~a
•A
a
,
~4u ‘~ii
wi-iL
1
BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
2
RECEIvE0
CLERK’S
OFFICE
~4PR
18
4
IN
THE
MATTER
OF:
)
3
STATE OFIL
5
SITE-SPECIFIC
RULE
FOR
CITY
)
p,j
015
OF
EFFINGHM4
TREATMENT
)
Utlon
Con
trol Board
6
PLANT
FLUORIDE DISCHARGE,
)
R03-11
35 ILL. ADH. CODE 304.233
)
(Site-Specific Rulemaking-Water)
7
8
9
The following is
a transcript of the
above-entitled matter taken stenographically before ANN
10
MARIE
HOLLO, CSR,
RPR,
PMR,
a notary public within and
for the County of Montgomery and State of Illinois.
11
Said proceeding was
taken on the 11th day of April A.D.,
2003, commencing at 10:00 o’clock a.m.,
at 201 East
12
Jefferson Street, Effingham,
Illinois.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Keefe
Reporting Company
1
APPEARANCES:
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
2
1717
Philo Road
Suite 25
3
Urbana,
Illinois 61802
(217)
278—3111
4
By:
John
Knittle,
Hearing Officer
5
BOARD
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Chairman
Thomas
Johnson
6
Anand Rao,
Senior Environmental Scientist
Alisa Liu,
P.E.,
Environmental
Scientist
7
Hodge,
Dwyer
& Zeman
8
3150 Roland Avenue
Springfield,
Illinois
62705
9
By:
David M. Walter, Esq.
Appearing on behalf of the Petitioners
10
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
11
Division of Legal Counsel
1021 North Grand Avenue East
12
Springfield,
Illinois 62794
By:
Deborah
3.
Williams,
Esq.
13
Appearing on behalf of IEPA
14
Law Office of Matthew R. Hortenstine
122 East Washington Street
15
Effingham,
Illinois 62401
By:
Matthew
R.
Hortenstine,
Esq.
16
Appearing on behalf of the City of Effingham
17
WITNESSES
TN ATTENDANCE:
Scott Twait,
Mike Rose, Max Shepard,
Greg Bright and
18
Steve Miller
19
EXHIBITS
MARKED
ADMITTED
Petitioners’
Exhibit 3
Pg.
22
Pg.
25
20
Petitioners’
Exhibit t
25
26
Petitioners’
Exhibit
)4
26
27
21
Petitioners’
Exhibit N
28
29
Petitioners’
Exhibit 0
30
31
22
Petitioners’
Exhibit P
30
31
Petitioners’
Exhibit
Q
68
68
23
IEPA Exhibit Number
1
39
40
IEPA Exhibit Number
2
42
42
24
IRPA Exhibit Number
3
43
44
2
Keefe Reporting Company
1
HEARING
OFFICER KNITTLE:
Good morning.
My
2
name is John Knittle.
I am an attorney assistant to
3
Chairman Tom Johnson at the Illinois Pollution Control
4
Board.
I’m also the hearing officer of this rule-making
5
proceeding, which is R03-011,
in the matter of the
6
site-specific rule for the City of Effinghant Treatment
7
Plant Fluoride Discharge from 35 Illinois Administrative
8
Code 304.233.
9
I want to introduce Chairman Tom Johnson.
10
He will be coordinating this rule making for the Board.
11
I also want to note for the record that we have other
12
board personnel present from the technical unit, Anand
13
Rao
and Alisa Liu.
And
that is it from the Pollution
14
Control Board.
15
I’m going to now give you a little
16
background on this proposal, which hopefully all of you
17
are familiar with.
But for the sake of the record,
on
18
October 22, 2002,
the City of Effingham,
Blue Beacon
19
International and Truckomat Corporation
filed a petition
20
for
the
rule-making
change
regulations
governing
21
fluoride,
found
in
the
Board’s
rule
at
35
Illinois
22
Administrative
Code
302.208(g).
23
BBI
and
Truckomat
operate
truck
washes
in
24
Effingham
County
in
the
City
of
Effinghazn.
And
the
3
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
wastewater
from
the
truck
washes
contains
fluoride
2
resulting
from
the
brighteners
used
in
washing
the
3
trucks.
Petitioners
state
that
there
are
no
alternative
4
replacements for these brighteners, and discontinuing
5
their use would cause severe negative impact
6
economically.
Petitioners further state that the
7
site-specific fluoride level posed will be protective of
8
aquatic
life,
human
health
and
the
environment
as
a
9
whole.
10
The
wastewater
discharge
flows
in
an
11
unnamed
tributary
of
Salt
Creek,
which
flows
into
the
12
Little Wabash River at 37 miles upstream from the City
13
of
Flora.
The
City’s
current
daily
fluoride effluent
14
limit
is
1.4
milligrams
per
liter.
The
same
as
the
15
water standard,
the City seeks an effluent limit of 4.5
16
milligram liters subject to the averaging Rule of 35
17
Illinois Administrative Code 304.104.
18
This hearing was properly noticed pursuant
19
to the Act and the Board’s procedural rules.
20
Section 27(b)
of the Act requires the Board
21
to
request
the
Department
of
Commerce
and
Economic
22
Opportunity
--
that was formerly the Department of
23
Commerce and Community Affairs, but the name has been
24
changed.
It is now DCEO.
We’re required to conduct an
4
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
economic impact study on certain proposed rules prior to
2
the adoption of those rules,
and DCEO chose to conduct
3
an economic study.
They have 30 to 40 days after the
4
study to produce the impact of the proposed rules.
The
5
Board must then make this study or their explanation for
6
not conducting the study available to the public at
7
least 20 days before a public hearing on the economic
8
impact.
9
We’ve requested, the Board has,
recently by
10
letter,
dated
April
9,
2003,
that
DCEO
conduct
an
11
economic
impact
study.
We’re
waiting
for
a
response.
12
Depending
on
the
response,
we’re
either
going
to
13
schedule a hearing on the study, or schedule a hearing
14
on
the
decision
not
to
perform
the
study.
We
didn’t
do
15
this initially in light of the changes that have
16
recently occurred with both the director at what was
17
formerly known as
DCCA
and the agency itself.
We are
18
holding off on these, but now it’s in the works, and
19
we’ll
get
this
done.
Well,
we’re
waiting
on
a
response
20
from
DCEO
right
now.
When
that
is
done,
I
will,
of
21
course,
let all the parties know,
and we will properly
22
notice it publicly pursuant to the Act and the Board’s
23
rules.
24
On to the proceedings.
I’ve got sign-up
5
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
sheets for the service and notice list in if fact there
2
were any members of the
public here, but as we’ve talked
3
about off the record here,
there are no
members
of
the
4
public
here
at
this
point
in
time.
Everyone
is
either
5
working
with
the
City
or
employed
by
the
City
or
the
6
Agency
for
this
rule
making.
7
People
on
the
notice
list
will
receive
only
8
board
opinions
and
orders
and
hearing
officer
orders.
9
Those
on
the
service
list
would
receive
these
documents,
10
plus
certain
other
filings,
like
public
comments.
11
Also
up
front
are
--
I
have
copies
of
the
12
testimony that’s been filed and the questions asked by
13
the Board that elucidated some of that testimony,
if
14
there
is
anyone
here
that
wanted
to
see
then,
but
of
15
course
there’s
not.
So
if
you
guys
need
any,
I’d
be
16
happy
to
supply
them
to
the
parties.
17
Besides
the
witnesses
for
the
parties,
if
18
anybody
wishes
to
testify
today,
they
would
have
to
sign
19
on the appropriate
sign-up sheet here at the front of
20
the
room.
And time permitting,
after
the
agency’s
21
testimony,
we
would
receive
the
testimony
of
those
22
people who signed up in the order their names appeared
23
on the sign-up sheet.
24
Also
I note that a written public comment
6
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
period will be set, and if anyone here does not wish to
2
testify today,
they will still provide public comment.
3
They
could do so via written public comment.
4
As
Part 102 of the Board’s procedural rules
5
that
govern
this
hearing,
all
information
that
is
6
relevant and not repetitious or privileged will be
7
admitted.
All witnesses will be sworn and subject to
8
cross
examination
or
questioning.
9
After
all
testimony
is
complete,
we
will
10
allow
the
parties
to
provide
any
closing
statements
they
11
wish
to
make.
Anyone
may
ask
a
question
of
any
12
witness.
13
And
I
ask
only
that
during
the
question
14
periods,
if
you
have
a
question,
raise
your hand and
15
wait
for
me
to
acknowledge
you,
state
your
name
and
16
organization.
Of
course,
you
guys
are
all
with
the
17
parties,
so
none
of
that
really
applies.
But
if
any
of
18
you
out
in
the
audience
wish
to
ask
a
question,
you’re
19
welcome
to,
as
long
as
you
let
me
know
beforehand
that
20
you’re
going
to
do
so.
21
I
want
everyone
to
speak
one
at
a
time.
22
And
if
you
are
speaking
over
each
other,
the
court
23
reporter
cannot
accurately
transcribe
your
statements
24
for
the
record.
And
for
the
same
reasons,
speak
loudly
7
Keefe Reporting Company
1
and
clearly
and
not
too
rapidly.
2
Please note that any questions asked by
3
anyone with the Board are intended to help build the
4
record
and
are
not
to
express
any
preconceived
notion
or
5
bias.
6
Does
anybody
out
here
have
any
questions?
7
I’m
seeing
none.
8
I
want
to
introduce
again
Chairman
Tom
9
Johnson,
and
ask
him
if
he’d
like
to
make
any
response
10
at
this
time.
11
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:
I’ve
introduced
myself
12
to
you
all.
I’d
like
to
welcome
you
here
today,
and
13
assure you that the Board and myself recognize the
14
importance
of
this
rule
making
and
will
do
everything
in
15
our
power
to
give
the
matter
the
attention
it
deserves,
16
and issue the decision in this matter
in a timely
17
fashion.
Thanks for coming.
18
HEARING
OFFICER
flTITTLE:
Thank
you,
19
Chairman
Johnson.
20
We
have
the
petitioners.
Could
you
21
introduce yourself,
the attorney for the Petitioner?
22
1~.
WALTER:
Yes.
Thank
you,
Mr.
Hearing
23
Officer.
My
name
is
David
Walter.
24
HEARING
OFFICER
IQ4ITTLE:
And
for
the
8
Keefe Reporting Company
1
Agency?
2
MS.
WILLIAMS:
I’m
Deborah Williams.
3
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Mr.
Walter,
do
4
you
have
any
opening
statement
you’d
like
to
make?
S
MR.
WALTER:
Yes,
I
do,
Mr.
Hearing
6
Officer.
7
Hearing
Officer
Knittle,
Chairman Johnson,
8
thank
you
for
allowing
us
to
come
here
and
present
our
9
petition
today,
and
also
technical
staff,
members
of
the
10
board.
11
I’m
here
on
behalf
of
the
City
of
12
Effingham,
Blue
Beacon
International
and
Truckomat
13
Corporation.
Also with me here today is Matthew
14
Hortenstine,
who
is
the
city
attorney
for
the
City
of
15
Effingham.
16
As the hearing officer has indicated,
17
Petitioners
are seeking a site-specific
effluent limit
18
for fluoride for discharges from the City’s
POTW,
or
19
publicly owned treatment works,
including wastewater
20
from Blue Beacon and Truckomat’s Effingham facilities.
21
The
Board’s
effluent
regulations
require
at
Section
22
304.105,
that
effluent
from
the
City
not
cause
an
23
applicable
water quality standard to be exceeded.
The
24
general
numeric
water
quality
standard
for
fluoride,
9
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
which is set forth
in Section 302.208(g),
is
1.4
2
milligrams per liter.
3
Today,
through our prefiled testimony and
4
in
response
to
questions,
we
intend
to
demonstrate
that
5
treatment
to
a
general
fluoride
water
quality
standard
6
of 1.4 milligrams per liter is neither technically
7
feasible nor economically reasonable
for the unnamed
8
tributary of Salt Creek from the point of the City’s
9
discharge
to
a
point
approximately
44
miles
downstream.
10
We will also demonstrate
the elimination
of
11
fluoride—based
chemicals
from
Blue
Beacon
and
12
Truckomat’s
facilities
would
have
a
severe
negative
13
economic
impact
on
the
industries,
as
well
as
the
City.
14
Finally,
we will demonstrate that the
15
fluoride
effluent
standard
requested
will
not
harm
the
16
aquatic
life
and
the
waters
downstream
of
the
City’s
17
discharge
or
have
a
negative
impact
on
the
current
use
18
of
surface
waters
as
the
public
water
supply.
19
We
have
four
witnesses
to
provide
20
testimony.
Mr.
Steve
Miller
is
the
city
engineer,
and
21
he
will
provide
information
about
the
City
in
general,
22
including
information
about
the
City’s
wastewater
23
treatment
plant,
the
NPDES
permit
issued
to
the
City,
24
and sources of fluoride in the City.
10
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
Mr. Mike Rose, the environmental research
2
and
development
director
for
Blue
Beacon,
who
will
3
provide information about the truck washing facilities,
4
including the beneficial economic impact or
5
benefit
——
or,
rather,
the
beneficial
economic
impact
of
6
Blue
Beacon
and
Truckomat’s
operations
to
the
City
and
7
surrounding
area,
and
the
economic
reasonableness
of
8
reducing fluoride levels from the truck washes.
9
Mr.
Max
Shepard, of Shepard Engineering,
10
will testify about the historic flow and fluoride data
11
for the receiving streams and the technical feasibility
12
of reducing fluoride levels from the truck washes,
as
13
well as how and why proposed site-specific effluent
14
standard was derived.
15
Mr. Greg Bright of Commonwealth
16
Biomonitoring,
Incorporated, will describe the available
17
data concerning the toxicity of fluoride to aquatic life
18
and demonstrate why the site-specific effluent standard
19
for fluoride proposed by Petitioners can be granted
20
without any harm to either aquatic life or the
21
environment.
22
The testimony will demonstrate that
23
Petitioners have worked closely with the Agency on this
24
issue over the course of several months.
And we thank
11
Keefe Reporting Company
1
the
Agency
for
working
with
us
in
trying
to
resolve
this
2
issue,
and
we
appreciate
their
participation
here
3
today.
4
On
page
one
of
its
pre-filed
testimony,
the
5
Agency
notes
that
it
is
the
substantial
agreement
that
6
relief
is
necessary
in
this
matter.
7
Nevertheless,
in
its
pre-filed
testimony,
8
the Agency suggests that the water quality standard for
9
the receiving stream should be modified, instead of the
10
Board simply granting relief from Section 304.105.
I
11
would like to briefly address that suggestion, because
12
we
do
believe
that
the
Board
has
the
authority
to
grant
13
relief
from
304.105
as
requested.
14
As the Agency recognizes on page five of
15
its pre-filed testimony,
Petitioners’ approach in not
16
requesting relief from the water quality standard is
17
consistent with several recent Board decisions.
18
As recently as June 6th of last year,
2002,
19
the Board denied a petitioner’s request for relief from
20
Section 302.208(g),
or, rather, 302.208,
of the Board’s
21
regulations, and granted relief from Section 304.105
22
instead.
And
that
was
In
The
Matter
of:
Material
23
Service
Corporation.
24
The
Board
reasoned
that
granting
relief
12
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
from
the
water
quality
standard
would
be
too
expansive
2
and
could
have
the
effect
of
giving
other
dischargers
3
located
on
the
stream
the
same
relief
as
the
4
petitioners,
even
though
those
individuals
had
not
5
demonstrated
or
may
not
be
able
to
demonstrate
that
they
6
were
entitled
to
the
relief
or
that
the
relief
is
7
necessary
for
them.
8
In
its
prior
decisions,
the
Board
has
9
explained that, by granting relief from Section 304.105,
10
instead of from the water quality standards,
the relief
11
is
limited
to
the
petitioners
seeking
relief,
and
other
12
dischargers
are
still
required
to
meet
the
generally
13
acceptable
--
or
generally
applicable
water
quality
14
standards.
15
And a citation for that is the Petition of
16
Rhone-Poulenc Basin Chemical Company, the August 11,
17
1994 opinion, and the adjusted standard 94-7.
18
There’s
ample
precedent
for
the
Board
to
19
grant
the
petitioners
the
relief
from
Section
304.105
20
that has been requested, and we believe that such relief
21
is
not
inconsistent
with
federal
law.
22
Section
402
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
and
23
Section
39
of
the
Act
do
not
prohibit
issuance
of
an
24
NPDES
permit
here,
because
the
site-specific
relief
13
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
granted
would
prevent
the
City’s
discharge
from
2
violating
the
water
quality
standard.
3
Pursuant
to
40
CFR,
Section
131.13,
the
4
Board
has
discretion
regarding
the
application
and
5
implementation
of
its
water
quality
standards,
including
6
how
the
standard
applies
during
low
flows.
7
Moreover,
in
Section
27
(a)
of
the
Act,
it
8
authorizes
the
Board
to
adopt
regulations
that
are
9
specific
to
either
individuals
or
to
sites.
10
In support of its pre-filed testimony, the
11
Agency
also
relies
on
correspondence,
dated
August
26,
12
1985,
that
it
received
from
the
USEPA
regarding
the
13
site-specific relief from Section 304.105.
It was
14
granted
to
the
John
Deere
Foundry,
and
that
is
now
15
codified at 35 Illinois Administrative Code,
Section
16
304.205.
This letter from the USEPA, however, does not
17
prohibit the Board from granting relief from Section
18
304.105.
Instead,
the letter provides a pertinent part
19
as
follows:
20
Quote,
“We
would
like
to
avoid
disapproval
21
of
the
water
quality
standards
exemption
for
John
Deere
22
Foundry
as
currently
adopted.”
23
Based
upon
that
language,
I
think
that
one
24
reasonable
interpretation
of
the
letter
from
the
USEPA
14
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
is
that
this
“end
run,”
as
the
agency
describes
it,
was
2
based upon the failure for the USEPA to be notified of
3
the
site-specific
relief
that
was
granted
as
opposed
to
4
the
fact
that
the
relief
was
from
304.105.
5
The
Agency’s
suggestion
on
page
13
of
its
6
pre-filed testimony that “the averaging rule in Part 304
7
merely
addresses
how
compliance
with
the
effluent
8
ultimately
placed
in
a
permit
is
determined”
is
also
9
incorrect,
we
would
respectfully
submit.
Section
10
304.104 sets forth a method for interpreting the
11
numerical effluent standards in Part 304.
The method
12
for interpreting the effluent standards in Part 304
13
provides,
in
pertinent
part,
as
follows:
14
“Except as otherwise specifically
15
provided,
proof
of
violation
of
the
numerical
standards
16
of
this
part
shall
be
on
the
basis
of
one
or
more
of
the
17
following
averaging
rules.”
18
And,
again,
I think the pertinent language
19
of
that
language
is
the
words
of
“this
part.”
That’s
20
not
to
say
the
compliance
with
part
304
or
effluent
21
limitation pursuant to the averaging rule, does not
22
necessarily
mean
that
the
limits
of
the
NPDES
permit
23
have
not
been
violated.
24
Proof
of
violation
of
the
effluent
15
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
limitations
contained
in
permits
shall
be
based
on
the
2
language
of
the
permit.
And
that
is
set
forth
in
35
3
Illinois
Administrative
Code,
Section
304.104(d)
4
Thus,
the
Board
may
grant
Petitioners
5
relief
that’s
been
requested.
Such
relief
is
in
accord
6
with
recent
Board
decisions,
and
it
is
consistent
with
7
federal law, and it maintains the generally applicable
8
water quality standard, while granting the Petitioners
9
the site-specific relief that has been requested.
10
Again, we thank you.
11
MR.
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Thank
you.
12
Ms.
Williams,
do
you
have
anything
to
open
13
with?
14
MS.
WILLIAMS:
It’s
up
to
you.
How
do
you
15
want to handle it?
We do have a brief opening.
And
16
then
we’re
prepared
to
make
some
responses
and
17
clarifications to the questions that were asked by the
18
Board on a few matters.
So if you’d rather, we’d just
19
save
that
for
the
end
of
their
case.
That’s
fine.
20
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Do
you
want
to
21
save your opening for the end of this case?
22
MS.
WILLIAMS:
Sure.
I
have
with
me
Scott
23
Twait
of
our
standard
unit.
24
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Can
you
spell
16
Keefe Reporting Company
1
that?
2
MR.
TWAIT:
T-w-a-i-t.
3
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Thank
you.
Your
4
call,
Ms.
Williams,
if
you
want
to
make
your
opening
now
5
or
at
the
end
of
their
case.
6
MS.
WILLIAMS:
Well,
I’ll
go
ahead
and
make
7
the opening.
And then as long as we can go back and
8
clarify some of the others later.
9
Good morning.
My name is Deborah
10
Williams.
I’m assistant counsel for the Bureau of Water
11
at the Illinois EPA.
Also
here with me today is Scott
12
Twait.
He’s an environmental protection engineer in the
13
standards unit of the division of water pollution
14
control
within
the
bureau
of
water
at
the
Illinois
EPA.
15
Scott,
myself
and
other
agency
staff
16
participated
in
the
review
and
comment
on
drafting
the
17
site-specific rule making petitions presented by the
18
Petitioners
in
this
matter
prior
to
their
filing
with
19
the
Board.
20
As
indicated
in
our
pre-file
testimony,
the
21
Agency
supports
the
technical
foundation
of
the
relief
22
requested
and
recommends
that
regulatory
relief
in
the
23
form
of
a
site-specific
rule
making
be
granted
to
the
24
petitioners.
17
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
As
I will discuss in more detail in a
2
moment, the Illinois EPA strongly disagrees with the
3
format
in
which
that
relief
has
been
requested.
Prior
4
to filing a site-specific rule making petition with the
5
Board,
Petitioners
address
the
technical
questions
and
6
concerns
raised
by
the
Agency
and
agree
to
some
7
additional
safeguards
that
are
to
be
implemented
as
part
8
of
the
permitting
process
to
provide
additional
9
assurance
that
the
proposed
site-specific
standard
will
10
be
protective
of
the
existing
and
potential
uses
of
the
11
impacted
region stream.
12
The
proposed
safeguards
include,
first,
13
placement
of
language
in
the
City
of
Effingham’s
14
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
Permit,
15
or
NPDES
permit.
That
requires
the
publicly
owned
16
treatment
works
to
monitor
fluoride
concentrations
at
17
the
City
of
Flora’s
water
supply
intake
when
the
Little
18
Wabash
River
near
7-day,
10-year
low-flow
conditions
to
19
guarantee
that
the
Flora
public
water
supply
will
not
be
20
adversely
impacted
by
the
relief
requested.
21
Second,
the
City
has
agreed
to
be
bound
by
22
an effluent limit of 4.5 milligrams per liter in its
23
NPDES permit in order to guarantee that the water
24
quality
standards
and
the
receiving
stream
will
not
18
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
exceed
5.0
milligrams
per
liter,
taking
a
conservative
2
view
of
the
potential
for
evaporation
into
account.
3
In
addition
to
those
safeguards
agreed
to
4
by
the
Petitioners,
the
Agency
has
the
opportunity
5
through the permit renewal process
to require the
6
Petitioner
to
review
over
the
coming
years
any
new
7
information
on
brighteners
that
may
allow
for
8
replacement
or
reduction
of
fluoride
to
the
wastewater
9
reach
in
Effingham’s
POTW.
10
The Illinois EPA pre-filed testimony
11
primarily details the basis for our conclusion that the
12
relief
requested
by
the
Petitioners
from
35
Illinois
13
Administrative Code,
Section 304.105,
is inconsistent
14
with
federal
law.
And that
the
Board
should
instead
15
grant
relief
from
the
general
use
water
quality
standard
16
of
1.4
milligrams
per
liter
contained
in
35
Illinois
17
Administrative
Code
302.208
(g),
and
replace
that
with
18
the
site-specific
water
quality
standard,
applicable
to
19
the
reach
of
the
unnamed
tributary,
Salt
Creek
and
the
20
Little
Wabash
River
impacted
by
Effingham’s
discharge.
21
The specific limitations that will be applicable to the
22
various stream segments are outlined on pages 13 and 14
23
of
the
Agency’s
testimony.
24
I’d
be
more
than
happy
to
answer
any
19
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
questions the Board may have on that testimony and
2
clarify our legal position in this matter.
Certainly we
3
don’t disagree with Petitioners’
contention of the Board
4
precedent relief they requested.
I think we also make
5
clear
in
our
testimony
that
Board
precedent
can
also
be
6
used
to
support
a
different
conclusion,
and
we’ve
made
a
7
concerted effort in this case to provide a detailed
8
outline of our position in hopes
to convince the Board
9
to go forward with the consistent precedent in the
10
future.
11
Additionally, the Agency has reviewed the
12
questions presented in the hearing officer order of
13
March
21,
2003
and
the
answers
submitted
to
the
14
Petitioners
on
April
4th.
And
following
the
15
presentation
of
Petitioners’
case,
the
Agency
has
16
clarified
--
is
prepared
today
to
clarify
and
add
some
17
information
to
those
responses,
as
well
as
a
few
18
exhibits that we’ve brought that might assist the Board
19
in
this
matter.
20
So thank you.
That’s all I have.
21
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Thank
you,
22
Ms.
Williams.
23
Mr. Walter, do you want to present
24
testimony?
20
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
MR.
WALTER:
No.
Actually, we can just do
2
a
summary
of
each
individual.
Can you read basically
3
the
summary
of the pre-filed testimony?
We’ve already
4
pre-filed the testimony.
So we can read the entirety of
5
the
testimony
into
the
record.
6
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
And
you’re
going
7
to
want
to
present
a
summary
and
then
offer
that
8
testimony as if it were read at hearing, and we’ll
9
accept
it?
10
MR.
WALTER:
That’s
correct.
11
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Can we swear all
12
four up at the same time?
13
(Witnesses
sworn.
14
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Mr.
Walter,
15
whichever
one
you
want
to
begin
with.
16
MR.
WALTER:
Do
you
want
me
to
mark
the
17
pre-filed as exhibits?
Or since it’s already been
18
filed,
how
do
you
want
to
do
that?
19
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Why
don’t
you
20
mark it just for clarification,
so we can refer to it in
21
the
Board’s
opinion
and
order
on
this.
22
MR. WALTER:
Can I approach the witness?
23
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Sure.
And let’s
24
go
off
the
record
for
a
second.
21
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
Off-the-record
discussion.
2
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Back on the
3
record.
4
MR.
WALTER:
Are
we
back
on
the
record?
5
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Yes,
we
are.
6
(Petitioners’
Exhibit
J
was
marked
for
7
identification.
8
MR.
WALTER:
I’ve
marked for identification
9
purposes Petitioners’ Exhibit J.
I would ask that filed
10
subsequently,
the pre-file testimony of Mike
11
Rose
--
actually,
I’d like to go out of order and have
12
Mr. Miller first.
And I’ve marked as Petitioners’
13
Exhibit
J,
the
pre-filed
testimony
of
Steve
Miller.
14
Mr.
Miller,
could
you
just
summarize
and
15
basically
read
into
the
record
a
summary
of
your
16
testimony.
17
MR. MILLER:
Good morning.
My name is
18
Steve
Miller.
I am the city engineer for the City of
19
Effingham.
And
I
am
appearing
here
today
on
behalf
of
20
the Petitioner in support of their proposal for
21
site-specific
rule
for
fluoride
discharge
associated
22
with the City of Effingham’s wastewater treatment
23
plant.
24
I
will
describe
the
City’s
water
treatment
22
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
plant and its permitted fluoride limit.
I’ve also
2
discussed
the
City’s
attempt
to
determine
the
sources
of
3
and
to
develop
local
limits
for
fluoride
for
the
City’s
4
discharge.
5
Finally,
I will describe how the City has
6
worked
with
the
fluoride
dischargers
and
the
IEPA
to
7
address
the
issues
that
are
raised
by
the
fluoride
in
8
the City’s effluent.
9
Thank you for allowing me to testify here
10
today.
11
MR. WALTER:
And
with
that
summary,
if
we
12
could
have
the
pre-filed
testimony
of
Mr.
Miller
entered
13
in
the
record
as
it’s
read.
14
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Any
objection?
15
MS.
WILLIAMS:
No.
16
MR. HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
That will be
17
so
admitted.
18
MR. WALTER:
Then Mr. Miller is available
19
for any questions.
20
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Let’s do,
if you
21
don’t
mind,
get
it
all
in
the
record,
the
summaries
of
22
all three, and then we can ask our questions.
23
MR.
WALTER:
Sure.
That
would
probably
24
work better.
23
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
We’ll
ask
it
in
a
2
panel format.
3
MR.
WALTER:
Mr.
Rose,
could
you
read
from
4
what I’ve marked as Petitioners’
Exhibit J,
a
summary
of
5
your pre-filed testimony.
6
MR. ROSE:
Yes.
Good morning.
My name is
7
Mike
Rose.
I’m the director of environmental research
8
and development for Blue Beacon International of Salina,
9
Kansas.
I’m
appearing
here
today
on
behalf
of
10
Petitioners in support of their proposal for the
11
site-specific rule for fluoride and dischargers
12
associated
with
the
City
of
Effingham’s
treatment
13
plants.
14
I
will
testify
regarding
the
truck
washers
15
in Effingham,
their economic significance to the City,
16
the lack of available alternatives to these truck
17
washers,
and
the
fact
that
there
is
no
economically
18
reasonable way to reduce the fluoride levels.
19
Thank you for allowing me to testify here
20
today.
21
MR.
WALTER:
And,
again,
with
that
summary,
22
we’d ask that his pre-filed testimony be entered in the
23
record as
read.
24
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Ms.
Williams?
24
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
discharging into the affected water segments downstream
2
in the City’s discharge,
as well as the entities using
3
water downstream of the City’s discharge,
fluoride
4
impacts from the City’s discharge, available treatment
5
control
options
for
fluoride,
fluoride
removal
6
technologies
and
the
technical
feasibility
of
reducing
7
fluoride
levels.
8
Thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
testify
here
9
today.
10
MR.
WALTER:
We
would
ask
that
the
11
pre-filed
testimony
of
Max
Shepard also be entered into
12
the record as being read.
13
MS.
WILLIAMS:
No
objection.
14
HEARING
OFFICER
IQqITTLE:
So
admitted.
15
(Petitioners’
Exhibit
L
was
admitted
16
into
the
record.
17
MR.
WALTER:
And
finally
I
will
mark
as
18
Petitioners’ Exhibit N, the pre-filed testimony of Greg
19
Bright as part of the site-specific regulation.
20
(Petitioners’ Exhibit M was marked for
21
identification.)
22
MR. WALTER:
Mr.
Bright, would you please
23
read into the record the
summary
of your testimony.
24
MR. BRIGHT:
Good morning.
My name is Greg
26
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
MS.
WILLIAMS:
No problem.
2
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
That’s
admitted.
3
Petitioners’
Exhibit
J
was
admitted
4
into
the
record.
5
MR.
WALTER:
I’m
now
marking
as
6
Petitioner’s Exhibit L the pre-filed testimony of
Max
7
Shepard.
8
(Petitioners’
Exhibit
L
was
marked
for
9
identification.)
10
MR.
WALTER:
Mr.
Shepard, can you please
11
just
read
the
summary
of your testimony.
12
MR.
SHEPARD:
Good
morning.
My
name
is
Max
13
Shepard.
I’m a chemical engineer and a licensed
14
professional engineer in four states,
and President of
15
Shepard Engineering, Incorporated, of Salina,
Kansas.
16
I’m
appearing
here
today
on
behalf
of
the
17
Petitioners in support of their proposal for a
18
site-specific rule for the fluoride discharge associated
19
with the City of Effingham’s treatment plant.
20
I will testify about how the proposed
21
site-specific
effluent
standard
was
derived,
the
22
condition of the receiving streams for the City’s
23
discharge,
the
historical
flow
and
fluoride
data
for
24
those receiving streams,
the entities presently
25
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
Bright.
I’m
the
director
of
Commonwealth
Biomonitoring
2
of Indianapolis,
Indiana.
And I’m appearing here today
3
on behalf of the Petitioners in support of the proposal
4
for a site-specific rule for the fluoride discharge
5
associated
with
the
City
of
Effingham’s
treatment
6
plant.
7
I will testify regarding the available data
8
on
the
toxicity
of
fluoride
to
aquatic
life
in
general,
9
the effect of hardness on fluoride toxicity and actual
10
bioassessments
of
the
site.
11
Thank you for allowing me to testify here
12
today.
13
MR.
WALTER:
Once
again,
we
would
ask
the
14
pre-filed testimony of Mr. Bright be entered into the
15
record
as
it’s
read.
16
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Ms. Williams?
17
MS.
WILLIAMS:
No
objection.
18
HEARING
OFFICER
IGTITTLE:
So
admitted.
19
(Petitioners’
Exhibit
M
was
admitted
20
into the record.
21
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Anything
else
22
from your perspective, Mr. Walter?
23
MR. WALTER:
We have the responses to the
24
questions.
Would you like for us to read those into the
27
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
record?
2
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Those were filed
3
with
the
Board,
correct?
4
MR.
WALTER:
That’s
correct.
5
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Those
are
a
6
matter
of
record.
I
don’t
see
any
reason
why
we
have
to
7
read
those
into
the
record.
8
We
have
a
request
from
Mr.
Rao
that
we
make
9
that
an
exhibit,
and
I
see
no
reason
why
we
shouldn’t.
10
Can
you
do
that
for
us,
Mr.
Walter?
11
MR.
WALTER:
Yes.
I am marking
--
you
12
found my orange stickers.
I’ll mark as Petitioners’
13
Exhibit
N
the
Petitioners’
response
to
written
questions
14
set
forth
in
Hearing
Officer
Order,
dated
March
21,
15
2003.
16
(Petitioners’
Exhibit
N
was
marked
for
17
identification.
18
MR.
WALTER:
And
our
witnesses
are
19
available
for
questions
at
this
time.
20
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Okay.
And
you’re
21
offering that into evidence,
that Exhibit N?
22
MR.
WALTER:
That’s
correct.
23
HEARING OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Ms. Williams?
24
MS. WILLIAMS:
No objection.
28
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
For the purposes
2
of
identification,
we
will
admit
that
into
the
record.
3
(Petitioners’ Exhibit N was admitted
4
into
the
record.
5
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
And
do
you
want
6
to
go
forward?
7
MR.
RAO:
Sure.
8
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
We’re
going
to
9
ask
questions
then.
10
MR.
WALTER:
We also have a large malamard
11
(phonetic)
view
of
the
map.
I
can
make
that
an
exhibit
12
if the Board would like that for its purposes.
13
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Sure.
Let’s make
14
that an exhibit.
Okay.
That’s a nice map.
That would
15
help the Board, I’m sure,
in its deliberation.
16
MS.
WILLIAMS:
I
think
the
comment
was
if
17
the
panel
nature
of
the
questioning
would
involve
18
response
from
our
staff,
and
maybe
we
can
present
our
19
case.
20
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Any
objection,
21
Mr.
Walter?
22
MR.
WALTER:
No,
I
don’t
have
any
objection
23
to
them
presenting
their
case
first.
24
MS. WILLIAMS:
And the
Board
is
free
to
ask
29
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
questions, and Scott can help.
2
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Let’s get that
3
exhibit
taken
care
of.
4
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:
Do
we
admit
for
S
identification over there, the pre-filed testimony?
6
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
That
is
the
7
response to the questions that the hearing officer
8
proposed.
9
MR.
WALTER:
I’m
marking
what
is
10
attachment
E
as
Petitioners’
Exhibit
0,
which
is
the
11
copy
that’s
available
here
for
the
witnesses
today
to
12
use in answering questions.
13
And
I’m
marking
as
Petitioners’
Exhibit
P,
14
a map which is included with Exhibit B to the petition.
15
(Petitioners’ Exhibits 0 and P were
16
marked
for
identification.
17
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Okay.
And if the
18
witnesses have any need to mark on those maps,
they
19
would be
able
to do so.
20
MR.
WALTER:
Yes.
21
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
And we’d know who
22
was
marking
it,
and
what
color
they’re
marking
it?
And
23
then
we’ll
have
it
in
the
record.
24
Ms. Williams, how do you feel about the
30
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
business
of
the
map?
2
MS.
WILLIAMS:
We’re
excited
because
we’re
3
planning
on
marking
on
the
big
map.
4
HEARING
OFFICER
IQTITTLE:
There
are
two
5
exhibits
offered
into
evidence.
Any
objection?
6
MS.
WILLIAMS:
No
objection.
7
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Both
are
8
accepted.
9
(Petitioners’
Exhibits
0
and
P
were
10
admitted into the record.
11
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Now
we’re
going
12
to
——
before
we
take
questions
from
the
Board,
13
Ms.
Williams,
would
you
like
to
put
your
case
on?
14
MS.
WILLIAMS:
Yes.
The
Agency
would
just
15
like
to
add
a
few
brief
points
from
a
legal
perspective
16
and
also
from
a
technical
perspective
that
might
clarify
17
some
of
the
response
to
the
questions.
18
I
don’t
know
if
you
want
to
swear
me
in
or
19
not.
It’s
up
to
you.
20
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Are
you
going
to
21
be providing testimony other than legal argument?
22
MS. WILLIAMS:
Probably not.
I mean,
I
23
consider
it
legal
argument,
but
--
24
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Well, let’s swear
31
Keefe Reporting Company
1
you
in,
just
to
be
safe.
And we’ll
swear
Mr.
Twait
in
2
as well.
3
(Ms.
Williams
and
Mr.
Twait
were
duly
sworn.
4
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Okay.
5
Ms.
Williams,
proceed.
6
MS. WILLIAMS:
The Illinois EPA would like
7
to supplement and clarify some of the responses provided
8
by the Petitioners to the questions posed by the hearing
9
officer
in
this
matter.
10
As
with
the
petition
for
site-specific
rule
11
making
itself,
the
Agency
concurs
with
the
bulk
of
the
12
responses presented by the Petitioners, with one key
13
exception:
That the Illinois EPA does not support
14
Petitioners’
attempts
to
justify
with
prior
rulings
by
15
the
Board,
their
decision
to
request
relief
from
16
304.105,
rather
than
a
site-specific
water
quality
17
standard.
18
The
Agency’s
response
to
several
of
the
19
questions
posed
can
be
found
in
the
Agency’s
pre-filed
20
testimony.
Responses
to
questions
one
and
two
form
the
21
bulk of that testimony.
22
To reiterate,
however,
as suggested by
23
question one,
the Illinois EPA believes that a change to
24
the
water
quality
standard
is
appropriate
relief
in
this
32
Keefe Reporting Company
1
case,
and
that
that
change
must
be
submitted
to
USEPA
2
for
approval,
and
ultimately
approved
by
USEPA
to
be
3
effective
and
consistent
with
federal
law.
And
that
the
4
specific
standards
applicable
to
the
specific
reaches
of
5
stream
should
be
outlined
in
the
final
rule
making.
Any
6
attempt
to
grant
relief
solely
from
35
Illinois
7
Administrative
Code
304.105
will
likely
be
viewed
by
8
USEPA
as
an
attempt
to
make
an
end
run
around
the
water
9
quality standard setting process and be seen as giving
10
Petitioners
an
indefinite
license
to
cause
existing
11
water
quality
standards
to
be
violated
in
the
affected
12
receiving streams.
13
The
Agency
does
not
disagree
that
14
Petitioners’
requested
relief
is
consistent
with
some
15
recent
Board
precedent
in
adjusted
standard
cases.
16
However,
as pointed out in the Agency’s testimony,
a
17
consistent
precedent
has
not
developed
out
of
the
prior
18
Board’s
opinions.
And
the
Agency
hopes
its
testimony
in
19
this
matter
will
clarify
its
position
on
the
issue
for
20
the
Board
and
help
persuade
the
Board
to
take
the
21
consistent position in the future.
22
It does not serve any of the parties
to
23
this matter to grant regulatory relief that either will
24
not
be
approved
by
USEPA
or
will
be
vulnerable
to
33
Keefe Reporting Company
1
becoming
meaningless
if
the
Agency
were
forced
to
2
promulgate a loading limit under the
TMDL
program
to
3
bring the receiving streams into compliance with the
4
existing general use standard of 1.4 milligrams per
5
liter.
6
In
response
to
question
number
two,
7
Petitioners
state
moreover
——
8
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:
Just
briefly,
how
do
you
9
then address the Board’s prior concern, which in my mind
10
has been that by granting this change in the water
11
quality
standard,
you
in
fact
--
then
that
ends
up
being
12
too expansive, and it has the effect of giving other
13
dischargers located along that stream the ability to
14
discharge without seeking that relief?
15
MS.
WILLIAMS:
Sure.
Well,
I
mean,
I
think
16
there’s
a
legal
answer
to
that
as
well
as
a
technical
17
answer,
which
might
be
parallel,
but
not
quite
the
18
same.
19
I
believe
the
technical
staff
would
20
respond,
and
we
can
ask
them
to,
that
in
our
review
of
21
these types of cases where you have a zero 7Q10 streams
22
and you have a water quality base effluent limit,
in our
23
technical
review,
if
we
come
in
and
recommend
favorably
24
on
the
technical
side,
we
have
viewed
it
as
not
—-
I
34
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
mean,
we
paid
attention
to
maybe
the
adjusted
standard
2
requirements or the site—specific rule making
3
requirements,
but
in
addition
we’ve
looked
at
whether
4
this
water
quality
standard
is
going
to
be
appropriate
5
for
this
stream
regardless
of
the
dischargers.
6
From
the
legal
side,
I
think
the
Agency
7
would
be
satisfied
if
--
I
mean,
an
acceptable
8
compromised
position
would
be
to
say
we’re
going
to
9
change
this
water
quality
standard.
If
other
10
dischargers
want
to
come
in
and
take
advantage
of
that,
11
they
need
to
apply
as
well.
But
to
say
that
we
have
two
12
different water 4uality standards in one stream,
to us,
13
does
not
seem
very
consistent
with
the
federal
scheme
14
either
from
a
legal
or
technical
perspective.
15
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:
Okay.
But you do
16
understand
the
prior
Board
decisions
that
have
done
17
that,
have
been
motivated
solely
by
the
desire
to
make
18
sure
that
other
dischargers
located
along
that
19
particular
body
of
water
don’t
--
are
not
granted
the
20
relief from one petitioner is seeking without having to
21
have
gone
through
the
same
process?
22
MS. WILLIAMS:
Right.
And I actually think
23
in
this
case
we
can
maybe
throw
that
issue
aside?
A bit
24
in
the
sense
that
we’re
doing
a
site—specific
rule
35
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
making
as
opposed
to
adjusted
standard.
2
In an adjusted standard,
it does lay out a
3
different,
more
stringent
sort
of
set
of
factors
that
4
you
need
to
look
at,
that
do
focus
more
heavily
on
the
5
petitioner.
And
here
we’re
viewing
this
as
a
6
site-specific
rule
making,
primarily
applicable
to
this
7
piece
of
stream.
We
have
the
authority
to
go
in,
and
8
the
Board
can
look
at
this
piece
of
stream
and
say
what
9
works
for
this
piece
of
stream
regardless
of
the
10
economic
impact
on
the
petitioner.
11
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:
Thank
you.
12
MS.
WILLIAMS:
In
response
to
question
13
number
two, Petitioners state that, moreover in such
14
cases
where
the
general
water
quality
standard
is
not
15
changed,
the
Board
has
specifically
directed
the
IEPA
to
16
revise
the
Petitioners’
National
Pollutant
Discharge
17
Elimination
System
Permit,
consistent
with
the
relief
18
granted
by
the
Board
from
304.105.
19
The
Agency
does
not
dispute
that
such
an
20
order
may
have
been
issued
in
the
case
cited
by
the
21
Petitioners,
but
we
do
not
agree
that
the
Board
has
22
consistently done so in all of these types of cases.
23
Additionally,
even
though
such
an
order
may
24
have been issued, and it may not have been appealed, the
36
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
Agency
strongly
argues
that
the
site-specific
rule
2
making
process
and
even
the
adjusted
standard
process
is
3
not
the
appropriate
form
for
the
Board
to
order
the
4
Agency
to
rewrite
a
permit.
We
believe
the
Board
will
S
be
exceeding
its
authority
in
this
matter,
if
as
6
Petitioners
potentially
seem
to
suggest,
it
would
7
include
a
directive
to
the
Agency
to
make
a
specific
8
permitting
decision
or
change
as
part
of
a
site-specific
9
rule
making.
10
The
proper
procedure
would
be
that
11
following
adoption
of
a
site-specific
relief
in
this
12
matter,
the
City
of
Effingham
will
apply
to
the
Agency
13
for
a
permit
modification,
which
will
be
granted
by
the
14
Agency
consistent
with
the
Board’s
relief.
Any
failure
15
to
do
so
or
disagreement
with
the
manner
in
which
this
16
action
is
taken
is
properly
addressed
through
a
permit
17
appeal.
18
In
question
number
17,
the
Board
asked
the
19
Petitioners
to
explain
the
impact
of
the
relief
20
requested on other dischargers to the affected stream
21
segments.
In response,
the Petitioners state that other
22
dischargers
must
meet
the
existing
general
use
of
water
23
quality
standard
of
1.4
milligrams
per
liter.
Although
24
this
is
an
accurate
description
of
the
relief
requested,
37
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
it
does
have
the
consequence
of
making
it
difficult
or
2
impossible
for
other
dischargers
to
demonstrate
that
the
3
water
quality
standard
for
fluoride
is
being
met
when
4
Petitioners
confirm
that
it
will
be
violated
under
low
5
flow
conditions.
6
In
addition,
I
just
want
to
add
a
few
7
points
about
--
that
were
raised
in
the
opening
8
statement,
I
guess,
too.
9
We
did
attach
a
1985
correspondence
from
10
USEPA
that
we
think
is
relevant
to
this
issue.
And
11
Petitioners
are
correct
that
it
doesn’t
--
the
factual
12
situation in this case doesn’t go along completely in
13
line
with
what’s
going
on
here.
We
submitted
that
14
because
we
do
feel
it
raises
concerns
that
we
believe
15
that
we
have
in
this
matter.
But,
really,
it’s
the
only
16
thing
in
writing
that
we’ve
got
from
them.
So
it’s
17
really
the
best
that
we
had
to
offer.
18
And
I think now I’d like to turn it over to
19
Scott
Twait.
He’s
prepared
to
provide
some
technical
20
response
to
a
few
of
the
questions,
and
we’ll
be
21
presenting
a
few
exhibits.
22
MR.
TWAIT:
I’d
like
to
start
with
question
23
number
three.
24
The Board mentioned two separate reports in
38
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
question number
three.
The
Petitioner
has
supplied
the
2
facility related stream survey completed in 1999.
3
However,
the
Agency
is
not
sure
that
this
was
their
4
requested
document.
Therefore
the
Agency
is
supplying
S
the
February
1998
acute
toxicity
test
results
prepared
6
for
the
City
of
Effingham
by
the
Advent
Group
as
an
7
exhibit.
8
IEPA
Exhibit
Number
1
was marked for
9
identification.
10
MS.
WILLIAMS:
And
I
have
this
marked
here,
11.
Illinois
EPA
Exhibit
Number
1,
but
is
that
okay?
12
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
That
is
perfectly
13
fine.
14
Is
Mr.
Walter
taking
a
look
at
that?
Do
15
you
have
any
objection
to
that?
Or
are
you
offering
16
that?
17
MR.
WALTER:
Can
I
look
at
it
for
just
a
18
second?
19
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Oh,
you
have
not
20
seen
it?
Let’s
go
off
the
record
and
let
him
take
a
21
look.
22
(Brief break.
23
MR.
WALTER:
We have no
objection.
24
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Let’s
go
back
on
39
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
the
record.
2
Ms.
Williams,
are
you
offering
that?
3
MS.
WILLIAMS:
Yes.
I’d
like
to
offer
that
4
study.
5
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
EPA
Exhibit
6
Number
1?
7
MS.
WILLIAMS:
That’s
EPA
Exhibit
8
Number
1.
9
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Mr.
Walter,
do
10
you
have
any
objection?
11
MR.
WALTER:
No,
we
do
not.
12
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
That
will
be
13
admitted.
14
IEPA
Exhibit
Number
1
was
admitted
15
into
the
record.
16
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
You
can
continue,
17
Mr.
Twait.
18
MR.
TWAIT:
In
response
to
question
number
19
four,
the
Agency
responded
to
this
issue
on
pages
four
20
and
five
of
the
pre-filed
testimony
of
the
Illinois
21
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
The
Agency’s
response
22
was,
and
I
quote:
23
“The Illinois EPA has calculated the
24
critical hardness during low flow conditions
as 130
40
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
milligrams
per
liter
to
143
milligrams
per
liter
for
the
2
Little
Wabash
River.
This
value
was
calculated
by
3
taking
the
10th
percentile
hardness
values
during
the
4
10th
percentile
low
flows.
The
Illinois
EPA
does
not
5
disagree
with
Effingham’s
general
conclusion
that
the
6
water
downstream
from
Effingham’s
discharge
is
hard,”
7
unquote.
8
The
Agency
is
supplying
critical
hardness
9
values
from
the
Little
Wabash
River
as
an
exhibit.
The
10
Agency
would
also
like
to
point
out
that
the
low
flow
11
does
not
always
produce
the
hardest
water.
12
MS.
WILLIAMS:
And
we
have
a
listing
here
13
of
critical
hardness
values
for
the
various
parts
of
the
14
Wabash
River,
which
I
will
show
Petitioner.
And
if
they
15
don’t
have
any
objection,
we’d
like
to
have
it
admitted
16
as
exhibit
--
Illinois
EPA
Exhibit
Number
2.
17
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Mr.
Walter,
any
18
objection
to
this
one?
19
MR.
WALTER:
No,
we
have
no
objection
to
20
this.
We’d
just
like
to
note
for
the
record
that
this
21
appears
to
be
just
partial
data.
It’s
1
page,
2
of
13.
22
So
we’re
not
sure
why
this
information
was
included
in
23
the
report,
but
we
have
no
objection
to
this.
24
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
With
that
41
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
qualification,
we
will
admit
the
EPA
Exhibit
Number
2.
2
IEPA
Exhibit
Number
2
was marked and
3
admitted
into
the
record.
4
MS.
WILLIAMS:
Thank
you.
5
MR. TWAIT:
In response to question six,
6
the
Agency
does
not
disagree
with
the
Petitioners’
7
response,
but
would
like
to
add
the
following:
8
In
the
case
of
fluoride,
the
most
sensitive
9
species
is
a
net-spinning
caddisfly.
The
Agency’s
10
facility
related
stream
survey
indicated
that
11
net-spinning
caddisflies
were
present
3.7
miles
12
downstream of the discharge.
It is believed that they
13
were
not
found
at
the
sampling
locations
closer
to
the
14
discharge
at
that
time
because
of
low
dissolved
oxygen
15
concentration
that
were
present.
Based
on
the
June
20,
16
2002
rapid
bioassessment,
the
macroinvertebrate
17
community
has
improved
at
the
site
closer
to
the
18
facility
discharge
that
net-spinning
caddisf
lies
are
19
relatively
abundant.
Based
on
this
information,
the
20
Agency does not believe that a fish survey is necessary
21
since the fish are more tolerant of fluoride.
22
In response to question
number
nine,
the
23
Agency would agree that there are no ambient water
24
quality monitoring network stations between Effingham’s
42
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
discharge
and
ambient
water
quality
and
monitoring
2
network station C-19.
Station C-21 is on the Little
3
Wabash
River
upstream
of
the
confluence
of
Salt
Creek.
4
Also
there
are
no
recent
monitoring
data
for
fluoride
at
5
station
C-19
and
C-21.
6
All
the
fluoride
data
for
station
C-19
is
7
included
in
the
petition.
The
Agency
is
submitting
as
9
an
exhibit
the
fluoride
data
for
station
C-21.
9
The
data
consists
of
five
fluoride
samples
10
taken
between
November
of
1980
and
February
of
1990
that
11
range
between
0.14
milligrams
per
liter
and
0.2
12
milligrams
per
liter.
We
would
also
like
you
to
note
13
that
the
7Q10
value
of
the
Little
Wabash
River
at
14
station
C-21
is
0
cfs
15
Illinois
EPA
Exhibit
Number
3
was
16
marked
for
identification.
17
MS.
WILLIAMS:
And
I
have
marked
as
18
Illinois
EPA
Exhibit
Number
3
as
the
fluoride
data
from
19
station
C-21.
And
if
Petitioners
have
no
objection,
I’d
20
like to have the exhibit entered into the record.
21
MR.
TWAIT:
And
I
could
also
mark
the
22
location of C-19 and C 21 on the map if that’s
23
appropriate.
24
MS. WILLIAMS:
Would that be good?
Did you
43
Keefe Reporting Company
1
hear
that?
2
HEARING OFFICER
KNITTLE:
I
was
going
3
to
--
Mr. Walter, do you have any objection to that?
4
MR.
WALTER:
We
have
no
objection
to
this
5
exhibit,
and
we
have
no
objection
of
him
marking
that
6
location
on
the
map.
7
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Mr.
Twait?
8
And while
he’s doing that,
Exhibit
Number
3
9
for
the
EPA will
be
admitted.
10
IEPA
Exhibit
Number
3
was
admitted
11
into
the
record.
12
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Mr. Twait, what
13
exactly
did
you
mark?
14
MR.
TWAIT:
I
marked
as
ambient
water
15
quality
monitoring
network
station
C-19
located
near
16
Louisville
and
station
C-21,
which
is
east
of
Effingham,
17
and
they’re
both
on
the
Little
Wabash
River.
18
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Thank
you.
19
MR.
WALTER:
Just
for
the
record,
which
20
exhibit was that marked on?
21
MS. WILLIAMS:
N?
22
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:
The
top
one.
23
MR.
WALTER:
Exhibit
0.
24
MR.
TWAIT:
The Agency would also like to
44
Keefe Reporting Company
1
respond
to
questions
14
and
15.
2
The Agency does not believe that a use
3
attainability
analysis
is
necessary.
A
UAA is
done
to
a
4
general
use
water
body
when
there
is
a
downgrading
of
a
5
use.
6
The
uses:
Protection
of
wildlife,
7
agriculture
use,
secondary
contact,
industrial
use,
and
8
the
portion
of
the
receiving
stream
that
is
protected
as
9
primary
contact
were
eliminated
from
review
in
early
10
consultations
since
the
fluoride
levels
do
not
affect
11
the
use.
12
The
petition
has
demonstrated
that
the
13
aquatic
life
use
and
the
public
and
food
processing
use
14
will
be
protected.
Therefore
all
existing
uses
will
be
15
maintained
and
protected.
The
Agency
views
the
16
site-specific
rule
making
as
a
proceeding
to
establish
a
17
water quality standard that is protective of the most
18
sensitive
use.
19
In
response
to
question
19,
the
Petitioner
20
and the Agency have agreed to place a special condition
21
in
the
Effingham
STP
NPDES
permit
requiring
fluoride
22
samples to be analyzed at Flora when the stream
23
approaches low-flow conditions.
24
The Agency would also like to respond to
45
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
question
number
22.
Through the permit renewal process,
2
the
Agency
has
the
authority
to
require
the
Petitioner
3
to
review
any
new
information
concerning
its
processes
4
of
using
the
brightener
for
the
truck
washes.
5
I
would
also
like
to
add
a
little
bit
to
6
Chairman
Johnson’s
question
on
why
another
discharger
7
could
not
take
part
of
this
relief.
8
If
there
was
another
discharger
that
would
9
like
to
discharge
a
larger
amount
of
fluoride
to
the
10
receiving
stream,
their
additional
amount
would
either
11
change
the
concentrations
in
the
receiving
stream
above
12
what we’re granting and or change the length of the
13
adjusted
stream.
So
we
don’t
think
another
facility
14
could
take
advantage
of
this
adjusted
standard
or
this
15
site-specific
standard.
16
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:
Thank
you.
17
MR.
TWAIT:
And
that
ends
my
comments.
18
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Anything
further,
19
Ms.
Williams?
20
MS. WILLIAMS:
That’s all we have at this
21
time.
22
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Let’s take a
23
five-minute
break
before
we
start
the
questions
by
the
24
board.
We
will
meet
back
here
at
11:00.
46
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
Brief
break.
2
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
We
are
back
on
3
the
record
after
a
short
recess.
And
we’re
going
to
4
have
some
questions
by
the
Board
for
the
panel
of
5
witnesses.
However,
first,
Mr.
Walter
informed
me
that
6
he
wants
to
respond
in
part
to
Ms.
Williams’
argument.
7
And,
Mr.
Walter,
will
you
do
that
now?
8
MR.
WALTER:
This
is
legal
argument,
but
9
I’d
be
happy
to
be
sworn
on
this
if
you’d
like.
10
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
That’s
not
11
necessary.
12
MR. WALTER:
I would just like to point out
13
to
the
Board
the
rationale
that
is
previously
expressed
14
in
the
Rhone-Poulenc
Chemical
Company
case,
which
I
15
think
responds
directly
both
to
the
remarks
of
16
Ms.
Williams
and
Mr.
Twait.
17
In
that
decision,
the
Board
stated,
to
18
understand
the
circumstance
——
and
the
circumstance
19
being
relief
from
304.105.
To
understand
the
20
circumstance,
it
is
necessary
to
recognize
first
that
21
for
water
at
a
concentration
of
“X,”
any
additional
22
amount
of
water
at
concentration
“X”
may
be
added,
and
23
the resultant concentration will
remain
at
“X.”
24
Thus,
for
example,
under
the
relief
47
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
requested,
if
TCBSD
were
discharging
such
as
to
cause
2
Thorn Creek to have a two thousand one hundred milligram
3
per liter
TDS
concentration
at
water
treatment
plant
4
outfall,
all
other
source
of
discharge
between
the
TCBSD
S
outfall
and
the
USGS
gauge
at
Thorn
Creek
could
have
a
6
TDS
concentration
of
two
thousand
one
hundred
milligrams
7
per
liter,
and
all
the
mixed
concentration
through
the
8
whole
reach
would
remain
two
thousand
one
hundred
9
milligram
per
liter.
10
Moreover,
it
is
within
the
mathematics
of
11
the
situation
that
if
TCBSD
were
to
discharge
so
as
to
12
cause Thorn Creek to have a TDS concentration below two
13
thousand
one
hundred
milligrams
per
liter,
the
Agency
14
would
have
TCBSD
strive
for
all
other
sources
of
15
discharge
between
the
outfall,
and
the
USGS
gauge
could
16
have
a
TDS
concentration
above
two
thousand
one
hundred
17
milligrams
per
liter
without
causing
violation
of
a
two
18
thousand
one
hundred
milligram
per
liter
in-stream
19
standard.
20
And, again, this is a case where the
21
petitioner
had
sought
relief
from
302.208.
And
again,
22
the Board granted relief of 304.105.
23
The relief that was being sought by the
24
petitioners here is actually more protective of the
48
Keefe Reporting Company
1
environment
because
it’s
limiting
the
amount
that
can
be
2
discharged.
And
it
will
also,
of
course,
limit
the
3
relief of the dischargers to themselves.
And that’s the
4
only comments
I have.
S
HEARING OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Also off the
6
record,
Ms. Williams mentioned that we had not entered
7
into
the
record,
as
if
read,
the
testimony
of
the
8
Agency.
Is that correct, Ms. Williams?
9
MS.
WILLIAMS:
I
forgot
that,
yes,
that’s
10
correct.
I’d
like
to
do
that
at
this
time.
11
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
I
forgot
to
do
12
that
as
well.
Would
you
like
to
do
that
now?
13
MS.
WILLIAMS:
I’d
like
to
do
that
at
this
14
time.
15
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Mr.
Walter, any
16
objections?
17
MR. WALTER:
No.
18
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
That will be
19
admitted as if read.
Do you want to mark that as
20
anything?
21
MS.
WILLIAMS:
Can I
mark
it as Illinois
22
EPA Exhibit
Number
4?
23
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Let’s do that,
24
and that is what we’re admitting.
49
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
IEPA
Exhibit
Number
4 was marked for
2
identification
and
admitted
into
the
3
record.
4
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Now
we’ve
come
to
5
the part of the proceedings where the Board has some
6
questions for essentially the City of Effingham, but
7
also possibly for the Agency as well.
8
Is there anything else before we get
9
started
from
either
side,
Mr.
Walter?
10
MR.
WALTER:
No.
11
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Ms.
Williams?
12
MS. WILLIAMS:
No.
13
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Both
have
14
indicated
“no.”
So
we’re
going
to
move
on.
I’m
going
15
to hand it over to our technical unit.
16
MR.
RAO:
Good
morning,
everyone.
Thank
17
you
for
the
City
responding
with
all
the
answers.
They
18
were
very
helpful
in
shedding
light
on
the
questions
19
that
we
had.
We
do
have
some
follow-up
questions
based
20
on your responses.
So I’ll just go over them following
21
the numbers, for the questions that we had.
22
MR. WALTER:
May
I
provide the witnesses
23
with copies of both the questions and our written
24
responses,
just
so
it’s
probably
easier
for
them
to
50
Keefe Reporting Company
1
follow?
2
MR.
RAO:
Yeah,
because I’m not sure who is
3
responding
to
which
question
here.
So
that
will
be
4
easier.
5
MR.
WALTER:
I’ve provided them with
6
copies.
Thank you.
7
MR.
RAO:
Yes.
We had a follow-up
8
question.
And
the
question
is
question
1-A.
9
We heard a little bit about, you know, your
10
positions regarding relief from 304.105 or 302.208.
If
11
the
Board
chooses
to
grant
site-specific
relief
from
the
12
water
quality
standards
under
302.208,
I
just
wanted
a
13
clarification from the City as to whether it would be
14
appropriate
to
use
the
calculated
results
of
maximum
15
fluoride
levels
as
the
alternate
water
quality
standards
16
as
the
Agency’s
proposing?
17
MR.
WALTER:
I
could probably respond to
18
that question best.
19
We
actually
provided
to
the
Agency
in
our
20
original draft very similar language to what they have
21
proposed
in
their
alternate.
But
I
think
that
that
22
information in terms of the theoretical values was
23
provided to help the Board and the Agency understand
24
what would happen to the receiving stream.
I don’t
51
Keefe Reporting Company
1
think
it
would
be
necessary
to
have
that
in
a
water
2
quality standard itself for all those points.
3
As we’ve tried to indicate in response to
4
question 1-A,
if the Board chose to go with that route,
5
and we really believe that it would be more appropriate
6
to go with 304.105, but if the Board did grant relief in
7
the water quality standard,
it would be better if it was
8
from
--
if you just had
a
five
milligram
per
liter
9
standard
for
those
first
two
segments
of
the
stream
10
because
it’s
not
going
to
be
any
significant
impact.
11
And that keeps the City from having to go out
12
potentially
and
test
all
the
way
down.
I
mean,
at
some
13
point,
as you’re moving downstream, the standard is
14
going
to
keep
changing.
15
So
from
a
regulatory
standpoint,
I
think
it
16
would be appropriate just to have five milligrams per
17
liter
initially.
18
And then for the last segment down by the
19
City of Flora,
take a two milligram per liter
number,
as
20
opposed to having three separate numbers.
21
MS.
LIU:
Could
the
Agency
respond
to
that
22
approach?
23
MS. WILLIAMS:
I would just like to
24
say
--
I mean,
I think Scott should respond, but I just
52
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
want to reiterate that David said that the
numbers
or
2
the language that we included is virtually identical to
3
draft
language
that
Petitioners
were
looking
at
4
proposing, and we think that that was appropriate
5
language.
6
MR.
TWAIT:
If the water quality standard
7
gets changed like we had proposed it, we are not
8
suggesting that they go out and monitor each of those
9
points where the water quality standard changes.
We
10
would go ahead and put into their permit the daily
11
maximum
of
4.5
milligrams
per
liter.
12
And as we had discussed previously,
the
13
only monitoring that we would have to do in the stream
14
would
be
at
the
Flora
water
quality
--
or public water
15
supply,
and
only
when
7Q10
values
were
being
16
approached.
17
And that special condition,
I don’t think
18
we’ve talked about here, but
I think the Agency looks at
19
that as maybe we have to after the five-year period when
20
the permit gets renewed or maybe after the next one,
if
21
we have sufficient data available that says that the
22
water quality standard will not be exceeded at Flora,
we
23
could take that special condition out.
24
MR.
RAO:
In
case the Board decides to
53
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
change
the
water
quality
standard,
if
there
is
any
new
2
discharger in this segment of the stream, then the
3
adjusted water quality standard is the one that would be
4
used by the Agency to calculate the permit levels if a
5
new discharger comes in that segment?
6
MR.
TWAIT:
If a new discharger came to
7
Salt Creek where the water quality standard was five,
I
8
don’t think the Agency could give them five in their
9
discharge limit, because that would potentially affect
10
the concentration at Flora.
So I think if they wanted
11
it higher than 1.4,
that they would have to come before
12
the Board.
13
MS. LIU:
Ms. Williams,
one of the
14
alternatives that you mentioned in your pre-filed
15
testimony,
if we were going to grant relief from the
16
water quality standards,
is to do that on a
17
site—specific
basis,
or
anyone
else
who
wanted
to
take
18
advantage of that would have to file separately.
The
19
City has mentioned that there already are several other
20
dischargers along those segments, but they don’t need to
21
monitor
for
fluoride
because
it’s
not
part
of
their
22
NPDES permit.
23
Is there any point in time where these
24
other dischargers who have no fluoride in their effluent
54
Keefe Reporting Company
1
currently,
would
ever
be
required
to
monitor
for
it
or
2
demonstrate
compliance,
or
show
that
they
are
not
the
3
ones
contributing
to
the
in—stream
levels?
4
MS. WILLIAMS:
Well,
I assume since you’ve
5
addressed it to me
--
I think Scott could probably
6
better answer it.
7
I suppose in theory, an environmental group
8
could
maybe
suggest that there was some problem and try
9
and bring some sort of suit.
10
My
understanding
of
the
technical
side
of
11
it
is that these are all municipalities, primarily
12
municipalities,
who the only
--
very
small
13
municipalities where it’s believed that the only
14
fluoride at their discharge comes from the drinking
15
water, which is, you know, monitored on the front end
16
that way.
So we think we know what’s going on there,
17
unless there were to be some industrial source come
18
along
where
the
nature
of
their
effluent
was
changing.
19
He
can
better
answer
that.
20
MR.
TWAIT:
I
can only think of two reasons
21
why the Agency would go back and have those smaller
22
communities test for fluoride.
One would be if they
23
expanded and became a major discharger above one million
24
gallons per day.
Then we would routinely put in metals
55
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
monitoring, and I think it would be twice in each permit
2
that they would have to sample.
And so then we would
3
get some fluoride data.
4
And the other thing would be
--
the other
S
time that it would be necessary to test
them
is if the
6
water quality standard was being violated,
and we
7
thought that they might be the source of that.
8
MR.
WALTER:
If
I
could
just
follow
up
on
a
9
statement that Mr. Twait made earlier.
10
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:
No.
The lawyer in me
11
loathes to do this, but you were testifying before.
So
12
we better swear you in as well.
Don’t you think,
13
Hearing
Officer
Knittle?
14
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Yeah.
You had
15
offered it.
Why
don’t we go ahead and do that.
16
Mr.
Walter was duly sworn.
17
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:
Thank
you.
18
MR.
WALTER:
Would
you
like
me
to
reiterate
19
my earlier comments?
Thank you.
20
I just would like to state for the record
21
that the Petitioners would agree with Mr. Twait’s
22
position that any other discharger who would want to
23
take advantage of that 5.0 milligram per liter standard
24
should have to come to the Board.
56
Keefe Reporting Company
1
MR.
RAO:
Would
we
put
that
language
in
the
2
site-specific rule?
Or is it understood that, you know,
3
that’s the way it works?
4
MS. WILLIAMS:
I personally think
--
I
5
mean,
if we were in an adjusted standard case,
I think
6
it would be an easier call where you would just sort of
7
put that
--
make that clear in the order, but it applied
8
only to the petitioner.
And,
you
know,
then in the
9
future,
someone would have the opportunity and
10
incorporate the prior record and add what was
11
necessary.
12
I think the Board needs to consider whether
13
that
type
of order is as appropriate in a site-specific
14
rule
or
not.
But
certainly
I
think
they
have
authority
15
to
limit
relief
just
to
Effingham’s
discharge.
16
MR.
RAO:
So from the Agency’s perspective,
17
I mean if a new discharger comes and such language is
18
not part of the rule, then
the
Agency would still
19
require them to go through this process?
20
MR.
TWAIT:
I
believe that would be the
21
case.
22
MS. WILLIAMS:
I mean, the difference that
23
it makes from our point of view, and I think we would
24
prefer a water quality standard that would just apply to
57
Keefe Reporting Company
1
the water body, because that to us seems more consistent
2
with the federal scheme and more technically
3
appropriate.
4
The difference from our perspective if it
5
were just limited to Effingham,
we would likely
6
interpret that ruling still as changing the water
7
quality standard, period.
8
Now,
if a discharger came in and was
9
getting a permit, and what have you,
we might have to
10
make them come back to the Board.
But when we are doing
11
our 305-B reports, when we go to determine whether the
12
water
body is impaired, we want to be forced to find
13
this
water
body
impaired
for
fluoride
if
the
water
14
quality standard has been changed.
15
MR.
RAO:
Thank
you.
16
MR.
WALTER:
Can
I
just
do
one
brief
17
follow-up on that comment?
18
I think from the City’s perspective,
we
19
would like some assurances
that if the Board does not go
20
with the 304.105 request or relief that we’ve asked for,
21
that request would obviously,
I think,
limit it to the
22
Petitioners here today.
But if the Board did not go
23
with that,
if there were some addition within the rule
24
specifically stated that some other discharger could not
58
Keefe Reporting Company
1
take advantage of that 5.0 milligrams per liter,
that
2
would be preferable for us.
Thank you.
3
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:
While
you’re
talking
4
this over,
I don’t know who this is appropriate to
S
direct this question to, but I’m looking at this map.
6
Flora is downstream from where this potential discharge
7
is going to occur, and we know they use their water, and
8
they use this water source for drinking, right?
And I
9
noticed this one’s here from Flora.
I just wondered,
10
have they been notified of this rule making?
1.
MR. WALTER:
Only through the
public
notice
12
provisions.
13
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:
Does anyone in the
14
Agency
-—
I mean,
does anyone intend to notify them,
15
other than by what we’ve done by notification by
16
publication?
17
MR. WALTER:
Mr.
Shepard, do you want
18
to--
19
MS. WILLIAMS:
I mean,
I can clarify just
20
for the record just a little bit.
21
That we did consult with our public water
22
supply folks that do regulate Flora on that side,
and I
23
don’t believe that they specifically notified Flora that
24
this was coming.
Though informally we certainly would
59
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
anticipate that to be the case, because of the water
2
monitoring drinking condition that would go into
3
Effingham’s permit.
4
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:
That
would
be
after
the
5
fact,
right?
6
MS. WILLIAMS:
Right.
7
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Mr.
Shepard, were
8
you just going to testify?
9
MR.
WALTER:
Yes.
Can you just mention the
10
technical effect of notifying?
11
MR.
SHEPARD:
Sure.
Max
Shepard.
12
One of the issued we discussed relevant to
13
that was the concept that we were
——
this whole process
14
has been predicated on the idea that the secondary
15
drinking water standard would not be exceeded.
tinder
16
low flow conditions, which is as you all know, would be
17
very
infrequent.
18
In addition,
I think the Illinois EPA has
19
testified that we’ve had discussions with them regarding
20
a procedure whereby we would even cut off any chance of
21
that happening by measuring the flow in the stream, and
22
then if that flow even approached that 7Q10 level, we
23
would then initiate sampling at Flora.
That’s some of
24
the rationale for not approaching the City directly.
60
Keefe Reporting Company
1
CHAIRMAN
JOHNSON:
There might well have
2
been somewhere in the pleadings mention of Louisville,
3
but that’s in between Flora and the potential discharge
4
site.
Does anyone know whether or not they use that
5
water for drinking as well?
6
MR.
HORTENSTINE:
They do not use that
7
water for a drinking water source.
They did in the
8
past.
They have a 40-year contract with EJ Water
9
Corporation, which is a public water source.
So they do
10
not draw any water from the river for drinking water,
11
and it’s not anticipated that they would in the
12
foreseeable future.
13
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:
Okay.
14
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Yeah,
just one
15
quick question.
16
Do you,
at the Agency,
think Flora ought to
17
be notified?
Is that something that should be done?
18
MS.
WILLIAMS:
I
mean,
I’m
always
in
favor
19
of
openness
and
letting
parties
know
what’s
going
on.
20
But I think it was our belief that by contacting the
21
public water supply staff,
that we were verifying any
22
issues that they might have.
23
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
What about you at
24
the
City?
Do
you
think
they
should
be
notified?
61
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
MR.
WALTER:
I
can
probably
respond,
no,
2
based
on
the
fact
that
we’re
not
exceeding
secondary
3
water
quality
standard
of
2.0,
I
don’t
think
it
has
any
4
practical
effect
at
all
on
the
City
of
Flora
if
the
5
relief
is
granted.
6
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
So
there’s
no
7
reason
not
to
notify
them,
is
there?
8
MR.
WALTER:
No.
9
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
You’re
shaking
10
you
head,
Ms.
Williams.
11
MS.
WILLIAMS:
No,
there’s
no
reason
not
to
12
notify
them.
13
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
I
didn’t
know
14
what
you
wanted.
15
MR.
RAO:
Just a
follow-up
to
that.
16
We
have
been
talking
about
granting
relief
17
from
208,
which
will
be
for
the
whole
stream.
So
I’m
18
just
wondering
if
how
the
dischargers
know
that
if,
you
19
know,
you’re
wanting
to
change
304.105
or
change
the
20
water quality standards,
I just wanted to know
from
the
21
Agency if they know
--
all the dischargers to the stream
22
know that there is this rule making going on with making
23
the water quality standard.
24
MS. LIU:
As a follow-up, you mentioned one
62
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
of
your
contingency
plans
for
some
samples
at
the
water
2
supply intake with the 7Q10 was zero.
What happens if
3
you do result in a
number
higher
than
2.0?
4
MR.
WALTER:
Mr.
Shepard?
S
MR.
SHEPARD:
I
would have to refer to a
6
letter that we sent to the Illinois EPA, and that may be
7
able
to assist with this.
8
But I believe that we have proposed to
9
implement a
short—term lower standard.
We’ve discussed
10
with
the
City
and
Illinois
EPA
about
implementing
a
11
lower standard at the City’s effluent, which,
frankly,
12
in this case is fairly simple, since we know who the
13
dischargers are.
That information could be communicated
14
very quickly to them.
And for a short time period, they
15
would have to discontinue discharging fluoride until the
16
stream flow increased again.
17
This is one of the things that,
again,
the
18
Illinois
EPA has been very helpful and the City,
19
Petitioners
--
all
the
Petitioners
have
been
20
communicating and coming up with creative ideas.
21
That was a great question, and that’s
22
something we discussed in detail,
and something that we
23
believe could be implemented very readily and
24
efficiently and effectively.
63
Keefe Reporting Company
1
And based on the statistics of 7Q10,
that
2
would not occur for a long period of time,
and could be
3
done, until such time that the flows
came
back up and
4
the fluoride concentrations drop back down.
5
MS. LIU:
Would there be any notification
6
at that time to the City of Flora that your monitoring
7
had indicated that you were above the secondary MCL?
8
MR.
SHEPARD:
That’s a question that
I
9
don’t know that we’ve discussed in detail.
I’m going to
10
presume
that
there
would
be
certainly
communication.
11
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
That would be
12
something
that
we’d
want
to
know.
So
perhaps
after
the
13
hearing, you could submit that in the public comment.
14
Is that correct, Alisa?
15
MR.
RAO:
That
would
be
helpful.
16
And also as a follow-up what you just
17
explained, the response measures that you can implement,
18
will this be part of the permit?
Or how is that
19
required?
20
MR. TWAIT:
It was proposed as a special
21
condition for the permit that they would be required
22
to.
23
And in response to whether or not the City
24
of Flora would be notified if it exceeded 2.0 milligrams
64
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
per liter,
the Agency would hope that the City would not
2
let it get to that point,
that when low flows are being
3
approached
--
they don’t go to zero in this case.
I
4
don’t remember specifically what they were.
But as it
5
approaches low flow,
we would expect or put into the
6
special condition that they would start taking
samples
7
as it approached low flow.
And so if they started
8
getting higher fluoride values,
then they would turn
9
back or slow down production of the truck washes.
10
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
That’s
not
11
something
that
you
would
expect,
but
that’s
something
12
that would be in the special condition,
right?
13
MR. TWAIT:
That would be in the special
14
condition.
15
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
So they would
16
have
to?
17
MR.
TWAIT:
Yes.
And, Max,
I
found
that
18
letter.
19
MR.
SHEPARD:
Yeah, I’ve got it here.
Do
20
we want to enter that as an exhibit?
21
MR.
WALTER:
It’s
actually
already
an
22
exhibit.
That’s part of the petition,
the letter to the
23
EPA.
24
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Let’s refer to
65
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
it,
though.
2
MR.
WALTER:
Sure.
We can add it as a
3
separate exhibit.
4
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
I wasn’t saying
5
that.
I was suggesting since the Board will know what
6
you’re talking about.
And can you just identify it?
7
MR.
TWAIT:
It’s a letter from Shepard
8
Engineering on September 9th of 2002.
9
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
That’s fine,
10
unless you want to mark it.
11
MR.
WALTER:
No,
that’s
fine.
12
One
other
comment.
I
believe
Mr.
Shepard
13
can probably elaborate on this, but the City of Flora
14
also tests fluoride levels at the intake.
So if in fact
15
the levels would exceed 2.0, they should have their own
16
mechanism
for
detecting
that.
17
MR.
SHEPARD:
Yeah,
I can comment on that.
18
We did communicate with the City of Flora
19
from the standpoint of obtaining data that’s included in
20
the petition in terms of their fluoride use.
They add
21
fluoride to their water, and that information is
22
provided in the petition.
23
And I don’t want to state this, because I’m
24
not positive, but I’m pretty sure that they have a
66
Keefe Reporting Company
1
fluoride measurement method.
Otherwise they wouldn’t be
2
able to know how much to add.
So
I think that’s a valid
3
point that they would also be seeing higher
numbers
if
4
that were to occur.
5
I might also,
if
I could go back
--
in
6
fact,
the letter that Scott located that I was referring
7
to, September
9,
2002,
is not in the petition.
It was
8
in the follow-up letter.
There’s a July 3rd letter in
9
the petition.
So
I would suggest entering the
September
10
9th
letter as an exhibit.
It does go into quite a bit
11
of
detail
about
the
proposed
procedures.
12
MR.
RAO:
We were just looking, and we
13
didn’t find it here.
14
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Correct.
The
15
technical
staff
were
on
top
of
that,
weren’t
we?
16
MR.
WALTER:
With
the
hearing
officer’s
17
permission,
I’d
like
to
mark
Petitioner’s
Exhibit
Q,
and
18
this is the letter from Max Shepard to Bob Mosher,
dated
19
September
9,
2002.
20
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Ms. Williams,
any
21
objection
to
that
being
entered?
22
MS.
WILLIAMS:
No,
but
I
wish
I
would
have
23
read
it,
but
no.
24
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
You
can
read
it
67
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
if
you
would
like.
2
MS.
WILLIAMS:
That’s
okay.
3
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
All
right.
We’ll
4
admit
that.
5
(Petitioners’
Exhibit
Q
was marked for
6
identification
and
admitted
into
the
7
record.
8
MR.
HORTENSTINE:
I
think
it
might
also
be
9
a
good
idea
at
this
point
for
purposes
of
clarification
10
of
how
that
mechanism
works,
to
have
the
city
engineer,
11
Steve
Miller,
respond
in
as
much
as
if
the
procedure
12
outlined in that letter is put into place under special
13
condition
in
the
permit,
and
we’re
measuring
flow,
we’ll
14
know
when
we’re
approaching
those
levels.
And
the
City
15
has
a
mechanism
in
place
now
under
our
pretreatment
16
ordinance
that
we
would
be
able
to
contact
dischargers,
17
i.e.
Blue
Beacon
and
the
other
dischargers
of
fluoride
18
and
require
them
to
cease
or
otherwise
alter
their
19
business
practice.
And
he
may
want
to
testify
to
that.
20
I
think
it
would
enlighten
how
that
letter
really
works
21
in
practice.
22
MR. MILLER:
I think that’s how we saw to
23
implement it, or one way to implement those procedures
24
is to make sure that it did get back to the user,
which
68
Keefe Reporting Company
1
would be Blue Beacon and truck wash
——
and Truckomat,
or
2
the others could be,
as you had indicated,
that would be
3
specifically in the NPDES permit.
4
But there is another tier to that.
The
5
City would be writing pretreatment permits for Blue
6
Beacon and Truckomat, but that information could also be
7
placed in.
That would be reviewed also by the IEPA and
8
USEPA,
or the pretreatment program is monitored and
9
yearly.
And something that we go through with the IEPA
10
on a yearly basis is to look at our program also.
So
I
11
think it’s something that would be reviewed yearly with
12
pretreatment and possibly at the end of the five-year
13
term with our NPDES permit.
14
MR. HORTENSTINE:
Would it not also be
15
measured or monitored any time the flow approaches that
16
low level,
such that the city engineering department
17
would then contact these dischargers and have them alter
18
their practice?
19
MR. MILLER:
Correct.
20
MR. RAO:
Thank you.
21
MS. LIU:
Returning to our earlier
22
discussion as to the form of relief, whether in a form
23
of a water quality standard change or an exemption from
24
the effluent limits.
If the Board were to include a
69
Keefe Reporting Company
1
condition that no other discharger could take advantage
2
of a change in water quality standards, would the City
3
be willing to live with the wording suggested by the
4
Agency?
5
MR. WALTER:
Yes.
6
MR. HORTENSTINE:
Well,
I guess we should
7
clarify that, exactly what you mean.
As
I understand,
8
you’re saying that the language that the Agency proposed
9
relative to the fact that a special condition would be
10
limited only to the City of Effingham, and any other
11
discharger
of
any
nature
whatsoever
in
the
stream
course
12
would have to come back to the Board for further relief
13
if they discharge fluoride?
Is that accurate?
14
MS.
LIU:
Yes.
15
MR. HORTENSTINE:
I believe the answer to
16
that is yes, but I want to refer that to
Max and Steven,
17
if
I may.
18
Steven,
Max?
19
MR.
SHEPARD:
I
don’t see any problem with
20
that.
Again, it’s something that we’ll discuss in more
21
detail, but at this point,
I don’t see an issue with
22
that.
23
MR. MILLER:
I think we talked about those
24
issues, and that they can be addressed.
70
Keefe Reporting Company
1
MR. WALTER:
Legally
we
have
no
problem
2
with that
type
concept.
3
MS. LIU:
Are there
any practical drawbacks
4
you can think of?
5
MR.
WALTER:
I think that’s what Mr. Miller
6
and Mr. Shepard were addressing.
7
And based on their testimony,
do you see
8
any practical
--
Mr. Miller, do you see any practical
9
side effects to that approach?
10
MR.
MILLER:
No.
I think it can be handled
11
through the NPDES and the pretreatment permits.
12
MR.
HORTENSTINE:
Under what scenario?
13
I have thought of one practical problem
14
potentially.
And that would be if the request before
15
the Board is not only to give that new discharger
16
relief,
but
also
to
amend
or
otherwise
reduce
or
alter
17
the existing relief previously granted by the Board to
18
the City of Effingham,
then
I think we would have a
19
problem with that.
20
I think it’s reasonable for the City of
21
Effingham at this juncture, when there are no other
22
dischargers, and there is already previously existing
23
dischargers who have invested in their business plan to
24
give them certainty with the relief granted by the
71
Keefe Reporting Company
1
Board.
2
So
to the extent that that subsequent
3
relief to a new discharger would somehow impair the
4
relief granted ostensibly by this petition, then
I
think
5
that’s a different issue.
6
So long as it does not impair the relief
7
granted in this petition,
I would have no problem with
8
that.
9
Would you agree with that?
10
MR. WALTER:
I agree.
And at least in that
11
scenario, you would have a hearing process in which to
12
address those
type of
issues.
13
MS. WILLIAMS:
I am just not sure that the
14
Board, under the Clean Water Act,
can give those kind of
15
assurances
to any petitioner.
16
The Clean Water Act requires revisiting all
17
the water quality standards
every
three years.
I mean,
18
I know, you know, how our legal process is set up.
And
19
this
is
permanent
in
theory,
permanent
relief.
20
But, you know, like we addressed in our
21
testimony as far as the
TMDL
process,
I
don’t
know
that
22
we know how it’s going to work if at some point there’s
23
a need to come back on people who have been granted
24
permanent relief and find that water quality standards
72
Keefe Reporting Company
1
are still not being met.
2
I understand their concerns, and it’s
3
certainly not the Agency’s intent that this would be
4
anything other than permanent relief, but I’m just not
5
sure the Board can make those kind of assurances.
6
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:
That would happen
7
notwithstanding your
--
8
MS. WILLIAMS:
Right, whatever it was.
9
MR.
HORTENSTINE:
And we understand that
10
from the City of Effingham’s perspective, we understand
11
that this is the most assurance that we can get under
12
the state laws that exist today.
13
MS. WILLIAMS:
I mean,
the difference of
14
what they’re saying is if they were given,
in theory,
15
relief from 304.105,
that would be viewed as somehow as
16
permanent license to always violate the water quality
17
standard perpetually in the future.
And that relief to
18
them might be more permanent assurances
that something
19
weren’t to change.
But we feel that that
type of
20
assurance is not consistent with the Clean Water Act.
21
And that the best that they can be offered to have under
22
the Clean Water Act is what we have proposed.
23
MR. WALTER:
Just for the record,
on that
24
point,
I do disagree with that conclusion.
And I would
73
Keefe Reporting Company
1
note that as
I indicated in my opening statement,
that
2
the Board has the authority to grant site-specific
3
relief both under
the Code of Federal Regulations and
4
also within the Act itself, Section 27.
5
HEARING OFFICER
KNITTLE:
This
seems
to
be
6
an issue that keeps coming up, though,
at least in the
7
context of this hearing.
Are
you planning on filing
8
anything after the hearing in terms of briefs or public
9
comments?
10
MR. WALTER:
At this point, yes,
I think it
11
would be appropriate.
12
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
That might be an
13
issue that ought to be covered by both sides
14
afterwards.
15
MS. WILLIAMS:
Which issue then is that?
16
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
The one we’ve
17
been going back and forth about.
18
MS.
WILLIAMS:
I
mean,
if
you’re
talking
19
about the issue of what
type
of relief to give,
I think
20
that we submitted a very thorough
--
all that our
21
testimony covered.
22
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
I understood.
23
No, I’m talking about what you were saying earlier about
24
the permanency of that relief,
to be causing the issues
74
Keefe Reporting Company
1
with the City of Effingham as to whether or not that the
2
EPA thinks that is permanent relief and whether
the
3
Board has that authority to do so under the Clean Water
4
Act, and there seems
to be a difference of opinion on
5
that.
And certainly it would help the Board in reaching
6
its decision to have both sides before it squarely.
7
Mr.
Rao?
8
MS. LIU:
Moving right along.
9
Good morning, Mr. Bright.
Could I ask you
10
a few questions about the biological aspects of this
11
petition?
12
In your report, you had estimated the
13
hardness at 300, and the Agency has mentioned that
14
perhaps a hardness is more accurately portrayed as about
15
130 to 143 milligrams per liter.
16
In the report that you included in the
17
petition,
there were some equations that involved using
18
the hardness values to calculate the LC5O as well as the
19
chronic fluoride criterion.
And I was wondering if
20
you’d be able to provide some re—calculations using the
21
Agency’s hardness figures and perhaps describe how that
22
would affect the numbers that you came up with
23
originally.
24
MR.
BRIGHT:
Well,
of course, given the
75
Keefe Reporting Company
1
mathematical
equation,
anyone
can
plug
a
number
into
2
that hardness value and come up with a value.
It just
3
takes a simple calculator that has some algorithms on
4
it.
So it could be done today if you wanted to.
S
MS. LIU:
That would be very helpful.
6
Would you expect just in general for those criterion or
7
LC 50 values to be higher or lower using the different
8
hardness figure?
9
MR.
BRIGHT:
As hardness decreases,
the
10
values will go lower, because the toxicity is directly
11
proportional to the hardness value.
12
MS.
LIU:
It would be helpful if you could
13
recalculate those for us,
if not today, perhaps
submit
14
it with the post-hearing information.
15
MR.
BRIGHT:
Okay.
16
MS.
LIU:
In the rapid bioassessment that
17
you
did
that appeared in attachment F of the petition,
18
you summarize the results of the Agency’s bioassessment
19
back in 1999.
The macroinvertebrate data at that time
20
indicated that the water immediately downstream from the
21
treatment plant outfall was severely impaired.
22
And
on page one of the bioassessment,
CBI
23
poses the question,
“Were net—spinning caddisflies
24
absent in 1999 because of fluoride or because of some
76
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
other water quality characteristic?”
2
And to answer that question, you went out
3
and collected one sample immediately downstream from
4
that treatment plant outfall; is that correct?
5
MR. BRIGHT:
Correct.
6
MS. LIU:
And the results that you provided
7
indicated a healthier macroinvertebrate life.
Do you
8
remember what the in—stream fluoride concentration was
9
at the time that you collected that sample?
10
MR. BRIGHT:
No.
We didn’t take any water
11
quality chemistry samples during that bioassessment.
12
MS. LIU:
Do you remember if you measured
13
the flow rate at all?
14
MR.
BRIGHT:
No, there was no flow rate
15
measured either.
16
MS. LIU:
Do you recall if it was during a
17
low flow condition or a high flow condition?
18
MR. BRIGHT:
It was very low flow, but
I
19
don’t have a number.
20
MR.
TWAIT:
The Agency would like to put on
21
the record that when the Agency field related stream
22
survey was completed, and they noticed the severely
23
impacted conditions, the treatment plant had been
24
expanded and approved since that time.
They have
77
Keefe Reporting Company
1
upgraded their treatment plant.
2
And also the macroinvertebrate species are
3
not a measurement.
If you went out there one day and
4
they were there, we would expect them to be there next
5
week,
next month.
It’s not something that they’re all
6
going to go away one day and then come back a couple
7
days later.
They’re not that mobile of a species.
8
MS.
LIU:
Okay.
Based on your previous
9
experience with working with the USEPA and seeking
10
review and approval of water quality standard changes,
11
is the information that the Petitioners have provided to
12
date sufficient for you to go forward to USEPA?
13
MS. WILLIAMS:
I think that we do have
14
enough data to go forward.
15
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Did you want me
16
to address
6?
6-C was one of those questions that we
17
submitted that you objected to.
18
MR.
WALTER:
Would you like me to elaborate
19
on the basis of the objection?
20
HEARING OFFICER IGTITTLE:
Well,
I’d like to
21
find what I did with my
--
here it is.
I had set my
22
diet soda on top of it.
23
You objected in terms of relevance.
And as
24
I’ve already stated,
I’d be happy to hear the objection
78
Keefe Reporting Company
1
here on the record, but unless you’ve done something and
2
change my mind
--
because the Board’s asked the
3
questions,
and we’ve already termed that it’s relevant,
4
and I’ve included the question in the hearing officer
5
order.
So
I am going to find it relevant unless you can
6
tell me why I shouldn’t.
7
MR. WALTER:
Sure.
The objection on
8
relevance is that the evaluation was beyond threatened
9
species, threatened or endangered species.
The
10
evaluation was a species in general.
There was no
11
attempt to limit it to that.
So
I don’t see how
12
segregating out a segment of species to look for would
13
be relevant to this particular petition, given the
14
broader scope of the investigation.
15
And Mr. Bright,
I think, can address the
16
technical aspect of the scope of his bioassessment.
17
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Before we get to
18
that,
I think we just generally,
I think the Board wants
19
to know whether there was any effort to identify
20
threatened or endangered species that might be sensitive
21
to increased fluoride levels.
And I think that’s a
22
relevant question.
23
So to that extent, I’d overrule the
24
objection and just ask for an answer to that question.
79
Keefe Reporting Company
1
MR. WALTER:
Mr. Bright, would you respond
2
to that question?
3
MR. BRIGHT:
No,
there was no extra
4
attention made to threatened endangered species.
5
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
And I think that
6
is sufficient for the Board, unless Anand has a
7
follow-up.
8
MR.
RAO:
No,
just
--
9
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Or Alisa,
for
10
that matter.
11
MR.
RAO:
Since they objected to it, we
12
didn’t know what your answer would be, but now we know
13
that.
14
I was just wondering if you contacted
15
anybody at the
DNR
to find out if in this segment of
16
this stream where we are changing the water quality
17
standard, you know, are there any concerns related to
18
threatening any endangered species, because that’s
19
something that we need to do.
20
MR. WALTER:
Well,
Mr. Shepard, do you want
21
to respond to that question, whether or not we think
22
what has been done so far is sufficient?
23
MR. SHEPABD:
I’d refer that to Greg,
since
24
this is more about a toxicity issue.
80
Keefe Reporting Company
1
MR. BRIGHT:
Okay.
What’s
the question?
2
MR.
RAO:
The
question
was
--
3
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:
You have someone to your
4
left.
Tell him to answer.
5
MR.
RAO:
You just
responded by saying that
6
you did not, you know, make any efforts to find any
7
threatened or endangered species that might be sensitive
8
to increased fluoride levels.
9
My question was more specifically related
10
to the stream segment where we are changing the water
11
quality standards.
If you’d be willing to contact the
12
DNR
to see if there are any concerns or any threatened
13
or endangered species that we should be concerned about
14
with this particular set of stream where we are changing
15
the water quality standards.
16
MR. BRIGHT:
Well,
I think if the question
17
is are we willing, I’m not sure that that’s my question
18
to answer.
19
MR. WALTER:
Actually, I’ll respond to
20
that.
I would certainly recommend that we would respond
21
to this in our public comment,
as to going to check with
22
DNR.
23
MS. WILLIAMS:
And we’ll have to go back
24
and look also at whether they were consulted as part of
81
Keefe Reporting Company
1
some
other process.
I mean,
the two of us don’t
2
necessarily do that.
So we need to
——
there have been
3
some changes in that process and the time period that
4
this has been going on.
So we can let you know in our
5
comments if we did that also.
6
MR.
RAO:
That would be helpful.
7
MR. BRIGHT:
I do have one comment that I
8
could make that
I think might help.
9
Your concern,
the question addresses a
10
concern
about
whether
threatened
or
endangered
species
11
would be affected by the fluoride discharge.
And the
12
technique for determining criterion for fluoride takes
13
into account what’s known about all freshwater aquatic
14
species, and then extrapolates to a
number
that protects
15
all species.
So threatening an endangered species
16
should be protected by this technique, but no specific
17
attempt has been made to determine if there are any
18
threatened or endangered species present, but they
19
should still be protected.
20
MR.
WALTER:
Just
because
I
wasn’t
very
21
clear in my response.
Whether or not we’re willing to
22
do that is, of course,
a policy decision that the
23
Petitioners will have to decide.
And I’m not sure any
24
of us here today can say one way or the other, but we
82
Keefe Reporting Company
1
will
take
your
question
as
a
request
to
provide
that
2
information to the Board.
3
MR.
RAO:
Okay.
And
if the Agency, you
4
know, has some mechanism to get the same information,
5
that would be helpful, too.
6
MR. TWAIT:
Just to clarify
--
7
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:
What
you’re saying is,
S
all species are protected.
Therefore because threatened
9
and endangered species are species, underlying species,
10
then
they
logically
fall
into
that
category?
11
MR. BRIGHT:
Right.
From a practical
12
standpoint, there is
—-
I can
guarantee
there won’t be
13
any information available about threatened and
14
endangered species sensitivity to fluoride, because
15
these tests are run on animals that are collected from
16
the field,
and because they’re threatened and
17
endangered, no one is going to test those
things.
18
They’re not going to be Able to take them out and do a
19
laboratory
test.
20
MR. MILLER:
That wouldn’t be very popular.
21
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
If they had a
22
specific sensitivity to fluoride, you wouldn’t know it?
23
MR. BRIGHT:
There would be no way of
24
knowing whether they were particularly sensitive to
83
Keefe Reporting Company
1
fluoride.
2
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:
Unless they’re
3
brushing.
4
MR. TWAIT:
To clarify your question,
were
5
you specifically asking
--
and maybe Greg brought that
6
up, but were you specifically asking whether there’s
7
endangered species present?
Or endangered species that
8
are sensitive to fluoride specific?
9
MR.
RAO:
Both.
We wanted to know if there
10
are any endangered species that are sensitive to
11
fluoride.
And if
such species are in this
area,
that,
12
you know,
if there are any concerns that we need to
13
know.
And that’s
why
I thought maybe
DNR would
be the
14
agency who would have all this information hopefully.
15
MR. TWAIT:
Well,
like Greg said,
I don’t
16
think they’re going to have whether they’re sensitive to
17
or not.
18
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
They will just
19
have information as to whether they’re present?
20
MR. TWAIT:
Whether
they’re present.
And
21
they won’t necessarily give
us
any information, because
22
this is an ongoing situation.
If an endangered species
23
is present, then it is surviving in the water as we
24
would expect it.
But we did definitely try to address
84
Keefe Reporting Company
1
that.
2
MR.
RAO:
Okay.
The next follow-up
3
question
I have concerns the economic justification
4
under 12.
Let me go to your response.
5
In response to question 12-A, you indicated
6
that an average truck wash costs around $45.
And,
you
7
know, most of your competitors meet your price of the
8
truck wash or are up to $8 less than your price.
9
I was just wondering, you know, for these
10
cheaper truck washes, do they offer the
same
kind of
11
services?
Or is it, you know,
a lower quality truck
12
wash?
13
MR.
WALTER:
Mr. Rose can address that
14
question.
15
MR. ROSE:
Yes,
sir.
To my knowledge,
the
16
truck wash industry has really been modeled after Blue
17
Beacon.
I mean,
we are obviously a leader in the truck
18
wash industry,
and they have modeled their truck wash
19
after us.
And that pretty much goes with my
20
observations
I have made with the different competitors
21
to exactly what would be conducted just at a cheaper
22
price.
23
MR.
RAO:
Also
in your testimony you had
24
indicated how, you know, by putting in a treatment
85
Keefe Reporting Company
1
system on—site,
it’s going to increase the price by
2
around $5 per wash.
3
Would there be any other kind of incentive
4
you can give to the truck drivers to pay more for your
5
wash
if
you
say,
you
know,
you
have
this
environmentally
6
friendly truck wash?
When
I
say “environmentally
7
friendly,” what I’m saying is we’re discarding less
8
fluoride.
Do they buy that?
9
MR. ROSE:
I mean, you’re asking me a good
10
question.
But with my experience,
I have vast
11
experience with different drivers in different locations
12
over the country.
You’re dealing with more of a blue
13
collar worker.
And if you were dealing with more of a
14
white collar worker,
I would say,
no.
Not disrespecting
15
them, but I would say you’d probably get a “no.”
They
16
want
it for the bottom dollar.
And you can tell
them
17
that, but in my opinion,
no it would
--
no, absolutely
18
not.
19
MR.
RAO:
Because
I have seen some of these
20
signs in my dry—cleaning places where the signs are out
21
there that say “environmentally friendly” and then they
22
charge me more.
23
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
But now do you
24
still go there or somewhere else?
86
Keefe Reporting Company
1
MR.
RAO:
I
look, but it’s a distance
2
thing.
3
MR.
ROSE:
Then again,
I think it’s
4
reflecting back to the
type
of
--
S
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Plus,
he’s
an
6
environmental scientist for the Illinois Pollution
7
Control Board.
I would hope you notice those things.
8
MR.
RAO:
Yeah.
9
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:
All
environmental
10
scientists are not driving trucks.
And the answer is
11
“yeah.”
12
MS. LIU:
Mr. Rose,
in your pre-file
13
testimony you projected a loss of nearly $300,000 if the
14
HF brightener wasn’t used anymore.
Could you describe
15
how you
came about
that figure?
16
MR. ROSE:
Yes,
ma’am.
Obviously we have
17
different agencies within our company.
And
I
gave that
18
over to our operations department within Blue Beacon.
19
And
we had a situation several years ago
20
within our company where we, due to extraneous
21
limitations of metals on our discharge,
which we since
22
have worked through and we’re down without the
23
brightener, came up with those numbers.
And now keep in
24
mind,
that was years ago.
I mean, my years
—-
within
87
Keefe Reporting Company
1
the last 10 years, we’ve been in a similar situation,
2
but not with this particular constituent, but we’ve been
3
there before.
4
MS. LIU:
Okay.
Thank you.
5
MR. ROSE:
Yes.
6
MS.
LIU:
I have a question for the
7
Agency.
I apologize.
8
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
It’s okay.
On
9
19, it’s another one of those questions that you
10
objected to, specifically 19-C,
and 19
--
no, 19-A.
Do
11
you want to reiterate your objection for the record,
12
Mr. Walter?
13
MR. WALTER:
Sure.
As drafted,
I believe
14
the question 19-A calls for speculation, and I don’t
15
think anyone here would be able to speculate as to
16
Flora, but I think we have already responded in our
17
testimony that they’ve not been contacted.
18
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
So, in essence,
19
regardless of the objection, your testimony is you don’t
20
know how they would feel because they haven’t been
21
contacted?
22
MR. WALTER:
I believe that’s what the
23
testimony has established.
24
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Is there any
88
Keefe Reporting Company
1
further questions we want on that?
2
MR.
RAO:
I
think we talked about that.
3
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
I
think
so,
too.
4
MS.
LIU:
Ms. Williams?
5
MS. WILLIAMS:
Yes?
6
MS. LIU:
Referring to question 20-B,
the
7
35 Illinois Administrative Code 303.302,
reads that in
8
addition to the general use standards of Subpart B,
Part
9
302, waters of the State shall meet the public and food
10
processing water supply standards of Subpart C,
Part
11
302,
at any point at which water is withdrawn for
12
treatment and distribution as a potable supply or for
13
food processing.
14
My nonlawyer’s read of this says that in
15
addition to the general use standards,
which include
16
fluoride, water shall also meet the public water supply
17
standards when they’re used for that.
18
MS. WILLIAMS:
Right.
19
MS.
LIU:
So does the fluoride general use
20
standard also become a public water supply standard at
21
the City of Flora’s water intake?
22
MS. WILLIAMS:
Well,
I mean, first of all,
23
I think we agree with the response that the Petitioners
24
gave to 20, that there’s no specific public and food
89
Keefe Reporting Company
1
processing standard more stringent,
applicable for
2
fluoride, right?
So having laid that out
--
3
MS. LIU:
But in addition to all of the
4
general water quality standards,
there are more public
5
water supply standards.
So the entire set make up the
6
public water supply standards,
correct?
7
MS. WILLIAMS:
Right,
right.
8
MS. LIU:
So by granting relief from the
9
water quality standards in this case,
would be,
in
10
essence, granting relief from the public water supply
11
standards for the City of Flora?
12
MS. WILLIAMS:
I don’t think that we see it
13
that way,
no.
14
I’m not sure
--
I’m trying to think of the
15
best way to answer the question, given the fact that I
16
think over time that the Board’ s rules were developed,
17
the public and food processing standards were somewhat
18
overlooked in some ways.
19
I mean,
I think we’re finding
--
I’ve been
20
looking at revisions to the radium water quality
21
standard, for example.
And there are several of the
22
Board’s water quality standards that were primarily
23
focussed on the human consumption use, but yet were
24
still not included within that subpart for whatever
90
Keefe Reporting Company
1
reason.
2
So
I think our view
--
and I can revisit it
3
and supplement it in post—hearing comments if necessary,
4
but
I think our view is simply that there is no
S
applicable public water supply standard that would
6
contain a fluoride limitation.
So it
simply
would be
7
relief from a general use standard.
And maybe I’m
8
misunderstanding your question, but
——
9
MR.
WALTER:
Could
I try?
10
MR.
RAO:
Sure.
Go ahead.
11
MR. WALTER:
I’d like to try to answer the
12
question,
if I could.
13
If you grant relief either from 304.105 or
14
302.208, then the water quality standard, the general
15
water quality standard applicable
to this facility would
16
change, and therefore this provision would not be
17
violated either.
18
MR.
TWAIT:
I would like to
--
19
MS. WILLIAMS:
I made a technical
20
misstatement.
So he’d like to correct me.
21
MR.
TWAIT:
The fluoride,
if I
remember
22
correctly,
and I haven’t looked this up recently, but I
23
believe through my asking and possibly even looking it
24
up, I’m not quite sure, but
I believe that fluoride was
91
Keefe Reporting Company
1
put into water quality standard of 1.4 milligrams per
2
liter because of aquatic life use.
It was not put into
3
water quality standard because of drinking water
4
supplies.
5
MR. MILLER:
I would like to add to
6
Mr.
Twait’s comment.
I believe he is correct.
The
7
limit on our water treatment plant, the range that we
8
need to stay within to be in compliance with the IEPA
9
is
.9 to
.12 milligrams per liter.
10
MS. LIU:
Could you restate that please?
11
MR. MILLER:
For our fluoride that we put
12
into the water, our requirement is
.9 milligrams per
13
liter to
.12 milligrams per liter.
14
MS. LIU:
Is that a public health
15
requirement?
16
MR. MILLER:
Yes.
We maintain
17
approximately 1 milligram per liter for our drinking
18
water.
We put that into the
--
19
MS. LIU:
Is that a city specific
20
requirement or a federal requirement?
21
MR. MILLER:
State.
22
MS. LIU:
It’s a state requirement?
23
MR. MILLER:
Yes.
24
MS. LIU:
Thank you.
92
Keefe Reporting Company
1
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:
Have you considered
2
charging Flora?
3
MR.
HORTENSTINE:
That’s an excellent
4
idea.
5
MR. MILLER:
So it is a cost to us.
It is
6
an operational cost as far as chemicals to put fluoride
7
into the
--
8
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:
There’s
several of us
9
here that are old enough to
remember when it
was a huge
10
public health concern.
I think my father thought it was
11
going to make us impotent or something.
12
MS. WILLIAMS:
They still think that in
13
Utah.
14
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Do they?
15
MS. WILLIAMS:
They don’t have fluoride in
16
drinking water in Utah.
17
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:
That’s the dentists that
18
are pushing that,
I
suspect.
19
MS.
LIU:
If we could move right along into
20
the discussion on the truck wash operations, and the
21
alternatives themselves.
22
Mr.
Rose,
I was wondering if
I could ask
23
you.
In the petition, you describe the BBI truck wash
24
opened in 1981, and then a second one opened up in 1993;
93
Keefe Reporting Company
1
is that correct?
2
MR. ROSE:
Let me go back over this.
Yes.
3
MS.
LIU:
And you also discussed when
4
Truckomat opened in the 1970s.
There’s mention of the
5
HF Brightener that was used there at the Truckomat since
6
1996.
And
I
was wondering if you knew what Truckomat
7
used to use before 1996,
and what BBI used to use before
8
it started using the HF brightener.
9
MR. ROSE:
This is going to be a two-part
10
answer,
if you don’t mind, kind of a
combo
tag team.
11
MS.
LIT.!:
That’s fine.
12
MR. ROSE:
I can’t state to a fact what
13
Truckomat has used.
I do know that from day one of Blue
14
Beacon’s birth,
that we’ve used our current brightener
15
that we’re using now.
16
And then you threw a couple questions in
17
there.
So did I answer half of that?
18
MS. LIU:
Yes,
you did.
19
MR. ROSE:
What was the other half?
20
MR. LIU:
Is there any way we could find
21
out what Truckomat used to do before they decided to use
22
the HF brightener?
23
MR. ROSE:
Well,
this
is speculation, but
24
Blue Beacon,
it’s my understanding,
is the founder of
94
Keefe Reporting Company
1
what we’re using, and they have seen how our business
2
did and also started to follow in suit as we did.
3
That’s speculation,
but I believe that’s what it is.
So
4
my belief is they
didn’t
use anything.
5
MS. LIU:
You mentioned earlier that Blue
6
Beacon International was a nationwide company with
7
stores in several locations.
How long has Blue Beacon
8
been around?
9
MR.
ROSE:
Blue Beacon has
been
around
10
since
May
of 1973,
I believe.
11
MS. LIU:
What
was your motivation for
12
using an HF brightener in your process?
13
MR. ROSE:
That would have been before me,
14
because I probably would have only been,
like,
eight.
15
So
I mean,
I didn’t mean to be a smart alek, but
I don’t
16
know the
--
because it works.
I know that.
But other
17
than that,
I don’t know.
18
MR.
RAO:
I
have some follow-up questions
19
along
the
same lines.
20
In response to our questions to you,
you
21
explained that Blue Beacon has a comprehensive testing
22
program to test alternative chemicals for truck
23
washing.
As a part of this testing program,
do you
24
maintain any documentation of the various chemical
95
Keefe Reporting Company
1
alternatives that you tested?
And if so, would it be
2
possible for you to provide for the record what results
3
you got as part of this testing?
4
MR. ROSE:
I am the director of research
S
and development.
So
I do most,
if not all, of the
6
testing with new chemicals of the nature we’re talking
7
of.
And I’m sorry to say I don’t keep a lot of
8
documentation.
But I know in my journey in looking
9
everywhere, and I mean everywhere,
I know what I’ve
10
tried and what I haven’t tried.
And I kind of team with
11
Mx. Shepard here as well,
and we’re currently looking
12
right now.
But,
no,
I do not have any documentation.
13
But, you know,
I’m sure
Max
can go through
14
a number
of things that we’ve used off the top of his
15
head.
He’s more scientific than
I
am.
16
MR.
RAO:
If Mr.
Shepard can chime
in,
17
that’s fine,
too.
If you don’t have documentation, you
18
know,
just for the record, if you can explain what this
19
testing involves and if you recall what chemicals were
20
tested.
21
MR. SHEPABD:
Sure.
My role,
just to
22
clarify,
as an environmental consultant is look at the
23
environmental impact of various chemicals.
And one of
24
the things that I’ve done is help Blue Beacon review
96
Keefe Reporting Company
1
material safety data sheets, because believe me, they
2
get bombarded probably daily in terms of,
“Here.
We
3
have got this new chemical.
Take a look at it.”
4
So one of the things
I do is
I just help
5
screen them out, because some of the chemicals are
6
clearly more
——
or I should say less environmentally
7
friendly than the brightener they were currently using.
8
So we review that.
And I
don’t
make the decision
9
whether to use it or not.
10
But then Blue Beacon then
--
and Mike can
11
again provide some additional information here.
If it
12
looks
like something is promising,
they can actually set
13
up
--
and they set up tests
in their truck wash there in
14
Salina where they’ll set it up one day, and we’ll run
15
trucks through
--
it’s like the old saying,
“Where the
16
rubber meets the road.”
It’s literally true here.
They
17
actually wash trucks with some of these other
18
chemicals.
And they
inspect
it, the trucker inspects
19
it, and they make a decision.
20
To go back to the question of
21
documentation.
No, there isn’t a detailed log sheet
22
that goes through and does that.
It’s,
in essence,
a
23
case of does it work or not?
And it’s usually very
24
readily apparent that it doesn’t work as well.
97
Keefe Reporting Company
1
As far as chemicals,
I know they’ve tried a
2
lot of citrus—based chemicals,
some other acid—based
3
chemicals and organic—based chemicals.
And,
again, none
4
of them provided the same quality.
S
MR.
ROSE:
May
I
add to that a little bit?
6
Normally in the testing procedures,
what we
7
do
--
and this is going to be seem kind of like a gross
8
procedure, but normally the first thing you do is
take
9
like a pump-up sprayer, and you spray air in the truck
10
that would be unnoticeable to the trucker.
And if you
11
do see, it’s
“Hey,
look at this.”
And then you have
12
your current chemical that you’re going to use, and you
13
compare it like on the back doors of the truck.
And
14
usually what you do is you make an
“X” on both doors.
15
And let’s say,
like
--
this is gross, but
16
it works.
And you spray your temporary chemical, and
17
you use your current chemical.
And if the “X”
18
disappears, then you say,
“Okay.
We’ll throw this into
19
production.”
And we throw it.
And we wash half the
20
trucks with the current chemical and half the trucks
21
with the other chemical.
And it’s been quite
22
successful, but that was a trial, but it hasn’t been
23
successful in finding an alternative chemical.
24
MS. LIU:
If you were to rate these other
98
Keefe Reporting Company
1
chemicals you’ve tested on a scale of 1 to 10 with your
2
HF brightener being a 10, a product comes in at a 9 or
3
an
8, would that be something you might consider using
4
at this one location because of the environmental
5
concerns, even though it might not be the best product
6
BBI could provide nationwide?
It would resolve an issue
7
that’s of local concern?
8
MR. ROSE:
That’s kind of long.
9
MS.
LIU:
I’m sorry.
10
MR. ROSE:
That’s okay.
I just wanted to
11
make sure
I answered it accurately.
12
Well, believe me,
if there is a chemical
13
out there,
I’m going to find it.
But to date,
I have
14
not been able to find a chemical.
15
So an 8 or a
9,
I don’t know.
I don’t know
16
what your 8 or
9 is.
I mean,
I don’t know.
That’s kind
17
of vague to me.
I mean,
it just would have to pass
18
standards of Blue Beacon as set for the quality of
19
product to be put out.
Because when you have quality,
20
then you have profit, and that’s what we’re in the
21
business to do is
to make profit.
I don’t know if that
22
answers your question, but I hope it does.
23
MS. LIU:
Part of the Board’s rule-making
24
provisions provide that the petitioner justify that the
99
Keefe Reporting Company
1
current regulations are economically or technically not
2
reasonable.
3
Could you provide,
say, an economic
4
justification for why using a product that would only
5
rate an eight or a nine would hurt Blue Beacon in such a
6
way that it would become economically unreasonable?
7
Say,
if you use that product, you might lose 10 percent
8
of your customers?
Could you make an estimate along
9
those lines?
10
MR. WALTER:
I’m going to object because
11
I’m not sure I understand the question.
12
MS. LIU:
Part of the Board’s rule-making
13
provisions require that the petitioner present
14
justification on why the current regulations,
in this
15
case,
complying with the fluoride water quality
16
standard, would be economically unreasonable or
17
technically infeasible.
18
MS. WILLIAMS:
Do you have a cite, Alisa,
19
to which one you mean?
20
MR.
RAO:
I
think it’s Section 27 of the
21
Act.
22
MS. WILLIAMS:
I guess maybe
I want to
23
clarify a point,
I guess, and of what David was saying,
24
that in a site-specific rule making, anyway,
I
100
Keefe Reporting Company
1
understood it to be that we’re demonstrating that this
2
standard is technically feasible.
I mean,
I’m just not
3
sure that we’re
——
that she’s necessarily properly
4
citing to the standard for site-specific rule making.
S
I’m not sure
I could do a better job.
6
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Regardless of the
7
exact cite,
I think what she’s trying to find out that
8
if there is something else that’s almost as good.
And
9
I’m paraphrasing.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
10
You’ve got something that’s almost as good
11
as what you’re using now, and she wants to know would it
12
be economically reasonable to use that?
How many
13
customers would use it?
Have you looked into that?
14
Have you considered whether that’s a possibility or
15
not?
And I think that’s an appropriate question under
16
either standard.
17
MS. WILLIAMS:
No,
I think that’s good, but
18
I like that question better.
19
MS.
LIU:
The citation is at 102,
210 B.
20
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Is that
21
essentially the question you wanted to ask?
22
MS.
LIU:
Yes.
Thank you.
23
MS. SHEPARD:
Can I jump in?
24
MR.
WALTER:
Sure.
101
Keefe Reporting Company
1
MR. SHEPARD:
I think
I understand the gist
2
of the question.
3
Just to clarify.
The economic impact that
4
was included in the petition, and I think in additional
S
information, that economic impact is based on if Blue
6
Beacon and Truckomat had to remove the current
7
HF brightener,
that impact assumes that they would then
8
use the next best thing that’s available.
So as we sit
9
here today, that next best thing that’s available would
10
have the severe economic impact that’s listed in the
11
petition.
12
MS. LIU:
Is that the $300,000 per year
13
that you referred to?
14
MR.
SHEPARD:
Yes,
and the loss of
“X”
15
number
of employees.
16
Is that chemical an eight or a nine?
I
17
don’t know.
I don’t think Greg
--
I don’t think Blue
18
Beacon rates them on a scale from 1 to 10.
19
What my understanding is
--
and Mike can
20
jump in
--
is that Blue Beacon rates the quality based
21
on their view as well as their customers.
They have an
22
incredible customer feedback program whereby they know
23
if it doesn’t.
24
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
But you’re saying
102
Keefe Reporting Company
1
that the best next chemical next to the HF brightener
2
that’s out there would result, regardless of whether
3
it’s an eight, nine,
six or seven, would result in a
4
$300,000 loss of profit and a loss of the employees that
5
you’ve testified to in your pre-filed testimony?
6
MR.
SHEPARD:
Correct.
7
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
So there’s
8
nothing in between that and the HF brightener that’s any
9
better at cleaning trucks, correct?
10
MR.
SHEPARD:
Correct.
11
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Does that satisfy
12
the question?
13
MS.
LIU:
Yes.
14
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:
One of your business
15
goals is to provide, I’m assuming, to provide the
16
uniform product?
So it’s the same for a trucker driving
17
all the way across the country?
18
MR. ROSE:
Correct.
19
(Off-the-record discussion.
20
MR.
RAO:
I
have one more.
I have this for
21
Mike Rose.
22
In your pre—filed testimony when you were
23
talking about the impact of the
--
you know,
impact of
24
complying with the general standard for fluoride, you
103
Keefe Reporting Company
1
mentioned that there would be a total loss of 21 to 24
2
jobs in the city.
How many people do you employ now in
3
the City in Effingham’s operation of the two truck
4
washes that you have?
S
MR.
ROSE:
Can I clarify?
You said in the
6
city?
7
MR.
RAO:
First
what it means when you say
8
21 to 24 lost jobs in the city.
9
MR. ROSE:
And I think I’m going
10
to
--
because I think
I know this off the top of my
11
head, because I’ve read this a hundred times, but I
12
think we’re talking about when you added that up, it was
13
per location.
It would be seven or eight employees per
14
location.
Now,
I am doing some speculating on Truckomat
15
because
I am not Truckomat, and
I can’t say for
16
Truckomat.
17
But due to the petition and due to the
18
nature of what we’re
——
the business of being the same,
19
it would be
-—
and I hope this answers your question,
is
20
like seven to eight employees per location.
Does that
21
answer your question?
22
MR.
RAO:
That’s fine.
That answers part
23
of my question.
24
And the other part was how many people do
104
Keefe Reporting Company
1
you employ right now at each location that you have
2
information about?
3
MR. ROSE:
Okay.
The ones
I have
4
information about, which is Blue Beacon,
the Exit 159,
5
Exit 160,
I believe it’s between 35,
40 employees at
6
each location,
I believe.
7
MR.
RAO:
And they’re full-time employees?
8
MR. ROSE:
I believe that there may be a
9
part-time employee here or there, like a high school
10
student maybe possibly.
But still that’s employment for
11
the City.
So there may be a part-time employee, but
12
most of our employees,
I would like to say, roughly 90
13
percent or even higher, would be full
time
because of
14
the students’
schedule.
I don’t think we do a lot of
15
hiring of students, but
I know it does happen.
So we’re
16
talking full-time jobs.
17
MR.
RAO:
Okay.
Thank you.
18
MS.
LIU:
Is your testing of alternative
19
cleaners an ongoing process?
20
MR. ROSE:
Yes.
Yes,
it is.
21
MS. LIU:
What do you look for in a new
22
cleaner?
23
MR. ROSE:
Anyone that would knock on my
24
door and tell me that they would have something,
I’ll
105
Keefe Reporting Company
1
look at it.
And
I mean, I’m looking all the time.
2
Max
and I were just talking last night
3
about when we get back from this journey, looking at
4
another contact we may have.
So I’m always looking, but
5
it’s not too promising.
I’ll be honest.
6
MS.
LIT.!:
I’m glad to hear that.
We
did
a
7
brief Internet search, and I know you guys are the
8
experts in the industry.
We came across several
9
nonalkaline or nonacidic alkaline
type
brightners that
10
are manufactured.
And I was wondering if you might be
11
able to enter some very brief information on those into
12
the record for your review.
13
MR.
ROSE:
There would be no problem for me
14
to review anything anyone would have for me.
I’d be
15
more than happy to.
I can’t commit to using it until
I
16
look at it in detail and have
Max
review the MSDS.
So
17
that’s kind of the process we have.
18
MR.
WALTER:
Just for the record,
I’d like
19
to make an objection as
to foundation.
I realize this
20
is an informal proceeding, but
--
21
HEARING OFFICER IGTITTLE:
What are we
22
talking about here,
Ms.
Liu?
Do you have a copy of
23
that?
What
do we have?
Has anyone seen this?
24
MS.
LIU:
No.
106
Keefe Reporting Company
1
MR. WALTER:
No.
2
HEARING OFFICER IGTITTLE:
Do you want to
3
take a look at it?
Or are you objecting without looking
4
atit?
5
MR.
WALTER:
I
guess I’m objecting to it
6
because it’s a board technical staff
member
presenting
7
evidence.
We don’t have an opportunity for cross
8
examination.
And it’s slightly irregular,
I guess,
for
9
a
member of
the decision making body to be presenting
10
evidence.
11
MR.
RAO:
You did say you used a whole lot
12
of alternative chemicals, and we just wanted to know if
13
some of these were the ones that were tested, you know,
14
just to get an idea of what chemicals you tested,
other
15
than a general statement that was made.
And we are not
16
saying that these are the products you need to use,
or
17
you have to test it.
We just want to know for the
18
record that there are a whole bunch of alternatives that
19
are out there.
20
And
since we didn’t receive the
21
information, other than in a general statement,
we
22
wanted to know and for you to take a look at it and tell
23
us whether if these were the ones you tested.
Or feel
24
free to
--
107
Keefe Reporting Company
1
MR.
HORTENSTINE:
That would seem to me to
2
be cross examination of this witness,
if they used those
3
particular priors, but I don’t think it’s appropriate to
4
enter evidence to that effect.
S
MR.
RAO:
Whatever
way is fine.
6
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
The thing
7
is
--
there’s a couple things.
8
You know,
if this were an adjudicatory
9
proceeding,
I’d sustain that objection without even
10
thinking about it, of course.
But this is a rule-making
11
proceeding.
We want to get all the information before
12
the Board we can possibly get so we can make a good
13
decision regardless, you know,
of the fact that it
14
wouldn’t be admissible in a adjudicatory proceeding.
I
15
agree that it wouldn’t be admissible in a adjudicatory
16
proceeding.
17
If we were
--
you know,
if Ms. Williams
18
over here were representing the IEPA in a permit appeal
19
and you were representing Truckomat,
then I’d say sure.
20
But in light of the fact that it is a
21
regulatory proceeding, we want to get the information
22
before us and reach the right decision,
I’m going to
23
accept this and make it part of the record, but I’ll
24
note your objection.
108
Keefe Reporting Company
1
Why don’t
you take a look at it?
If you
2
want to do further objections after you take a look at
3
it, you’d be more than welcome to put that in your
4
post-hearing comment.
And
I
don’t think we’re directing
5
you to use or test any of these.
6
MR.
RAO:
Just
for the Board to know that,
7
you know,
there are alternatives,
which they may have
8
already tested.
9
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Well,
I think I’m
10
going to think of it more in terms of Mr.
Rao
wants to
11
know if this
is the type of thing you’re looking at in
12
terms of when you test different chemicals.
So take a
13
look and let us know have you looked at any of these.
14
Or have you considered
--
is this the
type of
15
information you consider when you’re trying to decide
16
whether that’s something better than the HF brightener
17
out there.
18
MR.
WALTER:
And
we would provide those
19
responses in our written comment?
20
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Yeah.
Provide it
21
in the written.
Is that sufficient?
22
MR.
RAO:
Yeah.
23
HEARING OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Is that
24
sufficient to you?
Let’s go ahead and do that.
And if
109
Keefe Reporting Company
1
you have objections
to this ruling, please feel free to
2
make them with the public comment or even after the
3
hearing, you know.
4
Any hearing officer ruling is appealable to
5
the Board within,
I don’t know,
a certain
number
of
6
time
--
a certain
number of
days.
I don’t recall off of
7
the top of my head because I get overturned so rarely.
8
And,
no,
I don’t know what it is.
I think it’s 14 days,
9
or once the record comes in.
And you’d be welcome to do
10
that,
and the Board will then consider that.
Just
11
because
I
say
it’s
admissible
doesn’t
mean
it’s
going
to
12
be something the Board considers.
So if you have an
13
objection to it, they could hear that.
14
So what next now?
15
MS. LIU:
Do we need to assign an exhibit
16
number?
17
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
No, we’ll just
18
take this into the record.
19
Ms. Williams, do you have any comment on
20
this?
I neglected to ask your position.
21
MS. WILLIAMS:
No,
I don’t have any
22
comment.
I’m just trying to figure out how
--
do we
23
have copies for us?
That was all.
Yeah,
if we have
24
copies, that’s good.
110
Keefe Reporting Company
1
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
We’ll get you a
2
copy.
And then we’re going to need copies,
too.
3
MR. RAD:
We have them.
4
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Is that the
5
extent of the questions?
Or do we have a couple more?
6
MR.
RAO:
We are on 22.
7
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Did you want me
8
to deal with the objections on 22?
9
MR.
RAO:
Yeah.
10
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
I think we’ve
11
talked about most of that,
haven’t we?
12
MR.
RAO:
Yeah.
13
MS.
LIU:
One last question.
In the
14
response to the hearing officer order questions on page
15
14, you mentioned that you would contact the Illinois
16
Waste Management and Research Center to discuss your
17
technical issues.
I was wondering if you could give us
18
an idea of when you plan to initiate that contact.
19
MR. WALTER:
Mr. Rose?
20
MR. ROSE:
Well, can I go ahead and answer?
21
MR.
WALTER:
Sure.
22
MR. ROSE:
I’ve been not home much.
I’ve
23
been working out of state.
But when these questions
24
came in, Mr. Shepard and I already started to discuss
111
Keefe Reporting Company
1
it, but we didn’t know when the hearing was coming up
2
and when we should do that after or before, but we are
3
discussing that,
doing that,
and we’re working on that
4
currently right now.
5
MS.
LIU:
Could you describe how you plan
6
to follow through with that then when you get around to
7
it?
8
MR. ROSE:
I’ll let
Max answer
that.
9
MR.
SHEPARD:
What we’ll do is we’ll
10
discuss when we get back what we need to provide in the
11
way of information to them.
12
As far as the time frame,
frankly, it’s
13
partly based on
——
as Mr. Rose mentioned, he’s been out
14
of state for,
what,
three or four weeks?
It’s hard to
15
give an exact time frame, but I would say in the very
16
near future we’ll be contacting them.
17
And the procedure will most likely be that
18
I’ll contact them,
and enter into the discussions with
19
them about what their capabilities are, what they might
20
be able to do,
to provide in the way of information.
So
21
I hesitate to give a specific date at a hearing like
22
this,
but as soon as we reach it, we will contact them.
23
MS. LIU:
Thank you for your response.
24
MR.
RAO:
Thank you very much.
112
Keefe Reporting Company
1
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
And I noted that
2
I skipped 22
C, D and E, which we’ve talked about in
3
part, but those were objections as well.
4
I think we covered 22-C, which is are you
5
aware of any “environmentally”
——
that’s in
6
quotes
--
friendly truck wash solutions that are
7
commercially available?
We’ve addressed that one
8
sufficiently,
right?
9
22
D,
I don’t know if we did that.
Can you
10
please describe any worker or user safety hazards
11
associates with the current truck wash chemicals,
since
12
hydrofluoric acidic is highly acidic?
You objected to
13
relevance.
I think I included that in the hearing
14
officer order that it’s relevant.
Did we address
that
15
at all?
16
MR.
SHEPARD:
And
I
don’t work as a safety
17
consultant to Blue Beacon, but I have worked with their
18
safety people and Mr. Rose.
19
As far as question D,
I guess our best
20
response
——
and we can certainly provide an MSD sheet,
21
because existent safety hazards are outlined on the
22
material safety data sheet.
And that would be my
23
response, rather than bringing
--
I didn’t bring it with
24
me to read it, but that can certainly be provided, and I
113
Keefe Reporting Company
1
think
that would answer that question.
2
MR.
RAO:
Okay.
3
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Yes?
You want
4
that?
5
MR.
RAO:
Yeah.
6
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Could
you
submit
7
that with the public comments please?
8
And the last one is 22
E.
Are you
aware of
9
any wash chemical or brightners that are safer to use?
10
And have you trial tested any?
11
I think we handled that one sufficiently.
12
MR.
RAO:
Yeah.
13
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
And
I think
14
technical agrees.
That’s all we have.
15
Ms. Williams, any more questions for the
16
City of Effingham?
Or for any of the petitioners?
17
MS. WILLIAMS:
No, we don’t have anything
18
further.
19
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Mr. Walter,
do
20
you have anything in terms of asking the
Agency or the
21
Board?
22
MR. WALTER:
No.
I do not.
23
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Let’s see where
24
we’re at.
114
Keefe Reporting Company
1
Still no members
of the public,
I might
2
want to note for the record.
3
No further witnesses from either side?
4
Nobody here?
5
Do we want to do closing arguments?
Or
6
would you like to do that with your briefs
--
your
7
public comments?
8
MR. WALTER:
For the Petitioners’
part,
9
given the fact that
we’re going to be
doing briefs and
10
comments and given the time,
I think we’ll waive closing
11
arguments.
12
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Ms. Williams?
13
MS. WILLIAMS:
That’s fine.
14
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
If anyone has any
15
questions about the procedural aspects of this rule
16
making, of course this
is also geared more to the
17
members of the public,
but you can always give me a
18
call.
My phone number is, as you know,
(217)
278-3111.
19
Or you can email me at knittlej@ipcb.state.il.us.
20
The transcript of today’s hearing should be
21
available by
--
let’s go off the record.
22
(Off-the-record discussion.
23
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
The transcript
24
will be available on October 18th
(sic), and copies of
115
Keefe Reporting Company
1
the transcript will be available shortly after that on
2
the Board’s
--
3
MR.
RAO:
October?
4
HEARING OFFICER ICNITTLE:
Did
I
say
5
October?
6
MR.
RAO:
It
sounded like that.
7
REARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Did I say
8
October?
It will be available before that.
It will be
9
April
18th.
And shortly thereafter
--
pardon?
10
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:
You even wrote
down
11
October.
12
MR.
RAO:
Finally spring
is
here, and he
13
wants it to be winter,
right?
14
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
I love October.
15
The transcript will be available shortly
16
after that.
And the Board’s Web site
is at
17
www.ipcb.stateil.us.
18
Previous Board and hearing officers should
19
also be available on
the
Web site.
And the hearing
20
officer order that will follow this hearing will
21
describe how to file public comments in this rule
22
making.
Such public comments will be due 30
days after
23
April 18th,
which is
--
24
MS. WILLIAMS:
Hay 19th probably, because
116
Keefe Reporting Company
1
there’s a Sunday there.
2
MR. HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
We’ll call it
3
May
19th.
In fact,
forget the 30 days.
It will be
4
public comments will
be due
on May 19th on or before May
5
19, 2003.
The mailbox rule will apply.
So as long as
6
you get them in the mail on that date,
that should be
7
sufficient.
That’s all I have.
8
Chairman Johnson, anything?
9
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON:
No.
Thank you for
10
coming.
11
MR. WALTER:
I have a procedure question.
12
We can probably discuss this off the record.
13
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Sure.
Thank you
14
all,
and we’re adjourned.
15
End
of proceeding.)
16
Petitioners’
Exhibits
J,
L,
M,
0,
and
17
P were retained by counsel.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
117
Keefe Reporting Company
1
COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATION
2
I, Ann Marie Hollo, Certified Shorthand
3
Reporter, Registered Professional Reporter, Registered
Merit Reporter of the State of Illinois and Notary
4
Public, do hereby certify that said hearing before the
Illinois Pollution Control Board, took place on the 11th
5
day of April, A.D.,
2003, and held at City of
EffinghamTs City Hall Council Chambers, 201 East
6
Jefferson Street, Effingham,
Illinois.
7
I do hereby certify that I did take
stenographic notes of the proceedings and that said
8
notes were reduced to typewritten form under my
direction and supervision.
9
I do further certify that the attached and
10
foregoing is a true, correct and complete copy of my
notes and that said testimony is now herewith returned.
11
I do further certify that
I am not related
12
in any way to any of the parties involved in this action
and have no interest in the outcome thereof.
13
Dated at Litchfield, Illinois,
this 14th
14
day
of April, A.D. 2003 and given under my hand and
seal.
My commission expires April 5,
2006.
15
_________
16
Ann
ne
Hollo, CS
,
,
RMR
17
18
yIllfl1fl##tt1#e##fln,nn,,,,,,,,,n~~~,n
“omcia
SEAL”
19
ANN
MARIE
HOLLO
NOTARY
PUBliC—STATE OF
ILLINOIS
20
1
MV
Ct*AM 5510W EXPIRESAPRL
5. 2006
~
21
22
23
24
118
Keefe Reporting Company
A
48:2451:19
37:11
72:9,1089:23
46:1369:488:9
appreciatel2:2
65:21
81:19
advantage
35:10
108:15
106:4
approach
12:15
ability 34:13
able 13:5
30:19
91:12,17
46:14
54:18
agreed 18:21
answer 19:24
21:22
52:22
acute 39:5
56:23
59:1
70:1
19:3
45:20
34:16,11
55:6
71:9
63:7
67:2
68:16
75:20 83:18
add 20:16
31:15
Advent 39:6
agreement
12:5
55:19
70:15
approached
38:6 42:7 46:5
adversely
18:20
agrees 114:14
77:2 79:24
53:16
60:22
88:15
99:14
106:11
112:20
57:10
66:2,20
Affairs 4:23
agriculture
45:7
80:12
81:4,18
65:3,7
67:2
92:5 98:5
affect
45:10 54:9
ahead
17:6
53:10
87:10 90:15
approaches
about 6:3 10:21
added47:22
75:22
56:15 91:10
91:11 94:10,17
45:23 65:5
10:22
11:3,10
25:20 30:24
104:12
affected 26:1
109:24111:20
104:21
111:20
69:15
38:7 51:9
53:18
addItion
19:3
33:11
37:20
aIr 98:9
112:8
114:1
approaching
61:2362:16
35:338:658:23
82:11
alekgs:15
answered99:11
60:2468:14
63:1066:6
60:1889:8,15
afters:36:207:9
algorithms76:3
answerlng3o:12
approprlate6:19
67:11
70:23
90:3
47:3
53:19,20
Alisa 2:6 3:13
answers 20:13
32:24
35:4 37:3
74:17,19,23,23
additional
18:1,8
60:4 64:12
74:8
64:14 80:9
50:17 99:22
43:23
51:14
46:10 47:21
85:16,19
109:2
100:18
104:19,22
52:5,16 53:4
75:10,14
80:24
97:11
102:4
110:2 112:2
alkaline 106:9
antIcIpate
60:1
57:13
58:3
59:4
81:13
82:10,13
83:13
87:15
Additionally
116:1,16,22
allow 7:10
19:7
antIcipated
74:11
101:15
89:2
103:23
20:11
36:23
afterwards 74:14
allowing 9:8 23:9
61:11
108:3
address
12:11
again 8:8
15:18
24:19
26:8
anybody 6:18
8:6
approval
33:2
104:12 105:2,4
18:5
23:7 34:9
16:10
24:21
27:11
80:15
78:10
106:3,22
72:12 78:16
27:13 48:20,21
almost 101:8,10
anymore 87:14
approved 33:2,24
108:10111:11
112:19 113:2
79:15 84:24
63:16,17 70:20
along 34:13
anyone 6:14 7:1
77:24
85:13 113:14
87:3 91:11
98:3
35:18 38:12
7:11
8:3 54:17
approximately
115:15
above 46:11
addressed 37:16
agencIes 87:17
54:20 55:18
59:13,14 61:4
10:9 92:17
55:5
70:24
agency 2:10 5:17
75:8
93:19
76:1
88:15
April
1:11
5:10
48:16
55:23
72:20 113:7
6:6
9:1
11:23
95:19 100:8
105:23 106:14
20:14
116:9,23
64:7
above-entitled
addresses 15:1
12:1,5,8,14
already 21:3,17
106:23 115:14
118:5,14,14
1:9
82:9
14:11
15:1
54:19 65:21
anythIng
16:12
aquatIc 4:8
10:16
absentl6:24
addressing 71:6
17:15,21
18:6
71:22 78:24
27:21
46:18
11:17,2027:8
absolutely
86:17
adjourned 117:14
19:4 20:11,15
79:3 88:16
49:20
50:8 73:4
45:13 82:13
abundant 42:19
adJudicatory
31:14
32:11
109:8 111:24
74:8 95:4
92:2
accept 21:9
108:8,14,15
33:13,18
34:1
alter 68:18 69:17
106:14114:17
area
11:7
84:11
108:23
adjusted 13:17
35:6
36:19
31:1
71:16
114:20 117:8
argues 37:1
33:15
35:1
36:1
37:4,7,12,14
alternate
51:15
anyway 100:24
argument 31:21
acceptable
13:13
35:7
36:2
37:2 46:13
39:3,4 40:19,21
51:21
apologIze 88:1
31:23 47:6,8
46:14
54:3 57:5
41 :8,10 42:6,20
alternative
4:3
apparent 97:24
arguments 115:5
accepted 31:8
ADM
1:6
42:23
43:7
95:22 98:23
appeal 37:17
115:11
accord 16:5
Administrative
44:24 45:2,15
105:18 107:12
108:18
around 33:8
85:6
account
19:2
82:13
3:7,22 4:17
45:20,24 46:2
alternatIves
appealable 110:4
86:2
95:8,9
accurate 37:24
14:15
16:3
48:13
49:8
50:7
24:16 54:14
appealed 36:24
112:6
70:13
19:13,17 33:7
51:19,23 52:21
93:21 96:1
APPEARANCES
aside 35:23
89:7
53:18 54:4,8
107:18 109:7
2:1
asked 6:12 8:2
accurately 7:23
admissible
55:21
57:18
Although 37:23
appeared 6:22
16:17 37:18
75:14
99:11
acidic 113:12,12
108:14,15
59:14 61:16
always 41:11
76:17
58:20
79:2
acid-based 98:2
110:11
62:21
65:1
70:4
61:18 73:16
appearing 2:9,13
asking 84:5,6
admit 29:2
30:4
70:8 75:13
106:4 115:17
2:16 22:19
24:9
86:9 91:23
acknowledge
7:15
42:1
68:4
77:20,21
83:3
ambient 42:23
25:16 27:2
114:20
across 103:17
admitted
2:19
84:14
88:7
43:1
44:14
appears4l:21
aspect 79:16
106:8
7:7 23:17
25:2
114:20
amend 71:16
applicable 9:23
aspects 75:10
Act 4:19,20
5:22
25:3
26:14,15
agency’s
6:20
amount 46:9,10
13:13 16:7
115:15
13:22,23
14:7
27:18,19
29:3
15:5
19:23
47:22 49:1
19:18,21
33:4
assIgn
110:15
72:14,16
73:20
31:10 40:13,14
32:18,19 33:16
ample
13:18
36:6 90:1
91:5
assIst 20:18
63:7
73:22 74:4
75:4
41:15 42:3
44:9
40:21
42:9
analysis 45:3
91:15
assIstant 3:2
100:21
44:1049:19
51:1657:16
analyzed4s:22
appllcationl4:4
17:10
50:2 68:6
73:3
75:21
Anand 2:6 3:12
applIed
57:7
assocIated
22:21
action 37:16
118:12
admittIng 49:24
76:18
80:6
applies 7:17
14:6
24:12 25:18
actual 27:9
adopt 14:8
ago 87:19,24
animals 83:15
apply 35:11
27:5
actually 21:1
adopted
14:22
agree 18:6 36:21
Ann 1:9 118:2,16
37:12
57:24
associates
22:11
35:22
adoptIon
5:2
42:23
56:21
another 46:6,8
117:5
113:11
I
Keefe Reporting Company
assume 55:4
74:17 76:19
57:20
59:23
17:19
18:5
brightener 46:4
cause 4:5 9:22
assumes 102:7
78:6 81:23 87:4
63:8,23
66:12
19:14
20:1,3,5
87:14,23 94:5,8
33:10 48:1,12
assuming
103:15
94:2 97:20
70:15
88:13,22
20:8,18
28:3
94:14,22
95:12
causing 48:17
assurance
18:9
98:13
106:3
91:23,24
92:6
29:12,15,24
97:7 99:2 102:7
74:24
73:11,20
112:10
95:3,10
97:1
31:12 32:15
103:1,8 109:16
CBI 76:22
assurances
background 3:16
99:12
105:5,6,8
33:15,20,20
brighteners 4:2,4
cease 68:18
58:19 72:15
base 34:22
belIeved
42:12
35:16 36:8,15
19:7
Center 111:16
73:5,18
based
14:23
15:2
55:13
36:18,21
37:3,4
brlghtners
106:9
certain
5:1
6:10
assure 8:13
16:1
42:15,19
believes 32:23
37:18
38:24
114:9
110:5,6
attach 38:9
50:19
62:2
64:1
below 48:12
46:24 47:4,13
bring 34:3
55:9
certaInly 20:2
attached 118:9
71:7 78:8
102:5
beneficial
11:4,5
47:17 48:22
113:23
57:14
59:24
attachment
102:20 112:13
benefit
11:5
50:5
51:11,23
brInging 113:23
64:10
73:3 75:5
30:10
76:17
basIcally 21:2
Besides 6:17
52:4,6 53:24
broader 79:14
81:20
113:20
attainability
45:3
22:15
best
38:17
51:18
54:12
56:24
brought 20:18
113:24
attempt
23:2
BasIn 13:16
73:21 90:15
57:12
58:10,19
84:5
certaInty
71:24
33:6,8 79:11
basIs 15:16
99:5
102:8,9
58:22 66:5
brushing 84:3
CERTIFICATION
82:17
19:11
54:17
103:1
113:19
69:24 70:12
build
8:3
118:1
attempts 32:14
69:10
78:19
better 23:24
52:7
71:15,17 72:1
bulk 32:11,21
CertIfIed
118:2
ATTENDANCE
BBI 3:23 93:23
55:6,19
56:12
72:14 73:5 74:2
bunch
107:18
certify 118:4,7,9
2:17
94:7
99:6
101:5,18
103:9
75:3,5 79:18
bureau 17:10,14
118:11
attention
8:15
Beacon
3:18 9:12
109:16
80:6 83:2
87:7
business 31:1
CFR 14:3
35:1
80:4
9:20 10:11
11:2
between 42:24
107:6
108:12
68:19
71:23
cfs 43:14
attorney3:2
8:21
11:6
24:8 68:17
43:10,11
48:4
109:6110:5,10
95:1
99:21
Chairman2:53:3
9:14
69:1,6 85:17
48:15 61:3
110:12 114:21
103:14 104:18
3:9 8:8,11,19
audience 7:18
87:18
94:24
103:8
105:5
116:18 118:4
buy
86:8
9:7 30:4 34:8
August 13:16
95:6,7,9,21
beyond 79:8
Board’s
3:21
4:19
35:15
36:11
14:11
96:24 97:10
bIas
8:5
5:22
7:4 9:21
C
44:22
46:6,16
authority 12:12
99:18
100:5
bIg
31:3
12:20 21:21
C 43:22 89:10
56:10,17
59:3
36:7
37:5 46:2
102:6,18,20
bioassessment
33:18
34:9
113:2
59:13
60:4
61:1
57:14
74:2
75:3
105:4
113:17
42:16 76:16,18
37:14 79:2
caddisflies 42:11
61:13 73:6
81:3
authorizes 14:8
Beacon’s 94:14
76:22
77:11
90:16,22 99:23
42:18
76:23
83:7
84:2 87:9
available 5:6
became 55:23
79:16
100:12 116:2
caddisfly 42:9
93:1,8,17
11:1623:18
become 89:20
bloassessments
116:16
calculate
54:4
103:14 116:10
24:16
26:4
27:7
100:6
27:10
Bob 67:18
75:18
117:8,9
28:19
30:11
becomIng 34:1
biological
75:10
body 35:19 45:4
calculated
40:23
Chambers
118:5
53:21
83:13
before
1:1,9
5:7
Biomonitoring
58:1,12,13
41:2 51:14
chance
60:20
102:8,9
113:7
31:12
46:23
11:16
27:1
107:9
calculator 76:3
change
3:20
115:21,24
50:8 54:11
birth 94:14
bombarded 97:2
call
17:4 57:6
32:23
33:1
116:1,8,15,19
56:11
71:14
bit 35:23
46:5
both 5:16
31:7
115:18 117:2
34:10
35:9 37:8
Avenue 2:8,11
75:6
79:11 88:3
51:9
59:20
44:17 47:15
calls 88:14
46:11,12
54:1
average8s:6
94:7,7,21
95:13
67:10
98:5
50:13,2374:3
cames4:658:8
62:19,19
69:23
averagIng 4:16
108:11,22
blue 3:18 9:12,20
74:13 75:6 84:9
64:375:22
70:2
73:19 79:2
15:6,17,21
112:2
116:8
10:11
11:2,6
98:14
87:15,23
106:8
91:16
avoid 14:20
117:4
118:4
24:8
68:17 69:1
bottom
86:16
111:24
changed 4:24
aware 113:5
beforehand 7:19
69:5
85:16
bound
18:21
capabilities
36:15
53:7
114:8
begin2l:15
86:1287:18
break39:22
112:19
58:14
away 78:6
behalf 2:9,13,16
94:13,24
95:5,1
46:23 47:1
care
30:3
changes
5:15
A.D1:11
118:5
9:11
22:19
24:9
95:9,21
96:24
brief 16:15 31:15
case 16:19,21
53:9
78:10
82:3
118:14
25:16
27:3
97:10 99:18
39:22 47:1
17:5
20:7,15
changIng 52:14
a.m
1:11
being 26:12
100:5
102:5,17
58:16
106:7,11
29:19,23
31:13
55:18
58:6
34:11
38:3
102:20 105:4
brIefly 12:11
34:8
33:1
35:23
80:16
81:10,14
B
47:19 48:23
113:17
brIefs 74:8
115:6
36:20 38:12
characterIstic
B 30:14
89:8
53:15
56:6 65:2
board 1:1
2:1,5
115:9
42:8
47:14
77:1
101:19
67:21
73:1
99:2
3:4,10,12,14
BrIght 2:17
11:15
48:20
53:24
charge 86:22
back 17:7
22:2,4
104:18
4:20 5:5,9
6:8
26:19,22,24
57:5,21
60:1
chargIng 93:2
39:24 46:24
belIef 61:20 95:4
6:13
8:3,13
27:1,14
75:9,24
63:12 65:3
90:9
cheaper 85:10,21
47:2
55:21
belIeve
12:12
9:10
12:10,12
76:9,15
77:5,10
97:23 100:15
check 81:21
58:1064:3,4
13:20
34:19
12:17,19,24
77:14,18 79:15
cases 33:15
chemical 13:16
65:9
67:5
68:24
37:4 38:14
13:8,18
14:4,8
80:1,3 81:1,16
34:21
36:14,22
25:13 47:14
70:12 72:23
42:20 45:2 52:5
14:17 16:4,6,18
82:7 83:11,23
category 83:10
95:24
97:3
2
Keefe Reporting Company
98:12,16,17,20
clarify
17:8 20:2
4:23
concerted
20:7
contentIon
20:3
cross
7:8 107:7
98:21,2399:12
20:1631:16
commercIally
concluslonl9:11
context74:7
108:2
99:14 102:16
32:1
33:19
113:7
20:6 41:5 73:24
contingency 63:1
CSR 1:10
118:16
103:1
114:9
59:19
70:7 83:6
commIssion
concurs 32:11
continue 40:16
current 4:13
chemicals 10:11
84:4 96:22
118:14
condition 25:22
contract 61:8
10:17 94:14
93:6 95:22 96:6
100:23 102:3
commit 106:15
45:20 53:17,23
contributing 55:3
98:12,17,20
96:19,23
97:5
104:5
Commonwealth
60:2
64:21 65:6
control
1:1
2:1
100:1,14
102:6
97:18
98:1,2,3
Clean 13:22
11:15
27:1
65:12,14 68:13
3:3,14
11:14
113:11
98:3 99:1
72:14,16
73:20
communicate
70:1,9 77:17,17
26:5 87:7 118:4
currently 14:22
107:12,14
73:22
75:3
66:18
conditIons 18:18
convInce 20:8
55:1
96:11
97:7
109:12 113:11
cleaner 105:22
communIcated
38:5 40:24
coordinatIng
112:4
chemlstry77:11
cleaners
105:19
63:13
45:23 60:16
3:10
customerlo2:22
chime
96:16
cleaning 103:9
communicatIng
77:23
copIes 6:11
customers 100:8
chooses 51:11
clear 20:5
57:7
63:20
conduct 4:24
5:2
50:23 51:6
101:13 102:21
chose 5:2 52:4
82:21
communIcatIon
5:10
110:23,24
cut 60:20
chronic 75:19
clearly 8:1
97:6
64:10
conducted 85:21
111:2 115:24
C-I 943:2,5,6,22
circumstance
closely 11:23
communities
conductIng
5:6
copy 30:11
44:15
47:18,18,20
closer42:13,17
55:22
confIrm 38:4
106:22 111:2
C-21 43:2,5,8,14
citation
13:15
closIng
7:10
community 4:23
confluence 43:3
118:10
43:19 44:16
101:19
115:5,10
42:17
consequence
CorporatIon 3:19
cIte 100:18 101:7
Code
1:6 3:8,22
company 13:16
38:1
9:13 12:23 61:9
D
cited 36:20
4:17 14:15
16:3
47:14 87:11,20
conservatIve
correct
21:10
D 113:2,9,19
citing 101:4
19:13,17
33:7
95:6
19:1
28:3,4,22 38:11
daily 4:13
53:10
citrus-based
74:3
89:7
compare
98:13
consider 31:23
49:8,10 64:14
97:2
98:2
codified 14:15
competItors
85:1
57:12 99:3
67:14 69:19
data 11:10,17
city 1:5 2:16
3:6
collar 86:13,14
85:20
109:15 110:10
77:4,5
90:6
25:23
27:7
3:18,24 4:12,15
collected 77:3,9
complete
1:9
consIdered 93:1
91:20 92:6
94:1
41:21
43:4,6,8
6:5,5
9:11,14
83:15
118:10
101:14 109:14
101:9
103:6,9
43:9,18
53:21
9:14,22 10:13
color 30:22
completed
39:2
considers 110:12
103:10,18
56:3
66:19
10:20,21,23,24
combog4:I0
77:22
conslstentl2:17
118:10
76:1978:14
11:6 18:13,17
come 9:8 34:23
completely 38:12
16:6 20:9 33:3
correctly 91:22
97:1
113:22
18:21 22:18,18
35:10 50:4
complIance
15:7
33:14,17,21
correspondence
date 78:12 99:13
22:22 23:5
54:11 55:17
15:20
34:3
55:2
35:13 36:17
14:11
38:9
112:21
117:6
24:12,15 25:19
56:24 58:10
92:8
37:14
58:1
cost 93:5,6
dated 5:10
14:11
27:5 31:12
39:6
70:12 72:23
complyIng
73:20
costs 85:6
28:14 61:18
50:6,17 51:13
762
78:6
100:15 103:24
consIstently
Council 118:5
118:13
52:11,19 54:19
comes 54:5
comprehensive
36:22
counsel 2:11
DavId 2:9 8:23
60:24 61:24
55:14 57:17
95:21
consists 43:9
17:10
117:17
53:1
100:23
62:4 63:10,18
99:2
110:9
compromised
constituent
88:2
country 86:12
day 1:11
55:24
64:6,2365:1
coming
8:17
19:6
35:8
consult 59:21
103:17
78:3,6 94:13
66:13,18
68:10
59:24 63:20
concentration
consultant 96:22
County 1:10
3:24
97:14 118:5,14
68:14 69:5,16
74:6 112:1
42:15 47:21,22
113:17
couple 78:6
days 5:3,7
78:7
70:2,10 71:18
117:10
47:23 48:3,6,7
consultatIons
94:16 108:7
110:6,8
116:22
71:20 73:10
commencIng
48:12,16 54:10
45:10
111:5
117:3
75:1
89:21
1:11
77:8
consulted 81:24
course 5:21
6:15
DCCA 5:17
90:11
92:19
comment 6:24
concentratIons
consumption
7:16 11:24
49:2
DCEO 4:24 5:2,10
104:2,3,6,8
7:2,3
17:16
18:16 46:11
90:23
70:11
75:24
5:20
105:11
114:16
29:16 58:17
64:4
contact4s:7,9
82:22
108:10
deal 111:8
118:5,5
64:13
66:12,17
concept 60:13
68:16 69:17
115:16
dealing 86:12,13
City’s4:139:18
81:21 82:792:6
71:2
81:11
106:4
court7:22118:1
Deborah2:129:2
10:8,16,22
14:1
109:4,19
110:2
concern 34:9
111:15,18
covered
74:13,21
17:9
22:2423:2,3,8
110:19,22
82:9,1093:10
112:18,22
113:4
decideB2:23
25:22 26:2,3,4
comments 6:10
99:7
contacted
80:14
creative 63:20
109:15
58:18 63:11
46:17 49:4
concerned
81:13
88:17,21
Creek4:I1
10:8
decIded 94:21
clarification
56:19 74:9
82:5
concernIng
contactIng
61:20
19:19 43:3 48:2
decIdes 53:24
21:20 51:13
91:3 114:7
11:17
46:3
112:16
48:5,12
54:7
decision 5:14
68:9
115:1,10
concerns 18:6
contaIn 91:6
criterion
75:19
8:16
32:15 37:8
clarifications
116:21,22
38:14
73:2
contained
16:1
76:6 82:12
47:17
75:6
16:17
117:4
80:17 81:12
19:16
critIcal 40:24
82:22 97:8,19
clarified 20:16
Commerce 4:21
84:12
85:3 99:5
contaIns 4:1
41:8,13
107:9
108:13
3
Keefe Reporting Company
108:22
direct 59:5
discussed 23:2
drop 64:4
118:5
93:9
decisions 12:17
dIrected 36:15
53:12 60:12
dry-cleaning
effluent
4:13,15
enter 65:20
13:8
16:6 35:16
dIrecting
109:4
63:9,2264:9
86:20
9:17,21,22
106:11 108:4
decreases
76:9
dIrection
118:8
94:3
due 87:20 104:17
10:15
11:13,18
112:18
Deere
14:14,21
directIve 37:7
dIscussing 112:3
104:17 116:22
15:7,11,12,20
entered 23:12
definitely 84:24
dIrectly 47:15
dIscussion
22:1
117:4
15:24
18:22
24:22
26:11
deliberatIon
60:24 76:10
69:22 93:20
duly 32:3
56:16
23:8
25:21
27:14 43:20
29:15
dIrector 5:16
103:19 115:22
during 7:13
14:6
34:22
54:24
49:6 67:21
demonstrate
11:2
24:7 27:1
dIscussions
40:24 41:3
55:18 63:11
entering
67:9
10:4,10,14
96:4
60:19 112:18
77:11,16
69:24
entlre9o:5
11:18,22
13:5
disagree 20:3
dIspute 36:19
Dwyer 2:7
effort
20:7
79:19
entirety 21:4
38:2 55:2
33:13 41:5 42:6
dlsrespecting
efforts 81:6
entities
25:24
demonstrated
73:24
86:14
E
eight
95:14
100:5
26:2
13:5 45:12
disagreement
dissolved 42:14
E 30:10
113:2
102:16 103:3
entitled
13:6
demonstrating
37:15
distance
87:1
114:8
104:13,20
envIronment
4:8
101:1
disagrees 18:2
dIstrIbution
each 7:22 21:2
either 5:12 6:4
11:21
49:1
denIed 12:19
dlsappears9a:18
89:12
53:856:1105:1
11:20 14:9
envIronmental
dentists 93:17
dIsapproval
dIvision 2:11
105:6
33:23 35:14
2:6,6,10
11:1
department 4:21
14:20
17:13
earlIer 56:9,19
46:10
50:9
17:12
24:7
4:22 69:16
discardIng 86:7
DNR 80:15 81:12
69:21
74:23
77:15
91:13,17
40:21
55:7 87:6
87:18
discharge 1:6 3:7
81:22 84:13
95:5
101:16 115:3
87:9 96:22,23
Depending
5:12
4:10 10:9,17
document 39:4
early 45:9
EJ 61:8
99:4
derived
11:14
14:1
18:14
documentation
easier 50:24
51:4
elaborate 66:13
environmentally
25:21
19:20
22:21
95:24 96:8,12
57:6
78:18
86:5,6,21
97:6
describell:16
23:425:18,23
96:1797:21
eastl:11
2:11,14
eliminated4s:9
113:5
22:24 23:5
26:2,3,4
27:4
documents 6:9
44:16
118:5
elimination
EPA 17:11,14
75:21
87:14
34:14
36:16
doIng 35:24 44:8
economic 4:21
10:10
18:14
18:2
19:10 32:6
93:23
112:5
41:6
42:12,14
58:10 104:14
5:1,3,7,11
36:17
32:13,23
39:11
113:10 116:21
42:18 43:1
46:9
112:3
115:9
10:13
11:4,5,7
elucIdated
6:13
40:5,7,23 41:4
describes
15:1
48:4,11,15 54:9
dollar 86:16
24:15 36:10
emaIl
115:19
41:16 42:1
description
55:14 57:15
done 5:19,20
85:3 100:3
employ 104:2
43:15,1844:9
37:24
59:6
61:3 70:13
35:16 36:22
102:3,5,10
105:1
49:22 60:18
deserves
8:15
82:11
87:21
45:3 59:15
economIcally 4:6
employed 6:5
63:6,10,18
desire 35:17
discharged 49:2
61:1764:376:4
10:7
24:17
employee 105:9
65:23
75:2
detail
18:1
63:22
dIscharger
46:6
79:1
80:22
100:1,6,16
105:11
equatIon
76:1
64:9 67:11
46:8 54:2,5,6
96:24
101:12
employees
equations 75:17
70:21 106:16
55:23 56:22
door 105:24
effect
13:2
27:9
102:15
103:4
Esq 2:9,12,15
detailed
20:1
57:17 58:8,24
doors 98:13,14
34:12 60:10
104:13,20
essence
88:18
97:21
70:1,11
71:15
down 52:12,18
62:4
108:4
105:5,7,12
90:10 97:22
details
19:11
72:3
64:4 65:9 87:22
effective 33:3
employment
essentially 50:6
detectIng 66:16
dischargers 13:2
116:10
effectively
63:24
105:10
101:21
determine 23:2
13:12
23:6
downgradIng
effects 71:9
end
15:1
16:19
establIsh 45:16
58:11
82:17
24:11
34:13
45:4
efficiently 63:24
16:21
11:5
33:8
establIshed
determined
15:8
35:5,10,18
downstream
10:9
Effingham
1:5,12
55:15
69:12
88:23
determining
37:20,22
38:2
10:16 26:1,3
2:15,16 3:6,18
117:15
estImate
100:8
82:12
49:3
54:20,24
41:6 42:12
3:24,24 9:12,15
endangered 79:9
estImated 75:12
develop 23:3
62:18,21
63:13
52:13 59:6
9:20 22:19
79:20 80:4,18
evaluatIon 79:8
developed 33:17
68:16,17
69:17
76:20 77:3
24:15 37:12
81:7,13 82:10
79:10
90:16
71:22,23
draft 51:20 53:3
39:644:16
82:15,18
83:9
evaporation
19:2
development
discharges
9:18
drafted 88:13
45:21
50:6
58:5
83:14,17
84:7,7
even
13:4 36:23
11:2
24:8
96:5
dischargIng
26:1
draftIng 17:16
70:10 71:18,21
8&10,22
37:2
60:20,22
dietlS:22
48:1
63:15
draw 61:10
75:1
114:16
ends 34:11 46:17
91:23 99:5
difference
57:22
dIscontinue
drawbacks 71:3
118:6
engIneer 10:20
105:13 108:9
58:4 73:13
75:4
63:15
drinkIng 55:14
Efflngham’s
17:12 22:18
110:2 116:10
different 20:6
dIscontinuing 4:4
59:8
60:2,15
18:13 19:9,20
25:13,14
68:10
ever 55:1
35:12 36:3
72:5
dIscretIon 14:4
61:5,7,10 92:3
22:22 24:12
engineering
11:9
every 72:17
76:7 85:20
discuss
18:1
92:17 93:16
25:19 27:5
41:5
25:15 66:8
everyone 6:4
86:11,11
87:17
70:20
111:16
drIvers 8&4,11
41:64224
69:16
7:21
50:16
109:12
111:24 112:10
drIving 87:10
57:15 60:3
enlighten 68:20
everything 8:14
difficult 38:1
117:12
103:16
73:10
104:3
enough 78:14
everywhere
96:9
4
Keefe Reporting Company
96:9
experIence 78:9
107:23
110:1
fluorIde
1:6 3:7
5:17
further 4:6 46:18
evidence 28:21
86:10,11
few 16:18 20:17
3:21
4:1,7,13
forth
10:1
15:10
70:12 89:1
31:5
107:7,10
experts
106:8
31:15 38:6,20
9:18,24
10:5,15
16:2
28:14
109:2
114:18
108:4
expIres
118:14
38:21
75:10
10:24
11:8,10
74:17
115:3
118:9,11
exact 101:7
explain
37:19
fIeld
77:21
83:16
11:12,17,19
forward
20:9
future 20:10
112:15
96:18
figure 76:8
87:15
18:16
19:8
29:6
78:12,14
33:21
57:9
exactly44:13
explained
13:9
110:22
22:21
23:1,3,6
found 3:21
28:12
61:12
73:17
70:7 85:21
64:1795:21
fIgures 75:21
23:7
24:11,18
32:19 42:13
112:16
examination 7:8
explanation 5:5
file 54:18
116:21
25:18,23
26:3,5
65:17
107:8
108:2
express 8:4
filed
3:19 6:12
26:5,7 27:4,8,9
foundation
17:21
G
example
47:24
expressed 47:13
21:18
22:9
28:2
38:3 42:8,21
106:19
g 19:17
90:21
extent 72:2
filIng 17:18
18:4
43:4,6,8,9,18
founder 94:24
gallons
55:24
exceed
19:1
79:23
111:5
74:7
45:10,21
46:9
Foundry 14:14,22
gauge 48:5,15
66:15
extra
80:3
filings 6:10
51:15
54:21,24
four 10:19 21:12
gave 87:17
89:24
exceeded
9:23
extraneous
final
33:5
55:14,22
56:3
25:14 40:19,19
geared
115:16
53:22
60:15
87:20
fInally 10:14 23:5
58:13
63:15
112:14
general
9:24 10:5
64:24
extrapolates
26:17
116:12
64:4 65:8
66:14
frame 112:12,15
10:21
19:15
exceeding
37:5
82:14
find 58:12 67:13
66:20,21
67:1
frankly63:11
27:8
34:4
36:14
62:2
72:24 78:21
68:17
70:13
112:12
37:22 41:5 45:4
excellent
93:3
F
79:5 80:15
81:6
75:19
76:24
free 29:24 107:24
76:6 79:10
89:8
Except 15:14
F 76:17
94:20 99:13,14
77:8 79:21
81:8
110:1
89:15,19 90:4
exception 32:13
facilities
9:20
101:7
82:11,12
83:14
freshwater
82:13
91:7,14
103:24
excited 31:2
10:12
11:3
fInding 90:19
83:22
84:1,8,11
friendly 86:6,7,21
107:15,21
exemption
14:21
facility 39:2
98:23
86:8
89:16,19
97:7
113:6
generally
13:12
69:23
42:10,18 46:13
fine
16:19
39:13
90:2
91:6,21,24
from 3:7,12,13
13:13
16:7
exhibit 2:19,20
91:15
66:9,11
94:11
92:11
93:6,15
4:1,2,12 5:20
79:18
2:20,21,21,22
fact 6:1
15:4
96:17 104:22
100:15 103:24
9:18,20,22
10:8
gets 53:7,20
2:22,23,23,24
24:17
34:11
108:5 115:13
fluorIde-based
10:11
11:8,12
getting 58:9
65:8
22:6,9,13 24:4
60:5
62:2 66:14
first 18:12 22:12
10:11
12:10,13,16,19
gIst 102:1
25:3,6,8 26:15
67:6 70:9 90:15
29:23 47:5,20
focus 36:4
12:21
13:1,9,10
gIve 3:15
8:15
26:18,20 27:19
94:12
108:13
52:9
89:22
98:8
focussed 90:23
13:19 14:1,12
54:8
71:15,24
28:9,13,16,21
108:20 115:9
104:7
folks 59:22
14:13,16,17,17
72:14
74:19
29:3,11,14 30:3
117:3
fish 42:20,21
follow
51:1
56:8
14:24
15:4
84:21 86:4
30:10,13,14
factors 36:3
five 12:14 40:20
95:2
112:6
19:12,15
24:3
111:17 112:15
39:7,8,11
40:5
factual
38:11
43:9 52:8,16
116:20
26:4
27:22 28:8
112:21
115:17
40:7,14 41:9,16
faIlure 15:2
54:7,8
followIng
1:9
29:18
31:12,15
gIven 73:14
41:16 42:1,2
37:14
five-minute
15:17 20:14
31:16 32:15
75:24 79:13
43:8,15,18,20
faIrly 63:12
46:23
37:11
42:7
33:6
35:6,14,20
90:15
115:9,10
44:5,8,10,20,23
fall 83:10
fIve-year 53:19
50:20
36:18
38:9,16
118:14
49:22 50:1
familIar
3:17
69:12
follows
14:19
41:6,9 43:18
giving
13:2
33:9
65:20,2266:3
far72:21
80:22
FIora4:13
18:19
15:13
45:9
47:19
34:12
67:10,17 68:5
93:6 98:1
45:22 52:19
follow-up 50:19
48:21
50:9
glad
106:6
110:15
112:12
113:19
53:14,22
54:10
51:7 58:17
51:10,11,13
go 17:6,7 20:9
exhibits
2:19
fashIon
8:17
59:6,9,22,23
62:15,2464:16
52:8,11,15
21:24
22:11
20:18
21:17
father93:10
60:23 61:3,16
67:8 80:7 85:2
54:15
55:14
29:6 36:7
38:12
30:15
31:5,9
favor 61:18
62:464:6,24
95:18
57:16,23 58:4
39:20,24
50:20
38:21
117:16
favorably 34:23
66:13,18
88:16
food 45:13
89:9
58:18
59:6,9
52:4,6,11
53:8
exist 73:12
feasIbility
11:11
90:11
93:2
89:13,24 90:17
61:10 62:17,20
53:10
55:21
existent
113:21
26:6
Flora’s 18:17
forced 34:1
66:7,19
67:18
56:15
57:19
existing 18:10
feasible 10:7
89:21
58:12
69:23
73:10,15
58:11,19,22
33:10 34:4
101:2
flow 11:10 25:23
foregoIng 118:10
76:20
77:3
60:2 65:3
67:5
37:22 45:14
February 39:5
38:5 40:24
foreseeable
83:11,15
90:8
67:10
69:9
71:17,22
43:10
41:10
60:16,21
61:12
90:10
91:7,13
76:10 78:6,12
Exit 105:4,5
federal
13:21
60:22 63:16
forget 117:3
94-13
102:18
78:14
81:23
expanded
55:23
16:7
19:14 33:3
65:5,7 68:13
forgot 49:9,11
106:3 115:3
85:4 86:24
77:24
35:13
58:2 74:3
69:15 77:13,14
form 17:23
32:20
front 6:11,19
91:10 94:2
expansive
13:1
92:20
77:17,17,18
37:3 69:22,22
55:15
96:13 97:20
34:12
feedback
102:22
flows 4:10,11
118:8
full
105:13
109:24111:20
expect
65:5,11
feel 30:24 38:14
14:6 41:4
64:3
format
18:3 24:2
full-tIme 105:7
115:21
76:6 78:4 84:24
73:19 88:20
65:2
formerly4:22
105:16
goals 103:15
5
Keefe Reporting Company
goes 85:19 97:22
106:7
44:5
81:4
60:18
63:6,10
17:20 42:10
79:14
going 3:15
5:12
hIring
105:15
63:18
87:6 89:7
50:14 64:7
69:2
Involve 29:17
7:20 21:6 29:8
H
historic
11:10
111:15 118:3,4
74:1
76:20
77:7
Involved 75:17
31:11,2035:4,8
half 94:17,19
historlcal2s:23
118:6,13
85:5,24
118:12
38:13 44:2 47:3
98:19,20
Hodge 2:7
ImmedIately
IndivIdual
21:2
Involves
96:19
50:14,14
52:10
Hall 118:5
holding 5:18
76:20
77:3
IndIviduals 13:4
In-stream 48:18
52:14
54:15
hand 1:14 50:15
Hollo
1:10
118:2
Impact4:5
5:1,4
14:9
55:3 77:8
55:16
59:7
60:8
118:14
118:16
5:8,11
10:13,17
Industrial 45:7
Irregular 107:8
61:19
62:22
handle 16:15
home 111:22
11:4,5 36:10
55:17
issuance 13:23
64:972:22
handled 71:10
honest
106:5
37:19
52:10
IndustrIes 10:13
Issue 8:16
11:24
74:17 78:6
79:5
114:11
hope 65:1
87:7
96:23
102:3,5,7
industry 85:16,18
12:2
33:19
81:21
82:4
happen 51:24
99:22
104:19
102:10 103:23
106:8
35:23
38:10
83:17,18
84:16
73:6
105:15
hopefully 3:16
103:23
infeasIble 100:17
40:19
70:21
86:1
93:11 94:9
happening
60:21
84:14
impacted
18:11
Informal 106:20
72:5 74:6,13,15
98:7,12 99:13
happens 63:2
hopes
20:8
33:18
18:20
19:20
informally 59:24
74:19 80:24
100:10 104:9
happy 6:16 19:24
Hortenstine 2:14
77:23
Information
7:5
99:6
108:22 109:10
47:9
78:24
2:15 9:14
61:6
impacts 26:4
10:21,22
11:3
issued 10:23
110:11
111:2
106:15
68:8 69:14
70:6
impair 72:3,6
19:1 20:17
36:20,24
60:12
115:9
hard 41:6 112:14
70:15 71:12
ImpaIred 58:12
41:22 42:19
issues 23:7 61:22
gone 35:21
hardest 41:11
73:9 93:3 108:1
58:13 76:21
46:3 51:22
70:24 72:12
good
3:1
17:9
hardness
27:9
huge 93:9
Implement
63:9
63:13 66:21
74:24 111:17
22:17 24:6
40:24 41:3,8,13
human 4:8 90:23
64:1768:23,23
69:6
76:14
I.e 68:17
25:12 26:24
75:13,14,18,21
hundred 48:2,6,8
implementation
78:11
83:2,4,13
43:24 50:16
76:2,8,9,11
48:13,16,18
14:5
84:14,19,21
J
68:9 75:9 86:9
harm 10:15
11:20
104:11
impiemented
97:11
102:5
J 2:12,19
22:6,9
101:8,10,17
having 35:20
hun 100:5
18:7
63:23
105:2,4
106:11
22:13
24:4 25:3
108:12 110:24
52:11,20
90:2
hydrofluoric
ImplementIng
107:21 108:11
117:16
govern 7:5
hazards
113:10
113:12
63:10
108:21
109:15
Jefferson 1:12
governing 3:20
113:21
Importance 8:14
112:11,20
118:6
Grand2:11
head62:1096:15
I
imposslble3a:2
Informed4l:5
joblOl:5
grant 12:12
104:11
110:7
Idea
60:14 68:9
lmpotent93:11
infrequent6o:17
Jobs 104:2,8
13:19 16:4
health 4:8 92:14
93:4
107:14
Improved 42:17
InItially 5:15
105:16
19:1533:6,23
93:10
111:18
incentive86:3
52:17
John2:43:2
51:11 52:6
healthier 77:7
ideas 63:20
Include
18:12
initIate 60:23
14:14,21
54:15 74:2
hear44:1
78:24
identIcal 53:2
37:7 69:24
111:18
Johnson 2:5 3:3
91:13
106:6 110:13
IdentifIcatIon
89:15
inspect
97:18
3:9 8:9,11,19
granted
11:19
heard 51:9
22:7,8
25:9
included 30:14
inspects
97:18
9:7 30:4 34:8
12:21
14:1,14
heavily36:4
26:21
28:17
41:2243:753:2
instead 12:9,22
35:15
36:11
15:3
17:23
held 118:5
29:2 30:5,16
66:19
75:16
13:10
14:18
44:2246:16
35:19 36:18
help 8:3 29:15
39:9
43:16
50:2
79:4 90:24
19:14
56:10,17
59:3
37:13 48:22
30:1
33:20
68:6
102:4
113:13
Intake 18:17
63:2
59:13
60:4 61:1
62:5
71:17,24
51:23
75:5 82:8
Identify 66:6
including
9:19
66:14
89:21
61:13
73:6
81:3
72:4,7,23
96:24
97:4
79:19
10:22
11:4 14:5
intend
10:4 59:14
83:7
84:2
87:9
granting 12:10
helpful 50:18
IEPA 2:13,23,23
InconsIstent
Intended
8:3
93:1,8,17
12:24
13:9
63:18 64:15
2:24 23:6
36:15
13:21
19:13
intent 73:3
103:14 116:10
14:17
16:8
76:5,12
82:6
39:8 40:14 42:2
Incorporate
interest 118:12
117:8,9
34:10 46:12
83:5
44:1050:1
69:7
57:10
InternatIonal
Johnson’s
46:6
62:16 90:8,10
herewith 118:10
69:9
92:8
Incorporated
3:19
9:12 24:8
Journey 96:8
great63:21
hesitatell2:21
108:18
11:1625:15
95:6
106:3
Greg 2:17
11:15
Hey 98:11
ILL
1:6
incorrect
15:9
Internet 106:7
July 67:8
26:18,24
80:23
HF 87:14 94:5,8
Illinois
1:1,10,12
Increase
86:1
Interpret
58:6
jump 101 :23
84:5,15
102:17
94:22 95:12
2:1,3,8,10,12
Increased 63:16
InterpretatIon
102:20
gross 98:7,15
99:2
102:7
2:15 3:3,7,21
79:21
81:8
14:24
juncture 71:21
group 39:6
55:7
103:1,8
109:16
4:17 14:15
16:3
IncredIble
interpretIng
June 12:18 42:15
guarantee 18:19
hIgh77:17
105:9
17:11,14
18:2
102:22
15:10,12
just
16:18
21:1
18:23 83:12
hIgher 54:11
63:3
19:10,12,16
Indefinite
33:10
introduce 3:9 8:8
21:20 22:14
guess 38:8
70:6
65:8 67:3
76:7
32:6,13,23
33:6
Indiana
27:2
8:21
25:11 31:14
100:22,23
105:13
39:11 40:20,23
Indianapolis 27:2
Introduced 8:11
32:1
34:8
38:6
107:5,8 113:19
highly 113:12
41:4,16 43:15
IndIcate 52:3
invested 71:23
39:17 41:20,21
guys 6:15
7:16
him
8:9 39:20
43:18 49:21
IndIcated
9:16
investigation
44:1947:12
6
Keefe Reporting Company
50:20,24 51:12
52:8,16,23,24
56:8,20
57:6,15
57:24
58:5,16
59:9,19,20
60:8
60:9 61:14
62:15,18,20
64:16
66:6
67:12
72:13
73:4,23
76:2,6
79:18,24
80:8
80:14 81:5
82:20
83:6
84:18
85:9,21
96:18,21
97:4
99:10,17
101:2
102:3
106:2,18
107:12, 14, 17
109:6
110:10
110:17,22
justification 85:3
100:4,14
justify 32:14
99:24
K
Kansas 24:9
25:15
keep
52:14
87:23
96:7
keeps 52:11
74:6
key 32:12
kind 72:14
73:5
85:10
86:3
94:10
96:10
98:7 99:8,16
106:17
knew 94:6
knittlej@ipcbs...
115:19
knock
105:23
know 5:21
7:19
30:21
31:18
51:9 55:15,16
57:2,8
59:4,7
60:16 61 :4,19
62:13,18,19,20
62:21,22
63:12
64:9,12 66:5
67:2 68:14
72:18,18,20,21
72:22
79:19
80:12,12,17
81:6
82:4 83:4
83:22
84:9,12
84:13
85:7,9,1
85:24
86:5
88:20
94:13
95:16,16,17
96:8,9,13,18
98:1
99:15,15
99:16,21
101:11
102:17
102:22 103:23
104:10
105:15
106:7 107:12
107:13,17,22
108:8,13, 17
109:6,7,11,13
110:3,5,8
112:1
113:9 115:18
knowing 83:24
knowledge 85:15
known 5:17
82:13
L
L 2:20 25:6,8
26:15
117:16
laboratory 83:19
lack 24:16
laid 90:2
language 14:23
15:18,19 16:2
18:13 51:20
53:2,3,5
57:1
57:17
70:8
large 29:10
larger 46:9
last 12:18
52:18
88:1
106:2
111:13 114:8
later 17:8 78:7
law 2:14
13:21
16:7
19:14 33:3
laws 73:12
lawyer 56:1
lay
36:2
LC 76:7
LCSO 75:18
leader 85:17
least
5:7 72:10
74:6
left
81:4
legal
2:11
20:2
31:15,21,23
34:16 35:6,14
47:8
72:18
Legally 71:1
length 46:12
less 85:8
86:7
97:6
let 5:21
7:19
39:20
65:2 82:4
85:4
94:2
109:13 112:8
letter 5:10
14:16
14:18,24 63:6
65:18,22
66:7
67:6,8,8,10,18
0
68:12,20
letting
61:19
let’s
21:23 23:20
29:13
30:2
31:24 39:20,24
46:22 49:23
65:24 98:15
109:24 114:23
115:21
level 4:7 60:22
69:16
levels
11:8,12
24:18
26:7
45:10 51:15
54:4 55:3
66:14
66:15
68:14
79:21
81:8
license
33:10
73:16
licensed 25:13
life 4:8 10:16
11:17,20
27:8
45:13 77:7
92:2
light 5:15 50:18
108:20
like 6:10 8:9,12
9:4
12:11
14:20
22:11
27:24
29:12 31:13,15
32:6
38:18,22
40:3 41:10,15
41:20 42:7
43:12,2044:24
45:24 46:5,9
47:9,12 49:10
49:12,13
52:23
53:7
56:18,20
58:19
67:17
68:1
72:20
77:20
78:18,20
84:15 91:11,18
91:20 92:5
95:14
97:12,15
98:7,9,13,15
101:18 104:20
105:9,12
106:18 112:21
115:6 116:6
likely
33:7
58:5
112:17
limit 4:14,15
9:17
18:22
23:1
34:2
34:22 49:2
54:9
51:15 58:21
79:11
92:7
limitation
15:21
91:6
limitations
16:1
19:21
87:21
limited
13:11
23:3
58:5
70:10
limiting 49:1
limIts 15:22
69:24
line 38:13
lines 95:19
100:9
lIst 6:1,7,9
listed 102:10
listing 41:12
Lltchfield
118:13
lIter 4:14
10:2,6
18:22 19:1,16
34:5
37:23 41:1
41:1
43:11,12
48:3,7,9,13,17
48:18 52:8,17
52:19
53:11
56:23
59:1
65:1
75:15 92:2,9,13
92:13,17
literally
97:16
lIters 4:16
little 3:15
4:12
18:17
19:20
41:2,9 43:2,13
44:1746:551:9
59:20
98:5
Liu 2:6 3:13
52:21
54:13
62:24
64:5
69:21
70:14
71:3
75:8
76:5
76:12,16 77:6
77:12,16
78:8
87:12
88:4,6
89:4,6,19 90:3
90:8 92:10,14
92:19,22,24
93:19 94:3,11
94:18,20
95:5
95:11
98:24
99:9,23
100:12
101:19,22
102:12 103:13
105:18,21
106:6,22,24
110:15 111:13
112:5,23
live
70:3
loading
34:2
loathes 56:11
local 23:3
99:7
located
13:3
34:13
35:18
44:1567:6
locatIon 43:22
44:6 99:4
104:13,14,20
105:1,6
locations 42:13
86:11
95:7
log 97:21
logically 83:10
long 1:19
17:7
64:2 72:6
95:7
99:8
117:5
look 36:4,8 39:14
39:17,21
69:10
79:12 81:24
87:1
96:22
97:3
98:11
105:21
106:1,16
107:3
107:22 109:1,2
109:13
looked 35:3
91:22
101:13
109:13
looking
53:3 59:5
67:12 90:20
91:23 96:8,11
106:1,3,4
107:3
109:11
looks 53:18
97:12
lose 100:7
loss 87:13
102:14 103:4,4
104:1
lost 104:8
lot 96:7 98:2
105:14 107:11
loudly 7:24
Louisville 44:16
61:2
love 116:14
low 14:6
38:4
40:24 41:4,10
42:14
60:16
65:2,5,7
69:1
77:17,18
lower 63:9,11
76:7,10
85:11
low-flow 18:18
45:23
M
M 2:9,20 26:18
26:20
27:19
117:16
macroinverteb..
42:16
76:19
77:7
78:2
made 20:6 56:9
80:4 82:17
85:20 91:19
107:15
maIl
117:6
mailbox
117:5
maintain 92:16
95:24
6
maintained
45:15
maintains 16:7
major 55:23
make 5:5
7:11
8:9 9:4 16:16
17:4,6 20:4
28:8
29:11,13
33:8
35:17
37:7
57:7
58:10
68:24 73:5
81:6
82:8
90:5
93:11
97:8,19 98:14
99:11,21
100:8
106:19
108:12
108:23 110:2
makes 57:23
making
3:10
6:6
8:14
17:17,23
18:4
32:11
33:5
35:2 36:1,6
37:2,9
38:1
45:16 59:10
62:22,22
100:24 101:4
107:9 115:16
116:22
malamard 29:10
Management
111:16
manner 37:15
manufactured
106:10
many 101:12
104:2,24
map 29:11,14
30:14 31:1,3
43:22
44:6
59:5
maps 30:18
March 20:13
28:14
Marie
1:10 118:2
118:16
mark 21:16,20
26:17 28:12
30:18
43:21
44:1349:19,21
66:10 67:17
marked
2:19 22:6
22:8,12 24:4
25:8 26:20
28:16 30:16
39:8,10 42:2
43:16,1744:14
44:20 50:1
68:5
marking 25:5
28:11 30:9,13
30:22,22
31:3
44:5
materIal 12:22
7
Keefe Reporting Company
97:1
113:22
measuring
60:21
53:11
59:1
MSDII3:20
nexts3:2078:4,5
115:18
mathematical
68:13
64:24 75:15
MSDS
106:16
85:2
102:8,9
numbers 50:21
76:1
mechanism
92:1,9,12,13
much
67:2 68:11
103:1,1
110:14
52:20
53:1
67:3
mathematics
66:16 68:10,15
million 55:23
85:19
111:22
nIce 29:14
75:22
87:23
48:10
83:4
mind 23:21
34:9
112:24
night 106:2
numeric 9:24
matter 1:4,9 3:5
meet
13:12 37:22
79:2
87:24
munIcipalities
nine 42:22
100:5
numerIcal
15:11
8:15,16 12:6,22
46:24
85:7 89:9
94:10
55:11,12,13
102:16 103:3
15:15
17:18
20:2,19
89:16
misstatement
must 5:5
33:1
Nobody 115:4
28:6 32:9
33:19
meets 97:16
91:20
37:22
nonacidic
106:9
0
33:23 37:5,12
member 107:6,9
misunderstand..,
myself 8:11,13
nonalkaline
02:21
30:10,15
38:15 80:10
members
2:5 6:2
91:8
17:15
106:9
31:9 44:23
matters
16:18
6:3 9:9 115:1
mIxed 48:7
none
7:17 8:7
117:16
Matthew
2:14,15
115:17
mobile 78:7
N
98:3
obJect 100:10
9:13
mention
60:9
modeled 85:16
N 2:21
28:13,16
nonlawye?s
obJected 78:17
Max 2:17
11:9
61:294:4
85:18
28:21
29:3
89:14
78:23
80:11
25:6,12
26:11
mentioned 38:24
modifIcation
44:21
normally 98:6,8
88:10
113:12
60:11
65:17
49:654:14,19
37:13
name3:24:23
North2:11
obJectinglo7:3,5
67:18
70:16,18
62:24 75:13
modified
12:9
7:15
8:23
17:9
notary 1:10 118:3
objection 23:14
96:13
106:2,16
95:5
104:1
moment
18:2
22:17
24:6
note 3:11
6:24
26:13
27:17
112:8
111:15 112:13
monitor 18:16
25:12
26:24
8:241:20
43:12
28:24
29:20,22
maximum 51:14
merely 15:7
53:8 54:21
55:1
names6:22
74:1
108:24
31:5,639:15,23
53:11
MerIt 118:3
monitored 55:15
National 18:14
115:2
40:10 41:15,18
may7:11
13:5
met38:373:1
69:8,15
36:16
noted 113:1
41:19,23 43:19
16:4 19:7
20:1
metals 55:24
monitoring 42:24
nationwide 95:6
notes 12:5
118:7
44:3,4,5
67:21
36:20,23,24
87:21
43:1,4 44:15
99:6
118:8,10
78:19,24
79:7
47:22 50:22
method 15:10,11
53:13 56:1
60:2
nature 29:17
nothing
103:8
79:24
88:11,19
63:6 68:19
67:1
64:6
55:18
70:11
notIce 5:22
6:1,7
106:19 108:9
70:17 95:10
mIght 20:18
Montgomery
1:10
96:6
104:18
59:11
87:7
108:24 110:13
98:5
105:8,11
31:16 34:17
month 78:5
near 18:1844:15
noticed 4:18
59:9
obJections 49:16
106:4 109:7
56:7 58:9 61:1
months
11:24
112:16
77:22
109:2 110:1
116:24 117:3,4
61:22
67:5 68:8
more 15:16
18:1
nearly 87:13
notification
111:8
113:3
117:4
73:18 74:12
19:24
36:3,4
necessarily
59:1564:5
observatIons
maybe 29:18
79:20
81:7 82:8
42:21
48:24
15:22
82:2
notified
15:2
85:20
35:1,23 53:19
99:3,5 100:7
52:5
58:1,2
84:21
101:3
59:10,23
61:17
obtaIning 66:19
53:20 55:8
84:5
106:10 112:19
70:20
73:18
necessary
12:6
61:24 64:24
obviously
58:21
84:1391:7
115:1
75:1480:24
13:742:2045:3
notify59:1462:7
85:1787:16
100:22 105:10
Mike 2:17
11:1
81:9 86:4,12,13
47:11,20
52:1
62:12
occur 59:764:2
ma’am
87:16
22:10
24:7
86:22 90:1,4
56:5
57:11
91:3
notifying 60:10
67:4
MCL 64:7
97:10
102:19
96:15
97:6
need 6:15 30:18
notion 8:4
occurred 5:16
mean 15:22
103:21
103:20 106:15
35:11
36:4
notwithstanding
October 3:18
31:22
34:15
mIles 4:12
10:9
109:3,10 111:5
54:20
72:23
73:7
115:24 116:3,5
35:1,7 52:12,24
42:11
114:15 115:16
80:19
82:2
November43:10
116:8,11,14
57:5,17,22
Miller 2:18
10:20
moreover 14:7
84:12
92:8
NPDES 10:23
off
5:18
6:3 21:24
59:14,19 61:18
22:12,13,14,17
34:7
36:13
107:16 110:15
13:24
15:22
39:20
49:5
70:7
72:17
22:18 23:12,18
48:10
111:2
112:10
18:15,23
45:21
60:20
96:14
73:13 74:18
68:11,22 69:19
mornIng
3:1 17:9
needs
57:12
54:22
69:3,13
104:10 110:6
82:1
85:17
86:9
70:23 71:5,8,10
22:17
24:6
negatIve 4:5
71:11
115:21
117:12
87:24 89:22
83:20
92:5,11
25:12
26:24
10:12,17
number2:23,23
offer2l:7
38:17
90:19 95:15,15
92:16,21,23
50:16 75:9
neglected
110:20
2:24
34:6 36:13
40:3 85:10
96:9 99:16,17
93:5
Mosher67:18
neither 10:6
37:18
38:23
offered 31:5
100:19 101:2
milligram
4:16
most 42:8
45:17
network
42:24
39:1,8,11
40:6
56:15
73:21
106:1
110:11
48:2,9,1852:8
73:11
85:796:5
43:2 44:15
40:8,14,18
offering 28:21
meaningless
52:19 56:23
105:12 111:11
net-spinnIng 42:9
41:16 42:1,2,22
39:15 40:2
34:1
92:17
112:17
42:11,18 76:23
43:15,1844:8
Office 2:14
means
104:7
millIgrams 4:14
motivated 35:17
Nevertheless
44:10 46:1
offIcers 116:18
measured 69:15
10:2,6 18:22
motIvatIon 95:11
12:7
49:22
50:1
officer’s 67:16
77:12,15
19:1,16
34:4
move 50:14
new 19:6 46:3
52:19
63:3
76:1
Off-the-record
measurement
37:23 41:1,1
93:19
54:1,5,6
57:17
77:19
82:14
22:1
103:19
67:1
78:3
43:11,12 48:6
moving 52:13
71:15
72:3 96:6
96:14
102:15
115:22
measures 64:17
48:13,17
52:16
75:8
97:3
105:21
110:5,6,16
Oh
39:19
8
Keefe
Reporting Company
okay28:2029:14
86:17
outcomell8:12
partless:21
6:16
perpetually
Pg2:19,19
30:17
32:4
opinions 6:8
outfail
48:4,5,15
6:17
7:10,17
73:17
Philo 2:2
35:15
39:11
33:18
76:21
77:4
33:22
61:19
personally 57:4
phone
115:18
61:13 68:2
opportunity 4:22
outline 20:8
118:12
personnel
3:12
phonetic 29:11
76:15
78:8
81:1
19:4 57:9
107:7
outlined
19:22
partly 112:13
perspectIve
piece 36:7,8,9
83:3
85:2 88:4
opposed 15:3
33:5 68:12
parts 41:13
27:22
31:15,16
place 45:20
88:8 98:18
36:1
52:20
113:21
part-time 105:9
35:14
57:16
68:12,15
118:4
99:10
105:3,17
options 26:5
over 7:22
11:24
105:11
58:4,18
73:10
placed
15:8 69:1
114:2
orange 28:12
19:6 30:5
38:18
pass 99:17
persuade 33:20
placement 18:13
old 93:9 97:15
order 6:22 18:23
50:15,20
59:4
past 61:8
pertinent
14:18
places 86:20
once 27:13
110:9
20:12
21:21
86:12
87:18
pay 86:4
15:13,18
plan
71:23
one7:21
12:4
22:11 28:14
90:1694:2
people6:7,22
petitlon3:199:9
111:18112:5
14:23 15:16
36:20,23
37:3
108:18
72:23
104:2,24
13:15
18:4
planning 31:3
21:15 32:12,20
57:7,13
79:5
overlooked 90:18
113:18
30:14
32:10
74:7
32:23 35:12,20
111:14 113:14
overrule 79:23
per4:14
10:2,6
43:7
45:12
plans 63:1
41:18 44:22
116:20
overturned 110:7
18:22
19:1,16
65:22 66:20,22
plant 1:6 3:7
48:2,6,8,13,16
orders 6:8,8
own 66:15
34:4
37:23
41:1
67:7,9 72:4,7
10:23 22:23
48:18
53:20
ordinance 68:16
owned 9:19
41:1
43:11,12
75:11,17
76:17
23:1
25:19 27:6
54:3,13
55:22
organic-based
18:15
48:3,7,9,13,17
79:13 93:23
48:3 76:21
77:4
55:23
58:16
98:3
oxygen 42:14
48:18
52:8,16
102:4,11
77:23 78:1
92:7
60:12 61:14
organization
o’clock
1:11
52:19
53:11
104:17
plants24:13
62:24
63:17
7:16
55:24 56:23
petitioner 8:21
pleadings 61:2
66:12
68:23
original 51:20
P
59:1
65:1
75:15
19:6
22:20
please 8:2 25:10
71:13
74:16
originally 75:23
P 2:22 30:13,15
86:2
92:1,9,12
35:20
36:5,10
26:22 92:10
76:22
77:3 78:3
ostensibly 72:4
31:9
117:17
92:13,17
39:1
41:14
110:1
113:10
78:6,1682:7,24
other3:11
6:10
page 12:4,14
102:12104:13
45:19 46:2
114:7
83:17
88:9
7:22
13:2,11
15:5
41:21
104:13,20
48:21
57:8
plug 76:1
93:24
94:13
17:15 31:21
76:22
111:14
percent 100:7
72:15 99:24
plus 6:10
87:5
96:23
97:4,14
34:12
35:9,18
pages 19:22
105:13
100:13
point 6:4 10:8,9
99:4
100:19
37:20,21
38:2
40:19
percentile 41:3,4
petitioners 2:9
41:10 47:12
103:14,20
48:4,14
54:19
paid 35:1
perfectly
39:12
2:19,20,20,21
52:13
54:23
111:13 113:7
54:24
56:4,4,22
panel
24:2 29:17
perform
5:14
2:21,22,22 4:3
57:23 65:2
67:3
114:8,11
58:24 59:15
47:4
perhaps
64:12
4:6 8:20
9:17
68:9 70:21
ones 55:3
105:3
66:12 68:17
parallel 34:17
75:14,21
76:13
11:19,23
12:15
72:22 73:24
107:13,23
70:1,10 71:21
paraphrasing
period 7:1
53:19
13:4,11,19
16:4
74:10
89:11
one’s 59:9
73:4 77:1
82:1
101:9
58:7
63:14 64:2
16:8
17:18,24
100:23
ongoing 84:22
82:24
86:3
pardon
116:9
82:3
18:5
19:4,12
pointed 33:16
105:19
94:19 95:16
part 7:4 14:18
periods 7:14
20:3,14,15
22:6
poInts 31:15 38:7
only 6:7 7:13
97:17
98:2,21
15:6,11,12,13
permanency
22:9,12
24:4,10
52:2
53:9
38:15 49:4
98:24
104:24
15:16,19,20
74:24
25:3,8,17 26:15
policy 82:22
53:13,15
55:12
107:14,21
18:7
26:19
37:8
permanent 72:19
26:18,20 27:3
Pollutant 18:14
55:13,20 57:8
others 17:8
69:2
46:7 47:6
50:5
72:19,24
73:4
27:19
28:12,13
36:16
59:11
70:10
otherwise
15:14
54:21
57:18
73:16,18
75:2
28:16
29:3
pollution
1:1 2:1
71:15
95:14
67:1
68:18
64:18 65:22
permission 67:17
30:10,13,15
3:3,13 17:13
100:4
71:16
81:24 89:8,10
permit
10:23
31:9
32:8,12,14
87:6 118:4
on-site
86:1
ought 61:16
95:23 96:3
13:24
15:8,22
33:10,14
34:7
popular 83:20
open
16:12
74:13
99:23
100:12
16:2
18:14,15
36:13,16,21
portion 45:8
opened 93:24,24
out 7:18
8:6
104:22,24
18:23
19:5
37:6,19,21
38:4
portrayed 75:14
94:4
22:11
33:16,17
108:23113:3
36:17
37:4,13
38:11
42:6
posed4:732:8
opening9:4
36:241:10
115:8
37:1645:21
43:1948:24
32:19
16:15,21
17:4,7
47:12
52:11
partial
41:21
46:1
53:10,20
53:3
56:21
poses 76:23
38:7
74:1
53:8,23 77:2
particIpated
54:4,22
56:1
58:22 63:19,19
positIon
20:2,8
openness
61:19
78:3
79:12
17:16
58:9
60:3
64:18
68:5
78:11
33:19,21
35:8
operate
3:23
80:15 83:18
participatIon
64:21
68:13
82:23
89:23
56:22 110:20
operatIon
104:3
86:20 90:2
12:2
69:3,13 108:18
114:16 115:8
positions 51:10
operatIonal
93:6
94:21
97:5
partIcular 35:19
permits 16:1
117:16
positive 66:24
operations
11:6
99:13,19
101:7
79:13 81:14
69:5
71:11
petitioner’s
possibility
87:18 93:20
103:2 107:19
88:2 108:3
permitted
23:1
12:19
25:6
101:14
opinion 13:17
109:17
110:22
particularly
permitting
6:20
67:17
possIble 96:2
21:21
75:4
111:23 112:13
83:24
18:8 37:8
petitions 17:17
possibly 50:7
9
Keefe Reporting Company
69:12 91:23
23:12 24:5,22
103:16
113:24
62:23 69:23
R
105:10 108:12
25:6 26:11,18
production
65:9
provides 14:18
70:2
72:17,24
R 2:14,15
post-hearing
27:14
30:5
98:19
15:13
73:16
77:1,11
radium 90:20
76:14
91:3
32:19 40:20
products
107:16
providIng
31:21
78:10 80:16
raise 7:14
109:4
54:14
103:5,22
professIonal
provIsion
91:16
81:11,1585:11
raised 18:6
23:7
potable
89:12
price 85:7,8,22
25:14 118:3
provisions
59:12
90:4,9,20,22
38:7
potentIal
18:10
86:1
profit 99:20,21
99:24
100:13
91:14,15
92:1,3
raises 38:14
19:259:661:3
primarily
19:11
103:4
publIc 1:10 5:6,7
98:499:18,19
range43:11
92:7
potentIally
37:6
36:6
55:11
program
34:2
6:2,4,10,24 7:2
100:15 102:20
Rao 2:6 3:13
28:8
52:12
54:9
90:22
69:8,10 95:22
7:3 10:18
18:19
question 7:11,13
29:7 50:16
51:2
71:14
prImary45:9
95:23
102:22
45:13 53:14
7:14,18
32:23
51:7 53:24
57:1
POTW 9:18
19:9
prior 5:1
13:8
prohibit
13:23
59:11,21
61:9
34:6
36:12
57:16 58:15
power 8:15
17:18 18:3
14:17
61:21 64:13
37:18 38:22
62:1564:15
practical 62:4
32:14
33:17
projected
87:13
74:8
81:21
89:9
39:1
40:18 42:5
67:12
69:20
71:3,8,8,13
34:9
35:16
promisIng 97:12
89:16,20,24
42:22 45:19
75:7 80:8,11
83:11
57:10
106:5
90:4,6,10,17
46:1,6 51:3,8,8
81:2,5
82:6
practice 68:19
priors 108:3
promulgate
34:2
91:5 92:14
51:8,18
52:4
83:3 84:9
85:2
68:21
69:18
privileged
7:6
proof 15:15,24
93:10
110:2
59:5
61:15
85:23
86:19
precedent 13:18
probably 23:23
proper 37:10
114:7
115:1,7
63:21
64:8
87:1,8
89:2
20:4,5,9
33:15
31:22 50:24
properly 4:18
115:17
116:21
76:23 77:2
79:4
91:10 95:18
33:17
51:17
55:5 62:1
5:21
37:16
116:22 117:4
79:22,24
80:2
96:16
100:20
preconceived 8:4
66:13 86:15
101:3
118:4
80:21
81:1,2,9
103:20 104:7
predicated 60:14
95:14 97:2
proportional
publication
81:16,17
82:9
104:22 105:7
prefer 57:24
116:24 117:12
76:11
59:16
83:1
84:4
85:3
105:17 107:11
preferable 59:2
problem 25:1
proposal 3:16
publIcly 5:22
85:5,14
86:10
108:5
109:6,10
prefiled
10:3
55:8
70:19 71:1
22:20 24:10
9:19
18:15
88:6,14
89:6
109:22 111:3,6
prepared
16:16
71:13,19
72:7
25:17
27:3
pump-up 98:9
90:15 91:8,12
111:9,12
20:16
38:19
106:13
proposed 5:1,4
purposes 22:9
97:20 99:22
112:24 114:2,5
39:5
procedural
4:19
11:13,19
18:9
29:1,12 68:9
100:11
101:15
114:12 116:3,6
present 2:5
3:12
7:4 115:15
18:12 25:20
pursuant 4:18
101:18,21
116:12
9:8 20:23
21:7
procedure 37:10
30:8
51:21
53:7
5:22 14:3 15:21
102:2
103:12
rapid 42:16 76:16
29:18 42:11,15
60:20
68:11
63:8
64:20
pushing 93:18
104:19,21,23
rapidly 8:1
82:18
84:7,19
98:8
112:17
67:11
70:8
put 31:13
53:10
111:13 113:19
rarely 110:7
84:20,23
117:11
73:22
55:24
57:1,7
114:1
117:11
rate 77:13,14
100:13
procedures
proposing 51:16
65:5
68:12
questioning 7:8
98:24
100:5
presentation
67:11
68:23
53:4
77:20
92:1,2,11
29:17
rates 102:18,20
20:15
98:6
protected 45:8
92:18 93:6
questions 6:12
rather
11:5
12:20
presented
17:17
proceed 32:5
45:14,15
82:16
99:19
109:3
8:2,6
10:4
16:18 32:16
20:12 32:12
proceeding
1:11
82:19 83:8
puttIng 85:24
16:17
18:5
20:1
113:23
presenting
29:23
3:5 45:16
protection
2:10
P.E 2:6
20:12 23:19,22
rationale 47:13
38:21
107:6,9
106:20 108:9
17:12 40:21
27:24 28:13,19
60:24
presently2s:24
108:11,14,16
45:6
0
29:930:1,7,12
reach
19:9,19
President 25:14
108:21
117:15
protective
4:7
qualIfIcation
31:12,17
32:8
48:8 108:22
presume
64:10
proceedings
5:24
18:10 45:17
42:1
32:19,20
38:20
112:22
pretreatment
50:5
118:7
48:24
quality 9:23,24
45:1
46:23
47:4
reaches 33:4
68:15 69:5,8,12
process 18:8
protects
82:14
10:5
12:8,16
50:6,18,19,21
reaching 75:5
71:11
19:5
33:9
35:21
provide 7:2,10
13:1,10,13
14:2
50:23 75:10
read 21:2,4,8
pretty 66:24
37:2,2
46:1
10:19,21
11:3
14:5,21
16:8
78:16 79:3
88:9
22:15 23:13
85:19
57:19 60:13
18:8
20:7
38:19
18:24
19:15,18
89:1
94:16
24:3,23 25:11
prevent 14:1
72:11,18,21
50:22 75:20
32:16,24 33:9
95:18,20
111:5
26:12,23
27:15
previousl8:8
82:1,395:12
83:1
96:297:11
33:11
34:11,22
111:14,23
27:2428:749:7
116:18
105:19 106:17
99:6,24
100:3
35:4,9,12 36:14
114:15 115:15
49:19
67:23,24
previously 47:13
processes 46:3
103:15,15
37:23 38:3
quick 61:15
89:14
104:11
53:12 71:17,22
processing 45:13
109:18,20
42:24
43:1
quIckly 63:14
113:24
pre-file
17:20
89:10,13
90:1
112:10,20
44:15 45:17
quIte 34:17 67:10
readily 63:23
22:1087:12
90:17
113:20
51:12,1552:2,7
91:2498:21
97:24
pre-filed 12:4,7
produce 5:4
provided 15:15
53:6,9,14,22
quote 14:20
reads 89:7
12:15
14:10
41:11
32:7
51:5,19,23
54:1,3,7,16
40:22
realize
106:19
15:6 19:10
21:3
product 99:2,5
66:22
77:6
56:6
57:24
58:7
quotes 113:6
really 7:17
38:15
21:4,17
22:13
99:19
100:4,7
78:11
98:4
58:14 62:3,20
38:17
52:5
Keefe Reporting Company
68:20 85:16
reduced 118:8
52:6 54:15
requires 4:20
75:20
3:20 99:23
reason
28:6,9
reducing 11:8,12
57:15 58:20
18:15 72:16
Rhone-Pouienc
100:12 108:10
62:7,11
91:1
26:6
62:5,16
69:22
requiring 45:21
13:16 47:14
ruling
58:6
110:1
reasonable
10:7
reduction
19:8
70:12 71:16,17
research 11:1
right 5:20 35:22
110:4
14:24 24:18
refer 21:20
63:5
71:24
72:3,4,6
24:7 96:4
59:8
60:5,6
rulings 32:14
71:20
100:2
65:24
70:16
72:19,24 73:4
111:16
65:12 68:3
73:8
run
15:1
33:8
101:12
80:23
73:15,17
74:3
resolve
12:1
99:6
75:8
83:11
83:15
97:14
reasonableness
referred 102:13
74:19,24
75:2
respectfully 15:9
89:18 90:2,7,1
R03-011
3:5
11:7
referring67:6
90:8,1091:7,13
respond34:20
93:1996:12
R03-11
1:6
reasoned
12:24
89:6
relies
14:11
45:1,24 47:6
105:1
108:22
reasons 7:24
reflecting
87:4
remaIn 47:23
51:17 52:21,24
112:4
113:8
5
55:20
regarding 14:4
48:8
62:1
68:11
80:1
116:13
safe 32:1
recalculate
14:12
24:14
remarks 47:15
80:21
81:19,20
river 4:12
18:18
safeguards
18:7
76:13
27:7 51:10
remember 65:4
responded 40:19
19:20 41:2,9,14
18:12
19:3
recall 77:16
60:19
77:8,12
91:21
81:5 88:16
43:3,13
44:17
safer 114:9
96:19 110:6
regardless 35:5
93:9
responding 50:17
61:10
safety
97:1
receive 6:7,9,21
36:9 88:19
removal
26:5
51:3
RMR
1:10
118:16
113:10,16,18
107:20
101:6 103:2
remove
102:6
responds 47:15
road
2:2 97:16
113:21,22
received 14:12
108:13
renewal
19:5
response
5:11,12
Roland 2:8
sake 3:17
receiving
11:11
region 18:11
46:1
5:19
8:9 10:4
role 96:21
SalIna 24:8 25:15
12:9
18:24
Registered 118:3
renewed
53:20
28:13 29:18
room
6:20
97:14
25:22,24
33:12
118:3
repetitious 7:6
30:7
31:17
Rose 2:17
11:1
Salt 4:11
10:8
34:3 45:8
46:10
regulate
59:22
replace
19:17
32:18
34:6
22:11 24:3,6,7
19:19 43:3
54:7
46:11 51:24
regulation 26:19
replacement
36:12
37:21
85:13,15
86:9
same 4:14 7:24
recent 12:17
regulations
3:20
19:8
38:20
40:18,21
87:3,12,16 88:5
13:3
21:12
16:6
33:15 43:4
9:21
12:21
14:8
replacements
42:5,7,22 45:19
93:22 94:2,9,12
34:18
35:21
recently 5:9,16
74:3
100:1,14
4:4
52:3
64:17,23
94:19,23
95:9
83:4 85:10
12:1891:22
regulatoryl7:22
report4l:23
82:2185:4,5
95:1396:498:5
98:1998:4
recess 47:3
33:23
52:15
75:12,16
89:23 95:20
99:8,10 103:18
103:16 104:18
recognize
8:13
108:21
reporter 7:23
111:14
112:23
103:21
104:5,9
sample 56:2
77:3
47:20
reiterate 32:22
118:3,3,3
113:20,23
105:3,8,20,23
77:9
recognizes
12:14
53:1
56:18
REPORTER’S
responses
16:16
106:13 111:19
samples 43:9
recommend
88:11
118:1
20:17 27:23
111:20,22
45:22 63:1
65:6
34:23 81:20
related
39:2
reports 38:24
32:7,12,20
112:8,13
77:11
recommends
42:10 77:21
58:11
50:20,24
113:18
sampling 42:13
17:22
80:17
81:9
representing
109:19
roughly
105:12
60:23
record 3:11,17
118:11
108:18,19
restate 92:10
route 52:4
satIsfIed
35:7
6:3 7:24
8:4
relative
70:9
request 4:21
result 63:3
103:2
routinely 55:24
satIsfy 103:11
21:5,24 22:3,4
relatively 42:19
12:19 28:8
103:3
RPR 1:10
118:16
save 16:19,21
22:15 23:13,21
relevance
78:23
32:15 58:20,21
resultant 47:23
rubber 97:16
saw 68:22
24:23 25:4
79:8 113:13
71:14 83:1
resulting
42
rule 1:5 3:6,10,21
saying
66:4
70:8
26:12,16,23
relevant 7:6
requested
5:9
results 39:5
4:16 6:6 8:14
73:14
74:23
21:15,20 28:1,6
38:10 60:12
10:15
12:13
51:14 76:18
15:6,21
17:17
81:5 83:7 86:7
28:7
29:2,4
79:3,5,13,22
13:20 16:5,9
77:6 96:2
17:23
18:4
97:15
100:23
30:23 31:10
113:14
17:22 18:3,20
retained
117:17
22:21
24:11
102:24 107:16
39:20 40:1,15
relief 12:6,10,13
19:12
20:4
returned
118:10
25:18 27:4
says 53:21 89:14
41:20 42:3
12:16,19,21,24
33:14
37:20,24
Returning 69:21
32:10
33:5
35:2
scale 99:1
43:2044:11,19
13:3,6,6,9,10
39:448:1
reviewl7:16
35:2436:637:1
102:18
47:3 49:6,7
13:11,19,20,24
requestIng
12:16
19:6 34:20,23
37:9 45:16
57:2
scenarIo 71:12
50:3
56:20
14:13,17
15:3,4
require
9:21
19:5
45:9
46:3 78:10
57:14,18
58:23
72:11
57:10 59:20
16:5,5,9
17:21
46:2
57:19
96:24
97:8
59:10
62:22
schedule 5:13,13
68:7
73:23
17:22
18:3,20
68:18
100:13
106:12,14,16
100:24 101:4
105:14
77:21
79:1
19:12,15
20:4
requIred 4:24
revIewed
20:11
115:15 116:21
scheme 35:13
88:11
96:2,18
32:15,24
33:6
13:12 55:1
69:7,11
111:5
58:2
106:12,18
33:14,23
34:14
64:19,21
revIse
36:16
Ruiemaklng-W..
school 105:9
107:18 108:23
35:20 36:17
requirement
revisions 90:20
1:6
scientifIc 96:15
110:9,18
115:2
37:11,14,19,24
92:12,15,20,20
revisit 91:2
rules 4:19 5:1,2,4
scIentist 2:6,6
115:21 117:12
46:747:19,24
92:22
revIsiting
72:16
5:23 7:4 15:17
87:6
reduce 24:18
48:21,22,23
requirements
rewrite 37:4
90:16
scientIsts 87:10
71:16
49:3
51:10,11
35:2,3
re-calculations
rule-makIng
3:4
scope 79:14,16
Keefe
Reporting
Company
Scott 2:17
16:22
12:23
6:23
97:5,11,17 98:2
88:14 94:23
89:9
92:21,22
17:11,15 30:1
servIces 85:11
similar 51:20
104:14
106:11
95:3
94:12
111:23
38:19 52:24
set
7:1
10:1
16:2
88:1
107:13
spell
16:24
112:14 118:3
55:5
67:6
28:14
36:3
simple 63:12
somehow 72:3
spray 98:9,16
stated 47:17
screen 97:5
72:18
78:21
76:3
73:15
sprayer 98:9
58:24 78:24
seal 118:14
81:14
90:5
simply
12:10
someone 57:9
spring 116:12
statement
9:4
search 106:7
97:12,13,14
91:4,6
81:3
Springfield 2:8
38:8 56:9 74:1
second 18:21
99:18
since 21:17
something 61:17
2:12
107:15,21
21:24 39:18
sets
15:10
42:21 45:10
63:22,22
64:12
squarely 75:6
statements
7:10
93:24
settIng 33:9
55:4
63:12
66:5
65:11,11
69:9
staff 9:9 17:15
7:23
secondary4s:7
seven 103:3
77:24
80:11,23
69:11
70:20
29:18
34:19
states 25:14
60:1462:264:7
104:13,20
87:21
94:5
73:18
78:5 79:1
61:21 67:15
station 43:2,2,5
Section 4:20
several
11:24
95:10
107:20
80:19 93:11
107:6
43:6,8,14,19
9:21
10:1
12:10
12:17 32:18
113:11
97:12 99:3
standard 4:15
44:15,16
12:20,21
13:9
54:19 87:19
siras:15
101:8,10
9:23,2410:5,15
stations 42:24
13:19,22,23
90:21
93:8
95:7
sit
102:8
105:24 109:16
11:14,18
12:8
statistIcs
64:1
14:3,7,13,15,17
106:8
site 27:10 42:17
110:12
12:16
13:1,17
stay 92:8
15:9
16:3
19:13
severe 4:5 10:12
61:4 116:16,19
somewhat 90:17
14:2,6 16:8,23
stenographIc
74:4
100:20
102:10
sites
14:9
somewhere
61:2
18:9 19:15,18
118:7
see 6:14 28:6,9
severely 76:21
site-specific
1:5
86:24
25:21
32:17,24
stenographically
70:19,21
71:7,8
77:22
1:6 3:6 4:7 9:17
soon 112:22
33:9,15 34:4,11
1:9
79:11
81:12
shakIng
62:9
11:13,18
13:24
sorry 96:7
99:9
35:1,4,9 36:1,2
Steve 2:18
10:20
90:12 98:11
sheddIng 50:18
14:13 15:3
16:9
sort
36:3
55:9
36:14 37:2,23
22:13,18 68:11
114:23
sheet6:19,23
17:17,2318:4,9
57:6
38:345:17
Steven70:16,18
seeing
8:7 67:3
97:21
113:20
19:18 22:21
sought 48:21,23
46:14,15 48:19
stickers 28:12
seeking 9:17
113:22
24:11
25:18,21
sounded
116:6
52:2,7,9,13
still 7:2 13:12
13:11
34:14
sheets 6:1
97:1
26:19
27:4
source 48:4
53:6,9,22 54:1
57:18
58:6
73:1
35:20 78:9
Shepard 2:17
32:10,16
35:2
55:17 56:7
59:8
54:3,7 56:6,23
82:19
86:24
seeks4:15
11:9,925:7,10
35:2436:637:1
61:7,9
57:5,2458:7,14
90:2493:12
seem 35:13 37:6
25:12,13,15
37:8,11
45:16
sources 10:24
60:15 62:3,23
105:10
115:1
98:7 108:1
26:11 59:17
46:15
51:11
23:2 48:14
63:9,11
69:23
stores 95:7
seems 58:1
74:5
60:7,11,11
63:4
54:17
57:2,13
speak 7:21,24
73:17
18:10
STP 45:21
75:4
63:5
64:8 65:19
74:2
100:24
speaking 7:22
80:17 89:20,20
stream
12:9 13:3
seen 33:9 39:20
66:7,12,17
101:4
special 45:20
90:1,21
91:5,7
18:11,24
19:22
86:19
95:1
67:18
70:19
situation 38:12
53:17,23
64:20
91:14,15
92:1,3
33:5 34:13 35:5
106:23
71:6
80:20,23
48:11
84:22
65:6,12,13
100:16 101:2,4
35:12 36:7,8,9
segment 52:18
96:11,16,21
87:19
88:1
68:12
70:9
101:16 103:24
37:20 39:2
54:2,5 79:12
101:23 102:1
sIx 42:5
103:3
species
42:9
standards
13:10
42:10 45:8,22
80:15 81:10
102:14 103:6
skIpped
113:2
78:2,7
79:9,9
13:14 14:5,21
46:10,11,13
segments 19:22
103:10 111:24
slightly 107:8
79:10,12,20
15:11,12,15
51:24 52:9
26:1
37:21
52:9
112:9
113:16
slow 65:9
80:4,18
81:7,13
17:13 18:24
53:13 54:2
54:20
short 47:3
63:14
small
55:12
82:10,14,15,15
33:4,11
35:12
60:21
62:17,21
segregating
Shorthand
118:2
smaller 55:21
82:18 83:8,9,9
51:12,15 54:16
63:16 70:11
79:12
shortly 116:1,9
smart 95:15
83:9,14
84:7,7
62:20
70:2
77:21
80:16
Senior 2:6
116:15
soda 78:22
84:10,11,22
72:17,24 81:11
81:10,14
sense 35:24
short-term
63:9
solely 33:6 35:17
specifIc 14:9
81:15
89:8,10
streams 11:11
sensitive 42:8
show 41:14 55:2
solutions
113:6
19:21
33:4,4
89:15,17
90:4,5
25:22,24 33:12
45:18
79:20
sIc
115:24
some 6:13
16:16
37:7
82:16
90:6,9,11,17,22
34:3,21
81:7
83:24
84:8
sIde 34:24 35:6
17:8
18:6
20:16
83:22
84:8
99:18
Street 1:12
2:14
84:10,16
50:9
55:10
31:17
32:7
89:24
92:19
standpoint
52:15
118:6
sensitivity83:14
59:2271:9
33:1438:19
112:21
66:1983:12
stringent36:3
83:22
115:3
47:4
50:5,19
specifically
start 38:22 46:23
90:1
sent 63:6
sides 74:13 75:6
52:12
55:8,9,17
15:14
36:15
65:6
strive 48:14
separate 38:24
sign 6:18
56:3
58:19,23
58:24 59:23
started
50:9
65:7
strongly
18:2
52:20 66:3
sIgned 6:22
58:24
60:23
65:4
69:3
81:9
94:8 95:2
37:1
separately 54:18
significance
63:1
72:22
84:5,6 88:10
111:24
student 105:10
September 66:8
24:15
75:17,20
76:3
speculate 88:15
state
1:10 4:3,6
students
105:14
67:7,9,19
significant 52:10
76:24 82:1,3
speculating
7:15
34:7
36:13
105:15
serve 33:22
signs 86:20,20
83:4 86:19
104:14
37:21
56:20
study 5:1,3,4,5,6
servIce 6:1,9
sign-up 5:24
6:19
90:18 95:18
speculation
66:23
73:12
5:11,13,14 40:4
12
Keefe Reporting Company
subject4:167:7
suppose 55:7
technical
3:12
72:21
74:21
52:1,15,2453:4
96:13
97:15,22
submit
15:9
sure 16:22 21:23
9:911:11
17:21
85:23 87:13
53:17,18 54:8
112:6
64:1376:13
23:23
29:7,13
18:5
26:6 31:16
88:17,19,23
54:10
55:5,16
throw 35:23
114:6
29:15
34:15
34:16,19,23,24
103:5,22
55:20 56:1,12
98:18,19
submitted
20:13
35:18 39:3
35:14
38:19
118:10
57:4,5,12,14,23
tIer 69:4
33:1
38:13
41:22
51:2
50:15
55:10
testing 95:21,23
58:18,21
60:18
time
6:4,20
7:21
74:20 78:17
60:11
66:2,24
60:10
67:15
96:3,6,19 98:6
61:16,20,24
8:10 21:12
submitting 43:7
68:24
72:13
79:16
91:19
105:18
62:3
67:2
68:8
28:19 42:14
subpart 89:8,10
73:5
79:1
81:17
107:6
111:17
tests 66:14 83:15
68:20,22
69:11
46:21
49:10,14
90:24
82:23 88:13
114:14
97:13
70:23
71:4,5,10
54:23 56:5
subsequent 72:2
90:14 91:10,24
technically
10:6
thank
8:18,22 9:8
71:18,20
72:4
63:14 64:2,3,6
subsequently
96:13,21
99:11
58:2
100:1,17
11:24
16:10,11
74:10,19
78:13
69:15 76:19
22:10
100:11
101:3,5
101:2
17:3 20:20,21
79:15,18,18,21
77:9,24 82:3
substantial
12:5
101:24 108:19
technique 82:12
23:9 24:19
26:8
80:5,21
81:16
90:16 105:13
successful
98:22
111:21
117:13
82:16
27:11
36:11
82:8
84:16 87:3
106:1
110:6
98:23
surfacel0:18
technologies
42:444:18
88:15,1689:2,3
112:12,15
sufficients3:21
surroundingll:7
26:6
46:1650:16
89:2390:12,14
115:10
78:12 80:6,22
survey 39:2
tell
79:6 81:4
51:6
56:17,19
90:16,19
91:2,4
tImely 8:16
109:21,24
42:10,20 77:22
86:16
105:24
58:15
59:2
93:10,12
times 104:11
117:7
surviving 84:23
107:22
69:20
88:4
100:20 101:7
TMDL 34:2
72:21
sufficiently
suspect 93:18
temporary
98:16
92:24
101:22
101:15,17
today
6:18
7:2
113:8 114:11
sustain
108:9
term 69:13
105:17 112:23
102:1,4,17,11
8:12
9:9,13
suggest 37:6
swear 21:11
termed 79:3
112:24 117:9
104:9,10,12
10:3
12:3
17:11
55:8 67:9
31:18,24
32:1
terms 51:22
117:13
105:14 108:3
20:16 22:19
suggested 32:22
56:12
66:20 74:8
Thanks 8:17
109:4,9,10
23:10 24:9,20
70:3
sworn
7:1 21:13
78:23 97:2
their 4:5 5:5 6:22
110:8 111:10
25:16 26:9
27:2
suggestIng 53:8
32:3
47:9 56:16
109:10,12
12:2
16:19
17:5
113:4,13
114:1
27:12 30:11
66:5
system 18:14
114:20
17:18 22:20
114:11,13
58:22 73:12
suggestion 12:11
36:17 86:1
test
39:5 52:12
24:10,15
25:17
115:10
76:4,13 82:24
15:5
55:22 56:5
29:23 32:15
thinking
108:10
102:9
suggests 12:8
T
83:17,19 95:22
39:3 46:10
thInks 75:2
today’s
115:20
suit 55:9 95:2
tag 94:10
107:11 109:5
51:21
53:10
Thomas 2:5
tolerant
42:21
Suite 2:2
take 31:12 33:20
109:12
54:8,21,24
Thorn 48:2,5,12
Tom 3:3,9
8:8
summarIes 23:21
35:10
39:20
tested
96:1,20
55:14,18
59:7
thorough 74:20
top 44:2267:15
summarize 22:14
46:7,14,22
99:1
107:13,14
66:15,20,21
though
13:4
78:22 96:14
76:18
52:19 53:23
107:23 109:8
68:18
69:18
36:23
59:24
104:10 110:7
summary 21:2,3
54:17 56:23
114:10
71:1,23
73:2
66:1
74:6 99:5
total
1041
21:7 22:15
59:1
70:1
77:10
testified 60:19
78:1
85:18
thought 56:7
toxicity
11:17
23:11
24:4,21
83:1,18
97:3
103:5
97:13
102:21
71:13
84:13
27:8,9
39:5
25:11 26:23
98:8107:3,22
testify6:187:2
102:21
112:19
93:10
76:10 80:24
Sunday 117:1
109:1,2,12
11:10
23:9
113:17
thousand 48:2,6
transcribe 7:23
supervisIon
110:18 118:7
24:14,19
25:20
themselves 49:3
48:8,13,16,18
transcript
1:9
118:8
taken 1:9,11
30:3
26:8
27:7,11
93:21
threatened 79:8
115:20,23
supplement 32:7
37:16 43:10
60:8
68:19
theoretIcal
51:22
79:9,20
80:4
116:1,15
91:3
takes 76:3
82:12
testifying 56:11
theory 55:7 72:19
81:7,12
82:10
treatment
1:5 3:6
supplied 39:1
taking
19:1
39:14
testimony 6:12
73:14
82:18
83:8,13
9:19
10:5,23
supplies 92:4
41:3
65:6
6:13,21,21
7:9
thereof 118:12
83:16
18:16 22:22,24
supply 6:16
talked 6:2 53:18
10:3,20
11:22
thing 38:16 56:4
threatening
24:12
25:19
10:18 18:17,19
70:23
89:2
12:4,1,15 14:10
87:2
98:8 102:8
80:18
82:15
26:4
27:5
48:3
53:15 59:22
111:11
113:2
15:6
17:20
102:9 108:6
three 23:22
76:21
77:4,23
61:21
63:2
talking 59:3
19:10,23
20:1,5
109:11
38:23
39:1
78:1
85:24
89:10,12,16,20
62:16 66:6
20:24 21:3,4,5
things 63:17
52:20 72:17
89:12
92:7
90:5,6,10
91:5
74:18,23 96:6
21:8 22:10,13
83:17 87:7
112:14
trial 98:22
supplying 39:4
103:23 104:12
22:16 23:12
96:14,24 97:4
threw 94:16
114:10
41:8
105:16 106:2
24:5,22 25:6,11
108:7
through
10:3
tributary 4:11
support 14:10
106:22
26:11,18,23
think 14:23
15:18
19:5
35:21
10:8
19:19
20:6 22:20
TC8S048:1,4,11
27:14
30:5
20:4
29:16
37:16 46:1
48:7
trieds2:396:10
24:10 25:17
48:14
31:21
32:20,21
34:15
35:6,22
57:19 59:11
96:10 98:1
27:3 32:13
TDS 48:3,6,12,16
33:16,18 40:20
38:10,18 46:13
69:9 71:11
truck 3:23 4:1
supports
17:21
team 94:10
96:10
49:7
54:15 71:7
47:15 51:21
87:22
91:23
11:3,8,12 24:14
Keefe
Reporting Company
24:16 46:4 65:9
118:8
used 4:2 20:6
15:24 48:17
19:8
22:22
73:19
69:1
85:6,8,10
T-w-a-i-t
17:2
54:4 87:14
virtually
53:2
waters 10:16,18
we’ll 5:19
21:8
85:11,16,17,18
89:17 94:5,7,7
vulnerable
33:24
89:9
24:1
30:23 32:1
86:4,6 93:20,23
U
94:13,14,21
way 24:18
52:12
38:20 68:3,13
95:22 97:13
IJAA 45:3
96:14
107:11
W
55:16
57:3
70:20 81:23
98:9,13
104:3
ultImately
15:8
108:2
Wabash 4:12
68:23
82:24
97:14 98:18
113:6,11
33:2
USEPA 14:12,16
18:18
19:20
83:23 90:13,15
110:17111:1
truckerøl:18
under3a:238:4
14:2415:233:1
41:2,9,1443:3
94:20
100:6
112:9,9,16
98:10
103:16
47:24 51:12
33:2,8,24 38:10
43:13 44:17
103:17 108:5
115:10 117:2
Truckomat 3:19
60:15 68:12,15
69:8
78:9,12
wait 7:15
112:11,20
we’re 4:24
5:11
3:23
9:12 69:1
71:12 72:14
user68:24
waiting 5:11,19
118:12
5:12,19 16:16
69:6 94:4,5,6
73:11,21
74:3
113:10
waive 115:10
ways 90:18
29:8
31:2,2,11
94:13,21
102:6
75:385:4
uses 18:1045:6
want 3:9,11
7:21
Web 116:16,19
35:8,2436:5
104:14,15,16
101:15 118:8
45:14
8:8 16:15,20
week 78:5
41:22 46:12
108:19
118:14
USGS 48:5,15
17:4
20:23
21:7
weeks 112:14
47:3
49:24
Truckomat’s
underlying 83:9
usIng 26:2 46:4
21:15,16,18
welcome 7:19
50:14
62:2
9:20 10:12
11:6
understand
75:17,20
16:1
29:5 31:18
8:12
109:3
68:13,14 82:21
trucks4:387:10
35:1647:18,19
94:8,1595:1,12
35:1038:6
110:9
86:787:22
97:15,11 98:20
51:23 70:7
73:2
97:1
99:3
100:4
49:19 53:1
well 5:19 10:13
90:19
94:15
98:20 103:9
73:9,10 100:11
101:11
106:15
56:22 58:12
11:13
17:6
95:1
96:6,11
true
97:16
102:1
usually 97:23
59:17
64:12
20:17 26:2
99:20
101:1,3
118:10
understanding
98:14
65:20 66:10,23
31:24 32:2
104:12,18
tryss:8
84:24
55:10 94:24
Utah 93:13,16
68:19 70:16
34:15,16
35:11
105:15 109:4
91:9,11
102:19
18:15 80:20
49:12
50:7
55:4
111:2 112:3
trying
12:1
90:14
understood 51:2
V
86:16
88:11
56:12
61:1,5
114:24 115:9
101:7 109:15
74:22 101:1
vague 99:17
89:1
100:22
70:675:18,24
117:14
110:22
uniform 103:16
valid
67:2
107:2,17
78:20
80:20
we’ve 5:9 6:2
turn 38:18 65:8
unit 3:12
16:23
value 41:2 43:13
108:11,21
81:16
84:15
20:6,18 21:3
Twait 2:17
16:23
17:13 50:15
76:2,2,11
109:2 111:7
89:22 94:23
35:3 38:16
50:4
17:2,12 32:1,3
unless
55:17
values 41:3,9,13
114:3 115:2,5
96:11 97:24
52:3
53:18
38:19,22 40:11
66:10 79:1,5
51:22 53:15
wanted 6:14
99:12
102:21
58:20
59:15
40:18 42:5
80:6
84:2
65:8
15:18 75:1
51:12 54:10,11
109:9
111:20
60:19
63:9 64:9
43:21 44:7,12
unnamed
4:11
76:10
62:14,20 76:4
113:3
74:16
79:3 88:1
44:14,24 46:17
10:7 19:19
various 19:22
84:9
99:10
went 77:2 18:3
88:2
94:14
47:16
53:6 54:6
unnotlceable
41:13 95:24
101:21
107:12
were
6:2 13:6
96:14
111:10
55:20 56:9
98:10
96:23
107:22
16:17 21:8
28:2
113:2,7
57:20
64:20
unquote 41:7
vast 86:10
wanting
62:19
30:15 31:9
32:3
whatsoever
65:13,17
66:1
unreasonable
verifying
61:21
wants 47:6
79:18
34:1
38:7
42:11
70:11
77:20
83:6 84:4
100:6,16
very 35:13 50:18
101:11
109:10
42:13,15 45:9
whichever
21:15
84:15,20
91:18
until 63:15
64:3
51:20 55:12
116:13
48:1,11
50:18
while 16:8
44:8
91:21
106:15
60:17
63:14,18
wash 69:1
85:6,8
53:3,15
54:15
59:3
Twaits
56:21
upgraded 78:1
63:23 74:20
85:12,16,18,18
55:17 56:11
whIte 86:14
92:6
upstream
4:12
76:5
77:18
86:2,5,6
93:20
57:5 58:5,23
whole 4:9 48:8
twIce
56:1
43:3
82:20 83:20
93:23 97:13,17
60:7,13
61:21
60:13
62:17
two 31:4 32:20
Urbana
2:3
97:23 106:11
98:19 113:6,11
64:7
65:4
67:4
107:11,18
34:6 35:11
use 4:5 10:11
112:15,24
114:9
67:12,15
69:24
wildlife
45:6
36:13
38:24
19:15 30:12
via
1:3
washers 24:14
11:6
13:14
Williams 2:12
9:2
48:2,6,8,12,16
34:4 37:22
45:2
view 19:2
29:11
24:17
74:23 75:17
9:2 16:12,14,22
48:17
52:9,19
45:4,5,7,7,11
57:23 91:2,4
washes 3:23 4:1
76:23
78:4
17:4,6,10 20:22
55:20 82:1
45:13,13,18
102:21
11:8,12
46:4
81:24 83:24
23:15 24:24
104:3
51:14 59:7,8
viewed
33:7
65:9
85:10
84:4,6
86:13
25:1
26:13
two-part 94:9
61:4,6 66:20
34:24 73:15
104:4
90:16,11,22,23
27:16,17 28:23
type 57:13 71:2
89:8,15,19
vIewing
36:5
washing 4:2 11:3
96:19
97:7
28:24 29:16,24
72:12 73:19
90:23 91:1 92:2
views 45:15
95:23
98:24 103:22
30:24
31:2,6,13
74:19
87:4
94:7,7,21
95:4
vIolate 73:16
Washington 2:14
106:2
101:13
31:14,22 32:3,5
106:9 109:11
97:9 98:12,17
violated
15:23
wasn’t 66:4
101:13,23
32:6 34:15
109:14
100:7 101:12
33:11
38:4 56:6
82:20
87:14
108:8,17,18,19
35:22 36:12
types 34:21
101:13 102:8
91:17
Waste
111:16
113:3
111:17
39:1040:2,3,1
36:22
107:16 109:5
violatIng 14:2
wastewater
4:1
118:8
41:12
42:4
typewritten
114:9
vIolation 15:15
4:10 9:19
10:22
weren’t
61:15
43:17,24
44:21
14
Keefe Reporting Company
46:19,20 47:6
69:5
10:001:11
21 20:13
28:14
4
47:16 49:6,8,9
written 6:24 7:3
102 7:4 101:19
43:22
104:1,8
449:2250:1
49:13,21
50:11
28:13 50:23
1021 2:11
210 101:19
4th
20:14
50:12
52:23
109:19,21
1113:16
2172:3115:18
4.54:1518:22
54:13
55:4
57:4
wrong
101:9
11th
1:11
118:4
222:193:1846:1
53:11
51:22 59:19
wrote
116:10
11:00 46:24
111:6,8
113:2,9
402:235:314:3
60:6 61:18
www.ipcb.stat...
1285:492:9,13
114:8
105:5
62:10,11
67:20
116:17
12-A85:5
22-C
113:4
40-year6l:8
67:22 68:2
122 2:14
24104:1,8
402
13:22
72:13 73:8,13
X
1315:5
19:22
252:2,19,20
422:23,23
74:15,18
18:13
X 47:21,22,23
41:21
262:20,20
14:11
432:24
81:23 89:4,5,18
98:14,17
130 40:24
75:15
272:20
14:1
74:4
442:2410:9
89:22
90:7,12
102:14
131.13
14:3
100:20
91:19 93:12,15
1419:2245:1
27(b) 4:20
100:18,22
V
110:8
111:15
278-3111
2:3
5118:14
101:17 108:11
yeah 51:2 56:14
14th 118:13
115:18
5.0
19:1
56:23
110:19,21
61:14 65:19
143 41:1
75:15
282:21
59:1
114:15,11
66:17
87:8,11
1545:1
292:21
5076:7
115:12,13
109:20,22
159
105:4
116:24
110:23111:9
160105:5
3
6
willing 70:3
111:12 114:5
1737:18
32:2443:15,18
678:16
81:11,17
82:21
114:12
1717 2:2
44:8,10
6th
12:18
winter 116:13
year 12:18
18th 115:24
3rd 61:8
6-C 78:16
wish 7:1,11,18
102:12
116:9,23
3.7
42:11
61802 2:3
67:22
yearly 69:9,10,11
1945:1988:9,10
302:21,225:3
62401
2:15
wishes 6:18
years 19:6 72:11
117:5
116:22 117:3
62705
2:8
withdrawn 89:11
87:19,24,24
19th 116:24
300
75:13
62794
2:12
witness
1:12
88:1
117:3,4
302 89:9,11
682:22,22
21:22
108:2
19-A 88:10,14
302.208
12:20
witnesses2:17
Z
19-C88:10
19:1748:21
7
6:17 7:7 10:19
Zeman
2:7
1970s94:4
51:10,12
91:14
7010
3421
43:13
21:13 28:18
zero 34:21
63:2
1973 95:10
302.208(g)
3:22
53:15
60:22
30:11,18 47:5
65:3
1980 43:10
10:1
12:20
63:2
64:1
50:22 115:3
1981 93:24
303.302
89:7
1-day 18:18
wondered 59:9
$
1985 14:12
38:9
304 15:6,11,12
wondering 62:18
$300,000
87:13
1990 43:10
15:20
8
15:19 80:14
102:12 103:4
1993 93:24
304.104 4:17
899:3,15,16
85:9 93:22
94:6
$45
85:6
1994 13:17
15:10
106:10 111:17
$5 86:2
1996 94:6,7
304.104(d)
16:3
wording 70:3
$8 85:8
1998 39:5
304.105 9:22
95:1067:7,19
words 15:19
1999 39:2 76:19
12:10,13,21
92:9,12 99:2,15
work 23:24 72:22
0
16:24
13:9,19
14:13
99:16
97:23,24
0 43:14
14:18
15:4
9th 66:8
67:10
113:16
0,14 43:11
2
19:13 32:16
90105:12
worked
11:23
0.2
43:11
22:2341:16,21
33:7
36:18
94.7
~
23:6 87:22
42:1,2
47:19 48:22
113:17
1
2.0 62:3
63:3
51:10
52:6
worker 86:13,14
1
2:23
39:8,11
64:24
66:15
58:20
62:19
113:10
40:6,8,14 41:21
205:742:15
73:15 91:13
working 6:5
12:1
92:17
99:1
89:24
304.205 14:16
78:9111:23
102:18
20-8
89:8
304.233
1:6 3:8
112:3
1-A 51:8
52:4
2002
3:18
12:18
305-B 58:11
works 5:18
9:19
1.4 4:14
10:1,6
42:16 66:8
67:7
31 2:21,22
18:16
36:9
57:3
19:16
34:4
67:19
3150 2:8
68:10,20 95:16
37:23
54:11
20031:11
5:10
351:63:7,21
98:16
92:1
20:13
28:15
4:16 14:15
16:2
wouldn’t 67:1
10 88:1
99:1,2
111:5
118:5,14
19:12,16
33:6
83:20,22
100:7
102:18
2006 118:14
89:7 105:5
108:14,15
lOth4l:3,4
201
1:11
118:5
37 4:12
writing 38:16
10-year 18:18
208 62:17
392:23 13:23
15
Keete Reporting Company
