60 1 ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 2 3 IN THE MATTER OF: ) AS 02-5 4 ) (NPDES Adjusted Standard) PETITION OF NOVEON, INC., ) (Not Consolidated) 5 FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM) 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 304.122 ) Volume II 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 The following is the transcript of a hearing 15 held in the above-entitled matter, taken 16 stenographically by Gale G. Everhart, CSR-RPR, and 17 Jennifer E. Johnson, CSR, RMR, CRR, notary publics 18 within and for the Counties of Peoria and Tazewell and 19 State of Illinois, before Bradley P. Halloran, Hearing 20 Officer, at 122 North Prairie Street, Lacon, Illinois, 21 on the 18th day of February, A.D. 2004, commencing at 22 9:05 a.m. 23 24 L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 61 1 PRESENT: 2 HEARING TAKEN BEFORE: ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 3 100 West Randolph Street James R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500 4 Chicago, Illinois 60601 (312) 814-8917 5 BY: MR. BRADLEY P. HALLORAN, ESQUIRE 6 APPEARANCES: 7 GARDNER, CARTON & DOUGLAS 8 BY: RICHARD J. KISSEL, ESQUIRE MARK LATHAM, ESQUIRE 9 SHEILA H. DEELY, ESQUIRE Attorneys at Law 10 191 North Wacker Drive, Suite 3700 Chicago, Illinois 60606-1698 11 (312) 569-1442 On Behalf of the Petitioner. 12 ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 13 BY: DEBORAH J. WILLIAMS, ESQUIRE Attorney at Law 14 1021 North Grand Avenue East, Springfield, Illinois 62794 15 (217) 782-5544 On Behalf of the Respondent. 16 17 ALSO PRESENT: 18 Richard Pinneo Lorraine Robinson 19 David Giffin Michael R. Corn 20 Anand Rao Nicholas J. Melas 21 Alisa Liu Chen H. Lin 22 William L. Goodfellow, Jr. Linda M. Shaw 23 Kenneth J. Willings 24 Members of the public and press L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 62 1 I N D E X Page 2 3 GREETING BY HEARING OFFICER. . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 4 WITNESSES FOR PETITIONER: 5 T. HOUSTON FLIPPIN, P.E., DEE 6 Direct Examination by Mr. Kissel . . . . . . 67 Cross-Examination by Ms. Williams. . . . . . 103 7 Redirect Examination by Mr. Kissel . . . . . 155 8 MICHAEL R. CORN, P.E. Direct Examination by Mr. Kissel . . . . . . 186 9 Cross-Examination by Ms. Williams. . . . . . 216 Redirect Examination by Mr. Kissel . . . . . 230 10 Recross-Examination by Ms. Williams. . . . . 233 Further Redirect Exam by Mr. Kissel. . . . . 235 11 Further Cross-Exam by Ms. Williams . . . . . 237 12 WILLIAM L. GOODFELLOW, JR. Direct Examination by Mr. Kissel . . . . . . 238 13 Cross-Examination by Ms. Williams. . . . . . 241 Redirect Examination by Mr. Kissel . . . . . 250 14 Recross-Examination by Ms. Williams. . . . . 251 Further Recross-Exam by Ms. Williams . . . . 255 15 LINDA M. SHAW 16 Direct Examination by Ms. Deely. . . . . . . 263 Cross-Examination by Ms. Williams. . . . . . 268 17 Recross-Examination by Ms. Williams. . . . . 279 18 GUY DAVIDS Direct Examination by Mr. Latham . . . . . . 281 19 Cross-Examination by Ms. Williams. . . . . . 290 Redirect Examination by Mr. Latham . . . . . 298 20 Recross-Examination by Ms. Williams. . . . . 300 21 22 23 24 L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 63 1 EXHIBITS: Page 2 Identified Admitted 3 PETITIONER'S 7. . . . . . . . . . . 67 68 PETITIONER'S 8. . . . . . . . . . . 68 69 4 PETITIONER'S 9. . . . . . . . . . . 69 70 PETITIONER'S 10 . . . . . . . . . . 70 74 5 PETITIONER'S 11 . . . . . . . . . . 71 74 PETITIONER'S 12 . . . . . . . . . . 87 88 6 PETITIONER'S 13 . . . . . . . . . . 95 98 PETITIONER'S 14 . . . . . . . . . . 98 102 7 PETITIONER'S 15 . . . . . . . . . . 101 102 PETITIONER'S 16 . . . . . . . . . . 186 187 8 PETITIONER'S 17 . . . . . . . . . . 187 188 PETITIONER'S 18 . . . . . . . . . . 189 190 9 PETITIONER'S 19 . . . . . . . . . . 190 191 PETITIONER'S 20 . . . . . . . . . . 191 192 10 PETITIONER'S 21 . . . . . . . . . . 192 193 PETITIONER'S 22 . . . . . . . . . . 194 195 11 PETITIONER'S 23 . . . . . . . . . . 195 196 PETITIONER'S 24 . . . . . . . . . . 196 197 12 PETITIONER'S 25 . . . . . . . . . . 197 198 PETITIONER'S 26 . . . . . . . . . . 198 199 13 PETITIONER'S 27 . . . . . . . . . . 199 200 PETITIONER'S 28 . . . . . . . . . . 201 202 14 PETITIONER'S 29 . . . . . . . . . . 203 204 PETITIONER'S 30 . . . . . . . . . . 235 238 15 PETITIONER'S 31 . . . . . . . . . . 239 241 PETITIONER'S 32 . . . . . . . . . . 239 241 16 PETITIONER'S 33 . . . . . . . . . . 264 265 PETITIONER'S 34 . . . . . . . . . . 265 266 17 PETITIONER'S 35 . . . . . . . . . . 266 267 PETITIONER'S 36 . . . . . . . . . . 306 -- 18 PETITIONER'S 37 . . . . . . . . . . 306 -- 19 All exhibits were retained by Hearing Officer Halloran. 20 21 22 23 24 L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 64 1 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you. Good 2 morning. My name is Bradley Halloran. I am a hearing 3 officer with the Illinois Pollution Control Board. I'm 4 also assigned to this matter entitled Adjusted Standard 5 02-5. It's entitled In The Matter of Petitioner Noveon, 6 Inc., for an Adjusted Standard From 35 Illinois 7 Administrative Code 304.122. This hearing is continued 8 from yesterday. 9 The petitioner was putting on his case in 10 chief. I believed we finished with one witness at that 11 time, Mr. Giffin. And I do want to note that it's my 12 pleasure to announce that we have member Nick Melas 13 here, and we have technical advisors Anand Rao and Alisa 14 Liu. All three may or may not be asking questions 15 during the hearing itself. 16 Again, we are going to run this hearing 17 pursuant to section 104.400 to 104.428 under the Board's 18 rules. 19 With that said, any preliminary motions, 20 Mr. Kissel? 21 MR. KISSEL: No. We still have the issue of the 22 transcript and the testimony from the permit appeal, but 23 why don't we wait on that until we begin the testimony. 24 We can always deal with that at some time. If that's L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 65 1 okay with Debbie? 2 MS. WILLIAMS: I did my homework. So I'm ready to 3 talk about it any time. 4 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you very much, 5 Ms. Williams. 6 MR. KISSEL: Why don't we go forward with the 7 testimony so we can get that out of the way. 8 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I guess, for the record, 9 do you want to introduce yourselves again? 10 MR. KISSEL: My name is Richard Kissel of the law 11 firm Gardner, Carton & Douglas. To my right is Mark 12 Latham, also of that firm, and to my left is Sheila 13 Deely, also of that firm. We represent Noveon, Inc. 14 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you. 15 MS. WILLIAMS: Good morning. I am Deborah 16 Williams. I'm assistant counsel with the Illinois EPA. 17 And I have with me again today Lorraine Robinson, my 18 legal investigator, and Rick Pinneo, to my left, 19 Environmental Protection engineer and serving as my 20 technical advisor in this matter. 21 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you. And it looks 22 like there might be one or two members of the public. 23 Again, as I stated yesterday, the Board welcomes and, in 24 fact, encourages public comment, anything that's L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 66 1 relevant to the matter at hand. So raise your hand or 2 during a short break come up and talk to me and we can 3 get you up in the chair and you can state your piece. 4 With that said, Mr. Kissel, you may proceed. 5 (Witness sworn.) 6 MR. KISSEL: Before beginning this testimony, 7 Mr. Hearing Officer, he has pre-prepared testimony which 8 we filed with the Board. And the question was raised 9 yesterday as to whether we want him to read that 10 testimony or put it in the record as though read and 11 then, again, whatever additional questions we have and 12 then cross-examination. I have no particular 13 preference. 14 Obviously, not having him read the testimony 15 saves the Board and the rest of the people time. We do 16 have copies of his testimony available for review for 17 those members of the public. My suggestion -- I'll just 18 leave that as it is. I don't know how the IEPA feels 19 about it or whatever. 20 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Ms. Williams? 21 MS. WILLIAMS: I think primarily, like Mr. Kissel 22 said, it's whatever is easier for the Board to process 23 and what works for the members of the public present. I 24 guess I think maybe it would be best to ask them whether L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 67 1 they prefer to be able to read the stuff when they go 2 home or whether they want to hear it here today to help 3 them provide their comments. 4 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I think -- and, again, 5 we want to accommodate the members of the public, but I 6 have full confidence that they can read the written 7 testimony. And unless I'm mistaken -- I guess I will 8 ask the public. Anybody in the public have any thought 9 one way or another if, in fact, Mr. Flippin and a few of 10 the other witnesses sit up here and read verbatim what 11 will be available to you shortly or just leaving the 12 written testimony on a table you can pick it up and read 13 it yourself? Would that be fine? Do I see any hands? 14 Yes, sir? 15 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I would like to have a written 16 copy. 17 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Yes, sir? 18 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I would as well. 19 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: We have three written 20 copies. So I guess, Mr. Kissel, we will just go ahead 21 and leave copies of the prefiled written testimony. And 22 then we will leave it at that and you can do your 23 summary questioning of Mr. Flippin. 24 Yes, sir? L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 68 1 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Could we have the copies 2 available now as the cross-examination takes place? 3 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Sure. 4 MS. WILLIAMS: What about exhibits? Are exhibits 5 included? 6 MS. DEELY: We don't have copies of all the 7 exhibits, but we do have the testimony. 8 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: The exhibits will be at 9 the Board office in Chicago. In fact, quite a few of 10 them might be able to get online. It's just a page. I 11 think they scan them. 12 T. HOUSTON FLIPPIN, P.E., DEE, 13 called as a witness, after being first duly sworn, was 14 examined and testified upon his oath as follows: 15 DIRECT EXAMINATION 16 BY MR. KISSEL: 17 Q Would you identify yourself for the record, 18 please? 19 A Yes. I'm Thomas Houston Flippin. 20 Q Mr. Flippin, I show you what has been marked 21 as Petitioner's Exhibit -- what number are we on? 22 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Number 7. 23 Q For Adjusted Standard 02-5, and ask you to 24 tell me what that is. L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 69 1 A This is the written testimony which I have 2 prepared. 3 Q Did you prepare that yourself? 4 A I did. 5 Q And is that a true and correct copy of the 6 document you prepared? 7 A It is. 8 Q Can you verify that what is in there is true 9 and correct? 10 A Yes, I can. 11 MR. KISSEL: I move the admission of the testimony, 12 and I would like it included as though read. 13 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Ms. Williams? 14 MS. WILLIAMS: I have no objection. 15 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: That is admitted and the 16 record will so reflect that it is admitted into evidence 17 as if so read. 18 Q Mr. Flippin, I ask you to identify this 19 document which has been marked as Petitioner's Exhibit 8 20 in the Adjusted Standard 02-5. 21 A This is a copy of my resume which I have 22 prepared. 23 Q Is that a true and correct copy? 24 A It is. L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 70 1 Q And is the information contained therein 2 accurate, true and correct? 3 A It is. 4 MR. KISSEL: I move the admission of Exhibit 8. 5 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Ms. Williams? 6 MS. WILLIAMS: We have no objection to that. 7 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Exhibit Number 8 is 8 admitted. 9 Q Mr. Flippin, I show you what has been marked 10 as Petitioner's Exhibit 9 for the Adjusted Standard 11 hearing 02-5. Would you please give a brief description 12 of what that is? 13 A Be glad to. This is a collection of articles 14 that came from a literature search dealing with the 15 topic of mercaptobenziothiazole, also referred to in my 16 testimony as MBT. And in this collection of articles 17 what you will find is an article by Grady, Les Grady and 18 Mel Hockenbury that references previous work by 19 Tomlinson and others that describe MBT as being an 20 inhibitor to biological nitrification. 21 Q And where did you get those articles, that 22 series of articles? 23 A These articles came from a literature search. 24 One being from the Journal of the Water Pollution L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 71 1 Control Federation, that being the Hockenbury and Grady 2 article. Another article came -- I apologize for not 3 mentioning this in my initial statement -- another 4 article describing MBT as a nitrification inhibitor came 5 from the National Corn Handbook. And the last article 6 is one that Grady built his work on, Grady and 7 Hockenbury, and it came from the Journal -- this article 8 came from the Journal of Applied Bacteriology. 9 Q And are those articles published in 10 recognized journals in your profession? 11 A Yes, sir, they are. 12 Q Did you rely on those articles in preparing 13 your testimony? 14 A I did. 15 MR. KISSEL: I move the admission of Petitioner's 16 Exhibit Number 9. 17 MS. WILLIAMS: No objection. 18 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Petitioner's Exhibit 19 Number 9 is admitted into evidence. 20 Q I show what has been marked as Petitioner's 21 Exhibit Number 10 in the Adjusted Standard 02-5 and ask 22 you to briefly describe what that is, please. 23 A This exhibit actually is contained in the one 24 we just processed. And, again, it's an article written L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 72 1 in the National Corn Handbook describing how MBT can be 2 used as a biological nitrification inhibitor in 3 fertilizers. 4 Q Is that the National Corn -- what is it, the 5 National -- 6 A The National Corn Handbook. 7 Q Is that a journal that is relied upon in your 8 business and trade? 9 A It is. 10 Q And did you rely upon that article in 11 preparing your testimony today? 12 A I did. 13 MR. KISSEL: I move the admission of Petitioner's 14 Exhibit Number 10. 15 MS. WILLIAMS: We don't have a copy of it. 16 MR. KISSEL: Do you want to take a look at it? We 17 will wait until she looks at it. I will go on if that's 18 okay. 19 Q The next three exhibits, Mr. Flippin, I will 20 ask you as I would have if you had testified with your 21 written statement to explain a little more. But in any 22 case, first let's identify them. And I show you what 23 has been marked as Petitioner's Exhibit 11 and ask you 24 to tell me what that is, please. L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 73 1 A This is a summary report that I prepared on 2 May 17th, 2002. And what this report did is it 3 summarized our findings about alternative treatment 4 technologies that would be applicable for reducing 5 effluent ammonia-nitrogen from the Noveon-Henry plant. 6 In this exhibit you will find not only the 7 description -- 8 Q Before going into that, just describe it so 9 we can get it into evidence. 10 A Right. It's basically a summary of 11 alternative technologies, their operating costs, their 12 capital costs and their present worth costs for reducing 13 effluent ammonia-nitrogen. 14 Q Did you prepare that document? 15 A I did. 16 Q What did you rely on to prepare that? 17 A I relied on waste load information entering 18 the primary treatment system at the Noveon-Henry plant. 19 I relied on final effluent quality being discharged from 20 the Noveon-Henry plant. I relied upon my own process 21 design development capabilities. And I relied upon the 22 assistance of other engineers as well as construction 23 costs estimators within our company and knowledge of 24 the -- my working knowledge of the site, the L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 74 1 Noveon-Henry plant. 2 Q Did you -- does that document contain true 3 and correct information? 4 A It does. 5 MR. KISSEL: I move the admission of Exhibit Number 6 11. 7 MS. WILLIAMS: Can I ask a couple questions? First 8 of all, do you want to clarify for the Board that this 9 is the same exhibit that's number 7 for the Petitioner, 10 is that correct, Exhibit 7 to the Petition for Adjusted 11 Standard; is that correct? 12 MS. DEELY: Yes. That's what it is. 13 MS. WILLIAMS: Would it be possible for the witness 14 to clarify what data he meant that he used as a basis 15 for these numbers as far as where we could find that 16 information elsewhere in the record? 17 THE WITNESS: The data that I used in developing 18 this waste load and used in developing the designs and 19 the cost estimates within this document, let's take, 20 first of all, the waste load being discharged to the 21 primary treatment system. That data stated in the 22 exhibit was individual waste stream data gathered in 23 1995 which, in discussing this data with the 24 Noveon-Henry plant staff, is not significantly different L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 75 1 from what would be present today. 2 The effluent data that I used and have 3 summarized is data that was gathered during 1999 through 4 2000. And, again, it would not be anticipated after 5 talking with the plant staff, particularly Guy Davids 6 and Dave Giffin, it would not be expected to be 7 appreciably different today. 8 MS. WILLIAMS: I have no objection to this exhibit 9 with those clarifications. 10 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: So what about the 11 Petitioner's Exhibit Number 10? 12 MS. WILLIAMS: That's fine, too. 13 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay. Petitioner's 14 Exhibit Numbers 10 and 11 are admitted into evidence. 15 Q Mr. Flippin, please look at Petitioner's 16 Exhibit 11 which is in evidence. And would you briefly 17 describe what is contained therein and some of the 18 conclusions you came to? 19 A Yes. Be glad to. First of all, let me say 20 that what you are seeing if you had this document in 21 front of you is a listing of what I'll call all proven 22 technologies for effluent ammonia reduction. And in 23 this list you will see alkaline air stripping. You will 24 see that applied to the PC tank, the PVC tank and the L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 76 1 secondary clarifier effluent. In alkaline air stripping 2 you basically convert the ammonia in the wastewater to a 3 gas, and then you strip it off. Next you will see a 4 technology known as struvite precipitation; ammonia can 5 be precipitated. It can be precipitated as struvite 6 which is essentially ammonium magnesium phosphate. Next 7 you will see breakpoint chlorination of a secondary 8 clarifier effluent. In that process ammonia is oxidized 9 to nitrogen gas. Next you will see nitrification of the 10 nonNoveon wastewaters also called the PVC tank 11 wastewaters. You will see biological nitrification or 12 combined nitrification in a single stage of both the 13 Noveon wastewaters and the nonNoveon wastewaters called 14 the PVC tank wastewaters. When I speak of nonNoveon 15 wastewaters, please let me remind you that at the site 16 there are two companies that share a wastewater 17 treatment facility. One being the Noveon plant, the 18 other one being the PolyOne plant formerly known as 19 Geon, formerly known as BF Goodrich. 20 Then you will see a treatment called ion 21 exchange treatment which basically is a resins columns 22 system where either sodium or hydrogen, and in our case 23 we picked a hydrogen resin, where the resin releases 24 hydrogen in order to, if you will, take hold of the L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 77 1 ammonia ion in solution. 2 Lastly, you will see ozonation of the final 3 effluent. And in a similar way as chlorine, ozone has 4 the opportunity to oxidize ammonia to nitrogen gas which 5 then leaves as a gas. In nitrification a second -- the 6 last option listed, which is number 10, is nitrification 7 of secondary clarifier effluent, also called tertiary 8 nitrification. We considered that. We believe these 9 are the proven technologies for effluent ammonia 10 reduction. 11 Q At the Henry facility? 12 A At the Noveon-Henry facility. 13 Q These are on page 2 of Petitioner's Exhibit 14 11, you list the technologies and they are listed under 15 bullet points; is that correct? 16 A That is true. 17 Q To the right of each technology is a number? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q To what does that number correspond in the 20 later document? 21 A In the later document what those numbers 22 correspond to are headings of tables where we present 23 what we believe to be the capital cost required to 24 install those technologies at the Noveon-Henry plant, L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 78 1 and those numbers also are presented in tables where we 2 present what we believe to be the annual operating and 3 maintenance costs that would be incurred if those 4 technologies were installed at the Noveon-Henry plant. 5 Q Let's take one of the options. Which option 6 would you prefer to discuss to give an example of what 7 this does? 8 A The easiest one -- let's just take number 1. 9 Q Okay. 10 A Using number 1, which is alkaline air 11 stripping of the PC tank contents with off-gas 12 collection and treatment. Let me first of all say that 13 when you strip ammonia or you strip volatile amines 14 which later can, in biological treatment, be converted 15 to ammonia, when you strip those, you cannot help but 16 also strip other volatiles. And the Noveon-Henry plant 17 analysis of air quality would indicate that if this 18 option were employed you would have to cover the PVC 19 tank and collect the off-gas and treat that off-gas to 20 maintain air permit compliance. So if you look in table 21 3, what you will see -- 22 Q What is the title of that? 23 A The table 3 is entitled Capital Cost 24 Estimates for Treatment Alternatives. And what you will L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 79 1 see there is, we believe, that the pretreatment -- we 2 broke these costs in terms -- we split these costs out 3 in terms of pretreatment, primary treatment and 4 secondary treatment and tertiary treatment depending on 5 where the treatment option was employed. If it was 6 employed prior to primary clarification in treatment, it 7 was called pretreatment. If it was employed during the 8 primary treatment process, it was called primary 9 treatment. If it was employed as part of the activated 10 sludge treatment system that they already have in place, 11 it was termed secondary treatment. If it was employed 12 downstream of the secondary clarifier, it was called 13 tertiary treatment. 14 In this case the treatment would be employed 15 ahead of the primary treatment system; therefore, it was 16 termed pretreatment. We believe the capital costs of 17 installing that treatment system equipment-wise was 18 $650,000 or .65 million. All of the terms in this table 19 are presented in millions of dollars. So the subtotal 20 for the equipment and materials were $.65 million. We 21 then added to that what we believe was going to be 22 involved in site work and interface piping costs. And 23 those costs, if you will, were not rule-of-thumb 24 numbers. Those were calculated numbers based on knowing L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 80 1 the proximity of the PC tank to where you could place an 2 off-gas treatment device and the proximity of the PC 3 tank to the primary treatment system. So that was not a 4 rule-of-thumb number. It was actually a calculated 5 number for site work and interface piping of $100,000. 6 The electrical and instrumentation costs, again, was a 7 calculated number, not a rule-of-thumb number. It was 8 based on the proximity of this treatment device to 9 available electrical power on the Noveon-Henry plant 10 site. That was an additional $250,000 or .25 million. 11 Now you are going to see a list of terms 12 called "contractor indirects." Anytime a contractor 13 installs a piece of equipment he will have indirect 14 costs that he passes through to the purchaser or to the 15 buyer of this system. You will also see the costs for 16 engineering of this system and the construction 17 management of this system during its installation and 18 construction. And you will see a term called 19 "performance bonds." And most projects of this nature 20 require a performance bond. The percentages listed for 21 contractor indirects, engineering and construction 22 management and performance bonds are conventional 23 numbers used for projects of this type. 24 Lastly, when you sum those up, you get $1.17 L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 81 1 million. And what that represents is the constructed 2 costs if all run smoothly. And you always have a 3 contingency in an installed-cost estimate. This type of 4 project, we believe the 15 percent contingency was a 5 reasonable number. That 15 percent represents .18 or 6 $180,000, .18 million or $180,000. When you sum it all 7 up, including the contingency, you get what we would 8 call a total-installed cost and that is $1.35 million 9 for what we are calling alternative number 1, which is 10 alkaline air stripping of PC tank contents with off-gas 11 collection and treatment. 12 Q Did you do the same thing for alternatives 2 13 through 10 as well? 14 A Yes, we did. 15 Q So the total-installed costs for those 16 particular alternatives are listed under their number? 17 A They are. 18 Q And done on the same basis that you talked 19 about number 1? 20 A Exactly. 21 Q Now in addition to the information on table 3 22 there, you turn a couple of pages into your exhibit, 23 there is a document entitled Figure 1 Block Flow Diagram 24 of Waste Stream Sources and WWTF. Can you tell us what L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 82 1 that is? 2 A Yes. What that is is an illustration of the 3 current wastewater treatment facility provided at the 4 Noveon-Henry plant. 5 Q Is that referred to in your testimony as 6 Figure 1? 7 A It is. 8 Q Now I'm looking at the next page. There is a 9 Figure 2. Can you tell us what that is? 10 A Yes, I can. What that is is a block flow 11 diagram of alkaline air stripping of the alkaline air 12 stripping treatment alternatives that range from 13 applying that technology to the PC tank contents as we 14 just discussed, applying that to the PVC tank contents 15 and applying that to the secondary clarifier effluent. 16 Q So am I correct in saying that if you looked 17 at Figure 2, you see the block flow diagram for the 18 various treatment alternatives numbered 1, 2 and 3; is 19 that correct? 20 A Yes, sir, that's true. 21 Q And that is, there are flow diagrams or block 22 flow diagrams in this exhibit for each of the 23 alternatives 1 through 10? 24 A There are. And one thing that should be L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 83 1 noted about these block flow diagrams, the existing 2 equipment in these block flow diagrams is listed in bold 3 and the new equipment is listed in a nonbolded line. So 4 that would help people know what would have to be 5 installed to implement the alternative. 6 Q Turn to the next page, page 3 of Petitioner's 7 Exhibit 11 and look at table 4. Will you tell the Board 8 what that is and use alternative number 1 again, please. 9 A Be glad to. That is the annual operating and 10 maintenance cost estimates for the treatment 11 alternatives listed 1 through 10. And under number 1, 12 if you will, what you will see is the annual O and M 13 costs listed in terms of thousand dollar increments. 14 So, for example, the labor cost associated with 15 operating alternative number 1 we estimated to be 16 $32,000 a year. That was based on a labor cost of $40 17 an hour which includes benefits. We estimated it would 18 cost $64,000 a year using an electrical cost of 6 cents 19 per kilowatt hours. 20 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: You may continue, 21 Mr. Flippin. 22 A We estimated natural gas cost of this 23 alternative to be $18,000 a year, and that is based on 6 24 cents per therm. Then we estimated a maintenance L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 84 1 materials cost -- 2 Q Before -- there are other costs that are 3 listed that are not applicable to alternative 1. Just 4 describe those briefly. 5 A Exactly. Thanks. The chemical costs that we 6 use here is actually the chemical costs -- we calculated 7 quantity of chemicals that would be needed and then used 8 actual costs that Noveon pays for those chemicals at the 9 time this document was written. Then there is a resin 10 replacement cost, and at the time this document was 11 written, the resin replacement cost if ion exchange had 12 been chosen would have been $35 per cubic foot. 13 On off-site disposal costs, that value used 14 there again referred to the ion exchange process 15 primarily. And that was based on a conventional value 16 and a typical and common value of 10 cents per gallon 17 for off-site disposal. For maintenance materials cost, 18 which was part of alternative number 1, we used a 19 conventional value of 5 percent of the equipment costs 20 to calculate the annual O and M maintenance cost. And 21 for alternative 1 that would have been $17,000 a year. 22 The next is the subtotal of what I will call the cost we 23 are able to define at this point. And that subtotal 24 cost was $130,000 a year. And what you know when you do L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 85 1 these annual O and M cost estimates is you are bound to 2 have missed something. And so we added a contingency 3 here of 10 percent which is quite reasonable. And 10 4 percent, needless to say, on $130,000 a year is $13,000 5 a year contingency. 6 When you sum all that up, you get a total 7 annual operating cost of $143,000 a year. And we 8 made -- we calculated that same total annual cost for 9 all 10 alternatives. 10 Q So, for example, if for alternative number 8, 11 which is ion exchange treatment of effluent -- of final 12 effluent, the annual operating cost is $576,000? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q Now can you describe table 5 for us and why 15 you have that table in there. 16 A I can. If you want to know what anything 17 costs you, it's not just what you pay to have it 18 installed, it's also what you pay to keep it going. And 19 so you have got to know when you build something how 20 much money do you need in the bank today, to not only 21 build it, but to keep it running. And that is called 22 present worth cost. And so anytime you make a 23 comparison of any treatment process and, candidly, 24 anything that has an installed cost and continuing L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 86 1 operating cost, it must be done on a present-worth-cost 2 basis, that comparison, so you genuinely will know how 3 they compare. That comparison, again, defines what you 4 must have in your pocket today to fund that process. 5 And in this table -- and it's called comparison of 6 present worth cost and ammonia removal for treatment 7 alternatives. And those costs were calculated for 1 8 through 10. The first column, a row in this table, is 9 the pounds per day of ammonia reduced through the use of 10 this process. The next column -- 11 Q Would you describe that for alternative 12 number 1, please, what we have been following through 13 this? 14 A Be glad to. For alternative number 1 we 15 calculated an estimated 247 pounds per day of effluent 16 ammonia reduction if this process were installed and 17 operating. The next row is the ammonia removal 18 expressed in a percentage. If this process were 19 installed while removing 247 pounds per day on average, 20 it would reduce the average effluent ammonia discharge 21 by 27 percent. The present worth cost of installing 22 this alternative is expressed in term of capital costs 23 which, if you remember earlier, we said would cost $1.35 24 million to install, and it's present-worth-operating and L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 87 1 maintenance cost based on a 10-year project life, based 2 on an annual interest rate of 8 percent, and based that 3 at the conclusion of that 10 years of having no salvage 4 value, it's operating and maintenance cost would require 5 $960,000 in the bank today to fund it over the next 10 6 years. 7 Q Mr. Flippin, there is no present worth cost 8 assigned to the capital cost because it is assumed that 9 it is paid on construction; is that correct? 10 A That is true. 11 Q If it was financed there would be an 12 additional cost as a result of that for the financing? 13 A That is true. 14 Q Or the lack of use of that capital for other 15 things, correct? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q And you use a 10-year period. Is that 18 customary? 19 A The reason the 10-year period was used, if 20 you look at the life of concrete tanks and other things 21 like that, most would use a longer period of time. 22 However, if you look at the cost of equipment like air 23 strippers of pots of, if you will, that type of 24 equipment, a 10-year life is not an unusual life. And L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 88 1 so a 10-year life, if you will, was considered to be a 2 minimum term in project life. Candidly, had we used a 3 longer life, it would have made our present worth costs 4 for operation and maintenance higher. So when I present 5 the total present worth cost for these alternatives, 6 please understand that these are minimum total present 7 worth costs because of the life that I chose of 10 8 years. 9 Q Have others used longer lives in assessing 10 present worth costs for waste treatment facilities? 11 A Yes, sir, they have. 12 Q How high or low have they gone? 13 A The highest that I have seen, most -- let me 14 say the conventional practice is to use a life no longer 15 than 30 years, some use 20. 16 Q And, generally speaking, what happens when 17 you use a longer life? 18 A It makes the present worth cost of the annual 19 O and M, operation and maintenance cost, much higher. 20 Q That was not -- you used 10 years which makes 21 it lower than 30 years, is what I'm saying? 22 A And makes it lower than 20 years as well. 23 Q I show you what has been marked as 24 Petitioner's Exhibit 12. Would you tell us what that L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 89 1 is, please? 2 A Yes, I will. This exhibit is our attempt to 3 quantify what the present worth cost would be if we were 4 to provide incremental reduction of effluent 5 ammonia-nitrogen. 6 Q Did you prepare this exhibit? 7 A I did. 8 Q Are the data expressed therein true and 9 correct to the best of your knowledge? 10 A They are. 11 MR. KISSEL: I move the admission of Petitioner's 12 Exhibit 12. 13 MS. WILLIAMS: Is this attached to this testimony? 14 MR. KISSEL: Yeah. Yes, it is. It should be. 15 MS. WILLIAMS: What exhibit was it to the 16 testimony? 17 MS. DEELY: It was Exhibit D. 18 MS. WILLIAMS: I don't see anything to object to. 19 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Petitioner's Exhibit 20 Number 12 is admitted. And, also, while we are on that 21 subject of exhibits, I'm missing Petitioner's Exhibit 22 Number 10. I think Ms. Williams was taking a look at 23 that. 24 MR. KISSEL: I think you admitted that into L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 90 1 evidence. 2 MS. WILLIAMS: I gave that back. 3 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I don't have it 4 physically. 5 MS. WILLIAMS: You gave it to me to look at, and 6 then I gave it back. 7 (Brief pause in proceedings.) 8 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you. 9 MR. KISSEL: Are 11 and 12 in evidence? 10 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: 11 and 12 are in 11 evidence, correct. 12 MR. KISSEL: Okay. Thank you. 13 Q How many pages does Exhibit 12 consist of, 14 Mr. Flippin? 15 A Two pages. 16 Q Would you take a representative technology 17 and run through the particular table? 18 A I will be glad to. Let's talk about one that 19 has where we looked at incremental removal to make 20 matters easier. Is that reasonable? 21 Q Yes. 22 A Effluent stripping, this is basically taking 23 the secondary clarifier effluent, elevating the pH to 24 approximately 10-1/2 or up to 11, and placement through L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 91 1 the air strippers. The intent of that is to strip the 2 effluent ammonia from the liquid phase into the air. 3 And if you will notice in this option we are not 4 providing off-gas treatment. So in this table it's 5 called effluent stripping with no off-gas treatment. 6 Q Looking at the first page of Petitioner's 7 Exhibit 12, with the line that starts "WWTF component," 8 it starts with the third line, "effluent stripping"? 9 A It starts with the -- 10 Q The fourth line. 11 A Right. The third line, we did also look at 12 what the cost would be if we were to provide off-gas 13 treatment. But you are right, it starts with a fourth 14 line which is "effluent stripping without off-gas 15 treatment." 16 Q Will you describe that line? 17 A Be glad to. That line, if you will, assumes 18 that we can strip 98 percent of the effluent ammonia 19 being discharged into the air. The next column is based 20 on the cost of stripping 75 percent of the ammonia into 21 the air. The next column is based on stripping 50 22 percent of the effluent ammonia into the air, and the 23 next column is based on stripping 25 percent of the 24 effluent ammonia into the air. L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 92 1 Q Would you take -- let's take the 75 percent 2 removal, for example. Would you just go down briefly 3 through the line below that to explain how you came to 4 the various numbers therein? 5 A Glad to. The labor hours we believe to 6 operate this system would be 1,300 labor hours a year. 7 At the $40 per hour labor costs that are previously 8 explained, that would be $52,000 a year in labor. The 9 power requirement for this alternative is 450 10 horsepower. The kilowatt hours, just basically 11 converting the 450 horsepower are 2,940,732 kilowatt 12 hours for an annual electrical cost at 6 cents per 13 kilowatt hour of $176,444. The maintenance materials 14 costs, again, based on 5 percent of the 15 equipment -- capital equipment costs, is 101,000 -- 16 sorry, $1,013,600 and expressed as an annual cost, that 17 would be $50,680 per year over the 10-year project life. 18 For chemical costs, let me say that these 19 chemical costs on the front end, Noveon has done an 20 excellent job in negotiating good chemical costs. These 21 chemical costs would be higher for many people. For 22 caustic condition Noveon would be at $240 per ton for 50 23 percent caustic. In this alternative Noveon would be 24 spending $434,000 a year in caustic. And when you raise L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 93 1 the pH up to approximately 11 to strip the ammonia, you 2 have to lower the pH to at least 8-1/2 before you 3 discharge it to maintain effluent permit compliance. So 4 we also have acid condition here to lower the pH, and 5 Noveon's cost at this time was $46 per ton for 98 6 percent sulphuric acid. We believe the annual cost 7 incurred for the acid addition is $119,850. 8 When you sum -- and we also -- in some of 9 these alternatives we needed to add phosphorus. In some 10 of these alternatives we use, we looked at adding 11 magnesium hydroxide. In some of these alternatives we 12 looked at adding hydrochloric acid. In some of these 13 alternatives we looked at adding chlorine gas. And I 14 have listed the chemical cost that we assume for each of 15 those. And I say "assume," those are what we believe 16 the Henry plant would need to pay for each of those. 17 The annual chemical cost was $553,850 a year. 18 The next column that you see is Annual Resin Replacement 19 Cost, Annual Off-Site Disposal Cost, Natural Gas Cost in 20 which this stripping alternative did not have any of 21 those. We then calculated the subtotal of the annual 22 cost, and for this alternative it would be for labor, 23 electrical, maintenance materials and chemical costs. 24 The annual operating cost would be $832,974. We added a L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 94 1 contingency, as I described earlier, on the annual O and 2 M cost of 10 percent because you almost always leave 3 something out. And that contingency was $83,297. The 4 total annual operating and maintenance cost we estimated 5 for this alternative to be $916,271. And when that was 6 converted to a present worth value, what you would need 7 to have in the bank today to fund that annual operating 8 and maintenance cost over the next 10 years at an 8 9 percent interest rate, you would need to have in the 10 bank today $6,148,181. The capital cost for this 11 alternative was $3,770,418. And so the total present 12 worth cost, that is, adding the present worth annual 13 operating and maintenance cost, plus adding the capital 14 costs, the total present worth cost was $9,918,599. The 15 average ammonia removal that we believe this process 16 would provide was 648 pounds per day, again, resulting 17 in approximately a 75 percent removal. The present 18 worth cost expressed in dollars needed in the bank today 19 per pound of ammonia that would be removed over this 20 10-year project life is the cost we calculated which was 21 $4.20 per pound. Let me explain one more time how 22 that's calculated. You take the total present worth 23 cost, what you must have in the bank today to install 24 this process and to operate this process over the next L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 95 1 10 years, and then you calculate, during that 10-year 2 period, how much ammonia you would remove. And that's 3 simply the pounds per day of ammonia removed, times 365 4 days per year, times 10 years. And so you have the 5 total pounds of ammonia removed, the total present worth 6 cost during that 10-year period. You divide the two and 7 you get $4.20 present worth dollars per pound of ammonia 8 removed. 9 Q You take the annual amount of ammonia removed 10 and divide it? You didn't do it that way, did you? You 11 used the entire 10 years? 12 A I did. 13 Q How many technologies in Exhibit 12 did you 14 evaluate for this incremental approach? 15 A We evaluated a total of 10 technologies. And 16 for the incremental approach we evaluated three. 17 Q That is effluent stripping with no off-gas, 18 effluent ion exchange and tertiary nitrification? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q And those latter two appear on page two of 21 the exhibit? 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q Thank you. 24 Mr. Flippin, I show you what has been marked L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 96 1 as Petitioner's Exhibit Number 13 for identification. 2 A Yes, sir. This is a document that I 3 prepared, and the title of this document is the 4 Comparison of Costs and Removal of Effluent Ammonia 5 Removal Processes for the Noveon-Henry plant, the 6 Noveon-Henry wastewater treatment facility with a 7 10-year project life. And then I also repeated the same 8 calculations with a 20-year project life. 9 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Kissel, do you have 10 Exhibit 12 that's been admitted? 11 MR. KISSEL: I believe so. This is the -- 12 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you. 13 A And then -- 14 Q Let me, just so we make the record clear, the 15 10-year project life appears on the first two pages of 16 the exhibit; is that correct? 17 A That is correct. 18 Q And the 20-year project life appears on the 19 next two pages? 20 A That is correct. 21 Q And the next four pages is what? 22 A The next four pages is a comparison of 23 removals and reliability of effluent ammonia removal 24 processes for the Noveon-Henry wastewater treatment L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 97 1 facility. And in this document we list each technology, 2 what we believe to be the average effluent ammonia 3 reduction that can be achieved with that process. We 4 then give it a -- each process a reliability rating. 5 And the reliability rating, basically 10 would be the 6 highest and zero would be the lowest. And reliability 7 was based on our relative assessment of mechanical and 8 processed performance reliability to achieve the average 9 percent ammonia reduction removal stated. In essence, 10 reliability means the ability of a treatment process to 11 achieve the predicted effluent ammonia-nitrogen 12 concentrations on a routine basis. Then the next column 13 is a Comments column where we describe what each of 14 these technologies would involve and what obstacles, if 15 any, would they face. 16 Q Going back to the first four pages, and I 17 think we pretty much talked about the capital cost, 18 operating costs and present worth costs, have we not, in 19 the percent removal? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q There is a column for each of these which 22 says dollars per pound ammonia or NH3-N removal. Would 23 you tell us both on the first page and on the third page 24 of the two cost comparisons what that is? L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 98 1 A Be glad to. For the first page that was 2 based on a 10-year project life at 8 percent interest. 3 And, again, we calculated over that 10-year life what 4 the present worth dollars one would need in the bank 5 today to not only build the process, but to fund the 6 process over a 10-year period. We then calculated the 7 cumulative pounds of ammonia that would be removed 8 during that 10-year project life and, basically, simply 9 divided the present worth dollars by the cumulative 10 pounds of ammonia removed during the 10-year life. And 11 that category is presented in column 4 in dollars per 12 pound of ammonia removed. And when you see NH3-N, 13 that's an acronym for ammonia expressed as nitrogen. 14 Q Did you prepare that document? 15 A I did. 16 Q And is it true and accurate to the best of 17 your knowledge? 18 A It is. 19 MR. KISSEL: I don't know if I moved the admission 20 of that. 21 MS. WILLIAMS: I would like to ask one question 22 before -- 23 MR. KISSEL: I just want to move the admission of 24 Petitioner's Exhibit 13. L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 99 1 MS. WILLIAMS: Would you mind asking the witness to 2 clarify for us -- for those of us that are not 3 engineers, this gives me like major headaches -- that 4 the technologies listed in this Exhibit 13 are the same, 5 right, as what's listed in Exhibit 11? 6 MR. KISSEL: Is that correct? 7 THE WITNESS: That is correct. 8 MS. WILLIAMS: There are some slight named 9 differences that if you understand what the technology 10 is probably you could probably tell right away that PC 11 tank stripping with off-gas control is the same as 12 alkaline air stripping of the PC tank, but I just want 13 to make sure that's the case, right? 14 THE WITNESS: That's the case. 15 MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you. I have no objection. 16 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Petitioner's Exhibit 17 Number 13 is admitted into evidence. 18 A Would you like for me to discuss -- you had 19 asked me to discuss pages 1 and 3. And I just discussed 20 the column 4 on each of those pages. Is there any 21 further explanation you would like for me to offer? 22 Q No. Not at this time. I show you what we 23 have marked as Petitioner's Exhibit 14 for 24 identification. Tell me what that is, please. L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 100 1 A I will. A discussion occurred in which the 2 question was asked, What were the population equivalents 3 for the untreated waste load at the Noveon-Henry plant 4 prior to 1990. And this written testimony prepared by 5 me addresses that question. 6 Q Can you briefly summarize -- or strike that. 7 Did you prepare this document? 8 A I did. 9 Q The information relied on in that document 10 included what? 11 A The information relied upon in that document 12 came from two sources. It came from Illinois 13 regulations, particularly section -- and I have listed 14 in this document 304.345. It needs to be corrected to 15 be 301.345. But it relies upon the regulations' 16 definition of population equivalents. It relies upon 17 memos sent within the Illinois EPA. It relies upon the 18 Illinois EPA's description of the Noveon wastewater 19 untreated waste load in 1983. It relies upon the 20 definition of the Noveon untreated waste load as defined 21 in permit applications for construction approval, dated 22 April 23, 1987 and approved on May 28th, 1987, by IEPA. 23 An application for permit construction submitted on 24 April 21st, 1988, by Noveon and approved by IEPA on L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 101 1 October 11th, 1988. Information presented of the 2 untreated waste load by Noveon and its application for 3 construction approval on April 24th, 1989, and approved 4 by IEPA on June 28th, 1989. An application for 5 construction approval submitted by Noveon on September 6 11th, 1989, where the untreated waste load was described 7 and approved by IEPA on October 20th, 1989. And I went 8 through this exercise to see if at any point in this 9 prior time previous to 1990, at any point was there any 10 information that would define the Noveon population 11 equivalents at greater than 50,000, and at no point did 12 that occur. At no point did the data suggest those 13 populations equivalents were greater than 50,000. In 14 all cases they were less. 15 MR. KISSEL: I move the admission of Petitioner's 16 Exhibit Number 14. 17 MS. WILLIAMS: At this point I have some objection, 18 I guess, that I would like to raise. This probably can 19 be cured maybe by an additional exhibit. In the 20 Agency's opinion I think it's worth stating we don't 21 really think this information is relevant or necessary 22 to the Board to make its decision in this case, but we 23 recognize that there is very broad latitude here. If 24 the hearing officer feels it's relevant, then that L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 102 1 pretty much goes. But I would like to request at this 2 point that if this exhibit is going to be entered that 3 the document referred to at the bottom of the first 4 page, August 24th, 1983, memo also be entered into the 5 record as an exhibit to support the foundation of it. 6 MR. KISSEL: I don't think it's necessary to 7 support the foundation, but I have no -- it's an Agency 8 memo so I have no problem -- 9 MS. WILLIAMS: I don't have a clue in my box where 10 to find a copy of it. And I took your word for it 11 yesterday that it was somewhere as part of the permit 12 appeal record. And I would appreciate it, and I think 13 it would make it easier for the Board and us to be able 14 to refer to that document today. I don't think it's 15 unreasonable. They already have it ready. Thank you. 16 MR. KISSEL: Can we mark this exhibit as 17 Petitioner's Exhibit 15 and ask Mr. Flippin to take a 18 look at that, please? 19 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I'm sorry. What is it 20 again, 15? 21 Q Would you describe what it is, please? 22 A Sure. Exhibit 15 is a memorandum prepared by 23 the Illinois EPA in which the Illinois EPA states on 24 pages 1 and 2 what they believe to be the untreated L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 103 1 waste load associated with the Noveon-Henry plant. 2 Q It is an Illinois Environmental Protection 3 Agency memo that was provided to you? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Is this the memo that is referred to in your 6 testimony, Thomas W. Meyer and Lyle A. Ray, in their 7 memo dated August 24th, 1983? 8 A It is. 9 MR. KISSEL: I move the admission of Exhibits 13 10 and 14 -- I'm sorry, 14 and 15. 11 MS. WILLIAMS: 14 and 15. I just want to point out 12 for the hearing officer that going down this road of 13 looking at actually what the PE is, we are more than 14 prepared to cross-examine Mr. Flippin, present counter 15 testimony and even, possibly, bring in further rebuttal 16 testimony tomorrow, if necessary, to fully develop that 17 issue. But we do feel it's really not relevant to what 18 we are talking about here today as to whether or not 19 relief from the standard as it exists is appropriate. 20 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I'm going to split the 21 difference with you, Ms. Williams, so to speak. I'm 22 going to allow exhibit -- Petitioner's Exhibit 14 is 23 admitted over your objection. But your request for 24 Petitioner's Exhibit Number 15 is also admitted. And L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 104 1 that's the memo you have just spoken to. 14 and 15 are 2 admitted into evidence. Objection so noted. 3 MR. KISSEL: I have no further questions at this 4 time. 5 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Ms. Williams? 6 MS. WILLIAMS: Do you want me to get started? 7 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Sure. 8 CROSS-EXAMINATION 9 BY MS. WILLIAMS: 10 Q Good morning, Mr. Flippin. I'm going to 11 start by asking you some questions in general about the 12 prefile testimony, and then we will probably go more 13 specifically through some of your exhibits. 14 On the first couple of pages -- I believe 15 it's page 3 of your testimony, yes, page 3 -- you list 16 in several different categories a number of facilities 17 that you have worked on installing nitrification systems 18 that are in some way comparable to the work you have 19 done in this case, correct? 20 A In this case I have evaluated nitrification 21 facilities. And in these other cases I've actually 22 developed designs which were installed. 23 Q So in all these cases designs have actually 24 been installed and implemented? L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 105 1 A In the cases listed on page 3, these are 2 facilities that have been installed and they are 3 operational. 4 Q With the exception -- 5 A With the exception of Eli Lilly in Puerto 6 Rico which is currently under construction. 7 Q What about the Lower Bucks County? 8 A Rohm and Haas combined with Lower Bucks 9 County, Bristol, Pennsylvania, facility; that facility 10 was designed but never installed due to lack of funding. 11 Q How much was that project projected to cost? 12 A We were responsible for developing the design 13 for a construction -- sorry, for a detailed design 14 engineering firm, and they were the ones who prepared 15 the capital costs for that facility. So I'm unaware of 16 what their cost was for that facility. 17 Q What about the others? 18 A The other facilities -- if you will, these 19 facilities, my role in them, let me say, was primarily 20 to develop the process design. 21 Q So in none of these were you responsible for 22 coming up with the cost estimates then? 23 A On none of these -- let me look at this one 24 moment. L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 106 1 (Pause in proceedings.) 2 A On none of these was I responsible for coming 3 up with the cost. 4 Q Did any of these plants, once the facilities 5 were implemented, have a discharge exceeding 225 6 milligrams per liter of ammonia-nitrogen? 7 A In each of these cases these facilities were 8 designed to provide complete nitrification. And so the 9 effluent ammonia concentrations were very low. 10 Q Like lower than 5? 11 A They were certainly lower than 20. However, 12 I should note that for several of these facilities the 13 incoming ammonia concentration was as high as 400 to 600 14 or higher. 15 Q Pounds per day? 16 A Milligrams per liter. On a pounds-per-day 17 basis it would have been on some of these greater and on 18 some of these less. 19 Q Looking on page 19 -- well, I might be 20 looking at page 19 of your old testimony. I'm having a 21 little trouble going from -- 22 (Pause in proceedings.) 23 Q In your testimony you discussed upgrading of 24 the tankage at the Noveon plant, correct, to be fully L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 107 1 compliant with the ten state standards? 2 MR. LATHAM: Where is his testimony? 3 MS. WILLIAMS: It's in here somewhere. 4 Q Is it true -- I mean, if you don't recall 5 testifying to that then I can ask another question. 6 (Pause in proceedings.) 7 Q There we go, page 21, second paragraph. Are 8 you following me now? 9 A I am. 10 Q And you state that Noveon expanded aeration 11 in 1998 by 100 percent; is that correct? 12 A That is true. 13 Q Isn't this because of an expansion in 14 production? 15 A It was done for several reasons. One was to 16 accommodate expanded production. Two was to provide 17 greater treatment plant flexibility. 18 Q Can you explain in more detail what you mean 19 by "greater flexibility"? 20 A Certainly. There are ways -- if all you 21 needed was greater oxygen aeration upgrades, there are 22 ways to accomplish that within a given tankage. 23 However, when you go to the extent of building 24 additional tankage, not only do you get the additional L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 108 1 oxygen transfer, you get the additional flexibility of 2 having added tankage. That allows you, if needed, to 3 take aeration tanks out for service and other 4 flexibilities. 5 Q And they doubled the tankage, correct? 6 A They did. 7 Q Did this doubling provide greater oxygen 8 transfer? 9 A The additional aeration equipment that came 10 with this doubling certainly did. 11 Q Did it provide any improvement in ammonia 12 effluent levels? 13 A It did not to my knowledge. 14 Q Can you explain why? 15 A I believe the reason that it didn't was 16 because of the presence of bio-inhibitors in the 17 influent to the Noveon-Henry plant wastewater treatment 18 facility. 19 Q Did it have anything to do with alkalinity? 20 A The Noveon-Henry plant has adequate 21 alkalinity to initiate and accomplish some 22 nitrification. 23 Q What do you mean by "some nitrification"? 24 A In nitrification you require -- when the L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 109 1 bacteria removes essentially a pound of ammonia, they 2 consume approximately seven pounds of alkalinity. They 3 will continue to do that until they reach a limiting 4 concentration of alkalinity at which time they were 5 unable to provide additional ammonia removal. The 6 Noveon-Henry plant does, in fact, have alkalinity 7 present at concentrations great enough to achieve some 8 nitrification if it were not for the presence of 9 bio-inhibiting compounds that inhibit nitrification. 10 Q So can you explain to us the statement on 11 page 16, "Consequently, if biological nitrification 12 could be implemented with inhibitor control, the 13 majority of alkalinity would have to be chemically 14 added"? 15 A Clearly my two statements are very 16 consistent. 17 Q I'm not saying they are inconsistent. I'm 18 just asking you to explain them for us. 19 A Glad to. The Noveon-Henry plant -- 20 Q We are having a much more friendly proceeding 21 today than yesterday, Mr. Flippin. 22 A The Noveon-Henry plant wastewater, when we 23 have analyzed it in the past, contained about 200 to 24 200-- between 200 and 300 milligrams per liter of L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 110 1 alkalinity. We have found in our work that a limiting 2 concentration of alkalinity nitrifiers, basically, 3 quote, unquote, become inhibited because of a lack 4 thereof, is around 50 parts per million. So what you 5 see is Noveon wastewater frequently and commonly 6 contains about anywhere from 200 to 250 extra milligrams 7 per liter of alkalinity that could be used for 8 nitrification. If you divide the 200 to 250 by 7, what 9 you will see is that normally they can remove -- they 10 can nitrify approximately 30 milligrams per liter -- 11 Q 5.7, 35.7. 12 A -- of ammonia. But, if you will, the ammonia 13 that needs to be nitrified if they were to provide 14 complete nitrification is certainly greater than 30 on 15 average. And so that is why I am saying that if they 16 were required to nitrify completely the bulk of the 17 alkalinity that they would need would have to be added. 18 There is just not enough present to do complete 19 nitrification. 20 Q Can you explain why Mr. Giffin told us 21 yesterday that they didn't add alkalinity when they 22 worked on attempting to reduce inhibitors? 23 A What the facility did do is they ran a 24 pretreatment system designed to remove L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 111 1 mercaptobenziothiazole to a degree -- also known as MBT 2 in my testimony -- and that pretreatment system was 3 successful in removing up to 50 percent MBT and even 4 greater. If you will, they then after running that 5 pretreatment system for awhile with full scale 6 implementation, in other words, all of the polymer 7 chemicals wastewater went through it. After they had 8 run that pretreatment system for approximately two 9 months, they brought in nitrifiers from a facility whose 10 population was primarily that, nitrifiers, and added it. 11 When they added it, they had surplus alkalinity, surplus 12 dissolved oxygen. And if there had not been an 13 inhibiting environment, nitrification would have 14 initiated and would have been maintained to a certain 15 degree. And so the reason -- the fact that they did 16 not, quote, unquote, add any additional alkalinity did 17 not, if you will, jeopardize the ability to see if this 18 trial would initiate and maintain a certain level of 19 nitrification. 20 Q You also talk in your testimony about 21 something you call alpha. Can you explain what you mean 22 by alpha? 23 A Yes. Alpha is the oxygen transfer in 24 wastewater divided by the oxygen transfer in tap water L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 112 1 or clean water, if you will. And so the higher the 2 alpha, the easier it is to transfer oxygen in a 3 wastewater. 4 Q And you testify that Noveon's alpha is 5 something like half that of a typical municipal? 6 A Yes. Right. Typically, in a municipal 7 wastewater an alpha value for fine bubble-diffused 8 aeration is approximately 0.6. In 1987 when Gerry 9 Shell, a nationally recognized expert in oxygen 10 transfer, did test work on the Noveon-Henry plant 11 wastewater, they found with fine bubble-diffused 12 aeration an alpha of .35. 13 Q Did you do any tests since then to figure out 14 what's causing it? 15 A I have not. 16 Q Of course, it can be assumed that if that 17 number was higher, the efficiency of treatment at the 18 plant would be better, correct? 19 A The oxygen transfer does not define the 20 treatment efficiency. What happens, the lower your 21 alpha, the more horsepower or the more aeration 22 equipment you have to install to provide the same level 23 of treatment. 24 Q Does that translate to a rate of 4.6 pounds L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 113 1 of oxygen per pound of nitrogen? Would you agree with 2 that? 3 A I'm sorry, would you repeat the question? 4 Q Did they supply a rate of 4.6 pounds of 5 oxygen per pound of ammonia-nitrogen they were trying to 6 remove in the tanks? 7 MR. KISSEL: I just -- I don't get the context. Is 8 there some document that we are referring to? I just 9 want to make sure the witness understands what the 10 question is. That's all. 11 THE WITNESS: And, candidly, I don't. 12 MR. KISSEL: I sort of figured that. 13 Q We are trying to get at just simply whether 14 there was an attempt made to provide as much oxygen as 15 would have been necessary to nitrify. I mean, we know 16 there is an issue with bio-inhibition, as well, but it 17 seems relevant to find out whether there was enough 18 oxygen provided as well? 19 A Yes, it is relevant. And the answer to that 20 question is when the plant ran its interim pretreatment 21 system on a full-scale plan, treating all of the PC 22 wastewater for two months before adding the nitrifiers 23 at the time prior to the addition of the nitrifiers, 24 after the addition of the nitrifiers and for subsequent L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 114 1 weeks following that addition, the plant maintained 2 ample dissolved oxygen for the nitrifiers to have been 3 able to nitrify. 4 Q Can you quantify the ample oxygen for us at 5 all? 6 A I can. The plant has a policy of typically 7 operating at dissolved oxygen levels of 3 milligrams per 8 liter or greater. And those concentrations by no means 9 would inhibit nitrification. 10 Q Now sometimes they go lower than that, 11 correct, because your testimony says a minimum of 1.5 12 milligrams per liter? 13 A At times they will go lower than 3, down as 14 low as 1-1/2. But again, let me say that plenty of 15 nitrification systems maintain nitrification at 1-1/2 16 milligrams per liter DO. 17 Q On page 29, last paragraph -- I know I'm 18 jumping around a little bit. I apologize ahead of time. 19 A That's okay. 20 Q You talk about comparing the present worth 21 costs per pound removal with municipal plants. In the 22 last paragraph there you say, "It is less likely that 23 the present worth cost comparison of these facilities 24 reveal that the cost of ammonia-nitrogen removal is less L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 115 1 than 20 cents a pound." Can you tell me where you get 2 this, and is there something we can look to to find 3 figures like these? 4 A Yes. There is something that you can look 5 to. We evaluated the surcharge cost for the City of 6 Nashville, Tennessee. And in making such an 7 evaluation -- 8 Q Surcharge to industrial sources, or -- 9 A Surcharge to anyone who discharged 10 concentrations that the city considered greater than the 11 concentration associated with typical domestic sewage. 12 MR. KISSEL: I think he is referring to industrial 13 user charges -- 14 MS. WILLIAMS: Right. 15 MR. KISSEL: -- which a lot of sanitary districts 16 have. 17 Q This isn't looking at how much it costs to 18 treat the domestic waste then, or is it? 19 A This is looking at how much does it cost to 20 treat the concentrations -- this is looking at the cost 21 of what it takes to treat wastewaters that are stronger 22 in concentration than domestic sewage. 23 Q By a domestic plant that's not built to do 24 that? L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 116 1 A No. By a domestic plant that is built to do 2 that. 3 Q And that is which plant here are we talking 4 about? 5 A The Knoxville Utility Board operates multiple 6 plants that receive industrial wastewaters and also 7 apply surcharges based on BOD, suspended solids and 8 ammonia. 9 Q Did you look at any other? Was that the only 10 one you looked at? 11 A I looked at the City of Chattanooga; the City 12 of Nashville, Tennessee; Louisville, Kentucky. We were 13 looking at plants of, at least, comparable size in the 14 national vicinity. The only one I found that was 15 surcharging on ammonia at that time was the Knoxville 16 Utility Board. 17 Q I don't understand how that provides a 18 comparison to what we are talking about here? 19 A The purpose in a surcharge is to recoup your 20 costs, and it's not just your operating costs. 21 Q Isn't sometimes a surcharge also imposed to 22 discourage industrial users from going over a certain 23 effluent limit? 24 A It is -- while it might be a discouragement, L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 117 1 it is to recoup their costs. 2 Q Let's move on. Now you stated that the ten 3 alternatives you provided to review in this case are 4 all -- are the -- I believe the word you used was 5 "proven"? 6 A Proven. 7 Q Proven technologies for providing 8 nitrification, correct? 9 A Proven technologies for reducing effluent 10 ammonia. 11 Q Okay. Thank you. I want to get that very 12 clear. These are all proven technologies? We are not 13 looking at experimental technologies, or -- 14 A Exactly. 15 Q And they are technologies that are all in 16 place somewhere? 17 A Yes. 18 Q And have you worked with all of them 19 personally? 20 A In my resume the ones that you see that I 21 have worked with personally from a design go to 22 full-scale implementation, go to full-scale operation, 23 have been nitrification, biological nitrification and 24 breakpoint chlorination. All the others I have L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 118 1 evaluated on a bench scale treatability basis in order 2 to develop conceptual level designs and cost estimates 3 so the client themselves could see what their 4 alternatives were for reducing effluent 5 ammonia-nitrogen. So I have done that on other projects 6 as well this one. 7 Q So wouldn't it be fair to state then, 8 Mr. Flippin, that each of these technologies listed in 9 your testimony from a design standpoint are 10 technologically feasible to implement for reduction of 11 ammonia-nitrogen? 12 A Can they be built? Yes. 13 Q Thank you. That was all I wanted to know for 14 that question. 15 Now like I asked, I think in the 16 clarification that the figures that -- sorry, or the 17 technologies that you list in Exhibit 11 are the same 18 technologies that you go through the cost with in 1 19 through 10, numbered 1 through 10. And they are the 20 same technologies that you were looking at in Exhibits 21 12 and 13 that provide more detailed cost? 22 A That is true. The same technologies were 23 carried through. 24 Q At this point I would like to just sort of L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 119 1 ask you a number of questions about your cost figures. 2 I am not an economist, that's for sure. And so a lot of 3 these terms are somewhat unfamiliar to me so I would 4 appreciate a little bit of explanation about how you 5 derive them and maybe about what some of them mean. 6 Now with regard -- you discussed use of a 7 contingency. And you use a contingency in both the 8 capital component and the operating component, correct? 9 A I did. 10 Q And it sounded very logical to me what you 11 testified that, oh, it's always true that you miss 12 something, right? I mean, that certainly makes sense to 13 me. How did you come up with a figure 15 percent? 14 A When you look at a project and you look at 15 where it will be installed and you look at what 16 surrounds it and you look at the complexity of what you 17 are going to install, it derives what type of 18 contingency should you allow. 19 Q But wouldn't that have been different for 20 each of these alternatives, then, if that was the case? 21 A Thankfully the land where these would be 22 installed is essentially the same location. So that 23 made the uncertainty about location comparable to all. 24 It made the concern about proximity to other pieces of L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 120 1 equipment common to all. It made the uncertainties 2 about power, of delivery being in the same location, it 3 made that uncertainty common to all. And so the 15 4 percent you see there for capital cost contingency is 5 one based on this project and what was involved seemed 6 to be a reasonable value to apply. 7 Q But it pretty much was just your guess of 8 what seemed like a reasonable value? You didn't look to 9 a book, or -- 10 A Actually, what I looked to were construction 11 cost estimators employed within our company that do 12 these type of cost estimates frequently. And they are 13 in a better position to make that determination than I 14 am. 15 Q What else did you use to develop this? 16 A Pardon? 17 Q Are you talking about a model that's used at 18 your company or a person? I guess is my first question. 19 A For developing construction cost estimates we 20 certainly have people. 21 Q Right. 22 A Construction cost estimators. We also have a 23 model that includes our historical knowledge of what it 24 costs to install various pieces of equipment, et cetera, L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 121 1 et cetera. And so when looking at this project and 2 hearing me describe to them the locations, the distances 3 between units, the distance to substations, what other 4 projects had been built in that same area, if you will, 5 I relied upon their judgment as to what level of 6 contingency should be applied. And what I have 7 explained earlier are the factors that they considered. 8 And the 15 percent value that you used there was 9 considered reasonable. And in my dealings in these type 10 of estimates, that is not an unreasonable or unusual 11 number. 12 Q So what would be the range? 13 A Contingencies? 14 Q Yeah. 15 A I don't think anyone would apply a 16 contingency smaller than 5 percent. I think, depending 17 on the uncertainty, that contingency can be as high as 18 25 percent. 19 Q This is all still very fuzzy to me, I guess. 20 I don't suppose we are going to have a witness to 21 testify about what goes into that model and how those 22 numbers were derived then? You relied on them, but they 23 are not going to be here to provide that information? 24 A I certainly reviewed their construction cost L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 122 1 estimates. And I certainly took the information that 2 they provided in those estimates and placed that 3 information in these tables. 4 Q So you did place them in the tables yourself? 5 A I did. 6 Q Why did you choose a different contingency 7 for O and M? 8 A On operation and maintenance costs, the good 9 news about operation and maintenance costs, is there is 10 less uncertainty there than in the actual capital 11 installed costs or construction cost estimates. So 12 that's why you see a lower contingency there. Now why 13 is there contingency still there? One thing is you will 14 notice that the cost of chemicals that you see me 15 providing were the cost of chemicals that Noveon 16 provided -- was paying at the time of this estimate. 17 Chemical -- 18 Q So these are chemicals they currently use 19 already? 20 A The 50 percent sodium hydroxide is used 21 today. Sulphuric acid is used today; phosphoric acid is 22 used today. And so those chemicals are used today. 23 Q So you based that cost on what they pay? 24 A On what they paid at the time of this L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 123 1 estimate. 2 Q You stated that they had been able to 3 negotiate very good prices for those, correct? 4 A Yes. In comparison to other cost estimates I 5 have done, yes. 6 Q Can you give us some perspective on that? 7 What you mean by that? 8 A What do I mean by that? 9 Q 10 percent, 15 percent cheaper than other 10 companies? 11 MR. KISSEL: What is the question? I'm sorry. I 12 was distracted by my compatriot. 13 MS. WILLIAMS: I'm just asking -- he stated that 14 they have negotiated very good rates. And I asked for 15 some perspective, how much better than other facilities? 16 MR. KISSEL: If you know. 17 A For example, it's interesting at the time 18 there is a publication called the Chemical Marketing 19 Reporter that we use within our company where if we are 20 working with a client who is going to be using a new 21 chemical that they don't currently use, a Chemical 22 Marketing Reporter is a common document one refers to to 23 get the cost of a particular chemical. Let's just take, 24 for example, 50 percent caustic. If at the time this L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 124 1 cost estimate was developed Chemical Marketing Reporter 2 would have had you believe that you should pay about 300 3 to $350 a ton for 50 percent caustic. And, yet, you 4 will see the number that I used was $240 a ton, and that 5 is what Noveon was paying at the time. 6 Q I suppose it would make sense, though, 7 wouldn't it, they have gotten these good rates, if they 8 increase the amount they buy they might be able to 9 negotiate better rates, wouldn't they? 10 A There is two things that drive costs, of 11 course, one is availability and one is usage. 12 Q Supply and demand, is that what we call that? 13 A Exactly. 14 Q Let's talk about some of these other ones. 15 You give an estimate for gas and electric. What's that 16 one based on? 17 A The gas and electric was based on contacting 18 Noveon and asking what is a reasonable value to assume 19 for electrical costs and to use -- to assume for natural 20 gas costs. 21 Q Based on what they currently contribute to 22 PolyOne, or how do they -- based on what they currently 23 pay to run the plant? 24 A Right. Based on their current -- based on L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 125 1 their cost of electricity and cost of natural gas at the 2 time of these estimates, I simply ask, What is a 3 reasonable value for me to use in these cost estimates 4 for electrical and natural gas? 5 Q Do you know if they buy those off the market? 6 A I don't know how they purchase natural gas or 7 electricity. 8 Q But wasn't their testimony that -- yesterday 9 that they shared utilities with PolyOne? 10 A They do share utilities with PolyOne as it 11 equates to steam. They testified to that. As it 12 relates to river water treatment, they testified to 13 that. As far as electrical and natural gas, I don't 14 remember them testifying to that. 15 Q So you are not sure those figures are based 16 on buying it off the market or not? 17 A I don't know how they buy natural gas and 18 electricity. 19 Q Would we have to ask Mr. Giffin about that? 20 A Or Mr. Davids. 21 Q Mr. Davids, okay. 22 How about your labor costs, $40 an hour; 23 what's that based on? 24 A Again, based on contacting Noveon and saying, L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 126 1 I need a labor cost including salary and benefits, what 2 values should I use that's reasonable. And $40 an hour 3 is a value that was supplied to me. 4 Q And the only reason I'm requesting at 5 all -- we all understand the cost of benefits is pretty 6 substantial, but they did provide a figure elsewhere in 7 the petition of $23 an hour of being the average salary 8 in the plant. So was this a precise figure of the 9 difference between that $23 an hour and these benefits? 10 A If you will, Mr. Davids could testify to 11 that. 12 Q Was he the person you went to directly when 13 you wanted to get figures to plug into this table? 14 A Yes. And Mr. Giffin. 15 Q The next thing, I want to ask about labor; 16 and the last thing I want to ask about labor is, do you 17 assume for most alternatives, I think all of them except 18 1, 15 hours -- 15, did you call them man-hours -- 15 19 hours of labor a year to operate 1,500? On 20 exhibit -- turn to Exhibit 12. It looks like there is 21 some variety, but looking at Exhibit 12 the Labor Hours 22 line I think I was looking mostly at the second page 23 where they all were 1,500. The first page they do 24 range, several are 1,500, correct? L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 127 1 (Pause in proceedings.) 2 Q Is my question unclear? 3 A No. Your question is not unclear. I'm just 4 looking at the alternatives and what labor hours are 5 associated with them. 1,500 labor hours were associated 6 with alternative 3, alternative 5, alternative 6, 7 alternative 7, alternative 8 and alternative 10, when 8 complete treatment was provided. 9 Q And 1,500 hours comes out to about 30 hours a 10 week over 50 weeks. So, presumably, this would involve 11 having to hire another full-time person under each of 12 these alternatives 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10? 13 A If you notice, if we were hiring a full-time 14 person, we would have put 2,080 labor hours. So it does 15 not represent hiring a full-time person. It represents 16 using people that are already on staff or using a 17 portion of a person, if you will. 18 Q People who are already being paid either $23 19 an hour or that plus something, maybe 40, including 20 benefits, correct? 21 A For these labor hours. 22 Q When you give us the final figures on page 3 23 of Exhibit 11, the total at the bottom present worth 24 costs, you say they are based on a 10-year period which L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 128 1 you discussed in your direct examination, and you also 2 say they are based on 8 percent interest and no salvage 3 value. Can you tell us, why did you do that? What did 4 you base the 8 percent figure on, and why did you assume 5 no salvage value? 6 A Would you please show me which exhibit you 7 are referring to? 8 Q This is the same one from May 17th. I'm 9 sorry. Page 3. 10 MR. KISSEL: Here you go. 11 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 12 MS. WILLIAMS: Like I said, if I jump around too 13 fast, just holler. 14 THE WITNESS: That's okay. And the question again? 15 Q What did you base the 8 percent interest 16 figure on? What did you base your decision to use no 17 salvage value? 18 A In May of 2002 the interest rate which one 19 could get, if you will, or make on your money. In this 20 case 8 percent was considered by me, based on available 21 interest rate data at the time, to be a reasonable 22 value. 23 Q At what time was it based on? 24 A May 17th of 2002, just prior to that as I was L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 129 1 preparing this document. 2 Q That's what the interest rates were at that 3 time? 4 A That's what I believed one could make, in 5 fact, on their money. 6 Q Would that change at all if you were doing 7 this today? 8 A If we were doing this today, I would 9 certainly have to revisit that. 10 Q What about the no salvage value? 11 A The no salvage value if you -- anyone who has 12 operated wastewater treatment facilities and have 13 finished operating them and then closes it -- and then 14 you closed them down for some reason, there is just not 15 much of an aftermarket value on wastewater treatment 16 equipment. 17 Q Oh, I would buy it, wouldn't you? 18 MR. LATHAM: We will sell it to you. 19 Q But not nothing is it usually? Nothing? 20 A Well, I will be honest with you, we are 21 working on a project now in San Diego where a utility 22 company shut down their operations next to one of our 23 clients and said, You are welcome to have any of this 24 equipment if you will come get it. L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 130 1 Q Did you go get it? 2 A We are still looking to see what pieces we 3 can use. 4 Q On the first page of that same exhibit you 5 talk about the information that you based your analysis 6 on from the plant, operating information, right? I 7 guess the design parameters; is that the right thing we 8 call it, when you give flow rate? 9 A Are you looking at table 1, please? 10 Q Table 1, influent and waste load, yes. 11 A This is the design waste load, and I don't 12 call this the design untreated waste load because, 13 again, due to the recycling of solids through the PVC 14 tank. But this is the design waste load which we looked 15 at all the alternatives with. 16 Q And for a flow rate for the design waste load 17 you get an average of 401? Oh, no, I'm sorry, an 18 average of a total of 560? 19 A Yes. 20 Q And a peak of 769, correct? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Where did you get those figures from? 23 A We did an individual waste stream data 24 gathering and data -- we did an individual waste stream L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 131 1 characterization program in 1995 which provided the 2 basis for this table. 3 Q Is that something that you can submit to the 4 Board to help them in making their decision? 5 A The information is summarized here in 6 table 1. 7 Q The information is summarized, but the data, 8 is the data something that you can provide to the Board 9 or to the Agency for that matter? 10 A Yes. We could find that data and provide 11 that data. 12 MR. KISSEL: I'm not sure. We would have to 13 evaluate whether it's necessary. And this information 14 has been available to the Agency for some time. And we 15 don't think it's necessary for the Board to make its 16 determination unless they disbelieve Mr. Flippin. He 17 has made the determination. He has relied on data. And 18 at this point I would not intend to present it to the 19 Board unless asked to do so by the Board itself. 20 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Ms. Williams? 21 MS. WILLIAMS: I would make the suggestion to the 22 Board that they consider asking for the data on which 23 these numbers are based themselves. And that's up to 24 them whether they want to do it or not. L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 132 1 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: This information has 2 been available for some time? 3 MS. WILLIAMS: I'm not aware of that. I don't 4 think we have that information. 5 MR. KISSEL: This table has been made available. 6 MS. WILLIAMS: The table has been, but the data on 7 which the table was derived from. I'm not aware of it. 8 I don't know what form it's in. You might have gotten 9 it somewhere in the boxes. 10 MR. KISSEL: That's not what I said. I said the 11 Agency has had this table for a long time, and we have 12 never received a request for the back-up information. 13 And, presumably, they used that to evaluate for our 14 Petition for Adjusted Standard. There was never any 15 request or need, from our point of view, from them that 16 they needed those data. I think it comes as rather a 17 surprise at this hearing to ask for that now. 18 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: What exhibit are we 19 talking about the data was for? 20 MR. KISSEL: Exhibit 11. 21 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I will take that up at a 22 later date. 23 MR. KISSEL: Thank you. 24 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: How much more testimony L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 133 1 or cross -- I hate to interrupt, Ms. Williams, but are 2 you -- I'm not being sarcastic -- are you almost 3 finished? I'm trying to push this thing today because I 4 don't think lightning can strike three times. I'm not 5 sure we can get the courtroom tomorrow. So I'm trying 6 to get as much finished today. 7 MS. WILLIAMS: I think both parties agree 8 Mr. Flippin is Petitioner's primary witness that will 9 take longer than everybody else. I would say I'm 10 approaching the end. I have one major line of 11 questioning I haven't even started, but I wouldn't say 12 it would take more than 15. 13 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: We have redirect and the 14 technical people may want to ask some questions. 15 (Whereupon, a recess was taken and 16 Jennifer Johnson resumed as the court 17 reporter.) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 L.A. REPORTING 1-800-419-3376 1 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: All right. We're 2 back on the record. It's February 18th, approximately 3 11:15. We did start this hearing -- excuse me, 11:20. We 4 did start this hearing at 9 a.m., and Miss Williams is 5 continuing with her cross on Mr. Flippin. 6 MR. KISSEL: That clock is about five minutes 7 off. It should be 11:16. 8 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: 11:16. Thank you. 9 CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION 10 BY MS. WILLIAMS: 11 Q. Mr. Flippin, we talked a little bit just 12 before we went off the record about man-hours and how many 13 you used in your cost estimates. In your testimony, you 14 talk about the fact that you've been doing work for Noveon 15 and, prior to that, BF Goodrich since the mid '80s, 16 correct? 17 A. Actually, since 1988. 18 Q. So, late '80s. Do you have an estimate at all 19 of how many man-hours you've worked on this facility? 20 A. I do not. 21 Q. Would it be more than 1500, less than 1500? 22 I'm picking it arbitrarily, but something to give us an 23 idea of about how many. 24 A. Please bear in mind that I've been working 134 1 there since 1988, and the longest elapsed time that I 2 haven't been on the site has been about two years since 3 then. That's a lot of years and a lot of site visits, a 4 lot of work at my desk, a lot of work in the field. 5 Q. How about money; do you have an estimate of 6 how much money the client has paid your company over that 7 period of time? 8 A. I do not. 9 Q. Not even a guess? 10 A. Honestly, that side of the -- that side of our 11 practice I don't really spend much time on. 12 Q. Could you tell us if it's more or less than 13 the alternatives you described here for treatment? 14 MR. KISSEL: I'm going to object. I think 15 we're really trying to get into speculation again. 16 MS. WILLIAMS: Well, I didn't expect that he 17 wouldn't have any -- 18 BY MS. WILLIAMS: 19 Q. Can I ask Mr. Davids; do you think he would 20 know how much he paid your company over that period of 21 time? 22 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: You know what? I 23 think -- as in the case of your witness yesterday, 24 Ms. Williams, I think this witness today has asked and 135 1 answered the best he could. 2 MS. WILLIAMS: That he just doesn't know? 3 Can I ask again if there's someone who would 4 know? 5 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Yes, you may. I 6 would sustain Mr. Kissel's objection. 7 BY MS. WILLIAMS: 8 Q. Is there someone that would know? 9 A. I could certainly go to our accounting staff 10 at Brown and Caldwell and, and pull that information up. 11 I'm sure Noveon could go to their accounting staff and 12 pull that information up as well. I just don't know it. 13 Q. You just don't know. In all that time, in all 14 the different work that you've performed, did any of the 15 work that you performed for Noveon involve completing of 16 construction permit applications? 17 A. It did not. 18 Q. And presumably not -- nor operating permit 19 applications either? 20 A. It did not. 21 Q. And Mr. Giffin testified yesterday about some 22 source reduction activities that were undertaken by 23 Noveon? 24 A. Yes. 136 1 Q. Were you involved in those activities? 2 A. I was not. 3 Q. I would like to ask you some questions now 4 about your testimony and about Exhibit 13 -- 14? 14. 5 Sorry. Exhibit 14. 6 Now, in summary, I take this exhibit as saying 7 that -- trying to demonstrate, I guess, that you feel the 8 PE of this facility is calculated at a figure less than 9 50,000, correct? 10 A. That's true. 11 Q. And what is the significance of that? 12 A. I believe that the Illinois -- 35 Illinois 13 Administrative Code Standard 304.122(a) and (b) do not 14 apply. 15 Q. And by "not apply," what you're saying with 16 regard to 304.122(a) is that you believe the facility does 17 not trigger the 50,000 PE applicability threshold? 18 A. That is true. 19 Q. You do believe that that's the section that 20 would cover them, among the two sections? 21 A. That is true. 22 Q. And your testimony is that subsection B which 23 limits -- has an applicability threshold of 100 pounds per 24 day discharge does not apply, correct? 137 1 A. That is true. 2 Q. And if that section did apply, they would 3 trigger that threshold, correct? 4 A. If that section did apply. 5 Q. Right. So, the basis of this exhibit is to 6 explain to the Board why you concluded that under 7 subsection A they wouldn't have to treat for ammonia 8 because they don't trigger the threshold? 9 MR. KISSEL: Let me interject here so we can 10 put this in perspective and take just a second -- 11 MS. WILLIAMS: Is that an objection? Are you 12 objecting? 13 MR. KISSEL: No, I think it's important to 14 know -- 15 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I'll allow 16 Mr. Kissel to state his case. 17 MR. KISSEL: I mean, what we did was we 18 asked -- we wanted Mr. Flippin to testify on the permit 19 appeal. Included in that testimony was a, a detailed 20 explanation of why there was less than 50,000 PE, and the 21 objection was made to that testimony and sustained that no 22 information post-1991 would be admitted into evidence. We 23 knew about that before we came to the hearing yesterday. 24 As a result of that, we asked Mr. Flippin to 138 1 look at pre-1991 information, which he did, and put 2 together Petitioner's Exhibit 14 which was introduced, 3 which was accepted in evidence, and on which there was 4 cross-examination on the permit appeal. I just want the 5 Board to -- if I -- 6 MS. WILLIAMS: But why was it submitted today 7 then? 8 MR. KISSEL: To make sure that it's in the 9 record so that the Board has all of the information, just 10 as the reason we've asked the Hearing Officer to include 11 the entire -- if the transcript of the other record had 12 been included, we would not have had this. But -- and I'm 13 not being -- by this trying to find fault or say somebody 14 made a wrong decision or whatever it is, but it was 15 important because it was documents and information that 16 had been reviewed, and I thought that -- in the adjusted 17 standard hearing we thought that the Board should have 18 this information. That's the reason this is there. It 19 would not have been there except for reasons I've stated. 20 MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. 21 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Ms. Williams? 22 MS. WILLIAMS: I -- do you want me to 23 continue, or do you want me to -- I don't really have 24 anything -- I guess you're trying to explain my 139 1 characterization or he has a right to explain his 2 characterization. I don't think it reflects on my 3 questioning. 4 MR. KISSEL: I'm just trying to say from the 5 public's point of view -- because the Board will review 6 the entire record. But from the public's point of view, 7 this is not the only document that Mr. Flippin has 8 prepared -- 9 MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. 10 MR. KISSEL: -- to deal with the 50,000 PE. 11 MS. WILLIAMS: This in combination with his 12 testimony. 13 MR. KISSEL: Right, right. 14 MS. WILLIAMS: Exactly. 15 BY MS. WILLIAMS: 16 Q. This in combination with your testimony. I 17 think it's like page 12 and 13, right? 18 MR. KISSEL: Right. Or whatever it is. 19 BY MS. WILLIAMS: 20 Q. Page 12 and 13 of your testimony -- 21 MR. KISSEL: Okay. 22 Q. -- together are there to show your belief, 23 right? 24 A. (Witness nods head.) 140 1 Q. Okay. I'm sorry if I -- I wasn't trying to 2 limit you to just what was in that exhibit regarding 3 pre-19-- we're going to look at all your figures. 4 I have to tell you I'm a little confused about 5 the figures that appear in your testimony. The reason I 6 asked the questions about Exhibit 11 and where that 7 information came from is that information made sense to me 8 as far as the flow values provided, BOD values provided, 9 COD values provided. That struck me as being within a 10 range of figures that I had seen before on this facility. 11 These figures don't look anything like that. 12 MR. LATHAM: Can you help us? 13 MS. WILLIAMS: Sure. The figures on page 12. 14 MR. LATHAM: There's a lot of figures. 15 MS. WILLIAMS: Well, it's a little complicated 16 how he does it. 17 BY MS. WILLIAMS: 18 Q. I believe it adds up to a total flow value of 19 265.6 as a total flow value for all four waste streams. 20 Now, you calculate them individually, I think, but the 21 total flow -- you don't -- when you total things out, you 22 don't total for us what you have as a flow for gallons per 23 minute, but I believe the flow total here is 265.6. Is 24 that correct? 141 1 MR. LATHAM: Where? 2 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I'm on page 12 of 3 Mr. Flippin's testimony. 4 BY MS. WILLIAMS: 5 Q. Adding up the four items, the four bullet 6 points, the first four bullet points. The fifth bullet 7 point is the total. Do you see that? 8 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay. Starts on 9 page 12. 10 MR. KISSEL: Bottom of 12. 11 BY MS. WILLIAMS: 12 Q. So, there's four bullet points where you break 13 down the waste streams, correct? 14 A. Here we go. What I do on pages 12 and 13 of 15 the testimony is I use data that was provided to me by 16 Mr. Davids, and in this I summarize what Mr. Davids 17 provided me for the period of July 2002 through June of 18 2003. 19 Q. July 2002 to what? 20 A. July 2002 to June of 2003. 21 Q. One year's worth of data, correct? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. One year's worth of data on effluent? 24 A. If you will, on the PVC lift station, that -- 142 1 that is an untreated PVC waste stream discharge. It has 2 no effect of return solids in it, and that's extremely 3 important because population equivalents are to be 4 calculated on the untreated raw waste load. 5 Q. And you got a figure of 133 gallons per minute 6 for that? 7 A. Yes. Mr. Davids did, in his summary of the 8 data that he provided me. 9 Q. Now, in Exhibit 11 you tell us that the total 10 flow for that waste stream, you call it something 11 different. You call it the -- 12 A. PVC tank discharge. 13 Q. Discharge. Is 401 gallons per minute? 14 A. That is correct. 15 Q. And are you trying to tell us the difference 16 between those figures, 133 and 401 gallons per minute, is 17 all based on recycled solids? 18 A. Very well may be. 19 Q. Twice the process flow rate is responsible for 20 the recycling of solids? 21 A. Very well may be. 22 Q. Does that make sense to you, Mr. Flippin, in 23 your professional opinion? 24 MR. KISSEL: I'll object to that. 143 1 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Objection 2 sustained. 3 MR. KISSEL: Okay. 4 BY MS. WILLIAMS: 5 Q. Do you agree with those figures that 6 Mr. Davids provided you as being credible? 7 A. I have no reason to doubt Mr. Davids' ability 8 to summarize waste load information. 9 Please, please bear in mind several things: 10 First, what goes back to the PVC tank -- this audience did 11 not have a chance to hear that, but I think it's relevant 12 to the audience. What goes back to the PVC tank, if you 13 will, is effluent sand filter backwash water. To give you 14 a feel for that, it's highly common for those values to be 15 as high as 15 percent of the forward flow going to those 16 units, if not higher, depending on the solids loading 17 going to them. 18 Q. Do you have a calculator up there? 19 A. I do. I'm not finished, though. 20 Q. Well, I think you answered that. 21 MS. WILLIAMS: Has he answered the question? 22 MR. LATHAM: He's still answering the 23 question. 24 A. I'm still answering the question. 144 1 Q. The question was what? 2 A. Why is there a difference between the PVC tank 3 discharge flow rate and the PVC lift station flow rate? 4 Q. I think I asked you if it made sense to you, 5 but you're right; go ahead. 6 A. Okay. First, you have an effluent filter 7 that's discharging backwash water. Again, common, common 8 discharge backwash water rates are as much as 15 percent 9 of the forward flow and even higher if the solids loading 10 to those filters is high and the condition of the filter 11 warrants more frequent backwashing. 12 Secondly, what also goes to the PVC tank is 13 when the filter -- when the filter press is dropping cake, 14 the primary clarifier underflow goes back to the PVC tank. 15 Next, the pond water can be, as I've testified 16 earlier, diverted to the PVC tank. 17 Q. And you don't count that in your values when 18 the pond water's included? 19 A. In the pond water sample that you -- in the 20 pond water value that you see here, that is the pond water 21 flow rate not going through the PVC tank. 22 Q. But it does go through the PVC tank; you 23 didn't count it as part of your flow? 24 A. I didn't count it twice. 145 1 Q. You counted the total in the other? No? 2 A. Where you see pond water listed -- 3 Q. Okay. Now you're losing me. Where you see it 4 listed in your testimony or in your exhibit? 5 A. I did not count pond water twice. If pond 6 water went to the PVC tank, it's included in the PVC tank 7 flow. If it did not go to the PVC tank and went through 8 the filter prior to discharge, I counted it as pond water 9 in that category. 10 Q. So, pond water is included in this 133 gallons 11 per minute to the extent it went to the PVC -- 12 A. It is not because pond water does not go 13 through the PVC lift station. 14 Q. So, it's in this 94 gallons per minute if it 15 went to the PVC tank? 16 A. If you will, pond water is -- the flow rate 17 for pond water is not included -- is not included on pages 18 12 and 13. 19 Q. Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry for that 20 confusion. So, it's not included in the total? 21 A. (Witness nods head.) 22 Q. You said you had a calculator? Would you mind 23 adding up for us the total flow that you used in coming up 24 with these PE values? 146 1 A. I did, and the value I get from summing what 2 you have here is what you reported earlier, 265.6 gallons 3 per minute. 4 Q. Can you tell us what Noveon reports its flow 5 to the Agency as in its discharge monitoring reports? 6 A. I have not reviewed Noveon's discharge 7 monitoring reports in some time. 8 Q. Would it be more or less than 265 gallons per 9 minute? 10 A. It would be more than 265 gallons per minute. 11 Q. What would happen if the Agency was to write 12 an NPDES permit for this facility based on this flow value 13 of 265? 14 MR. KISSEL: I'm going to object to the 15 question as being speculative. 16 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: You know, I'm going 17 to overrule it. If Mr. Flippin can answer it, he may. 18 A. I don't really understand the question. 19 Q. One moment, please. 20 So, would you say the remaining difference 21 between the flow value that you provide here, 265, and the 22 figure in Exhibit 11 of an average of 560, is that 23 difference something you would describe as dilutional 24 flow, or what would you call that difference? 147 1 A. It's other -- it is other process waste 2 waters, and it -- and it can be, on occasion, potentially 3 contact storm water. And you're also missing in this the 4 flow from well number two as well. 5 Q. What impact would a flow value like this 265 6 have on the mass limitations under the OCPSF regulations 7 in their permit if these values were used? Are you aware 8 of what would happen? 9 A. If, if you would restate your question, I'd 10 appreciate it. 11 Q. You're familiar with the OCPSF regulations, 12 correct? We talked about those yesterday. 13 A. Unquestionably. 14 Q. Okay. And you're aware that mass limitations 15 are calculated based on those? 16 A. I am. 17 Q. Do you know what would change about those mass 18 limitations if this flow value were used rather than 19 something more akin to 560 gallons per minute? 20 MR. KISSEL: I again object as to speculative. 21 The discharge from the plant has been well documented, and 22 a permit's been issued on that basis. 23 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Ms. Williams? 24 MR. KISSEL: And I think she's trying to 148 1 find -- 2 MS. WILLIAMS: They're asking us to accept a 3 flow value half of what's been used to calculate the PE. 4 MR. KISSEL: That's simply not the case. 5 That's simply not the case. That's a mischaracterization. 6 MS. WILLIAMS: And I'm trying to understand if 7 you take his flow value and use it for everything what 8 impact that would have on the plant. 9 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: You know what I'll 10 do? I will allow that question to stand. 11 I would ask the Board to note Mr. Kissel's 12 arguments. If Mr. Flippin can answer, he may. 13 BY MS. WILLIAMS: 14 Q. If you can. 15 A. I candidly believe it would be inappropriate 16 to, to use a flow of 265.5 gallons per minute in 17 developing an effluent permit because it does not include 18 all of the streams that are regulated by OCPSF. 19 Q. And I don't disagree with you, Mr. Flippin. 20 I'm just trying to understand why what has been presented 21 to me as a very simple calculation, PE -- yesterday we 22 talked quite a bit about what a simple calculation PE is. 23 You take flow, you take BODs, you take suspended solids, 24 you multiply them by multipliers, and you get a very 149 1 simple figure. 2 And this information you've provided in your 3 testimony is not at all to me a simple calculation. 4 MR. KISSEL: I'm going to object as 5 speculation. I don't think the questioner understands 6 what those numbers represent as to what the discharge is. 7 I think that's the whole difference. You're comparing 8 apples and oranges. 9 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: It sounds like 10 Mr. Flippin cannot answer the question Ms. Williams has 11 put forth, and I would take note that he, in the best of 12 his ability, has asked and answered it the best he can, so 13 we can move on. 14 BY MS. WILLIAMS: 15 Q. The figures that you did reach, can you just 16 tell us today, since we didn't go through this in your 17 direct, what the range is; what figures did you find for 18 PE under this method? 19 A. The population equivalents that I 20 calculated -- I should first say that I stated prior to 21 this calculation the streams that were not included in 22 this calculation and referred the reader to the Baxter and 23 Woodman report to see that information. 24 In calculating the population equivalents that 150 1 I did calculate, using what's written on pages 12 and 13 2 of my testimony, I got population equivalents for 3 suspended solids of 24,955 population equivalents. 4 Q. And you state in your testimony this is much 5 less than the PE of 265,000 calculated by the Illinois 6 EPA, correct? 7 A. I do say that. 8 Q. My understanding of your testimony is that you 9 chose to use different flow values than the EPA used, 10 correct? 11 A. I chose to use untreated waste load values. 12 Q. Untreated waste flow values, meaning what? 13 Why don't you define that for us? 14 A. Be glad to. The reason I believe that the 15 Illinois EPA calculated so much higher of a population 16 equivalent for total suspended solids is the Illinois EPA 17 used PVC tank discharge solids which are -- which are 18 inflated because of the presence of recycled solids within 19 the wastewater treatment facility. 20 A proper calculation of population equivalents 21 has to use untreated waste load information that excludes 22 streams that are merely recycled within the wastewater 23 treatment facility. 24 Q. And Mr. Davids is the one who explained to us 151 1 specifically for each waste stream what component the 2 recycled solids make up, or are you able to explain that 3 for us? 4 A. What, what Mr. Davids was able to do for me -- 5 and it was critical to the calculation -- was to go 6 upstream of the PVC tank where all of these recycled 7 solids enter and give me what is the true untreated waste 8 load solids load going into that tank was, excluding 9 recycled solids. I had to have that to calculate a 10 population equivalent accurately. 11 Q. And based on -- I mean, you would agree, 12 though, that using the figures of Baxter and Woodman -- I 13 mean, I take your testimony that that's inappropriate 14 under your testimony. But -- 15 MR. KISSEL: Again -- 16 Q. -- you don't disagree with the accuracy of 17 this 265,000 on a pure mathematical basis? 18 If you take the flow Baxter & Woodman provided 19 and you plugged it into the calculation based on the TSS 20 values he provided, this is the figure you would get, 21 correct? 22 A. It wouldn't be a population equivalent. 23 Q. No, but this is the figure that he -- well, we 24 can -- you're saying it wouldn't be a population 152 1 equivalent because why? 2 A. It has -- it is not based on an untreated 3 waste load information which is required by population 4 equivalent calculation. 5 Q. Okay. But you don't dispute the math? 6 MR. KISSEL: I'm going to object. I think 7 we've been over this. For an issue which the Agency says 8 is not relevant to this proceeding, we've spent 40 minutes 9 on it. 10 MS. WILLIAMS: That's exactly what I warned 11 you of an hour ago, so -- 12 MR. KISSEL: That wasn't -- I don't -- I 13 didn't hear the warning, I guess. But in addition, that 14 question's been asked and asked, and I think the Agency is 15 unsatisfied with the answer because it doesn't meet with 16 what they want. But he's answered the question -- 17 questions. 18 MS. WILLIAMS: I think he -- did I ask it over 19 and over? I thought I asked the question once and he 20 answered, but that's fine. 21 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I've heard it at 22 least once. But if you want to state it one more time, I 23 think I've heard the question once and the answer at least 24 once. 153 1 MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. The question about 2 whether he disagreed with the math? 3 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I'm sorry? 4 MS. WILLIAMS: With whether he disagreed with 5 the math of the calculation? 6 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Correct. 7 MR. KISSEL: Can we -- what is the math? Give 8 him the equation and let him tell you whether -- to use 9 his computer rather than speculate. 10 MS. WILLIAMS: Sure. 11 MR. KISSEL: I think, Mr. Hearing Officer, we 12 can agree and we can perhaps work it out -- 13 MS. WILLIAMS: Maybe we can stipulate that 14 based on -- 15 MR. KISSEL: -- that if you divide four by 16 two, you get two. I'll agree to that. Or whatever the 17 number is. We don't disagree with -- I don't think 18 Mr. Pinneo who, I think, did the calculations used a bad 19 computer. We'll check it, but I don't think he did. We 20 certainly -- 21 MS. WILLIAMS: Are you willing to stipulate 22 that, as we presented in our discovery, those numbers -- 23 MR. KISSEL: I'm willing to say that whatever 24 the number -- the division is, we do not agree that it is 154 1 a PE for that plant. Absolutely, unequivocally. Is that 2 okay? 3 MS. WILLIAMS: Absolute fine. That's all I 4 was trying to establish. 5 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay. The record 6 should reflect that it is so stipulated, and we can move 7 on. 8 MS. WILLIAMS: I think if I can confer for 9 about one minute, I think we're done. 10 Okay. We're done with this witness. Thank 11 you for your patience, Mr. Flippin. I appreciate it. 12 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Kissel, 13 redirect? 14 MR. KISSEL: Do you want me to wait until the 15 Board has -- it's the Board's discretion. 16 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: You know, I don't 17 know. Maybe. 18 MR. KISSEL: I just have a very short. 19 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: What do you think? 20 Have Mr. Kissel wrap it up and then -- 21 MEMBER MELAS: It's up to you. 22 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Let's finish up. 23 * * * * * 24 155 1 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. KISSEL: 3 Q. Okay. Mr. Flippin, during the course of your 4 cross-examination, I guess, you were asked the question of 5 whether the technologies that are listed in the various 6 exhibits for reducing ammonia in the effluent from the 7 Noveon plant were technically feasible. And you answered 8 -- I believe I'm quoting you correctly -- they could be 9 built. Would you like to explain your answer, please? 10 A. I would. I would like to explain my answer. 11 Q. How did I know that? 12 A. The -- candidly, any of these ten treatment 13 alternatives can be built. That's not the issue. The 14 issue is, when it comes to technical feasibility, there's 15 more involved in whether or not you can build something. 16 What's involved is how reliable is it and what performance 17 will it achieve and what is involved in keeping it 18 running. 19 And several of these technologies presented 20 pose operational concerns that render them difficult, at 21 best, to operate; and some of these, if you will, render 22 themselves limited by what is present in the wastewater. 23 And let me explain. Take, for example, ion 24 exchange. The salt concentration that you'll hear in 156 1 later testimony is high. And so when you put in ion 2 exchange, you just aren't removing ammonia; you're 3 removing a lot of competing cations. And so the frequency 4 of ion exchange regeneration will be extremely frequent. 5 Take, for example, some of the struvite 6 precipitation. Can it be done? Sure can. It generates 7 tremendous quantities of sludge and only provides a 8 nominal effluent ammonia reduction. So -- and I have 9 prepared as an exhibit, and it's been entered, a whole 10 discussion of reliability, of what's involved, of pros and 11 cons; and I think those things have to be considered if 12 you're going to discuss technical feasibility. 13 And that comment was not made when I said, 14 sure, they can be built. And that's basically what I'd 15 like to communicate. 16 Q. Thank you. 17 MR. KISSEL: That's all I have. 18 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you. Any 19 recross, Ms. Williams? 20 MS. WILLIAMS: No, thank you. 21 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay. Personnel of 22 the Board, Member Melas, do you have any questions to pose 23 to this witness? 24 MEMBER MELAS: Yeah. Mr. Flippin, last 157 1 evening as I was going through this testimony of yours -- 2 I might say, a very thorough job -- one question comes 3 into my mind. At one point, you're talking about total 4 discharge from this plant at 800,000 gallons per day; and 5 in the breakdown, 360 come from PolyOne, and 180 from 6 Noveon. That leaves 260 gallons per day that I am not 7 quite sure of where they come from. 8 THE WITNESS: Thank you. And that is -- the 9 documentation of where that comes from has been provided; 10 I believe Miss Deely's going to get that. 11 MR. KISSEL: Can you describe it some before, 12 while she's doing that? 13 THE WITNESS: I would prefer, Dick, to have 14 that in front of me. 15 MS. DEELY: We prepared a written document 16 responding to all the questions you submitted to us, and I 17 guess we can ask that that be submitted as an exhibit. I 18 just have to find it. 19 MR. KISSEL: Miss Deely is referring to a 20 document we received from the Board, Mr. Melas, Board 21 Technical Staff. 22 MEMBER MELAS: Yeah, I have that. 23 MR. KISSEL: In response to that, we have -- 24 if we can find it -- Sheila, is it -- 158 1 MS. DEELY: Yes. 2 MR. KISSEL: Is that the right -- Sheila, is 3 that the final one or -- 4 MS. DEELY: Yes. 5 MR. KISSEL: Okay. 6 MS. WILLIAMS: Can we hold on until I can get 7 a copy, too, or are you just using it to refresh your 8 recollection? 9 MS. DEELY: I believe he's just -- 10 MR. KISSEL: We're not introducing it as an 11 exhibit at this point. 12 MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. That's fine. 13 THE WITNESS: It's a good question, and the -- 14 what was excluded was well number two discharge which is 15 10 gallons a minute. The, the water coming from the pond 16 that goes through the sand filter before it combines with 17 the final outfall of 30 gallons a minute, pond number 18 one's flow, if you will, that also was being discharged to 19 the facility and the filter backwash water, which was 70 20 gallons a minute, and the filter backwash water coming 21 from the tertiary filter of 70 gallons a minute, when all 22 added together equals 180 gallons a minute or 260,000 23 gallons a day. 24 MEMBER MELAS: From all those various sources? 159 1 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. 2 MEMBER MELAS: Most of them -- not all of 3 them, but most of them internal to the plant itself? 4 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 5 MEMBER MELAS: The well, I don't understand 6 where that -- what's the significance of that well? 7 THE WITNESS: The well is a -- is a recovery 8 well and is being treated in the wastewater treatment 9 facility. 10 MR. MELAS: Okay. All right. Has that 11 document been sent to us? 12 MR. KISSEL: Yeah, we have re -- we have 13 prepared a response to the Board's questions. 14 MEMBER MELAS: Okay. 15 MR. KISSEL: We'll probably ask that it be 16 entered into the record as our response, but clearly the 17 Board will have a copy of that. 18 MEMBER MELAS: Okay. 19 MS. WILLIAMS: Not today? 20 MS. DEELY: Yes, today. Just when we moved, I 21 don't know where it is, so -- 22 MEMBER MELAS: Getting on to some of those 23 other bullet points, Mr. Flippin, a number of them have 24 the concept of stripping? 160 1 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 2 MEMBER MELAS: The first one, I think, was 3 nitrification. So, when you do strip, convert the 4 nitrogen from the liquid phase to a gaseous phase and it 5 goes up in the air -- 6 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 7 MEMBER MELAS: -- what kind of a problem does 8 that create? 9 THE WITNESS: It, candidly, transfers ammonia 10 from a -- it, candidly, transfers ammonia from being -- 11 going out in your wastewater to simply going out in your 12 air emissions. 13 MEMBER MELAS: And what effect would that have 14 on the standard here in this area? 15 THE WITNESS: I'll need to defer that question 16 to Mr. Giffin, who's worked on their Title V and other air 17 permits. 18 MEMBER MELAS: Okay. The other thing 19 that's -- on another matter that's -- that answer will 20 come; I'm quite sure that I know what it will be anyhow. 21 There's been an awful lot of discussion about 22 this population equivalent. Now, that is -- is that not 23 generally something that is commonly known throughout the 24 entire industry, throughout the entire country, wherever 161 1 you're talking about wastewater treatment plants? Isn't 2 it commonly accepted methods of technology or calculation 3 that will translate it into what's called PE? 4 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 5 MEMBER MELAS: And from the work that you've 6 done, as I understand it, that's looking at page 12 and 13 7 here, you come up with your conclusion that there is no 8 question that the population equivalent contributed by the 9 wastewater of this particular plant comes to the 25,000 10 whatever number? 11 THE WITNESS: Certainly less than 50,000, yes, 12 sir. 13 MEMBER MELAS: That was my only question. 14 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you, 15 Mr. Melas. 16 MEMBER MELAS: I would defer to -- 17 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Miss Liu? 18 MS. LIU: It would be helpful, before we 19 proceed with our line of questioning, to have the answers 20 to the hearing officer questions. 21 MS. DEELY: Sure. Can we take a two-minute 22 break? I don't want to disrupt everybody. 23 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Sure. 24 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.) 162 1 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Flippin? 2 All right. We're going to go back on the 3 record. We took a few-minute break to find some 4 documents. I believe our technical unit was going to pose 5 some questions of this witness. 6 MS. LIU: Good afternoon, Mr. Flippin. 7 THE WITNESS: Afternoon. 8 MS. LIU: Could you please identify the 9 address of your office with Brown and Caldwell? 10 THE WITNESS: I can. It's 501 Great Circle 11 Road, Suite 150, Nashville, Tennessee, 37228. 12 MS. LIU: Could you also please identify the 13 location of the corporate headquarters? 14 THE WITNESS: It is in -- it has recently 15 moved. It is now in Walnut Creek, California. 16 MS. LIU: On page six of your prefiled 17 testimony, you mention a C-18 waste stream that was 18 previously sent off site for treatment? 19 THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am. 20 MS. LIU: Would you happen to know why they no 21 longer do that? 22 THE WITNESS: I do. I participated in 23 conducting a treatability study that led to the design of 24 a pretreatment facility that allowed the Noveon plant to 163 1 pretreat the C-18 wastewater in such a way that it 2 rendered it treatable in the existing activated sludge 3 system that they have. 4 MS. LIU: Using the pretreatment system, does 5 a C-18 waste stream contribute to the ammonia in the 6 effluent now? 7 THE WITNESS: The C-18 wastewater contains 8 organic nitrogen compounds that would biodegrade and 9 release ammonia into the wastewater, so C-18 does 10 contribute nitrogen loading on the facility and, and 11 should presumably contribute to the effluent ammonia. 12 MS. LIU: Would eliminating this waste stream 13 again from the Henry plant have an impact on the level of 14 ammonia that is now experienced in the effluent? 15 THE WITNESS: The, the contribution of C-18 to 16 the total effluent ammonia load, candidly, is quite low. 17 Would it reduce the effluent ammonia some? Most likely. 18 Much? Not really. 19 MS. LIU: Could you quantify, please? 20 MEMBER MELAS: Just roughly. 21 THE WITNESS: I'll be glad to. I'd like to 22 refer to -- and this was one of the reasons for doing the, 23 the 1995 individual waste stream characterizations, and in 24 that -- I'm turning to it -- it's -- I've got it here as 164 1 exhibit -- 2 Dick, is that Exhibit 11? The May 17th, 2002. 3 MS. DEELY: Yes. 4 THE WITNESS: Thanks. C-18 -- C-18, on 5 average, contributes 82 pounds per day of total Kjeldahl 6 nitrogen, and the total Kjeldahl nitrogen going into the 7 treatment facility is 1,038. So, if -- 8 MEMBER MELAS: Okay. That's good. 9 THE WITNESS: That represents 8 percent. The 10 C-18 wastewater contributes 8 percent of the total 11 Kjeldahl nitrogen going into the facility. 12 MEMBER MELAS: May I just add, that sounds a 13 heck of a lot better than "some" and "more" and "much." 14 THE WITNESS: Thank you. I apologize. I'll 15 be more definitive in my answers. 16 MS. LIU: On page nine of your prefiled 17 testimony, you mentioned the presence of bioinhibiting 18 compounds that frustrate the nitrification process. And 19 in the proven technologies that you discussed for possible 20 treatment alternatives, you said that they would work much 21 better if those bioinhibiting compounds weren't there. 22 In the Agency's recommendation on page 17, the 23 Agency suggests that Noveon should have looked more 24 thoroughly at the alternative of using granular-activated 165 1 carbon to remove those inhibitors before treatment. Do 2 you know if Noveon looked into that at all? 3 THE WITNESS: Let me explain what we did do, 4 and then I think it sheds light on granular-activated 5 carbon usage. On page 18 of my testimony, we actually 6 were running a continuous flow treatability study. Let me 7 let you get there. 8 MEMBER MELAS: Okay. 9 THE WITNESS: We were running a continuous 10 flow treatability study early on to look at what manner of 11 pretreatment would be required to render C-18 wastewater 12 treatable within the existing facility. And during that 13 period, we noticed that even though we were providing 14 ample alkalinity, ample dissolved oxygen, really warm 15 temperatures, ample means of residence time, we were not 16 getting any nitrification. 17 And so the question became, could we get 18 nitrification if we were to add powdered-activated carbon 19 to the activated sludge treatment facility. And what we 20 found was the answer to that question was yes, we could 21 get nitrification in our -- in our trial experiment by 22 adding 5,000 milligrams per liter of powdered-activated 23 carbon to the treatment facility. 24 At that dose, we would be using about 17 tons 166 1 a day of carbon, and we -- that made us realize two 2 things. It made us realize that while carbon was removing 3 the inhibitor, it obviously was removing a lot more 4 because of the large dose required. And when you look at 5 the C-18 -- sorry, when you look at the PC tank wastewater 6 that contains C-18 -- sorry, that contains the primary 7 inhibitor, we believe, which is mercaptobenzothiazole, in 8 Exhibit 11, which I've referred to earlier, you'll notice 9 that I list the PC tank as having an average flow rate of 10 107 gallons a minute and an average soluble COD of 8,280 11 pounds per day. That gives it a soluble COD, just by 12 doing the math, of 6,440 milligrams per liter, so you've 13 got -- what you've got is you've got a waste stream that's 14 got 6,000 milligrams per liter of COD, a waste stream that 15 contains the inhibitor, and you'll see in testimony on 16 page 12 of this -- of my written testimony, you'll see 17 that the PC tank discharge also has 900 milligrams per 18 liter of total suspended solids. 19 So, our concern for -- the reason we did not 20 look further at granular-activated carbon was several 21 fold: One is we would have to remove the suspended solids 22 from this waste stream before we, we placed it through a 23 granular-activated carbon column. Number two, a waste 24 stream that has 6,000 COD, if you will, and our prior 167 1 experience of seeing that a lot of the carbon went to 2 removing other things than MBT, we felt like that the 3 carbon usage on this system would be tremendous -- would 4 be -- would be large. Maybe instead of 17 tons per day, 5 the pack would have required -- maybe it would have been 6 -- even if it was a fifth of that because of the driving 7 force in isotherms and the way it passes through the 8 column, we would have been in the multiple tons per day. 9 And because the PC wastewater not only 10 contains an inhibitor and 6,000 COD, the good news is it 11 also contains some readily degradable compounds like 12 tertiary butyl alcohol and some other things that would be 13 readily degradable. If we were to place that on a carbon 14 column, we couldn't help it but turn that carbon column 15 into an anaerobic treatment vessel and grow slime all over 16 the carbon. And it would by no means, because of fouling, 17 because of slime, and also this wastewater has a high salt 18 content, we're bound to experience scaling on the carbon, 19 too. All of those factors made us not look at carbon on 20 the PC tank wastewater to remove the inhibiters. 21 MS. LIU: Thank you. 22 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Rao, any 23 questions? Oh, I'm sorry. 24 MR. RAO: I didn't have any questions of this 168 1 issue, but -- 2 MS. LIU: Moving right along, in its 3 recommendation, the Agency took the numbers that you had 4 provided on cost figures for the treatment alternatives 5 and tried to compare them with municipal projects that 6 needed to remove ammonia from their effluent as well. 7 They came up with some dollars per pound figure, but they 8 did not go into the present worth cost calculations that 9 you did, nor did they include the O & M maintenance costs. 10 It makes it a little difficult to compare apples and 11 oranges. The Agency says that the O & M costs that you 12 document seem to be very significant, and I was just 13 wondering if you could characterize why Noveon's O & M 14 costs would be different than a municipality's O & M costs 15 for the same type of ammonia removal? 16 THE WITNESS: I'll be glad to. Most, most 17 municipalities, the nitrification that they provide is 18 single-stage nitrification. And the good news about that 19 is they're able to accomplish BOD removal and ammonia 20 removal in the exact same tankage. And also the good news 21 about it is most domestic wastewaters contain adequate 22 alkalinity or almost adequate alkalinity to support 23 complete nitrification without alkalinity addition. 24 Also, most municipalities, when you look at 169 1 the oxygen demand exerted by the ammonia versus the oxygen 2 demand exerted by BODs, the oxygen demand exerted for 3 nitrification, while important, if you will, does not 4 greatly -- is comparable if not slightly lower than that 5 for BOD demand. 6 In the -- the second thing is in 7 municipalities, the alpha value for oxygen transfer, it's 8 a lot -- it's easy, relatively easy to transfer oxygen 9 into municipal wastewater in comparison to other 10 industries. 11 And so what makes the single-stage 12 nitrification at Noveon so much more expensive than 13 municipal wastewater treatment plants and why is the 14 operating cost and the capital cost so much greater -- I 15 think that's the question -- and the answer to that is, 16 the only way that Noveon can experience single-stage 17 nitrification is to remove the inhibitors. The only 18 inhibitor removal step that we demonstrated would work -- 19 and so does the chemistry demonstrate this. The good news 20 about MBT, which we believe is the primary inhibitor, the 21 good news about it is it can be precipitated as you lower 22 the pH. And we did experiments where we lowered the pH to 23 3, and then we lowered the pH to 2 and found that we 24 needed to lower it to pH 2 to get the MBT low enough to 170 1 support single-stage nitrification. 2 You can imagine that when you're starting with 3 a stream at 120 gallons a minute or 107 gallons a minute 4 that naturally starts at about pH 10, when you lower it to 5 pH 2 and go through a precipitation stage, clarifiers, 6 solid separation, separate dewatering -- because you can't 7 take what was at pH 2, combine it with other materials at 8 pH 7 and hope to keep the MBT out -- or insoluble, so we 9 needed a separate pretreatment system that separated those 10 solids, that separately dewatered the solids, and got them 11 out of the system while still at pH 2. 12 Then we had to take that 100 to 120 13 gallon-a-minute stream and bring it back up to at least 14 8-1/2's before we put it in the biological treatment 15 system so that we could have adequate alkalinity to 16 support nitrification. If you remember, to support 17 nitrification, Noveon has to add the bulk of their 18 alkalinity to support nitrification. 19 Secondly, Noveon has a wastewater that's 20 almost twice as difficult to transfer oxygen in as a 21 municipal wastewater, so, the aeration horsepower is about 22 twice as big. So, you've got higher energy cost, you've 23 got higher alkalinity cost, you've got the chemical cost 24 of taking a stream from pH 10 to pH 2, back up to pH 171 1 8-1/2. You've got the cost of a separate pretreatment 2 facility that's made out of fairly robust materials to 3 operate at pH 2. And you've also got, at the Noveon 4 plant, because of the poor oxygen transfer, if you were to 5 provide complete nitrification, you would have to add 6 additional aeration equipment because, while they do have 7 adequate aeration to support some nitrification, certainly 8 not complete nitrification. So, more aeration equipment 9 would have to be added. 10 And so -- and when you look at the 11 Noveon-Henry plant, I give them -- I'll say this. They 12 were -- they were wise in only providing the power they 13 needed to the treatment plant. The bad news is any 14 upgrade that's needed has to come from a substation of 15 electrical power that has to be run from a substation 16 about a half a mile away. So, you've got quite an 17 electrical component to that. 18 Next, the place that they have to build any 19 additional facilities are located where a pond had been, 20 and the fill material put in the pond was great for making 21 sod, but if you were to try to put aeration tanks on it, 22 you would have to dig all that soil out and put soil back 23 that could support the structure of aeration basins, 24 et cetera. 172 1 So, candidly, when you lump all that together, 2 you end up with just a much, much more expensive treatment 3 system to provide single-stage nitrification than a 4 municipality has to incur. And the biggest difference not 5 only is in the capital cost but the ongoing operating cost 6 of higher aeration requirements because of the poor oxygen 7 transfer, higher alkalinity addition because of not being 8 able to have enough alkalinity in the raw wastewater and 9 then, three, the whole ongoing chemical cost to take waste 10 streams from 10 to 2 to 8-1/2. 11 Does that -- does that answer your question? 12 MS. LIU: Very thoroughly. 13 THE WITNESS: Thank you. Thank you. 14 MS. LIU: I understand in all of the treatment 15 alternatives that you've researched and how thoroughly you 16 went through them you understand better than anyone else 17 how much they will cost and what they're capable of 18 achieving as far as reaching compliance, and there seems 19 like there's no perfect solution, no silver bullet, as 20 Mr. Giffin put it. 21 In the Agency's recommendation they did 22 mention that even if the best degree of treatment didn't 23 achieve full compliance, they would consider supporting 24 the adjusted standard. Looking at the glass as kind of 173 1 half full rather than half empty, knowing the cost per 2 pound for removal, knowing the percent efficiency, knowing 3 the reliability of this system, could you in your best 4 engineering judgment make a recommendation to Noveon as to 5 a solution to the problem that might be a compromise? 6 THE WITNESS: The, the, the difficult part -- 7 the difficult part here is a couple of things, honestly. 8 One is there's a fundamental -- there's a fundamental 9 disagreement about whether 304.122 even applies to Noveon. 10 And therefore, there's a fundamental disagreement about 11 whether any effluent ammonia reduction should even be 12 required of the facility. It is my opinion that 13 304.122(a) nor (b) apply. And so, candidly, I can't see 14 in the Illinois regulations why effluent ammonia reduction 15 would be required by the regulations. I honestly can't 16 see it in 304.122(a) or (b). 17 And so any treatment that they would provide 18 would, would -- I don't see why they would since it's not 19 required by the Illinois regulations, in my -- in my 20 opinion. Are there things that could be done to provide 21 some ammonia reduction? That was the whole reason that we 22 went through, and it's part of our exhibit. It's, it's 23 Exhibit 12, where we went through the incremental cost 24 because Noveon, in working with IEPA, everyone wanted to 174 1 find some technically feasible, reasonable cost 2 alternative that could be used in reaching an agreement, 3 and we just didn't find one that, that met with agreement. 4 MR. RAO: Can I follow up on that? 5 THE WITNESS: Did I answer the question? 6 MS. LIU: You did. 7 THE WITNESS: Okay. 8 MR. RAO: I would just like to follow up on 9 it. You mentioned how you had these discussions with IEPA 10 as to what you were -- I thought you were saying something 11 like what your -- what Noveon was willing to do. 12 Could you explain it to the Board, what these 13 discussions entailed or in terms of whether you were 14 willing to implement any of these treatment alternatives 15 or -- 16 MR. KISSEL: Mr. Hearing Officer, if I can 17 respond to that, I -- we -- the difficulty we have in 18 responding to that question is not because there's 19 anything that was said there that we wouldn't tell the 20 Board, but the fact is that we -- when the original permit 21 appeal was suspended, it was suspended for the purpose of 22 the Agency and Noveon, then BF Goodrich, discussing and 23 studying various alternatives. We had -- we filed, 24 therefore, a petition for variance with the Board which we 175 1 have recently dismissed because these proceedings were 2 going to go forward. 3 During the course of that period of time, 4 which has been the last 12 years, we have had innumerable 5 meetings with the Agency and a lot of technical papers. 6 You're hearing the summary of it here in the testimony. 7 The difficulty with going through it is that, 8 at the beginning of every meeting that I attended -- and I 9 think I attended most of them, as did some of the other 10 people in this room -- we said, "These are settlement 11 discussions," and so to allow for the openness and 12 frankness between us, that nothing in those meetings would 13 be brought forward to the -- to anybody else, not just the 14 Board, but, but to preserve the sanctity of settlement 15 discussions. 16 Now, so I, I think before we would respond to 17 that, I would want to discuss with the Agency whether they 18 would want us to really go into it because in those 19 meetings, do they want us to tell the Board what went on, 20 or the public, for that matter? I can say, without going 21 into detail about what was said, because I wouldn't do 22 that, there -- you have the sum and substance of that 12 23 years of work before you today. 24 I don't know if that answers the question or 176 1 what the Agency wants to do. Perhaps we can talk about 2 it. But that's the reason that I would say that we really 3 would be remiss in having Mr. Flippin or anybody else in 4 this room testify as to those discussions because they 5 were in terms of trying to settle this whole matter. 6 MR. RAO: I guess where I was coming from was 7 from the Agency's recommendation when this had -- even if 8 full compliance was not achieved, there are certain things 9 that maybe, you know, the Board could order Noveon to do. 10 And that's one side of the picture we have. I just wanted 11 to get some input from Noveon as to whether there was 12 some, you know, suggestions on Noveon's part that they 13 were willing to do. You know, it's up to you -- 14 MR. KISSEL: Right. 15 MR. RAO: -- to complete the record. 16 MR. KISSEL: First of all, let me say that it 17 is my perception and belief that while the Agency is 18 required by law to file a recommendation, that is not 19 evidence in this proceeding. That's merely a guide of 20 what they say. If the Agency wants to come on the stand 21 here, which they are perfectly capable of doing, they have 22 people -- Mr. Pinneo is here, Mr. Mosher is here, 23 Mr. Frevert is not that far away -- and testify what they 24 would accept, we would be more than happy to listen to 177 1 them. 2 So, our position was that -- or is that the 3 technology is economically unreasonable or technically 4 infeasible, as that term is defined in the Board's 5 regulations and statute. Secondly, that even if you 6 required the most stringent of technologies, a later 7 witness will testify what is being done right now; and 8 when the diffuser is installed, there will be -- there 9 will be -- and the Agency agrees -- no impact on water 10 quality. Has not been and will not be. So, is the 11 technology being required as a tax to accomplish something 12 that really accomplishes nothing in the environment? In 13 fact, the effluent will be as, quote, toxic without 14 ammonia as it is with it. That's what the testimony will 15 be. And that's, in a nutshell, BF -- or Goodrich/Noveon's 16 position. 17 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Ms. Williams, do 18 you want to respond now? I saw you shaking your head. 19 MS. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry. 20 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: No, now is as good 21 a time as any. 22 MS. WILLIAMS: No, I wasn't at a lot of those 23 meetings as Dick points out. As he says, the people who 24 were there are -- many of them are still available. I do 178 1 have on my witness list Toby Frevert, who's the manager, 2 Division of Water Pollution Control. The primary reason 3 he's on my witness list, is not here today -- I did tell 4 him to save tomorrow if we needed him -- is that if the 5 Board really does want someone with authority to get on 6 the stand and say, "This is what we would accept," he's 7 available to do that. I don't know that there was any -- 8 I mean, you know, I don't want to go back on any 9 commitment not to reveal anything in the course of 10 settlement, obviously, but I don't know that there was 11 ever anything that anybody looked at in that vein in those 12 meetings. 13 MR. KISSEL: I think that in and of itself, if 14 you believe that, is disclosing what was said at those 15 meetings. 16 MS. WILLIAMS: I wasn't there so I can't speak 17 for sure. 18 MR. KISSEL: I don't want to say it, but this 19 is what I say. 20 MS. WILLIAMS: It would seem like that you 21 would have had to have made an offer in the hope of 22 settlement, right, that you don't want to disclosed. If 23 it was an offer made in the hope of settlement -- 24 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I think we can talk 179 1 about this at lunch or off the record, but -- 2 MS. WILLIAMS: But anyway, I guess the only 3 reason I say anything is I would like maybe the Board to 4 let me know this afternoon so I can let Toby know if you 5 feel that's something that you do really need the Agency 6 to respond to, we can have him available. 7 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you. 8 MS. RAO: Mr. Kissel, the Board summarized 9 their position well for us, and I just wanted to get 10 something from -- 11 MR. KISSEL: Okay. I was not being -- I'm not 12 trying to be lecturing there, but I did feel it was 13 important to bring this into perspective for the Board. 14 MR. RAO: Yeah. Thanks. 15 MS. LIU: Based on the discussion we just had, 16 minus your legal conclusion that 304.122(b) should not 17 apply, would you make a recommendation to Noveon as to 18 which treatment alternative to utilize? 19 THE WITNESS: I don't know several things that 20 I would need to know. I don't know what target is trying 21 to be hit. And I know that if the question of -- if the 22 question of relevancy to the cost of a POTW is, is one of 23 relevancy, if that is one of relevancy, what I do know is 24 that no matter what alternative we would select, whether 180 1 you based it on a 20-year project life or whether you 2 based it on a 10-year project life, the cost for Noveon to 3 remove a pound of ammonia is about 18 to -- is about 12 to 4 18 times the cost of a municipal wastewater treatment 5 facility. And so you can see why I would hesitate, with 6 that kind of order of magnitude difference, ammonia 7 removal if not required. 8 MS. LIU: If Mr. Frevert were to come later on 9 and testify as to what a potential target might be, and if 10 you did have to choose, would you be able to do that? 11 THE WITNESS: If, if he gave us a target, I 12 certainly would be able to go back. And if the Board 13 deemed applicable that target, I would certainly be able 14 to go back, based on the studies we've done, and pick a 15 technology that would be the more appropriate of the ones 16 we studied. 17 MS. LIU: Thank you. Mr. Hearing Officer, may 18 we retain this witness to recall him after Toby Frevert 19 speaks, if he does? 20 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Sure, I guess. 21 Mr. -- is it Frevert, the earliest he can be here is 22 tomorrow, correct? 23 MS. WILLIAMS: I mean, I guess I could call 24 him now. But as far as I know, the earliest would be 181 1 tomorrow. I mean, I don't know -- you know, at some point 2 it's the Board's decision, you know. He can speak to 3 our -- come to our -- how our recommendation might have 4 been different, but I guess I wanted some feedback from 5 the Board about how important that was based on -- rather 6 than the Board themselves, you know, being able to weigh 7 the evidence and make that decision, but -- 8 MR. RAO: It's just that, you know, you made 9 some recommendations to the Board, and we wanted to know a 10 little bit more in detail as to what those recommendations 11 mean. It's just that in order to have full information in 12 the record, say they could have -- instead of achieving 13 full compliance, you said to the Board that maybe the 14 Board order them to implement some of these alternatives 15 to, if not full compliance, partial compliance, if I can 16 use that word, which I know -- so, we wanted to know what, 17 you know, it entailed or what target was the Agency 18 thinking of when it made the suggestion. 19 MS. WILLIAMS: I think -- 20 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I guess there's a 21 couple of ways we can handle it. You need to call 22 Mr. Frevert at lunch. 23 MS. WILLIAMS: We can do post-hearing -- 24 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Right, right. If 182 1 he answers Mr. Rao's question, maybe Mr. Flippin can 2 respond in a reply or we can set a separate briefing 3 schedule. But we could work that out. 4 MR. RAO: Of course, the Board will make its 5 decision. It's just that our part in this hearing is to 6 get all the information together so that the Board will 7 have as much information as possible in front of it when 8 it makes its decision. 9 MS. WILLIAMS: Absolutely. 10 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Any other 11 questions, Mr. Rao? Miss Liu, I'm sorry. I forgot who 12 was up. Tag-teaming. 13 MR. RAO: I have a clarification question for 14 Mr. Flippin, and this is in Exhibit 13. And let me see 15 what the table number is. On -- let's see -- page one of 16 four, it's a comparison of removals and reliability of 17 effluent ammonia-nitrogen removal processes? 18 THE WITNESS: Yes. 19 MR. RAO: You go through all the alternatives, 20 and you have assigned a reliability rating for each 21 alternative? 22 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 23 MR. RAO: And some of these ratings are, you 24 know, think it goes from the scale of one to ten? 183 1 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 2 MR. RAO: And they're close to 10; you know, 3 there are a lot of number of 8's, 7's in there. And I 4 just wanted to get a clarification from you as to when you 5 talk about this reliability rating, are you talking about 6 reliability in terms of treatment in the general, you 7 know, wastewater treatment arena; or if it was implemented 8 at the Noveon plant, would we still have the same kind of 9 reliability rating? 10 THE WITNESS: Thank you. These reliability 11 ratings were my -- were my professional opinion about how 12 reliable this process would be at reducing effluent 13 ammonia-nitrogen at the Noveon-Henry plant. 14 MR. RAO: Okay. So, for example, if I pick PC 15 tank stripping with off-gas control which has a 16 reliability rating of 8, if this option was implemented, 17 then you can, you know, on a general sense assume that 18 this treatment option would be capable of removing 27 19 percent of hydrogen. I think that's what it says, average 20 removal rate is 27 percent? 21 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 22 MR. RAO: So, is that something that we can 23 make that assumption with this treatment option, that's 24 the removal rate that can be reliably achieved? 184 1 THE WITNESS: One way to look at that would be 2 I certainly believe on average it would remove 27 percent. 3 I do believe that. 4 MR. RAO: Okay. 5 THE WITNESS: I believe that one way to look 6 at this reliability rating would be in a calendar year, 7 what percent of the time might you not achieve an average 8 removal rate of 27 percent. 9 MR. RAO: Okay. 10 THE WITNESS: And something that has a 11 reliability rating of 8 in a calendar year, you may see 20 12 percent of the days in which it really doesn't get an 13 average removal of 27 percent. 14 MR. RAO: Okay. Thank you. 15 MS. LIU: Thank you for explaining everything 16 so clearly. We appreciate that. 17 THE WITNESS: Glad to. Glad to. 18 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you. In 19 light of the questions posed, Mr. Kissel, do you have any 20 re-redirect of Mr. Flippin? 21 MR. KISSEL: None. 22 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Ms. Williams, 23 re-recross? 24 MS. WILLIAMS: I will spare Mr. Flippin a 185 1 re-recross. 2 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: You know, and I 3 promised the public before we took our lunch that if 4 anybody wanted to come up before lunch and make a comment 5 or statement to do so now. If not, we can revisit that 6 after lunch. 7 In light of the timing and everything, is it 8 possible for everyone to be back here at, say, 1:35? Grab 9 a bite across the street and get this thing going again? 10 Thank you and have a great lunch. 11 (Whereupon, a noon recess was taken.) 12 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: All right. I think 13 we'll go back on the record. It's approximately 1:40. 14 Thank you for being so prompt. I hope you all had time to 15 brush and floss. I doubt it, but we'll proceed. 16 Mr. Flippin just finished his testimony for 17 now, and Mr. Kissel -- 18 MR. KISSEL: We have our next witness, 19 Mr. Corn. 20 (Witness sworn.) 21 MICHAEL R. CORN, P.E., 22 called as a witness, after being first duly sworn, was 23 examined and testified upon his oath as follows: 24 * * * * * 186 1 DIRECT EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. KISSEL: 3 Q. Would you identify yourself for the record, 4 please? 5 A. I'm Michael R. Corn. 6 Q. Mr. Corn, I show you what has been marked as 7 Petitioner's Exhibit Number 16 and ask you to identify 8 that, please? 9 A. That's the expert written testimony that I 10 prepared for this hearing. 11 Q. Okay. Did you prepare it yourself? 12 A. Yes, I did. 13 Q. And is the statement -- are the statements 14 contained therein true and correct to the best of your 15 knowledge and belief? 16 A. They are. I would like to make a few 17 corrections. 18 Q. We'll get to that. 19 A. Okay. 20 Q. But other than the corrections you would 21 make -- 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. -- it's correct? 24 MR. KISSEL: Okay. I would like to move the 187 1 exhibit -- Petitioner's Exhibit 16 into evidence, please. 2 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Now, is that Number 3 16 or 17, Mr. Kissel, because we have this one outstanding 4 one here with the responses to the Illinois Pollution 5 Control Board's questions. 6 MR. KISSEL: We have not marked that as an 7 exhibit yet. 8 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay. I'll just 9 let that -- okay. Number 16, Miss Williams? 10 MS. WILLIAMS: He stated there were some 11 corrections? 12 MR. KISSEL: There's just some additions. 13 MS. WILLIAMS: Additions? 14 MR. KISSEL: Well, additions or corrections. 15 MS. WILLIAMS: I mean, I have no objection. 16 I've stated before that I have no objection to the 17 prefiled testimony as it's been submitted, so -- 18 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay, terrific. It 19 is so admitted. 20 BY MR. KISSEL: 21 Q. Mr. Corn, I show you what has been marked as 22 Petitioner's Exhibit 17 and ask you to identify that, 23 please? 24 A. This is my resume, specifically on water 188 1 quality and related experience. 2 Q. Did you prepare that document? 3 A. I did. 4 Q. Is it true and correct to the best of your 5 knowledge and belief? 6 A. It is. 7 MR. KISSEL: I move the admission of 8 Petitioner's Exhibit 17. 9 MS. WILLIAMS: This is -- 10 MR. KISSEL: His resume. 11 MS. WILLIAMS: So far as we're going along, 12 we're going with the same stuff that was attached to his 13 testimony? 14 MR. KISSEL: Yes. 15 MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. As long as you let me 16 know when we get off that, I'm good. 17 MR. KISSEL: As far as I know, all of it is, 18 but I'm not sure. 19 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay. Petitioner's 20 Exhibit Number 17 is also admitted into evidence. 21 BY MR. KISSEL: 22 Q. And Petitioner's Exhibit 17, Mr. Corn, is that 23 the -- referred to in your testimony on page two as your 24 resume? It says, "My resume is attached." Is that what 189 1 you're referring to? 2 A. That is correct. 3 Q. Okay. I show you what's been marked as 4 Petitioner's Exhibit 18 in this proceeding and ask you to 5 identify that, please? 6 A. This is a -- basically a USGS topographic map 7 of the site. The Henry plant sits up on a bluff as 8 cross-hatched here. It's about 80 to 90 feet above the 9 river. POTW is over in this direction. It, again, is up 10 on a bluff. The two discharges come together and are 11 discharged at a point, oh, about 1,000 feet downstream 12 from the Noveon plant. Do you have -- 13 Q. Where did you get that? Where did we find -- 14 you find that exhibit? Did you put it together? 15 A. Yes, I did. 16 Q. And from what document? 17 A. It's the USGS topographic map with the 18 location of the discharge as presented in the NPDES 19 permit. 20 Q. Does that accurately reflect that which it 21 intends to reflect? 22 A. Yes, it does. 23 MR. KISSEL: All right. I move the admission 24 of Petitioner's Exhibit Number 18. 190 1 MS. WILLIAMS: No objection. 2 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Petitioner's 3 Exhibit Number 18 is admitted. 4 BY MR. KISSEL: 5 Q. Is that the document you referred to in your 6 testimony as Figure 1? 7 A. It is. 8 Q. Show you what's been marked as Petitioner's 9 Exhibit 19. Would you tell us what that is, please? 10 A. In October of 1989, I directed a study on the 11 Illinois River of the Noveon discharge -- at that time, it 12 was BF Goodrich discharge -- and it shows basically the 13 effluent plumes from the discharge going out into the -- 14 into the Illinois River. 15 Since that time, I might add, the POTW has 16 been added to the discharge. 17 Q. Did you prepare that document? 18 A. I did. 19 Q. Is that a true and correct, accurate -- and 20 accurate representation of the discharge from the Noveon 21 facility? 22 A. Yes, it is. 23 MR. KISSEL: Move the admission of Exhibit 24 Number 19. 191 1 THE WITNESS: 19. 2 MS. WILLIAMS: No objection. 3 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Exhibit Number 19 4 is admitted. 5 BY MR. KISSEL: 6 Q. Is that exhibit referred to in your testimony 7 as Figure 2? 8 A. It is. 9 Q. Show you what's been marked as Exhibit Number 10 20. Can you tell me what that is, please? I'm sorry. 11 A. The exhibit is the -- basically the hydraulic 12 characterization of an effluent plume as it goes from a 13 near field, which is the area of rapid and immediate 14 mixing, into a far field, which is basically ambient river 15 diffusion. There are basically well-developed 16 mathematical models for each of these zones. 17 We have a jet momentum zone which, in many 18 cases, is referred to as a zone of initial dilution. 19 There may be a restratification zone. If the -- if the 20 dispersion is not enough, it may stratify like a heated 21 temperature plume. We have a buoyant spreading zone. The 22 buoyant spreading zone is really a transition zone from 23 the near field into the far field. It's basically 24 gravitational spreading caused by any density differences 192 1 between the two plumes, the river and the plume. 2 And then you have a far field zone which is 3 basically ambient driven dispersion, basically the energy 4 of the river disperses the plume at that point. 5 Q. Did you prepare that document, or did you get 6 it from someplace? 7 A. No, I prepared this. 8 Q. You did. And it's true and correct in 9 reflecting what it purports to reflect? 10 A. Yes, it is. 11 MR. KISSEL: I move the admission of 12 Petitioner's Exhibit Number 20. 13 MS. WILLIAMS: No objection. 14 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you. 15 Petitioner's Exhibit Number 20 is admitted into evidence. 16 BY MR. KISSEL: 17 Q. Mr. Corn, is that referred to in your 18 testimony as Figure 3? 19 A. Yes, it is. 20 Q. I will show you what's been marked as 21 Petitioner's Exhibit Number 21. Would you identify that, 22 please? 23 A. This is a drawing, a schematic that was 24 developed by the National Academy of Sciences back in 193 1 1972, and really set the stage for mixing zones from that 2 time forward. And it basically enters in the concept of 3 time and concentration as important to toxicity to aquatic 4 species. 5 Q. Where did you get that from? 6 A. This actually came from the Technical Support 7 Document for Water Quality Based Toxic Control. It's a 8 U.S. EPA document. I believe it came out in 1988 and -- 9 but it was not in the current version, the '91 version. 10 Q. Is that -- is Petitioner's Exhibit 21 a 11 document on which you rely in your business as evaluating 12 discharges in water quality? 13 A. Yes, it is. 14 MR. KISSEL: I move the admission of 15 Petitioner's Exhibit Number 21. 16 MS. WILLIAMS: We are on Figure 4 now? 17 MR. KISSEL: Yes. 18 THE WITNESS: Yes. 19 MS. WILLIAMS: No objection. 20 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: So admitted. 21 BY MR. KISSEL: 22 Q. And that is referred to as Figure 4 in your 23 testimony? 24 A. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. 194 1 Q. Show you what's been marked as Petitioner's 2 Exhibit 22. Will you tell us what that is? 3 A. This is a detailed drawing of the jet momentum 4 zone, and basically it gives a couple of different zones 5 -- a zone of flow establishment, and then basically a 6 concentration profile along the center line of the plume. 7 The zone of flow establishment I speak of in my testimony 8 as something called 50 times the square root of the 9 cross-sectional area, which is one of the things that EPA 10 designates as determining how, how much mixing should 11 occur in a ZID. And it's usually a limiting factor, that 12 basically they say that within that zone of flow 13 establishment you should achieve at least 10 times or 10:1 14 dispersion. It's not a total limit on the mixing zone; it 15 just says you have to meet 10:1 dispersion within that 16 short zone. 17 If we were looking at an effluent diffuser, 18 you would not have plume mergers at this point, but later 19 on in the -- at the end of the jet momentum zone, you 20 would still have plume mergers. It would still be an 21 individual plume. 22 Q. Did you prepare that document? 23 A. Yes, I did. It came from a U.S. EPA approved 24 document. 195 1 Q. It came from the TST? 2 A. It actually came from a model description of 3 the UDKHDEN model. 4 Q. And is that a document on which you rely in 5 your profession? 6 A. Yes, it is. 7 MR. KISSEL: I move the admission of 8 Petitioner's Exhibit Number 22. 9 MS. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry. No objection. 10 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Number 22 is 11 admitted. 12 BY MR. KISSEL: 13 Q. I show you what has been marked as 14 Petitioner's Exhibit Number 23. Can you tell us what that 15 is? 16 A. This is another depiction from one of the 17 other computer models that we rely on, the core mix model. 18 And it basically shows a profile view of the plume as it 19 reaches the surface, the buoyant spreading area, then the 20 ambient dispersion downfield. And the jet momentum zone 21 or the ZID is usually defined in this first part right 22 here. 23 Q. Did you prepare that document? 24 A. This came actually out of the core mix 196 1 documentation for the model. 2 Q. Okay. Is that a document on which you rely in 3 your profession? 4 A. It is. 5 MR. KISSEL: I move the admission of Exhibit 6 Number 23. 7 MS. WILLIAMS: No objection. 8 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Petitioner's 9 Exhibit Number 23 is admitted into evidence. 10 BY MR. KISSEL: 11 Q. I didn't ask the last time, but Petitioner's 12 Exhibit 22 is referred to in your testimony as Figure 5? 13 A. That's correct. 14 Q. And Petitioner's Exhibit 23 is referred to as 15 Exhibit 6? 16 A. Correct. 17 Q. Okay. 18 A. Figure 6. 19 Q. Figure 6. I'm sorry. Show you what's been 20 marked as Petitioner's Exhibit Number 24. 21 A. This is an actual profile of a plume from a 22 diffuser or diffuser port. And typically, the diffuser 23 models depict the end of the ZID as where the edge of the 24 plume reaches the surface, and that's usually where we -- 197 1 there or a short distance downstream is where we define 2 the zone of initial dilution from a hydraulic standpoint. 3 Q. Did you prepare that document? 4 A. Yes, I did. 5 Q. And is it true and correct in what it intends 6 to depict? 7 A. Yes, it is. 8 MR. KISSEL: Move the admission of 9 Petitioner's Exhibit Number 24. 10 MS. WILLIAMS: No objection. 11 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Exhibit Number 24 12 is admitted into evidence. 13 BY MR. KISSEL: 14 Q. And that is referred to as Figure 7? 15 A. Figure 7, correct. 16 Q. This is a little upside down, but -- 17 A. We've got a big, big poster of this one. 18 Q. Yes. Show you what's been marked as 19 Petitioner's Exhibit Number 25. Could you tell us what 20 that is, please? 21 A. This is another depiction of an actual 22 isopleth from our actual study of the plume that we did 23 back in 1989, and it just basically shows the 24 concentration profiles. Maximum concentrations are always 198 1 along the center line of the plume which is along the 2 length of the -- of the river. 3 Q. Did you prepare that document? 4 A. Yes, I did. 5 Q. That was based on studies you did for 6 BF Goodrich/Noveon? 7 A. That's correct. 8 MR. KISSEL: Move the admission of 9 Petitioner's Exhibit Number 25. 10 MS. WILLIAMS: No objection. 11 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Admitted. 12 BY MR. KISSEL: 13 Q. And that Petitioner's Exhibit 25 is referred 14 to as Figure 8 in your testimony? 15 A. That is correct. 16 Q. Show you what's been marked -- we're almost 17 done -- Petitioner's Exhibit Number 26. Will you please 18 describe that? 19 A. This is the cross-sectional area of the 20 Illinois River at the discharge point. And in this 21 depiction, we are depicting one of the things in the 22 Illinois regulations and also in the U.S. EPA guidance on 23 mixing zones, is that the mixing zones, including the ZID, 24 are allowed a 25 percent of the cross-sectional area or 199 1 volume of flow. And this just gives how much volume of 2 flow the present diffuser is using which, in this case, 3 is, I believe, about 16 percent of the -- of the 4 cross-sectional area. 5 Q. Did you prepare that document? 6 A. I did. It's actually prepared from a Corps of 7 Engineers' bathometric profile of the river. 8 MR. KISSEL: I move the admission of 9 Petitioner's Exhibit Number 26. 10 MS. WILLIAMS: No objection. 11 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: So admitted. 12 BY MR. KISSEL: 13 Q. And that is -- that Petitioner's Exhibit 14 Number 26 is referred to as Figure 9 in your testimony? 15 A. That is correct. 16 Q. Show you what's been marked as Petitioner's 17 Exhibit 27. 18 A. 27 is basically a planning profile view of 19 what the diffuser would look like. We have -- basically 20 were asked to look at a diffuser design, conceptual 21 diffuser design, and this is a multiport diffuser which 22 would give us greater dispersion in a smaller area. 23 It shows the port at an angle. We would point 24 these ports at a 60-degree angle to make sure, because 200 1 it's a denser plume, that we get it up into the water 2 column so the mixing is good. And the diffuser would 3 basically be about 15 feet long with four three-inch 4 ports. 5 There's a couple different designs we've 6 looked at, but that's sort of the one we're looking at 7 right now. 8 Q. Did you prepare that document, Mr. Corn? 9 A. I did. 10 Q. And is it true and correct to the best of your 11 knowledge and belief? 12 A. Yes, it is. I may add that the diffuser is a 13 fairly benign object or dispersion mechanism, not very 14 much maintenance on it. Usually send a hardhat diver down 15 to check it once a year to make sure the ports aren't 16 clogged or broken. And usually diffusers last on the 17 order of about 30 years. 18 MR. KISSEL: Move the admission of Exhibit 19 Number 27. 20 MS. WILLIAMS: No objection. 21 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: 27 so admitted. 22 BY MR. KISSEL: 23 Q. That Exhibit 27 is referred to as Figure 10 in 24 your testimony? 201 1 A. That is correct. 2 Q. Okay. Show you what's been marked as 3 Petitioner's Exhibit Number 28. Can you tell me what that 4 is? 5 A. That is a model run of a diffuser -- the 6 multiport diffuser, and the projected plume with a ZID, 7 and a total mixing zone, which might range from about 200 8 feet down to about 750 feet depending on the flow of the 9 river. As flow increases, it tends to elongate that plume 10 because ambient velocity pushes it a little bit further 11 downstream. 12 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Kissel, do you 13 have a copy for either myself or, Miss Williams, do you 14 have a copy of it? 15 MS. WILLIAMS: Actually this one wasn't 16 attached. Sheila did give me some color copies that 17 include this one. So, I do have one in front of me right 18 now. 19 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay. My 20 exhibit -- 21 MS. DEELY: Is it just that one that you want 22 a copy of? 23 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Well, I just want 24 to make it known that my exhibits stop there as far as 202 1 Figure 10. 2 MR. KISSEL: Okay. 3 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: But in any event, 4 I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr. Corn. 5 THE WITNESS: Oh, that's okay. 6 MR. KISSEL: Do you have any objection to that 7 exhibit being introduced, Exhibit 28? 8 MS. WILLIAMS: I don't think so. Sheila had 9 pointed out to us this morning that she saw there was one 10 that we didn't have, and she gave it to us. So, that's 11 fine. 12 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay. Terrific. 13 Thank you. 14 MS. DEELY: It was those two? 15 MR. KISSEL: This is for you. 16 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you. 17 BY MR. KISSEL: 18 Q. That document is referred to as what exhibit 19 in your testimony? 20 A. As Figure -- 21 Q. Or figure? 22 A. -- 11. 23 Q. 11? 24 A. Uh-huh. 203 1 Q. I show you what's been marked as Petitioner's 2 Exhibit Number 29. Could you tell us what that is? 3 A. This is a report prepared by EA Engineering 4 entitled "Results of an Acute Toxicity Identification 5 Evaluation," TIE, on a filter effluent sample from BF 6 Goodrich. 7 Q. What is that document? How did you come about 8 having it? 9 A. This document I used in preparation of my 10 testimony on determining the toxicity of effluent. One of 11 the things we have to look at in mixing zones is to make 12 sure -- we, we make sure that the toxicity is diminished 13 at the end of the ZID and in the mixing zone. 14 Q. Did you rely on that document in preparing 15 your testimony? 16 A. Yes, I did. 17 Q. Who's the author of that testimony? 18 A. Mr. Goodfellow who, I believe, will be 19 testifying later. 20 MR. KISSEL: All right. I move the admission 21 of Exhibit Number 29. 22 MS. WILLIAMS: So you want this entered with 23 Mr. Corn's testimony? 24 MR. KISSEL: He's referring to it. If you 204 1 don't -- if you have an objection, Mr. Goodfellow will 2 verify it. 3 MS. WILLIAMS: It's not so much an objection. 4 It just seemed logical to us in some ways that 5 Mr. Goodfellow would have gone first, so I'm a little 6 surprised about that. 7 MR. KISSEL: I don't think we did it 8 alphabetically. I'm not sure how we came about that. 9 MS. WILLIAMS: That's fine. 10 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay. Number 29 is 11 admitted. 12 BY MR. KISSEL: 13 Q. Mr. Corn, you have your testimony before you 14 which is your Exhibit Number 16. Have you reviewed that 15 testimony since it's been submitted to the Board? 16 A. Yes, sir. 17 Q. Are there any areas which you'd like to 18 comment on or, or change or modify? 19 A. A couple -- a couple of additions and -- 20 Q. Okay. 21 A. -- some things that the Board has asked for 22 that I'd like to point out in my testimony. 23 Q. Okay. Go ahead. 24 A. On page two at the end of my qualifications 205 1 and experience, I just wanted to note that I've been 2 working on water quality-related projects at Noveon/BF 3 Goodrich since 1989. 4 Q. Okay. 5 A. Also on page two, the Board asked a question 6 about what the average concentrations were of ammonia in 7 the effluent in 2003 and for the summer period. And I 8 believe that's in the document we gave you. It was 77 9 milligrams per liter as an average. We've reported 135 10 milligrams per liter based on the work that Mr. Flippin 11 has done. But last year, in 2003, the average in the 12 summer was 77, and I think it's 94 for the winter period. 13 MS. WILLIAMS: Can we -- so this is coming 14 from -- can we please give it a number? Is that too much 15 to ask at this point, if we're reading from the Board's 16 answers? 17 MR. KISSEL: What he's doing is not 18 necessarily reading from those. What he's doing is he put 19 that together, and he's testifying as to it. I'll be 20 happy to give it a number. You know, we hadn't decided 21 whether we would move its admission or just submit it to 22 the Board, but -- can we get a number to that? 23 MS. DEELY: If we want, yeah. 24 MR. KISSEL: Sure. 206 1 MS. WILLIAMS: I mean, I think it would be 2 easier for me to be able to refer to it as an exhibit. 3 BY MR. KISSEL: 4 Q. Okay. Anything else, Mr. Corn? 5 A. Yes. On page five when I'm describing the 6 different zones -- 7 Q. What about page -- I thought you said you had 8 something on page three? 9 A. I must have skipped over that. 10 Q. Yes. 11 A. Page three, the background pH in the report 12 says it's 7.7. It's actually 7.77. And the background 13 ammonia concentration should be 0.3 milligrams per liter, 14 and I believe we had -- I thought I put 0.09. 15 Q. So that -- the background concentration is in 16 paragraph one on page three, and the background ammonia 17 concentration is in paragraph three; is that correct? 18 A. That's correct. 19 Q. All right. Above that, it said the water -- 20 the sentence, "The water quality characteristics," my 21 statement says, "U.S. EPA stored data." Should that be 22 Storet? 23 A. Storet. Thank you. 24 MS. WILLIAMS: Can you refer me to that line 207 1 again? 2 MR. KISSEL: It's the water quality 3 characteristics, U.S. EPA. It should be Storet database. 4 MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you. 5 A. On page -- on page five, I previously 6 described the different zones of a mixing zone, of a 7 hydraulic mixing zone. And under near field zone, I 8 describe that in the fourth sentence down. The sentence 9 reads, "This zone consists of a jet momentum zone, a 10 restratification zone, depending upon plume river density 11 differences after the jet zone, a transition zone, the 12 buoyant spreading zone," which I said was sort of a 13 transition zone between the near field and the far field, 14 and then the -- it should say, "and far field zone, "which 15 is a mixing area where the plume goes from 16 effluent-dominated mixing to mixing totally dominated by 17 the river ambient diffusion, which is a natural energy and 18 dispersive or spreading out forces of the receiving 19 stream. 20 Q. Okay. Anything else? 21 A. On page seven, the Illinois regulations 22 specify that you can only use 25 percent of the 23 cross-sectional area or volume of flow to establish the, 24 the mixing in a mixing zone. And that applies to the zone 208 1 of initial dilution as well as the total mixing zone. 2 The intent of the -- all the guidance is to 3 minimize the area you use; and the more mixing you can get 4 in the ZID or the closer to the diffuser, the better you 5 are from impacts to the river. So, I would like to add, 6 after number two -- 7 Q. On page seven? 8 A. -- on page seven, "The ZID dispersion is 9 limited by 25 percent of the volume of flow or 10 cross-sectional area." 11 Q. Thank you. Next? Anything else? 12 A. Just a clarification under -- on page eight 13 under number two, that is describing the -- what we looked 14 at for the Noveon single port diffuser as it exists today. 15 For other discharges that don't meet the 16 10-foot-per-second port exit velocity criterion, such as 17 for the Noveon discharge, and each of the following A, B 18 and C's describe how we calculated that ZID distance. 19 Q. What about paragraph 2(b)? 20 A. 2(b) should be and/or. You use the -- use the 21 smallest distance to establish your ZID. 22 Q. Okay. Anything else? 23 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Yes, Miss Williams? 24 MS. WILLIAMS: I'm lost. I'm sorry. We're 209 1 changing on page eight, is that what we're doing here? 2 MR. KISSEL: Yes, ma'am. Where it says e.g., 3 in paragraph two, Mr. -- 4 MS. WILLIAMS: Oh, that should be and/or? 5 MR. KISSEL: No, that should be "for the 6 Noveon discharge," right? 7 THE WITNESS: Correct. 8 MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. And then -- 9 MR. KISSEL: Paragraph B, just add "slash or" 10 at the end of it. 11 MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you. 12 MR. KISSEL: Okay. You're welcome. 13 BY MR. KISSEL: 14 Q. Anything else, Mr. Corn? 15 A. On page ten, the last sentence under multiport 16 diffuser. "And the multiport diffuser will normally meet 17 chronic numeric criteria and chronic co-effluent toxicity 18 within about 100 to 250 feet from the diffuser with a 19 maximum distance on the order of about 750 feet, based on 20 flow." 21 Q. You're adding the words "with a maximum" -- 22 A. -- "distance on the order of 750 feet." 23 Q. Okay. 24 A. And then under number two, it's got -- we talk 210 1 about waste. It should be effluent. It's treated 2 effluent. 3 Q. All right. Anything else? 4 MS. WILLIAMS: Hang on. Let me catch up. 5 Where does "treated effluent" go? 6 MR. KISSEL: Pardon? 7 MS. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry. Where does "treated 8 effluent" go? 9 MR. KISSEL: Paragraph 6(2), it says, "and the 10 waste is mixed." It should be, "and the treated effluent 11 is mixed primarily by ambient turbulence." 12 MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. 13 BY MR. KISSEL: 14 Q. Anything else, Mr. Corn? 15 A. On page eleven, we have at -- right before 16 water quality effects, IEPA allows a total of 26 acres for 17 the total mixing zone and the 16 acres, and that last 18 sentence should be 26 acres. 19 Q. Anything further? 20 A. The -- a little bit of clarification on the 21 two ammonias. NH4 which is the ionized form of ammonia is 22 not considered toxic. The un-ionized form, NH3, which 23 Mr. Flippin talked about being able to strip from because 24 it turns into a gas, is a toxic form, which shows up in 211 1 aquatic toxicity tests. 2 Q. So, your addition is to add the word -- 3 A. Under -- after NH4 which is not considered 4 toxic. 5 Q. So the word "considered" is added. Okay. 6 MS. WILLIAMS: Oh, I'm sorry, I lost -- I'm 7 lost again. I followed the words he was saying; I just 8 don't understand exactly where -- I lost the line. 9 MR. KISSEL: I'm sorry. Oh, sure. 10 MS. WILLIAMS: Where does it say -- 11 MR. KISSEL: It's on page eleven, ammonia or 12 NH3, the last paragraph. 13 MS. WILLIAMS: Right. 14 MR. KISSEL: The sentence reads, "Ammonia 15 exists in the environment both as" -- 16 MS. WILLIAMS: There it is. 17 MR. KISSEL: Yes. Okay. 18 MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you. 19 MR. KISSEL: You're welcome. 20 BY MR. KISSEL: 21 Q. Anything else, Mr. Corn? 22 A. On page 12, and we're talking about dissolved 23 oxygen. Just a clarification. The river meets DO 24 standards. It's the next-to-last sentence in that 212 1 paragraph under dissolved oxygen. "The river meets DO 2 standards based on the available data for downstream 3 locations that would potentially be affected by the Noveon 4 discharge." It's just to make sure that we're talking 5 solely about the Noveon discharge at this point. 6 Q. Okay. Anything else? 7 A. I believe I've already -- on page 13 under 8 ammonia water quality standards, we're talking about a 9 distance of 100 to 250 feet from the diffuser, and I've 10 clarified that that would normally be the distance to meet 11 the total mixing zone or chronic zone for ammonia. 12 Q. Anything else, Mr. Corn? 13 A. That is it. 14 Q. Okay. I call your attention to page three of 15 your testimony, the last sentence on the page that reads, 16 "Data for the winter indicate that these months are not 17 limiting periods for ammonia discharges." When you use 18 the term "limiting periods," what do you mean? 19 A. When we look at discharges, we try to find out 20 what is the most critical period that we have to design 21 for as far as the diffuser would go. And the summer 22 conditions of low flow, high temperatures gives us the 23 most critical periods to design for, both from a water 24 quality standpoint and toxicity standpoint. 213 1 Q. Water quality standards for ammonia are 2 divided into two times of the year; is that correct? 3 A. Summer and winter. 4 Q. Okay. And what is generally the summer, and 5 what is generally the winter, or what is -- do you know 6 what they are in Illinois regulations? 7 A. What the two different standards are? 8 Q. No, what, what the months are? Do you know 9 what the -- 10 A. Oh, the months for summer are April through 11 October, and then November through March for winter. 12 Q. All right. And for each of those periods, 13 there are -- what standards exist? What kinds of 14 standards? 15 A. There's whole effluent toxicity standards, but 16 there's also specific ammonia acute standards, which is a 17 number that would be derived from pH data, and then there 18 is a specific chronic ammonia standard that you would have 19 to meet. 20 Q. So, Illinois has summer and winter standards; 21 and summer, there's summer acute, summer chronic, winter 22 acute and winter chronic. Is that correct? 23 A. Correct. 24 Q. And in this instance of the Noveon discharge, 214 1 what is the standard that you -- is most limiting, if you 2 will, as you defined that in your testimony? 3 A. The one that we've always been limited in is 4 the acute standard which is at the edge of the ZID limits, 5 the -- what dispersion we have to meet -- 6 Q. And what, what time of the year? 7 A. -- to meet the standards. During the summer, 8 and September being the critical period because that's the 9 lowest flow period for the Illinois River. 10 MR. KISSEL: That's all I have. 11 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you. 12 Miss Deely, do you have copies of Mr. Corn's written 13 testimony for the members of the public? 14 MS. DEELY: Yes, I think I passed them out. 15 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Anybody else want a 16 copy of Mr. Corn's written testimony? 17 AUDIENCE MEMBER: How can we arrange for 18 exhibits of that as well? 19 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Well, you can go on 20 our website, and I believe they scan them, or you can come 21 in personally to the Chicago office, or you can call the 22 clerk, and I think he can take care of you there. And I 23 will give you -- next break I'll give you our website, and 24 I will make it for the record at the conclusion. 215 1 With that said, Miss Williams, is your cross, 2 do you know -- your crystal ball -- going to be long? The 3 reason I'm asking, Mr. Melas, Member Melas, has to take a 4 flight back to Chicago for a Board meeting, and he's got 5 to leave about three. And I was remiss in -- I stated 6 earlier, but I wanted to see if any members of the public 7 wanted to make public comments, statement while Member 8 Melas is here and before he takes off to Chicago. And 9 that's not to say you can't make it later if you don't 10 make it now, but -- 11 MS. WILLIAMS: I think it would be appropriate 12 to break off now. I would probably actually like to take 13 a couple minutes to make a call back to the office, and if 14 we want to allow for public testimony during that period? 15 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: You don't want to 16 be here? 17 Does anybody want to make a public comment, 18 statement at this time? I don't see any hands. 19 Do you need to take a minute break? 20 MS. WILLIAMS: Just two or three minutes, 21 yeah. 22 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay. We're off 23 the record. Thanks. 24 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.) 216 1 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: We're back on the 2 record, and I think Mr. Kissel has finished his direct, 3 and it's Miss Williams' turn. 4 CROSS-EXAMINATION 5 BY MS. WILLIAMS: 6 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Corn. How are you today? 7 A. Very good. 8 Q. Just like to ask you a few questions about 9 your testimony today. On page one, you talk about your 10 participation in the adoption of the Board's mixing zone 11 rules; is that correct? 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. And you testified in those hearings? 14 A. I did. 15 Q. And who were you representing when you 16 testified in those hearings? 17 A. The Village of Sauget, S-a-u-g-e-t. 18 Q. Not Song Jay is what came through yesterday. 19 Were you here for that part? No? 20 A. I was here. 21 Q. And on page two of your testimony, in number 22 three, description of effluent and river, but then there's 23 another number three under that, do you see that? It 24 starts with, "The Henry facility." 217 1 MR. KISSEL: Subparagraph three. 2 BY MS. WILLIAMS: 3 Q. Subparagraph three, I guess you'd call it, one 4 through four? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. In that paragraph, it said, "Ammonia 7 measurements made by IEPA and Noveon or their contractors 8 indicate that ammonia concentrations in the effluent 9 average around 900 pounds per day or 135 milligrams per 10 liter." Is there a specific place that you looked to to 11 come up with those figures? 12 A. The number of 135 milligrams per liter, I 13 consulted with Mr. Flippin, and he gave me that number. 14 I've also looked back through numbers available from IEPA 15 and the people that have done the work. 16 Q. When you say "numbers available from IEPA," 17 could you -- 18 A. They have collected samples for ammonia 19 analysis over the years. 20 Q. So, the annual discharge monitoring? 21 A. Whatever they've monitored. 22 Q. Okay. 23 A. I believe all the samples have been grabs, but 24 I'm not sure. 218 1 Q. And on page three of your testimony, too, I 2 just wanted to clarify, you made a change -- and I'm not 3 sure if I heard you correctly -- background ammonia 4 concentration in the river, and it said 0.09. You changed 5 that to 0.3? 6 A. 0.3. 7 Q. And was that a typo, or is that based on newer 8 information? 9 A. No, that's a typo. Sometimes my 3's look like 10 9's. 11 Q. But you also put in an extra zero then, too? 12 A. I didn't, but -- 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. But that is .3 based on the -- 15 Q. You don't do your own typing, Mr. Corn? 16 A. Sometimes I do. 17 Q. I do my own typing. 18 A. Most of the typing I do. 19 Q. And on page six, you state under the subtitle 20 Actual Mixing Zone, you say, "The existing single port 21 diffuser is effective in dispersing the effluent into the 22 Illinois River, and the effluent has been and will 23 continue to meet water quality and whole effluent toxicity 24 limits in this mixing zone." 219 1 A. Correct. 2 Q. Now, are you talking about the acute and 3 chronic standards? 4 A. Acute and chronic. 5 Q. And are you talking about a regulatory mixing 6 zone here, or are you talking about something different 7 than that? 8 A. The mixing zone as we monitored and reported 9 to IEPA. 10 Q. I guess maybe I need you to explain that for 11 me a little bit more. 12 A. The, the mixing zone as we measured, using 13 conductivity, basically went out to about 100 feet, and we 14 achieved a dispersion on the order of about 20:1 at that 15 point, and we will meet acute toxicity and numeric 16 criteria in the mixing zone for that mixing zone as, as 17 described. 18 Q. Now, when you say you measured, you don't mean 19 that you went out and took samples of the water quality in 20 the river? 21 A. We went out and we collected or measured 22 conductivity and used it as a surrogate to look at 23 dispersion in the river. 24 Q. But you didn't actually measure to confirm 220 1 whether your models were correct what the actual mixing 2 zone is? 3 A. We confirmed that with the conductivity. It 4 is a tracer that can be used to measure the dispersion. 5 MS. WILLIAMS: I'm not sure if he answered my 6 question. 7 BY MS. WILLIAMS: 8 Q. You did -- I mean, you didn't actually take 9 samples to make sure, at the edge of the mixing zone, the 10 water quality standard was being met? 11 A. The water quality standard for? 12 Q. The mixing zone would be chronic, I guess, or 13 at what your ZID would be that the acute was being met? 14 A. For? 15 Q. Ammonia. 16 A. Ammonia? No, we did not take ammonia samples. 17 Q. Thank you. That's all I was trying to get at. 18 And you state here in that same paragraph, "The dispersion 19 achieved at the downstream edge of the plume at about 20 1,000 feet downstream is 100:1 or more"? 21 A. Correct. 22 Q. 1,000 feet; that's about the length of, what, 23 three football fields? Is that pretty close? 24 A. Correct. 221 1 Q. Are you aware of any other mixing zones in 2 Illinois that are this long? 3 A. I believe there is one that I know of that's 4 that long, and I believe the Village of Sauget has one 5 that's that long or longer. 6 Q. And where does the Village of Sauget discharge 7 to? 8 A. Mississippi River. 9 Q. Are you aware of any others? 10 A. The Olin diffuser at Alton, East Alton, we 11 requested 1,000 feet; I have not seen what the final 12 number they got. The 3M diffuser, we requested 1,000 feet 13 as well. That's in Cordova, Illinois. 14 Q. Are you aware that the Board's water quality 15 standards for ammonia were amended recently? 16 A. Yes, I am. 17 Q. Can you tell us when they were amended? 18 A. I believe that was in the 2001-2002 time 19 period. 20 Q. Do you know if that changed the winter and 21 summer time periods at all? 22 A. Not that I know of. 23 Q. Are you familiar with the term that was used 24 in that rule-making, the subchronic water quality 222 1 standard? 2 A. No, I have not looked at that. 3 Q. So, you haven't looked at whether Noveon is 4 meeting that standard? 5 A. I have not looked at that. 6 Q. On -- I'm looking at page eight now of your 7 testimony. And down towards the second paragraph from the 8 bottom, the second sentence here, "Both Noveon and Henry 9 keep POTW discharging through the single port diffuser 10 and, using background, temperature, pH and total ammonia 11 values from upstream monitoring stations, total ammonia 12 concentration of 155 milligrams per liter could be 13 discharged from a single port diffuser and meet water 14 quality standards at the edge of the downstream edge of 15 the ZID." 16 That's your testimony, the effluent standard 17 that's required in the summer months -- 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. -- to meet the -- to meet the acute water 20 quality standard? 21 A. The acute, correct. 22 Q. And that's as it stands currently with the 23 single port diffuser? 24 A. That is correct. 223 1 Q. And with the multiport diffuser, you're saying 2 they could go up to 220 milligrams per liter? 3 A. Well, the dispersion for the multiple diffuser 4 that we have, have the conceptual design for would meet a 5 dispersion of 43:1, and that's much greater than 200 6 milligrams per liter. 7 Q. So, it would be your testimony that with the 8 multiport diffuser they'd actually be able to increase 9 their discharges of ammonia and comply with the water 10 quality standards still? 11 A. I think it would give them a much greater 12 safety factor. 13 Q. Now, can you -- I'm not sure that you really 14 exactly explained for us how you used Mr. Goodfellow's 15 data in your calculations. Could you maybe explain that 16 to me a little bit? I'm not real familiar with his stuff 17 yet. 18 A. Mr. Goodfellow -- and he will testify on this, 19 but basically, he identified two constituents in the 20 Noveon effluent that causes toxicity in whole effluent 21 toxicity tests. One of those constituents was ammonia, 22 and one was salt or total dissolved solids. Based on his 23 work and based on work that I've done in the past, the 24 salt alone will cause -- will require dispersion of on the 224 1 order of 6 to 9 to 1 to meet just the salt toxicity. 2 So, I relied on that work to make sure that 3 when we design a multiport diffuser that we design it to 4 meet all the whole effluent toxicity acute standards and 5 the chronic as well. Obviously, 43:1 is much greater than 6 we would need to meet that toxicity from the salt. 7 Q. But 43:1 is based on what? 8 A. The multiport diffuser. 9 Q. I'm sorry, I take that back. What do you 10 believe you need to address ammonia then? What is that 11 based on? 12 A. That is based on the multiport diffuser for 13 the future. There have been a couple of readings that I 14 have seen that are grab samples that are in the 200 15 milligram per liter range; and to ensure that we can meet 16 whole effluent toxicity for that, from an acute 17 standpoint, the multiport diffuser would be the assurance 18 that we would need for that. 19 Q. Just a second. What I'm trying to understand, 20 Mr. Corn, is this: It appears to me from looking at 21 Mr. Goodfellow's work that he doesn't know exactly how 22 toxic Noveon's effluent limit goes because even at the 23 most diluted ratio of 6.25 percent, toxicity was 24 discovered, correct? 225 1 A. You'll have to ask Mr. Goodfellow about that. 2 Q. Well, I'm trying to decide -- that's why I was 3 hoping he would go first because I have questions about 4 how he got his numbers. So, I guess to the extent there 5 are questions about his numbers, do they call into 6 question any of your findings with regard to the mixing 7 zone? 8 A. I don't believe so. 9 Q. So, it's not necessary for determining the 10 mixing zone to know how chronic and toxic Noveon's 11 effluent is? 12 A. The chronic toxicity? Yes, it is. 13 Q. It is necessary? And what figure did you use 14 for that? 15 A. I used 100:1. 16 Q. And where did you -- how did you choose that? 17 A. That was based on the 155, 155 milligrams per 18 liter. 19 MS. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Hearing Officer, my 20 technical advisor is asking me if he has permission to ask 21 a follow-up question of the witness. It's up to you 22 whether you're willing to break that kind of protocol. 23 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Kissel? 24 MR. KISSEL: I think we're sort of doing this 226 1 through lawyers right now. If Mr. Mosher wants to do a 2 public comment -- 3 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I agree. Let's try 4 to keep it to the attorneys because that could open a 5 whole floodgate. 6 MS. WILLIAMS: I warned him, but I told him 7 I'd ask. 8 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you. 9 BY MS. WILLIAMS: 10 Q. Now, what -- can you repeat for us what the 11 dimension is of the ZID that you calculated? 12 A. The ZID is less than five -- the ZID? 13 Q. Yes. 14 A. For which, which diffuser? 15 Q. Start with the single port. 16 A. The single port diffuser would be about 66 17 feet long, and I think at that point it may be 30, 50 feet 18 wide, something like that. Maybe a little bit wider. 19 Q. How long does it take to travel that distance 20 through the Illinois River? 21 A. Well, if you look at just the velocity in the 22 river, it's less than a few minutes. 23 Q. And is less than a few minutes -- I mean, I 24 would say less than a few minutes definitely means more 227 1 than a minute, right? 2 A. Less than a few minutes is three minutes or 3 less. 4 Q. About three minutes? Is about three minutes 5 what you mean when you say rapid and immediate mixing? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Remember that when it takes me three minutes 8 to look through whether I have any more questions. 9 Okay. A couple places in your testimony you 10 refer to the 1990 -- 1972 National Academy of Sciences' 11 theory of -- regarding limiting exposure time for aquatic 12 life? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. Isn't it true that the Illinois EPA explicitly 15 rejected this concept in its guidance? 16 A. And I so state in my testimony. 17 Q. Are you aware of whether that guidance has 18 been approved by U.S. EPA? 19 A. The EPA, the -- 20 Q. Whether the Illinois EPA guidance has been 21 approved by U.S. EPA? 22 A. I don't know. 23 Q. Are you aware of whether the Illinois EPA 24 water quality regulations still rely on un-ionized ammonia 228 1 for measuring? 2 A. That was my assumption when I've done most of 3 this work since 1989. 4 Q. You know that U.S. EPA has gone to looking at 5 total ammonia again, though, correct? 6 A. I have heard that. 7 Q. Can you tell us whether you feel aquatic life 8 will be impaired inside the regulatory mixing zone you 9 proposed? 10 A. I don't believe so. 11 Q. And what do you base that on? 12 A. Basically, the velocity of these discharges, 13 basically the sweep are rapid enough to move aquatic life 14 away from the maximum concentrations. 15 Q. So, what you're saying is aquatic life are 16 unable to even live in the mixing zone based on that? 17 A. In the zone of initial dilution, the ZID area. 18 Q. What about in the mixing zone? 19 A. In the mixing zone, they may pass through 20 that. They could -- they could potentially live there. 21 Q. What would be the impact on mussels or clams 22 in the bottom of the river? 23 A. I have no data to base that on. 24 Q. Now, you state that -- I believe on page seven 229 1 that Noveon has asked for less than five acres for its 2 total mixing zone; is that what -- that's what we're using 3 TMZ here for, right? Less than five acres? 4 A. That is correct. 5 Q. Are you aware of any other mixing zones in 6 Illinois that are equal to or greater than five acres? 7 A. I would assume the ones that I've mentioned in 8 that area would be that distance, be that size area. 9 Q. And do you think the mixing zone regulations 10 as adopted by the Board intended for an area of five acres 11 without clams or mussels to exist in them? 12 A. The -- as I understand it, the 26 acres is for 13 the total mixing zone, and that's -- includes the ZID and 14 the total mixing zone, and I would assume that they 15 considered that. 16 Q. And so you think it means that within that 17 maximum of 26 acres, it's okay for there not to be a 18 condition to support mussels or fingernail clams or that 19 type of bottom life? 20 A. I think that what they've said is that they 21 will allow 26 acres for the total mixing zone. 22 MS. WILLIAMS: I think that's all I have. Can 23 I just confer for one second? 24 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Sure. 230 1 (A pause was had in the record.) 2 MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. I think I'm done. Thank 3 you. 4 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you. 5 Mr. Kissel, before your redirect, I want to ask Member 6 Melas if he had any questions before you took off for your 7 scheduled flight? 8 MEMBER MELAS: None, Mr. Court. 9 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay. Thank you. 10 Mr. Kissel, you may proceed. 11 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. KISSEL: 13 Q. Mr. Corn, there was some discussion on -- 14 using conductivity here? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And what, what is conductivity just for 17 purposes of our discussion here? 18 A. Conductivity is a way to measure salt content 19 or the concentration in the plume area. 20 Q. All right. Is it also called salinity? 21 A. Salinity is another name for conductivity. 22 Q. And is salinity used as a tracking chemical? 23 A. Yes, it is. It's a conservative constituent. 24 And whatever happens to the salt or salinity, any other 231 1 constituent would undergo those same dispersive forces. 2 Q. So, if there's another contaminant in the 3 discharge and you track the salt, that contaminant will 4 act identically to the salt in the hydraulic atmosphere; 5 is that correct? 6 A. That's correct. If you have a 13:1 dispersion 7 of salt, you would have a 13:1 dispersion of the ammonia 8 or any other constituent. 9 Q. There was some discussion by Miss Williams 10 about this setting the dilutions and so forth. Is what 11 you're attempting to do is to really set a water 12 quality-based effluent limit? Is that basically what 13 you're doing? 14 A. That's correct. 15 Q. And how do you do that? 16 A. You basically take the dispersion at the edge 17 of the ZID and translate that back to the end of pipe. 18 Q. By using -- meeting what standard at the end 19 of the ZID? 20 A. The water quality standard. 21 Q. For? 22 A. For salt or ammonia. 23 Q. Would that be the acute standard at the end of 24 the ZID? 232 1 A. At the end of the ZID, it would be the acute 2 standard. At the end of the total mixing zone, it would 3 be the chronic standard. 4 Q. So, take us through with a 43:1 in terms of 5 the -- of the acute standard at the end of the ZID, you 6 determined that there was a dilution of 43:1 based upon 7 your studies; is that correct? 8 A. Correct. 9 Q. Which means at the end of the zone of initial 10 dilution where that 43:1 dilution exists, then you -- how 11 do you translate that back to a water quality-based 12 effluent? 13 A. You would take the water quality -- the 14 acute -- the acute ammonia water quality standard and 15 multiply that by basically 43, and then that would be your 16 end-of-pipe discharge. 17 Q. Also some question -- a question about the 18 time between the discharge and the end of the ZID, and I 19 think you said it was three minutes. And my understanding 20 of what you said, correct me if I'm wrong, was that was 21 based on the flow of the river? 22 A. Well, it's actually based on both, the flow of 23 the river and on the port exit velocity. 24 Q. So, it would be a -- 233 1 A. Obviously at 10 feet per second from a 2 multiport diffuser, it would be a lot less than three 3 minutes. 4 Q. All right. At the multiport diffuser, what 5 would you, ballpark, say the time from the discharge to 6 the end of the ZID would be? 7 A. A few seconds. 8 MR. KISSEL: That's all. 9 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you. 10 Miss Williams, recross? 11 RECROSS-EXAMINATION 12 BY MS. WILLIAMS: 13 Q. Are you familiar with regulations 35 Illinois 14 Administrative Code Part 355, Determination of Ammonia 15 Based Water Quality Effluent Limits? 16 A. I'm sure I've read them, but -- 17 Q. Well, I'm not sure that you have. I mean, 18 that's why I'm asking. They were recently amended in 19 July, I think, of -- maybe actually in October of this 20 year -- of last year, I mean. 21 A. Yeah, I'm not sure that I've read those. 22 Q. Okay. Those are the Agency -- I'll describe 23 them for you if it would help. They are the Agency 24 regulations we use to determine water quality-based 234 1 effluent limits. Have you ever seen those or read those? 2 A. I don't believe. 3 Q. For ammonia specifically? I'm sorry. 4 A. For ammonia. I don't recall. 5 MS. WILLIAMS: I think that's all I have. 6 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you. 7 MR. KISSEL: I have nothing else. 8 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you. 9 Technical Unit, any questions of Mr. Corn? 10 MS. LIU: Good afternoon, Mr. Corn. Would you 11 happen to know how much it might cost Noveon to install 12 the multiport diffuser and to maintain it? 13 THE WITNESS: Noveon had an engineering firm, 14 Horner and Schiffrin, they're out of Belleville, Illinois, 15 and St. Louis, Missouri, an engineer named Tom Thompson 16 came up with a cost, and I think we've put that in the 17 unit response. But it was $666,000 a few years ago, and 18 we used a 3 percent inflation rate and brought that up to 19 today's dollars of $800,000. 20 MS. LIU: Thank you. 21 MEMBER MELAS: I had one question. 22 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Yes, Member Melas? 23 MEMBER MELAS: One part I read that the single 24 port diffuser that's used now is jointly used by the 235 1 Noveon discharge and the Henry POTW? 2 THE WITNESS: That is correct. 3 MEMBER MELAS: And do they share the cost, or 4 how do they operate that? Do you have any idea? 5 THE WITNESS: The -- it's my understanding 6 that Noveon made the diffuser available for the City. We 7 met with IEPA and that was approved. 8 MEMBER MELAS: Okay. Makes sense. 9 MR. KISSEL: Maybe we should be charging them. 10 No. 11 MEMBER MELAS: No. You're good citizens. 12 MR. KISSEL: That is right. Excuse me. We 13 are. 14 I'm going to mark this as an exhibit. I've 15 asked the hearing officer -- or I marked as Exhibit Number 16 30 the documents that we gave to the Pollution Control 17 Board so we can now refer to that. 18 MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you. 19 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Any -- 20 MR. KISSEL: I just have a couple more. 21 FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION 22 BY MR. KISSEL: 23 Q. Following up on that question of the technical 24 advisor to the Board, Mr. Corn, what about -- what would 236 1 be the construction schedule for the installation of a 2 diffuser? 3 A. We have estimated a -- about a one-year 4 construction schedule. We do have a conceptual design. 5 We think we can do the detailed engineering in three 6 months. We have put in three months for regulatory 7 approval. That would be IEPA, as well as the Corps of 8 Engineers. You have to get a Corps of Engineers permit. 9 And then the optimum time for building a 10 diffuser is obviously during the summertime, during low 11 flows. Then we would need a one- to two-month period to 12 knock any cobwebs out of the system. So, basically about 13 a year to get the diffuser up and running. 14 Q. Is there any maintenance cost involved? 15 A. Maintenance costs are pretty minimal. Hardhat 16 diver once a year, and then if you have electric -- 17 electrical lights or anything at your river control 18 structure for the diffuser. You're not talking -- a 19 couple hundred, maybe a thousand dollars a month or, or 20 less. 21 MR. KISSEL: Thank you. That's all I have. 22 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Any follow-up, 23 Miss Williams? 24 * * * * * 237 1 FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION 2 BY MS. WILLIAMS: 3 Q. Just one question about what you just brought 4 up there. When you said IEPA approval, can you explain? 5 A. We met with -- 6 Q. I'm sorry. When you -- you talked about the 7 requirement to get IEPA approval as part of your 8 construction schedule? 9 A. Correct. 10 Q. Do you know -- because my technical staff was 11 explaining to me yesterday, I think, that you don't need a 12 permit for that, an actual construction permit. So, is 13 there some other type of permit? 14 A. The Corps of Engineers requires -- I believe 15 the Corps of Engineers requires IEPA to okay the addition 16 of the diffuser under a 404 permit. 17 Q. Okay. That's probably what we call a 401 18 certification; does that sound right? 19 A. I think that's it. The water quality 20 certification under that, I believe. 21 Q. Thank you. 22 A. We've gotten that before on other diffusers. 23 MS. WILLIAMS: That's all I have. 24 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay. 238 1 MR. KISSEL: Thank you, Mr. Corn. 2 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you, 3 Mr. Michael R. Corn. You can step down. 4 Petitioner's Exhibit Number 30, any objection 5 for moving this into evidence, Miss Williams? It's the 6 responses to the Board's questions. 7 MS. WILLIAMS: No. 8 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: So admitted. 9 MR. KISSEL: Thank you. 10 (A pause was had in the record.) 11 MR. KISSEL: Would you identify yourself for 12 the record, please? 13 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I'm sorry. Please 14 raise your right hand, and Jennifer will swear you in. 15 (Witness sworn.) 16 WILLIAM L. GOODFELLOW, JR., 17 called as a witness, after being first duly sworn, was 18 examined and testified upon his oath as follows: 19 DIRECT EXAMINATION 20 BY MR. KISSEL: 21 Q. Would you identify yourself for the record, 22 please? 23 A. Yes. My name is William L. Goodfellow, Jr. 24 Q. And where do you live, Mr. Goodfellow? 239 1 A. I live in York, Pennsylvania. 2 Q. I show you what has been marked as 3 Petitioner's Exhibit 31 and ask you to tell me what that 4 is? 5 A. It is my written testimony for this 6 proceeding. 7 Q. Did you prepare that? 8 A. I did. 9 Q. And is it true and correct to the best of your 10 knowledge and belief? 11 A. Yes, it is. 12 MR. KISSEL: I move the admission of 13 Exhibit -- Petitioner's Exhibit 31. 14 MS. WILLIAMS: No objection. Does that 15 include -- 16 MR. KISSEL: No, I'm going to add -- 17 MS. WILLIAMS: -- the resume? 18 MR. KISSEL: It does include it. 19 BY MR. KISSEL: 20 Q. But would you identify -- tell me what 21 Petitioner's Exhibit 32 is, please? 22 A. Yes. It is my resume. 23 Q. And -- 24 A. Minus the header page that's on the -- on the 240 1 other document. 2 Q. But is that a true and correct recitation of 3 your experiences, education, et cetera? 4 A. Yes, it is. 5 MR. KISSEL: All right. Move the admission of 6 Petitioner's Exhibit Number 32, I believe. 7 THE WITNESS: Yes. 8 MS. WILLIAMS: No objection. 9 MR. KISSEL: For the record, Exhibit 31 does 10 have this attached, but I thought we would have it 11 separately. 12 MS. WILLIAMS: What page does it start on? 13 Can you -- Exhibit 32 starts on page -- 14 MR. KISSEL: Well, his, his testimony runs ten 15 pages. 16 THE WITNESS: Page eleven. 17 MS. WILLIAMS: So, page eleven. 18 MR. KISSEL: For the record, Mr. Hearing 19 Officer, all the testimony we've entered will be entered 20 into the record as so read, correct? 21 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: That's correct. 22 MR. KISSEL: Including Goodfellow and Flippin 23 and Corn. 24 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: So, Exhibit Number 241 1 31 and 32 are admitted into evidence without objection? 2 MS. WILLIAMS: (Counsel nods head.) 3 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: And also, 4 Miss Deely, do we have copies of -- 5 MS. DEELY: I just handed them out. 6 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: You're way ahead of 7 me. Thank you. You may proceed. 8 MR. KISSEL: I don't have any specific 9 questions. He's familiar with cross-examination. 10 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay. When you get 11 your bearings, Miss Williams, you can -- 12 MS. WILLIAMS: Shouldn't take too long. 13 CROSS-EXAMINATION 14 BY MS. WILLIAMS: 15 Q. Can we start, I guess, maybe give -- have a 16 good transition here. Mr. Corn just testified that he 17 made use of your tests that you performed -- 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. -- for Noveon, and I'm aware of two separate 20 tests that were performed, correct, from your testimony? 21 A. Correct. Two rounds of testing. 22 Q. Two rounds. Can we call them the March '99 23 and the May '99 or -- 24 A. I think it was January and March. 242 1 Q. I'm going off the -- the one that was entered 2 as Exhibit 29 has March on the front of it. Is that the 3 first or the second? 4 A. That would be the January testing. 5 Q. Okay. Would you mind if we called it March -- 6 A. That's fine. 7 Q. -- since -- 8 A. I think on the -- when the sample was 9 collected, but that's fine. 10 Q. We can call it the first round -- I guess 11 we'll call it the first round and second round. 12 A. That would be fine. 13 Q. By first round we're referring to Exhibit 29. 14 A. That's fine. 15 Q. Can you explain for us how you communicate -- 16 what you communicated to Mr. Corn to give him the 17 information he needed to perform his mixing zone -- 18 A. Sure. 19 Q. -- evaluation? 20 A. I provided him the written documentation, as 21 well as we had one meeting at Illinois EPA to discuss the 22 findings of the results, but it was -- 23 Q. So, you provided him the summary here or data 24 as well or -- 243 1 A. It was the written report, yes. 2 Q. So, the same as what we had here as -- 3 A. Uh-huh. 4 Q. He relied on Exhibit 29? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. Did you also provide him the second round of 7 tests, or did he rely purely on the first round? 8 A. I am not sure. I provided it to Gardner, 9 Carton & Douglas, and then from there I don't know what 10 happened to it. 11 Q. So, you didn't directly communicate with 12 Mr. Corn in order to explain to him your results or 13 anything; he just relied on writing -- your written 14 report? 15 MR. KISSEL: I think he testified he had a 16 meeting with him in Springfield. 17 BY MS. WILLIAMS: 18 Q. At the IEPA? 19 A. Uh-huh. 20 MR. KISSEL: Yeah. 21 BY MS. WILLIAMS: 22 Q. I would like to talk about pages four and five 23 of your testimony. 24 A. Okay. 244 1 Q. And here you're discussing the results of the 2 first round of testing, correct? 3 A. Correct. 4 Q. And can you -- I guess since Counsel didn't 5 really have anything to ask you, I guess I'd appreciate it 6 if you summarized real briefly for us what those first 7 round of tests concluded? 8 A. Sure. We were asked to evaluate the effluent, 9 given the test species that were being used by the Agency 10 which were the water flea -- Ceriodaphnia dubia -- and the 11 fathead minnow, which is Pimephales promelas. And we 12 selected the chronic toxicity test as well as the acute 13 toxicity test. 14 However, at that time -- and I have yet to see 15 any additional data -- only acute toxicity testing was 16 performed. We selected chronic toxicity testing to also 17 be one of the parameters to evaluate because it uses three 18 samples within a short period of time so we could 19 determine if there was any kind of temporal variability of 20 effluent toxicity. And then we were going into it with 21 the -- proceeding to if it was toxic, to evaluate using 22 toxicity identification evaluation procedures. And we did 23 that on the most toxic sample of, of the -- 24 Q. You abbreviate that TIE? 245 1 A. Yeah, toxicity identification evaluation is 2 also referred to as the acronym TIE. The -- I'm sorry. 3 Q. You state on -- you state on page four that 4 the objective was to determine the no observed effect 5 concentration, the lowest observed effect concentration, 6 which are abbreviated NOEC and LOEC respectively? 7 A. Correct. 8 Q. And the chronic value? 9 A. Correct. As well as the acute end point. 10 Q. Then on page five you state, "The chronic 11 toxicity suite of samples were also chronically toxic with 12 the NOEC of less than 6.25 percent effluent and LOEC of 13 6.25 percent effluent for both species"? 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. So, can you tell us, Mr. Goodfellow, what is 16 the no observed effect concentration for Noveon's 17 effluent? 18 A. It was less than 6.25. 19 Q. Do you know how much less than 6.25? 20 A. It was -- 21 Q. Did you test anything less -- more diluted 22 than 6.25? 23 A. No, because the objective of the tests we were 24 performing was just to find the most toxic sample to then 246 1 further take it through the acute TIE procedures. 2 Q. But you said on page four that part of the 3 objective was to determine the no effect? 4 A. Yes, and we determined that it was less 5 than -- 6 Q. That it was less than 6.25? 7 A. Less than 6.25 percent, which is a valid 8 toxicological end point. 9 Q. Well, I don't disagree with that. I guess I 10 just want to understand why then, when you went through 11 the samples collected in March -- 12 A. Uh-huh. 13 Q. -- you had the same results, correct, less 14 than 6.25? 15 A. Correct. 16 Q. And this was true even though the ammonia 17 concentrations were lower in the second round of samples, 18 correct? 19 A. Correct. However, the salinity was higher. 20 Q. Wouldn't it have made sense in the second 21 round of testing to go below 6.25 to get something lower? 22 A. Again, the objective of the test was to 23 determine -- to try to pick the most toxic of the three 24 samples within a chronic test to run an acute TIE 247 1 procedure. 2 Q. So, Mr. Corn couldn't have used your data then 3 to make his estimates, could he? 4 A. Yes, he could. Less than 6.25 is a valid 5 toxicological end point. 6 Q. So, he just used less than 6.25; not a 7 specific number, just that it was less than 6.25? 8 A. I -- you would have to ask him. 9 Q. Okay. Well, let's, let's talk about the 10 fractionation test, all right? That's what you're saying 11 was the primary goal, to go through that? 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. That was your primary goal. And you state in 14 your testimony, don't you, that none of those tests were 15 successful in removing toxicity? 16 A. Not completely, correct. 17 Q. So, how can you conclude what's causing the 18 toxicity? 19 A. That's a good question. The fractionation 20 procedure, which is also synonymous to the TIE, is a 21 series of physical and chemical procedures that is meant 22 to evaluate various fractions of the effluent, to thus 23 track and determine the characteristics of the wastewater. 24 Information, when you fractionate a sample, 248 1 you will both be -- you will gain information from 2 removing toxicity as well as not removing toxicity. We 3 were looking for activities to determine if there was any 4 organic toxicity, any ammonia toxicity, any metal 5 toxicity, any oxidant toxicity, as well as reducible 6 compounds. 7 Virtually the only parameter that stays after 8 doing all those treatments is salinity, and salinity is, 9 is the treatment that doesn't get altered. In fact, many 10 of the other treatments actually add toxicity because 11 they're actually increasing the, the total dissolved 12 solids in the wastewater that you're evaluating. 13 Q. How are you able to conclude that there was no 14 organic toxicity? 15 A. By using the C-18 column. The C-18 column is 16 a solid phase extraction column that is selective for 17 pulling out non-polar organic compounds that are less than 18 2,000 molecular weight. C-18 columns are chosen over some 19 of the other columns because when a molecule is over 2,000 20 in its molecular weight, it can't pass the membranes of a 21 cell. So, it's -- they're really not toxic. 22 MR. KISSEL: For purposes of the record, 23 there's also a C-18 treatment facility. These are 24 unrelated. 249 1 THE WITNESS: Yeah, just coincidentally. 2 MR. KISSEL: We didn't use the plant to 3 determine that, the C-18 column. 4 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you. 5 BY MS. WILLIAMS: 6 Q. When you talk about non-polar organic 7 compounds and amine contributing organic compounds, can 8 you explain to us -- 9 A. Sure. The reason I said that one of the 10 principal toxicants in the testimony was un-ionized 11 ammonia and/or amine contributing organic compounds, 12 primary amines as well as secondary and tertiary amines 13 often, as part of the degradation process, get pushed 14 toward ammonia, so I can't determine that those -- whether 15 the ammonia contribution was coming from inorganic ammonia 16 or from organic ammonia using these procedures. 17 I do know from, from data that I have seen 18 that primarily most of the ammonia is un-- of the 19 un-ionized ammonia is inorganic, but there is an organic 20 ammonia level. 21 But we -- I did evaluate other -- well, let me 22 back up. The amine contributing organics are also very 23 water soluble; and water-soluble organics, with the 24 exception of very few polymers, are non-toxic because, 250 1 again, they stay in the water and don't pass the membranes 2 because there's a higher affinity to stay in the water 3 than to go into the organism. And it can only be toxic if 4 it goes inside the organism. 5 MS. WILLIAMS: I think that's all I have, 6 Mr. Goodfellow. Thank you. 7 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay. Mr. Kissel? 8 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 9 BY MR. KISSEL: 10 Q. Yes, I just want to get this 6.25 percent 11 stuff so I can clarify it. Can you sort of explain what 12 that is -- 13 A. Sure. 14 Q. -- Mr. Goodfellow? 15 A. When we set up a test, the standard test 16 procedures would be to set up an effluent with 100, then 17 50 percent by sections of the effluent. It would be a 18 whole effluent which is 100 percent, 50 percent, 19 25 percent effluent, 12.5 and 6.25, and a laboratory 20 control. We selected those because we were really trying 21 to just determine the slope of the toxicity and such. 22 Q. Is this a -- 23 A. It's the standard. 24 Q. Right. Is there such a thing as going to 3.1 251 1 percent, or do you -- is that called for in the test 2 procedure? 3 A. If I was running it as a permit compliance 4 test, I would have run it at whatever the permit 5 compliance point was. 6 Q. Did you feel it was necessary? 7 A. But -- no, because the objective was to 8 determine the principal toxicants as part of the TIE. We 9 selected this procedure because we were actually -- even 10 though we never got to -- we actually had more toxicity 11 statistically at the 6.25 percent to allow it to be 12 determined as the NOEC, we did get a lot of information on 13 the slope of the toxicity during the actual test itself. 14 MR. KISSEL: Okay. Thank you. 15 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Anything further, 16 Miss Williams? 17 RECROSS-EXAMINATION 18 BY MS. WILLIAMS: 19 Q. Just to reclarify, it would be possible to go 20 lower than 6.25? 21 A. It would. 22 Q. And wouldn't it be valuable to know the 23 definitive NOEC, no effect concentration? 24 A. I guess if you had another objective of the 252 1 test, but what we were asked to do back in '98 and '99 was 2 to determine the TIE. 3 MS. WILLIAMS: Great. Thanks. 4 The only other question, I guess, I have for 5 Counsel, you submitted as an exhibit the first test that 6 he refers to but not the second? Is there any reason not 7 to enter them both as exhibits? 8 MR. KISSEL: No. 9 MS. WILLIAMS: Was it just -- 10 MR. KISSEL: I don't know. 11 MS. DEELY: I think we have them here if you 12 want them. 13 MR. KISSEL: We used it only for Mr. Corn. 14 Mr. Goodfellow has testified to the results. The Agency 15 has copies of the tests and has for some time. 16 MS. WILLIAMS: We do. So, if the Board, I 17 guess, wants them, they can ask us for copies if they need 18 them. 19 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay. Thank you. 20 MR. KISSEL: Thank you. 21 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Miss Liu, Mr. Rao? 22 Any questions of Mr. Goodfellow? 23 MS. LIU: Good afternoon, Mr. Goodfellow. 24 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon. 253 1 MS. LIU: Could you please identify the 2 address of your office with the -- 3 THE WITNESS: Yes. It is 15 Loveton Circle, 4 Sparks, Maryland. 5 MS. LIU: Is that the corporate headquarters 6 as well? 7 THE WITNESS: Corporate office is in actually 8 Hunt Valley, Maryland, which is two and a half miles from 9 our science and engineering operation. 10 MS. LIU: When you did the TIE to identify the 11 specific toxicants in the effluent, your results pointed 12 to salinity, un-ionized ammonia, and the amines; is that 13 correct? 14 THE WITNESS: Correct. The first round of 15 testing that we did, it became very highly suspicious that 16 it was ammonia and salinity. The second round of testing 17 that we did, we actually used what's called an EPA Tier II 18 procedure which is trying to more definitively identify -- 19 in this case more definitively identify the toxicity 20 associated with ammonia, as well as other treatments to 21 make sure that the suspicions that it was salinity were 22 also valid. 23 And we added treatments and coupled them 24 together such as Zeolite, which is a natural aluminum 254 1 silicate resin and various different pH's and graduated 2 pH's and such to more definitively narrow it down as to 3 the toxicant, make sure that what we were finding in the 4 first round was truly apparent in the second. 5 MS. LIU: Would there be any benefit in a test 6 like that to remove things like the ammonia and the -- 7 THE WITNESS: We did, and the reason we used 8 Zeolite was that that has a high affinity for ammonia 9 removal, and, in fact, you're able to remove about 99 10 percent of the ammonia out of the effluent. And we did 11 that; we still have remaining toxicity. 12 With the salinity that's in this wastewater 13 for Ceriodaphnia, you would expect somewhere between 15 to 14 20 percent would be your acute toxicity, regardless of 15 what else was in the effluent. 16 MS. LIU: So, you don't think there was 17 anything else that might have been masked? 18 THE WITNESS: That's why we, we couple them in 19 different, different proportions and in different 20 sequences to make sure that you can determine if there is 21 something underneath the toxicity because you can only 22 kill an organism once, and -- you know, so you really 23 can't determine, unless you do those tests, if there's 24 anything underneath. And we did do the procedures to 255 1 determine there wasn't anything underneath other than it 2 was just salinity and ammonia. 3 MS. LIU: Thank you very much. 4 THE WITNESS: Okay. 5 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay. Any 6 follow-up questions? 7 MR. KISSEL: None from me. 8 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: You may step down. 9 MS. WILLIAMS: Can I ask one follow-up? 10 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Sure. Sure. 11 FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION 12 BY MS. WILLIAMS: 13 Q. You were talking about that you used Zeolite? 14 A. Uh-huh. 15 Q. Can you tell us what else Zeolite removes 16 besides ammonia? 17 A. Zeolite also removes -- actually it has a 18 higher affinity for removing potassium, followed by 19 ammonia, and then considerably lesser affinity for other 20 salinity ions. But it's -- by far, it removes potassium 21 first and then ammonia and then everything is -- follows a 22 long way down the chain for removal. 23 MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. Thanks a lot. 24 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you. You may 256 1 step down. Let's take a five-minute break. 2 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.) 3 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: We're going to go 4 back on the record; in fact, we are. It's 3:30. By the 5 looks of the clock, it's 3:35, and right now I want to ask 6 anybody who wants to make public comment, please do so. 7 Yes, sir? Now, do you want to be sworn in? 8 And what I mean by that is if you give public comment, 9 it's just public comment. If you get sworn in, it's a 10 public statement, and the Board will give it more weight. 11 And as long as it's relevant to the matter at hand, you 12 may do so. 13 MR. JANSSEN: Just make a comment for right 14 now. 15 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: A comment? Okay. 16 You can have a seat here. You can state your name for the 17 record. 18 MR. JANSSEN: My name is Richard Janssen, and 19 I'm a former BFG employee. I worked there from 1970 to 20 1993. And my comment has to do with what I've heard in 21 the last couple days. And what really troubles me is that 22 the EPA has a standard, and now -- not BFG anymore, but 23 Noveon says this doesn't apply, this doesn't apply. 24 Something has to be the standard, and everybody applies to 257 1 the standard. 2 I look at it like a car on Interstate 80 going 3 90 miles an hour. And the cop stops a person, gets picked 4 up, gives them a ticket. They go in front of the judge, 5 and the person says, "Well, my car is high-powered. I 6 feel better, and I save a lot of time if I do 90." 7 Well, the judge says you're guilty. And the 8 person goes and says to the judge, "Well, I'll pay the 9 ticket, I'm guilty, but I'm going to continue to do the 10 same thing over and over again." 11 So, there should be a standard. The company 12 should meet that standard, and the EPA should put the 13 standard out, make it clear, to the point, and go from 14 there. 15 I disagree with some of the statements that 16 were made, and one of them that I disagree with is that 17 nothing can be done to improve the quality of water that 18 they discharge into the river. When I worked there, I was 19 given an opportunity to work in several areas, and I 20 assisted in the waste treatment several times. And it 21 goes back to the process buildings where all this waste 22 comes from. And over the years, when I first started 23 there in 1997 -- or 1970, they made so many pounds of 24 material. And every year, there was an expansion to make 258 1 more pounds, more pounds. And it seemed like somewhere in 2 the '80s, they lost sight of treating the waste. It was 3 more based on how many pounds you could make and how many 4 dollars you were getting for this pound of material. 5 And what really bothers me today is I don't 6 know how much Noveon makes off their chemicals a year, I 7 don't -- I haven't looked into, if I could even find that 8 out, but they would have to treat the waste, put it into 9 the river so it's not harming the fish, the wildlife. And 10 I'm thankful that I live up river the other way, but I do 11 go to Peoria, Chillicothe; and I go to a restaurant, I get 12 a glass of iced tea, you know, and I'm not able to see 13 through it. I don't know what's in the water. This 14 really bothers me. 15 My family -- I'm disabled, but my family boats 16 in the Illinois River; my grandchildren, they play in 17 there. And I just want the quality of the water to be the 18 best it can be. And I think that's basically what 19 everyone wants, is the water quality to be safe for 20 drinking, for pleasure, for wildlife. 21 So, I don't have all of the degrees that a lot 22 of people that spoke here have, and I have a disability, 23 and I have had quite a few problems in the past, but I 24 rely on the EPA and the Pollution Board and all the people 259 1 that work there to follow procedures. 2 Now, when I worked there, not everybody 3 followed procedures. There were a lot of spills. These 4 are not taken -- I never heard anything yet here about 5 spills and what happens to that, you know. I, I believe 6 the -- Goodrich trained me on several things, and one was 7 analytic troubleshooting. And I believe this whole 8 wastewater system to be a day-one deviation, because when 9 certain processes run, and when some of them run together, 10 the waste they put in is a lot different than on other 11 days. So, you know, I was involved a little bit in the 12 collection of this wastewater that they're talking about 13 in the late '80s when I worked there and the '90s. And 14 when some of these samples were taken, processes were not 15 discharging; the actual process was not discharging into 16 the sewer. And so I don't know how you can tell, you 17 know, unless you collect samples, you know, at different 18 times, when they are discharging, you know. I just don't 19 think it was -- in my estimation, I don't think that it 20 was the right thing, right way to go about this. 21 I had a couple other things here. I left BF 22 Goodrich down there not on too good of terms; in fact, 23 it's the only job I've ever been fired from. And I 24 testified against BF Goodrich in 1990 -- end of '91, '92 260 1 on a wrongful death suit -- two wrongful death suits. 2 There was a fire and explosion, killed two people at 3 Goodrich. And I suffered from post-traumatic stress 4 disorder, tied to blood pressure, and I've been on 5 medication ever since. And I just want to see things at 6 that plant, you know, because you really can't tell what 7 goes on at that plant. 8 I was listening, and I heard that there was a 9 discharge that went into the river that wasn't treated 10 water, you know. These things in the years from '85 up 11 through the '90s when I was fired, these things happened. 12 And also about spills and stuff. And I can tell you 13 firsthand, because I have the accident report right here. 14 I was given this under court order. And this is 1991, 15 midyear. 16 Carbon disulfide. I was working at the tank 17 farm, and carbon disulfide spilled out of the underground 18 bunker, and 400 gallons went down the ditch and was going 19 toward the river. I was in this area by myself. I tried 20 to get it diked up, tried to stop it as quick as I could, 21 but I couldn't get it all. If you have a spill of carbon 22 disulfide, when it's more than five pounds, you're 23 supposed to report it to the federal government. Well, 24 all they did was send out a crew with some 55-gallon drums 261 1 and try to get up as much as they could. The rest washed 2 toward the river, and was a low place, and sunk into the 3 ground. And these kind of things were happening. 4 I got wrote up for it. And they dropped -- 5 they dropped going any farther than giving me any kind of 6 discipline for it for the simple fact was I was doing four 7 jobs at one time. And different people were gone, and I 8 was the back-up for these areas. And this is the kind of 9 thing for several years that was going on. And it's 10 just -- well, you can see what it did to me. I mean, I 11 haven't been right, and I won't be right. So, I just hope 12 somebody else don't have to go through, you know, the 13 things that I've gone through in the last 12 years. 14 But I have gone to the funeral of many of my 15 friends who worked at Goodrich, and, you know, they aren't 16 much older than I am. And there's gotta be reasons why 17 these people came down with the things that they did when 18 they worked at Goodrich. 19 And so I suppose I'm gonna catch a lot of hell 20 from Goodrich about this, but you can expect that I am 21 going to be filing a lawsuit against BF Goodrich for 22 wrongful discharge in 1993. And I'm sure they're going to 23 want to argue about that, but I am willing to go to court. 24 My doctors have always told me they thought the stress 262 1 would not be good for me, but I plan on getting this 2 concluded this year. So, I've tried to work with them 3 before, have communication to Goodrich headquarters. I 4 don't get anywhere. I hired a couple lawyers to do it for 5 me, paid them money; evidently, they weren't working for 6 me because they didn't follow through. But I have new 7 legal staff now, and I have an agency that works with the 8 people with disabilities; and I do believe that this will 9 be, you know, the year that it's gonna happen in 2004, 10 because I don't know how many more years I have left. My 11 blood pressure, I've had three strokes in the last year 12 and a half. 13 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: If I had some water 14 I'd give it to you. 15 MR. JANSSEN: No, I don't need water. So, I 16 wanted to say a lot more, but I better cut it short and do 17 a little bit of what my doctor has suggested, take it as, 18 as I can because I don't think that I'm going to be able 19 to do too much more. 20 So, that was my comment. The EPA has a 21 standard, and it should be followed. And that standard 22 should be their -- they are trained in this field, and 23 that standard should be that it's safe for wildlife, for 24 downstream drinking water. You know, nobody should be in 263 1 the river for recreation if it's going to be harmful. But 2 I guess that's the end of my comment. 3 Thank you. 4 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you very 5 much, sir. I appreciate it. 6 I think, Mr. Kissel, you were going to call 7 your fourth witness or -- is that correct or no? 8 MR. KISSEL: Number five. 9 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Five. Okay. I 10 lost count. 11 MS. WILLIAMS: Four today, five total. 12 MS. DEELY: It's fourth out of five. 13 MS. WILLIAMS: No. You had one yesterday. 14 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: You had one 15 yesterday. Then I am right. 16 MS. DEELY: You are right. We're going to 17 call Linda Shaw as our next witness. 18 (Witness sworn.) 19 LINDA M. SHAW, 20 called as a witness, after being first duly sworn, was 21 examined and testified upon her oath as follows: 22 DIRECT EXAMINATION 23 BY MS. DEELY: 24 Q. Can you state your name for the record, 264 1 please? 2 A. My name's Linda M. Shaw. 3 Q. Okay. I'm going to show you what we've marked 4 as Petitioner's Exhibit 33. Can you identify that for us, 5 please? 6 A. This is a written testimony that I prepared. 7 Q. And is that true and correct to the best of 8 your knowledge, information and belief? 9 A. Yes, it is. 10 MS. DEELY: I'd like to move that we admit 11 Petitioner's Exhibit 33 as if read. 12 MS. WILLIAMS: Can we just clarify for the 13 record how this compares with what was prefiled on 14 February 6th? 15 MS. DEELY: What we prefiled on February 6th 16 was redacted. There's -- the subject of Miss Shaw's 17 testimony is financial, so we had redacted some 18 information. I think we have went back and tried to 19 narrow our redactions so that this testimony is in its 20 entirety; there's been nothing removed or redacted from 21 it. So, the public has access to the testimony. 22 MS. WILLIAMS: I mean, the reason I'm asking 23 is sort of twofold: One, to make sure I have read what's 24 in here because I've read an unredacted version. 265 1 MS. DEELY: Yes. You were provided with the 2 unredacted version originally, so this is what you have 3 received. 4 MS. WILLIAMS: And the second question then 5 would pertain to understanding if there are outstanding 6 trade secret claims so that the Agency is clear on what 7 we're protecting and, you know, just to keep our files -- 8 MS. DEELY: Okay. There are outstanding trade 9 secrets, not in this exhibit. When we get to that 10 exhibit, I'll address them. 11 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: So, Exhibit Number 12 33, do you have any objection? 13 MS. WILLIAMS: Oh, no. 14 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay. It's 15 admitted. 16 MS. DEELY: Okay. 17 BY MS. DEELY 18 Q. Can you identify that document, please, Miss 19 Shaw? 20 A. Yes. This is my resume. 21 Q. And is that accurate to the best of your 22 knowledge, information and belief? 23 A. Yes, it is. 24 MS. DEELY: Okay. I move that Petitioner's 266 1 Exhibit Number 34 be admitted into the record. 2 MS. WILLIAMS: Do we have that? A resume? Is 3 that what you said? 4 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Correct. 5 MS. WILLIAMS: I'm just making sure we have 6 it. 7 MS. DEELY: Do you have it? 8 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. Fine. No objection. 9 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay. 34 is 10 admitted. 11 BY MS. DEELY 12 Q. I'd like to show you what's been marked as 13 Petitioner's Exhibit 35. Can you identify that, please? 14 A. Yes. This is a spreadsheet that I prepared 15 showing the historical results of the last three years, 16 plus doing some sensitivities. 17 MS. DEELY: Okay. And just to be clear, this 18 information -- this spreadsheet we have redacted some 19 information. We've only redacted cost information, 20 nothing else. So, that cost information is trade secret 21 protected and confidential, but everything else is, you 22 know, free to Agency and public to view. 23 I'd like to move Petitioner's Exhibit Number 24 35 be admitted into the record. 267 1 MS. WILLIAMS: So, you're saying this is 2 exactly the same thing that we were provided -- this isn't 3 exactly what we were provided, is it? 4 MS. DEELY: This is exactly what you were 5 provided, which is with the redactions. 6 MS. WILLIAMS: Would you mind giving us just a 7 second to check? 8 MS. DEELY: Sure. 9 MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. Thanks. That's fine. 10 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay. Petitioner's 11 Exhibit Number 35 is admitted into evidence. 12 BY MS. DEELY 13 Q. Okay. I'd like to show you what has already 14 been marked as Petitioner's Exhibit 11. When you refer to 15 the memorandum of Houston Flippin dated May 17th, 2002, is 16 that what you're referring to? 17 A. Yes, it is. 18 Q. And this is what you used to assess the 19 various costs on the Henry Noveon plant? 20 A. Yes, it is. 21 MS. DEELY: Okay. Thank you. I have no 22 questions for Miss Shaw. 23 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay. Thank you. 24 MS. DEELY: You can hold onto that. 268 1 THE WITNESS: Okay. 2 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Miss Williams? 3 CROSS-EXAMINATION 4 BY MS. WILLIAMS: 5 Q. So when -- hi, Miss Shaw. Good afternoon. 6 A. Hi. Hi. 7 Q. Takes me a little minute to get adjusted 8 when -- it's easier when you go through the testimony 9 first; it's more fresh in my mind. So, I need to get a 10 little adjusted here. 11 So, just to clarify what Miss Deely said, when 12 you analyzed the cost of treating -- the cost of 13 implementing some of the alternatives, you based those 14 costs on what Mr. Flippin provided to you, correct? 15 A. I based it on the information in that 16 memorandum. 17 Q. Did you assist Mr. Flippin with obtaining data 18 from Noveon when he -- 19 A. No. 20 Q. You didn't help him at all in preparing his 21 memorandum? 22 A. No. 23 Q. He did that, and the first you saw of it was 24 you -- 269 1 A. No, I was just asked to use these numbers and 2 show the impact at the Henry plant. 3 Q. All right. Great. So, when he provided 4 figures such as labor cost and electricity cost, you 5 didn't question any of those? 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. And from your testimony, you specifically 8 looked at four of the alternatives? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. How did you choose those four from the 11 alternatives provided in Mr. Houston's (sic) memo? 12 A. Those were the four they asked me to do the 13 financial analysis on. 14 Q. And "they" meaning Gardner, Carton & Douglas 15 or -- 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Mr. Flippin has testified previously that 18 PolyOne Corporation provides a flow of about 60 percent to 19 the wastewater treatment plant at -- 20 A. Uh-huh. 21 Q. -- Henry plant? 22 Are you aware of what percentage of the cost 23 of operating that plant they provide to Noveon? 24 A. No, I'm not. 270 1 Q. If, for example, the cost in Mr. Flippin's 2 memo had been 60 percent less, would that have changed 3 your conclusions in your memo, if the cost to Noveon had 4 been reduced by 60 percent? I assume that would have 5 changed your conclusions somewhat, right? 6 A. It would have changed the results. 7 Q. Right. On page two of your testimony, I'd 8 like to -- you provide several definitions of the terms in 9 the chart? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And I'd just like you to explain to us, when 12 you define -- I see it here both in the definition of 13 volume and the definition of revenue, you use the phrase 14 non-affiliated third parties? 15 A. That's true. 16 Q. Can you explain to us if there's such a thing 17 as affiliated third parties or second parties or -- 18 A. There is. What that means is that means trade 19 sales. That means it doesn't include any transfers to -- 20 within the company. It's actually product that is going 21 to third parties external to Noveon. 22 Q. And transfers within the company means it 23 could go to another plant to be used in the production of 24 a different chemical, or how would that happen? How would 271 1 you have transfers within the plant -- 2 A. Well -- 3 Q. -- or within the company? 4 A. What that means is there's a very small amount 5 of this product that is used at another plant. What I 6 mean by intercompany sales, we have offices in Europe and 7 offices in Asia that we transfer price to them at a 8 certain price. We don't want to double-count those sales 9 to them and then count their final sales. So, we just 10 include the final sale to an unaffiliated third party in 11 our results because you would be double-counting the same 12 product sale. 13 Q. Okay. I understand how from an accounting 14 perspective that's true, right? Would you be 15 double-counting it for the purposes of the company as a 16 whole? 17 A. Uh-huh. 18 Q. But that means, under your table, for the 19 purposes of this plant that product's not getting counted 20 at all, correct? 21 A. That's not true. 22 Q. Okay. 23 A. You know, we have to -- for tax reasons, you 24 need to sell to foreign affiliated parties at a transfer 272 1 price. So, we are pricing to them at a particular price, 2 with a little bit of margin for ourselves. But then they 3 eventually sell that same product to a third party, so I 4 am including in my numbers their sales of that product. 5 Q. So, you follow the product to the -- 6 A. Exactly. 7 Q. Okay. 8 A. Exactly. 9 Q. That was definitely not clear to me from this. 10 Thank you for that clarification. 11 And what you just leave out then is the 12 markup, or you include that in eventually, too? 13 A. No. What we include in, in these results is 14 their selling price, the cost to make it in the United 15 States, or at the Henry plant in this case. 16 Q. Let's see if I have anything else. Can you 17 explain on page -- I just want to understand in your 18 conclusions here on page five and six, you talk about 19 declines in the return in revenue from the plant, 2001, 20 2002 to 2003. 21 But for the second numbers, you provide return 22 on net plant property and equipment, you just give 2002 23 and 2003. Can you explain why you didn't provide 2001 for 24 that figure? 273 1 A. It's not available. 2 Q. Why is that? 3 A. We went to a new fixed asset system that 4 tracks this type of data. 5 Q. And presumably, the reason the data only goes 6 back to 2001 is because that's the year that Noveon was 7 spun off or however you like to phrase it -- created? 8 A. I guess I just -- I chose to give you a 9 three-year sample, you know, the most recent information. 10 Q. So, could you have gone back then more than 11 three years for that type of information? 12 A. Well, I could have definitely gone back five 13 years. I've been in the job since 1998. But the trend is 14 the same. 15 Q. Could you say from your recollection where we 16 were at five years ago? 17 A. No, I can't. 18 Q. And by "the same," you mean that this plant is 19 -- what; how would you describe it? 20 A. That -- 21 Q. How would you -- 22 A. That the return on revenue as well as the 23 return on net property is declining, not only over the 24 last three years, but over the last five years. 274 1 Q. That's not true for the company as a whole, is 2 it? Just for this plant? 3 A. I can only speak about this plant. 4 Q. You don't work just for this plant, though, do 5 you? I mean, when you say I can only speak for this 6 plant, you mean you don't have information? 7 MR. LATHAM: Objection. 8 MR. KISSEL: Objection. 9 MS. DEELY: I'm gonna object. I'm just gonna 10 object. We're talking about the Henry plant, not any 11 other facility; so, I'm just not sure why it's relevant. 12 MS. WILLIAMS: I think the financial health of 13 the company as a whole is relevant to the Board in 14 considering whether they can afford the cost of these 15 treatment alternatives, isn't it? I mean, that's what I 16 was trying to get at, but -- 17 MS. DEELY: I don't -- 18 MS. WILLIAMS: Just the general financial 19 health. 20 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I would overrule 21 your objection; and if the witness can answer, she will do 22 so. 23 A. I, I am not -- I don't have that information 24 on total Noveon. What I will tell you, however, that I am 275 1 the finance manager for the polymer additives business 2 unit. The Henry plant is one piece of that business unit. 3 Noveon looks at each business unit separately, 4 as a stand-alone business, and makes -- and evaluates the 5 results at that point. 6 Q. They look at each unit separately? 7 A. Business unit. 8 Q. And that -- what -- how many plants would be 9 in the business unit that you know? 10 A. There's two. There's Henry and the Akron 11 plant. 12 Q. Did you have a chance last week to take a look 13 at your website, your Internet -- the company's website 14 where they have news, press releases? 15 A. Uh-huh. 16 Q. And just generally, those press releases, 17 would you agree, stated things like -- about 2003 -- 18 "Sales up, third quarter, sales up, second quarter"? Are 19 you aware of that? 20 A. In other business units, that's true. 21 Q. "Record sales, second quarter of 2003"? Does 22 that sound correct? 23 A. In other business units, that's true. 24 Q. Okay. "Revenue of 1.1 billion in 2002." Does 276 1 that sound accurate? 2 A. It's in that neighborhood, for total Noveon. 3 MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. That's all I have. 4 Thank you. 5 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you. 6 Miss Deely, any redirect? 7 MS. DEELY: No, I don't think so. 8 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay. Mr. Rao, 9 Miss Liu? 10 MR. RAO: Miss Liu had a question. 11 MS. LIU: Good afternoon, Miss Shaw. 12 THE WITNESS: Uh-huh. 13 MS. LIU: Could you tell us where the 14 headquarters for Noveon is? 15 THE WITNESS: Sure. Do you want the address? 16 It's in Brecksville, Ohio. 17 MS. LIU: Does Noveon have any other plants 18 besides Henry and Akron that produce those types of 19 products? 20 THE WITNESS: No. 21 MS. LIU: Is Noveon a private or a publicly 22 held company? 23 THE WITNESS: It's private. It's private. 24 MS. LIU: Does Noveon have any competitors for 277 1 the products that it produces at the Henry plant? 2 THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes. 3 MS. LIU: Do you happen to know who those 4 competitors are and where they're located? 5 THE WITNESS: I can tell you who the 6 competitors are. Flexis, Behr, Crompton are the three big 7 ones, and there's smaller competitors. 8 MS. LIU: In the table that you provided, you 9 mentioned that it only represents -- if Noveon were to pay 10 the entire cost for a treatment alternative -- 11 THE WITNESS: Uh-huh. 12 MS. LIU: -- if you were to share that cost 13 with PolyOne, it would change these numbers. Would you be 14 able to recalculate, based on sharing, to provide that in 15 a post-hearing brief for us later? 16 THE WITNESS: Noveon has the responsibility 17 for operating the water, wastewater treatment so the way I 18 did my analysis was we have the ultimate responsibility 19 for the capital investment as well as the operating cost. 20 There are contracts in place with the PolyOne 21 part of the Henry plant that could potentially look at 22 those and maybe change those, but I, I couldn't say what 23 that percentage would be or have any idea what it would 24 be. 278 1 MS. LIU: Okay. 2 THE WITNESS: Or whether they could do it. 3 MR. RAO: Just a follow-up question on that. 4 You mentioned that you have contracts with PolyOne for 5 treating their waste stream. Does that involve any, you 6 know, certain amount of money that Noveon charges PolyOne? 7 THE WITNESS: I'm not close enough to that 8 situation. Maybe, maybe Mr. Davids can help you out on 9 that. 10 MR. RAO: Okay. If there is such a 11 contractual agreement which, you know, brings in a certain 12 amount of money for treating PolyOne's waste, is that 13 something that you can work in your calculations to show 14 what kind of impact it would have? 15 THE WITNESS: Can you rephrase it? 16 MR. RAO: Yeah. You know, if you're getting 17 an income by treating their waste, like if you're charging 18 them so many dollars per year -- 19 THE WITNESS: Okay. 20 MR. RAO: -- can you put -- calculate that 21 cost in income and see what kind of change? 22 THE WITNESS: These costs are net. 23 MR. RAO: Okay. 24 THE WITNESS: These are strictly what is 279 1 Noveon's cost so that's already -- so that's already been 2 taken out. 3 MR. RAO: Oh, it's already been taken out? 4 THE WITNESS: If we are charging them for 5 waste treatment, that is billed to them, and that is their 6 expense. These are strictly what belongs to Noveon at 7 that plant. 8 MR. RAO: Okay. Thanks. 9 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Any follow-up, 10 Miss Deely? 11 MS. DEELY: I don't think so. 12 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Miss Williams? 13 RECROSS-EXAMINATION 14 BY MS. WILLIAMS: 15 Q. Just maybe to clarify the question they asked 16 about the number of plants, you said there were two that 17 manufacture -- how do you define it, the unit that you 18 work for is? 19 A. Oh, polymer additives business unit. 20 Q. Polymer additives? 21 A. Uh-huh. 22 Q. How many plants total does Noveon have? 23 A. I want to say in the neighborhood of 20, 28, 24 something -- in the 20's. 280 1 MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you. That's all I have. 2 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: No further 3 questions. You may step down, Miss Shaw. Thank you very 4 much. 5 Here is what we're going to do. We have to 6 take a short break now. The Clerk of the Court informs us 7 that she's leaving at 4:30, and we want the parties -- if 8 they have to lock stuff up because, what I wanted to do, I 9 wanted to finish this hearing today, but it doesn't look 10 like it's going to happen. 11 My thought is -- and correct me if I'm wrong 12 here -- to finish up Noveon's case in chief. I think you 13 have one more witness. 14 MR. LATHAM: Right. 15 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I assume the IEPA 16 has two witnesses that will probably take a couple hours 17 and then Noveon will probably have a rebuttal. So, it's 18 not going to happen tonight unless we stay till 8, and I 19 don't think anybody wants to do that. 20 So, let's take a short break and come back 21 here in five, ten minutes, and we'll wrap it up for today. 22 Thank you. 23 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.) 24 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: We're going to go 281 1 back on the record. Sorry about that; I had to call work. 2 In any event, we're back on the record. It's 3 approximately 4:25, and I think Noveon is still presenting 4 its case in chief. 5 MR. LATHAM: Right. We have one more witness. 6 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay. Mr. Latham, 7 you're on. 8 MR. LATHAM: Call Guy Davids. 9 (Witness sworn.) 10 MR. LATHAM: Just so everybody knows, we did 11 not file prefiled testimony for Mr. Davids, so -- 12 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you. 13 GUY DAVIDS, 14 called as a witness, after being first duly sworn, was 15 examined and testified upon his oath as follows: 16 DIRECT EXAMINATION 17 BY MR. LATHAM: 18 Q. Would you please state your name for the 19 record? 20 A. Guy H. Davids. 21 Q. What's your current address? 22 A. Current address is Chillicothe, Illinois. Do 23 you want the -- 24 Q. Could you summarize your educational 282 1 background for us, please? 2 A. I have a bachelor of science in chemistry from 3 the California State Polytechnic University in Pomona. 4 Q. When did you graduate? 5 A. 1990. 6 Q. Prior to Noveon -- can you summarize your work 7 experience prior to joining Noveon? 8 A. Sure. In chronologic order, I've worked for 9 Chevron USA in El Segundo Refinery; that's El Segundo, 10 California. Also worked for Betts Laboratories in 11 Beaumont, Texas, as a technical sales representative. And 12 also Baker Petrolite, also in the Houston area, as a 13 business development manager. 14 Q. And when did you join Noveon? 15 A. I joined -- actually joined BF Goodrich in 16 April 1999, and then subsequently became Noveon. 17 Q. What was your first position with Noveon or BF 18 Goodrich? 19 A. I was hired as maintenance and utilities 20 supervisor in the Henry plant. 21 Q. What were your responsibilities in that role? 22 A. My responsibilities were the day-to-day 23 operation of the waste treatment facility at the Henry 24 plant. 283 1 Q. Did you have any other positions at the Henry 2 plant? 3 A. Yes, sir, I did. In March of 2000, I was 4 appointed the production superintendent, which basically 5 meant that I kept the existing responsibilities I had and 6 picked up responsibilities for the day-to-day production 7 of products in the plant. 8 Q. Any other positions at the Henry plant? 9 A. In October of 2001, I was promoted to site 10 manager. 11 Q. And as the site manager, can you summarize 12 your responsibilities in that role? 13 A. Yes. My responsibilities basically entailed 14 day-to-day operation, compliance with all regulatory -- 15 regulatory issues, meeting the business objectives, as 16 well as the compliance objectives of the plant. 17 Q. In your time at the -- what's your current 18 position with Noveon? 19 A. My current position is plant manager at the 20 Noveon Wilmington, Massachusetts, facility. 21 Q. While at Henry, did you have any involvement 22 with the wastewater treatment -- 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. -- facility? 284 1 A. Yes. I actually was supervising the operation 2 in my first position, and actually through all the 3 positions I had at least -- I had responsibility and 4 interaction at least several times a week, if not daily, 5 in the operation of the unit. 6 Q. I think you testified that as the site manager 7 you helped the plant meet its business objectives. Can 8 you tell us a little bit more about that role? 9 A. Sure. Yes. The business -- the polymer 10 additives business has business objectives as far as 11 sales. We were charged with making the product that the 12 salespeople would sell. We were also charged with 13 improving efficiencies throughout the plant, both in raw 14 materials, utilities, and throughput, through the plant. 15 Q. In that role, did you have the opportunity to 16 interact with management back at the corporate 17 headquarters? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Let me -- I just want to show you what's 20 already been marked as Petitioner's Exhibit Number 35 when 21 Miss Shaw was testifying. Can you take a look at that for 22 a minute? 23 A. Okay. 24 Q. Have you seen that document before? 285 1 A. I believe I have seen the version that does 2 not have the redacted information. I've studied that, 3 that one. This one I have seen today. 4 Q. Okay. I just want to ask you a couple 5 questions about -- under the heading 2003 Historical 6 Restated for Treatment Alternatives, there's a -- 7 MS. WILLIAMS: Mark, could you speak up just a 8 little bit? 9 BY MR. LATHAM: 10 Q. Yes, I'll repeat that. I just want to ask you 11 a couple questions about this column that's headed 2003 12 Historical Restated for Treatment Alternatives, and I'm 13 going to focus on this box here that's called Adjusted 14 Operating Income, Percent Return on Revenue. 15 As the former site manager at the Henry plant, 16 what do these numbers show to you? 17 A. Basically, these numbers show that I -- that 18 the return on revenue would be very small, if not 19 negative, for the treatment alternatives three, six, seven 20 and ten. Basically this product, this, this product line, 21 this plant would be at a negative return. 22 Q. Negative return, meaning it would lose money? 23 A. That's correct. 24 Q. Now, as far as that, what impact, if any, 286 1 would that have on your ability to attract new capital to 2 the plant based on your dealings with Noveon management 3 and helping the plant achieve its business objectives? 4 A. Based on these numbers, I would have a very 5 difficult time justifying essentially any capital in this 6 plant. Not to say that I wouldn't get any, but I would 7 have a very difficult time justifying it, and I would 8 expect that I would get -- I would be -- I would probably 9 be made to operate with what I could, what I could get by 10 with. 11 Q. Uh-huh. Would these numbers have any -- what 12 impact, if any, would the numbers we just discussed have 13 on your ability to attract new products to the plant? 14 A. It would be very difficult to attract new 15 products. 16 Q. As the site manager, with this type of 17 financial return, would that raise any concerns about the 18 long-term viability of the plant in your mind as the 19 former site manager? 20 A. I would be concerned about the long-term 21 viability. 22 Q. Thank you. I just want to show you what's 23 already been marked as Petitioner's Exhibit Number 11 -- 24 Mr. Houston Flippin used this in his testimony -- if you'd 287 1 just take a look at that? 2 A. I'm familiar with this document. 3 Q. Okay. Under table 1, there's flow data 4 provided. Based on your experience at the Henry plant, 5 does that -- are those flows consistent with what you saw 6 when you were responsible for the wastewater treatment 7 plant? 8 A. Those numbers are consistent with my 9 recollection, yes. 10 Q. There was also discussion during Mr. Flippin's 11 testimony about certain O & M costs that he included in 12 his calculations I'd like to ask you about. If you could 13 just take a look at table 4 -- 14 A. Right. 15 Q. -- for a second? 16 One of the O & M costs that he has is the 17 labor for the various treatment alternatives, and he's 18 used a $40-per-hour cost. Are you familiar with that -- 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. -- labor cost? 21 A. $40 per hour is a number that we would use. 22 It is a general number that would take into account the 23 wage, the benefits, projected overtime with a given 24 position, and some increase in that wage over a period of 288 1 time. 2 Q. Of that $40, what would the wage -- hourly 3 wage be? 4 A. In the area that we're talking about, an 5 operator makes $23.60 an hour straight wage. 6 Q. So, would it be fair to say that the 17 -- 7 roughly $17 would be benefits, and the other -- 8 A. Keep in mind that based on their schedule, 9 they're paid a premium for hours worked over 40 hours in a 10 week. They typically work a schedule that would build in 11 some overtime into that. 12 Q. So, it would be typical that they would have 13 some overtime? 14 A. In a typical -- in a typical one-month 15 rotation, the operator will be paid some portion of that 16 at time and a half, double time for Sundays, double time 17 for anything over seven days. And that's, that's not too 18 common, but it does happen. 19 Q. Okay. There's a couple other of these costs. 20 Are you familiar with these electrical costs? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Can you explain the successive kilowatt hours? 23 A. Successive kilowatt hours is a number that 24 would be accurate. Again, I've been away from this 289 1 facility for a couple of months now, but my understanding 2 is that 6 cents, 5-1/2 to 6 cents is the current rate 3 right now. 4 Q. Yes? 5 A. And -- go ahead. 6 Q. I'm sorry. When this was prepared in May of 7 2000, you were at the facility, correct? 8 A. That's correct. 9 Q. Okay. 10 A. That's correct. 11 Q. What about the natural gas cost of 6 cents a 12 therm? 13 A. Natural gas cost at the time was 6 cents. 14 From what I understand, it would be 8 cents today. 15 Q. Okay. There was testimony during Mrs. Shaw's 16 testimony about the polymer additive business, and it has 17 -- consists of two plants, one in Akron and then the other 18 one at Henry? 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. Do those plants make the same products? 21 A. No, sir. 22 Q. What's the difference? 23 A. They make completely different -- completely 24 different products. They go into similar end uses, but 290 1 there's no chemistry that is practiced in Akron that is 2 practiced in Henry and vice versa. 3 MR. LATHAM: Thank you very much. That's all 4 I have. 5 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank, Mr. Latham. 6 Miss Williams? 7 CROSS-EXAMINATION 8 BY MS. WILLIAMS: 9 Q. Why don't we just start with where you left 10 off. The Akron and Henry plants make totally different 11 products; no crossover? 12 A. That's, that's correct. 13 Q. Would you say all the Noveon plants make 14 different products from each other? 15 A. I'm -- can you -- 16 Q. Does it -- there are over, what, 20? How many 17 plants does Noveon have? 18 A. I think 26, 28 is correct. 19 Q. Okay. Is it true that they all make different 20 things or -- 21 A. Some -- 22 Q. -- do any of them make the same thing that 23 they make at Henry? 24 A. No. 291 1 Q. Do any of them make the same thing that's made 2 in Akron? 3 A. No. 4 Q. And there are probably other examples of 5 Noveon plants that make things that none of the other 6 plants make, aren't there? 7 A. Yes, that's correct. 8 Q. And when you talked about the cost component 9 of the labor portion -- 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. -- and you explained a portion of that is 12 overtime as well as the regular wage and benefits as 13 well -- 14 A. That's correct. 15 Q. -- you said in there? 16 But it's not your testimony that you're going 17 to have to hire additional staff to run any of these 18 treatment alternatives, is it? 19 A. That's, that's correct. 20 Q. You also testified that your concern, if 21 Noveon was forced to implement one of these alternatives 22 at the Henry plant, is that it would have an impact on the 23 long-term viability of the plant and its viability to 24 attract new products, correct? 292 1 A. That's my opinion. 2 Q. Can you tell us when the last time was a new 3 product line was implemented at the Henry plant? 4 A. Yes. After a lot of lobbying on our part, we 5 were able to bring a new product, made -- actually made 6 for another division within Noveon. At the beginning of 7 2003, we made several -- between the beginning of 2003 and 8 my departure in December of 2003. 9 Q. And what department within Noveon is that that 10 you're making those for? 11 A. That was personal care. 12 Q. Personal care? 13 A. Very small volumes. 14 Q. But even with the uncertainty of this 15 proceeding, you've been able to attract new product lines 16 to that plant? 17 A. The product lines that we were able to attract 18 were currently being made by outside manufacturers. They 19 were being tolled by Noveon, toll manufactured by other, 20 other manufacturers. We were able to bring them to the 21 Henry plant. 22 Q. I think that was yes, right? Yes, they were 23 able to attract new -- 24 A. Yes. 293 1 Q. I asked Miss Shaw about what caused her to 2 evaluate the four alternatives that she chose here, three, 3 six, seven and ten, and her testimony was that Noveon's 4 attorneys directed her to look at those alternatives. Are 5 you aware of why other alternatives were not analyzed for 6 their financial impact? 7 A. I don't remember being part of that 8 discussion. 9 Q. So, it's possible that some of these other 10 alternatives might have an impact on the plant that's less 11 than what's presented in Exhibit 35? 12 A. It's possible. 13 Q. I believe Mark asked you about the flow data 14 provided on this Exhibit 11 dated May 17th? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. It's your testimony that in the Total line 17 where it says total average flow of 560 gallons per 18 minute, that's an accurate flow value for the Henry 19 facility, correct? 20 A. That's -- 21 Q. To the best of your recollection? 22 A. That's a number that would be inside of what I 23 would expect, inside the range of what I would expect. 24 Q. How big is the range of what you would expect? 294 1 A. I would typically see between 500 gallons per 2 minute and 600 gallons per minute on a day-to-day basis, 3 somewhere in there. 4 Q. Yesterday around this time -- maybe a little 5 later -- I asked Mr. Giffin about some of the in-process 6 reductions that he looked at? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And one question that I asked him that he 9 wasn't able to answer I just thought I'd ask you, if maybe 10 you know. I had asked him about how much TBA is used at 11 Noveon. There were some figures provided about a 12 treatment that was able to reach 5 percent reduction. We 13 were trying to go -- back-calculate from that, and I asked 14 him if he knew, and he said he didn't know. Do you know? 15 A. What number are you looking for? What are you 16 looking for? 17 Q. Pounds per day. 18 A. Pounds per day? Off the top of my head, I 19 don't know what that number is, pounds per day. It's 20 going to depend on the actual production for that day. 21 Q. So -- yeah, would it vary? Would there be 22 some days where it would be much less, some days much more 23 based on what was being produced? 24 A. If we're not making that product, it would be 295 1 zero. If we are making that product, there would be an 2 average amount that would be used in a day to make the 3 product and/or process losses. 4 Q. I believe Miss Shaw also told us that you 5 would be the one to talk to about contracts with PolyOne? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Do you want to explain how those work for us? 8 A. Do you have something specific, or do you want 9 me to explain the whole -- 10 Q. Her testimony -- well, was it her testimony? 11 I think it was Mr. Giffin's testimony that said the costs 12 would vary based on suspended solids, BOD, that it was 13 complicated. So, as simplified as you can make it for us. 14 A. Okay. As simplified as I can make it. In 15 1994, the current contract was negotiated such that at the 16 time Geon, now PolyOne, pays 55 percent of the monthly 17 operating cost of the waste treatment facility. 18 Q. Well, that's pretty simple. Thank you. We'll 19 just leave it right there. 20 And does that have an expiration date? I 21 guess the contract -- 22 A. It is an evergreen contract. We have 23 annual -- we have the ability to adjust it annually, 24 although it's never been adjusted. 296 1 Q. Okay. The only other thing I can recall that 2 was -- that came up where they said, "Well, you have to 3 ask Mr. Davids about that," was when we talked to 4 Mr. Flippin about the information he used to calculate the 5 PE of the facility; he said he was provided figures from 6 you, data from July 2002 to June 2003. 7 A. Okay. 8 Q. Are you able to provide those to the Board and 9 to the Agency as well? 10 A. I would expect that data should be available. 11 Mr. Flippin should have it. I don't have access to it 12 because I'm not in that plant right now, but it should be 13 available. That's, that's data that's collected daily; 14 it's daily averages. 15 Q. Daily averages? 16 A. Yes. All the data came from our data 17 collection system. 18 Q. You're not required under your permits to 19 measure daily effluent data, are you? 20 A. I don't -- I don't know. I don't know. 21 Q. I think that's -- just one second. 22 If I give you a -- I would like to maybe ask 23 one more quick question. When we talked about TBA, I 24 realize you didn't know exactly how many pounds per day 297 1 would be an average, but if I -- would a number like 2 10,000 be in the ballpark that you would consider as an 3 estimate or -- 4 A. An estimate for? 5 Q. 10,000 pounds per day. 6 A. Used per day? 7 Q. Used per day. 8 A. I, I would have to -- 9 Q. If you don't know, you can say you don't know. 10 But if you think that's in the ballpark or it sounds like 11 you can give us some perspective, I would appreciate it. 12 A. Again, it depends on if the product -- are you 13 looking for a daily average or over a year, or are you 14 looking for -- again, if we're not making a product, 15 there's none used. 16 MR. PINNEO: Daily average over -- 17 A. Daily average over the year? 18 I would hesitate to give a number at this 19 point in time, but probably it could be -- it could be 20 found. It, it is -- it's relatively easily found from the 21 plant data. 22 Q. Based on usage data? 23 A. That's correct. 24 MS. WILLIAMS: Thanks. That's all I have. 298 1 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Latham? 2 MR. LATHAM: Can I take a quick, like 3 60-second break with the witness? 4 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Sure. We're off 5 the record. 6 (A discussion was held off the record.) 7 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Latham? 8 MR. LATHAM: Yes. 9 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: We're back on the 10 record. 11 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. LATHAM: 13 Q. Mr. Davids, I just have a couple of other 14 questions for you. You're familiar with the cost figures 15 that Linda Shaw used. Can you tell us whether that 16 includes -- that 55 percent, whether that -- those numbers 17 account for that 55 percent of operating costs that 18 PolyOne pays for? 19 A. My understanding is that Linda Shaw's analysis 20 used numbers -- the cost numbers were Noveon's portion of 21 the waste treatment cost. 22 Q. Now, you had testified in response to 23 questions by Ms. Williams that PolyOne, under a contract, 24 pays 55 percent of the operating cost of the wastewater 299 1 treatment plant? 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. Are you -- under that same contract, is 4 PolyOne required to pay 55 percent of any capital costs 5 associated with the wastewater treatment plant? 6 A. Not in any provisions that I'm aware of in the 7 contract. As a matter of fact, I do have an example of a 8 situation we talked -- I heard testimony earlier about the 9 expansion of the waste treatment plant to basically double 10 the capacity. The agreement at that time was that PolyOne 11 did not pay the depreciation portion associated with the 12 equipment that was installed. There is -- to my 13 knowledge, there is no obligation of PolyOne to pay the 14 capital costs -- pay for any portion of the capital costs 15 provided for in that contract. 16 Q. Are you aware of any provision in the contract 17 that would obligate PolyOne to pay any costs of additional 18 ammonia being used? 19 A. No, I'm not aware of any provision in that 20 contract. 21 MR. LATHAM: Thank you. That's all I have. 22 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you, 23 Mr. Latham. Miss Williams? 24 * * * * * 300 1 RECROSS-EXAMINATION 2 BY MS. WILLIAMS: 3 Q. Mr. Davids, aren't the upgrades you're 4 referring to, weren't those in order to deal with the 5 increases on the PC side, the Noveon side? 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. And can you explain for us what you base your 8 conclusion on that the figures in Exhibit 35 included only 9 Noveon's portion? 10 A. My discussion with, with Miss Shaw. 11 Q. Prior to her testimony? 12 A. No. 13 Q. After her testimony? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Because when I asked her, if -- that's not 16 what she testified to, I don't believe, is it? 17 A. That's what I -- 18 Q. Do you believe that's what you heard her to 19 say? 20 A. That's what I understood her to say, and she 21 clarified that, yes. That's what I understood her to say, 22 and that's what I clarified with her before I came here. 23 Q. Can we look real quick again at Exhibit 11? 24 Do you still have it up there? 301 1 A. I don't have it up here, no. 2 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Here you go. I got 3 it. 4 BY MS. WILLIAMS: 5 Q. I'm looking at Exhibit 8 -- or alternative 6 number eight, and I just wanted to ask you more 7 specifically, is there a reason that the impact of the 8 cost of alternative number eight was not considered? 9 A. Can someone tell me -- oh, let's see. What is 10 number eight? 11 Q. It goes back to ion exchange. 12 A. Right. Can you repeat your question, please? 13 Q. Why you didn't plug that alternative into one 14 of the alternatives you analyzed impact on the plant for? 15 A. Again, I think I testified earlier that I 16 wasn't a part of the decision. I wasn't part of the 17 conversation to decide which alternatives would be. 18 MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. Well, that's fine. 19 Thank you. 20 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Anything else? 21 MS. WILLIAMS: That's all I have. I'm sorry. 22 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Latham, any 23 redirect? 24 Mr. Rao? 302 1 MR. RAO: Yeah, I have a clarification 2 question. 3 I was looking at the table prepared by 4 Miss Shaw -- 5 THE WITNESS: Yes. 6 MR. RAO: -- Exhibit 35, and for the 2003 7 Historical Restated for Treatment Alternatives, I was just 8 looking at alternative three. And there is one of the 9 items that's listed as incremental costs; and for 10 alternative three, it's 1049; I guess it's followed by 11 three zeros. That's the dollar amount? 12 THE WITNESS: That's correct. 13 MR. RAO: Does this incremental cost represent 14 the annual, you know, operating and maintenance costs? 15 THE WITNESS: Would it be possible to look at 16 the -- 17 MR. RAO: Yeah, if you look -- 18 THE WITNESS: -- previous exhibit so I can see 19 what number three is? 20 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Which, which 21 exhibit? 22 THE WITNESS: The other one I just handed back 23 to you, I think. 24 MR. RAO: If you look at Exhibit 11 on page 303 1 three, table 4 -- 2 THE WITNESS: It looks like alternative three 3 is alkaline air stripping of secondary clarifier effluent. 4 It's the incremental costs Miss Shaw identifies as annual 5 operating and maintenance cost estimates for treatment 6 alternatives, a million dollars a year to operate the 7 system would, would not be outside of, of what I -- 8 MR. RAO: Yeah, it seems like it's the same 9 number that's in this table number 4 for alternative three 10 in Exhibit 11? 11 THE WITNESS: That's correct. That's correct. 12 MR. RAO: And you testified earlier that 13 PolyOne would not be contractually obligated to share any 14 costs for the -- any capital costs involved in upgrading 15 your plant? 16 THE WITNESS: That's correct. 17 MR. RAO: Would they still contribute to the 18 annual operation and maintenance costs, incremental annual 19 operation and maintenance costs? 20 THE WITNESS: I don't -- that I don't know. 21 It's not provided for in the current contract. I couldn't 22 say whether they would or not. I, I feel that they would 23 contest it. 24 MR. RAO: So, if you -- for whatever reason if 304 1 you upgraded the plant and your costs go up, there's still 2 -- you know, under the contract, they can continue to pay 3 what was your operating costs in '94? Is that how it is? 4 THE WITNESS: They can actually -- they can do 5 that as a mechanism in the contract. If they dispute some 6 cost, they can pay what they think is fair. 7 MR. RAO: Okay. And if they do agree to share 8 the cost, will the numbers in the table prepared by 9 Miss Shaw change? 10 THE WITNESS: I -- 11 MR. RAO: If they contribute 55 percent of 12 this operating and maintenance cost? 13 THE WITNESS: I, I would -- I would have to 14 defer that question to either Miss Shaw or Mr. Flippin as 15 to whether that would change or not. I'm really not sure 16 for the purposes of this analysis. I'm not sure if I can 17 answer the question. 18 MR. RAO: Okay. 19 THE WITNESS: I can say that they're not 20 contractually obligated. 21 MR. RAO: So, there are no conditions in the 22 contract that in case your treatment cost increases for 23 whatever reasons that you cannot renegotiate with them, or 24 is that -- 305 1 THE WITNESS: We can renegotiate, but it's a 2 negotiation. They can -- they can choose to pay or not 3 pay based on the outcome of the negotiation. Ultimately, 4 Noveon is responsible for the cost. 5 MR. RAO: Are you aware of whether PolyOne has 6 other alternatives to treat their waste stream? 7 THE WITNESS: I would expect any alternative 8 would be open to them. 9 MR. RAO: Okay. Thank you. 10 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Thank you. Any -- 11 I'm sorry, Miss Liu? 12 MS. LIU: Hi. 13 THE WITNESS: Hello. 14 MS. LIU: Are you familiar with Noveon's 15 competitors? 16 THE WITNESS: Yes, I am. 17 MS. LIU: Miss Shaw identified some of them by 18 name. Are those domestic? 19 THE WITNESS: Some are domestic, some have 20 capacity in and outside of the U.S. 21 MS. LIU: For the ones that have plants that 22 produce products similar to Noveon-Henry plant, do you 23 know what states they're located in? 24 THE WITNESS: I know that there is -- one of 306 1 the competitors currently has a facility located in West 2 Virginia. The other I'm not absolutely sure of. 3 MS. LIU: Thank you. 4 THE WITNESS: You're welcome. 5 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Mr. Latham, 6 anything in follow-up? 7 MR. LATHAM: No, sir. 8 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: You may step down, 9 Mr. Davids. Thank you very much. 10 Does the petitioner have anything else to 11 present in its case in chief? Mr. Kissel? 12 MR. KISSEL: Yes, I talked to Miss Williams 13 about it. We would like to include in our case 14 Petitioner's Exhibit 36 which is a memo dated 15 October 30th, 1990, from Tim Clugge (phonetic) to the 16 Industrial Unit Staff, and the subject of that is 17 Permitting Guidance for Best Degree of Treatment 18 Determinations. It's an Agency document which we received 19 through discovery, FYA. 20 And secondly, Petitioner's Exhibit Number 37, 21 which is a memo dated February 5, 2001, from Scott Twait 22 of the Agency to Rick Pinneo with the subject Ammonia 23 WQBELs, BF Goodrich, NPDES Number IL0001292 (Marshall 24 County). Those are both Agency documents. I don't know 307 1 as they need verification. 2 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Okay. 3 Ms. Williams, 36 and 37? 4 MS. WILLIAMS: You know, do you have an extra 5 one actually? 6 MR. KISSEL: Well, what happened is -- we can 7 hold this off till -- 8 MS. WILLIAMS: Did you take them back? 9 MR. KISSEL: They're locked. 10 MS. WILLIAMS: Oh. Because I, I thought you 11 gave me one. 12 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: You know what? I 13 don't want to push it. We can hold it off till tomorrow 14 morning and revisit it, and we can pick up your case in 15 chief if you want to. 16 MR. KISSEL: We are looking at a couple of 17 minor, relatively minor -- 18 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Why don't you hold 19 this until tomorrow. 20 MR. KISSEL: Okay. We have a couple of things 21 we are looking at that came up in examination from the 22 Board member or members of the Board staff and Agency, and 23 we would like to -- going to take us overnight to just 24 look at them. Not going to do as much homework as 308 1 Ms. Williams did last night. 2 MS. WILLIAMS: I take no credit for, by the 3 way. 4 MR. KISSEL: We still have that issue of the 5 transcript to go. 6 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: We still have the 7 issue of the data to back up -- I forget which table it 8 was in the Exhibit 11. We will visit that tomorrow. My 9 inclination is to have Noveon file the data. Do you 10 recall that? 11 MR. KISSEL: I remember the discussion. 12 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: I'm not sure what 13 table, but we can address that first thing. 14 MR. KISSEL: Okay. 15 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: So, I guess we 16 really don't rest, but we'll pick it up tomorrow 17 morning -- 18 MR. KISSEL: Right. 19 HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: -- at 9. 20 And before I forget, based on my legal 21 experience, judgment and observations, I find there are no 22 credibility issues with the witnesses that testified here 23 today. 24 Before I go on, do any members of the public 309 1 want to have their piece before we close up shop for 2 tonight and start tomorrow morning at 9 a.m.? 3 Okay. And for the record, too, this was 4 noticed up in the board room, but I have put a notice 5 outside of the board room downstairs stating that the 6 hearing is up here. And from my information, it looks 7 like we're here tomorrow. I don't think the judge is 8 going to be in, so that's good news. 9 And while I'm on the judge, I do want to thank 10 the judge, Judge Shore, and the Clerk of the Circuit Court 11 for their gracious hospitality; it's been beyond reproach, 12 and we've been lucky to get the courtroom. 13 So, with that said, if there are no more 14 issues, have a great evening, and I'll see you tomorrow 15 morning at nine. 16 (Whereupon, the hearing was adjourned at 17 5:02 p.m. on February 18, 2004.) 18 (Proceedings continued in Volume III.) 19 20 21 22 23 24