1
1
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
2
3
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
4
)
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ) R02-19
5 AMMONIA NITROGEN STANDARDS ) (Rulemaking-water)
35 ILL. ADM. CODE 302.212, )
6 302.313 AND 304.122
)
7
8
The following is a transcript of
9 the above-entitled matter taken stenographically
10 before TERRY A. STRONER, CSR, a notary public
11 within and for the County of Cook and State of
12 Illinois, at Suite 09-40, 100 West Randolph Street,
13 Chicago, Illinois, on the 25th day of March, A.D.,
14 2002, commencing at 10:30 o'clock a.m.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
2
1 A P P E A R A N C E S:
2
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
100 West Randolph Street
3
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
4
(312) 814-6923
BY: MS. CATHERINE F. GLENN, HEARING OFFICER
5
6 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ronald Flemal
7 Nicholas Melas
Anand Rao
8 Michael Tristano
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
3
1
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Good morning.
2 My name is Cathy Glenn and I'm the hearing officer
3 in this proceeding.
4
I would like to welcome you to
5 this hearing being held by the Illinois Pollution
6 Control Board in the matter of Proposed Amendments
7 to Ammonia Nitrogen Standards, 35 Illinois
8 Administrative Code 302.212, 302.213 and 304.122.
9
Present today on behalf of the
10 Illinois Pollution Control Board and seated to my
11 left is Dr. Ronald Flemal, he is the Board member
12 coordinating this rulemaking. Seated to my right
13 are both Member Michael Tristano to my far right and
14 Member Nicholas Melas. Member Tristano and Member
15 Flemal and Member Tanner Girard are the three Board
16 members that have been assigned to this rulemaking.
17 Unfortunately, Member Girard could not be with us
18 here today.
19
I have placed copies of the notice
20 and service list sign-up sheets in the back at the
21 table. If you would like to sign up on either of
22 those sheets, please be aware that if you're on the
23 notice list you will be receive copies of any
24 hearing officer orders that might be put out by
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
4
1 myself or by Board orders or -- you'll also receive
2 copies of Board orders. If you're on the service
3 list you will, in addition to these items, receive
4 anything that is filed in this case regarding
5 prefiled testimony, public comments, things such as
6 that.
7
On January 17th, 2002, the
8 Illinois Association of Wastewater Agencies, which I
9 will refer to as the IAWA, filed a proposal for
10 rulemaking under Section 27 of the Environmental
11 Protection Act to change regulations governing
12 ammonia found in the Board's rules at 35 Illinois
13 Administrative Codes 302.212, 302.213 and 304.122.
14
On January 24th, 2002, the Board
15 accepted the matter for hearing. Pursuant to
16 Section 27 of the Environmental Protection Act, the
17 Board has scheduled two hearings. As announced in
18 the hearing officer order dated January 30th, 2002,
19 today's hearing is to conduct -- is conducted to
20 allow the IAWA and all other interested parties the
21 opportunity to present testimony on the proposed
22 rule.
23
The second hearing is for the
24 presentation of testimony, documents and comments
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
5
1 by affected entities and all other interested
2 parties.
3
The second hearing is currently
4 scheduled for Tuesday, April 23rd, 2002 at 10:30 in
5 the morning in Room 403 of the Board's Springfield
6 office located at 600 South Second Street in
7 Springfield.
8
The second hearing will begin with
9 presentation of testimony and comments that were not
10 presented at the first hearing either because of
11 time constraints or by the request of other
12 testifiers.
13
This hearing will be governed by
14 the Board's procedural rules for regulatory
15 proceedings. All information which is relevant and
16 not repetitious or privileged will be admitted. All
17 witnesses will be sworn and subject to cross
18 questioning.
19
The purpose of today's hearing is
20 to hear the prefiled testimony of the IAWA and to
21 hear questions of them. There are six people who
22 will be testifying on behalf of the IAWA, they have
23 all filed prefiled testimony. One person from the
24 Agency will also testify. All the witnesses will
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
6
1 read their testimony into the record. We will allow
2 all of the witnesses to testify before any questions
3 are raised. Anyone may ask a question, however, I
4 do ask that you raise your hand and allow me to
5 recognize you before you ask your question. Also,
6 at the request of the court reporter, if you have
7 questions if you would please step to the front of
8 the room here so that she may have a better
9 opportunity to hear you. We would appreciate that.
10 After I acknowledge you to ask your question, please
11 state your name and who you represent, if anyone, in
12 this matter and please note that any questions that
13 might be asked by a member of the Board or the Board
14 staff are intended to help build a complete record
15 for the Board's decision and they do not express any
16 preconceived notion or bias.
17
I would like to also remind any
18 witnesses that step forward to testify today to
19 please speak up for the court reporter, she will be
20 seated rather close to you. Today the noise factor
21 should not be a problem.
22
We will allow anyone else who
23 wishes to testify the opportunity to do so as time
24 permits at the end of the day and one last note, we
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
7
1 do have some members of the Board staff up here that
2 I have not introduced, Anand Rao is from the Board's
3 technical unit and seated in the back also with the
4 Board's technical unit is Ailsa Lie and in the way
5 back we have two Board assistants, we have Mary
6 Tipsord who is the Board assistant to Member Girard
7 and then seated next to her is William Murphy who is
8 the assistant to Board Member Tristano.
9
Are there any questions regarding
10 the procedure we will be following today? I see no
11 questions. Dr. Flemal?
12
DR. FLEMAL: I'd just like to take a
13 moment to welcome everybody, a lot of familiar faces
14 in this group and we welcome back those familiar
15 faces and look forward to your continuing
16 participation with the Board. Before the Board I
17 notice as well a few faces which at this stage at
18 least are unfamiliar, if that makes you new to the
19 Board, we welcome you as well. Perhaps mostly for
20 the sake of the latter, let me just take a very
21 short run through how the Board will proceed with
22 this material before it.
23
Our purpose, as the Hearing
24 Officer indicated, is to build a complete record in
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
8
1 support or otherwise for the proposal that's before
2 us. We will do that by the testimony received
3 today, the various questions that hopefully will
4 shed further light on the merits of the proposal.
5 The second hearing as well, any public comments that
6 are filed in the next several weeks also will go
7 into the early stages of the record. Once that
8 record is before us, the Board will sit down and
9 deliberate on the merits of the proposal. There are
10 three possible outcomes that the Board at that stage
11 could decide to follow, one would be to move forward
12 with the proposal as submitted to us.
13 Alternatively, we could move forward with the
14 proposal amended as the Board would see
15 justification to do so and, of course, there's
16 always the option that if the Board finds the
17 proposal is not meritorious that the Board will
18 terminate the proceedings and decline to move
19 forward further.
20
Under the assumption that the
21 Board will move forward with this proposal at least
22 in some form or another, the next step would be to
23 go to what's called first notice. The Board would
24 issue an opinion and order in which it could state
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
9
1 its evaluation of the merits of the proposal and why
2 there is decisions that are inherent in moving the
3 proposal forward have been made. That opinion is
4 then available for the public, including yourselves,
5 of course, to further comment on the proposal of the
6 nature of hopefully that all the Board's decisions
7 are clear to all interested persons and allow you a
8 good basis upon which to offer further comments if
9 you so desire.
10
After that first notice, the Board
11 entertains further opportunity for input into the
12 record, that may be by additional public comment or
13 if the Board deems that it is justified, perhaps
14 even additional hearings may be held. At the end of
15 that phase, the Board then makes a decision, again,
16 as to how to -- or what disposition the rule
17 thereafter has, assuming that it is to continue to
18 move forward, we would then go to something called
19 second notice at the end of which another opinion
20 and order will be issued by the Board explaining any
21 revised decisions that it may have made as a result
22 of the later editions to the record.
23
There's yet a further stage where
24 the rule passes out of the hands of the Board and
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
10
1 goes to a subcommittee of the general assembly,
2 JCAR, which we review the rule from their
3 perspective and if it passes that hurdle the Board
4 is then in a position to make the ultimate
5 disposition on the ruling and actually adopt the
6 rule.
7
This is a long process, it's a
8 fairly elaborate process, but it's a very robust
9 process in the extent that this rule will be
10 examined in great detail by many great minds sitting
11 out there bringing advice to the Board as to how to
12 make the appropriate decision and in the end
13 hopefully we will have a good solid rule that will
14 do what it's supposed to do. Thank you.
15
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Thank you,
16 Dr. Flemal. Member Melas or Member Tristano,
17 anything to add?
18
MR. MELAS: No. Just looking forward
19 to hearing the testimony and welcome everyone here.
20
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Wonderful.
21 All right. With that Mr. Harsch, would you like to
22 make an opening statement? Mr. Kissel?
23
MR. KISSEL: My name is Richard
24 Kissel, I'm with the law firm of Gardner, Carton &
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
11
1 Douglas and we represent the Illinois Association of
2 Wastewater Agencies in this proceeding. To my left
3 is Roy Harsch, who is an attorney with Gardner,
4 Carton as well as Shelia Deely who is to my right
5 and we will be, to the extent you want us to,
6 sheparding the testimony and the witnesses and
7 giving you the evidence with which we hope you will
8 adopt -- use to adopt this proposed rule.
9
I think it's important for us to
10 tell the Board that IAWA is a very well represented
11 organization throughout the state. It has a number
12 of members who operate publicly owned treatment
13 works and probably is the premier agency -- or
14 association in that regard. It follows the Board's
15 rules with great regulatory and participates in them
16 as it has in the past, but this is really a first in
17 that IAWA has taken it upon itself to propose a rule
18 to the Board, that has never been done before and
19 just so the Board understands from an association
20 standpoint, that was a very, very large step and
21 they had to believe that what they were proposing to
22 the Board was technically sound, economically sound
23 and correct. So it has gone for your view through a
24 substantial amount of review before it ever got
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
12
1 here, but obviously we want you to have the separate
2 independent review of that.
3
Essentially, what we are doing
4 here is asking for an update of the ammonia rule,
5 which is found in 302.212 and the other sections
6 which the hearing officer alluded to and the basis
7 of that is that the rule adopted by the Board which
8 is now currently in affect was based upon a criteria
9 document developed by the United States
10 Environmental Protection Agency I think in 1984,
11 1986.
12
In 1999, the USEPA came out with
13 -- published a new criteria document based upon
14 newer science and it is that criteria document which
15 forms the basis of our proposed water quality
16 criteria for the Board's consideration and hopefully
17 adoption.
18
We had participated in a great
19 degree in the prior rules and in addition when we
20 put this rule together before we ever submitted it
21 to the Board for its consideration, we dealt with a
22 number of state agencies and the USEPA had a number
23 of meetings, I'm sure the Board will hear testimony
24 to that regard, and with environmental groups to see
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
13
1 what -- how they would feel about this and so this
2 rule has gone through -- the proposed rule has gone
3 through a lot of peer review and public review
4 before it ever got to you. I think it's important
5 that you know that. With that, we will -- I think
6 there's -- with that we would like to start our
7 witnesses and I want to add one other thing before
8 Mr. Callahan comes up. I was telling Dr. Flemal
9 that I was the hearing officer in the water quality
10 regulations in 1970 and '72 and so I've taken it
11 upon myself to propose a new water quality
12 regulation every 30 years. Whether I do it in the
13 next 30 years or not is a lot -- is not dependent so
14 much on me, but the good Lord will keep me on this
15 earth.
16
In any case, Mr. Callahan?
17 Mike came from Bloomington, Normal today and says
18 that he was only going 35 miles an hour in the snow
19 with four-wheel drive on to get here and left at
20 four in the morning so apparently he did make it on
21 time so...
22
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Mr. Callahan,
23 could we get you sworn in?
24 (Mr. Callahan was sworn in by the court reporter.)
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
14
1
MR. CALLAHAN: Good morning. As Dick
2 said, I would principally just like to read my
3 prefiled testimony at this time.
4
My name is Michael Callahan.
5 I am here on behalf of the Illinois Association of
6 Wastewater Agencies to petition the Illinois
7 Pollution Control Board to adopt the 1999 United
8 States Environmental Protection Agency's 1999 update
9 of ambient water quality criteria for ammonia
10 published in final form in the Federal register on
11 December 22nd, 1999, as the basis for the ammonia
12 nitrogen water quality standard for Illinois.
13
I am keenly aware of the
14 uniqueness of the current position of IAWA before
15 the Board advocating such a rulemaking. Ordinarily,
16 this type of advocacy before the Board would be
17 undertaken by the Illinois Environmental Protection
18 Agency. However, the Agency was unable to develop
19 this petition in a timely manner due to the severe
20 time demands placed upon its personnel by the many
21 other issues simultaneously being considered in the
22 area of water pollution control within Illinois.
23 The IAWA has asked the Agency for advisement on the
24 tenets of this issue as well as approval of the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
15
1 petition presented to the Board today. The Agency
2 has been very helpful in this regard and we
3 understand the Agency will offer supportive
4 testimony later in this proceeding.
5
The IAWA has elected to undertake
6 the time commitment and cost of approximately
7 $70,000 to prepare the petition for rulemaking
8 before the Board because of the importance the IAWA
9 places upon the protective and economically
10 justifiable ammonia nitrogen water quality standard
11 for the state.
12
The importance to IAWA of the
13 adoption of this USEPA criteria as the Illinois
14 standard is multi-faceted. Later in this testimony
15 I will elaborate upon these various facets as well
16 as explain the recent history of the ammonia
17 nitrogen water quality standard rulemaking in
18 Illinois, which has created our current situation.
19 Further, I will share with the Board the steps in
20 the IAWA development of the proposed standard as
21 well as justifications for key determinations made
22 in that development.
23
The IAWA is petitioning the Board
24 to modify Sections 302.212, 213 and 304.122 of Title
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
16
1 35, Subtitle C, of the Illinois Administrative Code.
2 Also included with this action are minor
3 modifications to Section 355, but not submitted to
4 the Board for approval. Section 355 addresses the
5 Agency's implementation procedures for this matter.
6 The Agency prefers, and the IAWA currently agrees,
7 that this implementation procedure should remain
8 within the jurisdiction of the Agency. However,
9 the IAWA strongly emphasizes that the modifications
10 to and ultimate content of Section 355 as currently
11 proposed are of absolute essential importance to the
12 successful resolution of a protective and equitable
13 ammonia water quality standard for Illinois. Should
14 the Board approve this petition absent a successful
15 modification of Section 355, the IAWA may return to
16 the Board for action on this implementation
17 procedure. This, however, is not the desired intent
18 of IAWA at this time. My later testimony will
19 illustrate the importance of this position and
20 elaborate upon the matter.
21
Following my testimony will be
22 testimony of Dr. Robert Sheehan, Professor of
23 Fisheries and Zoology, Southern Illinois University.
24 Dr. David Zenz, consulting engineer with Consoer,
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
17
1 Townsend, Envirodyne Engineers, Incorporated,
2 formerly with the research and development
3 department of the metropolitan water reclamation
4 district of greater Chicago; Mr. Tim Bachman,
5 director of waste treatment operations of the Urbana
6 & Champaign, Illinois Sanitary District; Mr. Michael
7 Zima, director of the DeKalb, Illinois Sanitary
8 District and Mr. James Daugherty, district manager
9 of the Thorn Creek Basin Sanitary District. Each of
10 these individuals will provide testimony relevant to
11 their area of expertise and experience in critical
12 areas of this matter.
13
I have a bachelor of science
14 degree in biological sciences and environmental
15 health from Illinois State University, Normal,
16 Illinois. I further obtained a master of arts
17 degree in biological sciences from the University of
18 Missouri; Columbia, Missouri. I pursued doctoral
19 studies at Illinois State University in biological
20 sciences. All of my graduate studies involved
21 nutrient cycling in biological systems. I am a
22 member of the Phi Sigma Biological Sciences Honor
23 Society.
24
I have been employed by the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
18
1 Bloomington and Normal Water Reclamation District
2 since 1973. Since 1988, I have been the executive
3 director of the BNWRD. The BNWRD and/or I have
4 received awards for operational or program
5 excellence from USEPA, the Agency and various
6 professional organizations during my tenure as
7 executive director. I have held an Illinois
8 Environmental Protection Agency Class I wastewater
9 treatment plant license since 1977. I have authored
10 and presented many papers on a variety of issues
11 concerning municipal sector wastewater treatment
12 topics. I have been a member of many professional
13 organizations and have held offices in many of these
14 organizations, including president of the IAWA,
15 president of the Illinois Water Pollution Control
16 Operators Association and chairman and trustee of
17 the Illinois Section of the Central States Water
18 Environment Association. I have belonged to the WEF
19 since 1975.
20
I ask the Board to bear with me in
21 revisiting the complicated sequence of historical
22 events that have resulted in the present ammonia
23 regulatory picture in Illinois. This history has
24 direct bearing on the standard I am advocating to be
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
19
1 developed from the 1999 USEPA guidance. This
2 history is reflective of the importance to IAWA of
3 the Board's adoption of the proposed ammonia water
4 quality standard. This history also illustrates the
5 overwhelming need, as the Board is acutely aware,
6 for adoption of water quality standards for Illinois
7 that are founded on complete scientific
8 investigation, that are economically justifiable and
9 that are technically attainable.
10
The present ammonia nitrogen water
11 quality standard for Illinois was developed through
12 Board Docket R94-1. The rule was finally adopted in
13 1996 amidst considerable input and compromise by all
14 participating parties. The original proposal of
15 R94-1 by the Agency was derived from the 1984 USEPA
16 national criteria document for ammonia. The 1984
17 guidance was modified to consider ammonia toxicity
18 of only warm water species indigenous to Illinois.
19 The Agency proposal also addressed the fact that the
20 water quality standard derived from that document
21 would result in effluent NPDES permit limits that
22 pushed the limit of technical attainability of many
23 of the treatment facilities in Illinois,
24 particularly in the winner season. Mr. Jim
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
20
1 Daugherty, representing the IAWA in the R94-1
2 proceedings, testified to that point. At the
3 Agency's request prior to the R94-1 proceedings, the
4 IAWA undertook a member survey for nitrification
5 capabilities of existing treatment facilities.
6 This survey consisted of two years of daily
7 operating nitrification data collected from
8 approximately, and I would correct a typo here, that
9 should be 35 rather than 45, wastewater treatment
10 plants within Illinois. This survey and its
11 subsequent review by the Agency was the partial
12 basis for the Agency testimony in R94-1 that 1.5
13 milligrams per liter and 4.0 milligrams per liter
14 were the existing consistent levels of treatment
15 attainability for nitrification in Illinois.
16
The 1984 USEPA guidance document
17 proposed ammonia toxicity in a manner that has since
18 been found to be errant. The 1999 USEPA guidance
19 subsequently addressed this error and now considers
20 ammonia toxicity through a different mechanism than
21 that used by the 1984 document. Dr. Robert Sheehan
22 will elaborate on this mechanism in his testimony
23 today. However, at this time I would like to offer
24 a brief and simple explanation of the two different
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
21
1 toxicity assessments to illustrate the difference in
2 the subsequently derived water quality standards
3 resulting from each USEPA guidance document.
4
Ammonia exists in aquatic systems
5 in the form of a dynamic equilibrium between the
6 un-ionized ammonia molecule form, NH3, and the
7 ammonium ion form, NH4 plus. This equilibrium is
8 very dynamic and is responsive to both temperature
9 and pH. Essentially the mechanism employed in the
10 1984 guidance document assigned all of the ammonia
11 toxicity to the un-ionized ammonia molecule. The
12 assignment of all such toxicity to the un-ionized
13 ammonia form of the equilibrium resulted in very low
14 concentrations of un-ionized ammonia being indicated
15 as necessary to protect aquatic life. The 1999
16 USEPA guidance assigns toxicity to total ammonia,
17 not just un-ionized ammonia.
18
The present water quality standard
19 in Illinois is derived from this errant
20 consideration of the toxicity mechanism. Since the
21 ammonia equilibrium is temperature responsive, both
22 winter and summer acute and chronic standards were
23 developed as a result of 94-1. The current
24 standard, when back-calculated in NPDES permit
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
22
1 limits, does not present many difficulties in terms
2 of technical attainability and compliance during
3 warm summer months even though the standard for such
4 periods is much lower than that enacted for cold
5 winter months. Wastewater treatment processes are
6 much more efficient at the biological oxidation of
7 ammonia at warm temperatures than they are at cold
8 temperatures.
9
The current summer standard
10 resulting from the Board's ruling in R94-1, in many
11 situations throughout the state, allows for NPDES
12 permit limits higher than the monthly average limit
13 of 1.5 milligrams per liter generally allowed within
14 the state by the standard that preceded it.
15 Likewise, this proposed standard may allow for NPDES
16 permit limits for ammonia greater than the customary
17 1.5 milligram per liter summer NPDES permit limit.
18 However, anti-backsliding constraints generally
19 result in previous permit limits being retained.
20 Consequently, these anti-backsliding requirements
21 will continue to provide a very conservative level
22 of ammonia protection during the early life stage
23 present period.
24
The acute winter standard does not
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
23
1 present many such compliance difficulties due to
2 relatively high acute toxicity tolerance of ammonia
3 as compared to the alleged chronic toxicity
4 tolerance. The difficulty experienced with the
5 current ammonia water quality standard exists when
6 the winter chronic toxicity water quality standard
7 is back-calculated into winter NPDES discharge
8 permit limits. The chronic toxicity standard is
9 roughly equivalent to the monthly average standard
10 contained in such permits. The consideration by the
11 1984 guidance document of all ammonia toxicity
12 resulting from the un-ionized form of the ammonia
13 equilibrium resulted in the development of
14 unnecessarily low un-ionized ammonia standards.
15 Even though cold temperatures drive the ammonia
16 equilibrium towards the ionized NH4 plus form of the
17 equilibrium, the mistaken assignment of all ammonia
18 toxicity to the un-ionized form resulted in winter
19 chronic NPDES permit limits that were at or below
20 the limit of technical attainability in many
21 wastewater treatment processes in place throughout
22 Illinois.
23
In recognition of this dilemma,
24 the Agency proposed, and the Board approved, a
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
24
1 concept in R94-1 called effluent modified waters.
2 The EMW concept allows for exceedance of the chronic
3 toxicity water quality standard downstream of an
4 NPDES permitted discharge to the distance necessary
5 to achieve compliance with the chronic toxicity
6 standard by depletion of ammonia through the natural
7 nitrification capability of the receiving stream.
8 Discharges into such an EMW were not allowed to
9 exceed a monthly average NPDES permit limit of 4.0
10 milligrams per liter ammonia during the winter
11 season, which is November through March, and 1.5
12 milligrams per liter during the summer seasons,
13 April through October. An additional condition of
14 EMW designation required that no ammonia impairment
15 exists in the water body so designated. An EMW
16 designation did not allow dischargers relief from
17 acute toxicity standard. As discussed previously,
18 the only relief really needed and therefore
19 requested by the regulated community was from the
20 very low winter chronic standard.
21
The EMW concept had been approved
22 by USEPA prior to the R94-1 proceeding. The Board
23 action in R94-1 approved the ammonia nitrogen water
24 quality standard and the concept of effluent
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
25
1 modified waters. The Board action did not address
2 the implementation policy concerning either the
3 standard or the EMW designation. The Agency
4 preferred at that time to retain development of
5 these policies as their own implementation rules and
6 codify them through the Joint Committee on
7 Administrative Rulemaking.
8
In testimony during R94-1, the
9 Agency indicated that no biological sampling in
10 waters thought to qualify for EMW status had
11 indicated biological ammonia impairment.
12 Therefore, the interpretation of the Board rule by
13 the Agency and the regulated community was that EMW
14 designation could be extended state-wide in
15 situations where the chronic water quality standard
16 would require NPDES permit limits less than 4.0
17 milligrams per liter during the winter or 1.5
18 milligrams per liter during the summer.
19
Upon issuance of the Board rule,
20 the Agency began issuing NPDES permits using the EMW
21 designation and also began codification of its
22 implementation policy with JCAR. At this time, a
23 60-day notice of intent to sue was served on USEPA
24 Region V alleging that the EMW concept in Illinois
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
26
1 was not affording adequate protection of the state's
2 waters as required by the Clean Water Act.
3 In response to this notice, USEPA advised the Agency
4 that it would not approve the implementation policy
5 that was being developed for proposal to JCAR.
6 The result of the intervention of USEPA into the
7 development of the implementation policy by the
8 Agency was a significant change in the manner by
9 which EMW relief could be given.
10
The implementation policy that
11 resulted from this intervention demands that an
12 exhaustive field evaluation of candidate receiving
13 streams be undertaken, which included hydrologic,
14 physical, chemical, habitat and biological
15 considerations. Additionally, submission of all
16 known existing data relevant to this stream was
17 required as well as consultation by the Agency with
18 other natural resource agencies within the state.
19 The net effect of this modified implementation
20 policy is to tremendously complicate both the
21 application for and approval of an EMW designation.
22 The unfortunate aspect of this existing EMW policy
23 lies in the fact that it was taken to avoid a
24 lawsuit and in no way allowed for public hearing of
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
27
1 the issues in an open forum such as that provided by
2 the Board rulemaking process.
3
The IAWA had supported the Board's
4 adoption of the new water quality standards in R94-1
5 despite strong reservations about the
6 appropriateness of the toxicity mechanism used in
7 the USEPA 1984 guidance document. This reservation
8 is stated in Mr. Daugherty's testimony in R94-1.
9 Such support had, however, been ultimately extended
10 with the understanding that the EMW designation
11 would allow assignment of the 1.5 milligrams per
12 liter summer and 4.0 milligrams per liter winter
13 monthly average NPDES permit limits. This support
14 was also extended with the understanding that the
15 Agency's testimony indicated no ammonia impairment
16 existed within the state that would prohibit EMW
17 designations. Such EMW designations would not,
18 therefore, involve lengthy and complicated site by
19 site demonstration of the appropriateness of each
20 such designation.
21
Regrettably, when the Agency
22 finally codified the ammonia implementation
23 procedure on June 9th, 1999, the IAWA membership
24 and all other point source dischargers throughout
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
28
1 Illinois were facing the grim prospect of complying
2 with effluent limits which were at or below the
3 limit of technical attainability with very limited
4 prospects of relief. Realization of an EMW
5 designation had become such a complicated and
6 onerous undertaking, as a result of the
7 implementation procedure eventually codified, that
8 the regulated community saw little chance of being
9 successful in realizing any such designation.
10 To date, six years after the adoption of the Board's
11 rules, I am not aware of one EMW application in
12 Illinois that has been attempted. The net effect
13 of the procedures by which the current ammonia water
14 quality standard has been implemented was to offer
15 the regulated community conditional relief from the
16 chronic winter standard for which compliance had
17 been determined to be marginal at best and, then,
18 pull that relief out at the last minute.
19 The regulated community had been left hanging.
20 Needless to say, there was great relief felt
21 throughout the Illinois regulated community when
22 within two months of the codification of the
23 existing implementation procedure the 1999 USEPA
24 guidance was released and indicated that the 1984
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
29
1 guidance was in error. Further, this guidance
2 recommended a different mechanism by which to
3 consider ammonia toxicity. The greatest irony was
4 the fact that the mechanism advocated by the 1999
5 USEPA guidance results in a winter chronic toxicity
6 standard which is attainable by existing wastewater
7 treatment processes. This relief afforded by the
8 1999 USEPA guidance is the motivation for the IAWA
9 current petition before the Board to adopt the
10 proposed ammonia water quality standard.
11
Upon receipt of the 1999 USEPA
12 guidance, the IAWA strongly encouraged the Agency
13 to immediately undertake a new rulemaking which
14 would result in adoption of the criteria recommended
15 in the guidance as the Illinois water quality
16 standard for ammonia. The Agency regrettably told
17 IAWA that the other program development requirements
18 before it at that time did not allow enough
19 personnel to initiate such action. The IAWA thus
20 decided in January of 2000 to undertake the action
21 itself. The Agency subsequently told IAWA that it
22 would support such an effort providing that the
23 resulting proposal satisfied all Agency concerns
24 regarding both compliance with the 1999 USEPA
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
30
1 guidance and necessary protection of Illinois
2 waters.
3
The 1999 USEPA guidance itself is
4 a compelling testament for the standard presented to
5 the Board for consideration today. The IAWA did not
6 revisit any of the methodology used in the
7 development of the 1999 USEPA guidance, but rather
8 drafted the proposed standard directly from the
9 formula in the document. The IAWA proposal,
10 however, does not contain provisions for protection
11 of cold water species. The proposed standard is not
12 applicable to Lake Michigan. That portion of the
13 regulations is not proposed to be changed by these
14 proceedings. The generally agreed upon consensus
15 within the state is that cold water species are not
16 indigenous to any of the waters of Illinois other
17 than Lake Michigan.
18
The IAWA subcommittee assigned to
19 the development of this proposal initially canvassed
20 the IAWA membership to determine the capability of
21 existing facilities in Illinois to maintain
22 compliance with the NPDES permit limits which would
23 result from adoption of this proposal. Many of the
24 facilities queried indicated that the ammonia limits
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
31
1 lower than those in effect prior to R94-1 would
2 probably be added to NPDES permit limits as a result
3 of this proposal. However, the membership also
4 determined that existing wastewater technology could
5 consistently achieve compliance with these limits.
6
The proposed standard differs from
7 previous attempts to regulate ammonia in Illinois by
8 recognizing an increased ammonia toxicity by the
9 early life stages of fish as compared to adult fish
10 individuals. The 1999 document also finds that
11 early life stages of fish species are more sensitive
12 to ammonia than are invertebrate species. To
13 evaluate the correct manner by which to apply this
14 concept of early life stage protection in Illinois,
15 the IAWA retained Dr. Sheehan as a consultant.
16 Dr. Sheehan will elaborate upon his developmental
17 work on this issue in later testimony. In essence,
18 Dr. Sheehan and IAWA were comfortable initially in
19 advocating an early life stage present period of
20 April through October. This season is the same as
21 the existing regulation's summer season. The early
22 life stage absent period thus becomes November
23 through March. Some uncertainty remained with this
24 determination, however, due to the waters of
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
32
1 southern Illinois warming earlier in the year than
2 those of northern Illinois. Also, the Northern Pike
3 has a life history indicating that it could begin to
4 spawn in March. The Northern Pike is essentially
5 limited to northern Illinois. Consequently, the
6 IAWA included a clause in the proposal which
7 stipulates the Agency is empowered to assign early
8 life stage present protection to selected waters on
9 a site-specific basis as may be found appropriate.
10 This clause is found in Section 302.212(e).
11
Upon review of this proposal,
12 Agency biologists indicated that they would be more
13 comfortable in extending total early life stage
14 protection to the month of March. The Agency thus
15 advocated an early life stage present period of
16 March through October and an early life stage absent
17 period of November through February. The IAWA
18 agreed to this request and such is the format
19 currently before the Board. The IAWA did, however,
20 retain the clause at Section 302.212(e) such that
21 the Agency is empowered to extend early life stage
22 protection to winter months on a site-specific basis
23 or to the extent that such protection is found to be
24 warranted in the future.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
33
1
The language and format of the
2 proposed regulation was drafted by Ms. Debra
3 Williams, counsel for the Agency, and Mr. Roy
4 Harsch, counsel for IAWA. The language of the
5 proposal thus is such that the Agency is comfortable
6 with the water quality protection extended, the
7 compatibility of the regulation with other Agency
8 regulations and the regulation's ability to be
9 enforced.
10
Dr. Sheehan and various IAWA
11 ammonia regulation subcommittee members then
12 attempted to discuss the newly drafted and Agency
13 approved proposal with various stakeholders
14 throughout Illinois. Dr. Sheehan will elaborate
15 upon his discussions in this regard. We believe
16 that all individuals with whom this proposal was
17 discussed were satisfied with the ammonia protection
18 it affords. Included in this proceeding as IAWA's
19 Exhibit 10 are letters from me to Mr. Joel Cross,
20 Division of Fisheries, Illinois Department of
21 Natural Resources; Mr. Glen Kruse, Division of
22 Natural History, IDNR; and Mr. Keith Shank, Division
23 of Endangered Species, IDNR. These letters formally
24 follow up on verbal discussion of the proposal
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
34
1 between Dr. Sheehan and these gentlemen of the
2 Illinois Department of Natural Resources. The
3 proposed regulation accompanied each of these
4 letters. Each letter requests follow up contact if
5 difficulties with the regulation are foreseen.
6 The IAWA has not received any response to these
7 letters. The Agency submitted the proposed
8 regulation to USEPA Region V for comment. Region V
9 responded by raising four issues. Included with
10 Exhibit 10 is a letter from Mr. Tom Muth, IAWA
11 president to Mr. David Pfeifer, Region V, USEPA,
12 responding to three of these comments. The comment
13 not addressed by Mr. Muth's letter involved
14 consideration of flows in determination of effluent
15 NPDES permit limits. The issue is addressed by the
16 Agency's use of its mass balance calculation
17 procedure for determination of effluent limits and
18 also by the Agency's allowance for no dilution of
19 ammonia concentrations on zero low flow streams.
20
The first of the Region V comments
21 concerned the early life stage present time period.
22 The issue was discussed among Dr. Sheehan, Dr.
23 Brooks Burr, Professor of Fisheries and Zoology,
24 Southern Illinois University and Mr. Brian Thompson
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
35
1 of Region V USEPA. It is our understanding that
2 this discussion concluded with agreement that the
3 proposed standard extends adequate ammonia early
4 life stage protection. Dr. Sheehan will elaborate
5 on this issue in later testimony.
6
The second issue raised by
7 USEPA Region V comment involved the use of the
8 selected percentile rankings of pH and temperature
9 for determining the appropriate water quality
10 standard. This issue, while of fundamental
11 importance in the successful implementation of this
12 proposed rule, is listed as a Section 355
13 modification and is thus not before the Board for
14 action at this time. However, prudence and past
15 experience as discussed above requires IAWA to offer
16 a complete explanation of this matter to the Board
17 should further action be necessary. The procedure
18 used in the proposed regulation is exactly that
19 presently used for the existing ammonia water
20 quality standard. The 75th percentile temperature
21 and pH of the water body are used for determination
22 of the acute and chronic early life stage present
23 and early life stage absent standards. If use of
24 the 75th percentile pH value results in a chronic
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
36
1 standard less than 1.5 milligrams per liter for the
2 early life stage present period or 4.0 milligrams
3 per liter for the early life stage absent period,
4 the 50th percentile shall be used to recalculate
5 these chronic standards. The standards obtained
6 with the use of the 50th percentile shall be met.
7 Under no circumstances shall use of the 50th
8 percentile pH result in standards greater than 1.5
9 milligrams per liter for the early life stage
10 present period or 4.0 milligrams per liter for the
11 early life stage absent period. The subchronic
12 standard is 2.5 times the final calculated chronic
13 standard.
14
The chronic standard is a 30-day
15 average. A monthly average standard assumes that
16 half of the variance can be in excess of the
17 standard and half of the variance can be less than
18 the standard. Consequently, the use of the median,
19 50th percentile value, for the determination of the
20 standard is mathematically appropriate. Dr. Sheehan
21 will discuss this issue further in his testimony.
22
The fourth issue raised in the
23 USEPA Region V comment addresses protection of
24 mussels. The 1999 USEPA guidance considered mussels
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
37
1 in the analysis of invertebrate species. The Region
2 V comment states recent research work indicates that
3 the 1999 USEPA guidance might not provide adequate
4 protection to mussel species.
5
Dr. Sheehan and I have attempted
6 to review some of this work for this proceeding.
7 I am not an authority on the Molusca, however, I
8 was unable to find much of it referenced in the
9 customary abstract indicies. I was finally able to
10 obtain some of these citation references by
11 requesting them from the Agency. A significant
12 portion of this work is unpublished. Some of the
13 work has been published but in some of the published
14 work the experimental designs are not necessarily
15 appropriate for application to development of
16 national criteria guidance. One of the citations
17 referenced by USEPA is for a paper published jointly
18 by Dr. Sheehan and other which Dr. Sheehan indicates
19 might not be appropriate for criteria development
20 purposes. Dr. Sheehan will address this matter in
21 his testimony.
22
At this time I would like to
23 address a component of the contemporary rulemaking
24 process which I find indirectly related to this
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
38
1 consideration of mussel protection. The issue
2 is referenced in Mr. Muth's letter to Mr. Pfeifer.
3 Specifically, none of the data which has been
4 referenced suggesting potential lack of mussel
5 protection generated through recent research work
6 nor the peer reviewed or non-peer reviewed articles
7 generated therefrom has been subjected to the
8 Federal criteria guidance public review process.
9 I am very concerned with the consideration of
10 research results for rulemaking purposes which have
11 not yet withstood the rigors of public review and
12 comment. Such a rush to regulate for the sake of
13 regulation seems to be an extraordinary opportunity
14 to repeat the error inherent in the 1984 USEPA
15 ammonia guidance document.
16
The IAWA objected before the Board
17 to the basic tenants of toxicity modeling associated
18 with the 1984 USEPA document. However, these
19 objections were essentially mollified by the fact
20 that the document had been through the national
21 review process and thus stood as the basis from
22 which water quality standards should be derived.
23 The IAWA accepted this situation as the necessary
24 due process in rulemaking. I maintain that the same
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
39
1 standards need to be held to the 1999 USEPA guidance
2 and action which originates from it.
3
The Board will shortly hear
4 testimony from representatives of two municipalities
5 in our state that are potentially facing millions of
6 dollars of plant upgrade expense to comply with the
7 existing Illinois water quality standard which was
8 derived from the 1984 USEPA criteria guidance
9 document. These municipalities, specifically the
10 taxpayers of these municipalities, will not have to
11 face this expense with the proposed water quality
12 standard derived from the 1999 USEPA guidance
13 document. The 1999 USEPA guidance document must
14 stand as the present basis from which cost to the
15 public must be considered. If future scientific
16 investigation and subsequent public review indicates
17 that additional ammonia treatment and associated
18 expense is warranted, then decisions on how to
19 affect such treatment can be made at that time.
20 If future investigation determines that such
21 additional treatment and expense is not warranted,
22 the cost to these communities, if forced to
23 construct facilities now, cannot be recovered.
24 There is no trade-in or redemption value for
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
40
1 unnecessary capital wastewater treatment facilities.
2
The Board has historically been
3 very mindful of the economic impact of the
4 regulation it enacts. The citizens of Illinois can
5 be very grateful to the Board for demonstrating that
6 wisdom. Balancing necessary environmental
7 protection with responsible stewardship of public
8 money is a task of the Board which most people find
9 unenviable. A misinterpretation of the mechanism of
10 ammonia toxicity in the 1984 USEPA guidance document
11 has resulted in the Board enacting, in good faith,
12 an overly protective and economically unjustifiable
13 water quality standard for ammonia based on that
14 document. The Board at that time, and rightly so,
15 felt the existing standard was necessary to protect
16 the waters of Illinois. The Board recognized the
17 need to extend some form of relief to the regulated
18 community from the seemingly unrealistic demands of
19 the winter chronic ammonia standard resulting from
20 the 1984 guidance document and did so. Regrettably,
21 that relief was virtually eliminated in a venue
22 beyond the Board's jurisdiction through threat of
23 judicial action against USEPA. The water quality
24 standard presented to the Board today provides for
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
41
1 adequate water quality protection as recognized by
2 sound and accepted contemporary science. The IAWA
3 is adamantly committed to providing levels of
4 wastewater treatment necessary to protect the waters
5 of our state. The historic presence of the IAWA
6 before the Board is testament to that commitment.
7 The IAWA is grateful to the Board for providing an
8 open and public forum where such matters can be
9 freely discussed and resolved. The proposed water
10 quality standard which the Board is hereby requested
11 to consider for adoption strikes the necessary
12 balance between water quality protection and public
13 cost which the Board and IAWA have both historically
14 sought. Thank you.
15
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Thank you,
16 Mr. Callahan. Before we proceed with our next
17 witness, Ms. Deely, do you have an extra copy of the
18 letters referenced by Mr. Callahan in his testimony?
19
MS. DEELY: Sure.
20
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: I would like
21 to, unless somebody objects, admit a copy of those
22 letters as Exhibit 1. It was part of the --
23
MR. ETTINGER: Specifically, is the
24 Region V letter in that package?
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
42
1
MS. DEELY: It should be. I put it in
2 that package.
3
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: We'll wait to
4 rule on the motion until Mr. Ettinger --
5
MR. ETTINGER: Is the letter from
6 Region V in that package?
7
MS. DEELY: No, it's not.
8
MR. ETTINGER: Would there be any
9 objection to the offering of the letter from Region
10 V so that we have the whole correspondence?
11
MS. DEELY: I don't have that letter.
12
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Does anyone
13 object to specifically allowing these letters at
14 this point? Seeing no objection, I will admit the
15 letters referenced by Mr. Callahan's testimony as
16 Exhibit 1. If we could go off the record for just a
17 moment.
18
(Whereupon, a discussion
19
was had off the record.)
20
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: The letters
21 referenced by Mr. Callahan in his testimony he did
22 reference as Exhibit 10 that is how they were filed
23 with the Board on the 5th of March, but we aren't
24 sticking to those exhibit numbers. Ms. Williams,
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
43
1 could you identify yourself for the record?
2
MS. WILLIAMS: I'm Debra Williams from
3 the Illinois EPA. I didn't realize, were those
4 filed with the -- I don't have nine, eight, seven,
5 six, five.
6
MS. DEELY: They were all filed,
7 right. There's an extra copy if you don't have it.
8 Yes, they were filed.
9
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: The other
10 numbers you referenced, Ms. Williams, were primarily
11 the prefiled testimony presented here today. When
12 they filed the prefiled testimony they submitted it
13 in a binder for purposes of ease in the Board
14 accumulating all the information and assembling it.
15 So we will -- we're not going to stick with the
16 exhibit numbers as they were presented to the Board.
17 Are there any other questions on the letters
18 specifically?
19
MR. ETTINGER: Does the Board want to
20 accept the Region V letter -- the letter from Region
21 V October 25, 2001 to which Mr. Muth's letter
22 responds?
23
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Does anyone
24 object to the Board accepting the USEPA Region V
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
44
1 letter as Exhibit 2 as presented by Mr. Albert
2 Ettinger?
3
MR. KISSEL: None. Just for the
4 purpose of the record, Exhibit 1 then will be a
5 multiple exhibit which will include the letter of
6 November 8th to Mr. Joel Cross, the letter of
7 November 19th to Mr. Keith Shank, the letter of
8 November 8th to Mr. Glenn Kruse and the letter of
9 November 20th to Mr. Keith Shank and a letter of
10 January 18th, 2002 to Mr. Dave Pfeifer.
11
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: And Exhibit
12 No. 2 will be to Mr. Toby Frevert at the Agency from
13 Mary Patson (phonetic) acting chief of the water
14 quality branch of the USEPA Region V dated October
15 25, 2001.
16
THE REPORTER: I need a minute to
17 change my paper. Let's go off the record for a
18 minute.
19
(Brief pause.)
20
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Back on the
21 record. Mr. Sheehan?
22
MR. SHEEHAN: Good morning.
23 I am going to read from a prefiled written
24 testimony.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
45
1
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: I'm sorry.
2 Could we swear you in first?
3 (Mr. Sheehan was sworn in by the court reporter.)
4
MR. SHEEHAN: I am going to read from
5 a prefiled written testimony which I entitled
6 Justification and Approach for Adoption of the
7 United States Environmental Protection Agency's
8 Approach for Setting Ambient Water Quality Criteria
9 for Ammonia in Illinois Surface Waters.
10
I am Robert J. Sheehan, Professor
11 of Fisheries in Zoology and assistant director of
12 the Fisheries and Illinois Aquaculture Center,
13 Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.
14
My purpose here today is to
15 explain the justification and approach for what I
16 believe Illinois should use to establish water
17 quality criteria for the state's surface waters.
18 I believe that recent information indicates that
19 current ammonia water quality criteria used by
20 Illinois appear to not be protective enough under
21 certain circumstances and they appear to be overly
22 protective under other circumstances. I believe
23 that Illinois should use methods described by the
24 United States Environmental Protection Agency,
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
46
1 USEPA, in their latest national criteria document
2 for ammonia, the 1999 update of ambient water
3 quality criteria for ammonia, 1999 update.
4
Section one, professional
5 credentials: I base my testimony on more than 15
6 years of experience with ammonia toxicity issues.
7 For example, colleagues and I published in the
8 international journal, Hydrobiologia, what is to my
9 knowledge the first paper examining the tolerance of
10 larval Glochidia unionid mussels to ammonia, that's
11 Goudreau, et al., 1993. This paper was considered
12 in the 1999 ammonia update. A colleague and I also
13 published in Transactions of the American Fisheries
14 Society, Sheehan and Lewis, 1986, a study that was
15 also included as part of the database upon which the
16 1999 ammonia update was based. This work was the
17 basis for two best paper awards conferred on us by
18 the American Fisheries Society. I was selected by
19 the Cadmus Group, a consulting firm employed by
20 USEPA, to be one of the five national reviewers for
21 the 1999 ammonia update. I was the only biologist
22 amongst the reviewers. I have taught a graduate
23 level class, zoology 565, environmental physiology
24 of fishes, for more than ten years that covers in
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
47
1 depth the methods for calculation of numeric and
2 narrative water quality criteria. I have also
3 taught these methods in the University of Illinois'
4 Envirovet curriculum. Envirovet is a program for
5 training veterinarians in aquatic animal health.
6 I am the Illinois Chapter of the American Fisheries
7 Society's representative to the Illinois
8 Environmental Protection Agency's, IEPA, Total
9 Maximum Daily Load Work Group. I am a member of
10 IEPA's science committee for developing water
11 quality standards for nutrients.
12
Other indications of my
13 professional stature include the more than two
14 million dollars of funding I have received for
15 research on aquatic systems. This funding was
16 obtained from approximately 20 different sources.
17 Most of this research has been directed at Illinois
18 surface waters and in particular rivers and streams,
19 but some has been international, for example, the
20 Amazon River, in scope. I have authored more than
21 25 peer-reviewed publications on river and stream
22 organisms. These include one, invited author of the
23 Large Rivers chapter, Sheehan and Rasmussen, 1993,
24 in the American Fisheries Society's textbook on
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
48
1 fisheries management, Inland Fisheries Management in
2 North America, an updated revision of that work has
3 recently been completed, Sheehan and Rasmussen, 1999
4 and two, invited author of the chapter on Wetlands
5 and Fisheries Resources of the Mississippi River in
6 the Pennsylvania Academy of Sciences book, Ecology
7 of Wetlands and Associated Systems. I serve as a
8 member of numerous government agency teams or
9 committees such as the Mississippi River
10 Coordination Team and the Lower Platte River Task
11 Force. I have been an expert witness for the
12 Washington University Environmental Law Clinic at
13 a hearing before the Missouri Clean Water
14 Commission. I have also been an expert witness in a
15 hearing before the Illinois Pollution Control Board
16 that concerned ammonia in the Galesburg Sanitary
17 District discharge. Lastly, I was appointed to the
18 Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Team by the director of the
19 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; this is the only
20 federally listed endangered fish species in the
21 Mississippi River.
22
Section two, justification:
23 As Mr. Callahan testified, ammonia exists in
24 solution in a dynamic equilibrium in two forms,
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
49
1 as ammonium ion, NH4, and as an un-ionized molecule,
2 NH3. Current water quality standards for Illinois
3 are derived from the U.S. Environmental Protection
4 Agency's national criteria document, Ambient Water
5 Quality Criteria for Ammonia, 1984, which was
6 published in 1985 hereafter referred to as the 1985
7 ammonia guidance. The 1985 ammonia guidance was
8 formulated under the so-called joint toxicity
9 theory, which holds that un-ionized ammonia is the
10 more toxic form, but ionized ammonia is also toxic.
11 Further, as pH, temperature or both decrease, the
12 proportion of the toxicity attributable to ionized
13 ammonia will increase due to the effects of
14 temperature and pH on the ammonia equilibrium.
15 Toxicity appears to increase as pH, temperature or
16 both decrease if one considers un-ionized ammonia
17 concentrations, because more ionized ammonia will be
18 found in lower pH and/or lower temperature
19 solutions. Thus, the 1985 ammonia guidance
20 expressed water quality criteria in terms of
21 un-ionized ammonia with corrections for the effects
22 of temperature and pH on ammonia toxicity. It was
23 noted in the 1985 ammonia guidance that the joint
24 toxicity model did not appear to be consistent with
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
50
1 some data sets that were available at that time.
2
In the 1999 ammonia update, USEPA
3 concluded that a definitive, thorough theoretical
4 approach for describing pH effects on ammonia
5 toxicity is lacking. Further, USEPA concluded in
6 the 1999 ammonia update that there is no adequate
7 theoretical basis or scientific understanding for
8 specifying how temperature adjustments to un-ionized
9 ammonia criteria can be made. Rather than trying to
10 make square-peg data fit into the round-hole joint
11 toxicity theory, the 1999 ammonia update took an
12 empirical approach to describe how pH and
13 temperature affect ammonia toxicity. This meant
14 that in the opinion of the USEPA in the 1999 ammonia
15 update, the approach used in the 1985 ammonia
16 guidance was flawed because it was formulated based
17 on the belief in the joint toxicity theory, a belief
18 that seemed to be refuted especially with applied to
19 temperature effects on ammonia toxicity.
20
Application of the 1999 ammonia
21 update to Illinois water quality laws is warranted
22 at this time. The 1999 ammonia update is superior
23 to the 1985 ammonia guidance approach for a number
24 of reasons.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
51
1
First, the 1999 ammonia update
2 recognizes that the effects of temperature on
3 ammonia toxicity are not strongly indicative of
4 joint toxicity. Second, models used to describe
5 the effects of pH on ammonia toxicity use empirical
6 components in recognition of the incomplete
7 knowledge of joint toxicity effects. Third,
8 expressing ammonia toxicity on the basis of total
9 ammonia eliminated the need for a temperature
10 correction for ammonia criterion maximum
11 concentrations. Fourth, using total ammonia to
12 express ammonia toxicity generally resulted in
13 reduced variability among data sets and better fit
14 to existing data sets. Fifth, permit limits are
15 usually expressed in total ammonia so expressing
16 criteria on the basis of total ammonia would
17 eliminate conversions to un-ionized ammonia.
18 Sixth, another water quality criterion that 1999
19 ammonia update believes is necessary to protect
20 aquatic life will be established, wherein the
21 highest four-day average will not be allowed to
22 exceed 2.5 times the chronic criterion. Lastly,
23 the results of more than 40 new scientific studies
24 with a number of additional species were added to
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
52
1 the ammonia toxicity database. Studies representing
2 a broad range of species are necessary for
3 developing adequately protective water quality
4 criteria. More data in general reduces the risk of
5 criteria being overprotective as well as under
6 protective.
7
Section three, proposed changes to
8 Part 302, Subpart B, Section 302.212.
9
Methods for calculating water
10 quality criteria are taken from the 1999 ammonia
11 update. All criteria will be on the basis of total
12 ammonia. The 1999 ammonia update provides two
13 relationships for calculating the criterion maximum
14 concentration, CMC, or acute criterion for ammonia.
15 One equation is used when salmonid fishes are
16 present and the other when they are absent.
17 Since no reproducing salmonid populations are found
18 in Illinois waters that receive NPDES point source
19 discharges, the salmonid fishes absent approach is
20 warranted in Illinois.
21
The 1999 ammonia update provides
22 two relationships for calculating the criterion
23 continuous concentration, CCC, or chronic criterion
24 for ammonia. One relationship is to be used when
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
53
1 early life history stages of fish are present and
2 the other when they are not. The equation used when
3 early life history stages are present results in a
4 more protective water quality criterion, which is
5 necessary to protect fishes during sensitive
6 developmental stages.
7
I complied a list of spawning
8 dates for fish species in Illinois to determine when
9 the early life history stages present water quality
10 criteria should be applied. These spawning dates
11 may be found as IAWA's Exhibit 11.
12
Spawning dates were derived from
13 many sources and based on the best information
14 available. Although spawning dates have been
15 reported for most species, information specific
16 to Illinois is not available for many species, so
17 professional judgment was also used. Primary
18 sources of spawning date information included
19 Fishes of Illinois, Smith 1979, the Fishes of
20 Missouri, Pflieger 1997, and Fishes of Wisconsin,
21 Becker, 1983.
22
I consulted with Dr. Brooks Burr,
23 an ichthyologist at my institution. I also
24 consulted with Mr. Brian Thompson of the U.S.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
54
1 Environmental Protection Agency, Region V.
2 It is my understanding that Mr. Thompson then
3 consulted with a colleague in his office, Mr. Ed
4 Hammer. Mr. Hammer is knowledgeable of fishes in
5 Illinois. To the best of my knowledge, the
6 following rationale for determining periods when
7 early life history stages of fishes are present in
8 Illinois waters is representative of and consistent
9 with the outcome of these consultations.
10
Most Illinois species spawn in the
11 spring and summer seasons so the months of April
12 through August are without doubt within the early
13 life history stages present period. The earliest
14 spawning species in Illinois' inland waters is the
15 harlequin darter, Etheostoma histrio, which is
16 believed to spawn as early as February.
17 The harlequin darter is found in Illinois in the
18 Embarras River between the towns of Charleston and
19 Newton and in the Wabash River between Beall Woods
20 State Park and the town of Rising Sun.
21 It is reasonable that the early life history stages
22 present should be considered to begin in February in
23 these two river reaches to afford protection to the
24 harlequin darter, unless this species proves to be
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
55
1 relatively tolerant to ammonia.
2
Elsewhere in the waters of
3 Illinois, exclusive of Lake Michigan, the earliest
4 spawning species are most probably members of the
5 Esociade, the grass pickerel Esox americanus and
6 the northern pike E. lucius. These two escoids
7 probably typically initiate spawning in most of
8 their Illinois range in March. Consequently,
9 designating March as the beginning of the early
10 life history stages present period in waters where
11 the harlequin darter is not found is warranted.
12
Illinois fish species that spawn
13 as late in the year as September include the sand
14 shiner Notropis ludibundus banded killifish Fundulus
15 diaphanous and mosquitofish Gambusia affinis.
16 However, time should be permitted for the young of
17 these species to grow out of the most sensitive
18 developmental stages so it appears justifiable to
19 extend the early life history stages present period
20 through October.
21
Two species that reportedly spawn
22 in the winter were not used to determine when early
23 life history stages are present for the following
24 reasons. The burbot Lota lota has been found in the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
56
1 Illinois River. It is thought to spawn during the
2 winter, but it is doubtful that this species
3 reproduces in any Illinois waters with the exception
4 of Lake Michigan. The spring cavefish Chologaster
5 agassizi may spawn at various times of the year,
6 including winter, but this species is subterranean
7 and unlikely to be affected by ammonia in
8 discharges.
9
In summary, the early life history
10 stages not present period should be considered to be
11 November through February in most of the state.
12 In waters where the harlequin darter occurs,
13 however, the early life history stages present
14 period should be considered to be November through
15 January unless it can be shown that this species is
16 relatively tolerant to ammonia. The early life
17 history stages not present period could be extended
18 through February in harlequin darter waters if this
19 species is not very sensitive to ammonia.
20
The 1999 ammonia update suggests
21 the use of a third criterion, a four-day average
22 that should not exceed 2.5 times the CCC.
23 I believe that there is justification for this
24 subchronic ammonia criterion. It will afford
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
57
1 an additional level of protection for the state's
2 aquatic biota that is not present in the existing
3 law.
4
Section four, use of the 50th
5 percentile pH to calculate chronic effluent
6 standards.
7
Stephan et al., 1984, defined
8 USEPA's general guidelines for deriving numerical
9 national water quality criteria for the protection
10 of aquatic organisms and their uses. This document
11 established USEPA's intent in regard to water
12 quality criteria development. The 1999 ammonia
13 update is an example of the mechanics of water
14 quality criteria development for a particular
15 toxic-ammonia. According to Stephan et al., quote,
16 the concentration of a pollutant in a body of water
17 can be above the CCC without causing an unacceptable
18 effect if A, the magnitudes and durations of the
19 excursions above the CCC are appropriately limited
20 and B, there are compensating periods of time during
21 which the concentration is below the CCC. The 1999
22 ammonia update approach establishing a subchronic
23 standard effectively accomplishes A above. It
24 limits the magnitudes and durations of excursions
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
58
1 above the CCC. This protection is not present under
2 current law.
3
Since un-ionized ammonia is
4 considered the more toxic form, solutions become
5 more toxic at elevated pH values. This is an
6 important consideration when protecting organisms
7 from lethal concentrations. Thus, a very
8 conservative 75th percentile pH is used to calculate
9 effluent standards to meet acute criteria.
10 However, chronic effects deal with important yet
11 less harmful responses such as effects on growth.
12 The intent of the CCC is to prevent unacceptable
13 chronic effects such as unacceptable effects on
14 growth. By suing the 50th percentile pH, excursions
15 above the CCC will be completely compensated for by
16 periods when pH is below the 50th percentile.
17 Thus, a chronic effect, such as reduced growth will
18 be no worse on average than is considered acceptable
19 based on the CCC.
20
The establishment of the
21 subchronic criterion will provide the level of
22 protection against extended duration and high
23 magnitude excursions above the CCC as described by
24 Stephan, et al., 1984, see A above.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
59
1
The subchronic standard and the
2 protection it provides are not present under the
3 current law. This alone provides a great deal of
4 justification for modification of the current law.
5 The 50th percentile pH will ensure that the CCC is
6 met on average also consistent with the intent of
7 the CCC as described by Stephan, et al., 1984, see B
8 above.
9
Also, the overall approach used
10 in the 1999 ammonia update for chronic ammonia
11 criteria development is superior to that of the 1985
12 ammonia guidance. In the 1985 ammonia guidance,
13 chronic water quality criteria were derived from
14 estimates of chronic effects threshold
15 concentrations or the geometric means of the lower
16 and upper chronic limits, in essence, the highest
17 concentration in a test that did not cause an
18 unacceptable adverse effect and the lowest
19 concentration that caused an unacceptable adverse
20 effect respectively. There is a high degree of
21 statistical and scientific uncertainty in estimates
22 of chronic effects threshold concentrations using
23 this method.
24
In the 1999 ammonia update,
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
60
1 chronic criteria are set by interpolating a single
2 value, the EC20, from a concentration-toxicity
3 relationship developed from an entire data set.
4 Thus, in the 1985 ammonia guidance chronic criteria
5 are determined using only two data points taken from
6 the portion of the concentration-toxicity
7 relationship where statistical error and scientific
8 uncertainty are high. In the 1999 ammonia update,
9 an entire data set that includes values with lower
10 statistical error rates and higher scientific
11 certainty is used to develop chronic criteria.
12
Section five, mussels.
13 USEPA Region V has provided a document with a list
14 of studies examining ammonia toxicity in mussels due
15 to concerns that the 1999 ammonia update did not
16 adequately address this taxonomic group.
17 The vast majority of the referenced studies are not
18 published in the peer review literature and most
19 certainly had not been subjected to USEPA procedures
20 or public comment regarding their suitability for
21 inclusion in databases for water quality criteria
22 development. By my count, 13 works were referenced
23 and only two of those were published in the peer
24 reviewed scientific literature. I am a co-author,
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
61
1 Goudreau, et al, 1993, of one of the two published
2 papers. Because of my familiarity with that work, I
3 was somewhat surprised that the LC50 value we
4 obtained was included in the proposed mussel
5 database without any comment regarding its
6 appropriateness. Our study was cutting edge
7 research at the time, the first study to examine
8 ammonia toxicity in larval glochidia mussels.
9 However, the toxic response we measured, closure of
10 the values, occurred in up to 50 percent of the
11 control glochidia, a problem we described in the
12 paper. According to generally acceptable guidelines
13 for toxicity tests, USEPA 1991, no more than 10
14 percent of control group animals should show the
15 toxic response if a toxicity test is to be
16 considered valid. Some mention of the problem we
17 encountered with control animals should at least
18 have been mentioned and I'm correcting a
19 typographical error in the submitted written
20 testimony, instead of method it should be mentioned.
21
I was also surprised to read in
22 the document provided by Region V USEPA that there
23 were no applicable acute-chronic ratios for
24 sublethal ammonia impacts to freshwater mussels
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
62
1 because we reported both an EC50 and an LC50 value
2 for which an acute-chronic ratio for mussels could
3 have been obtained. It should be mentioned that our
4 Goudreau, et al, 1993, paper was considered in the
5 1999 ammonia update, but it did not affect the
6 outcome of chronic criteria that were developed.
7
Given the lack of both USEPA and
8 public review as well as a lack of peer review by
9 the scientific community for most of the mussel
10 studies provided in the document from Region V, I
11 do not believe that there is compelling evidence
12 regarding the tolerance of mussels to ammonia to
13 justify modification of criteria based on the 1999
14 ammonia update at this time.
15
Section six, summary conclusions.
16 The theoretical framework used to formulate Illinois
17 ammonia water quality criteria was based on USEPA
18 guidelines; USEPA now questions the theoretical
19 basis of that framework.
20
Two, USEPA now proposes that
21 models developed using empirical methods be used
22 to determine water quality criteria; these models
23 are the best available for this purpose at this
24 time and I believe Illinois regulations should be
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
63
1 revised according to the new models proposed by
2 USEPA.
3
The method for calculating chronic
4 criteria that is described in USEPA's latest
5 guidance is superior to the previous method and
6 should be adopted in the state's regulations.
7
Four, I urge that Illinois
8 establish another water quality criterion, the
9 subchronic criterion described in the latest USEPA
10 guidance to more fully protect the organisms in the
11 state's waters.
12
Five, the early life history
13 stages, instead of states, present period used to
14 establish chronic criteria should be considered as
15 March through October in most of the state.
16
In waters where the harlequin
17 darter is found, the early life history stages
18 present period should be considered as February
19 through October unless this species proves to be
20 relatively insensitive to ammonia.
21
Lastly, using the 50th percentile
22 pH for calculating effluent limits to meet chronic
23 ammonia criteria is consistent with current USEPA
24 guidance.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
64
1
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Thank you,
2 Dr. Sheehan. Before we continue, I would like to
3 move -- if no one objects, I would like to admit
4 Dr. Sheehan's testimony as Exhibit No. 3. No
5 objections, then we'll admit that Exhibit 3 and then
6 in the context of his testimony today he referenced
7 Exhibit 11, which is a table of spawning periods for
8 fishes in Illinois, I would like to admit that as a
9 hearing Exhibit No. 4. Does anyone object to that?
10 Okay. Give me just a moment then. Let me just go
11 off the record for two minutes here.
12
(Whereupon, a discussion
13
was had off the record.)
14
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Just to
15 summarize, we have added as Exhibit No. 3
16 Dr. Sheehan's testimony. Exhibit No. 4 is the table
17 one, spawning periods for fishes in Illinois. I
18 would also like to admit at this time if no one
19 objects to the 1999 update for ambient water quality
20 criteria for ammonia from the USEPA referenced in
21 Dr. Sheehan's testimony. Any objections? Okay.
22 That will be Exhibit 5. Additionally, it's been
23 brought to my attention that Exhibit No. 2, the
24 USEPA letter to Mr. Toby Frevert had an attachment
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
65
1 to it so we are going to add that attachment to
2 Exhibit 2 if there's no objection. Okay. I see no
3 objection so that will be added to Exhibit 2.
4 Okay. Dr. Sheehan, I think we're done now with you
5 and we're ready for the next witness. Thank you.
6 We'll get him sworn in, please.
7 (Mr. Zenz was sworn in by the court reporter.)
8
MR. ZENZ: Introduction.
9
MR. HARSCH: State your name.
10
MR. ZENZ: My name is David Zenz.
11 Introduction: The Illinois Association of
12 Wastewater Agencies has presented a proposal to
13 the Illinois Pollution Control Board requesting
14 that the IPCB adopt new water quality standards
15 for ammonia nitrogen in the state of Illinois.
16 The technical content of the petition is based
17 upon the United States Environmental Protection
18 Agency's 1999 update of ambient water quality
19 criteria for ammonia published in final form in the
20 Federal register on December 22nd, 1999. This
21 update was prepared by USEPA after an extensive
22 review of the available literature on ammonia
23 toxicity to aquatic life. In the 1999 update,
24 EPA has issued freshwater aquatic life criteria
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
66
1 for ammonia which supersedes all previous criteria.
2
The IPCB's existing water quality
3 standards for un-ionized and total ammonia nitrogen
4 in Part 302 were issued in 1996. Clearly, the IPCB
5 should carefully consider the IAWA petition since
6 the basis of the IAWA's petition is the USEPA's 1999
7 update. The 1999 update indicates that the states
8 should consider the USEPA's 1999 ambient water
9 quality criteria for ammonia in the development of
10 water quality standards which are protective of
11 aquatic life. Since the 1999 update serves as a
12 guide to the states in developing water quality
13 standards for ammonia, the IAWA petition should be
14 given serious consideration by the IPCB.
15
Focus of my testimony:
16 My testimony will focus on the issue of the
17 capabilities of the wastewater treatment technology
18 to meet ammonia nitrogen National Pollutant
19 Discharge Elimination System permit limits which
20 would ultimately result from IPCB's existing ammonia
21 water quality standards. This issue was considered
22 by the IPCB when it deliberated the existing IPCB
23 water quality standards for ammonia based upon the
24 previous version of the national guidance which has
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
67
1 been superceded by the 1999 updated guidance
2 document for ammonia.
3
Credentials: I have a bachelor
4 of science degree in civil engineering and a master
5 of science and doctor of philosophy degrees in
6 environmental engineering. All these degrees are
7 from the Illinois Institute of Technology.
8
I received my Professional
9 Engineering license in 1972.
10
I was certified through
11 examination by the America Academy of Environmental
12 Engineers as a specialist in wastewater treatment in
13 1986.
14
For 30 years, I was employed in
15 the research and development department of the
16 Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater
17 Chicago. For my entire career at the MWRDGC,
18 I worked in the research and technical services
19 division which is responsible for developing
20 wastewater treatment processes for use by the
21 MWRDGC. I was employed by the district from 1967
22 through 1997 during which the district developed and
23 implemented biological nitrification, ammonia
24 removal, processes to meet IPCB water quality
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
68
1 standards for ammonia.
2
Since leaving the district in
3 1997, I have been employed at Consoer Townsend
4 Envirodyne Engineers, Inc.,(CTE), where I have been
5 working with clients who have been struggling to
6 meet the ammonia water quality standards adopted by
7 the IPCB in R94-1. Most notably, these clients are
8 the Urbana and Champaign Sanitary District and the
9 DeKalb Sanitary District.
10
I have published and/or presented
11 over 70 technical papers on wastewater treatment and
12 biosolids management. Ten of these technical papers
13 deal with biological nitrification. A full listing
14 of these technical papers are contained in the
15 attached resume.
16
I have received a number of
17 awards. Most notably, I have received the
18 President's Award from the Association of
19 Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies and the Sidney Bedell
20 Award from the Water Environment Federation.
21
In 1998, I was named the Alva Todd
22 Professor because of accomplishments as an adjunct
23 professor in the department of environmental
24 engineering at the Illinois Institute of Technology.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
69
1
A complete resume giving the
2 details of my education and experience is attached.
3
Permit limits based upon existing
4 IPCB water quality standards for ammonia nitrogen:
5
The IPCB enacted the existing
6 water quality standards for ammonia in 1996.
7 These water quality standards, Section 302, include
8 numerical values for un-ionized ammonia nitrogen
9 which are converted by the IEPA into site specific
10 NPDES permit limits. Basically, the IEPA uses
11 available receiving stream data on flow, temperature
12 and pH to calculate ammonia nitrogen permit limits
13 for a particular treatment plant. Of course, permit
14 limits are highly variable depending upon the
15 particular receiving stream and treatment plant
16 performance under compliance with existing ammonia
17 standards.
18
Compliance with existing IPCB
19 ammonia water quality standards:
20
It is difficult to say how many
21 plants in Illinois would be unable to meet the
22 existing 1996 IPCB water quality standards for
23 ammonia. In testimony from the IEPA in R94-1,
24 the Agency indicated that a significant number of
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
70
1 wastewater treatment plants would not be able to
2 meet the 1996 IPCB standards. The Agency testified
3 that 19 out of 181 facilities over one MGD capacity
4 were at risk of non-compliance with the IPCB
5 standards. The Agency indicated that they were
6 fairly certain that most of these facilities would
7 have to be at least partially redesigned to meet the
8 standards. The IEPA did not study the impact of the
9 1996 water quality standards for ammonia nitrogen on
10 the over 600 wastewater treatment plants with design
11 flows of less than one MGD. The Agency also did not
12 study the impact upon industrial discharges of
13 ammonia to publicly owned treatment works.
14
There are two municipal agencies
15 in the state of Illinois which are definitely
16 impacted by the existing IPCB ammonia water quality
17 standards for which I have firsthand knowledge.
18 These are the DeKalb Sanitary District and the
19 Urbana and Champaign Sanitary District.
20
The DeKalb Sanitary District
21 wastewater treatment plant processes an annual
22 average flow of about 6.4 MGD. The current NPDES
23 permit for the DSD, DeKalb Sanitary District,
24 requires compliance with the IPCB's 1996 water
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
71
1 quality standards by December 2003. The permit
2 limits which take effect in December 2003 require
3 that the DSD to meet a monthly average ammonia
4 nitrogen concentration of 1.2 milligrams per liter
5 from November through March and 1.3 milligrams per
6 liter from April through October.
7
For the Urbana and Champaign
8 Sanitary District, southwest plant, design flow of
9 5.9 MGD, the IEPA has issued an NPDES permit
10 requiring compliance with IPCB's 1996 water quality
11 standards by November of 2003. This permit has a
12 monthly average limit of 0.7 milligrams per liter
13 of ammonia nitrogen throughout the year. For UCSD's
14 northeast plant, design flow of 17.3 MGD, the IEPA
15 also requires compliance with the 1996 IPCB ammonia
16 water quality criteria by November 2003. The
17 monthly average permit limits are 0.9 milligrams
18 per liter from April through October and one
19 milligram per liter November through March.
20
Ability of biological
21 nitrification systems to achieve effluent ammonia
22 nitrogen concentrations less than 1.5 milligrams per
23 liter:
24
Today, POTWs in Illinois remove
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
72
1 ammonia from effluents before discharge to receive
2 streams using biological nitrification systems.
3 These systems are designed to contain a high
4 population of nitrifying organisms which can convert
5 or oxidize ammonia to nitrate. Unfortunately,
6 biological treatment systems for ammonia removal are
7 notoriously affected by low temperature. During
8 the winter months, sewage temperatures in Illinois
9 can be as low as 45 degrees Farenheit when the
10 reaction rate of nitrifying organisms is relatively
11 low. It is typical for effluent ammonia
12 concentrations to rise during the winter months.
13
The IEPA testified in R92-1, Mr.
14 Studer, November 1994, that biological nitrification
15 is capable of achieving monthly average ammonia
16 concentrations of 1.5 milligrams per liter from
17 April through October and four milligrams per liter
18 from November through March. This prompted the IEPA
19 to request that the IPCB adopt the concept of
20 effluent modified waters for facilities which could
21 not consistently meet the monthly averages of 1.5
22 milligrams per liter, four milligrams per liter.
23 The IPCB enacted the EMW concept advocated by IEPA.
24 This was an attempt to rectify the disparity between
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
73
1 protective water quality standards and the technical
2 feasibility of providing treatment to meet these
3 standards.
4
The United States Environmental
5 Protection Agency, the USEPA, in September of 1993
6 published its latest manual on nitrogen control.
7 The manual discusses the performance of various
8 ammonia removal technologies. In this discussion,
9 the USEPA indicates that there are three levels of
10 biological nitrification possible with so-called
11 mechanical plants using suspended and attached
12 growth technologies. The three levels of treatment
13 are: Stringent, less than 2.5 milligrams per liter
14 of effluent ammonia nitrogen; high, 2.5 to 5.0
15 milligrams of effluent ammonia nitrogen and
16 intermediate, five to ten milligrams per liter of
17 ammonia nitrogen.
18
Pages 68 and 69 of the USEPA
19 manual gives design examples to illustrate the
20 design principles for biological nitrification
21 processes. Stringent effluent limits for one design
22 example are as follows:
23
Ammonia nitrogen, monthly average,
24 two milligrams per liter; weekly average, three
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
74
1 milligrams per liter.
2
Given good operation and adequate
3 capacity, biological nitrification systems whether
4 fixed film, trickling filter, or suspended growth,
5 activated sludge, can produce monthly average
6 ammonia nitrogen concentrations less than 2.5
7 milligrams per liter. Typically, well-operated
8 suspended growth systems with adequate capacity
9 should be able to produce effluent ammonia nitrogen
10 concentrations of 1.5 milligrams per liter.
11 However, fixed film systems typically contain 1.0
12 to 3.0 milligrams per liter of effluent ammonia
13 nitrogen, Metcalf and Eddy, 1991, and do not produce
14 consistent effluent ammonia nitrogen levels of two
15 milligrams per liter, USEPA Process Design Manual
16 for Nitrogen Control, 1992.
17
The inherent variability in
18 performance of biological nitrification systems is
19 well illustrated in the Water Environment Federation
20 Manual of Practice Number 8, Design of Municipal
21 Wastewater Treatment Plants, 1998. The manual
22 discusses the performance of activated sludge
23 systems designed for nitrification. Table 11.45 of
24 the manual contains the following data on
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
75
1 performance of nitrification plants:
2
Annual average, plant A, 2.1
3 milligrams per liter of ammonia nitrogen; plant B,
4 0.7 milligrams per liter; plant C, 1.3 milligrams
5 per liter and plant D, 1.7 milligrams per liter of
6 ammonia nitrogen.
7
The data clearly shows that a
8 suspended growth system can produce average effluent
9 ammonia nitrogen concentrations of 0.7 milligrams
10 per liter but a range of values up of 2.1 milligrams
11 per liter.
12
On page 179 of USEPA's Nitrogen
13 Control Manual the performance of fixed film
14 nitrification systems are discussed. The
15 performance of three plants in the Midwest are
16 highlighted which had effluent ammonia nitrogen
17 levels as follows: Average ammonia nitrogen
18 concentrations, plant A, 2.0 milligrams per liter;
19 plant B, 0.5 milligrams per liter and plant C, 0.2
20 milligrams per liter.
21
Based upon an assessment of the
22 data from the Midwest plants and those from other
23 localities, the USEPA manual concludes that, quote,
24 the results indicate that all plants were achieving
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
76
1 less than two milligrams per liter of ammonia
2 nitrogen 50 percent of the time with four of the
3 plants at less than 2.0 milligrams per liter 90
4 percent of the time. The plants were all operating
5 with conservative ammonia surface loading rates.
6 Both the Urbana/Champaign Sanitary District and the
7 DeKalb Sanitary District employ fixed film
8 nitrification systems to remove ammonia nitrogen.
9 Since both are currently faced with the imposition
10 of monthly average NPDES permit limits from 1.2
11 milligrams per liter to as low as 0.7 milligrams per
12 liter, it appears obvious that the existing 1999
13 IPCB water quality standards are an extremely
14 stringent standard for these two municipalities.
15 Both the UCSD and the DSD are faced with the very
16 real possibility of not being able to meet the
17 IPCB's existing water quality standards with their
18 existing fixed film biological nitrifications
19 systems. Again, this is not an atypical situation
20 given the IEPA testimony in R92-1, which predicted
21 that at least 19 POTWs in Illinois greater than one
22 MGD in capacity would have to undergo redesign
23 because of the IPCB existing standards.
24
Options for meeting the IPCB
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
77
1 standards:
2
For some treatment plants like
3 those of the DeKalb Sanitary District and the
4 Urbana/Champaign Sanitary District, it will be
5 necessary to consider using a physical/chemical
6 process to consistently and reliably reduce ammonia
7 levels to below 1.5 milligrams per liter. Such
8 physical/chemical systems would be employed as an
9 add-on process to remove or polish the relatively
10 small amounts of ammonia remaining after biological
11 nitrification.
12
There is relatively little
13 experience with physical/chemical systems used as
14 the principal ammonia removal system and almost no
15 experience using such systems to polish an effluent
16 from a biological nitrification system. The
17 physical/chemical systems which are potential
18 candidates for removing the small amounts of ammonia
19 from nitrified effluents are one, ammonia stripping;
20 two, ion exchange; three, reverse osmosis and lastly
21 breakpoint chlorination.
22
Ammonia stripping would involve
23 adding lime to elevate the pH of the effluent to
24 10.5 to 11.5 and providing sufficient air to strip
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
78
1 out the ammonia. The high pH allows the ammonia to
2 be easily released from the solution as a gas.
3 This system has little application in the Midwest
4 due to ice formation in the air stripping equipment.
5 Also, the large lime dosages to raise effluent pH,
6 the capital cost of the air stripping equipment and
7 lime scale formation on the air stripping equipment
8 make the process costly and unreliable.
9
Ion exchange involves passing an
10 effluent through an ion-exchange resin.
11 The ammonium ion becomes attached to the resin.
12 Ultimately, the resin becomes saturated with
13 ammonium ion and the resin must be regenerated with
14 a high pH salt solution which removes the ammonium.
15 The regenerant solution contains high levels of
16 ammonia and must be disposed of or treated in some
17 way.
18
The capital costs of the ion
19 exchange system are very high. The system requires
20 significant maintenance and annual chemical costs
21 are high. The biggest difficulty is disposal of the
22 concentrated regenerant.
23
Reverse osmosis appears to offer
24 the potential of a viable method of polishing a
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
79
1 nitrified effluent, but there simple is not enough
2 experience in the use of this method for polishing
3 effluents. The chief concern is excessive plugging
4 and/or contamination of the reverse osmosis
5 membranes and the pumping costs associated with the
6 high pressures needed to force the effluent through
7 the membranes.
8
Breakpoint chlorination involves
9 adding sufficient chlorine to oxidize the ammonia
10 present in the effluent. The ammonia is chiefly
11 converted to nitrogen gas which is released into the
12 atmosphere during the breakpoint reaction. About
13 ten milligrams per liter of chlorine are required to
14 remove one milligram per liter of ammonia from an
15 effluent.
16
The breakpoint chlorination
17 process can be readily adapted to
18 chlorination/dechlorination systems routinely used
19 for disinfection at a municipal plant.
20 The process would require adding higher amounts
21 of chlorine than that required for coliform kills
22 and the resulting higher chlorine residual would
23 require larger amounts of dechlorinating chemicals.
24
The chemical addition equipment of
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
80
1 the existing chlorination/dechlorination system
2 would have to be modified, but the contact chamber
3 for disinfection would not. The contact time for
4 disinfection is about 15 minutes while the
5 breakpoint reaction occurs in 15 seconds.
6
The chief drawback with
7 breakpoint chlorination is the production of higher
8 amounts of triholomethanes than that of a
9 disinfection process.
10
I'd like to depart from my written
11 testimony to give you a piece of information which
12 came about since I prefiled my testimony. As part
13 of my work for the DeKalb Sanitary District,
14 Mr. Mike Zima, who's the executive director of the
15 DeKalb Sanitary District, and I had a conference
16 call with Mr. Al Keller, head of the northern permit
17 section of the Illinois Environmental Protection
18 Agency, and we discussed this option of breakpoint
19 chlorination. To synopsize the conversation, IEPA
20 made it very clear that they would not be inclined
21 to approve breakpoint chlorination for those who
22 wish to use it as a polishing step to remove ammonia
23 in the state of Illinois. He also indicated that he
24 would send us a letter to that affect so I assume
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
81
1 he's quite serious about it. So I just wanted to
2 tell the Board that this is an option, which
3 although indicated in my testimony as being possible
4 really is not possible in Illinois.
5
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Do you have a
6 copy of that letter?
7
MR. ZENZ: I do not have the letter,
8 he has not sent it yet. The conversation was held
9 last Tuesday so...
10
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Would you be
11 willing to give us a copy of the letter when you
12 receive it?
13
MR. ZENZ: Certainly.
14
MR. HARSCH: And those concerns were
15 over the tri --
16
MR. ZENZ: Yes. The main issue for
17 IEPA and, of course, I'm still waiting for the
18 letter to come about, but based on my interpretation
19 of the conversation, the main issue was the last
20 sentence which I stated here with is the
21 triholomethanes would be discharged to the receiving
22 stream. Triholomethanes, of course, do occur with
23 the current system of chlorination/dechlorination
24 used by POTWs for disinfection of their effluents,
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
82
1 but the amounts would be greater using breakpoint
2 chlorination since the chlorine dosages would be
3 greater and, therefore, they felt that that was a
4 serious problem. I think also there were some minor
5 issues they were concerned that there might be the
6 possibility of just amounts of -- significant
7 amounts of chlorine residual hitting the stream and
8 causing perhaps some problems with fish downstream
9 in case of failure of the dechlorination system.
10 Again, this is inherent as part of the disinfection,
11 but again, the dosages of chlorine would be so much
12 larger so if there was a failure of dechlorination
13 there was a greater risk of potential toxicity
14 downstream due to chlorine residual. That would be
15 my interpretation of their reasons for not approving
16 such a system.
17
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Thank you.
18
MR. ZENZ: Effect of the IAWA
19 petition: A comparison of the USEPA's 1999 update
20 ammonia criterion with the existing 1996 IPCB water
21 quality standards reveals that the use of the 1999
22 update criterion to develop ammonia nitrogen permit
23 limits would generally yield higher numerical
24 values. This is especially true for plants whose
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
83
1 downstream receiving waters have high pH.
2 Therefore, the adoption of the IAWA petition would
3 give some relief to those agencies like the DSD and
4 the UCSD who are faced with the very real
5 possibility of spending considerable sums to polish
6 their effluents to levels of ammonia nitrogen less
7 than 1.5 milligrams per liter.
8
Summary and conclusions:
9 Because of the inherent variability of biological
10 nitrification treatment systems, it is not possible
11 for some systems to consistently and reliably
12 achieve monthly average ammonia nitrogen permit
13 limits less than 1.5 milligrams per liter year
14 round.
15
In some cases, existing IPCB water
16 quality standards for un-ionized ammonia have
17 resulted in monthly average effluent limits for
18 ammonia nitrogen lower than 1.5 milligrams per
19 liter.
20
Physical/chemical ammonia removal
21 systems may have to be employed to meet monthly
22 average ammonia nitrogen permit limits of less than
23 1.5 milligrams per liter.
24
There is little experience with
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
84
1 physical/chemical systems used to remove relatively
2 small amounts of ammonia nitrogen from effluents.
3 Some of these systems are relatively costly and/or
4 difficult to operate and/or may have negative
5 environmental impacts.
6
The enactment of the ammonia
7 nitrogen permit limits based upon water quality
8 criteria standards in the IAWA petition will provide
9 some relief to dischargers now faced with meeting
10 monthly average permit -- ammonia nitrogen permit
11 limits of less than 1.5 milligrams per liter. That
12 concludes my testimony.
13
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Thank you,
14 Dr. Zenz.
15
MR. KISSEL: Dr. Zenz, on page seven
16 of your testimony before -- right after you
17 referenced Table 11.45 you didn't finish the
18 sentence and I just wondered -- it says 2.1
19 milligrams per liter can and does occur, you
20 intended to say that?
21
MR. ZENZ: I intended to say that.
22
MR. KISSEL: Thank you.
23
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Thank you, Mr.
24 Kissel. If no one objects, I would like to admit
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
85
1 Dr. Zenz' prefiled testimony as Exhibit 6. Seeing
2 no objections, we will do that and then what I would
3 like to do is hear from the witness, Mr. Bachman and
4 then we will break for lunch after Mr. Bachman's
5 testimony.
6 (Mr. Bachman was sworn in by the court reporter.)
7
MR. BACHMAN: My name is Tim Bachman
8 and I am the director of waste treatment operations
9 for the Urbana & Champaign Sanitary District located
10 in Urbana, Illinois. I have served the district in
11 that position since July of 1979. Prior to that, I
12 was employed by the Illinois EPA's division of water
13 pollution control as a field operations section
14 engineer for nine and one-half years. I have a
15 bachelor of science degree in chemical engineering
16 from the University of Illinois and a master of
17 science degree in environmental engineering also
18 from the University of Illinois. I am a registered
19 professional engineer in the state of Illinois and a
20 Class I certified wastewater treatment works
21 operator. As director of waste treatment operations
22 for the district, I manage, direct and supervise the
23 operation of two advanced wastewater treatment
24 facilities, 17.3 MGD and 5.9 MGD, to obtain
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
86
1 efficient and economical operations and attain
2 compliance with state and federal Environmental
3 Protection Agency water pollution regulations.
4 My testimony will discuss the impact of the current
5 ammonia nitrogen standards and the proposed
6 amendments on the Urbana & Champaign Sanitary
7 District.
8
Background information:
9 The district operates two treatment facilities.
10 The northeast plant is a 17.3 MGD design average
11 flow facility with a flow treatment scheme
12 consisting of preliminary treatment, primary
13 clarification, secondary treatment with a fixed
14 nozzle trickling filter and the activated sludge
15 process, nitrification towers, tertiary filters and
16 a year-around disinfection exemption.
17
The southwest plant is a 5.9 MGD
18 facility consisting of preliminary treatment, no
19 primary clarification, activated sludge with
20 chemical phosphorous removal, nitrification towers,
21 tertiary filters and a year-around disinfection
22 exemption. Both plants also provide excess flow
23 facilities consisting of primary clarification and
24 disinfection.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
87
1
The last major upgrade at each
2 facility occurred between 1978 and 1982 and included
3 the construction of nitrification towers. The
4 towers were originally designed to reduce influent
5 ammonia nitrogen from 15 milligrams per liter to 1.5
6 milligrams per liter during the summer months and
7 4.0 milligrams per liter during the winter months.
8 Historically, the towers have had essentially no
9 problems meeting the original design intentions.
10
Impact of current ammonia nitrogen
11 water quality standards: The Board's current water
12 quality standards enacted in 1996 were incorporated
13 into the district's NPDES permits through the
14 renewal process. The new permits, which became
15 effective November 1st, 2000, included a 36-month
16 compliance schedule in Special Condition No. 16,
17 which acknowledged the possibility of this
18 rulemaking proposal. Attachment one, page 14, of
19 NPDES permit No. IL0031500, is for the district's
20 northeast plant and attachment two, page 13 of NPDES
21 permit No. IL0031526 is for the southwest plant.
22 Interim and final limits if this proposal is not
23 successful are shown in Table 1.
24
For the northeast plant the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
88
1 interim April through October monthly average
2 ammonia is 1.5 milligrams per liter and the final
3 is 0.9 milligrams per liter. For November through
4 March the interim monthly average is 2.4 milligrams
5 per liter and the final is 1.0 milligrams per liter.
6 For April through October the daily maximum interim
7 limit is 3.0 milligrams per liter and the final
8 limit is 3.0 milligrams per liter. For November
9 through March the daily maximum interim limit is
10 4.8 milligrams per liter and the final limit is 4.8
11 milligrams per liter.
12
For the southwest plant, the April
13 through October monthly average interim limit is 1.5
14 milligrams per liter and the final limit is 0.7
15 milligrams per liter. November through March the
16 interim limit is 1.9 for a monthly average and the
17 final limit is 0.7 for the monthly average.
18 The April through October daily maximum interim
19 limit is 3.0 milligrams per liter. The final limit
20 is 2.2 milligrams per liter. The November through
21 March daily maximum interim is 3.8 milligrams per
22 liter and the final is 3.2 milligrams per liter.
23
There's a footnote to that table
24 that says using more recent stream data, these
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
89
1 numbers for the monthly average at the southwest
2 plant actually become 0.6 milligrams per liter for
3 both the April through October and November through
4 March time frames, see attachment three.
5
The low limits are created by a
6 combination of two factors, an extremely high pH,
7 approximately 8.8, in the finished water in the
8 local public water supply and a zero
9 seven-day-ten-year low flows in the receiving
10 streams. Based on data presented in attachments
11 four and five for the southwest plant and
12 discussions with the Illinois EPA, these more
13 stringent limits will require the construction of
14 additional ammonia removal facilities to assure
15 compliance both now and as future growth occurs.
16
Potential relief provided by IAWA
17 proposal: If the IAWA proposal is adopted, the
18 final limits will be as shown in Table two.
19
And here I need to make a
20 correction in my prefiled testimony, this is for the
21 November through February numbers for the monthly
22 average at the northeast plant, the 3.35 number
23 needs to be changed to 2.71, that's 3.35 to 2.71
24 and the southwest plant, the November through
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
90
1 February monthly average needs to be changed from
2 2.60 milligrams per liter to 2.14 milligrams per
3 liter, that's 2.60 to 2.14.
4
The reasons for these changes, we
5 used the wrong equations when we were calculating
6 the numbers and thanks to Mr. Mosher from the
7 Illinois EPA who double checked the calculations,
8 he corrected those numbers for us, so we appreciate
9 that.
10
Reviewing Table 2 then, the
11 northeast plant March through April has a monthly
12 average requirement of 1.23 if this proposal is
13 adopted with a daily maximum of 5.40. November
14 through February, the requirement would be 2.71 with
15 a daily maximum of 6.07.
16
For the southwest plant if the
17 proposal is adopted, the March through October
18 standard would be 0.96 milligrams per liter for the
19 monthly average with a daily maximum of 3.02. The
20 November through February monthly average would be
21 2.14 milligrams per liter with a daily maximum of
22 4.12.
23
By following the USEPA 1999 update
24 of ambient water quality criteria for ammonia,
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
91
1 significant relief occurs particularly in the winter
2 months. Referring again to attachments four and
3 five for the southwest plant, these higher limits
4 appear to indicate that existing facilities are
5 adequate both now and into the future to achieve
6 compliance. Therefore, no additional facilities for
7 ammonia removal would need to be constructed at this
8 time.
9
Long range planning efforts:
10 Since the last major planning effort at the district
11 took place over 20 years ago, the district in 1999
12 began working on a new 20-year plan to address the
13 following issues: One, the immediate need for
14 additional capacity at the southwest plant; two,
15 biosolids handling improvements; three, equipment
16 that was near the end of its useful life; four,
17 compliance with ammonia nitrogen water quality
18 standards and five, additional needs through the
19 year 2019.
20
Consoer Townsend Envirodyne
21 Engineers, Incorporated; CTE, of Chicago were
22 retained as consultants to assist the district in
23 these efforts. A draft of the long range plan was
24 submitted to IEPA for review early in 2001 and one
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
92
1 of the technical issues that has been the subject
2 of ongoing discussions has been how to deal with
3 Special Condition No. 16 of the NPDES permits
4 depending on the outcome of the IAWA proposal.
5
Resolution of Special Condition
6 No. 16: In the long range plan that has been
7 tentatively approved by the Agency, the district
8 is proposing three projects identified as the 2005
9 project, the 2010 project and the 2015 project with
10 the dates reflecting the scheduled completion of
11 each project. The 2005 project includes three
12 phases. Phase I is consolidation of all biosolids
13 handling at the district's northeast plant.
14 Phase II is expansion of the southwest plant and
15 Phase III is construction of a third nitrification
16 tower at the southwest plant to assure compliance
17 with the existing standard for ammonia nitrogen if
18 the proposed IAWA amendments are not adopted by the
19 Board. The estimated cost of Phase III as prepared
20 by CTE is $4,181,000. We believe that an additional
21 tower would also be required possibly in the 2010
22 project at the northeast plant to assure compliance
23 with the existing standard as loading on that plant
24 increases. The estimated cost of the additional
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
93
1 tower at the northeast plant is $7,184,000 based on
2 its relative size compared to the one proposed for
3 the southwest plant. However, if the IAWA proposal
4 is adopted, we do not believe that the third tower
5 will be necessary for most if not all of the 20-year
6 planning period at either plant. The Agency has
7 indicated that they would be receptive to a request
8 to modify the approved facilities plan and drop
9 Phase III from the 2005 project upon Board adoption
10 of the IAWA proposal.
11
UCSD supports IAWA proposal:
12 Since the existing water quality standards do not
13 consider USEPA's 1999 update of ambient water
14 quality criteria for ammonia, the district feels
15 strongly that it should not be required to spend the
16 estimated $11,365,000 to provide additional ammonia
17 removal facilities to meet a lower limit than
18 required based on the most recent scientific data
19 and Federal guidance available. This unneeded
20 additional cost would result in additional debt
21 retirement that the district would have to pass on
22 to its users in the form of increased user charges.
23 We, therefore, urge you to adopt the IAWA proposal.
24
This concludes my prefiled
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
94
1 testimony. I will be supplementing this testimony
2 as needed during the hearing. I would be happy to
3 address any questions.
4
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Thank you,
5 Mr. Bachman. If no one objects, I would like to
6 admit Mr. Bachman's testimony -- prefiled testimony
7 as Exhibit No. 7. Seeing no objections, we will
8 admit it as Exhibit 7. I think this is a good
9 breaking point. What I'd like to do is break for
10 45 minutes. We will resume hearing the testimony
11 then at 1:30 this afternoon here in the room we will
12 start with Mr. Zima and then hear from Mr. Daugherty
13 and then turn it over to the Agency to hear from Mr.
14 Mosher. See you at 1:30.
15
(Whereupon, after a short
16
lunch break was had, the
17
following proceedings
18
were held accordingly.)
19
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: It is 1:33 and
20 we are back from lunch. I would like to call now --
21 Mr. Zima is here it testify. Could we get you sworn
22 in, please?
23 (Mr. Zima was sworn in by the court reporter.)
24
MR. ZIMA: Good afternoon. Thank you
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
95
1 for the opportunity to appear before you. My name
2 is Michael Zima.
3
Introduction: The Illinois
4 Association of Wastewater Agencies has filed a
5 petition before the Illinois Pollution Control
6 Board. In this petition the Illinois Association of
7 Wastewater Agencies has proposed a change to Parts
8 302 and 304 of the existing IPCB water quality
9 standards for ammonia. The IAWA petition has been
10 assigned docket No. R02-19 by the IPCB and public
11 hearings on this petition are in progress.
12
The impetus and genesis for the
13 IAWA petition is the United States Environmental
14 Protection Agency 1999 update of ambient water
15 quality criteria for ammonia which was released in
16 the Federal register on December 22nd, 1999.
17 In the 1999 update, USEPA took note of the fact
18 that additional information has been gathered since
19 it published its ambient water quality for ammonia
20 in 1984. Based upon the additional information,
21 USEPA prepared the 1999 update which contained
22 revised freshwater quality criterion for ammonia.
23 The IAWA petition essentially asks the IPCB to enact
24 into Illinois regulation USEPA's 1999 update of
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
96
1 ambient water quality criteria for ammonia.
2 The USEPA has spent considerable effort in issuing
3 the 1999 update and the states are expected to adopt
4 numeric water quality criterion for ammonia based
5 upon the 1999 update. Protective criteria for
6 ammonia are expected to be adopted in all states no
7 later than 2004.
8
The DeKalb Sanitary District, DSD,
9 was created on July 12th, 1928 and for the past
10 nearly 74 years has provided wastewater collection
11 and treatment and biosolids management for its
12 northern Illinois service area. By 1929, the DSD
13 provided primary and secondary treatment to its
14 entire service area. Since 1929, the DSD has
15 continuously upgraded its treatment facilities.
16 In 1981, the DSD provided second stage biological
17 treatment to remove ammonia nitrogen from its
18 effluent. Also in 1981, tertiary sand filtration
19 was added which greatly reduced the suspended solids
20 and oxygen demand of the DSDs discharge. In 1984,
21 the DSD constructed a new facility to treat excess
22 flows during peak flow periods. Most recently in
23 1997, the DSD added a new single stage activated
24 sludge nitrification, ammonia removal, facility to
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
97
1 handle additional flows from its service area.
2 A new headworks was also constructed in 1997 to
3 upgrade the raw sewage pumping and flow measurement
4 capabilities of the DSD's treatment plant.
5
Since 1981, the DSD has spent
6 nearly 20 million dollars to provide modern
7 wastewater treatment to the nearly 400,000 people in
8 the service area. Today, the DSD provides complete
9 secondary and tertiary treatment and biological
10 nitrification before discharge to the south branch
11 of the Kishwaukee River.
12
The testimony of the DSD before
13 the IPCB will focus on the discharge permit limits
14 which will be imposed upon the DSD based upon IPCB's
15 existing water quality standards for ammonia
16 nitrogen and the economic impact of these
17 regulations. Also, the DSD will discuss the permit
18 limits which would be imposed if the IAWA petition
19 were to be enacted and the impact of such enactment
20 on the DSD.
21
The DSD believes that it is
22 important for the IPCB to understand the economic
23 impact of its existing ammonia nitrogen regulations
24 on publicly owned treatment works and how the IAWA
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
98
1 petition would affect this impact.
2
The IPCB in December 1996, under
3 R94-1(B), adopted the existing state of Illinois
4 ammonia nitrogen and un-ionized ammonia standards.
5 The IPCB 1996 water quality standards were in
6 response to the development of the USEPA's national
7 criteria document for ammonia in 1984. Because of
8 the release of USEPA's 1999 update, it seems
9 entirely logical for the IPCB to consider a
10 significant change in its 1996 water quality
11 standards for ammonia.
12
The USEPA's 1999 update of water
13 quality criteria for ammonia was published only
14 after an extensive review of the scientific
15 literature. Upon releasing the 1999 update, USEPA
16 stated, quote, these criteria reflect the latest
17 scientific knowledge on the effects water pollutants
18 have on the public health and welfare, aquatic life
19 and recreation. The 1999 update contains EPA's most
20 recent freshwater aquatic life criteria for ammonia
21 and supersedes all previous freshwater aquatic life
22 ammonia criteria. The new criteria reflect recent
23 research and data since 1984 and are a revision of
24 several elements in the 1984 criteria, end quote.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
99
1
The DSD believes that the IAWA
2 has made an honest and scientifically defensible
3 adaptation of the 1999 update to fit the situation
4 here in Illinois. The IAWA has had the petition
5 reviewed by the IEPA and they are in concurrence
6 with it.
7
The DSD believes that the IAWA
8 petition should be adopted in its present form.
9 The petition accurately reflects the USEPA's 1999
10 update and, therefore, represents the latest
11 scientific knowledge. We urge the IPCB to enact
12 the IAWA petition.
13
The existing NPDES permit for the
14 DSD was issued on December 12th, 2000. The IEPA
15 issued the permit after finalizing its Part 355
16 procedures for ammonia nitrogen. These IEPA
17 procedure were issued on July 1st, 1999.
18
For the period of December 2000
19 through December 2003 the NPDES permit requires
20 the DSD to meet the following ammonia nitrogen
21 limits: For the months April through October DSD's
22 limits will be as such, monthly average of 1.5 and a
23 daily maximum of 3.0 for November through March
24 period, monthly average of 3.6 and a daily maximum
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
100
1 of 7.2. These limits are the same ammonia nitrogen
2 limits that have been in previous NPDES permits for
3 DSD.
4
Special Condition 16 of DSD's
5 NPDES permit states that by December of 2003, the
6 DSD must meet the following ammonia nitrogen permit
7 limits:
8
For the period April through
9 October the monthly average is going to be 1.3 with
10 a daily maximum of 3.0 for November through March
11 the monthly average will be 1.2 with a daily maximum
12 of 5.1. All of those being milligrams per liter.
13
The December 2003 permit limits
14 are based upon the IPCB water quality standards
15 adopted in 1996 and the Part 355 procedures adopted
16 by the IEPA in 1999. Those NPDES permits which
17 expired after July 1999 contain limits based upon
18 the 1996 IPCB standards and the 1999 IEPA
19 procedures. Those who could not comply with the new
20 limits were given three years to comply.
21 Hence, the DSD now has a December 2003 compliance
22 date in its NPDES permit.
23
Alternatives to meet the December
24 2003 permit limits: In order to meet the December
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
101
1 2003 permit limits for ammonia nitrogen, the DSD is
2 considering a variety of alternatives. The DSD has
3 retained Consoer Townsend Envirodyne Engineers,
4 Inc., CTE, to study and select the most
5 cost-effective alternative or alternatives which can
6 meet the December 2003 limit.
7
Biological nitrification:
8 Almost without exception, POTWs in Illinois remove
9 ammonia from wastewater using biological
10 nitrification. In essence, nitrifying bacteria
11 contained in biological reactors convert the toxic
12 ammonia to non-toxic nitrates before discharge,
13 but the biological nitrification reaction is
14 somewhat difficult to control and it is often not
15 always possible to consistently achieve levels of
16 ammonia nitrogen below 1.5 milligrams per liter.
17
In the IPCB hearing on R94-1(B),
18 the IEPA, through Mr. Dean Studer, November 10th,
19 1994, testified that biological nitrification is
20 capable of consistently achieving a monthly average
21 ammonia nitrogen concentration of 1.5 milligrams per
22 liter from April through October and 4.0 milligrams
23 per liter November through March. It was for this
24 reason that in the R94-1(B), the IPCB decided to
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
102
1 establish the concept of effluent modified waters
2 or EMWs. EMWs are waters downstream from a
3 wastewater treatment plant that, at a minimum, can
4 comply with a summer monthly average of 1.5
5 milligrams per liter from April through October and
6 a winter monthly average of 4.0 milligrams per liter
7 during November through March. EMWs continue
8 downstream of the facility, the distance that it
9 takes for the chronic ammonia standards to be met.
10
The DSD must essentially comply
11 with a monthly average ammonia nitrogen permit limit
12 by December 2003 of 1.2 to 1.3 milligrams per liter
13 year around. The DSD employs biological
14 nitrification and meets its existing NPDES permit
15 limits of 1.5 milligrams per liter April through
16 October and 3.6 milligrams per liter November
17 through March, but the December 2003 limits cannot
18 be consistently met with the biological
19 nitrification systems currently in place.
20
This non-compliance with the 1996
21 IPCB standards using biological nitrification is not
22 atypical. In fact, the IEPA stated in testimony on
23 R94-1 that at least 19 facilities in Illinois were
24 at risk of non-compliance if the 1996 IPCB standards
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
103
1 were adopted. The IEPA indicated in its testimony
2 that most of the 19 facilities will have to be
3 redesigned to meet the proposed standards.
4
Alternatives to reduce ammonia
5 nitrogen in DSD's effluent: DSD's consultant, CTE,
6 is currently considering the following alternatives
7 to reduce effluent ammonia nitrogen in order to
8 comply with its December 2003 permit limits.
9
Option one, ion exchange; option
10 two, breakpoint chlorination; option three,
11 improvements in fixed film bioreactors and option
12 four, automatic dissolved oxygen control for the
13 single stage nitrification system.
14
And I will break from this
15 momentarily and also note that as per discussion
16 last Tuesday with the IEPA, breakpoint chlorination
17 does not appear to be an option which the IEPA would
18 find favorable.
19
Ion exchange: Ion exchange
20 involves passing a liquid through a column or bed of
21 specific natural or synthetic resin and the exchange
22 of one ion for another. Clinoptilolite is the resin
23 of choice for ammonia nitrogen removal. Ammonia
24 nitrogen concentrations of 0.5 to 1.0 milligrams per
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
104
1 liter are possible with this technology.
2
The five-million gallon North
3 Tahoe-Truckee wastewater treatment plant has used
4 ion exchange to treat its discharge to Lake Tahoe
5 since the 1970s.
6
Ion exchange is a workable, but
7 extremely demanding operation. The resin must be
8 frequently acid washed to remove scale formation.
9 About 20 percent of the resin must be replaced per
10 year. The resin regeneration process presents an
11 extremely corrosive environment dictating special
12 safety concerns. The equipment is also difficult
13 to maintain, repair and replace. Operational care
14 is particularly important in terms of preventing
15 ammonia salt crystallization formation which can
16 contaminate the resins.
17
For the DSD, the capital cost for
18 ion exchange treatment plant to reduce ammonia
19 nitrogen levels below 1.5 milligrams per liter would
20 cost approximately 20 million dollars and an annual
21 operating cost could exceed $600,000 per year.
22
Breakpoint chlorination:
23 Breakpoint chlorination involves adding sufficient
24 chlorine to a wastewater to oxidize the ammonia
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
105
1 present. Most of the ammonia nitrogen is converted
2 to nitrogen gas by the reaction with chlorine.
3 It normally takes about ten milligrams per liter of
4 chlorine to remove one milligram per liter of
5 ammonia nitrogen. Dechlorination of the effluent is
6 necessary because of residual chlorine present at
7 the end of the breakpoint reaction.
8
The most obvious advantage of
9 breakpoint chlorination is that it involves
10 technology which is normally present at a POTW.
11 Most POTWs practice chlorination/dechlorination
12 for their effluent disinfection process.
13
For the DSD, its existing
14 chlorination/dechlorination system could be modified
15 to employ breakpoint chlorination. The need for
16 breakpoint chlorination would be present about 50
17 to 100 days per year when about ten milligrams per
18 liter of chlorine would be added on average to
19 reduce ammonia levels in the DSD's effluent.
20 The capital costs for the modification for the DSD's
21 existing chlorination system would exceed about
22 400,000 while the annual operating costs would total
23 about 100,000.
24
The principal disadvantage of
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
106
1 breakpoint chlorination is the formation of
2 chloramines and triholomethanes which are discharged
3 with the effluent. As with any chlorination system,
4 there also are worker safety issues which must be
5 continuously addressed.
6
Improvements in existing fixed
7 film bioreactors: One of the biological
8 nitrification systems now employed by DSD is a fixed
9 film biological reactor system for nitrification.
10 It is possible that a change in the influent system
11 for this biological reactor could result in a
12 greater removal of ammonia nitrogen, but there is
13 no guarantee that such a change will produce a lower
14 effluent ammonia concentration. The changes
15 required in the influent structures involve adding
16 new pumps and a new piping system to distribute
17 influent flow more equally to the individual
18 components of the fixed film reactors. This system
19 would only be used periodically, but could improve
20 the biological nitrifying population present in the
21 reactors. The capital cost would be about $50,000
22 and the operating cost would total more than
23 $10,000.
24
Automatic dissolved oxygen
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
107
1 control: The DSD is using a single stage activated
2 sludge process to treat a portion of its wastewater
3 flow. This biological nitrification system could
4 possibly be improved by the addition of automated
5 dissolved oxygen control. The system would
6 automatically respond to the changes in the oxygen
7 demand of the wastewater and this could possibly
8 improve the nitrifying organism population in the
9 activated sludge process. The capital costs for the
10 system would be about $50,000 and the annual
11 operating cost would exceed $40,000.
12
Screening of alternatives:
13 The DSD's study of ammonia reduction alternatives
14 continues and a final decision has not been reached
15 as to which alternatives will be selected for
16 implementation. The IPCB should bear in mind that
17 the costs presented here are preliminary and are
18 subject to revision as a study of alternatives
19 continues. However, the costs are sufficiently
20 accurate to give a reasonable approximation of the
21 final costs that could be incurred by DSD.
22
It seems probable that DSD will
23 ultimately decide to implement more than one of the
24 four alternatives presented here. Therefore, the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
108
1 IPCB should not think that the cost of any single
2 alternative represents the DSD's cost of complying
3 with the 1996 IPCB regulations.
4
Impact of the IAWA petition:
5 The IAWA petition would result in the following
6 effluent permit limits for the DSD: For the season
7 March through October the monthly average would be
8 1.5 milligrams per liter and a daily max would be
9 6.7 milligrams per liter. November through
10 February, there's a correction here, we had 4.0 in
11 there, the appropriate number is 3.1 for the monthly
12 average, November through February. The daily max
13 for November through February would be 6.7.
14
Obviously, the IEPA would make the
15 final decision as to the permit limits for the DSD.
16 However, the above permit limits are based upon the
17 stream, south branch of the Kishwaukee, data used by
18 the IEPA to determine the ammonia limits in DSD's
19 existing NPDES permit. Therefore, these above
20 permit limits are a reasonable prediction.
21
As can be seen, these permit
22 limits are very similar to the permit limits now
23 in effect for DSD's treatment plant. The DSD can
24 meet these permit limits with its existing
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
109
1 biological nitrification systems and would not incur
2 the capital and operating costs outlined above for
3 the four ammonia nitrogen alternatives currently
4 being considered by DSD.
5
Summary and recommendations:
6 The DSD believes that the IAWA petition represents a
7 sensible and scientifically based adaption to the
8 state of Illinois of the USEPA's 1999 update of
9 ambient water quality criteria for ammonia.
10 This update represents USEPA's assessment of
11 credible scientific data on the aquatic life
12 toxicity of ammonia. The DSD recommends that the
13 IPCB enact the IAWA petition so that the most
14 scientifically defensible water quality standards
15 can be used to protect aquatic life in the state of
16 Illinois.
17
The DSD could potentially spend
18 more than 20 million dollars in capital costs and
19 more than 750,000 in annual operating costs to meet
20 the existing IPCB standards for ammonia as finalized
21 in R94-1. If the IAWA petition is enacted, DSD
22 would not be required to expend these funds. The
23 significant installation and annual operating costs
24 associated with the various ammonia reduction
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
110
1 options are by no means inconsequential for the
2 DeKalb Sanitary District or its service population
3 especially in light of the USEPA's 1999 update of
4 water quality criteria for ammonia and the
5 subsequent IAWA petition.
6
We are hopeful that the foregoing
7 is of some value to the IPCB's decision process
8 regarding this matter. Again, the DSD recommends
9 the IPCB enact the IAWA petition.
10
MR. HARSCH: A point of clarification,
11 in your prefiled testimony you referred to 40,000
12 and I think when you read it you referred to
13 400,000, page two. What is the service area
14 population?
15
MR. ZIMA: Forty thousand.
16
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Thank you,
17 Mr. Zima. If no one objects, I will admit Mr.
18 Zima's prefiled testimony as Exhibit No. 8. Seeing
19 no objection, I will admit it as Exhibit 8. We're
20 ready for Mr. Daugherty.
21 (Mr. Daugherty was sworn in by the court reporter.)
22
MR. DAUGHERTY: Good afternoon.
23 My name is James Daugherty. I'm employed as the
24 district manager by the Thorn Creek Basin Sanitary
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
111
1 District. The district serves 100,000 people in six
2 communities located in southern Cook and
3 northeastern Will counties, Illinois.
4 The district's wastewater treatment facility
5 provides tertiary treatment and discharges to Thorn
6 Creek, a tributary of the Little Calumet River.
7
The Thorn Creek Plant has been
8 producing a nitrified effluent since May of 1977
9 when a plant addition went on line. I have been the
10 certified operator of the facility since November of
11 1976, holding an Illinois Environmental Protection
12 Agency Class I wastewater treatment plant operators
13 license.
14
I have been employed by the Thorn
15 Creek Basin Sanitary District since 1973. My
16 educational background includes a bachelor's and
17 master's degree in environmental engineering from
18 the University of Illinois.
19
I failed to note in my prefiled
20 testimony that I'm also a licensed professional
21 engineer in the state of Illinois.
22
I have authored many technical
23 papers and presentations. Two of the papers are
24 especially relevant here. I presented a paper
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
112
1 titled Fundamentals of Nitrification in Activated
2 Sludge at the 1986 conference of the Illinois
3 Association of Water Pollution Control Operators.
4 In 1987, I authored a paper for the Illinois
5 Association of Sanitary Districts on development of
6 effluent ammonia limits for plants discharging to
7 low flow streams. I am a member of and have held
8 offices in many professional organizations.
9
My professional involvement with
10 ammonia toxicity and ammonia water quality standards
11 coincides with the state of Illinois' efforts to
12 limit ammonia discharges. In 1972, I was studying
13 under Dr. John Pheffer at the University of Illinois
14 while he was actively involved with the state in the
15 development of the first ammonia water quality
16 standards. My research was directed by Dr. Pheffer
17 and involved evaluating the environmental impacts of
18 a new de-icing compounds that consisted primarily of
19 organic nitrogen compounds. My research evaluated
20 the toxicity of that de-icing compound to the
21 aquatic environment. The results demonstrated that
22 the primary toxic component was ammonia present in
23 the de-icing compound as well as that produced
24 during decomposition of the organic nitrogen
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
113
1 compounds. My research included review of the
2 literature on ammonia toxicity, the same literature
3 being used at that time by the state to propose the
4 first ammonia toxicity standard. When I started
5 with the Thorn Creek Basin Sanitary District in
6 1973, the district was conducting pilot studies of
7 two processes for nitrification. I was involved in
8 the review of that pilot work and the recommendation
9 to install activated sludge for nitrification. That
10 process was designed, constructed and went on line
11 in 1977.
12
In addition to my experience
13 operating a nitrification system for 25 years,
14 I also have been involved in regulatory proceedings
15 before the Board concerning ammonia for many years.
16 I testified on behalf of the Illinois Association of
17 Sanitary Districts in the proceeding R88-22,
18 commonly known as the winter ammonia effluent
19 exception. My testimony documented the limits of
20 biological treatment systems to achieve ammonia
21 removals. The data I presented demonstrated that a
22 minimum winter effluent limit of 4.0 milligrams per
23 liter was consistent with the performance of
24 nitrification technology.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
114
1
I was also active before the Board
2 concerning ammonia effluent and water quality
3 standards in the matter of R94-1, which was the
4 prior rulemaking before the Board for ammonia water
5 quality standards. Again, I presented testimony and
6 comments on behalf of the Illinois Association of
7 Wastewater Agencies. On six different occasions, I
8 presented either testimony or comments before the
9 Board. Part of those comments included suggested
10 amendments to the Agency's proposal which were
11 eventually accepted by the Agency and adopted by the
12 Board.
13
I welcome this opportunity to
14 again provide information to the Board as it
15 deliberates ammonia water quality standards. I am
16 here on behalf of, not only my own district, but
17 also to represent the Illinois Association of
18 Wastewater Agencies.
19
Review of current limits:
20 The Illinois Association of Wastewater Agencies
21 supported the current ammonia nitrogen standards as
22 they were being deliberated by the Board under
23 R94-1. IAWA did support those standards as
24 appropriate for adoption based on the fact that they
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
115
1 represented the best peer reviewed understanding of
2 ammonia toxicity available at the time and that the
3 proposal contained floor effluent limits of 1.5
4 milligrams per liter, summer, and 4.0 milligrams per
5 liter, winter. R94-1 was supported even though the
6 understanding of ammonia toxicity was incomplete.
7 First, the proposed mechanism for ammonia toxicity
8 did not fit all of the data. Secondly, the
9 relatively small amount of cold temperature chronic
10 test data further limited the deviations of accurate
11 limits. This position was stated repeatedly by IAWA
12 before the Board.
13
For example, quoting from
14 Daugherty, June 14th, 1996, page four, the chronic
15 toxicity database is seriously incomplete.
16 The Agency was unable to find sufficient data to
17 directly calculate a chronic standard for either the
18 summer or winter period. Instead, they were forced
19 to use an acute/chronic ratio. The acute/chronic
20 ratio was developed using data reflective of summer
21 conditions; however, the ratio was also applied to
22 the winter acute data to calculate the proposed
23 winter chronic standard. The number one
24 recommendation in IAWA's first comments and repeated
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
116
1 in subsequent comments was that every effort should
2 be made to produce additional chronic data --
3 chronic toxicity data so that a more accurate
4 chronic standard could be adopted in the future, end
5 of quote.
6
In spite of the data limitations,
7 IAWA supported revision of the ammonia standards as
8 presented in R94-1 as the previous standards were
9 based on much older information.
10
IAWA no longer supports the
11 current ammonia standards for two reasons.
12 First, the regulations have not been implemented
13 as expected when the proposal was presented to the
14 Board. The effluent modified water provision, the
15 key to the effluent floor limits has not been
16 implemented for reasons discussed below. Secondly,
17 the 1999 update of ambient water quality criteria
18 for ammonia contains the most recent peer reviewed
19 science and demonstrates that the assumed mechanism
20 for ammonia toxicity in the current regulations is
21 incorrect as well as the limits themselves.
22
IAWA understands its key role
23 before the Board in presenting information on
24 treatment technology and current practice. Our
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
117
1 members are in a better position than anyone else to
2 document treatment system performance and treatment
3 system construction, operating and maintenance
4 costs. We provided information on nitrification
5 system performance to both the Agency and the Board
6 in R94-1. Our information and the analysis of that
7 information made it clear that compliance with the
8 current ammonia water quality standards would
9 produce effluent limits below the capabilities of
10 best available treatment technology. Best available
11 treatment technology for ammonia currently consists
12 of biological nitrification. The Agency accepted
13 our analysis and agreed that reasonable treatability
14 limits were 1.5 milligrams per liter in the summer
15 and 4.0 milligrams per liter in the winter. Since
16 compliance with the water quality standard contained
17 in R94-1 would produce effluent limits below those
18 values in low flow streams, the Agency developed the
19 concept of effluent modified waters. The effluent
20 modified water concept was based on the Agency's
21 field experience, which showed repeatedly that there
22 were no indications of ammonia toxicity in low flow
23 streams downstream of facilities that were operating
24 with permit limits of 1.5 milligrams per liter in
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
118
1 the summer and 4.0 milligrams per liter in the
2 winter.
3
For example, quoting testimony of
4 Robert G. Mosher in R94-1 at page 17.
5
However, in its many years of
6 conducting facility related stream surveys, the
7 Agency is unaware of ammonia related toxicity
8 problems causing a measurable impact in streams
9 receiving effluents from nitrifying treatment plants
10 meeting 1.5 and 4.0 limits, end of quote.
11
IAWA understood the effluent
12 modified water provision to be a widely available
13 exception for stream segments below facilities that
14 were discharging with permit limits of 1.5/4.0
15 milligrams per liter. The Agency's testimony before
16 the Board is consistent with that interpretation.
17 IAWA repeatedly expressed that understanding in
18 comments and testimony before the Board.
19
Two examples are, quoting from
20 Daugherty, February 23rd, 1997, at page two.
21
In previous testimony, IAWA has
22 raised a number of implementation issues, which will
23 not be repeated here. The most important concept
24 affirmed by the Agency's proposal in IAWA's view is
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
119
1 the treatability level being defined at 1.5
2 milligrams per liter ammonia nitrogen, summer, and
3 4.0 milligrams per liter, winter. The treatability
4 levels are instituted in the Agency's proposal
5 through an effluent modified waters designation.
6
The second quote, Daugherty, June
7 14th, 1996, at page three.
8
IAWA urges adoption of the
9 effluent modified water as proposed by the Agency,
10 amended by IAWA and approved by the USEPA. IAWA has
11 testified that effluent modified waters as proposed
12 and amended by IAWA will result in technologically
13 realistic limits for nitrifying facilities.
14 The structure of EMW was worked out through repeated
15 input from IAWA, the Agency and the USEPA. EMW has
16 been designed to protect the aquatic environment,
17 comply with the Clean Water Act and meet the needs
18 of the wastewater agencies, end of quote.
19
Following the Board's adoption of
20 R94-1 was the implementation of EMWs. The change
21 of interpretation of EMW was forced on the Agency
22 by USEPA after a threatened lawsuit if they, USEPA,
23 approved the Board's standards. The implementation
24 of the EMW provision was changed from a
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
120
1 straightforward exception process to a process that
2 now parallels what would be required to obtain an
3 adjusted standard for a stream segment.
4 The requirements for obtaining an effluent modified
5 water determination are delineated in Section
6 355.301 of the Agency's implementation rule which
7 states as follows:
8
The criteria for designation of an
9 EMW includes two specific provisions: The water
10 body must have the potential to exceed the chronic
11 standard due to a permitted discharge and the
12 elevated chronic ammonia nitrogen concentration will
13 not adversely impact designated uses of the affected
14 stretch of the water body. EMW status shall be
15 designated in the receiving water body if: A,
16 aquatic life is expected to exist in the receiving
17 waters is known to be tolerant of the projected
18 ammonia nitrogen concentrations resulting from the
19 treatment plant effluent in conjunction with the
20 ambient water conditions. The determination of the
21 aquatic community expected to inhabit the receiving
22 waters shall be consistent with stream morphology,
23 primarily physical features and hydrologic regimes
24 of the water body; B, the receiving stream does not
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
121
1 exceed the acute water quality standard for 35
2 Illinois Administrative Code 302.212(b) and; C, the
3 discharger demonstrates a reasonable potential to
4 exceed the chronic ammonia nitrogen standard
5 pursuant to Subpart B of this part.
6
Paragraph (a) of this provision is
7 interpreted as requiring a very detailed analysis of
8 the stream and its aquatic life. The discharger is
9 expected to prove that the higher the ammonia
10 concentrations allowed by the EMW status will not
11 cause any impact on expected aquatic life. This
12 analysis is basically the same as that used in
13 establishing a water quality standard. Putting it
14 another way, this language requires the discharger
15 to prove that the existing water quality standard is
16 incorrect. This interpretation, along with the 1999
17 USEPA ammonia guidance document, made it obvious to
18 the wastewater community that it made more sense to
19 revise the ammonia regulations statewide than to do
20 it on a stream segment by stream segment basis under
21 the EMW process. To my knowledge, no one has ever
22 attempted to obtain an effluent modified water
23 designation since the promulgation of Part 355 by
24 the Agency.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
122
1
Support for R02-19: During my
2 many years of participation in the development of
3 ammonia control regulations, I have always stated
4 support for adoption of water quality standards.
5 Ammonia is a known toxicant in the aquatic
6 environment. I have also stressed the critical
7 importance of using the best available science as
8 the basis for the standards. By best available
9 science, I mean the latest ammonia toxicological
10 research that has been through a peer review, public
11 review and comment.
12
I have studied the 1999 update of
13 ambient water quality criteria for ammonia as
14 published by the United States Environmental
15 Protection Agency. I believe the proposal presented
16 by the IAWA under this proceeding is an appropriate
17 implementation of the criteria present in that
18 document. Our proposal is a straightforward
19 application of best available science.
20
I would like to make several
21 points relative to that document. First of all,
22 the document presents ammonia criteria for both warm
23 water and cold water fish species. I believe the
24 Illinois limits should be based solely on the warm
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
123
1 water species. There are no indigenous salmonids in
2 Illinois outside of Lake Michigan. Secondly,
3 it's important to understand that the chronic
4 toxicity values contained in the proposal are 30-day
5 average limits. To date, all chronic limits have
6 been applied as a four-day average limitation.
7 IAWA's proposal is unique in that it proposes three
8 levels of protection; acute, subchronic and chronic
9 levels of protection. This approach allows the
10 chronic limit to be developed to more truly
11 represent long-term exposure of ammonia toxicity
12 impact. A 30-day chronic limit also is more
13 convenient when deriving monthly average NPDES
14 permit limits. With a 30-day chronic limit, it is
15 most appropriate that effluent limits be derived
16 from stream flow, pH and temperature values
17 representing long-term averages. The appropriate pH
18 and temperature would be the 50th percentile values.
19 The proposal is also innovative in that it contains
20 subchronic limits as a more convenient tool for
21 monitoring and enforcement of stream standards.
22
The proposed standard is unique in
23 its recognition of the increased sensitivity of
24 early life stages to ammonia. The proposed winter
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
124
1 standard allows higher concentrations of ammonia
2 since early life stages are absent. In the past
3 regulations, March has been included in the winter
4 period. While it is true that almost no early life
5 stages are present during March in most of the
6 state, IAWA agreed to move March from the winter
7 period to the summer period to eliminate the need
8 for site-specific evaluation of the possible
9 presence of early life stages in March.
10
I believe that the 1999 update of
11 ambient water quality criteria for ammonia
12 represents a significant step forward in the
13 understanding of ammonia toxicity. IAWA's proposal
14 is a straightforward application of the criteria
15 document. It is free of the exceptions, exemptions
16 and special provisions that plaqued previous ammonia
17 standards. Based on my knowledge of Illinois
18 streams, the proposed standards will result in
19 effluent limits that are within the capabilities of
20 current nitrification technologies in most cases.
21 If there are cases where effluent limits are
22 unachievable, those dischargers would still have
23 recourse to the site-specific ammonia standard
24 proceeding.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
125
1
I'd like to inject a couple
2 comments not in prefiled testimony. I think it's
3 significant that this is the first ammonia
4 regulation in Illinois that has not contained
5 limiting provisions due to technological
6 limitations. As Mr. Kissel mentioned, the 30-year
7 period that we've had water quality regulation, all
8 of those past regulations have been modified in one
9 way or another due to the limits of treatment
10 technology. This proposal is absent of any of those
11 kind of provisions. That's very significant. It's
12 even more significant when you consider the fact
13 that this proposal is coming from the dischargers in
14 the state of Illinois.
15
I urge the Board to adopt IAWA's
16 proposed ammonia standard. I am grateful to the
17 Board for this public forum to provide for the open
18 discussion of new standards. Thank you for
19 considering my comments.
20
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Thank you,
21 Mr. Daugherty. Mr. Kissel, did IAWA have anything
22 else it would like to offer in support of its
23 proposal today?
24
MR. KISSEL: No.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
126
1
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Okay. What
2 I'd like to do now is go to the testimony of Robert
3 Mosher from the IEPA. After we hear from Mr. Mosher,
4 the floor will be open for questions of both the
5 IAWA and Mr. Mosher.
6
MR. KISSEL: I said we didn't have
7 anything to offer at this time, but in case
8 something develops, we may want to add to the record
9 as the proceeding continues.
10
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: That's fine.
11 Thank you, Mr. Kissel. Mr. Mosher, are you ready
12 to begin?
13
MR. MOSHER: Yes.
14 (Mr. Mosher was sworn in by the court reporter.)
15
MR. MOSHER: My name is Robert Mosher
16 and I am currently acting manager of the water
17 quality standards section in the division of water
18 pollution control at the Illinois Environmental
19 Protection Agency. I have been with the Illinois
20 EPA in excess of 16 years. Almost all of that time
21 has been spent in my current capacity where my
22 primary responsibility is the development and
23 implementation of water quality standards.
24
I have a master's degree in
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
127
1 zoology from Eastern Illinois University where I
2 specialized in stream ecology. I submitted prefiled
3 testimony in this proceeding for the Board's review
4 in support of IAWA's proposal. I would like to
5 summarize that testimony for you now.
6
As part of my duties with the
7 Agency, I served on the committee led by the United
8 States Environmental Protection Agency in the
9 development of its new ammonia criteria which was
10 finalized in 1999. Along with other Illinois EPA
11 staff members, I was also consulted by IAWA during
12 the course of development of these regulations.
13 Face-to-face meetings and telephone conferences were
14 held with IAWA and Illinois EPA offered comments on
15 several occasions to drafts of these proposed rules.
16 Those comments have been largely incorporated into
17 the proposal you see before you today. The Illinois
18 EPA also forwarded IAWA's proposal to USEPA Region V
19 for its review prior to submittal to the Board.
20 Our review of the final version submitted to the
21 Board on January 17th, 2002, finds that it
22 substantially follows the 1999 national criteria
23 document. Illinois EPA believes that the NCD and
24 this proposal represent the state-of-the-art in
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
128
1 ammonia water quality standards.
2
In addition to discussing the
3 proposal for amending the ammonia water quality
4 standard, Illinois EPA also held some discussions
5 with IAWA about the types of changes that would be
6 necessary to make the Illinois EPA's implementation
7 rules found in 35 Illinois Administrative Code Part
8 355 if the Board's ammonia nitrogen regulations are
9 amended as provided in IAWA's proposal.
10 A rough draft was provided to IAWA of how I felt
11 Part 355 would have to be amended if the Board were
12 to adopt the draft of IAWA's proposal that was under
13 discussion at that time and that document was
14 submitted to the Board by IAWA as an attachment to
15 its regulatory proposal for informational purposes.
16 Some changes have been made to IAWA's proposal since
17 this draft was made and those changes as well as any
18 other changes the Board makes to IAWA's proposal
19 would have to be taken into account in developing
20 final amendments to the Illinois EPA's existing Part
21 355. Until the Board adopts a change to the current
22 ammonia rules, the Illinois EPA can only speculate
23 on exactly what changes may or may not be necessary
24 to its current rules to implement such a change, but
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
129
1 it is the Illinois EPA's intention to modify its
2 permitting procedures for ammonia nitrogen contained
3 in Part 355 to conform with whatever rules the Board
4 adopts in this proceeding in an expeditious manner.
5
A vital component of USEPA's new
6 NCD for ammonia is the protection of early life
7 stages of aquatic life. In order to do this,
8 stricter water quality standards are recommended
9 when those life stages are present. The IAWA
10 proposal also recognizes the importance of this goal
11 by setting the summer season conservatively, March
12 through October, in order to protect the vast
13 majority of Illinois species. Where species exist
14 that would have early life stages present during the
15 November through February period, the new
16 regulations would allow the Illinois EPA to apply
17 protective standards at other times.
18
Based on IAWA's incorporation of
19 Illinois EPA comments and adherences to the federal
20 criteria in development of its proposal, the
21 Illinois EPA is generally in support of this
22 rulemaking. My prefiled testimony contained minor
23 clarifications of IAWA's statement of reasons as
24 well as some suggestions for corrections or
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
130
1 clarifications to the proposed regulatory language
2 itself. I will not repeat those in detail today,
3 but I will summarize these comments.
4
My testimony attempted to clarify
5 that although the Board's current ammonia nitrogen
6 water quality standards were based on USEPA's 1984
7 national criteria document, ambient water quality
8 criteria for ammonia, the Illinois EPA's 1996
9 proposal to the Board relied on an approach that
10 differed significantly from that in the 1984 NCD.
11 We did not propose the use of a formula as did the
12 NCD but rather had simple winter and summer numeric
13 values as the standards. We also added new toxicity
14 studies to the existing database which is as USEPA
15 did in developing its 1999 NCD.
16
In my prefiled testimony, I also
17 suggested some minor changes to the regulatory
18 proposal, including changing the STORET number in
19 302.212 (b) to reflect the number for total ammonia
20 nitrogen instead of the number for un-ionized
21 ammonia; changing the word exceedance in Section
22 302.212 (b) to attainment to conform to the wording
23 of Subsection 302.212 (c); clarifying in the
24 regulatory language of Section 302.212 (b) that all
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
131
1 equations in this section result in a standard
2 expressed in a concentration of milligrams per
3 liter; changing the word determined to evaluated in
4 Sections 302.212 (c) two and three to clarify that
5 Subsection (d) is used to evaluate attainment of the
6 standards whereas Subsection (b) determines the
7 value of the standards; changing the phrase quote,
8 at any particular time, unquote, in Section 302.212
9 (d) to quote, measured at the time of each ammonia
10 sample, unquote, in order to clarify that ammonia,
11 pH and temperature measurements must be taken
12 simultaneously in order to determine attainment of
13 the water quality standard. The Illinois EPA also
14 suggested a rewording of the second sentence of
15 Section 302.212 (e) for clarity and a few other
16 minor non-substantive changes. I would also like to
17 note for the record that Appendix C containing
18 sample total ammonia water quality standards for
19 various temperatures and pH combinations was missing
20 from IAWA's proposal to the Board.
21
Although we have pointed out
22 several areas for clarification or minor changes to
23 IAWA's proposal and supporting documentation, the
24 Illinois EPA is in agreement with this rulemaking
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
132
1 proposal and finds it to be consistent with the
2 federal ammonia criteria.
3
This concludes the summary of my
4 prefiled testimony. I will be happy to address any
5 questions during the hearing regarding these
6 comments and other issues involving the Illinois
7 EPA's role in administering ammonia standards.
8
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Thank you,
9 Mr. Mosher. I would like to admit your prefiled
10 testimony as Exhibit 9 if nobody objects.
11 Ms. Williams, do you have an extra copy of
12 Mr. Mosher's testimony?
13
MS. WILLIAMS: On his prefiled
14 testimony?
15
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Yes.
16
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes.
17
HAERING OFFICER GLENN: Seeing no
18 objection, I'll admit his testimony as Exhibit 9.
19
Okay. At this time we will open
20 -- yes, Mr. Harsch.
21
MR. HARSCH: I'd like to make a
22 statement. We've had the opportunity to review
23 Mr. Mosher's suggested changes and believe that all
24 the suggested changes appear to be acceptable and
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
133
1 its our intent to -- if the hearing officer would
2 prefer -- the Board would prefer to revise our
3 proposal, submit that revised proposal down to the
4 Agency for review of the wording changes in short
5 order and then file that with the Board in the next
6 week or so, well in advance of the next hearing and
7 serve it to the service list.
8
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: That would be
9 most acceptable, yes.
10
Okay. At this time we will open
11 the floor up to questions of both the IAWA. Anyone
12 that testified here today, if you have a question
13 for them, also for Mr. Mosher from the Agency.
14 Again, I would ask if you have questions to please
15 raise your hand, identify yourself, and tell us who
16 you represent, if anyone and the members of the
17 Board or the Board staff may jump in at some point
18 if they have a question stemming from your question
19 or they might have a few of their own, but we'd like
20 to start with the members of the public in
21 attendance this afternoon. Mr. Ettinger, could you
22 identify yourself.
23
MR. ETTINGER: Most of my
24 questions are going to be for Mr. Sheehan, Mr. Zenz,
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
134
1 maybe it would be best if they came closer to the
2 court reporter.
3
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: That would be
4 helpful.
5
MR. ETTINGER: Actually,I don't have a
6 lot of questions for anyone, but I have a few
7 questions first for Mr. Sheehan and then Mr. Zenz
8 and -- doctor, sorry, Dr. Sheehan. I understand.
9 Dr. Sheehan and Dr. Zenz.
10
First of all, on the first page of
11 your testimony you say -- believe that recent
12 information indicates that current ammonia water
13 quality criteria used by Illinois appear to be not
14 protected enough under certain circumstances, they
15 appear to be overly protective under other
16 circumstances. Just in general, can you describe a
17 situation which they're not protective enough?
18
MR. SHEEHAN: Well, I think that one
19 reason why they would be more protective if the
20 proposal goes through is because of essentially
21 three standards versus the two which would kind of
22 cover all the bases in terms of what you would be
23 concerned about for chronic exposures and then as
24 far as overly protective goes, I just based it on
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
135
1 the values -- if the proposal doesn't go through the
2 values that would be permissible as effluent limits
3 versus those that would be permissible if the
4 proposal goes through, that's what I'm referring to
5 as being overly protective.
6
MR. ETTINGER: Is there anywhere in
7 this proposal in terms of the formulas that come out
8 of this proposal in which you would actually wind up
9 with a stricter ammonia standard under the rule than
10 -- under the proposed rule than under the existing
11 rules?
12
MR. SHEEHAN: I have not done those
13 calculations so I don't know.
14
MR. ETTINGER: The existing
15 calculations are sort of complex matters involving a
16 pH and temperature and the new calculations also use
17 pH and temperature, is that correct?
18
MR. SHEEHAN: Yes. Yes.
19
MR. ETTINGER: Okay. I don't
20 understand page three this joint toxicity theory,
21 Mr. Callahan explains it and you explain it and I'll
22 start off by saying that as a chemist I'm an okay
23 anti-trust lawyer, but what is the theory here that
24 it was -- maybe I'll let you take another crack at
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
136
1 it first. Do you think un-ionized is more important
2 now or less important now?
3
MR. SHEEHAN: As far as I understand
4 it and consistent with my own beliefs un-ionized
5 ammonia is still considered and always has been
6 considered the most toxic form of ammonia. Under
7 the joint toxicity theory, ionized ammonia is also
8 toxic but nowhere near as much as un-ionized ammonia
9 on a molecule to molecule basis. So that
10 consequently when you start getting down to low pHs
11 even though there might be a relatively small amount
12 of un-ionized ammonia present that's where you have
13 a lot of ionized ammonia due to the ammonia
14 equilibrium. So low pHs relatively speaking ionized
15 ammonia starts exerting more affects than the total
16 toxicity in solution. High pHs, you've got a
17 greater proportion of un-ionized ammonia, a smaller
18 proportion of ionized ammonia to the point where
19 even though there's a lot of ionized ammonia there
20 it's still not exerting much toxicity because it
21 takes evidently a heck of a lot of ionized ammonia
22 to produce much toxicity. It is a difficult concept
23 to explain without a piece of paper and a graph.
24
MR. ETTINGER: Well, that's all
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
137
1 right, I'll read that later. What do you mean by
2 you say the 1999 ammonia update took an empirical
3 approach as opposed to this joint toxicity theory?
4
MR. SHEEHAN: Basically, they did not
5 try to first propose a hypothesis as to the toxic
6 mechanisms of ammonia solution, they strictly looked
7 at total ammonia, looked at how well that was
8 correlated with toxicity when it was corrected for
9 temperature -- not in all cases were there
10 corrections for temperature and pH, this gets pretty
11 complex too, but basically just made corrections for
12 temperature and pH.
13
MR. ETTINGER: Is temperature still a
14 factor into the 1999 criteria?
15
MR. SHEEHAN: It certainly is because,
16 you know, the values will be different, yeah.
17 The criteria will be different.
18
MR. ETTINGER: And that's because the
19 higher temperature is leading to more un-ionized
20 ammonia in a given amount of --
21
MR. SHEEHAN: Primarily, yes.
22
MR. ETTINGER: As I do understand it,
23 though, the 1999 criteria and this proposal have
24 less of an emphasis on temperature than did the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
138
1 earlier criteria and the current rules, is that
2 correct?
3
MR. SHEEHAN: Well, I'd like to review
4 that, it's a pretty complex issue. I can review
5 that for you and come up with an opinion on that,
6 but there's an awful lot to consider to make a
7 judgment call like that.
8
MR. ETTINGER: Well, let me just ask
9 in general in terms of how these numbers are driven,
10 what is it about this formula that results in looser
11 winter standards than the existing formula?
12
MR. SHEEHAN: I don't know that it is
13 a formula, there's a larger database, number one,
14 that's being utilized and as I said, it's strictly
15 empirically based, it's based on observations.
16
MR. ETTINGER: I guess I didn't state
17 that well. As I understand it what your discharge
18 limit is going to come out as a result of this
19 change or under the old rule or the new rule is
20 based on the pH of the water, the temperature of the
21 water and the dilution, is that basically correct?
22
MR. SHEEHAN: The dilution, that's not
23 what I'm an expert on. That's a discharge effluent
24 question.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
139
1
MR. ETTINGER: So whether you have a
2 one milligram per liter permit or a three milligram
3 per liter in a given case is going to depend on
4 temperature, pH and dilution, is that correct?
5
MR. SHEEHAN: As far as I understand,
6 yes.
7
MR. ETTINGER: Is there somebody else
8 sitting here I should be asking this question of?
9
MR. HARSCH: Bob Mosher. If you're
10 talking about converting the water quality standards
11 to an effluent limitation.
12
MR. ETTINGER: Well, I guess we did
13 see some testimony regarding Dr. Zenz' testimony in
14 which he pointed out that by changing the standards
15 we were going to help a couple of dischargers and we
16 saw in their prefiled testimony how they were going
17 to be helped, Bob do you want to -- am I right or am
18 I wrong? Is there more going on here than
19 pH, temperature and dilution?
20
MR. MOSHER: Okay. To determine the
21 water quality standard from ammonia you need to know
22 the temperature and the pH of the water that you're
23 dealing with, the river or the stream, lake to
24 determine the permit limit that you would apply to a
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
140
1 discharger, of course, you need to know the ammonia
2 water quality standard, the temperature and pH of
3 the receiving water and then there are other factors
4 that can influence what a permit limit would be
5 including dilution or mixing zone, including other
6 regulations that deal with permitting such as the
7 Federal anti-backsliding regulation.
8
MR. ETTINGER: Okay. That's a good
9 distinction and I misspoke. Let's focus on the
10 ambient water quality standard and look at the
11 changes there. What changed here in terms of the
12 ambient water quality standard only has to do then
13 with the pH and the temperature, those are the
14 factors that you're going to be looking at to
15 determine what the ammonia standard will be in a
16 particular water, is that correct?
17
MR. SHEEHAN: I believe for the -- one
18 of the reasons why it's so complicated, for example,
19 there would be three water quality criteria if the
20 proposed approach is used and for one of those the
21 criteria maximum concentrations, I don't believe
22 temperature is a factor, so it's just pH in that
23 case. Now, for the chronic and subchronic standards
24 or criteria both pH and temperature will be factors
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
141
1 and it's largely in part of the -- I think due to a
2 larger database that's being used and the empirical
3 approach that's being used.
4
MR. ETTINGER: I guess what I'm
5 wondering is how did the larger -- the larger
6 database affected the number by changing the number
7 that we should use in our formula for either
8 temperature or pH, didn't it?
9
MR. SHEEHAN: I specifically -- I
10 don't know, but, for example, the database is
11 depending upon, at its simplest, toxicity values
12 were derived from species and then these species
13 values are averaged into values for genera, so, for
14 example, if you had more studies with a given
15 species or more species you could change that
16 toxicity value so that's how changes in database
17 size would affect the outcome of the models that
18 were used to develop the criteria.
19
MR. ETTINGER: You testified 40 new
20 scientific species with a number of additional
21 species were added to the ammonia toxicity database.
22
MR. SHEEHAN: What page is that, I'm
23 not sure that's what I said?
24
MR. ETTINGER: On page five of your
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
142
1 prefiled testimony.
2
MR. SHEEHAN: Forty new scientific
3 studies, not species.
4
MR. ETTINGER: I'm sorry. With an
5 additional -- a number of additional number of
6 species were added to the ammonia toxicity database.
7 I may have misspoke. Do you know of what additional
8 species were added?
9
MR. SHEEHAN: Offhand I couldn't tell
10 you that, no.
11
MR. ETTINGER: Do you know of any one
12 of them that -- the addition of considering them was
13 particularly important to the conclusion?
14
MR. SHEEHAN: Let me think. When I
15 say additional species you have to remember there's
16 several datasets that are being developed like for
17 the criterion maximum concentration for the --
18 for the database used to develop the criterion
19 maximum concentration that's always been fairly
20 large, what we've most added data have been for the
21 chronic toxicity values and I'm trying to think of
22 what species I know of that have been added --
23 studies with walleyes have been added. I'm trying
24 to think. I'm drawing a blank. I'm sorry. I
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
143
1 wasn't really prepared to testify to defend USEPA's,
2 you know, criteria development. That's what they
3 do.
4
MR. ETTINGER: Fine. I was trying to
5 figure out what change that drives the new numbers.
6 Do you know whether -- let's talk about another
7 question.
8
There's some reference here to
9 cold water species versus warm water species, is
10 that a scientific classification that you use as a
11 biologist?
12
MR. SHEEHAN: In general, yes.
13 Fisheries people will refer to cold water species
14 when you're dealing with freshwater anyway typically
15 they're referring to salmonids.
16
MR. ETTINGER: Are those the only cold
17 water species?
18
MR. SHEEHAN: The only cold water
19 species you'd find in the state of Illinois, yes.
20
MR. ETTINGER: How would you feel of,
21 like, a sculpin?
22
MR. SHEEHAN: That's considered a cool
23 water species. I know, these are imprecise terms.
24
MR. ETTINGER: I know they're
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
144
1 imprecise, but they're important in a number of
2 proceedings so if you could just elaborate on, you
3 know, go hot and cold for us and tell us what
4 classifications might be relevant here in terms of
5 looking at water quality standards in the different
6 species that might be present here in Illinois. I
7 gather there's a cold and warm and a kind of cool?
8
MR. SHEEHAN: Uh-huh. I think that's
9 -- well, I divide them into cool and warm and cool,
10 I'm not sure everybody else does, but I think that
11 what's pertinent here is that for the toxicity tests
12 that have been done and you've looked at databases
13 in that sense cold water species have been
14 considered salmonids and that's what's germane to
15 this issue here, not so much what temperatures they
16 like, for example, and cold water species are
17 generally considered to be what we call cold water
18 steno forms (phonetic), in other words, they don't
19 tolerate elevated temperatures, say, above 20C very
20 well, that's what we typically refer to as a cold
21 water species. Sculpins can tolerate temperatures
22 that are above that, that's why they tend to be
23 considered more warm or cool water species.
24
MR. ETTINGER: Do you know whether in
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
145
1 the USEPA study they included cool water species?
2
MR. SHEEHAN: It was not broken down
3 that way as far as I know.
4
MR. ETTINGER: Okay. So we know -- we
5 took the salmonids out of the study in developing
6 these numbers, is that correct?
7
MR. SHEEHAN: EPA developed separate
8 numbers for salmonids.
9
MR. ETTINGER: So then everything else
10 was in the without salmonid category?
11
MR. SHEEHAN: Correct.
12
MR. ETTINGER: And we don't know
13 whether that everything else included cool water
14 species or not?
15
MR. SHEEHAN: Yes, it was inclusive of
16 cool water species because the walleye, the escoids,
17 those are considered cool water species, but they're
18 -- for this application, they're lumped into the
19 non-salmonid species.
20
MR. ETTINGER: You refer to the
21 harlequin darter a few times and it says unless this
22 species proves to be relatively tolerant to ammonia,
23 it's on page seven, I think it's mentioned somewhere
24 else in your testimony. Are you aware of some
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
146
1 ongoing study that's going to prove this?
2
MR. SHEEHAN: No.
3
MR. ETTINGER: Okay. So as of right
4 now you would expect that the -- where discharges to
5 waters where the harlequin darter was present, we
6 would assume that it is sensitive to ammonia?
7
MR. SHEEHAN: That would be a judgment
8 call that's really not in my court, I don't think,
9 but I would think that would be true.
10
MR. ETTINGER: Well, I guess opening
11 the question to proponents generally, how do you
12 anticipate that this would work if we don't have any
13 data now on this harlequin darter, would we assume
14 that it's sensitive to ammonia or not?
15
MR. SHEEHAN: Well, we would -- should
16 I answer? The only way we assume it's insensitive
17 to ammonia would be to have a study to show that.
18 That's my opinion.
19
MR. ETTINGER: Okay. Going now to
20 page ten, it says the 1999 ammonia update chronic
21 criteria are set by interpolating the single value,
22 the EC20, from a concentration toxicity relationship
23 developed from an entire dataset. I'm familiar with
24 the LC50, but the EC20 I haven't heard of. What is
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
147
1 the EC20?
2
MR. SHEEHAN: Well, the LC50 is also
3 an interpolated value from a large dataset. The
4 EC20 is similar, but it's different in that EC's
5 values are derived from tests that measure less --
6 effects that are less harmful than, say, mortality
7 or total incompasitation and if you were to plot,
8 like, the concentration versus response, the LC50
9 would be 50 percent along that distribution whereas
10 the EC50 would only be 20 percent along that
11 distribution.
12
MR. ETTINGER: Does EC stand for
13 effect concentration?
14
MR. SHEEHAN: Yes, it does.
15
MR. ETTINGER: Is this where 20
16 percent of the greater show an effect from the
17 concentration?
18
MR. SHEEHAN: Well, it would actually
19 depend upon the measure you would use. In cases
20 it's where 20 percent show some effect if it's some
21 sort of qualitative effect, it can be, and in many
22 cases it's a 20 percent response, like, a 20 percent
23 change in growth.
24
MR. ETTINGER: I gather you have done
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
148
1 some studies of the effect of ammonia on mussels?
2
MR. SHEEHAN: Uh-huh.
3
MR. ETTINGER: Have you done anything
4 since this early cutting age study?
5
MR. SHEEHAN: Not on mussels, no.
6
MR. ETTINGER: Do you know if any --
7 it says our studying was cutting edge research at
8 the time. Has the research advanced since then?
9
MR. SHEEHAN: Well, based on the
10 general lack of publications on this topic dealing
11 with larval mussels, I would say that it's unknown
12 at this point how well it's advanced. There are
13 some studies out there that, as we indicated in our
14 testimony -- as I indicated, have not been peer
15 reviewed publications yet, so that's hard to assess
16 at this point.
17
MR. ETTINGER: I have a few questions
18 for Dr. Zenz.
19
On page four of your testimony and
20 in Mr. Bachman's -- I forgot if it was doctor or
21 Mr. Bachman's and Zima's testimony there's
22 discussion of the DeKalb Sanitary District and
23 Urbana and Champaign Sanitary District permits.
24 You're actually working on those permits, is that
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
149
1 correct?
2
MR. ZENZ: Well, Consoer Townsend
3 Envirodyne Engineers is a consulting engineering
4 firm and we are currently -- we have contracts with
5 both the DeKalb Sanitary District and Urbana &
6 Champaign Sanitary Districts, yes, and both of those
7 relationships with both of those sanitary districts
8 the issue of permits has come up.
9
MR. ETTINGER: In Mr. Bachman's
10 testimony and the Zima testimony there is data
11 presented as to what the standards would -- what the
12 permit limits would be under the current standards
13 and what the permit limits would be under the new
14 standards. What primarily drives the change?
15
MR. ZENZ: Well, first, you have to
16 understand that the so-called existing standards and
17 their existing permits are permit limits which come
18 from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
19 Okay. I'm trying to make this point. The
20 calculations that were done both by the Urbana &
21 Champaign Sanitary District and DeKalb Sanitary
22 District made some assumptions and if you really
23 look closely at the testimony I think they both
24 indicate that the ultimate permit limits that would
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
150
1 be derived from whatever Board -- assuming the Board
2 were to adopt this petition the way it is there's a
3 lot of factors as Mr. Mosher has said, there's
4 anti-backsliding issues, there's dilution of the
5 stream and so forth. For the DeKalb Sanitary
6 District the numbers that are contained in
7 Mr. Zima's testimony, I know for a fact because we
8 discussed them, those are strictly taking the IAWA
9 petition assuming no dilution whatsoever which is a
10 reasonable assumption because the seven year --
11 seven-day-ten-year low flow is zero for the south
12 branch of the Kishwaukee River, but, again, there
13 may be some anti-backsliding issues associated with
14 those particular numbers. For example, you know,
15 it may very well be those numbers could change
16 because of anti-backsliding, but those numbers are
17 just taking the formula that are in the IAWA
18 petition, looking up the pH and temperature
19 appropriate for the season, winter or summer,
20 taking the 50 percentile pH and 75th percentile
21 temperature to calculate the chronic standard and
22 then for the acute standard as Dr. Sheehan's pointed
23 out only the pH is important for the acute standard,
24 that's the only variable that's part of the acute
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
151
1 standard which is the daily maximum number and
2 taking the 75th percentile for pH, not the 50
3 percentile, 75th percentile, plugging that number in
4 and just coming out with a number. So it just
5 basically assumes that there is no dilution, it
6 neglects any ant-backsliding provision that might
7 come up or any other issues that should come up.
8
MR. ETTINGER: Is the Champaign &
9 Urbana Plant a new plant or is that an old plant?
10
MR. ZENZ: Both plants are existing
11 plants. The one plant, the southwest plant, that
12 has the 0.7 milligrams per liter existing standard
13 in their permit, that plant will be expanded and
14 additional capacity will be provided hopefully by
15 the year 2005. There's talking about construction
16 schedule, Phase I, Phase II, so anyway, that plant
17 will be expanded in 2005.
18
MR. ETTINGER: About how old are the
19 plants now?
20
MR. ZENZ: Well, old is a -- in
21 Illinois old is -- you know, these plants go back --
22 some of the facilities go back to the '20s that are
23 still in operation. The latest, I think,
24 construction at the plant was 1980 and '82.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
152
1
MR. BACHMAN: 1978 to 1980 was the
2 last expansion.
3
MR. ZIMA: Mike Zima, DeKalb Sanitary
4 District, we went through an expansion starting in
5 1996.
6
MR. ETTINGER: You refer on page five
7 it says biological treatment systems for ammonia
8 removal are notoriously affected by low temperature.
9 Is it possible to heat the tanks or cover them so as
10 to avoid the low temperature?
11
MR. ZENZ: It's always possible to do
12 anything, of course, the effluent could be heated,
13 the tanks can be covered, to heat the effluent is
14 extremely expensive, the BTUs to raise even a small
15 plant, five, six, seven, would be huge and the cost
16 would be just prohibited. I know of -- I mean, I'm
17 pretty familiar with municipal wastewater treatment
18 in the United States, I've never heard of that being
19 done or proposed so I just don't think that would be
20 -- it would not be a very cost-effective
21 alternative. It's certainly not an alternative that
22 I have ever looked at or anybody else ever looked
23 at.
24
MR. ETTINGER: And would covering
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
153
1 tanks work in some circumstances?
2
MR. ZENZ: Temperature -- you know,
3 typically at a wastewater treatment plant the sewage
4 comes in at a higher temperature than it goes out
5 because it's exposed to the atmosphere, but
6 typically at wastewater treatment plants the
7 difference in temperature between influent and
8 effluent is usually maybe one degree because the
9 tanks are very deep, not really that much surface
10 area considering the entire volume, so the
11 temperature changes through wastewater treatment
12 systems are relatively insignificant, pretty much
13 almost exactly the same temperature of the sewage
14 coming into the plant and the sewage will be in the
15 plant maybe eight to 15 hours as it travels through
16 the plant and by the time it gets to the effluent
17 maybe a one degree decrease or a one degree rise
18 possibly in the summertime. It goes both ways.
19 Sewage temperatures are generally between 45 degrees
20 Farenheit coldest in the winter and maybe 70 degrees
21 Farenheit warmest in the summer. So it might
22 actually -- on a hot day might increase a little
23 bit, but it's not much.
24
MR. ETTINGER: So basically you're not
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
154
1 losing much --
2
MR. ZENZ: No, this is all --
3
MR. ETTINGER: I've got to finish my
4 question before you answer or else our friend the
5 court reporter doesn't stay our friend.
6
MR. ZENZ: I'm sorry.
7
MR. ETTINGER: Basically, you're not
8 losing much heat in the 12 hours when it's in the
9 plant?
10
MR. ZENZ: No. Most wastewater
11 treatment operations are inground units if you've
12 ever been to a plant you'll see everything is an
13 inground unit so they're naturally insulated so the
14 only temperature loss is through the surface which
15 isn't very grading proportion to the amount of water
16 that's in the tank itself.
17
MR. ETTINGER: I'm done. We have
18 another member of the public that would like to go
19 ahead next.
20
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Please
21 identify yourself for the record.
22
MS. SKRUKRUD: My name is Cindy
23 Skrukrud, my last name is spelled S-k-r-u-k-r-u-d
24 and I just have some questions about -- actually
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
155
1 about the water quality standards proposal, about
2 302 and then some questions about Part 355 that
3 arise from my questions about Part 302. I imagine
4 Mr. Mosher's the best person to answer these
5 questions, but I'll leave it open to you.
6
My first question is about in
7 Section 302.212, Part D, I believe Mr. Mosher
8 testified that he clarified that this section is the
9 section designed to evaluate the attainment of the
10 water quality standard and I wondered if you could
11 elaborate more on that, how it would be implemented
12 and then where in Part 355 can we understand how
13 this section is going to be implemented.
14
MR. MOSHER: Well, this part is
15 constructed because when you wish to assess
16 attainment of the chronic water quality standard
17 or the subchronic water quality standard in this new
18 format that's now proposed it means that you have to
19 go to the water body and take several samples and
20 each of those samples is likely to have a different
21 pH and temperature. So if I take a sample on
22 Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, the
23 proposed Board standard say it's an average of the
24 total ammonia concentration with the pH and
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
156
1 temperature factored in. So given that those pHs
2 and temperatures might all be different for those
3 different days, it can't be a simple average that we
4 use to assess attainment. So this is kind of a
5 simple device to allow you to say each of those
6 individual samples could be over or under let's say
7 the chronic water quality standards and by it's
8 degree of being over or under when averaged we can
9 come up with something that truly says yes this is
10 attainment or this is not nonattainment of the
11 standard.
12
MS. SKRUKRUD: So then as I understand
13 it, each time you take the sample you have to
14 measure ammonia temperature and pH and then do a
15 calculation based on that?
16
MR. MOSHER: Right.
17
MS. SKRUKRUD: You said that the
18 samples will be done in the water -- receiving water
19 body. Where will those samples be taken in
20 relationship to the effluent discharge point?
21
MR. MOSHER: Well, when we look at
22 attainment of water quality standards, effluents
23 aren't really a factor. By the Board's mixing zone
24 regulation water quality standards have to be met in
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
157
1 all waters, in this case, general use waters outside
2 of mixing zones or zones of initial dilution.
3
So the answer to your question is
4 as long as you're outside of a zone of initial
5 dilution or mixing zone, you can assess the water
6 for attainment to the standards.
7
MS. SKRUKRUD: As ammonia can be
8 present in the water and then through various
9 factors dissipate over time will you measure farther
10 downstream than -- also measure farther downstream
11 than just outside of the mixing zone or ZID?
12
MR. MOSHER: Well, what I meant and
13 maybe I wasn't very clear there, I meant to say that
14 anywhere and everywhere in streams, rivers, lakes,
15 you can take samples to assess attainment for the
16 ammonia standards, it's only if there's a zone of
17 initial dilution or a mixing zone where those
18 standards do not apply.
19
MS. SKRUKRUD: Okay. Then my next
20 question is about Subsection E and this is the
21 provision that provides for extending the summer
22 period -- using the summer standard in water bodies
23 where early life stages are present outside of the
24 March through October time period and I wonder how
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
158
1 is this section going to be implemented?
2
MR. MOSHER: Well, as it stands right
3 now, we're aware of one species that doesn't fit the
4 March through October early life stage period and
5 that is the harlequin darter so when the Agency
6 would write a permit and it was for a water that
7 included the range of that species or, of course,
8 any future information we might get on another
9 species, for instance, we would have to adjust the
10 early life stage sensitive period to fit the
11 harlequin darter or whatever other species we find
12 might have a sensitive life stage outside of March
13 through October.
14
I looked into the harlequin darter
15 example since it was made known to us at this stage
16 and that's found in the Embarras River and the
17 Wabash River and both of those rivers would have
18 potential mixing zones available for the dischargers
19 that are now located on those rivers and it wouldn't
20 come into play, we would be able to write permit
21 limits using the mixing zones appropriate for those
22 waters and not run into water quality standards or
23 not run into permit limits that would have an impact
24 on water quality standards that would be harmful to
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
159
1 the harlequin darter.
2
MS. SKRUKRUD: I didn't see in Part
3 355, implementation rules, where there was any more
4 detail given to how you would determine this. Is
5 there -- do you feel that this language in Section E
6 is sufficient giving guidance as to how you would
7 make a determination for any given water body, what
8 species are present?
9
MR. MOSHER: Well, on one hand I think
10 the Board -- the proposed Board regulation at
11 Subpart E is fairly clear and straightforward and
12 in addition to that, our review of Part 355 to know
13 of any changes that are going to be needed isn't
14 complete yet by any means and that can have
15 something added -- Part 355 could certainly have
16 something added to it to make sure that this issue
17 is clear.
18
MS. SKRUKRUD: Okay. Thank you.
19
MR. CALLAHAN: My name is Mike
20 Callahan and I've already been sworn and I'd like to
21 answer a question both of Cynthia and perhaps add a
22 little bit of light to something Albert asked.
23
Cynthia's reference to the
24 subparagraph is a remanent of the original
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
160
1 regulation we drafted and discussed with the Agency,
2 I referenced that in my testimony. At that time we
3 found the pickerel and the pike to be intermittently
4 distributed in waters of the northern part of the
5 state where their breeding -- timing of their
6 chronology could basically imply the need for
7 protection and then subsequently as well we got down
8 to southern Illinois where some of the more
9 ubiquitously distributed species would begin to
10 spawn earlier in the year because of waters warm
11 earlier in the southern part of the state than they
12 do in the north. So we originally put that
13 paragraph in as an ability to extend protection in
14 the event that we were to discover that more was
15 warranted, more was needed. I am a little concerned
16 about the minutia of one way or another here.
17 Somewhere we have to act like grown adults and
18 indicate to what we're really after is trying to
19 protect our fish species from ammonia and under
20 those circumstances if we find that there are
21 species that desire more protection it would seem to
22 me it would be very forthright to give the Agency
23 the ability to make that determination when that is
24 realized rather than come back to the Board and go
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
161
1 through the laborious proceedings once against and
2 determining that early life stage should being in
3 January instead of March and that was our intent
4 with that, it wasn't to offer some kind of obstacle
5 or logic and then when I go back to what I hear
6 Albert trying to ask and this was something that
7 bothered me a great deal initially as I looked at
8 the '99 guidance was your question, am I correct in
9 paraphrasing your question, what makes the numbers
10 different?
11
MR. ETTINGER: That's a good way to
12 put it.
13
MR. CALLAHAN: Dr. Sheehan, could you
14 please explain to him as you explained to me the
15 difficulty in transcribing toxicity of the ammonia
16 ion to the un-ionized ion at cold temperatures based
17 upon the unknown toxicity in the incrementally
18 larger concentrations of the ionized form than the
19 un-ionized form?
20
MR. SHEEHAN: Run that --
21
MR. CALLAHAN: Do you remember that
22 conversation?
23
MR. SHEEHAN: You might have to
24 refresh my memory.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
162
1
MR. CALLAHAN: Well, principally, this
2 was something that Dr. Sheehan and I discussed at
3 great length and I'll try and jog your memory. The
4 fact being that all of the toxicity of ammonia in
5 the '84 guidance was ascribed to the un-ionized
6 molecule but to get substantive levels of un-ionized
7 ammonia at a cold temperature requires a
8 tremendously large amount of ionized ammonia which
9 by large is considered not to be toxic, but it does
10 have some toxicity and what was attempted in the
11 joint toxicity model, this was advocated in a paper
12 by Ericson, et al., (phonetic), 1981, I believe that
13 particular paper tried to make some kind of
14 multiplier by which we would change the toxicity
15 assigned to the un-ionized portion over temperature
16 gradiance from that it was on the ion, that was not
17 successful. That was why some of the datasets fit
18 and some didn't. Our approach in the '99 document
19 just basically says let's not worry about these
20 mathematical models that we can't create anyway, we
21 will empirically determine that X amount of total
22 ammonia exhibits this affect and we will now worry
23 about whether it's ionized or un-ionized or not. I
24 think that's the difference in the numbers that I
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
163
1 think you were trying to get at. Does that give you
2 some better explanation of it?
3
MR. ETTINGER: Yes.
4
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Thank you.
5 Any further questions?
6
MR. BUCHNER: My name is Greg Buchner,
7 B-u-c-h-n-e-r, and I want to let everybody know I do
8 work for the Fox Metro water reclamation district,
9 but in this case the question is just coming from
10 myself for a better understanding, it's a
11 continuation of a line of questions which Cindy
12 started and Mr. Mosher I think you would be the
13 appropriate person to address the question to where
14 she was asking about the application of the water
15 quality standards, where they take affect was
16 indicated it would be outside the mixing zone and
17 would rely upon the simultaneous measurement of pH,
18 temperature and total ammonia, is that correct?
19
MR. MOSHER: That's correct.
20
MR. BUCHNER: Would it be safe to say
21 then that even though these water quality standards
22 would apply outside the mixing zone that if samples
23 were taken inside the mixing zone which met that
24 water quality criteria, do you follow where I'm
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
164
1 going with this line of questioning? It would seem
2 like if you're meeting the water quality criteria
3 inside the mixing zone that would be a good thing?
4
MR. MOSHER: Yes, it would be a good
5 thing and to further explain this there seems to be
6 always this confusion between what is the water
7 quality standard that the Board is considering
8 adopting here applies to lake, streams, rivers and
9 then the other thing is what is the permit limit
10 going to be and the permit limits are something that
11 are calculated based on the water quality standard
12 and other factors and when we assess compliance with
13 a permit limit, it's always a direct measure of the
14 effluent itself coming out the pipe, it's not a
15 measure of anything either in a mixing zone or
16 downstream so we like to use the word compliance
17 when we're speaking of achieving permit limits,
18 measuring effluents in a pipe and we like to use the
19 word attainment when we talk about meeting Pollution
20 Control Board water quality standards in a stream or
21 a lake.
22
MR. BUCHNER: I guess to continue with
23 my comment, would it be a reasonable assumption that
24 if you're meeting the water quality standard inside
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
165
1 the mixing zone that you'd probably be meeting the
2 water quality standard outside the mixing zone?
3
MR. MOSHER: That would be a fair
4 statement and be a correct assumption.
5
MR. BUCHNER: Thank you for that
6 clarification.
7
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Thank you,
8 Mr. Buchner. Any further questions?
9
MS. WILLIAMS: I have a couple quick
10 clarifications. I think Mr. Callahan maybe could
11 answer them or I can direct some of them more
12 generally to the -- it's just really two minor
13 things. Mr. Callahan, I think you mentioned it and
14 several of the other IAWA witnesses might also refer
15 to the fact that there are -- well, making the
16 statement that there are no NPDES dischargers into
17 Lake Michigan. Would it be more correct to say that
18 you intended that there were no NPDES dischargers
19 with a significant ammonia discharge going into Lake
20 Michigan?
21
MR. CALLAHAN: Right. Ammonia
22 released to Lake Michigan is not --
23
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. You weren't
24 trying to say generally there's nobody with an NPDES
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
166
1 permit that discharges at all into Lake Michigan.
2
MR. CALLAHAN: No.
3
MS. WILLIAMS: I just wanted to clear
4 that point up. There are some NPDES permits that
5 discharge into Lake Michigan.
6
MR. RAO: I had a related question.
7 Dr. Callahan, are there any NPDES dischargers into
8 tributaries of Lake Michigan who may have any
9 ammonia concerns?
10
MR. CALLAHAN: Not that I'm aware of.
11 I don't believe -- Bob can probably speak to that,
12 Mr. Mosher, better than me, I don't believe there
13 are any discharges where ammonia would be -- well,
14 of course, even that, I don't know because this reg
15 doesn't apply to Lake Michigan. This is -- we're
16 not changing that part -- that section of the reg.
17 This is simply for the --
18
MR. RAO: No. I was just curious, you
19 made the statement and I wanted to find out if there
20 were any discharges to tributaries of Lake Michigan
21 who may --
22
MR. MOSHER: The way that former
23 tributaries to Lake Michigan have been engineered to
24 now flow away from the lake, we don't -- we have
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
167
1 very few tributaries and they're very minor in
2 nature, very small ravines, and we don't have any
3 significant discharges of ammonia. There was a
4 temporary discharge of one of the North Shore
5 Sanitary District wastewater treatment plants a few
6 years ago, they had a collapse of the sewer line
7 that forced them to discharge some of their
8 wastewater into Lake Michigan for a short time
9 period and that has now been corrected.
10
MR. MELAS: Treated effluent?
11
MR. MOSHER: Treated effluent, yes.
12 So now that that has been corrected there just
13 aren't any municipal wastewater treatment plants
14 that discharge to Lake Michigan.
15
MS. WILLIAMS: I had just one other
16 point that I was hoping either Mr. Callahan or
17 Mr. Sheehan could clarify for us. I think Albert's
18 question pointed out a little bit of the
19 inconsistency maybe between the description in your
20 testimony, Mr. Callahan, of the 1984 guidance
21 document and I wondered if you could clarify for
22 the record whether the statement that the guidance
23 document assigns no toxicity to un-ionized ammonia,
24 were you referring instead to the Board reg, I guess
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
168
1 that's what I'm trying to -- there's a distinction,
2 I think, between what the 1984 document and what the
3 Board ended up adopting in terms of toxicity
4 assigned to total ammonia versus --
5
MR. CALLAHAN: The Board basically
6 took -- or I believe Bob, Mr. Mosher, basically took
7 the tenants of the 1984 document and the joint
8 toxicity model there that we have discussed a little
9 bit and reconfigured that and that relationship such
10 that he came up with a couple of general use water
11 quality standards chronic and acute winter and
12 summer for the state expressed in un-ionized
13 ammonia. So it was an expression -- the parameter
14 was regulated in the un-ionized ammonia form.
15
MS. WILLIAMS: In the Illinois rules?
16
MR. CALLAHAN: Right. Right. And
17 this rule that we're advocating will be total
18 ammonia and the uncertainty of the variable toxicity
19 relationship under temperature is ignored that way
20 simply because empirically the relationship is so
21 strong and documentable.
22
MS. WILLIAMS: I think that answered
23 my question. I had -- the question was -- or the
24 statement that I felt needed some clarifications was
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
169
1 the mechanism employed in the 1984 guidance document
2 assigned all of the ammonia toxicity to the
3 un-ionized --
4
MR. CALLAHAN: That was my reference
5 to the joint toxicity model. All of the toxicity
6 was assigned to the un-ionized.
7
MR. SHEEHAN: Well, in my opinion,
8 it's a little bit ambiguous the way it's presented.
9 I think that the assumption by which the models were
10 developed for the 1984 document was that both
11 ionized ammonia and un-ionized ammonia were toxic
12 and that's why they spent so much time talking about
13 the joint toxicity model. However, in that 1984
14 document they also said a lot of the datasets don't
15 really fit that model and that's why in 1999 they
16 dropped that model where they tried to assign some
17 of the toxicity to ionized ammonia and just strictly
18 looked at total ammonia and didn't try to explain
19 the hows or whys of why ammonia solutions are toxic,
20 just tried to look at how was toxicity related to
21 the total ammonia and just go with that. That's
22 what I meant by an empirically based model.
23
Now, I believe the standards were
24 based on un-ionized ammonia corrected for pH and
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
170
1 temperature based on the assumption that ionized
2 ammonia is toxic -- was toxic or is toxic.
3
MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you. That clears
4 it up for me any way.
5
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Thank you,
6 Ms. Williams. Go ahead.
7
MR. ETTINGER: I just wanted to ask
8 one more question. I just wanted to be clear on
9 this one question which has to do with measuring
10 the pH, is it our understanding that the question of
11 whether the pH of the receiving water will be
12 measured above or below the discharge is going to be
13 handled in the 355 rules?
14
MR. MOSHER: Well, the Part 355
15 currently dictates that when a discharger wants to
16 present data to the Agency on the pH of their
17 receiving water that that measurement should be made
18 downstream of the effluent discharge and I don't see
19 that changing because of what the Board may adopt
20 here.
21
MR. ETTINGER: Thank you.
22
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Thank you,
23 Mr. Ettinger. Before we continue, we've been going
24 for a couple of hours now so I'd like to take a
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
171
1 ten-minute break, give the court reporter a chance
2 to rest. We will reconvene in ten minutes, at 3:35,
3 please.
4
(Whereupon, after a short
5
break was had, the
6
following proceedings
7
were held accordingly.)
8
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: We are
9 finishing taking questions for this afternoon, does
10 anyone else in the audience have any questions
11 today? Members of the Board?
12
DR. FLEMAL: Before I actually ask
13 questions, I'd like to extend my personal
14 compliments, I think the compliment is on the part
15 of the Board for the excellent form in which this
16 proposal has been presented to the Board, it's been
17 a joy to work with something where all the documents
18 are so nicely compacted together and thorough.
19
I'd like to start my questions by
20 looking at some of the actual language that has been
21 proposed and I'd like to call your attention to
22 that. My first question goes to Section 302.212
23 (b)(2) which is where we have presented to us the
24 standard. Throughout this testimony we've been
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
172
1 talking about the two different periods in which the
2 standard would apply as variously the March to
3 October period or the summer and winter period and
4 I'm wondering whether at least for some clarity
5 to the non-expert in this rule we might consider
6 some terms other than summer or winter for these
7 time periods. Look at it this way, March is half in
8 winter by a dictionary definition and here we're
9 calling March summer. I can just see the headlines
10 in the newspaper, bureaucrats declare winter to be
11 summer and maybe we can avoid the kind of potential
12 headline if we would consider renaming that. I just
13 ask the people here if they might, maybe we can just
14 put in the months, it might read something like
15 during March to October period except as specified
16 in Subsection E, something like that.
17
MR. HARSCH: Dr. Flemal, would the
18 early life stage present and early life stage
19 absent --
20
DR. FLEMAL: Why don't you folks put
21 your heads together and see what you would like as
22 probably the -- it seems to me as long as almost
23 everything is March to October and then November to
24 February, it would be just as easy to use the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
173
1 months, but provide us with your best thoughts on
2 that.
3
In that same section temperature
4 is referred to, I know among all of us we assume
5 that to be the water temperature, but I wondered if
6 we should actually put that in the rule. I'm not
7 sure, again, how exactly that might be best phrased,
8 maybe something like when water temperature is less
9 than or equal to or maybe it's the temperature of
10 the water in question. I would ask your attention
11 to that terminology.
12
In Subsection E of this same
13 section, that's the one that's been referred to here
14 a number of times, where again we have the summer
15 winter issue, I noted that when the various people
16 were giving testimony they were oftentimes quite
17 careful to talk about indigenous species, and I want
18 to come back to that in just a moment, but I wonder
19 here in this section whether we shouldn't also talk
20 about indigenous early life stages or life stages of
21 indigenous species, some such language to indicate
22 that that's the target population in question.
23 Again, I would ask that you look at that and see
24 what you would recommend.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
174
1
If we keep this term early life
2 stages as part of the rule and I understand that the
3 Agency has in fact -- I'm looking at the second
4 sentence -- already suggested some changes, but if
5 those changes ultimately leave the phrase early life
6 stages, I wonder whether we need a definition of
7 that or in fact if we added the term digeneous
8 whether we don't need perhaps even two terms.
9 I can see that perhaps there might be a question on
10 the part of JCAR regarding the definition of those
11 particular terms.
12
As long as I raised the term
13 indigenous, let me explore a somewhat related aspect
14 which doesn't actually go to language. Again, in
15 the testimonies today we heard several references to
16 salmonid species as not being indigenous to the
17 state of Illinois, but my understanding is that they
18 do occur in spite of the fact that they fail to meet
19 the definition of indigenous, am I correct in that
20 there are waters in the state of Illinois where
21 salmonids are planted and there's a fishery based
22 upon those salmonids?
23
MR. MOSHER: That's correct. We have
24 testified in several previous hearings that
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
175
1 salmonids are not reproducing populations in any
2 waters in Illinois besides Lake Michigan. They are
3 not stocked, to our knowledge, and we've had some
4 contact with the Illinois Department of Conservation
5 or Department of Natural Resources I should say that
6 the stocking that now occurs is in adult form so
7 they acknowledge that there isn't going to be growth
8 and reproduction of these types of fish so,
9 therefore, we have concluded that it's temperature
10 that is the limiting factors to these things
11 surviving in general use waters.
12
DR. FLEMAL: Can you imagine a
13 circumstance where we would have these
14 non-indigenous salmonid species which would form the
15 basis of a successful fishery be impacted by
16 ammonia? Would those adult planted fishes have
17 problems with ammonia?
18
MR. MOSHER: Well, in the locations
19 that I'm aware that they stock these things they're
20 either in ponds where there are no discharges or
21 there's a few streams, I think the Apple River in
22 northwest Illinois is one of those streams and they
23 are not stocking them in areas where we have
24 discharges that are in any way going to impact the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
176
1 ammonia concentration to those things and in here I
2 rely upon the antidegradation rule as it's just been
3 revised that if it comes apparent that some new
4 discharge or expanded discharge is going to be
5 discharging to one of these streams where DNR finds
6 they want to stock adult trout, that we can make
7 decisions using that rule that could say ammonia
8 has to be less from this particular discharge to
9 protect this trout fishery that exists.
10
DR. FLEMAL: Even though in some sense
11 it's not a natural fishery -- not based on a natural
12 population?
13
MR MOSHER: Correct. It's certainly a
14 recreational resource and the antideg regulation
15 uses that language.
16
DR. FLEMAL: The rule that's proposed
17 to us has provisions that allow you some discretion
18 for applying the standards related to whether or not
19 a particular species is present, our friend who's
20 name escapes me now, we mentioned several times, the
21 fellow that may be present in some of the central
22 Illinois and Wabash River streams.
23
MR. HARSCH: Harlequin darter.
24
DR. FLEMAL: Yes, thank you for
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
177
1 helping me out on that. Is there some kind of
2 similar provision -- similar in the sense it would
3 allow you discretion that could be built in to
4 protect potential impacts to non-indigenous species
5 fisheries or is that such a remote possibility,
6 unlikely possibility, that isn't worth the
7 investment of that additional money.
8
DR. SHEEHAN: Can I make a comment?
9 My name is Robert Sheehan, I was sworn in earlier.
10 In Illinois when salmonids are stocked they're
11 generally in streams, they're generally stocked as
12 what we call into put and take fisheries and studies
13 have shown us that about 95 percent of the fish are
14 caught within three days of their being stocked. So
15 the only question is would ammonia kill them. We're
16 not really concerned about them growing because
17 they're not growing perceptibly in three days
18 anyway and I'm absolutely convinced that the
19 proposed water quality criteria would protect
20 rainbow trout, for example, or any other stocked
21 salmonids from mortality. So it's really kind of a
22 moot point.
23
DR. FLEMAL: Part of my concern on
24 this issue arises from the fact that the last time
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
178
1 the Board addressed ammonia in water quality we had
2 presentations from Trout Unlimited among others
3 expressing substantial concerns that indigenous or
4 not -- the rule is then proposed -- might have a
5 serious impact on these recreational fisheries and
6 I'm hearing, however, at least so far that same
7 concern at this stage in time probably isn't
8 present.
9
MR. SHEEHAN: In my opinion, no.
10
MR. MOSHER: I'd agree --
11
DR. FLEMAL: You think there's enough
12 protection that if you ever run across a
13 circumstance where such a fishery was threatened
14 that you could write a permit that would remove that
15 threat?
16
MR. MOSHER: Yes, I believe we could.
17
MR. RAO: I had a question, I don't
18 know who to address it to, it concerns the proposed
19 language in Section 302.212 (C) (3), attainment of
20 subchronic total ammonia nitrogen standards and I
21 think Dr. Sheehan, in his prefiled testimony, at
22 page five he mentioned that one of the reasons he
23 believes that the proposed standard is protective is
24 that, you know, the addition of this new water
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
179
1 quality criterion which would protect the aquatic
2 life and he states, I'll just read it from here, the
3 sixth point, another water quality criterion that
4 1999 ammonia update believes is necessary to protect
5 aquatic life will be established wherein the highest
6 four-day average will not be allowed to exceed 2.5
7 times the chronic criterion and when I was looking
8 at the proposed language I didn't see the mention of
9 the highest four-day average, basically the proposed
10 language states that the four-day average
11 concentration of total ammonia nitrogen shall not
12 exceed the subchronic criterion. Can you please
13 clarify, you know, what you intended here in this
14 rule? If it's of any help, the national criteria
15 document requires that the subchronic criterion be
16 complied with a highest four-average within the
17 30-day period you use to average the chronic
18 criterion. That linkage is not proposed in your
19 language.
20
MS. WILLIAMS: We can look into that
21 and address it in posthearing comments.
22
MR. RAO: I had one more question
23 regarding the rules and this stems from
24 Dr. Callahan's testimony on page 14.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
180
1 Dr. Callahan, while you were explaining the use of
2 the 50th percentile pH values and the calculations
3 your testimony at page 14 you state that under no
4 circumstances shall use of the 50th percentile pH
5 values result in standards greater than 1.5
6 milligrams per liter for early life stage present
7 period or 4.0 milligrams per liter for the early
8 life stage absent period. I didn't see those
9 limitations in the proposed language under Section
10 304.122 so I just wanted some clarification as to
11 whether such effluent limitations should be included
12 under Part 304?
13
MS. WILLIAMS: If you want to look at
14 the existing Agency rules, that provision is in the
15 existing Agency rules at 355.203 (a). Is the
16 question whether it should be included in part --
17
MR. RAO: Yeah, because I think the
18 existing Agency rule is based on the existing Board
19 rules which had that the effluent modified water
20 requirement which has been deleted, but then
21 effluent limits are not in the Board regulations
22 so I'm not sure whether the Agency has the authority
23 to put those limitations in the Agency regulations.
24 I'm not a lawyer, but I just wanted to bring that
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
181
1 up.
2
MR. CALLAHAN: You're suggestion would
3 be to consider putting that in 304 rather than in
4 355.
5
MR. RAO: Yes.
6
MR. CALLAHAN: Okay.
7
MR. RAO: I had some general questions
8 about the proposed statement of reasons for this
9 rule. At page four of the statement of reasons IAWA
10 notes that the River Valley Water Sanitation
11 Commission has adopted ammonia regulations similar
12 to what's being proposed in this rulemaking and I
13 wanted to know if IAWA -- whether you're aware of
14 any other states who are also in the process of
15 adopting the ammonia regulations in the criteria
16 document?
17
MR. CALLAHAN: Informally, I've heard
18 that there are discussions in other states and
19 there's consideration as to how to go about it.
20 I believe that we're the first effort that's put
21 together a recommendation for the definition of
22 early life stage present and absent so I think we're
23 the first in Region V doing this, but there are
24 discussions in other states, I'm very much aware of
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
182
1 that, maybe Bob could speak more to that in depth
2 than I.
3
MR. MOSHER: I know that Wisconsin has
4 an ammonia task force to develop standards and any
5 state that is looking at ammonia water quality
6 standards has to look at the 1999 national criteria
7 document. I think that's fair to say. Minnesota
8 has been somewhat active, although I haven't
9 followed them recently.
10
MR. HARSCH: I know that as part of
11 the preparation of this at some point before the end
12 of 2001 we were further along in this proposal than
13 anybody else was. I have not checked since.
14
MR. RAO: I just wanted to know for
15 the record. I think I have one more question.
16 Again, this question stems from Dr. Callahan's
17 testimony. At page six of your testimony you note
18 that anti-backsliding constraints generally result
19 in previous permit limit beings retained. Could you
20 please explain how the anti-backsliding constraints
21 under thr Clean Water Act apply to the sources
22 affected by this proposal?
23
MR. CALLAHAN: Well, principally, the
24 point I was trying to make there was that prior to
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
183
1 94-1 we basically operated with 1.5 milligrams per
2 liter as a summer season monthly average standard
3 and 4.0 as a winter standard and those numbers have
4 been in just about every permit of every major
5 discharger across the state. Once a number like
6 that is assigned to a permit if the discharger
7 demonstrates compliance with that number, that
8 number cannot be relaxed without a lengthy
9 procedure, you know, to any substantial extent.
10 What we're finding here -- I use my own plant as an
11 example, with the proposed regulations here I
12 hypothetically would be able to realize higher
13 summer permit limits than I have right now, but I am
14 not in any way anticipating those because we can
15 comply with our existing summer permit numbers, we
16 have a track history of that compliance so
17 consequently to ask for anything less than that
18 would be subject to the anti-backsliding safe guard.
19 I think that's never been the issue that our
20 association has had with ammonia regulation in state
21 as far as summer standards go or acute standards for
22 that matter either. Our point has always been the
23 chronic winter standard where we've had this
24 misinterpretation of toxicity.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
184
1
I don't see that there's going to
2 be any relaxation of standards whatsoever as far as
3 summer numbers go.
4
MR. RAO: Thank you for the
5 clarification.
6
MR. HARSCH: From a legal standpoint,
7 if -- under the anti-backsliding rules if there was
8 a demonstrated need if a facility had not achieved
9 compliance or was having a demonstrated difficulty
10 of compliance with those numbers, there are
11 provisions under the backsliding rules for those --
12 those numbers can be relaxed. There are just a
13 number of hoops that you have to go through to
14 modify the permit, but just to change the number
15 because you want to change the number, that's not
16 provided for.
17
MR. RAO: That's just what I wanted to
18 get on the record. Thanks.
19
DR. FLEMAL: I do have one last area
20 that I'd like to explore just a little bit and
21 that's the issue of the number of facilities which
22 may find themselves out of compliance. There were
23 several mentions during the prepared testimonies of
24 the original list in our last ammonia rule of 19
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
185
1 facilities that were threatened out of compliance
2 with the adoption of that rule, I guess my first
3 question is, does anyone know what the faith of
4 those 19 facilities has been in the ensuing years?
5
MR. MOSHER: Okay. That's a good
6 point to make. Those facilities were non-nitrifying
7 night facilities. They were not the facilities that
8 are represented by the IAWA people here in this room
9 today. Those were plants that were generally
10 located on medium size rivers and they didn't remove
11 much ammonia from their effluent. The new ammonia
12 standards as you adopted them in '96 caused those
13 facilities to go to the nitrification mode to
14 comply --
15
DR. FLEMAL: All -- most of them are
16 now nitrifying?
17
MR. MOSHER: Certainly most of them,
18 I don't know about all of them, but certainly most
19 of them.
20
DR. FLEMAL: My recollection is a
21 significant number of that 19 was on the Fox River,
22 is this correct?
23
MR. MOSHER: Right. And there's been
24 just pretty much a complete overhaul of the Fox
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
186
1 River discharges in these five years, six years that
2 have gone by, but we did not at that time think that
3 the nitrifying plants would be impacted by the 1996
4 rules that were adopted because of the effluent
5 modified water provision. That was supposed to say
6 what they're now doing is okay and as explained
7 earlier, what happened was the Agency was not
8 allowed to proceed with that as we thought we were
9 going to and that made it unavailable -- effluent
10 modified waters were pretty much unavailable to the
11 existing nitrifying plants and here we are today.
12
MR. HARSCH: If I could further
13 respond, in one form or another, I represented a
14 number of those municipalities on the Fox River, a
15 good portion of those municipalities on the Fox
16 River are at the present time in the -- somewhere
17 in the plant expansion phase where they are in fact
18 building improvements. I don't think the
19 nitrification facilities are in fact constructed and
20 on line for a good portion of those. So they have
21 not yet achieved compliance with the NPDES permit
22 limits.
23
DR. FLEMAL: Is there any generality
24 that we can make about how those 19 facilities would
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
187
1 be affected by the --
2
MR. HARSCH: If you were to enact the
3 rule change before the facilities NPDES permits --
4 before their treatment facilities came on line, they
5 would be eligible for permit modifications to
6 reflect the revised permit limits -- the revised
7 water quality standards, they had not -- to state it
8 another way, if the Board enacts the revised water
9 quality standards, those dischargers could petition
10 to modify their permits to reflect effluent
11 limitations calculated on the revised water quality
12 standards. I do not believe they would be subject
13 to any concerns of backsliding because they have yet
14 to achieve compliance with those effluent limits and
15 the Agency would be free to impose permit
16 limitations -- final limitations consistent with the
17 IAWA proposal and it can have --
18
DR. FLEMAL: I presume that they have
19 been designing towards the current standards, the
20 compliance with the current numbers, have they not?
21 Let me rephrase the question. Are there facilities
22 that have been forced into an over design as a
23 result of the way the history --
24
MR. HARSCH: There are a number of
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
188
1 facilities because of the permit status and when the
2 permits went up for renewal and where they are in
3 permit appeals, for example, that have yet to --
4 they are still in the design process, they're not
5 actually -- the designs aren't complete and they're
6 not in construction and their time clocks are
7 ticking in their compliance programs where they're
8 chewing up part of their time waiting for the
9 Board's action on this rulemaking proceeding just as
10 are the two communities that have testified today,
11 they're facing -- those municipalities would be
12 facing the same -- those municipalities would be
13 facing the same constraints that DeKalb and
14 Champaign/Urbana would be facing and if I'm
15 testifying, maybe you want me to be sworn in.
16
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Could we swear
17 you in, please, Mr. Harsch?
18 (Mr. Harsch was sworn in by the court reporter.)
19
DR. FLEMAL: Part of the reason for my
20 inquiry here is I'm trying to get my arms around a
21 little bit more what the total cost associated with
22 the current rule versus the proposed rule would be.
23 We've heard from some fairly specific numbers from
24 two facilities, but I take it the 19 facilities of
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
189
1 96 also would have some potential for cost savings
2 if we formulated our ammonia rule as proposed before
3 us as opposed to what we currently have.
4
MR. CALLAHAN: To the extent that I
5 could give you a quantifiable number, Dr. Flemal, I
6 don't know that I can, but I think you can take
7 perspective of the fact that these numbers as we're
8 proposing them by and large are attainable year
9 around with conventional nitrification wastewater
10 treatment facility design. The numbers that
11 resulted from the '96 action are going to require
12 some kind of extenuating circumstance as Mr. Bachman
13 and Mr. Zima testified, whether it be reverse
14 osmosis or ion change or whatever else.
15 These numbers basically address the treatability
16 limit of biological nitrification in conventional
17 wastewater treatment plants. So the extent to what
18 you have cost differences in those extraneous
19 processes versus routine cost designs would be the
20 extent of the savings. To quantify that, I cannot
21 do that for you at this time.
22
DR. FLEMAL: The facilities that where
23 sited as being in questionable compliance mode at
24 various times, have they all been the big ones, one
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
190
1 MGD or greater, is that correct?
2
MR. MOSHER: Yeah.
3
DR. FLEMAL: But the large population
4 of actual POTWs is below that in the smaller
5 category. Can we say anything or is there in fact
6 any affect that can be said that might be associated
7 with these smaller facilities that the Board ought
8 to consider.
9
MR. HARSCH: Just a quick -- I did a
10 list here. The Fox River water reclamation
11 district's west treatment plant is undergoing an
12 expansion. They would -- their design would be
13 affected -- ultimate design for their expanded
14 facility will be affected by this proceeding, their
15 south plant is undergoing design for the addition of
16 nitrification facilities. St. Charles is undergoing
17 some design work for nitrification, Geneva is
18 undergoing design of nitrification facilities that
19 have yet to be built, Batavia is, I think,
20 undergoing construction of nitrification. So that's
21 a good number of the Fox communities from Elgin down
22 to Aurora -- or down at least to Batavia. So that's
23 a good number of the facilities that were part of
24 the --
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
191
1
DR. FLEMAL: You certainly can't
2 assume, though, that adoption of this rule would
3 mean that they'd put in nitrifications, there are
4 other drives for nitrification other than this
5 adoption of the 1999 --
6
MR. HARSCH: Having participated in
7 that proceeding on behalf -- our firm did on behalf
8 of those facilities, it greatly impacts the ability
9 of those facilities to employ biological
10 nitrification treatment facilities to meet the
11 required level of nitrification to comply with NPDES
12 permits. They're facing the same problems that
13 other people have testified to today to meet the
14 required number to comply with the projected
15 effluent numbers in the permits. The numbers are
16 just less -- potentially less restrictive under the
17 IAWA number.
18
MR. MOSHER: I need to add a little.
19 We're talking about a couple of different things.
20 When we assess those 19 -- well, we assessed all 181
21 major facilities back in '96 and we made that
22 assessment on their existing size of treatment plant
23 and I think Mr. Harsch is kind of adding something
24 to the equation, the fact that those are growing
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
192
1 communities, they want to make their plants bigger
2 so you make the plant bigger, there's more effluent
3 volume, the equation changes and your outcome, you
4 know, to what limits they will have changes. We
5 went through almost a full permit cycle since we had
6 the 1996 change in ammonia water quality standards
7 and we put in water quality based on ammonia limits
8 that would indeed make plants that were not
9 nitrifying have to switch into a nitrifying mode.
10 Whether those plants already have that capability,
11 some of them did, and they just weren't utilizing
12 it, but now we're talking about making those same
13 plants bigger and that confuses the issue, but a
14 further point, the change between this proposed
15 water quality standard now before you and the one we
16 have is a relatively small difference in that
17 especially that winter chronic standard and it could
18 make a difference in a few of those plants if the
19 numbers came out just right, I suppose, you might
20 make a design difference based on that subtlety, but
21 it's not a major thing that's being changed on that
22 scale. Plants that we thought would have to nitrify
23 have a high likelihood that they'll still have to
24 nitrify.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
193
1
MR. HARSCH: I agree wholeheartedly
2 with that. Nobody is saying that this proposal will
3 stop any plant from having to nitrify, I'm just
4 saying there are a lot more plants out there because
5 of expansion that are now being subjected to the
6 same problems with having to meet the wintertime
7 numbers than testified to earlier today than were
8 originally thought to have a problem back in the '94
9 proceeding.
10
MR. DAUGHERTY: Can I respond to that
11 too?
12
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Certainly.
13
MR. DAUGHERTY: Jim Daugherty.
14 The reference to these two facilities which are
15 relatively large doesn't mean that this is really
16 restricted to large facilities because the influents
17 limits for most of the plants in Illinois are based
18 on water quality standards, most of the streams have
19 no dilution, both of these facilities discharge to
20 streams where there's basically zero upstream flow
21 during dry conditions which is very common across
22 the state. So the kind permit limits they get could
23 be applied to facilities of any size who have the
24 same conditions and they're downstream of pH and
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
194
1 temperature. So it could -- it is a significant
2 number although we have quite quantified it.
3
MR. CALLAHAN: If I may, I thought you
4 were bringing up a point, Dr. Flemal, that also is
5 very important here and we are considering major
6 municipal nitrifying wastewater treatment plants and
7 the extent as to how pervasive the problem is, I
8 don't know at the moment, but there's a great deal
9 of difficulty in attaining compliance with lagoon
10 plants for smaller communities now across the state.
11 So many communities that have for years used some
12 sort of lagoon form of treatment are certainly going
13 to find themselves no longer in compliance with the
14 ammonia standard and I think that may be said for
15 what we do here today or not. I think this may very
16 well contribute to that.
17
MR. RAO: I just wanted to ask a
18 follow-up to Dr. Flemal's question for Mr. Mosher.
19 Regarding the smaller wastewater treatment plants I
20 believe Dr. Zenz in his testimony mentioned -- I
21 think he said there were, like, over 600 wastewater
22 treatment plants in the state less than one million
23 gallon per day capacity. Does the Agency collect
24 any information about the smaller plants as to what
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
195
1 their compliance status is in terms of ammonia?
2
MR. MOSHER: Well, yes. Any facility
3 that has ammonia limits is required to submit
4 monthly reports and we keep track of their
5 compliance.
6
MR. RAO: So do you have any idea as
7 to what the impact of the existing ammonia
8 regulations have been on the smaller facilities?
9
MR. MOSHER: Well, there hasn't been a
10 formal study. I can give you just my perception.
11 There hasn't been very many smaller plants that the
12 new '96 ammonia regs forced into nitrifying mode
13 that weren't already nitrifying. Small plants where
14 there is seven Q ten flow in the stream do have a
15 greater proportion of available dilution than a
16 bigger plant so that's one reason for that, but
17 there hasn't been many plants to my knowledge that
18 have been forced into nitrification.
19
MR. RAO: Thank you.
20
DR. FLEMAL: One last question. I
21 notice in the 1999 criteria document there's an
22 acknowledgment section and it acknowledges that the
23 draft was written with substantial input and then it
24 lists three people from the state environmental
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
196
1 agencies, one of whom is Bob Mosher of the Illinois
2 Environmental Protection Agency. Bob, would that --
3 would you be that Bob Mosher?
4
MR. MOSHER: Yeah, that was me.
5
DR. FLEMAL: Congratulations. That's
6 a substantial kudos in one's resume to have
7 contributed to something like this. We appreciate
8 having an Illinois voice in this sort of thing.
9
MR. MOSHER: Thank you.
10
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Are there any
11 other questions then this afternoon? Okay.
12 Seeing none, we've got to set a couple deadlines for
13 some things before the next hearing. The next
14 hearing, as I did mention at the beginning of
15 today's hearing, will be held on Tuesday, April 23rd
16 at the Board's hearing room which is located in
17 Springfield -- the Board's hearing room in
18 Springfield, that's Room 403 and the Board office
19 there is located at 600 South Second Street. Prior
20 to that hearing, however, we would like to first --
21 I spoke with Mr. Harsch over the break and he has
22 told me that he will file the amended proposal with
23 the Board by or on Wednesday, April 3rd, that should
24 give people plenty of time to look at it before the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
197
1 hearing on the 23rd. He will also serve the service
2 list.
3
MR. HARSCH: In light of -- if I
4 could, in light of the suggested questions from Dr.
5 Flemal and Dr. Rao, perhaps we might have another
6 week.
7
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Another week
8 would make it difficult for people to prefile
9 testimony. Let's go off the record for just a
10 moment.
11
(Whereupon, a discussion
12
was had off the record.)
13
HEARING OFFICER GLENN: Okay. So we
14 will have the amended proposal filed by or on
15 Wednesday, April 3rd. The service list will receive
16 a copy of that proposal. So if you're not on the
17 service list and you want to get a copy of that,
18 please sign up today, there's a sign-up sheet on the
19 table in the back. Also, if you wish to prefile any
20 testimony for the second hearing, the Board asks
21 that you file that by or on April 12th, that's a
22 Friday. If you put it in the mail on that day too,
23 that's sufficient. Prefiled questions as well, if
24 anyone has questions of the IAWA or Mr. Mosher who
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
198
1 testified here today, please prefile those questions
2 on April 12th to allow those people to have
3 sufficient time to gather their thoughts for the
4 hearing on the 23rd.
5
Just for your information, the
6 Board will file -- or will put on it's web site a
7 copy of today's hearing transcript. We anticipate
8 getting the transcript by Thursday, April 4th. It
9 is my hope that we will have it on the web site very
10 soon thereafter. So please start checking after the
11 fourth and I hope you will see it by Monday the
12 eighth is my hope.
13
Are there any other matters that
14 need to be addressed at this time? I didn't think
15 so. I want to thank everybody for their attention
16 and participation here today, it was a productive
17 day and a somewhat long one, but thank you very much
18 for coming and contributing. We appreciate your
19 attendance. See you in a month.
20
(End of proceedings.)
21
22
23
24
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
199
1 STATE OF ILLINOIS )
2
) SS.
3 COUNTY OF C O O K )
4
5
6
I, TERRY A. STRONER, CSR, do
7 hereby state that I am a court reporter doing
8 business in the City of Chicago, County of Cook, and
9 State of Illinois; that I reported by means of
10 machine shorthand the proceedings held in the
11 foregoing cause, and that the foregoing is a true
12 and correct transcript of my shorthand notes so
13 taken as aforesaid.
14
15
16
_____________________
17
Terry A. Stroner, CSR
18
Notary Public, Cook County, Illinois
19
20 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO
before me this ___ day
21 of ________, A.D., 2001.
22
_________________________
23
Notary Public
24
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292