:3 41:16
except 8:17
excess 45:16,19
excursion 35:4
excursions
43:2 1
Exhibit3:13 9:11 10:17
10:24 11:24 18:14
20:17 21:1,10,15,21
23:6 24:1,5,10,19,21,24
32:17 34:1,10 37:12
38:9,13,15,15,23 39:18
40:16,20 42:7,14 43:6
44:10 46:4
exhibits 11:19,21 15:7
18:12 28:17,19
35:5
47:3,11,17
exist 45:20
existing 10:7,11 25:16,20
26:3 33:20 38:16 40:9
expect 15:9
expectations
5:22 15:8
47:19
expected
15:6 24:1,15
36:11 37:15,18
expedite 11:8
expeditious 16:7
experience 30:1,10
expertise 49:10
extending
20:24
extensive 25:1
40:22 43:7
extent
12:11 44:21
Exxon 4:18
F
F5:6
facilities 30:6 31:3 41:13
facility
25:19
29:23
fact 9:9 43:15
factors 10:18 40:18
facts 12:3
fair 47:13
fall 20:4 30:14
familiar 30:11
fatty 31:4
favorable 11:13
FCC
32:12 43:18
FCCU
20:22 21:8
feasible 26:14
February
1:2,22
4:10
15:17 18:5 23:14 28:9
34: 19,21
federal
41:13
feeds 25:20
feverishly
15:16
few
25:16
field 19:5
filed 11:6 14:19 15:17
16:9 18:13 21:15 22:13
28:9,18
filing 48:22
final
14:18
find 49:10
findings 9:10
Fine 4:21
fine-tuning 12:11
firm
6:5
27:24 29:7
firmly 7:22
first 14:14 17:1,6 19:8
22:3 26:20,2 1 27:16
43:9 50:4
fish 31:19
five-year 13:2
Flint
31:15
flow
23:23 35:13,13,15
36:15
39:1,7
Fluidized 20:22
focuses 12:10
following
25:3 31:13
34:24
follows 15:9 17:7
27:17
Ford 2:16
4:16,19,22,22
4:24
5:3
foregoing 50:9,11
forgotten 49:13
Fork 31:14,17
formation 39:22
Fort
2:6 6:5,19,22,23
13:22 15:1 27:6
Fort’s
14:5
found
14:12 40:14
founded 28:6 29:7
four
7:8 30:22
fourth 37:19
Fox
31: 16
frame 45:23
from 4:15,18
5:16,22
6:11 7:13 8:5,12,20 9:6
9:8 10:1,9 11:24 14:13
19:11 20:10 21:19
22:12 24:3 25:1,15,19
26:6 29:9,10 30:10 32:3
33:9,24,24 34:12 35:8
36:1,16 39:8 40:10,13
40:17,22 42:8 43:13,16
44:3 48:5,8,17
funding 12:17
further 9:22 21:17 34:19
36:17 38:11 44:19
47:24
future 8:6
F-O-R-D
4:23,24
G
Galesburg
44:5
gallons
39:8,13 45:17
gas 8:12 9:8 10:1,9 20:21
21:8 23:3 24:3,7,13
25:5
26:7,13 32:12 33:4
35:18 39:8 41:2 43:19
45:
18,21
gathering 45:3
General 33:11,14 34:22
37:1,9
generated 32:12
generic
36:22
Georgia 20:8
give 16:11,18
go 10:18 48:11
goes 5:14 37:22
going 5:4,21 10:17 12:3
17:2 27:3,9 48:22
49:5
gone 40:5
Good
4:2
gradient
26:3
Grand
2:12
grant 9:2 14:5
22:4
granted 9:5 14:14
greater 34:12
45:9
groundwater 25:23 26:2
H 3:11
H
Halloran
2:2 4:1,3,18,20
4:23 5:1,4 6:10,17
13:22 15:13 16:11,14
16:17,24 18:21,23
26:18 27:1,3,12 29:2
46:5,7,13,16,19 47:7,9
47:15 48:2,5,8,11,14
hallway 5:19
handle 10:6
handling 10:9
happen 40:7
Page
54
Harmon 2:15
3:5
12:8
16:5
17:2,5,10,12,21
18:19 19:1,2 26:20,21
26:23 27:2,8 47:18
harmonic 35:13
having 17:6 27:16
Hazardous 19:16
heard 40:12
hearing 1:18
4:3
5:5,8,9
5:14,166:18,23 11:7
14:5 15:11
49:15
50:10
50:14
held 1:18
hence
22:12,24
her
50:12
high 25:6 41:3
higher 39:20
highway 35:8 40:10
43:14
him 27:12
historically 36:19 43:22
history 14:2
hitch 5:14
hold
37:6 45:8
holding
25:5
41:2,4 45:2 1
45:24
hour
1:22
Huff
2:15 3:8 12:8
16:5
27:9,15,20,22,24,24
28:2,2,5,5,8,24
29:4,5,6
29:6 3 1:6,6 39:2,2,12
39:12 47:18
Huff’s 9:21 10:17
24:8,17
Hydroxide
23:7
H-A-R-M-O-N 17:12
H-U-F-F
27:22
I
IAC 20:4
ideas 12:20
identifying
32:13
IEPA9:8 10:2 11:12
12:13 21:20 22:2,4,10
22:20 23:5 24:1,5,20,23
32:22 33:21 37:4 38:12
39:10 44:4
lIT 30:15
Illinois 1:1,10,16,20
2:3,5
2:9,12,13 4:4,8 6:12,14
7:9,21 8:4 9:19 10:14
10:22 11:5 12:12 13:14
14:8 17:18 19:6,11,15
19:22 20:8 21:20 28:4
29:13,16,19,22 30:22
3 1:5,12 32:4,21,22 37:1
37:15 39:18,21 48:17
50:1,7,9,14
impact 12:21
23:1 24:9
24:13,18 25:10 31:7,8
34:9 37:23 38:1,8,22
41:22 42:6,10,12,13
impacts 23:8 32:13 38:17
Impact/Cost-Benefit
30:20
implemented 26:12
implying
35:3
importantly 9:23
imposed 21:4
improvement
7:6
Inc
27:24 28:2,6 29:6
31:6 39:2,12
included 8:8
9:11 10:24
11:18 14:21 30:5 31:12
31:19 37:12 44:23
includes 20:18 30:1 40:21
43:7 45:2
including 7:9 19:6 20:11
30:8,17 3 1:4,24
incorporated 42:21
incorporates
32:20
increase 21:13
22:24
25:17 38:19
increased
26:5
increases
24:6
increasing
37:9
incremental 38:19
42:3
independent
8:5
indicate 42:16
indicates 41:16
informally 11:18
informatin 44:20
information 11:14,17
12:16 21:17 22:19
35:10 37:10 46:3
initial
47:2 1
initially 39:14
injection 10:3 39:16,17
39:19
install
20:2 1
installed 21:11
instaffing 21:8
Institute 30:15
instrumentation 9:15
instruments 9:21
integral
42:22
intended
5:9
intent
44:6
interim
43:3,8 46:1
International 19:7
introduce
4:14 6:2
investigated 10:4 32:19
involved
3 1:7,10,12
isolate
45:17
issuance
42:24
issue 8:18 10:14 11:13
22:10 37:12
issued
25:24
issues 12:11
14:24 22:2
31:24 49:11
issuing
22:5
item
47:2
items 21:18
1-55 25:2 33:7,10 34:22
35:13,17 36:15
40:23
43:18 45:10,19
J
J
44:3
James 2:10,15
3:8 6:11
16:5
24:8,17 27:15,22
28:24 29:4,5
January 20:16
23:14
34:15,17
Jefferson
34:17
Jeffrey 2:6
6:5
Jersey
20:8 29:13
Jim 9:21 10:17
Joliet 30:3,4 34:18
July
23:17
June 23:16
just 6:18 9:20 13:5
15:22
16:22 27:6 41:20 47:12
justifications
14:17
K
Kathy 50:4,17
Kent 31:15
kind 5:2
Kishwaukee 3 1:18
know 9:17 15:23
knowledge 28:2 1
44:12
known
35:22
knows 8:21
L
lacking 11:1 14:21
LaGrange 28:3
language
11:23
large 31:21
last 13:18 17:11 20:4
25:16
27:21 31:6 35:2
law 6:5
lead
12:18 29:21 37:13
44:1
leads 40:11
learned
22:2
least 35:4
leaving 30:14
LeCrone2:11 6:16
led 13:12
15:9
20:2 37:6
legal 6:13 49:10
Lemont7:9,18
8:7 10:20
13:8 17:17,24 19:3,8,20
19:21,23 20:4,11,12,19
20:21 21:2,9,14 25:4,21
26:11 31:23 32:3,6,10
33:23 34:2,14,16 35:17
36:1,6 37:21 39:3,4
41:1,15 42:20 43:16
44:10 45:1,4,7,10,12,16
less 36:2
45:15
let
15:22
Letissa
2:7 6:4
letter 25:24
44:3
Let’s 26:20
27:12
level 26:1,4
34:7
levels 9:7,18 24:14 37:24
38:4 42:4 45:19
Liaison 29:17
life 38:3
light 9:10
like 6:2 13:24 16:3,21
26:16 47:2
limit 37:10 44:2,14 46:2
limitation 20:3
limited 36:16 44:20
limiting 43:15 45:6
limits 43:3,8,11
listed
3 1:21
little
36:13
Liu2:3 4:14
27:5 46:9,10
LLP2:7
loading
35:20 36:8 42:11
43:20
loadings
38:10
Lock 34:13
Lockport 34:13
logical 40:2
long 18:1
look 49:14
Louisiana 20:8
low 38:24
lowering 44:14
L.L.C 1:6
4:7 6:9 20:5
M
macroinvertebrate31:19
macroinvertebrates
32:2
made 40:6
major 7:15
20:24
majority
36:24
make 5:1,13
10:23
27:6
36:23 49:9
making 5:11
managed
25:12 26:2
Management
25:24
29:24
manager
17:23 19:3,17
30:24
managing 26:4
manufacturing 31:3
many 5:20 12:3 15:3
March
23:15 25:8 34:6
41:5
48:20,24 49:2,2,4
49:7
marked
14:12 18:12 47:3
mass 9:16
42:2,2
Masters
29:10
Materials 19:17
matter 1:44:5 6:19 16:8
18:5 21:16 28:9
matters 5:13
may 10:14 15:18,19 21:4
23:16 26:14 27:7
maybe 27:9
McCook31:4
mean 35:13
means 45:7
meet 15:7 2
1:5,6
meeting
7:22 37:6 40:1
member4:21 19:13,15
members 4:12
met 47:19
method 13:1
35:22
Methods
35:2 1
Metropolitan 34:11
mg/L 33:9,12,15 34:7,15
34:16,18,21,23 35:1,1,1
35:2,15,19,23,24 36:3,4
37:10 45:10
Midwest 1:6 4:7 6:9 7:1
20:5
39:23
mid-2004
40:5
might 12:17
migration 39:20
Mill 31:15
minimize 8:10
minute 46:17
Mississippi 31:16
mixing 31:21 32:1 39:2,3
42:1,7,17,19,22 43:2
Mobil 4:19,20 30:2,14
model 9:19
modeling
32:3 41:21 42:1
modification
32:14 38:14
modified
11:24 22:5
modify 8:15
modules
32:7
monitoring 12:10
30:8
43:4,7 44:24
monthly 23:12
months 21:1 25:3 40:24
more
44:1 47:1
morning 4:2
Morris 31:5
Morton 19:7
most 9:23 11:3
Mount
39:22
move
4:13
MSD 10:5
much
6:17
Municipal
44:4
mussels 31:20
must 20:21 26:2
44:7
MWRDGC 34:12
N3:1
name4:2,21 17:10,11,12
19:2 27:21,21 29:5
Nath2:7 6:6
National 19:14,17
22:5
30:9
naturally 25:16,20
near 25:18
necessarily
44:1
necessary 13:2 15:18
20:20 41:2 44:15 45:24
negotiate
15:4
negotiated
24:22
negotiations
20:6
new
13:8 17:17 20:8
21:11 29:13 32:12
next 34:17
nine 31:2
NIPC
29:22
NIPC’s
29:24
nitrogen 13:12,15 19:24
20:3
nitrous 7:17
Nobel 30:23
normal 6:18 44:21
North
2:12
Northeastern 29:21
39:21
northwest 25:19
NOTARY 50:23
note 5:8,16 36:3
noted 14:15
41:24 44:2
44:20 47:2 1
notes
50:12
noticed 5:9,18
November 21:16
23:19
44:5
NOx
20:9,13
no-mailbox 49:3
NPDES 22:6,10 30:10
32:14 38:13,16 42:17
42:24 43:2 44:12,19,24
number 43:17 45:20
numerous 40:12
nutrient 29:19,20
0
oath
50:5
objection
16:15 18:21
29:2 47:7
obligations
7:23
observations49:10
obtain 21:18
obtained 22:11
occur 35:6
40:10 43:10
45:14
occurred 25:18 34:6
35:2
occurrence 43:23
October 23:18
off 46:16,18
48:11,13,15
officer 4:3
6:24
Oil
30:2
Okay 4:21
15:13 26:18
48 :2, 11
once 24:15
one 9:19
21:18
34:6,18,20
47:1
ongoing 37:15
only
8:2 25:12 41:10
45:5
46:13
opening 6:20 14:4
operated
7:14 19:9
operation
24:7
operational 24:15
operations 30:11
opportunity 6:21 7:1
14:1 15:4
option 25:12 26:9
order 11:7
14:16 36:7
43:19
organization 29:18
original 14:23
originates
36:15
other 8:17 21:4,9
25:10
otherwise 12:13,17
outfall 34:14 42:18
outweighs 8:23
over 25:16
27:431:7 35:2
40:12 45:4,14 46:8
overall 7:19 21:24
overnight 49:1
oversight 30:5
owned
7:14 13:10 19:9
owner 29:6
oxidation 30:18
oxide 7:17
oxygen 44:13,24
O’Donnell 50:4,17
oJur 41:14
P
pPAGE2:244
3:3,13
:i9
pages 14:22
parameter
23:21 36:23
parameters 8:17
part 7:5,15 10:15
29:6
39:4 42:19,22 47:12
particularly 11:20
parties
4:13 5:22 6:249:1
party 4: 17
passing 35:16
past
22:8 31:24
path 21: 18
patterns 10:16
PCB 1:8 4:6
PDV 1:6 4:7 6:8 7:1
20:5
penalties 10:21 21:4
people
5:20 7:21
per 35:16,19 36:6 38:10
39:8,13 42:15 45:6
percent 35:20 36:7 43:20
perhaps 12:20
period
13:2 45:3
periodically 40:10
periods
25:6 26:8 41:3
45:18
permit 21:10,19,22,23
22:4,6,11 23:5,24 24:4
24:20 26:1 30:10 32:14
Page
55
32:1438:11,13,1644:2
1
44:4,9,12,19,24
permits 42:17,24 43:2
permitting 11:5
persistent
35:4
petition 11:2,16
12:1
14:4,7,11,13,19,21,23
15:12 21:6,15 22:13,15
22:20 32:16,20 37:22
petitioner 8:23 9:4
15:3
47:18,23 48:6,9,19
petitioners 1:7 3:13 4:8
6:8,24
46:22
petroleum 1:5 4:6 6:8
17:14 19:14 30:18 32:9
phenomenon
12:19
phonetic 13:10
Physical 41:4
place 15:22
Plaines25:2 30:13
31:14
33:3,7,10 36:3,5 38:2
38:2 1 40:23 45:9
plan
12:9 14:20,22 24:11
24:22 25:1 29:24 32:6
40:19,22 43:5,6 45:2
Planning
29:22,23
plant 10:7
23:10
plants
20:12 31:4
please
17:15 27:20 28:1
42: 10,16
point 14:4
27:7 37:7
47:24
pollutant
22:5 30:9 36:12
42:1 43:24
Pollution 1:1,18
2:3 4:4
5:10 19:22 32:5,21
48:18 50:9,14
poorly
45:22
pose
22:2
position
14:3 18:2 19:2
27:10 40:8 41:1 43:22
possibility
45:5
possible 36:18 43:16
possibly 40:6
Postel
2:14
posthearing 15:19
48:16
48:22
pounds 35:16,19 36:6
38:10 42:15 45:6
ppm
23:13
practical
9:24
precision
35:21 36:2
predict
42:3
prefiled 15:16,20 16:1,4
16:18 18:4,7,9,13,18
28:8,11,14,18,23 47:4
preliminary
22:1
preparation 30:10 32:5,6
prepared 47:23
preparing 30:19 32:13
preponderance 36:15
N
present 2:14
8:5
12:4
presentation 12:4
presented 11:24 13:20
22:16,19 32:16,18
41:17 42:5,12
presents 34:1
President 29:5
Presumably
45:9
presumption 15:10
prevent 39:19
prevented 14:12
Prevention 32:5
previous 37:17
previously 34:8
principal 8:13
prior
26:10
procedural
5:7 14:1
proceed 6:18
proceeding 47:6
proceedings 1:16
13:16
20:1 49:17 50:9,13
process 22:20
23:4
processes
36:14
production 22:24
Professional 29:12
50:5
Professionals 19:16,18
program
25:13
project 7:3,5,19,19 12:24
20:24 22:11 25:7,8
26:12 27:11
projected 9:7 23:8 24:5
38 :5,7, 17, 19
projects
22:23 30:17
promulgated 14:10
pronounced 25:17
properly
5:9,18 45:24
propose 37:18
43:3,4
proposed 23:23
24:9,13
24:18,24 30:20 33:16
34:9 37:23,24 38:8,22
40:20 42:5,6,13 43:5,8
43:14
proposing 29:20
propounded
22:18
Protection
1:11
2:12 4:9
6:12,14 14:9 21:20
29:17 32:22
provide 12:16 46:2
provided
11:15,18 15:6
35:10 37:11 39:4
provides 12:12
providing 32:15 46:1
provisions
5:7
public 4:12 5:2
8:24 9:2
49:5,6 50:23
publicly 22:14
Purdue 29:9,11
purge
24:2
purpose 19:19
pursuant
5:5
pursued 26:12
p
quality9:923:8 24:10,19
29:24 31:19,20 32:13
33 :9, 11, 13, 14,16,18,20
34:4,10,23 35:11 36:18
36:19 37:5,8,19 38:9,17
38:23 40:13 41:22 42:7
42:14 43 :9,10,12,17,23
44:8,17
quarter
37:20
quarters 5:24
Question 25:11
questions
12:2,5,6 13:5
15:20 22:18,22 23:9
24:12 27:2,8 32:20
33:21 38:6,18 39:11
41:8 44:18 48:18
R
Railroad
19:7
raised 12:5,6 32:20
Randolph
1:20 2:4
Rao
2:2 4:15 27:4 46:9,12
rate
22:24 23:23 45:7
rates 39:1
read 16:6,20
18:20 29:1
reading 16:8
readings 35:6 36:10,11
realize 5:20
rebuttal
48:5
received 19:10
29:8
receiving 31:9 46:2
recent 44:11
Reclamation 34:11
recommendation 11:13
12:7 14:15 33:22 35:9
39:10
recommending 14:13
record
4:1 5:8,10 7:6 9:1
11:15 13:21 16:6,10,20
17:11 18:19 22:17
27:21 28:24 42:19
46:16,18,20 47:5,12
48: 12, 13,15
recorded 34:4,7,16,19,21
36:4
reduce 12:20 19:2 1
20:9
reduction 7:16
8:13
36:13
reductions 7:13 20:13,20
references 23:6
referred
20:6
refiling 11:1
refineries 7:10
20:11
Refiners 19:14
refinery 7:9,19 8:7
10:8
10:11,20 13:7,10 17:24
19:3,8,20 20:4,11,12,20
20:21 21:2,9,1425:4
26:11 30:4,5,11 31:23
32:4,6,10 33:23 34:14
34:16 35:17 36:1 39:3
41:1,15,17 43:16 44:10
45:4,7,11,12,16
refinery’s 19:21,24 24:14
25:22 34:3 36:6 37:22
39:5 42:20 45:2
Refining 1:6 4:7 6:9 20:5
regarding
15:20 44:18
registered 29:12
50:5
Registry 19:17
regulated 37:1,3
REGULATIONS 33:1
regulatory 20:1 .31:1
Reid
2:7 3:6,9 6:3,4,4
15:24 16:3,13,21 17:1,9
18:17 26:15,24 27:19
28:22 46:15,24 47:1,14
48:7,10
rejected
10:3
related 7:15 32:19
relates
14:2
relating
13:11 32:1
relationship
44:22
relative 9:13
release 25:13
relevant 37:21
relied
14:16 39:1 42:23
relief
8:22 13:5
remains 39:7
repeat 22:16
replies 49:4
report 1:16 24:8,18 38:8
38:22 42:6,9,13
reported
50:8
reporter
16:12,19 50:6
reports
30:8
representative 44:21
representing 6:13
request
11:8 14:6 18:18
28:23 33:6 39:5 40:6,11
40:18 42:20 44:10
requested 11:2,7
33:2,19
45:22
requests 29:23 40:12,14
require
39:18
45:21
required
7:17 8:2 14:8
25:5
requirements 21:7 41:14
requires 20:24 25:1
research 30:15 37:18
residential 10:16 25:18
26:6, 10
resolved 13:13
respect 11:16 14:3
respectively 20:10,14
respond 22:17
respondent 1:13 4:9 48:9
Response 25:11 44:17
responses
22:22 23:9
24:12 33:21 38:6,18
39:10 41:8 48:23 49:1
responsibffities
30:4
responsibifity
19:4
responsible 31:1
44:7
responsive 12:5
rested 46:22 48:3
restrict 12:23
restrictive 44:1
result 9:2,8 21:12
resume 32:16
retain 26:7
retained 32:9
retention
25:7,14 26:13
reveals 35:6
review 14:11
15:4
35:5
37:4,13 47:21
revised
12:4,9
Rhodia’s 40:17
right 46:10
River 8:4 9:19 10:14
12:12 25:2 30:13 3 1:14
31:16,16,17,18 32:4
33:4,7,10 36:3,5 38:2
38:21 40:23 45:9
road 8:20
22:9
Robert4l:11
rock 39: 19,21
Room 5:17,17
rooms 5:20
Rosenthal
2:7 6:6
routinely 12:13
23:2 1
RPR 50:17
rule 5:12 9:10
13:9 30:21
40:449:3
rules 14:9
rule-making 13:16
ruling
11:8
run
5:5
23:11 31:16
runoff 10:13,15 22:9
25:15,19 26:6,10 35:8,8
40:10 43:13
R84-13
13:16 20:1
R93-8
13:17 20:2 39:6
42:21
R98-14 13:17 20:2 41:12
42:21
S
S 3:11
Sable 31:14
safe 15:10
Saline 31:17
salinity 25:6 41:3 43:20
salt22:9 31:17 35:8
40:10 43:13
same
18:7 21:12 26:17
28:11 29:18 32:23
34:12 42:8 43:24 46:12
sample 9:15 35:22
samples 33:23 35:23
P.E2:3,15 3:8 27:15
Page 56
Page
57
sampling 9:14,2 1 30:8
35:3
sanctions 21:4
Sanitary 3 1:13
33:3,24
38:2,20 44:5
satisfaction 24:23
says 50:5
scale-up 40:18
scenario 35:20
schedule 10:20,23,24
11:9,11 20:19 21:2,5,24
22:3 40:19
schedules 40:2 1
Science 19:10
29:8,10,19
Scott 2:11 6:16
scrubber
8:12 9:8 10:1
10:10 20:21 21:8 24:3,7
24:13 25:6 26:7,13
32:12 33:4 35:18 39:8
41:3 43:19 45:18,21
scrubbing 23:3
Sears 6:6
season 25:9 41:6
seasons 25:3 40:24
second 22:6 26:15
Secondary 33:8,15
Secondly 14:20
section
5:5,6
26:1 44:4
sediment 31:20
see4:11 21:10 39:18 44:9
seeking
7:4 14:17
seem 44:11
sensitivity 9:15
separate 8:5
September 23:18 37:16
series 13:11
serve 29:14,18
served 29:16
set 49:5
several 11:21
37:4 39:12
sewering 10:4
Ship 8:3
3 1:13 32:3 33:3
33:24 38:2,20 43:18
shorthand
50:8,12
show 5:21 9:1
shows
7:7
signed 20:16
significant 7:5,13,20 33:5
similar 22:9 44:11
45:2
Simon 39:22
simultaneous 48:22 49:4
since
18:3 19:4 22:20
39:6 44:15
sir46:15
site 25:15
site-specific 13:9,13 20:3
size 25:4 41:1 45:24
snowmelt
8:20 9:18
12:15,19 22:8 26:8,14
35:7,12
sodium 23:7 33:5,13
37:24
solely 43:13
solids 8:1,3,18
13:6 21:13
30:2 1
solution
23:7
some 14:1 22:17
27:7
31: 10 46:1
Sonnenschein
2:7 6:6
soon 22:13
source 33:6
sources 7:14
South 2:8
Southern 44:4
SO2 20:9,13
special 25:23
specific 12:5 22:23
spell 17:11 27:21
spent 30:22
Springfield 2:13
SS 50:1
Stacy 2:16
4:22
stakeholders 37:6,11
40:1
standard 13:14
20:1 22:8
33:9,12,14,16 34:23,23
35:11,21,24 37:9 39:5
40:18 42:20,23 43:10
44:8
standards 29:20 32:1
33:13 36:19 37:5,19
40:14 44:17
start-up 30:3,6
state 7:21
14:6 17:10,15
27:20 28:1 29:20 37:14
50:1,7
statement
5:2
states 7:8 31:3,10 35:10
Statewide 29:19
station 34:17
stay 11:9
Stein 41:11,12,14
Steven
44:5
still
44:7
stipulated 10:2 1 21:3
stood 14:19
storage 45:12
storm 25:13,15,17
26:6
32:5
strategies 26:10
stream 25:3 31:18 32:11
39:14,16 40:8,24 41:20
43:7 44:22
streams22:10 31:9,13,21
35:12 39:1
Street
1:20 2:4 13:8
17:17 34:18
strong
36:9
Studer 44:3
studies3l:8,10,21 41:21
study 32:2 39:2,3,7 42:8
42: 19,22
subject 10:2 1 33:6
subjects 32:8
submission 47:17
submitted 20:17 21:23
23:5,24 24:4,20,23 34:8
38:12,14 43:6 48:19
Subpart 5:6,6
SUBSCRIBED 50:19
substantial 7:16 8:8 9:4
20:23
substantially
20:9
suggested 6:19
Suite 2:4,8
sulfate 9:7 23:21 24:14
33:5,14,16,17,19 37:9
37:24 38:4 40:4 42:4,11
42:12 43:9,11
sulfates 13:7 23:1 24:2,6
24:16 31:11 36:23 37:2
38:20 43:4
sulfur
7:16
Supervisor 44:3
support 13:19
14:6 15:12
18:13 20:23 28:18 30:7
32:15 47:4,23
supported 37:8
sure 5:13
16:17,24
surveys 31:11,18
SWB25:14,14,23 26:1,14
swear 16:22 27:12
sworn 17:3,7 27:13,17
50:4,19
system 22:6
25:7 30:9
41:15
systems 31:2
T
T3:11
take 13:24 15:22 26:19
26:20
taken 25:1 43:22 50:12
talking 48:15
tank
25:5 41:2,4
tankage 10:11
tasks 40:21
TDS 8:6,18 9:7,13,16,19
9:24 12:11 13:621:14
22:7 23:1,10,13 24:2,6
24:14,16,2425:1 30:21
31:11 33:2,6,9,11,23
34:3,6,10,14,18 35:4,5
35:6,15,16,22,22 36:4,6
36:10,10,11,20,23 37:2
37:8 38:4,10,19 40:1,4
40:9,13,19,20,22 41:24
42:4 43:4,5,12,12,17
45:5,9,18 46:1
technical
4:15 15:15 27:4
30:7 32:15 37:7 46:9
48:17
technology 8:14 40:15
41:9,16
tell 28:5
terminate
25:2 1
test 8:21
35:22 36:2
tested
23:22 35:23
testified 17:7 27:17 49:12
testimony 9:22 10:17
11:19 12:8 15:5,8,17,21
15:21 16:2,4,9,18,23
18:4,7,10,13,18 19:1,19
26:17 28:8,12,15,18,23
29:4 41:11 45:14 47:4,9
47:17,22,24
testing
25:4 37:14 40:24
tests 23:10 37:17
Thank 5:4 6:10,17,23
13:22 15:13 46:7 47:14
48:2 49:16
thanks 49:15
their 35:13 46:22 49:1
themselves 6:2
thereunder 14:10
think 49:8
Thorn 31:15
though 11:3
thought 26:19
three
7:10 20:10 29:16
30:15 35:2,3
through3:14 5:18 11:21
13:1 15:16 18:12,14
20:1 28:17,2047:3
throughout
31:9 39:23
tight
5:24 10:19 11:11
time 10:13,24 12:22
18:17 26:9 28:22 45:23
47:2
title
17:2 1
today 4:10 11:19 13:21
15:6,22 16:7 45:11
46:14 47:6 48:1 49:12
today’s 15:11
together 27:11
told 10:5
tons 20:10,14
total 7:24 8:2,17 13:6
21:13 30:21 35:20 36:8
41:19 43:20
Tower 6:7
toxicity 36:20,22 37:14
37:17
TOXICITY/FUTURE
36:18
training
32:7
transcribe 16:19
transcribed 16:6 18:19
28:24 47:10
transcript 47:11 50:12
translates 35:15
treated 21:14
45:8
treatment 10:7 23:10
30:6,7,12,17 41:13,15
Page 58
41:17
true 18:10,15 28:15,20
50:11
try
26:7
turn
27:3 46:8
Twait2:11 6:16
two
14:12,24 19:7 20:11
22:2 25:3 30:1 32:1
40:24 46:14
Tyler 31:17
typically 37:1
tjhe 44:6
this 44:20
U
ultimate 5:11
ultimately 25:22
unable 14:5
under 7:23 8:14 10:19,22
11:9 35:20
underground 39:17
understanding 12:14,19
28:10
understood 45:22
undertake 12:18
underwent 13:11
Unical 13:10
unit 4:15 15:15 20:22
24:15 27:4 44:4 46:9
48:17
United 31:3,10
University 19:12 29:9,12
unknown 44:23
unless 22:11
unnecessary 40:7
UNO-VEN 19:9
until 36:17
upgrading 10:15
upstream
34:2 36:10
upwards 39:20
Use 33:11,14 34:22 37:2
37:9
used
23:3 25:14 39:22
42:3
using 25:13 40:18
utilized
42:8
U.S 7:8 10:22 20:7
37:13
41:18
V
valid 39:7
values 36:22
variability
9:20
variance
7:4,24 8:22 9:3
9:5 11:1,6,16,23
13:3
13:20 14:17 21:6,15
22:12,12,15 32:16,19
33:2,6,18 40:6,11
variances 13:11,12 40:13
variety
32:7 36:21
various 19:12
3 1:24
verify 9:20 16:23
18:9,14
26:16,17 28:14,19
very 6:17 10:13,19
viable 26:9 39:24
Vice 29:5
Village 44:11,18
violation 35:12
44:8,9,16
violations 40:9
41:23
43:9,13,17 44:13 45:14
volume
25:17 26:6
vs 1:8 4:8
W
W2:15 3:5 17:5
Wacker 2:8
wading 15:16
want4:145:7,15 15:14
15:22 16:1 26:18
wants 6:19
waste 39:16
wastewater
8:1,11,17
10:7 21:14 23:10 30:6,7
30:12,17 31:8,24 32:11
34:3 40:8 41:12,15,17
41:19
wastewaters 30:19
water 9:9 11:4 19:21
21:19 22:1 23:8 24:3,9
24:19 25:13,15,17 26:1
26:1,4,6 29:24 31:19
32:5,13 33:9,11,13,14
33:15,18,20 34:4,9,11
34:22 35:11 36:18,19
37:5,8,19 38:9,17,23
40:13 41:22 42:7,14
43:9,10,12,17,23 44:8
44:16 45:22 46:3
waters
37:2
waterway 33:8 34:12
waterways
25:16,21
Wauconda
44:22 45:1
Wauconda’s
44:11,19
way
32:4
ways 12:23
weekly 23:11
33:24
weeks
15:3
well
6:21 10:2 20:23 21:9
22:18 26:17 29:13
30:12 39:14,17 40:3
wells 39:18,22
were 5:20
12:3 13:13,15
18:12 24:3 28:18 34:4
38:11,21 40:17 49:17
West
1:18 2:4 28:3
wet 8:12 9:8 10:1,9 20:21
21:8 23:3 24:3,7,13
25:5 26:7,13 32:12 33:4
35:17 39:8 41:2 43:18
45: 17,21
we’l14:13 6:18 16:18
we’re 4:1
5:4 46:19 48:21
we’ve 9:11 11:12 15:1,9
48: 15,16,21
winter 25:3,9
35:7 40:24
41:6
wish 5:1
witness
3:3 17:1,3,6
26:16 27:13,16
witnesses 16:22 46:14
49:11
work 30:1 37:13
worked 11:12 27:11
31:23
working
7:3 11:11 30:16
written
47:9
WWTP 23:11,22
X
X3:1,11
Y
year 23:12
years 19:5,6,7,8 25:17
29:16 30:1,15,22 31:6
3 1:24 34:2 37:4 40:13
yield 12:20
yielded 35:24
Yr
23: 13
z
zip 17:19
zone 25:24 31:21 32:2
39:2,3 42:8,19,22
0
0.6 36:7
00142:18
05-85
1:8 4:6
084-004466
50:18
1
13:14 18:12,14 20:17
25:8,9 28:17,19 35:19
41:5,7 43:20 47:3
1,000 33:12 34:23 35:15
36:3 45:10
1,075 35:1
1,100 20:14
1,139 35:2
1,194
35:1
1,408
34:16
1,500 33:9
1,535 34:18
1,595
34:15
1,636
34:7
1,800 37:10
1,867 34:2 1
1,902 34:24 36:4
1/25/2001 35:1
10
9:11 37:12 46:4
lOb
33:21 38:18 41:8
42:10
10c 38:18
lOd 38:18
lOe 38:18
41:8 42:16
lOf
25:11 39:11
10-year 38:24
100 1:18
2:4
101 5:6
1021 2:12
104 5:5
11 14:22 35:19
38:6,15
11-500 2:4
11-512 5:17
12 14:22 19:8 38:15 41:8
43:3
12’926:2,4
1339:1844:19
135th 13:7 17:17
1440:16
14th 49:2
142,000 42:15
1474 23:16
15 3:14 18:12,14 28:18
28:20 33:22 35:4,9
44:6
44:10 45:15 47:4
15th 48:24 49:2
15,000 20:13
1504 23:17
1597 23:19
16 19:6
1680
23:17
1699 23:18
17 3:6 39:10
17th 15:17 18:5 28:9
18 3:
14
1933:22
1948
23:19
1970 29:9
1971 29:12
1973 30:14
1977 23:16
1979 28:7 29:7
1982 41:18
1992 39:1 42:8
1994
19:4
1998
34:1,4
1999
34:5
2
210:2411:2121:1
2/1/2001 35:1
2/8/2001
35:2
2021:1
20,000,000 35:16
2000 34:5,13,19,21
2001 34:5,16,17
2002 34:5,6,13
2003 23:18 34:5
2004 21:16,22 23:6,12,13
24:1,5,8,18,21 34:5
37:5 38:12,15,22 40:2
42:6,13 44:6
Page
59
2005 1:2,22 4:10 18:5
20:16 28:9 34:1,5 37:16
37:20 50:20
2009 25:8,9 41:5,7
21st 49:4
21.20
35:24
215,000 35:18 38:10
2172:13
2183 23:15
2231:2445:15
2244 23:15
23,000
20:10
233 2:8
24
1:2 34:19,21
24th 1:20 4:10
2493 23:14
25 31:6
26 20:16
2644 23:14
27 3:9
274,000 39:8,13
293 35:23
3
321:10,22
3rd 48:20
3,690 35:14
3/16/2000 34:24
30 19:5 31:7
304.213 13:15
20:4
312 2:5,9
35 13:14 20:4
38,000,000
36:5
4
421:1534:15
4a
22:22
4b 22:22
4th 49:7
4,000,000 45:17
5
5 10:17 21:21 23:6 24:1,5
24:21 34:17 38:13 41:8
41:9
5-85
5:17
500 33:15
512 28:3
6
6
11:21 24:10,19 34:10
35:5
38:6,9,23 42:7,14
6a23:9
6b23:9
6c23:9
6d23:9
60439 17:20
60525 28:4
60601 2:5
60606 2:9 6:7
62794 2:13
7
7 11:24
24:24 40:20 43:6
7a33:21
7b
41:8,21
7,000 20:10
7-day 38:24
7735:23
782-0610 2:13
8
821:1632:1734:639:11
8000
2:8 6:6
814-8917 2:5
876-2380 2:9
9
34:1
35:5
9a 24: 12
9b 24:12
9:00 1:24
9:05 4:11
94 18:3
9
