BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

In the Matter o~

BF GOODRICH CORPORATION,

Petitioner,

vs.

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

*

4

No.

PCB 91—17

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS

in the above entitled cause

conirnencing at the hour

of 10:00 a.m.,

at the

Marshall County Courthouse, 122 North

Perry Street,

Lacon,

Illinois,

on Tuesday,

the 19th day

of

1991,

Novenibe r,

BEFORE:

LONGORIA & GOLDSTINE

RICHARD

T. SIKES,

ARBITRATOR,

11 South LaSalle Street

Chicago,

Illinois

60603

CHICAGO

(312) 236-1030

.

~:l1c:z~-~

flah,~~rrt~

~-~~4—

~

---

2

PRESENT:

RICHARD

3.

KISSEL,

ESQI

LISA ANDERSON, ATTORNEY

Gardner,

Carton

& Douglas

321 North Clark Street

Chicago,

Illinois

60610—4795

for the Petitioner;

LISA E. MORENO

Assistant Counsel

Water Pollution Control

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield,

Illinois

62794—9276

for the Rispondent.

---

3

INDEX

WITNESS

DIRECT

CROSS

REDIRECT

RECROSS

PETITIONER’S WITNESSES:

MR.

K. WILLINGS

12

98

117

122

MR.

T.

KLUGE

123

MR.

R.

PINNEO

134

RESPONDENT’S WITNESS:

MR.

T.

KLUGE

150

157

EXHID

ITS

?IARKED FOR IDENT.

ADMITTED

P.

1

27

28

P.

2

43

44

P.

3

44

46

P.

4

47

48

P.

5

49

50

P.

6

5~0

51

P.

7

51

53

P.

8

53

54

P.

9

54

55

P.

10

55

57

P.

11

57

58

p.

12

58

61

P.

13

61

63

P.

14

63

64

P.

15

64

65

R.

1

99

R.

2

115

---

4

PROCEEDINGS

10:00

A.M.

HEARING OFFICER SIKES:

Let the record

reflect

that this

is the hearing in the case of BF

Goodrich versus the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency before the Illinois Pollution Control Board in

case number

PCB

91

—

17.

My name

is Richard

T.

Sikes

and

I am the duly appointed hearing officer by the Board

to conduct this hearing.

This is

a petition for permit

appeal

filed

by

BF

Goodrich

against the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency.

Would

you

please

identify

yourselves

for

the

record,

counsel?

MR.

KISSEL:

My

name

is

Richard

3.

Kissel

of

the

firm

Gardner,

Carton

and

Douglas

and

with

inc

is

‘Lisa

Anderson

of

the

same

firm.

We

represent

HF

Goodrich

in

this

matter.

HEARING

OFFICER

SIXES:

And

on

behalf

of

the

Illinois

EPA?

---

5

MS.

MORENO:

My name

is Lisa Moreno and

I

am

assistant

counsel

in

the

department

of

legal

counsel

And

I have sitting with me,

Mr.

Rick Pinneo

who’s

in

the

permit

section

and

he

is

going

to

act

as

my

technical

advisor.

HEARING

OFFICER

SIKES:

Are

there

any

preliminary

motions

that

ought

to

be

made

at

this

time,

anybody

wish

to

make

any

at

this

time?

MR.

KISSEL:

None.

•

HEARING

OFFICER

SIXES:

Miss

Moreno?

MS.

MORENO:

No.

HEARING

OFFICER

SIXES:

Mr.

Kissel,

on

behalf

of

the

petitioners,

you

do

you

wish

to

make

any

opening

statement

for

the

record?

•

MR.

KISSEL:

Wedo,

yes.

Thank

you,

Mr.

Sikes.

You

have

properly

characterized

this

as

a

NPDES

permit appeal

brought by the

BF

Goodrich

Company

as

a

Susan

Osborne,

Court

Reporter

---

6

result

of the certain conditions imposed in

a NPDES

permit which was issued by the Illinois EPA on December

28, 1990.

Basically,

we have raised in this appeal four

issues.

The

first

issue

we

will

raise

is

the

applicability

of section 304.122

B to the discharge from

the Henry facility which

is the subject

of the NPDES

permit.

The essence

of

that

rule,

if

applied,

would

require the limitation of ammonia nitrogen

in the

discharge

from the Henry plant.

We believe that the

Board should find that the rule

is not applicable

to BF

Goodrich

for

two

reasons

pleaded

or

stated

in

the

alternative.

The

first

is

that

the

rule

itself

initially characterized rule

406

of

the

Board’s

chapter

three rules, was adopted and by the Board,

promulgated

in 1973,

and has

remained in effect

in the same exact

identical

language

since

that

date

to

date.

We

believe

the testimony will show that the agency was well aware

of the discharge

of ammonia by the Henry facility,

beginning

in the early seventies through this entire

period while the rule was

in effect;

that it was aware

that the amount

of ammonia coming from the facility

would have made

it subject

to

the

rule

in part,

and that

C’

—

~

‘—

—‘

~

‘—

4—

t)

,~

4..

~—

---

8

the Henry facility can be computed on a population

equivalent

basis

equivalent

that

for

or

comparable

to

that

for

municipal

waste

treatment

facilities.

If

that

is true and we believe that the testimony will so

show,

we believe that the rule therefore

is not applicable to

it.

The second area

or

second

issue

on

appeal

is

the

condition——

I

believe

it’s

special

condition

six,

——

requiring

certain

bio

monitoring

and

toxicity

studies.

We

believe

that

the

testimony

will

show

that

this

section

is

totally

premature

as

well,

because

the

ammonia

standard

is

not

applicable

to

the

Henry

facility.

•

The

third

issue

we

have

raised

is

the

question

of

separation

of

outfalls

in

the

1990

permit

which

is

the

subject

of

this

appeal.

The

Agency

characterized

two

outfalls:

Outfall

00.

and outfall 001

A.

We believe, that first

of

all,

physically

it

is

only

one outfall.

And secondly, even

if they could be

separated and they shouldn’t

be because they are part of

an entire treatment system and that entire treatment

system by either

the Agency’s own admission or by

testimony, will show that there

is being applied to that

Susan

Osborne,

Court

Reporter

---

7

it had made

a conscious decision not to include

that,

not

~o

apply

that

rule

to

the

Henry

discharge.

That

decision remained in effect from

1973

until

1990

——

some

17

years.

In

addition

to

this,

not

applying

the rule,

to the Agency not applying the

rule,

the fact

is that Henry,

the Henry facility itself

relied on the

fact that the Agency did not apply the rule and

in fact

constructed facilities at the Henry plant because that

rule

was

deemed

not

applicable.

Furthermore,

the

testimony,

we

believe

will

show,

that

the

rule

is

based

on

a

dissolved

oxygen

requirement

or

standard

and

that

we

will

show

that

the

Henry

discharge

does

not

have

any

impact

on

the

dissolved

oxygen

of

the

Illinois

River.

Therefore,

our first argument

as to

the applicability

or lack thereof

is that we believe the

Agency

by

law,

is

estopped

to

apply

the

rule

to

the

Henry

facility

at

this

point.

Secondly,

we

believe

that

argument

is

persuasive

and

the

Board

should

find

in

our

favor

at

that

point;

however,

looking

at

the

language

of

the

rule

itself,

we

do

not

believe

it

is

applicable

because

we

believe

that

the,

that

the

Henry,

that

the

waste

from

---

9

stream,

those streams, the best degree of

treatment as

that

term

is

used

in

the

Illinois

regulations.

Therefore,

the outfalls can be combined and measured as

one.

•

The

fourth

issue

of

appeal,

is

the

OCPSF guidelines

——

and let me just

——

if

I

can

get

the

exact

character

of

what

that

means

——

——

these are the Organic Chemicals,

Plastics,

and Synthetic Fiber guidelines which were

promulgated by United States EPA and

in part are

applicable to the Henry facility.

We believe that the

Agency has mistakenly done two things

in the application

of

those

rules

to the Henry discharge.

•

First,

it used

a monthly average

flow to calculate the daily maximum mass limitation.

We

believe that

is an error

in using the wrong flow

number.

Second, we believe the Agency was

in error

in imposing concentration limits for the various parameter

under that guideline, because the entire basis

and sole

basis of the OCPSF~guidelines

is

a

in~ss

limitation.

So,

these are the four areas.

Obviously,

the testimony will be

in much more details

Susan Osborne,

Court Reporter

---

10

than

what

I

am

giving

you

but

I

thought

I

would

give

the

Board

some flavor

and the Hearing Officer

some

flavor

of

what

we’re

intending

to

show.

We

intend

do

call

four

witnesses during this proceeding.

First will be Kenneth

Willings;

he

is

an

employee

of

BF

Goodrich,

currently

operating out

of Brecksville,

Ohio,

but has had eleven years’

of experience at the BF

Goodrich, Henry facility.

Second will be Dr.

James

Patterson

who’s

a recognized expert before the Pollution

Control

Board

not

only

in

general

effluent

matters

but

also specifically

in ammonia treatment technology.

The

last

two

witnesses

are

both

employees

of

the

Illinois

EPA,

Mr.

Tim

Kiuge

and

Mr.

Rick

Pinneo.

With

that,

I

have

just

one

other

point

to

make

and

not

as

opening

remarks,

but

as

we

indicated

prior

to

the

opening

of

this

hearing, we have

been

advised

that

Dr.

Patterson

will

not

be

available

for today

or tomorrow.

Because

of

a

——

hopefully,

it’s

not too serious,

but

it certainly

is debilitating now,

——

an

illness

to

his

eyes.

He’s

been

advised

by

his

physician

to

basically

not

read

or

subject

himself

to

light

for

at

least

five

days.

I

have

discussed

this

Susan

Osborne,

Court

Reporter

---

11

matter with Lisa Moreno and

so we will ‘ask this Hearing

Officer at the close

of

today’s hearing to postpone this

matter to

a date certain,

at which

time,

Dr.

Patterson

will be

made

available.

With

that,

I

am

finished

with

my opening remarks.

HEARING OFFICER SIXES:

Ms. Moreno,

on

behalf

of the Agency,

do you wish to make any opening

et a terne nt?

MS. MORENO:

I’d like to reserve my

opening statement.

HEARING

OFFICER

BIKES:

You

may.

We

will

take

up

the

matter

of

Dr.

Patterson

at

the

conclusion

of

today’s

hearing.

Okay.

You

may

proceed

with

your

witnesses,

Mr.

Kissel.

L

---

•

12

KENNETH

WILLINGS,

a

witness

called

by

the

Petitioner,

being

first

duly

sworn,

was

examined

and

testified

as

follows:

•

DIRECT

EXAMINATION

HEARING OFFICER SIKES:

State your name

and

spell

your

last

name.

A.

My

name

is

Kenneth

3.

Willings,

W—I—L-L—I—N-G-S.

HEARING

OFFICER

SIXES:

Excuse

me,

before

we

starE,

I

am

obliged

to

inform

the

witness

and

any

witness that might testify that one

of the discretionary

things that the Hearing Officer

has

is

a right

to

comment

upon

the

credibility

of

witnesses

and

I

do

so

in

my

report

to

the

Board.

Every

witness

should

know

that

I

will

be

making

a

comment

on

his

or

her

credibility.

Thank

you.

You

may

proceed,

Mr.

Kissel.

EXAMINATION

(Continued)

BY

MR.

KISSEL:

•

•

Q.

All right.

Mr.

Willings, what is your

---

13

current address?

A.

Currently,

I live at 700 Berkshire Drive,

Medina,

Ohio.

Q.

Can you briefly describe your educational

background for the Board?

A.

I have

a BS ED in education.

With

specializing

in math and sciences.

Q.

From

what

school?

A.

Illinois State University.

Q.

And

what

year

did

you

graduate?

A.

•

1976.

Q.

Other than that,

have you received any

&dvanced degrees?

A.

I

have

not

received

any

advanced

degrees.

have

taken

graduate

courses.

Q.

Okay.

Can

you

describe

what

those

are,

please?

A.

I

have

had

courses

in

business

administration

and engineering,

industrial

engineering.

In

addition,

I have taken various seminars

put

on

by

USEPA

on

the

water

pollution

control

federal

regulations

and

other

seminars

put

on

by

industry.

Q.

Can

you,

sir,

can

you

describe,

can

you

Susan

Osborne,

Court

Reporter

---

•

•

14

describe the substance

of

some

of those conferences and

seminars?

A.

Yes.

The seminars

I attended,

a number

of

them were technical seminars, specifically dealing with

ground water regulations,

RCRA water pollution

pollution control dealing with bio toxicity

and the organic chemical guidelines

and the OCPSF guidelines.

Q.

Were

any

of

the

seminars

or

courses

dealing

with wastewater treatment?

A.

Yes.

A number

of

those

seminars,

the OCPSF

seminar,

deals

with

the

organic chemical manufacturing

industry

and

the

treatment.

And

in

addition

to

that,

I

took

a

college

course

related

to

wastewater

treatment.

And

the

courses

I

took,

the

technical

courses

I took with

the water pollution control

federation,

were

technically

oriented

toward

wastewater

treatment.

Q.

After

graduating

from

Illinois

State,

where

were

you

employed?

A.

From

1976

to

1977

I

was

employed

at

the

Peoria School District

as

a math teacher.

Q.

And?

---

•

15

A.

I~ Peoria,

Illinois.

And

from

1977

to

1979,

I

was

employed

at

the

Princeton

School

District

as

a

math

and

reading

teacher.

Q.

Okay.

After being at the Princeton

Educational District,

where did you work?

A.

I was employed by the BF Goodrich Company at

the

Henry,

Illinois

plant

in

1979.

And

I

was

a

chemical

operator,

I believe

is what the exact

title

is.

Q.

Can

you

tell

us

what

your

responsibilities

were in that position?

A.

Initially

when

I

started

in

that

position

I

was

in

the

laboratory,

conducting testing analyses,

dealing with industrial

hygiene and

environmental

control tests.

•

Specifically, analytical work dealing

with the condensation of vinyl chloride

in the products

that are being produced, and personal exposuEe

of

monitoring and also

in wastewater

after stripping.

In addition,

I

performed

other

industrial

hygiene

analytical

tests.

And various tests

in the laboratory.

Q.

Did you have anything to do with product

packaging?

A.

Yes,

I spent

a short time

in the laboratory

running those

tests and then then

I was involved in

---

16

product

packaging

following

that

until

1980,

‘81.

Q.

Were you involved in any way with OSHA

requi rements?

A.

The industrial hygiene requirements,

or

the

industrial hygiene tests that

I analyzed were used for

OSHA compliance purposes.

Q.

How long were you

a chemical operator?

A.

For fourteen months.

Q.

And so that would take you to what date?

A.

January of 1981.

Q.

And at that point,

did you get

a new

position within the company?

A.

I was,

I accepted

a position as an assocIate

environmental engineer

at the BF Goodrich Henry,

Illinois plant.

Q.

Can you tell us what the responsibilities

of

that position were?

A.

In that position,

I was responsible for

the

industrial

hygiene compliance

for the specialty polymers

and chemicals area.

I supervised and was responsible

for compliance with RCRA and solid waste compliance

for the entire facility.

And in addition to

that,

I was responsible for

——

particularly

in

Susan Osborne.

Court Reuorter

---

17

thespecialty polymers and chemicals areas,

the air

pollution control.

And was involved in the wastewater

treatment area,

from

a

——

not from

a day—to—day

standpoint but

on an as—needed basis assisting the

wastewater treatment operator, and involved in

discussions in that area.

Q.

During that period beginning in January

of

1981, while you maintained

or had the job as associate

environmental

engineer,

did you become familiar with the

operations at the wastewater treatment plant?

A.

•

At that time that’s when

I started learning

what the wastewater treatment plant did at our facility

and what it

consisted

of

——

that was part

of the

learning process

in that associate environmental

engineer’s

position.

Q.

Did

you

have

any

contact

then

with

the

operation of

the facility?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And

can

you

tell

us

in

some

detail

what

that

was?

A.

The certified operator was

in the

environmental department.

•

And he and

I would discuss

issues

on

a

technical

basis

and

also,

on

an

operational

---

18

basis of what was going on day—to—day at the wastewater

treatment facility.

And in these discussions when

problems occurred, we would sit down and discuss what

the issues were and work

our way through them from that

side.

Q.

Okay.

How

long

did

you

remain

as

associate

environmental engineer?

A.

Until 1983.

Q.

And what happened at that time?

A.

I

was

promoted

to

an

environmental

engineer.

Q.

Can

you

tell

us

what

the

responsibilities

of

that

position

were?

A.

I was responsible for

the industrial hygiene

compliance

at this time

for

the

polymer

vinyl

chloride

operations and

I was responsible for the airpollution

control

of the poly—vinyl chloride

areas,

in addition to

other facility projects that would come up

I would be

responsible

for.

I was responsible at that time or

took

over the responsibility of providing technical

input

into the wastewater treatment area.

In addition,

I

prepared construction permits,

for the wastewater

treatment processes.

And

also,

reviewed

compliance

or

oversaw compliance with the NPDESperrnit at that time.

---

19

Q.

During

that

period

beginning

in

1983

as

an

environmental

engineer,

is

that

when

you

first

became

involved

with

the

drafting

of

actual

drafting

of

and

involvement in the permit process for the wastewater

treatment plant?

A.

Yes.

Yes.

When

I was

in that position

—-

I

am not sure if

it was exactly

in 1983.

Q.

Okay.

Were you ever involved in the

coal

boiler project during that time?

A.

Yes.

I

was

involved

in the permitting of

the fluidized circulating bed coal boiler.

And applied

for the permit prepared and applied the permits for the

wastewater

treatment treatment of

that coal boiler

and

other necessary permits.

Q.

Did that necessitate your involvement with

the waste treatment plant on a daily basis?

A.

In that position,

yes,

yes.

Q.

Okay.

How long

did

you

remain

in

that

•

position?

A.

Until 198

——

‘85.

Q.

And what was,.what happened in 1985?

A.

In 1985

I

was

promoted

to

senior

environmental engineer.

---

20

Q.

I take it,

——

I

didn’t

ask

the

question

——

but

I take

it,

all

these

jobs

were

promotions

and

not

demoti ons?

A.

Yes.

They

were

all

promotions.

Q.

We ought to tell the Board that,

I suppose.

What was your position then

in 1985?

A.

I was the senior environmental engineer and

I was responsible

for

supervising

all

industrial

hygiene

lines and all environmental

affairs for air,

water and

waste for the entire facility.

What specifically was your relationship to

the

wastewater

treatment

facility?

A.

I was to provide technical consultation to

the

operating

unit that operated the wastewater

treatment facility and

I also oversaw the compliance of

the wastewater treatment facility.

In addition,

I

prepared construction permits

and evaluated the NPDES

permit

for the facility.

Q.

What was your role at that time

in

determining what standards were applicable

to the

wastewater treatment facility?

A.

It was my responsibility to review

the

regulations either the federal regulation or the state

Susan Osborne,

Court Reporter

---

21

regulations,

and to determine with the operations that

we had at the site what regulations were applicable to

the site and determine whether th~eywere in compliance

with those regulations.

And if

a new regulation was

coming out,

or

a change,

to analyze that regulation and

to bring that to the attention of upper management.

Q.

Okay.

And how long did you remain as senior

environmental

engineer?

A.

Until

1987.

Q.

And in 1987, what happened?

A.

I was promoted to senior health

safety and

environmental engineer.

Q.

Arid

how long did you have that position?

A.

For two years.

Q.

And then what happened?

A.

And then

I was promoted to manager

of health

safety and environmental affairs.

Q.

Can you describe to the Board,

what your

responsibilities

were

as senior health

safety

and

environmental

engineering between 1987

and 1989?

A.

My responsibilities

included,

included all

compliance for environmental affairs.

Air,

water waste,

overseeing

the

facility,

supervising

the

environmental

Susan Osborne, Court Reporter

---

22

group.

Which

I

did

prior

to

that

as

a

senior

engineer

but

iii

addition,

I picked up the responsibilities

of

overseeing

the

health

and

•safety

affairs

and

dealing

with OSHA and other

regulatory

agencies

involved

in

health and safety for the entire facility.

And the

safety department reported to me at that time.

Q.

Can this be characterized as the

environmental person

in the HF Goodrich facility at

Henry?

A.

I am sorry?

Q.

I mean,

the number

one environmental person;

you

were

the

one

who

was

handling

the

environmental

area?

A.

Yes.

Q.

How did that change

when

you

were

promoted

to

manager

of

health,

safety

and

environmental?

A.

That, when

I,

with that promotion,

I was

reporting directly to the plant manager.

Q.

Okay.

So,

that was from 1989 until

1991?

A.

Correct.

Q.

Did your duties

change at all between the

job from

‘89

——

‘87

to

‘89 and

‘89 and

‘91?

A.

Basically,

it was administrative duties that

---

23

changed.

0.

During that four—year period from 1987

to

1991, what was your involvement with the wastewater

treatment

plant

at the Henry facility?

A.

My involvement was to oversee all

——

all

compliance

for

the facility, provide technical direction

for the facility.

My

group,

my environmental group and

myself prepared the NPDES permits,

either the

construction or

the re—application for the NPDES permit

discharge.

And to oversee regulatory

issues that may

be

emerging.

Q.

What was your contact with the operations at

the wastewater treatment process in terms

of

time

during that period?

A.

Very close

to daily contact.

Q.

Okay.

And, what happened

in January

of 1991

with regard

to HF Goodrich?

A.

At that time

I was promoted

or accepted

a

promotion to

——

to become

the senior manager

of health,

safety and environmental

for the specialty polymers and

chemicals division

of HF Goodrich.

Q.

And can you describe what that position is?

A.

In this position

I am responsible

for

---

24

directing the affairs for the health, safety

and

environmental compliance

for the specialty polymers

and

chemicals division which includes twelve domestic

facilities.

And as part

of that direction,

it involves

providing technical consultation and regulatory

oversight for

those

facilities.

Specially,

some

of

the

issues that we get into with the wastewater treatment

area are providing or evaluating new technology

for

use

at our facilities.

Q.

As part

of

that,

are you involved in any

speciality organizations?

A.

Yes.

I am involved in

a number

of

trade

associations.

Professional

organizations such

as the

Water Pollution Control Federation,

and

in addition

I

sit

in particularly

——

I

sit on the chemical,

excuse me,

the biological

and

and

chemical

division

of

the

hazardous waste management research center,

part of

a

——

part of

the New Jersey Institute

of

Technology

and provide direction concerning new technologies

in

biological

and chemical treatment.

Q.

Can you just describe what that biological

chemical treatment division, what its purpose

is and

what you

do

on

a regular basis?

Susan Osborne,

Court Reporter

---

25

A.

The purpose, the purpose

of

that division is

to

evaluate

new

technology

or

new

methods

for

solving

wastewater and waste issues

by using chemical

or

biological

treatment systems.

I sit on the Board with

other industries.

We fund this organization as part of

our research and development,

and

I

sit on

a board that

evaluates

the

projects

that

are

proposed

and

we

make

decisions on whether to go ahead with these projects or

not.

Q.

And what

is your

input into that?

A.

My

input

into

it

is basically on a

reasonableness of

the project, and

a technical need for

the project.

Q.

Do you evaluate those projects from

a

technical and reasonable standpoint then?

A.

Yes.

Q.

How many members

of this group are there?

Approximately?

A.

Approximately, 25.

Q.

And you meet on

a regular basis?

A.

Yes.

Q.

How often?

A.

At

a minimum annually,

to review the

---

•

•

26

projects, but right now

it’s an annual meeting.

The

review goes on during the year.

Q.

So,

you do

it on

a regular basis,

it’s just

that you may only meet once

a year?

A.

Right,

right.

Q.

But comments are more often than that?

A.

Yes.

•Q.

Mr.

Willings,

from

what

I

heard

you

say,

you

have

been

at

the

Henry

plant

eleven

out

of

the

last

twelve years,

is that correct?

A.

That’s correct.

Q.

At that time,

have you gained

a working

knowledge

of

the facility and the waste treatment,

the

wastewater treatment operations?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Can you first describe

a bit,

where the

Henry facility

is and so forth,

and some background

about it?

A.

Yes.

The Henry plant is located on the west

bank of

the Illinois River in Marshall County.

To the

north

of

the city

of Henry.

It’s

a chemical

manufacturing facility that produces poly vinyl

chloride, resins and compounds

of poly—vinyl chloride

---

27

and in addition produces rubber accelerates used in

the

vulcanizing industries and plastic and anti—oxidants.

(Whereupon the document was marked

Petitioner’s Exhibit No.

1

for identification.)

Q.

Mr.

Willings,

I show you has been marked

as

Petitioner’s exhibit number one and ask you to identify

that,

please?

A.

This

is

a fax sheet prepared by the BF

Goodrich Henry,

Illinois plant that covers some general

topics of economics

as far

as salaries, total salaries

for the facIlity,

taxes,

a

plant profile showing

enrollment and

a brief history

arid

description of

the

facility.

Q.

All

right.

What

is that fax sheet used for?

A.

This fax sheet

is used generally

for public

relations to give to the media,

or to interested

parties

as

far

as

what

is

the

Henry

facility.

0.

Okay.

Is that document used by the Henry

facility

in the ordinary course

of

its business?

A.

The factors that are in here,

——

the answer

•

~

~

~

~

---

28

is yes.

Q.

I move the for the admission of

exhibit

number

one.

MS. MORENO:

No objection.

HEARING OFFICER SIXES:

Admitted.

(Whereupon Petitioner’s Exhibit No.

1

was admitted

in evidence.)

EXAMINATION

(Continued)

BY MR.

KISSEL:

0.

Can

you

now

describe

in

a

bit

more

detail

the

manufacturing

operations

at

the

Henry

plant?

A.

Yes.

There are two manufacturing divisions

of the BF Goodrich Company at the Henry,

Illinois plant.

The first division

is the geon vinyl

division

which

is

the manufacture

of poly—vinyl chloride resins and

• compounds.

Generally,

this process starts with

a

reaction where ingredients are added to

a reactor and

these

ingredients are vinyl chloride,

water

and other

additives.

---

29

Q.

This would

be

in

a vessel

of

some kind?

A.

This would be

a vessel.

In this vessel, the

reaction occurs where the

viny.

chloride

is placed in

a

• prelimirizer

and becomes poly—vinyl chloride.

This material

is now

in

a

slurry

form.

It

is

transferred to or

is stripped

in the prelimirizer

or

transferred out

of the prelirnirizer,

but

it

is

of the residual, the poly—vinyl chloride

in the slurry.

Once this step

is complete,

the slurry

is

transferred to dryers which

in

it turn,

drys

it from

a

slurry

into a resin.

The resin

is then either

packaged for sale

or

is transferred to a compounding

unit that adds addtiional

ingredients to the resin

to make

——

the meet customer specifications.

•

The

end

purpose

of

these

products,

a

large

portion

of

the

resin

that

is

sold

as

resin

is

used

in

the

medical

industry

for

things

such

as

blood

bags

and

other

types

of

medical

equipment.

The

compounded material

is used in the construction industry

for house siding or vertical blinds,

blind applications.

Q.

Can you give

us some idea

of

the size of

that facility?

A,

As far as

——

---

30

Q.

Amount

of compounds you produce

or something

that gives the Board some idea of

——

A.

I need to stop a second.

I don’t have that

exact

number right

now.

I have lost that number

——

what

it

is.

Q.

If

you

want

me

come

back

to

that,

I

will.

All right.

We’ll get back

to that,

All right.

You talked

about

the geon vinyl

division?

A.

Yes.

Q.

You said there was

a second area

or part

of

the facility?

A.

Yes.

Q.

What

is that?

A.

That

is the specialty polymers and chemicals

division.

In that

division

we

manufacture

two

general

groups

of products.

One

is the rubber accelerators

that are used

in the vulcanizing process or

the tire

curing process for

the tire industry.

The other portion

is the plastic and rubber anti—oxidant

business wherein

we produce an additive that is used in plastics such

as

polyethelene

or used

in polyethelene to prevent the

degradation from light

or heat of that material.

Susan Osborne, Court Reporter

---

31

Q.

Okay.

Can

you

describe

of

those

two

general

operations,

——

what the manufacturing process

is

for

each?

A.

As these are batch operations.

For the

rubber accelerants,

the process is basically

a

vessel

which

is

a reactor.

Ingredients are added into

it.

These ingredients are

——

two

key ingredients are

an amine—based or an organic amine and

a sulfumanide

or

a sulfur—bearing compound

——

is introduced to the

reactor

with

the

other

ingredients.

Following the reaction, the material

is

then transferred to

a

dryer.

And it

is dried

and then

prepared for packaging.

The

anti—oxidants

are

very

similar

to this,

but don’t have the

same

ingredients.

Again,

they are placed in

a reactor.

A chemical

reaction occurs and the material

is taken from the

reacting step and taken to a drying step and then

packaged for final

sale.

Some of

the products

in this

——

that for this business

——

Q.

When you say this business,

you mean?

A.

For the specialty polymers and chemicals.

The accelerators,

of course,

are used in the tire

---

industry.

The

anti—oxidants

are

used

in

things

such

as

FDA—approved additives

for polyethelene

or even,

in

one

case,

the

additive

is

used

in baby bottle

nipples.

So, these are types

of various purposes

for

these materials

Q.

Is ammonia

used in any part

of that process

as an initial

ingredient,

either

the speciality polymers

and

chemicals

or the geon vinyl?

A.

As an initial

ingredient

in

one

process,

a

very

small

process,

in

the

anti—oxidant

business,

it

is

used.

But

it’s

a

very

low

production

rate.

Most

of

the

ammonia

used

at

the

facility

is

either

used

in

the

ammonia coolers

or used as an ingredient to make an

emulsifier

for the PVC business.

But

it does not

exist

as

ammonia

at

that

point

Q.

Where

then

——

as.

long

as

we

are

in

the

process now,

——

where does,

where

is ammonia generated

in the process

or how do we find

it in the discharge or

why do we find it

in the discharge?

A.

Ammonia,

the major

source

of ammonia

for the

plant showing up in the effluent

is generated from the

destruction

of the amine

compounds,

the organic amines

in the biological

system

and the degradation of

these

32

---

33

materials yields ammonia as the product

of that

process.

So,

the majority

is coming in the

wastewater

treatment system

not as ammonia.

It

is

as

a nitrogen compound and amine—based compound

going to the waste treatment system.

Q.

So,

as

I understand

it,

It’s,

——

when you say

biological treatment,

you mean,

——

strike

that.

When you say biological process,

what

do you mean by that?

A.

I mean the secondary treatment step which

is

an activated sludge

system at the wastewater treatment

facility,

Q.

Okay.

Have you finished your explanation as

to how ammonia

is generated;

is there anything else

you’d like to say?

A.

No.

Q.

Okay.

Does the HF Goodrich facility use

water in

its various processes in the plant?

A.

Yes.

Water at the plant

is pumped—in ground

water into the plant and

is either used as potable water

or sanitary

water.

And what water

is not

used for that

is used for process water.

And process water

is either

---

34

an

ingredient

for

a specific chemical process or used in

the

cooling

process

and

the

cooling

towers

or

in

the

boilers.

For the water

——

there are certain

specifications for the process water.

The water could

be softened and/or

demnineralized.

And that depends on what process it’s

going

to

be used for or

the application of that water.

Q.

I may have missed

this

——

what

is the source

of the water

at the Henry facility?

A.

The ground water.

It

is pumped from ground

water.

Q.

All right.

And if

it is to be used for

either sanitary or potable,

is there any treatment

provided the water at all?

A.

No,

there

is no treatment provided to the

potable

or

sanitary

water.

0.

And

the

processed

water,

does

that

include

non—contact cooling water

as well?

A.

Yes.

Q.

So,

all the processed water,

is that then

subjected to the same treatment or different treatment,

or what?

A.

Any process waters that are used as

---

35

ingredients are subjected to treatment.

There will

be

different levels

of treatment,

depending on the process.

Some

of

it will only be softened, some

of

it will be all

the way to being demineralized.

Q.

And the non—contact cooling water?

A.

The non—contact cooling water would not be

demjneralized.

It would be softened.

Q.

Okay.

You indicated in your earlier

testimony that you have been involved with the waste

treatment process at the Henry plant since

1983

or 1981?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Can you describe that process

for us?

A.

The wastewater treatment process, going

back to the processes that would be discharging wastewater

the first step of wastewater treatment

is

——

there

are

a number

of pre treatment steps depending on the

processes.

For the boiler area,

there

is

a

pre utilization step prior to going to wastewater

treatment.

For the vinyl,

for the poly—vinyl chloride

area, wastewater being discharged goes through

a

wastewater

stripper prior

to being discharged.

Also,

in the proposal vinyl

chloride

area,

the blending resin wastewater,

Susan Osborne,

Court Reporter

---

36

——

at

a particular production line there,

it

goes

through

a

pre

treatment

step

of

coagulation and solids removal prior

to going to the

wastewater

treatment area.

And in the

Cure—Rite 18, the accelerator and rubber accelerator

process,

its water

is pre treated with

hydrogen peroxide

prior

to going to the

wastewater treatment area.

Now,

after these pre—treatment steps are done

——

Q.

Let

me

stop

you.

Can

you

just

tell

us what

this Cure—Rite 18

is?

A.

Cure—Rite,

what

the

——

?

Q.

What

the

process

is?

A.

What

the

process

is?

It

is

a

rubber

accelerator business in which

it

is an organic amine

with

a

sulfur—bearing

compound

that

are

mixed

in

a

reactor.

A chemical reaction occurs

arid the water from

this

process

is

discharged

to

the

wastewater

treatment

system.

But

prior

to that going to that,

it goes to

a

pre—treatment system.

Q.

Okay.

In the four processes or

pre—treatment processes you talked about,

what kind of

things are being removed?

---

37

A.

In the poly—vinyl chloride area,

the

wastewater stripper removes vinyl chloride and

reuses the vinyl chloride.

The blending resin process pre treatment system

removes solids and soaps,

emulsifiers from the system.

In

the

Cure—Rite

18

accelerator

process,

it’s

more

of

a

treatment to make the material more degradable

in the

biological

system.

Q.

And in the boiler house?

A.

And

at

the

boiler

house,

it

is

a

utilization step,

a pH adjustment process.

Q.

Okay.

What

is the next

step

in explaining

the wastewater treatment processes

in Henry, what

is the next thing?

A.

The next step

is

for

all the processed

waters

and

I

am talking about

the processed waters

of

the

manufacturing

areas,

are

collected

in

equalization

tanks,

and these

tanks are to equalize the wastes

prior

to going to the pre—treatment

or the primary treatment

step.

After equalization,

these are fed at specific

rates

into the primary treatment process which

is

pH

adjustment,

the

additional

coagulants,

the

formation

of

a flok

or

a larger coagulant material,

coagulated

---

38

material.

And, then

a settling process which we call

the primary clarifier.

The effluent

——

after the

coagulants are added and have had

a

chance

to form a

flok,

they go to the primary clarifier which allows the

wastewater to settle

the solids to the base

of that and

the effluent coming off of

this clarifier goes to

——

to the secondary treatment step.

The solids

that have settled in the clarifier are pumped to

a collection tank and then go through

a filter press.

They

are

de—watered

there.

The

water

is

recycled

back

in the treatment

system.

The

solids

go

to

an

off—site

landfill.

The effluent that came off

of the primary

clarifier then goes to the biological

treaters.

Three

biotreaters

that

are

in

parallel.

Q.

What

is

a biotreater?

A.

It

is

a, what we call

a biotreater

is

a

tank,

a vessel,

of

about

four hundred and

thirty

gallons,

four hundred and thirty thousand gallons

in

size,

in capacity.

That the activated sludge

or the

biomass

is

in.

And

the

organic,

the

organics

that

are

contained

——

that the wastewater

go into this system

and

will

be degraded

by the biological mass.

Q.

That’s done that?

~iis~n

~borri~.

Cc~nrf

R~oort~r

---

39

A.

Yes,

in

addition

to

having

the

mass

in

these tanks,

air is pumped into the

or blown into these

tanks and this allows for agitation and it also provides

the biomass with oxygen.

Q.

How many biotreaters

do

you

have

there?

A.

Three.

Q.

Three?

Okay.

What happens after,

what

happens

at the biotreater then?

What happens next?

A.

Okay.

At the biotreaters,

the organics are

degraded by the biological mass.

Or destructed.

And

the effluent from the biotreaters

flows into the

secondary clarifier

and

this,

this clarifier

as the

effluent

is coming

in,

coagulants are added to

it

to

again coagulate the material, the solids and allow them

to settle

to the bottom

of the clarifier.

And the

solids that settled are recycled back to the

biotreaters,

because

this

is actually the biological

mass that you want to maintain.

The effluent from the

secondary clarifier then goes to

a treshury (phonetic)

treatment

or

a polishing sand filter.

0.

Can you describe what that sand filter is?

A.

Okay.

The sand filuter,

it

is what’s known

as

a traveling bridge sand filter.

It’s

a bed of sand

---

40

where the water firows through and suspended solids are

removed or solids are removed as

it passes through.

The

effluent from

this filter goes to the concrete trench

that goes to the outfall.

The backwash from this sand

filter when

it

is cleaned,

it goes back into the primary

treatment system.

Q.

Okay.

You have described how the process

wastewaters are treated.

Before going

on,

approximately what

is the flow through the process

wastewater treatment system?

A.

The

process wastewater treatment,

this will

vary

but

it’s

approximately

six

hundred

and

fifty

gallons

a

minute.

Somewhere

in

that

range.

Q.

What

is

its permitted capacity?

A.

To--?

Q.

What is its permitted capacity?

A.

The permitted capacity

is about

a thousand

gallons per minute.

Q.

Okay.

Now on to the non—process wastes.

Am

I stating that correctly?

A.

Yes,

Q.

What are those?

A,

Those are waters from

the

Susan

Osborne,

Coure

r~rn-F~r

---

41

• regeneration

in the boiler house

of

the demineralizer

and also the non—contact cooling waters and

storm water.

We collect storm water around the

facility.

Q.

Okay.

And

is there

a treatment system for

those wastes?

A.

Yes, there

is.

These waters are collected

in two basins

——

what

are called the storm water basins

and from there they are either pumped back to the

primary treatment system

to equalize hydrolic flow

in

the main plant

or they are pumped to

a

sand filter and

run through the sand filter and then they

go to the

trench where the polishing sand filter also discharges

prior

to going to the outfall.

Q.

And what does the sand filter do

in that

regard?

A.

The sand filter

is removing suspended solids

and

other

solids

from

it.

0.

What is the flow through the non—process

wastewater treatment system?

A.

The maximum flow through that

is

a hundred

and twenty—five gallons

a minute.

It varies because

it

depends on the amount

of

rainfall.

~hese

are basically

---

42

the largest quantity

of flow

is storm wa?er.

Q.

Okay.

I believe

in going through your work

experience at the Henry facility,

you indicated that you

had been involved in permit drafting from about

1983,

is

that correct?

-

A.

That’s correct.

0.

As part of your position with BF Goodrich,

were

you

required

to

become

familiar

with

the

permits

and the permit history of the facility

for

the

wastewater treatment plant?

A.

Yes.

0.

How

did

you

do

that?

A.

By reviewing the historical

files at the

plant,

the

permit

files

and

in

addition,

with

working

with the wastewater treatment operator and discussing

the,

——

with other people there at the facility,

of

the

operations and what the previous permitting was.

Q.

The records you used,

are they records kept

in the ordinary course

of business by HF Goodrich?

A.

Yes.

0.

Were they kept by your predecessors?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And in their jobs?

---

43

A.

Yes,

Q.

And are some of those

people

still around?

A.

Yes,

0.

Okay.

Did you have occasion to talk with

them by any chance?

A.

On

a rare occasion, yes.

Q.

I’d like you to look at exhibit number two.

(Whereupon the document was marked

Petitioner’s Exhibit No.

2

for

identification.)

0.

I show you what’s been marked

as

Petitioner’s exhibit number two and ask you what that

is?

A.

This is the final NPDES permit for the Henry

plant,

from

——

dated June 20,

1978,

——

what we call the 1978 NPDES permit for

the facility.

0.

Have you seen that before?

A.

Yes,

I have.

Q.

Did you operate under

its terms

arid

conditions?

A.

Yes.

Q.

You did?

Okay.

I move

for

the admission

of

~ii~r~

O~born~.

Crnirt P~Dorter

---

44

Petitioner’s exhibit number

two.

MS.

MORENO:

No

objection.

HEARING OFFICER SIXES:

Admitted.

(Whereupon Petitioner’s Exhibit No.

2

was admitted

in evidence.)

Q.

Mr. Willings,

can you tell me whether

or not

Petitioner’s exhibit number

two contains any reference

to

ammonia

nitrogen?

A.

There

is

a reference

in this permit

to

ammonia

nitrogen.

It

is

special

condition

——

special

condition

number

one.

It

requires

the

monitoring

for

ammonia nitrogen once every

six months.

(Whereupon the document was marked

Petitioner’s Exhibit No.

3

for identification.)

0.

I show you what’s been marked as,

——

there’s

no objection to two?

---

45

HEARING OFFICER BIKES:

It’s in.

0.

I show you what’s been marked

as

Petitioner’s exhibit number three.

Are you familiar

with that?

A.

Yes.

Q.

What

is

it?

A.

It is the 1981

NPDES permit renewal

for

the

HF Goodrich Company Henry,

Illinois plant.

0.

How did you become familiar with that

document?

A.

In my position at Henry,

I reviewed this

document in preparing for,

for,

in preparing for

construction applications and also,

I reviewed it when

a

final

permit

was

issued

under

this

application.

0.

So, did you deal with that document in the

ordinary course

of your business?

A.

Yes.

Q.

At the Henry facility?

A.

Yes.

Q.

I move

for

the admission of that document.

MS.

MORENO:

Let

me

take

a

look

at

it.

---

46

HEARING OFFICER SIXES:

Do you want to

see

it?

MS.

MORENO:

Yes.

HEARING OFFICER SIXES:

Show

it to her.

0.

1 move for

the admission

of Petitioner’s

exhibit number

three.

HEARING

OFFICER

SIXES:

All

right.

Is

thereariy

objection?

MS. MORENO:

No,

no objection.

HEARING

OFFICER

SIKES:

It

will

be

admitted.

(Whereupon

Petitioner’s

Exhibit

No.

3

was admitted

in evidence.)

(Whereupon

the

document

was

marked

---

47

Petitioner’s

Exhibit

flo.

4

for

identification.)

0.

I

show you,

Mr. Willings, what’s been marked

as Petitioner’s exhibit number

four,

can

you

tell

me

what

that

is?

A.

That was the final

NPDES

permit,

the,

issued

in 1985

for

the Henry plant.

It was the permit

in

response

to

the

re—application

in

1981.

Q.

Okay.

How did you become familiar with that

document?

A.

This document was the working document

for

providing off—site to the wastewater treatment system.

I reviewed this to determine our compliance

in response

to the permit,

and in addition,

it was utilized for

the

preparation

of

other

permits

and

other

activities

at

the

plant.

0.

Okay.

HEARING

OFFICER

SIXES:

Excuse

me,

Mr.

Willings,

can you tell me generally what this

is?

A.

This

is

the

1985

NPDES

permit.

Susan Osborne, Court Reporter

---

HEARING OFFICER SIXES:

Thank you.

Q.

I move

for

the admission of Petitioner’s

exhibit number

four.

MS.

MORENO:

No objection.

48

a dm it ted

HEARING OFFICER SIXES:

It will be

)

(Whereupon Petitioner’s Exhibit No.

4

was admitted in evidence.

Q.

Mr.

Willings,

is

there

any

mention

of

ammonia

nitrogen

in Petitioner’s exhibit number four?

A.

This

is no mention of ammonia nitrogen in

Is

there

a

requirement

for

monitoring

of

nitrogen?

There

is no requirement for monitoring.

Thank

you

this permit

Q.

ammoni a

A.

0.

(Whereupon

the

document

was

marked

---

49

Petitioner’s Exhibit No.

5

for

identification.)

Q.

I

show

you

what’s

been

marked

as

Petitioner’s exhibit number five and could you tell me

what that is?

A.

This was

a modified final permit,

it’s the

1986

NPDES

permit

for

the

BF

Goodrich

Company

Henry,

Illinois plant.

Q.

How did you become familiar with that

document?

A.

I

was

familiar

with

this

document

because

the

permit

that

was

received

in

1985,

the

HF

Goodrich

Company filed appeal.

Q.

You’re referring to Petitioner’s exhibit

number

four?

A.

Correct.

We filed appeal.

And

I was,

I

negotiated

for

BF

Goodrich

or represented

BF

Goodrich

in

the

negotiations

involving

that

appeal.

And

this

permit

was

the

result

of

our

negotiations

with

the

Illinois

EPA.

Q.

So,

between

the

time

that

Petitioner’s

exhibit

number

four

was

issued

and

the

time

Petitioner’s

exhibit

number

five

was

issued,

you

had

substantial

---

50

discussions with

the Agency?

A.

Yes

Q.

Concerning

that

permit?

A.

Q.

Yes.

I

move

for

the

admission

of

Petitioner’s

exhibit number five.

MS. MORENO:

No objections.

HEARING OFFICER SIXES:

It

will

be

admitted.

(Whereupon Petitioner’s Exhibit No.

5

was

admitted

in

evidence.)

)

(Whereupon

the

document

was

marked

Petitioner’s Exhibit No.

6

for identification.

Q.

I

show

you

what’s

been

marked

as

as

Petitioner’s exhibit number

six

and

ask

you

to

identify

that,

please?

A.

This

is the re—application for the NPDES

permit

for

the Henry plant

C.

—

—

L

-—

—

rl

•

-

——

I

-

-

---

51

0.

A.

Q.

A.

document.

And

did

you

prepare

that

document?

Yes,

I did

And

how

did

you

have

occasion

to

do

that?

It was my responsibility to prepare

it, this

Q.

Okay.

And

is

all

the

information

contained

therein true and correct,

to the best

of your knowledge

and belief?

A.

0.

Ye s.

I move

for the admission of Petitioner’s

MS. MORENO:

No objection.

exhibit number

six.

HEARING OFFICER SIKES:

Admitted.

(Whereupon Petitioner’s Exhibit No.

6

was admitted in evidence.)

(Whereupon the document was marked

Petitioner’s Exhibit No.

7

for identification.

I show what’s been marked

as Petitioner’s

)

Qe

---

52

exhibit number seven

and

ask

you

to

identify

that,

please?

A.

This

is

a

copy

of

the

draft

permit

in

response to the 1989

application.

It

was

dated

February

23,

1990.

But

it

was

a

draft

permit

to the NPDES

permit.

Q.

And

how

did you have occasion, have you seen

that before?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And

how

did

you

have

occasion

to

see

that?

A.

In my responsibility for

reviewing

compliance,

this permit was sent to me to review.

Q.

This

is

a

draft,

is

it not?

A.

This

is

a draft,

yes.

Q.

Okay.

And

is

it

true

and

correct

to

the

best of your knowledge and belief?

A.

Yes.

Q.

•

I move

for

the

admission

of

Petitioner’s

exhibit

number

seven.

MS. MORENO:

No objection.

HEARING OFFICER SIXES:

Admitted.

---

53

(Whereupon Petitioner’s Exhibit No.

7

was

admitted

in

evidence.)

(Whereupon the document was marked

Petitioner’s Exhibit No.

8

-

for identification.)

0.

I show you what’s been marked

as

Petitioner’s exhibit number eight.

Can you tell us what

that is?

A.

This

is

a

——

this

is also a

draft,

a

new

draft dated November

19, 1990

of the NPDES permit.

0.

And

have

you

seen

that

before?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And

what

occasion

did

you

see

that?

A.

As

part

of

my

responsibilities

at

the

Henry

plant

I was required to review these permits and this

draft.

0.

And

is

it

a

true and correct copy

of

the

draft

that

you

saw?

A.

Yes.

Q.

I

move

the admission of Petitioner’s exhibit

---

-

54

number

eight.

HEARING OFFICER SIXES:

Any objections?

MS.

MORENO:

No objections.

HEARING OFFICER SIXES:

It will be

admitted.

(Whereupon Petitioner’s Exhibit No.

8

was admitted in evidence.)

(Whereupon the document was marked

Petitioner’s Exhibit No.

9

for

identification.)

Q.

I show you what’s been marked as

Petitioner’s exhibit number nine and can you tell me

what that is?

A.

This is the December 1990 final NPDES permit

for

the Henry plant.

Q.

Is

that

the

plant

or,

that

the

permit

which

is the subject

of this appeal?

A.

Yes, this

is,

yes.

---

55

0.

And

you

are

familiar

with

its terms and

conditions?

A.

Yes,

I

am.

0.

Is

that

a

true

and

correct

copy

of

the

December

28,

1990

issued

NPDES permit by the Agency?

A.

Yes,

sir.

Q.

I

move

for

the

admission

of

Petitioner’s

Exhibit number nine.

MS.

MORENO:

No objection.

HEARING OFFICER SIXES:

Admitted.

(Whereupon Petitioner’s Exhibit No.

9

was admitted in evidence.)

(Whereupon the document was marked

Petitioner’s Exhibit No. 10

for identification.)

Q.

Mr.

Willings,

I

show

you

what’s

been

marked

as

Petitioner’s

exhibit number

ten and

ask

you

to

tell me what that is?

---

\

56

-

A.

This

is

a

revision

to

the

NPDES

permit

renewal.

The

renewal

was

submitted

in

1981,

this

revision

was

done

in

1982

to

show

-a

change

in

the

schematics

of

the

wastewater

treatment

system.

It

added

the

sludge

dewatering

or

the

filter

press

in

the,

in

the

permit

application

——

re—application.

Q.

The filter press,

sludge water would be at

what point

in the process?

A.

This would be after primary treatment where

the

solids

are

taken

off

the

primary

clarifier

and

then

are dewatered

——

the

solids

going

to

a

landfill,

the

water

going

back

into

the

treatment

system.

So,

this has to do with the treatment

of

the

primary clarifier sludge?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Okay.

Are you familiar with that document?

A.

Yes,

-

Q.

And

how

did

you

become

familiar

with

that

document?

A.

In

my

reviewing

the

historical

files

as

part

of

my

responsibilities,

I

have

read

this

document.

Q.

I

move

the

admission

of

Petitioner’s

exhibit

number

ten.

-

I-

-

-

-

-

—

-

-

-- -~ -

C. -

-

--

A~

1~ -

—

-

--

—

—

---

57

MS.

tIORENO:

No objection.

HEARING OFFICER SIXES:

It will be

adm itted.

•

(Whereupon Petitioner’s Exhibit No. 10

was admitted in evidence.)

(Whereupon

the

document

was

marked

Petitioner’s

Exhibit

No.

11

for identification.)

0.

I

show

you

what’s

been

marked

as

Petitioner’s

exhibit

number

eleven.

Can

you

tell

me

what that is?

-

A,

Yes.

It

is

a revision to the NPDES permit,

submitted in 1984.

I prepared this submittal.

It was

for

the coal boiler,

with the installation of

the new

coal boiler,

is

for the collection of

the coal

pile

runoff

during

storm

water

conditions.

0.

And

you

prepared

that

document?

A.

Yes.

0.

Was that done

in the ordinary course

of your

---

58

business?

-

A.

Yes.

Q.

And was that

a part

of your

responsibility?

A.

Yes.

-

Q.

Is

that

document

a

true

and

correct,

to

the

best

of

your

knowledge

and

belief?

A.

Yes.

0.

I

move

the

admission

of

Petitioner’s

exhibit

number eleven.

MS.

MORENO:

No objection.

HEARING OFFICER SIXES:

It

will

be

admitted.

(Whereupon Petitioner’s Exhibit No.

11

was admitted in evidence.)

(Whereupon the document was marked

Petitioner’s Exhibit No. 12

for identification.)

Q.

I

show

you,

Mr.

Willings,

what

has

been

---

59

marked as Petitioner’s exhibit number

twelve and would

you tell me what that is?

A.

This

is

a construction permit for

the

——

what we would call the modernization or

the construction

of

a new wastewater treatment system at the Henry,

Illinois facility.

Q.

Can you tell me what that involved?

A.

Basically,

this involved the installation of

the three biotreaters,

which were installed in tanks.

It installed the installation of

equalization tanks.

-

And in addition

——

Q.

Which

equalization

tanks

were

involved?

A.

The speciality polymers and chemicals waste,

process waste equalization tank and the poly—vinyl

chloride areas equalization tank was

installed.

Q.

Okay.

A.

And

a number

of pieces

of ancilliary

equipment

such

as

blowers.

-

In

addition,

this

included

some

pre—treatment

systems

for

the

demini

ral ization

and

regeneration

waters

and,

the

P

C

V

blending

resin

pre—treatment

system

and

also,

the

sand filter

for the

storm water

or non—contact being,

non—contaminated storm

water

runoff.

---

60

Q.

This document consists of

a number

of pages,

what is attached,

the first page

is water

and what

is

the rest of

it?

A.

The first

page

of this document

is the

approval by the Agency

by the Illinois EPA.

Or the

permit for

construction.

The following pages are the

application for construction

of this facility.

Q.

All right.

Did you prepare the application

what you have just referred to which

is part

of

Petitioner’s

exhibit

number

eleven?

A.

Yes,

I

did.

Q.

Or

is that twelve,

I am sorry

——

?

A.

It’s twelve.

Q.

I am

sorry,

it’s twelve.

I move the

admision of Petitioner’s exhibit number

twelve.

-

MS.

MORENO:

Could

I

see what

it

is?

Q.

Sure.

MS.

MORENO:

Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER SIXES:

Any objection?

fl~hr~rr~~a

—

---

61

MS.

MORENO:

No objection.

HEARING OFFICER SIXES:

Admitted.

(Whereupon Petitioner’s Exhibit No.

12

was admitted in evidence.)

(Whereupon

the

document

was

marked

Petitioner’s

Exhibit No.

13

for

identification.)

Q.

Mr. Willings,

I show you what’s been marked

as Petitioner’s exhibit number

13;

can you tell me what

that entire document

is?

The-re’s

a number

of pages?

A.

Okay.

The first page

is the water pollution

control construction permit approved

by the Illinois

EPA.

The actual permit

covers the construction

of

a,

or

allows

the

construction

of

a

bio

reactor.

An

additional

bio reactor.

In addition,

it requires

a submittal

of

a

construction,

a supplemental permit for

construction of

a sand filter and, attached to it,

to that cover page,

is

the

application

to

that

was

submitted.

-

---

62

Q.

Did

you

prepare

that

application?

A.

Yes,

I

did.

Q.

That

additional

biotreater;

where

does

that

fit

in the process?

A.

That would fit

in the secondary treatment

system.

It

was

at

the

original

construction,

as

stated

in exhibit twelve,

under that construction permit we

prepared

the

waste

treatment

system we would have two

biological

treaters.

It

was

determined

that

was

not

enough

to successfully

run the wastewater treatment

system,

so

we

needed

to

construct

a third bio reactor

for that would

go

in

the

secondary

treatment

unit.

Q.

And the sand filter was which waste

treatment facility, which

part?

A.

This would be after

the- secondary clarifier.

To

be used

a polishing filter.

Q.

This

is

in the processes waste treatment?

A.

In the processed waste treatment,

yes.

Q.

I move

for

the admission

of

Petitioner’s

number

13.

MS.

MORENO:

No objection.

C

I~r~

,

i~

-

(‘C.

~1

4—

t)

~

~

4—

C.

---

63

HEARING OFFICER SIXES:

It will be

admitted.

(Whereupon Petitioner’s Exhibit No.

13

was

admitted

in

evidence.)

(Whereupon the document was marked

Petitioner’s Exhibit No.

14

for

identification.)

Q.

I

show

you

what’s

been

marked

as

Petitioner’s

exhibit

number

14,

and

can

you

identify

that?

A.

This

was

a

permit

to

construct

approved

by

the

Illinois

EPA

in

1989

for

the

traveling

bridge

sand

filter.

Which

is

the

polishing

filter

on

the,

at

the

end

of

the

secondary

clarifier

or

the

processed

wastewater

system

and

it

includes

not

just

the

approval

on the first page hut the actual

application.

-

Q.

What

inovivement

did

you

have

in

the

permit

application?

A.

I

prepared

this

application.

Q.

Okay.

Are

those

documents

true

and

correct?

A.

Yes.

I

correct

myself.

I

assisted

in

the

Qiic~r~

hrvr~~

rr~t,r+

~

---

64

preparation of this document.

Q.

Was

it

done

under

your

supervision

and

control?

A.

Yes.

Yes.

-

Q.

Are

those

pages,

those

pages

and

documents

complete,

and

are

they

true

and

accurate?

A.

Yes.

0.

I move

for

the admission of

Petitioner’s

exhibit number 14.

MS.

MORENO:

Let

me

just

see

it.

All

right.

No objection.

HEARING OFFICER SIXES:

Fourteen is being

offered,

it

will

be

admitted.

MS.

MORENO:

No objection.

(Whereupon

Petitioner’s

Exhibit

No.

14

was

admitted

in

evidence.)

(Whereupon

the

document

was

marked

Petitioner’s

Exhibit

No.

15

---

65

for

identification.)

Q.

Mr. Willings,

I show you now

is being marked

as Petitioner’s exhibit number

15;

can

you

tell

me

what

that is?

A.

That

was

the

or

this

is

the

construction

permit issued to the BF Goodrich,

Henry,

Illinois plant

by the Illinois EPA for

construction the Cure—Rite

18

process

wastewater

pre—treatmnent

system.

Q.

Is

that

the

Cure—Rite

process

you

referred

to earlier

in your testimony?

A.

Yes,

it

is.

Q.

Okay.

And

is

that,

what that total document

or

those

series

of

pages

consist

of?

A.

The

first

page

is

the

approval

from

the

Illinois EPA.

And the following pages are the

application that was submitted to Illinois EPA.

Q.

What

involvement

did

you

have

in

preparing

that

application?

A.

I

prepared

this

document.

Q.

Okay.

A.

Or

the

application.

Q.

And

are

those

documents

true

and correct to

I-I

C

(‘~ C

C.

—

(‘t’~

11

r

1—

T~

~

C.

r

+-

*~

r

---

66

the

best

of

your

knowledge

and

belief?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Move

for

the

admission

of

Petitioner’s

exhibit number 15.

MS.

MORENO:

No

objection.

HEARING OFFICER BIKES:

Admitted.

(Whereupon

Petitioner’s Exhibit

No. 15

was

admitted

in

evidence.)

Q.

We

are

through

that process for

a moment.

Probably could have been by agreement but

——

Mr.

Willings,

does

the

1990

permit

issued

by

the

Illinois

EPA which has been identified and introduced as

Petitioner’s exhibit number nine contain any effluent

limitation

for

ammonia?

A.

Yes,

it

does.

HEARING

OFFICER

SIXES:

Maybe

this

is

a

good

point

to

take

a

little

break

here.

(Whereupon

a

short recess was taken.)

---

67

(Whereupon

a

short

recess

was

taken.)

0.

Can

you

tell

us

what

that

limitation

is

and

which condition

it

is?

Or

tell

us

what

condition

it

is

in there?

A.

It

is identified as special

condition number

four.

Q.

Mr. Willings, based upon your

review

of the

NPDES

permits

that

have

been

introduced into evidence

here as exhibits two, three,

——

excuse

me,

——

two,

four,

five,

——

two,

four,

and

five,

was

there

ever

any

effluent limitation for ammonia nitrogen

in an NPDES

permit

for

the

HF

Goodrich

facility?

A.

No.

Q.

Prior

to Petitioner’s exhibit nine?

A.

No.

Q.

Based

upon

your

review

—-

strike

that.

Did

you

have

occasion,

Mr.

Willings,

to

in addition to your looking at the NPDES permit

files

to

look

at

the

monitoring

and

reporting

records

for

the

wastewater

treatment

process

prior

to

1981?

A.

Yes.

---

68

Q.

And

how

did

you

do

that;

were

there

records

involved

or

did

you

talk

to

people,

how

did

you

know

about

what

th-e

discharge

was?

A.

You

will

have

to

repeat

that

——

Q.

Let me put

it another way.

Are you familiar

with

the

characteristics

of

the

wastewater

discharge

of

the

wastewater

treatment

process

since

1978?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And

how

did

you

become

so

familiar

prior

to

your taking the position that you have?

A.

From

discussions

with

the

wastewater

treatment

operator

and

reviewing-

records.

Q.

Okay.

Has

the

discharge

from

the

HF

Goodrich

facility

always

discharged

more

than

a

hundred

pounds

per

day

of

ammonia

nitrogen?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Since

1978?

A.

To

the

best

of

my

knowledge,

since

1978,

yes.

0.

Mr.

Willings,

are

you

familiar

with

the

process within HF Goodrich on how new chemical processes

or

new

operations

are

sited at various plants?

-

A.

Yes.

---

69

Q.

How

are

you

involved

in

that

or

how

were

you

involved in that?

A.

Well,

the

siting

process

for

either

new

utility services

or new processes at BF Goodrich

is

a

very complicated process but some of

the components that

are

contained

or

are

the

elements

——

0.

What’s your involvement in it?

A.

Okay.

My

involvement

is to review these

processes

or

utilities

that

are

going

to

be

added

to

a

facility.

And to evaluate them from

a health,

safety

and

environmental

standpoint.

-

0.

Okay.

Can

you

describe

the

siting

process

within HF Goodrich?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Please

do so?

A.

From,

are

you

asking

from

the

perspective

of

health,

safety

and

environmental?

Q.

Generally?

A.

Generally.

When

a

new

process

and

I

will

use

a process, manufacturing process

is to

be installed,

once

the

process

has

been

developed,

a

search

for

what

location

would

best

fit

this

process

is

done.

Q.

Does that

——

to interrupt

——

does that, what

---

70

does that mean,

that a search

is done?

A.

That means that these

processes,

the

-

processes are not designed with

a specific location in

mind.

It

is,

the

processes

is designed and then a

location

is picked.

In many,

many times this,

——

and

I

should say that in most cases, sometimes there

is

a

modification to

a process that already exists.

In

——

particular to

a

new process,

it will be designed and

then

a location will be

or locations will be evaluated

to decide which one it should go to

of the many

facilities

that

BF

Goodrich

has.

Q.

In that context

——

to put

it

in the

vernacular,

——

do

plants

then

compete

for

these

processes

——

is that what they do?

-

A.

Yes,

yes.

Q.

Okay.

A.

As part

of

the elements that are looked

at,

the economics as far

as the cost of actually

constructing

the

project.

The utility services provided

there

such as electrical,

steam generation,

cooling

capacities

are

evaluated.

The

location

as

far

as

to

suppliers

and

and

to

customers

is

evaluated

and

the

work

force

is evaluated.

In addition to that,

a health,

---

71

safety

and

environmental

impact

or

review

is

done.

Looking

at

the

aspects

of

this

production

from

a

health

and

safety

standpoint,

the

safety

of

the

employees

and

the

public

is

evaluated.

And,

an

environmental

review

is conducted to evaluate the environmental impacts

of

this

facility

and

a

regulatory

review

is

also

conducted

at

that

time.

-

•

Q.

What

is

that regulatory

or environmental

review intended to do?

-

A.

The

first

part

of

that

review

is

to

determine that this process would meet the local

and

federal

regulations when it

is developed and installed.

And

also,

that,

in

this

review,

the

emissions

from

this

air

waste

or

water

emissions

are

evaluated

to

see

whether these emissions

——

particularly for wastewater

would

have

an

impact

on

the

wastewater

treatment

facility

that

they

would

be

discharged

to

and

whether

they

would

upset

the

facility.

And

the

third

part

is

whether they would-help the facility to maintain its

compliance

with

its

permits.

0.

Anything else considered in that siting

process?

A.

Future regulations are also considered

---

72

during the siting process

——

the

regulatory

siting

process

to

evaluate

whether

this

process

will

have

additional

costs

added

to

it

for

controls

in

the

near

future.

Q.

In

this

process,

do

you

consider

the,

in

the

wastewater

treatment

area,

the

limitations

imposed

in

the

NPDES

permit

that

is

currently

in

force?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Mr. Willings,

since 1978 or

since you have

been at the Henry facility,

have you actually

participated

in the siting

of

new processes at the Henry

plant?

-

A.

Yes,

Q.

Which processes were those?

A.

Specifically,

the processes that

I can

quickly

remember

are

the

installation

of

the

new

fluidized

circulating

bed

coal

boiler.

I was involved

in the Cure—Rite 18

or what we call the accelerator

expansion.

And there were other

capital projects

that

I was involved

in

——

in addition to the

wastewater treatment modernization project

that occurred

in 1987,

1988.

Q.

What

is

the

wastewater

treatment

---

73

modification

you

talked

about;

is

that

what

we

have

construction

permits

for

and

you

testified

about?

-A.

Yes.

Q.

And

if

I

can

just

make

sure

we

have

got

this,

is that Petitioner’s exhibit number twelve?

A.

Yes.

And

number

13?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Okay.

Thank

you.

And

the

Cure—Rite

process

that

you

referred

to,

this

is

again

the

same

Cure—Rite

process

that

you

have

talked

about

a

couple

times

before

today?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And

is

that

what

was

sought

after

in

Petitioner’s

exhibit

15?

A,

This

exhibit

dealt

with

after

the

operation

was

up

and

running.

-

Q.

Okay.

But

that’s

the

Cure—Rite

process?

A.

But

that

is

the

Cure—Rite

process

that’s

identified here.

Q.

Okay.

Thank

you.

Do

you

know

whether

the

Cure—Rite

process

siting

was

considered?

A.

The siting was,

the first consideration was

-

C.

•

-

I

-

---

74

in 1979.

The

project

was

delayed

and

reconsidered

in

1984,

I

believe

was

the

date

of

the

actual,

starting

of

re—consideration

of

the

project.

And

that

went

into

1985.

Q.

And

when

was

it

actually

constructed

and

in

ope ration?

A.

Approximately 1985.

Started operation.

Excuse

me

——

I think construction started in 1986.

Started

operation

in

1987,

‘86

time

frame.

Q.

That

is all prior

prior

to 1990, was

it

not?

A.

All

prior

to

1990

——

yes.

Q.

Were

there

other

plants

that

were

being

considered

by BF

Goodrich

for

the

Cure—Rite

18

process?

A.

Prior

to

this

process

coming,

it

was

actually being a,

it was actually being produced in

another- state and the decision was made not to upgrade

that facility and bring that,

make

that process

——

if

you

will,

a full project

there but instead to bring it

to

the

Henry

facility

instead.

Q.

Do

you

recall

the,

in

general

terms,

the

capital costs of

the Cure—Rite process?

A.

It was approximately twelve to fourteen

---

75

million dollars.

-

Q.

Mr.

Willings,

in

the

siting

of

the

Cure—Rite

process at-the Henry

facility, were ammonia nitrogen

effluent limitations considered by the siting process?

A.

In

all

siting

processes?

Q.

No,

on

the

Cure—Rite

process

itself?

A.

Yes,

it

was.

Q.

Can

you

explain

to

the

Board

how

that

was

considered?

A.

When

it

was

first

considered

in

1979,

it

was

reviewed

that

there

would

be

an

increase

in

the

ammonia

nitrogen

discharge

above

the

present

plant

level

but

that

due

to

the

permits

that

had

been

issued

and

the

activities,

that

it

was

not

an

issue

with

the

Illinois

EPA versus BF Goodrich,

Q.

What

do

you

mean

by

that?

That

it would not come up as permit

limitation.

Q.

Ammonia?

A.

Ammonia.

Q.

Did

you

rely

on

the

fact

that

there

was

no

ammonia nitrogen limit

in the permits in siting the

Cure—Rite process?

---

76

A.

Yes.

Q.

At

the

Henry

facility?

A.

Yes.

0.

Mr.

Willings,

moving

on

to

another

area,

has

BF

Goodrich

evaluated

any

modification-

or

additions

to

its

current

control

technology

or

otherwise

to

reduce

ammonia concentration in

its influent

or effluent?

A.

Yes,

it has,

-

Q.

Can you describe those facilities?

A.

The,

specifically,

in

response

to

the

1990

draft

permit

when

it

was

received

we

initiated

a

review

of

how

to

reduce

or

eliminate

the

ammonia

to

meet

the

permit

condition

that

was

put

in

the

draft

permit.

And

this

focus

going

back

to

the

source

of

ammonia

at

the

facility,

is

the

degradation

of

the

organic amines

is

the

main

source

of

ammonia.

The

first

step

was

to

look

at

the

processes

and

say,

and

to

evaluate

whether

we

could

eliminate

the

use

of

these

arnines

in

the

processes.

And

that

would

mean

that

basically

these

products

would

not

be

made

so

that

was

not

evaluated

any

further other than

it wasn’t acceptable because it would

mean

the

end

of

these

businesses.

-

The second step was to look at could

C’

-

~

C.

—

—

I”

- -

-

-

—

-

--

---

77

we

recover

and

recycle

the

precursors

to

ammonia

and

take

those

back

into

the

processes

and

reuse

them.

The

next

step

was

could

we

do

pre

treatment

or

was

to

evaluate

pre

treatment

of

the

processes

that

give

precursors

in

the

wastewater

discharge.

And

then

the

last

step

or

the

last

fourth approach to this was

to, was to look at post

treatment

since

ammonia

being

generated

at

the

wastewater

treatment

facility,

could

we

do

some

type

of

post

treatment

at

the

wastewater

treatment

facility

and

either

through

nitrofication,

remove

the

ammonia.

Q.

Pre

treatment

in

your

third

step,

means

before

its

discharge

to

the

wastewater

treatment

-

facility?

A.

Yes.

-

Q.

And

post treatment means

after the

final

effluent

from

the

sand

filter

from

the

wastewater

treatment

facility?

A.

That

is

correct.

Q.

Okay.

Can

you

describe

these,

in

some

detail

or

identify

the

projects?

A.

Yes.

The going to the recover and recycle,

two projects were evaluated

——

two

particular

processes

-~

,-‘__•,._•l_

~

---

-

-

-

78

had,

appeared to have an opportunity that we may

be able

to recover and recycle

this material.

This was done as

a

research

and

development

step

with

HF

Goodrich

corporate research and development people

to evaluate

whether we could accomplish

this.

The first process we

looked

at

was

the

OBTS

accelerator

business.

Q.

Can

you

tell

us

what

OBTS

is?

A.

It

is

a

sulfamide

accelerator

used

in the vulcanizing process for

tires.

-

-

Q.

For tires?

A.

For tires.

0.

Go ahead.

A.

In this process, an organic,

an organic

amine, morpholine,

is

used.

We looked at a method or

a

technique that potentially could recover

morpholine

and reuse

it to the process.

This required

us to install

a

number

of pieces

of

equipment

that

would

basically

chlorinate

the

morpholine,

separate

it from the wastewater.

Strip

it

from

the

solution

that

it

was

now

segregated

in

and

recycle

this

material

back

to

the

reactor

for

reuse.

Q.

Reuse

of

the

morpholine?

A.

Reuse

the morpholine.

A number

of

~

~

~

~

---

79

difficulties

showed up.

First

of all,

the material that

we would

be producing,

the intermediate step of getting

the

morpholine

back

is

unstable

and

presented

a

severe

safety

issue

to

the

operations

and

the

personnel

there.

Q.

What

is

the

problem?

A.

Potentially

explosive

if

not

handled

properly.

-

The

next

step

of

concern

was

the

fact

that

as

we

separated

this

material

out

for

recycle

we would be generating a

solid waste

in this process

that probably would be

a hazardous waste.

-

And then the third part

of

this was

this was strictly a laboratory paperwork research effort

and

there

was

no

guarantee

that

we

would

actually

make

the

same

product

or

the

same

quality

of

material

that

we

had

made

prior

to

recycling.

Q.

By material,

you mean what?

-

A.

The

OBTS,

the

actual

manufactured

product.

Q.

So,

that

the

reused

morpholine

may

affect

the quality control problems

or may affect the quality

of the ultimate product,

the OBTS?

A.

Yes.

So,

that

was

the

first

project

that

was

evaluated.

II

C

(~

C

r

?~C.

(‘C.

t~

~

I)

C.

Y~C. V

C.

---

80

The second project was looking at

the

same

thing,

or

——

excuse me

——

was looking at again

morpholine

recovery

from

the

Cure—Rite

18

process

and

it

followed

the

same

basic

steps

of,

of

making

an

intermediate

of

the

inorpholine

and

remove

it

from

that

solution

that

it’s

made

in

as

an

intermediate,

take

that

solution

and

remove

the

solids

from

it

——

which

again

presented

us

with

an

issue

of

hazardous

waste

and

again

we

had

the

same

issue

with

the

intermedial

being

a

position of being unstalbe material from the safety

-

as pe Ct.

Q.

Meaning,

explosive?

A.

Potentially

explosive,

yes.

Q.

Go

ahead.

A.

This

was

only

done

through

a

paperwork

effort.

No

laboratory

tests

were

done

because

they

were

similar

to

the

OBTS

effort.

Again,

the

same

issue

here

was

we

weren’t

sure

we’d

be

taking

the

same product

or

the

same

quality

of

material

with

the

final

product

with

the

recycled

material.

In light

of

these

two

efforts,

which would

reduce

the amount of ammonia but we could

not

even

remove

all

of

the

ammonia

produced

by

these

processes

in the wastewater.

---

-

-

81

We looked at a third or the next

effort

was,

let’s

do

pre

treatment.

And

we

evaluated

a

a

process

that

is

under

patent

to

another

company

and

we

strictly

had

done

a

research

review.

This

was

the

only

technology that we found available in research through

our research and development personnel that potentially

could

take these wastewaters,

from all the accelerator

businesses,

and remove the precursors

to ammonia,

the

amine

organics.

In

reviewing

this

process,

this

was

a proprietary technology,

——

can

we

have

questioning

off

the

record

——

(Discussion

off

the

record.)

A.

In

the

literature

there

are

basically

two

extraction techniques that are

used.

One

is

a,

a

liquid,

liquid extraction where two liquids would pass

counter current to each other

and the material coming

overhead,

from this stripping process,

goes to a

stripping column,

where the material

is removed and

basically we come up out with

a solid waste or

a liquid

hazardous waste

is what we suspect we will generate.

There

is no recovery to this process.

It

is strictly

---

82

the matter

of removing the organics

from- the wastewater

by

a

stripping

technique.

Q.

Those three

——

I

don’t

know

if

you

call

them

processes

——

three things you-just described,

what

-

levels

of

ammonia would

be affected by each

of those?

A.

By each

of

those,

the

pre

treatment

step

would be

the most significant.

It would probably reduce

it

in the neighborhood

of

80

percent reduction.

MS. MORENO:

Excuse me,

just

a minute

——

I have no objection- to him looking at things.

Is

it

just your personal

notes,

——

that’s okay.

A.

Yes.

Q.

Okay.

-

-

A.

The first process that we evaluated,

the

OBTS morpholine recovery reduced

it approximately 40

percent.

The, pardon me

——

it

reduced it

80 percent

of

what would

be generated from that process.

In addition,

the morpholine

recovery from the Cure—Rite 18 process

was also approximately

80 percent recovery

of

these

precursors.

In all

of

these

cases,

we still would have

---

83

been

in

excess

of

the

hundred

pounds

limitation

or

the

limitation that

is put upon us

in the permit.

Q.

Are these processes proven technologies?

A.

The first,

the OBTS and the Cure—Rite

18

technologies are not proven technologies.

The patented

technology that

I mentioned for pre treatment

is used

for

one wastewater process

in Europe.

And it’s only at

one location to our knowledge and has never been

transferred anywhere else.

Q.

Did we make assessment

of any kind as to

whether

it

would

be

usable

here

at

Henry?

A.

We did

——

we

did

not

complete

any

assessment

along

those

lines.

-