ORIGINAL
BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BO~PD
October 25th, 2004
IN THE M&TTER OF:
INTERIM PHOSPHORUS EFFLUENT
STMWARD,
PROPOSED ILL.
ADM.
R04—26
CODE 304.123
(G—IC)
(Rulemaking
-
Water)
Proceedings held on October 25th,
2002,
at 10 a.m.,
at the
Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Lakeview A,
B, and
C,
One Natural Resources Way,
Springfield,
Illinois, before John
Knittle, Chief Hearing Officer.
Reported by:
Beverly
S. Hopkins,
CSR, RPR
CSR License No.:
084-004316
KEEFE
REPORTING COMPANY
11 North 44th Street
Bellevifle,
IL 62226
Keefe Reportinq Company
APPEARANCES
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
Illinois Department of Natural Resources,
Lakeview A,
B,
and C,
One Natural Resources Way,
Springfield,
Illinois
BY:
MR.
JOHN
KNITTLE, Hearing Officer
MR.
ANANI)
RAO,
Board
Member
MS.
ALISA
LILY,
P.E,
Board
Member
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O.
Box 19274
Springfield, Illinois 62794
(217)
524—8500
BY:
MR.
G.
TANNER QIRARD,
Ph.D., Board Member
-AND-
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
2125 South First Street
Champaign,
Illinois
61820
(217)
279—3109
BY:
MR.
THOMAS
E.
JOHNSON, Board Member
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield,
Illinois 62794
(217)
782—5544
BY:
MR.
SANJAY SOFAT
MR.
TOBY FREVERT
ENVIRONMENTAL
LAW
& POLICY CENTER,
PRAIRIE RIVERS NETWORK, AND
SIERRA CLUB
35
East Wacker Drive, Suite
1300
Chicago, Illinois
60601
(312)
795—3707
BY:
MR. ALBERT
F. ETTINGER,
ESQ.
PRAIRIE
RIVERS
NETWORK
809
South
fifth
Street
Champaign,
Illinois
61820
(217)
344—2371
BY:
MS.
BETH WENTZEL
KEEFE REPORTING
COMPANY
2
Keefe Reporting Company
APPEARANCES
(Continued)
GARDNER,
CARTON
&
DOUGLAS
191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 3700
Chicago,
Illinois 60606
(312)
569—1441
BY:
b~.ROY M. BARSCE, ESQ.
EEEfl
RI~PORTING
COMPMiY
3
Keefe Reporting Company
1
BEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
My name is John Knittle.
I’m the
2
hearing officer to this rulemaking proceeding.
I am an attorney
3
assisting Board Member Johnson who
is the assigned board member.
4
This is 1(04-26,
In the Matter of Interim Phosphorus Effluent
5
Standard,
Proposed 35 Ill.
Acbnin. Code 304.123
(G-K),
With me
6
today are Board Member Tom Johnson,
who is coordinating this
7
rulemaking, Board Member Tanner Girard to his
right,
to your
8
left; we have
a technical
staff,
Anand
Rao
and Alisa Lui.
Also
9
in the back row we have Marie Tipsord and Erin Conley also with
10
the
Board.
11
You’re all familiar with the background in this proposal.
12
Just in case there isn’t anybody that isn’t,
I’ll give a really
13
brief
summary.
Essentially
the
Agency
is
asserting
in
the
14
process
of
developing
the
State’s
Numeric
Nutrient
Standard
15
pursuant to its Triennial Water Quality Standards Review,
they
16
expect
to
file
a
Nutrient
Standard
Petition
with
the
Board
in
17
early 2007.
However,
they’re proposing this effluent standard
18
for phosphorus limit hard concentrations of phosphorus that
may
19
result in detrimental levels of plant and algae growth on the
20
interim basis.
They want this to apply until the Board adopts
a
21
Numeric Quality Standard for Phosphorus.
22
We held a rulemaking hearing on this matter back on August
23
30th in Chicago.
In addition
to building
a record in this
24
rulemaking, that hearing was also held to fulfill
the
4
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
requirements of Section 27 (d)
of the Act at the Department of
2
Commerce and Economic Opportunity.
The requirements conducted an
3
economic impact study.
Nobody had any comments or questions
4
regarding the DCO’s decision not submit that study and the
5
hearing reflects that.
The transcript of that hearing is at the
6
Board’s website at www.ipcb.state.il.us.
7
This hearing today was noticed pursuant to the Act and
8
Board’s regulations and was published on September 30th.
9
One note,
we have
some of the pre-filed testimony,
and
10
actually all of the pre-filed testimony,
since the last hearing
11
available over there if somebody needs
a copy.
We also have
a
12
sign-up sheet for the notice and service list.
If you want to be
13
on those, you need to sign up.
Those on the notice list will
14
only receive Board opinions and orders and hearing officer
15
orders.
Those on the service list will receive these documents
16
plus other filings such as public comments.
Aside from the
17
witnesses who have filed pre-filed testimony,
if anybody wants to
18
testify today,
let me know, and time permitting,
we will proceed
19
with the testimony of those people.
We’ll do that after the
20
scheduled people so I don’t think it should be
a problem.
We
21
don’t have
a shortage of time here today.
After the hearing
22
we’re going to set a written public comment period.
If anybody
23
here doesn’t wish to testify today,
they can also file a public
24
comment.
S
Keefe Reporting Conipany
1
Part 102 of the Board’s procedural rules govern this
2
hearing.
All
information that is relevant will be admitted.
All
3
witnesses will be sworn and subject
to cross—examination.
After
4
all
the testimony is complete,
we will allow parties
to provide
5
closing arguments or a closing statement
--
more
a closing
6
statement in a rulemaking hearing.
Anyone can ask
a question of
7
any witness.
Ask it in an orderly fashion,
and that’s all I
8
have.
I want
to introduce Board Member Johnson,
ask him if he
9
has any comments he would like to have at this point.
10
MR.
JOHNSON:
Thank you all for coming.
We have been
11
spending a lot of time together lately.
And
I want to assure you
12
we will continue to do so and also assure you that this
13
rulemaking will get all due consideration.
Thank you.
14
HEARING OFFICER
KNITTLE:
We’ve also talked before the
15
hearing about the order of witnesses here today and we agreed to
16
put Mr. Scheaffer on first.
But before we do that,
I wanted to
17
allow the parties, and those interested,
a chance to introduce
18
themselves starting with the Agency.
I’m Tony Frevert,
19
F-R-E-V-E-R-T,
I’m the manager of Water Pollution Control
20
Division.
21
MR.
SOFAT:
Sanjay Sofat, attorney with the Agency.
22
MR.
HARSCH:
Roy Harsch with the law firm of Gardner,
23
Carton and Douglas on behalf of the Illinois Association of
24
Wastewater Agency.
?
Keefe Reporting Company
1.
MR. DAUGHERTY:
Jim Daugherty on behalf of the Illinois
2
Association of Wastewater Agency.
3
MR. ETTINGER:
Albert Ettinger.
My clients today are
4
Sierra Club, Environmental Law & Policy Center and Prairie Rivers
5
Network.
6
MS. WENTZEL:
Beth Wentzel with Prairie Rivers Network.
7
MR.
LE~E:
Mike
Lemke
with
the University of Illinois in
8
Springfield.
9
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Okay.
Mr.
Sofat,
do
you
have
10
anything you want
to say before we get started?
11
MR.
SOF’AT:
The Agency will have questions for the
12
testimony that will be read today and also we have Agency
13
comments at the end of the
day
and also the Agency will file
14
written comments.
Other than that, we don’t have any witness or
15
any information that we would like file at this point.
16
HEARING
OFFICER
XNITTLE:
Great.
Move
up here so the court
17
reporter can hear him,
please.
18
MR. ETTINGER:
First of all,
I want to make clear,
I’m not
19
really presenting Dr. Scheaffer.
I
did
file his testimony as a
20
favor,
so to speak, but we have talked early but I don’t
21
represent Scheaffer International in any sense.
I went on tour
22
of Scheaffer
plants
and
mentioned
this
proceeding
to
Scheaffer
23
and urged him to make his views known.
If he had any at that
24
time,
I submitted them to him, but
I have had nothing to do with
7
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
his
testimony
nor
am
I
representing
Scheaffer
International
or
2
Dr.
Scheaffer today.
3
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Thank you for that clarification.
4
Mr.
Scheaffer, you want to come on up
and
have a seat
and
we’ll
5
swear you
in.
You can pick and choose between the two available
6
seats.
7
MR. ETTINGER:
I want to point out it may be
--
it
may
be
8
reasonable in this case if Dr.
Scheaffer were
to read his
9
testimony, if that’s desired by the Board.
As
to the other
10
witnesses,
I do want to
point
out
I
think
we
would really save a
11
lot of time and paper if we didn’t read the testimony complete
12
with footnotes and references,
just to give
a summary, would that
13
be okay?
14
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Okay.
That’s acceptable to me as
15
long as none of the other parties object.
We
can take that
16
evidence as read into the record.
But,
Mr.
Scheaffer,
are you
17
going
to
read
that?
18
(The witness was sworn.)
19
MR.
SCHEAFF’ER:
It’s
a
pleasure
to
meet
with
the
Board
and
20
--
and my written testimony,
I mention something that
very
few
21
people are aware
of,
and that is the Illinois General Assembly in
22
the late
‘60s passed or created what they called the Lake
23
Michigan, an Adjoining Land Study Commission.
And
the purpose of
24
the commission was to create
a Bill of Rights for take Michigan.
B
Reefs Reporting Company
1
It was concerned about the quality of Lake Michigan.
And
they
2
came to me at this staff of the University of Chicago and asked
3
me would
I be their executive director.
Well,
I agreed to do
4
that, so we
put
an old battery of graduate students working on
S
their Ph.D.s to come up with a Bill of Rights for Lake Michigan.
6
And
at that time,
as we were finishing,
the Secretary of the
Army
7
asked me if
I would be his science advisor,
And
so in 1970
I
S
went there and I took my Bill of Rights for Lake Michigan with
9
me,
and that, in essence,
is the Clean Water Act.
10
You’ve read the Clean Water Act.
What does it say?
The
11
first goal says it’s a goal of the nation to eliminate the
12
discharge
of
pollutants
into
the
navigable
waters
by
1985,
and
13
people say, well, what does that mean.
I said,
well,
it means
14
that we missed it but it’s still the goal,
to eliminate the
15
discharges.
And
some people say discharges are anything above
16
the standards.
But if you read the congressional record,
when
17
the law was passed,
Senator Muskie says
this law means
one simple
18
thing:
That rivers and streams are no longer a part of the
19
sewage treatment process.
In other words,
as simulative capacity
20
was
to be reserved for other things rather than treating sewage.
21
So as
I reviewed your standards,
I felt they were very good
22
standards moving towards the objective of no discharge.
Now some
23
people say that’s not logical or feasible but people call it
24
Scheaffer’s Systems.
9
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
But
in
1980,
that’s 24 years ago, the Trammell Crow Company
2
built
a
Scheaffer
System
at
what
was
called
the
Hamilton
Lakes
3
Development.
There’s
five million square feet of office/hotel
4
space on 274 acres and all the wastewater is reclaimed and reused
S
on that site.
No discharge of anything.
The sprinkler
system,
I
6
think we’ve got sprinklers
in there,
is charged with
the
7
reclaimed water, multiple use of the water, and it was done
S
because it was cost effective.
And
so the point is Illinois,
9
where the Clean Water Act really was born, which I’ve never
10
mentioned
to
a
public
body,
now
you
got
to
take
credit
for
some
11
of it.
It was done in Illinois and the first system that showed
12
you could eliminate odors, you could eliminate sludge,
and you
13
could eliminate discharges into the waterways.
So it’s been
14
demonstrated
to
be
cost
effective.
15
And
one thing I would like
to read is the Illinois
16
Association of Waste
--
Wastewater Agencies on page
54.
After
17
saying to eliminate or to reduce the discharges
to the proposed
18
USEPA
standards
would
cause
five
billion
in
capital
and
19
approximately one million to operate
--
20
MR. ETTINGER:
Excuse me,
Dr.
Schaeffer,
I think you’re
21
referring to a report,
a dense report,
that was alluded to or
22
perhaps in the record that the Agency put in as part of its
23
testimony?
24
MR.
SCHAEFFER:
Yeah.
What it says, based upon review of
1~0
Reefs
Reporting
Company
1
information available for so called natural systems,
the IAWA
2
believes that the following natural systems may offer the
3
potential
to meet low total nitrogen and total phosphorus levels
4
at aerated
and
facultative lagoons,
constructed wetlands,
land
5
application
systems
and
overland
flow.
And
then they say,
6
however, additional studies
of these systems is needed to
7
determine if it is possible to rely on the harmony of natural
8
processes
in such systems to meet low total nitrogen,
total
9
phosphorus effluent standards.
10
Well,
the Hamilton Lake Project started operating in 1980.
11
It’s
still
operating.
So
there’s
24
years
of
records
shows
no
12
discharges
and
a
very
highly
developed
site.
There
are
very
few
13
places
where
you
would
have
that
much
development
in
the
state
of
14
Illinois,
and
it’s
still
in
operation.
And
there are more than
15
20 other ones operating.
And
some communities are now saying we
16
want to reclaim and reuse all of our wastewater.
So there’s an
17
illustration and there are illustrations in Illinois where that’s
18
being done.
19
And
then the final thing
I think you’ve got to keep in
20
mind, there’s a significant event that occurs every year.
We
21
find it every month.
Every month we
add
six million people
to
22
the world population.
But we’ve got the same
amount
of land and
23
water.
So the way we manage land and water,
this last month
24
isn’t good enough for this month, and so since we have no more
11
Reefs Reporting Company
1
land and water, we’ve got to make multiple use of our land and
2
water.
And
in my testimony I
show
that
there
are
only
a
little
3
over
one
percent
of
the
farmland
in
Illinois
you
could
reclaim
4
and reuse
all the wastewater.
5
Now
maybe
it’s
not
properly
located
but
it’s
a
goal
towards
6
which we should move.
And
if we took flood plain lands,
well,
it
7
stores
the flood waters when it occurs,
but that occurs very few
8
days
in a year.
The rest of the days we could use it to recycle
9
the nutrients in our wastewater,
the nitrogen and phosphorus
that
10
you’re talking about and then you could say, well,
that would
11
increase agricultural productivity, and that’s right.
And if you
12
select the right crops, you can sequester carbon,
so~you would
——
13
one acre of land you would be mitigating floods,
improving water
14
quality and improving air quality and improving farmer income.
15
And
I believe you have heard people testifying that
16
theoretically an acre of land could be managed to sequester 300
17
tons of carbon
a year.
And
carbon futures
are selling at six to
18
$12
a ton,
so
I think we’ve got to look in not a simple, single
19
focus that, hey, we treat sewage,
we truck the sludge away and we
20
put the effluent and nutrients in the river and that’s
the
way
21
it’s intended.
22
But as you all know,
there’s 7,800 square miles of dead
23
water in the Gulf of Mexico from these nutrients we’re throwing
24
away.
So at some point in time we’ve got to start thinking in
a
12
Reefs
Reporting
Company
1
more synthesized way and realize that waterways are important
2
things,
and we’ve got to manage
them
and all of us are taught the
3
hydrologic
cycle.
Unfortunately
we’re
not taught the nutrient
4
cycle.
The plants grow.
The animals eat the plants.
I eat
the
5
animals and nutrients are now in me.
They leave the body and I
6
want to put
them
in the Gulf of Mexico.
Instead of saying why
7
don’t we use
them
to grow more plants instead of creating
S
anhydrous ammonia out of imported oil and take the flex,
let’s
9
recycle the nutrients.
10
So
I
feel
of
all
places
Illinois,
where
the
no
discharge
of
11
pollutants was born and where the first moderate recycling system
12
was
put
into place, ought to see to reclaim and reuse our
13
wastewater.
And then
to give you the practicality of it,
a
14
million gallons of wastewater can be reclaimed and reused on less
15
than 300 acres of land.
So the land is all here.
And
I think
16
there’s
a basis for moving towards clean water.
And to do that
17
we’ve got to reclaim and reuse our nutrients,
so that’s it.
18
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Thank you,
sir.
Could you
--
Are
19
you going to offer your testimony, your pre-filed testimony
--
20
MR.
SCHAEFFER:
Yes.
21
REARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
--
as it is read?
Any
objection
22
of putting that into the record?
23
MR.
SOFAT:
No.
24
REARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
We’ll admit that as Exhibit
1.
13
Reefs
Reporting
Company
1
Any
questions
of
Mr.
Scheaffer?
Mr.
Ettinger?
2
MR. ETTINGER:
I
have
just
one.
Are
there
other
3
organizations
or companies which make land treatment systems in
4
the United States in addition to Schaeffer International?
5
MR.
SCHAEFFER:
Well,
there certainly are,
and many people
6
can obviously reclaim and reuse the wastewater so it’s not a
7
monopoly or anything.
And I would like to submit two
--
two
8
additional papers that show examples.
One is
a
——
there’s
a
9
project in Barrington at Jack Nicholas’s Golf Course incidentally
10
where there are multi-million dollar houses looking into the
11
Scheaffer Systems and the lawns are irrigated right next door to
12
them
and obviously there aren’t any odor or problems.
But could
13
I
submit
these?
Here’s two.
14
REARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
All
right.
I
got
one
entitled
15
Wynstone Modular Reclamation and
Reuse
System,
we’ll
mark
that
as
16
Exhibit
No.
2;
and
the
one
entitled
North
Fork
Cleanwater
Project
17
in Timberville, Virginia, we’ll mark as Exhibit
3.
Does anyone
18
want
to
take
a
look
at
those
before
we
accept
them
into
evidence?
19
Any
objections?
Seeing
none,
we’ll
admit
those
as Exhibit
2 and
20
3.
Thank you,
sir.
21
MS.
LIT):
I do have one question for Mr.
Scheaffer.
22
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
I’m
sorry.
Would you
mind
having
23
a seat again.
I was premature.
Ms.
Liu.
24
MS.
LIT):
Sir,
you
speak
of
a
world
with
the
vision
for
the
14
Reefe
Reporting
Company
1
future and it almost
seems
larger
in
perspective
than
this
2
rulemaking
itself.
I
was
just
wondering
what
other
avenues
you
3
were exploring, whether you had talked to perhaps the
4
agricultural community into getting them interested in using this
S
as a resource?
6
MR. SCHAETFER:
Two weeks ago Dr.
Harrary
(phonetic),
who
7
is one of the leading scientists,
engineers in Morocco, spent
10
8
days in Illinois looking at these systems.
We’ve already built
9
one
in
Agadir,
Morocco,
at
the
Premier
Agricultural
College
and
10
we
wanted
to
do
it,
not
only
in
Morocco,
but
across
the
North
11
Africa
going
into
Algeria,
tibia,
and
Egypt.
And
while
we’re
12
sitting here,
they’re
building
one in Mongolia
and
the
Indian
13
government
is
talking
about
doing
systems
at
New
Delhi,
so
people
14
are
catching
on
because
it’s
simple.
Because
when
you
look
at
15
waste, irrespective,
there are a lot of books you
can
write on it
16
but
it
comes
down
to
two
simple
questions:
You
either
reclaim
or
17
reuse it or you relocate it.
You don’t make anything disappear.
18
So I’m saying reclaiming and reusing it is
a much more logical
19
decision
than
assuming
that
we
can
relocate
it
when
we
see
the
20
effects of relocating.
21
Take all the pharmaceuticals, most of
them
go right through
22
an
aggravated
sludge
plain,
go
down
the
river.
I’ve
always
said
23
the best way to reduce the cost of prescription drugs, find out
24
who
has
high
blood
pressure,
move
them
downstream.
Let
them
get
15
Reefe
Reporting
Company
1
it,
you know,
free,
right?
So there are
a lot of things going
2
on.
And
many
of
these
people
here
have
heard
me
talking
about
3
this for decades and feel
it’s not practical but more and more
4
people are doing it,
especially the big homebuilders.
They’re
S
saying we don’t like liability,
etc.,
we’ll just reclaim and
6
reuse all
the wastewater on our golf course or on our parks.
7
MS.
LIT):
Thank you very much.
8
HEARING
OFFICER
ENITTLE:
Thank
you,
Dr.
Schaeffer.
Mr.
9
Ettinger,
I notice
that
Mr.
Lake
is
here
now.
10
MR.
ETTINGER:
Yes,
I
guess
we
could
go
now
if
you
like.
11
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Mr.
Harsch
--
12
MR.
ETTINGER:
Okay.
I
put
together
this
package
and
13
there’s
an
introduction
which
sort
of
says
we’re
going.
And
then
14
there is
a pre-filed testimony
of Albert Ettinger.
That’s
15
actually the nature of a legal brief and I am pleased at some
16
point
to
answer
questions
about
that if anybody has any, but
I
17
don’t propose to read the testimony here.
And
actually if you do
18
have
questions
to
me,
I
would
rather
hold
those
to
the
end
too
19
because
?rofessor
Lemke
is
here.
I
would
rather
get
Beth
Wentzel
20
and Professor Lake
done instead of questioning of me since I’m
21
going to be here all the time any way.
The same goes with part
22
four of the testimony which is the suggested part four,
the
23
package, which is the suggested reworking of the
Agency
language
24
to address some of the drafting problems
that were raised at the
16
Reefe
Reporting
Company
1.
last
hearing.
That
also
I’m
probably
the
best
person
to
answer
2
questions
about
that
proposed
alternative
language
but
I
suggest
3
we hold that until later too.
4
Having
said
that
then,
I
think
Dr.
Lemke
would
probably
be
5
the
logical
person
to
go
next.
I
think
it
would
be
--
with your
6
permission,
I think it would be satisfactory for him to read the
7
introduction
to his testimony and then take questions.
8
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
That’s fine with me.
Why
don’t
9
you have
a seat up
there.
What date was his pre-filed testimony
10
from?
11
MR. ETTINGER:
October 15th.
It’s in the package.
It’s
12
part
of the
--
unfortunately,
I should have made more clear when
13
I filed this, in retrospect it’s one big package that consisted
14
of the pre-filed testimony of exhibits and then the pre-filed
15
testimony of Dr. Lake
and then there’s
the pre-filed testimony
16
of Beth Wentzel which has excerpts,
and then
a part four which is
17
the alternative or proposed alternative
language and just two
18
sheets explaining what was attempted to do with
the
draft
19
language.
20
HEARING OFFICER KNTTTLZ:
Okay.
You want to offer his part
21
of the package as read as a separate exhibit or what?
22
MR. ETTINGER:
Yes, we can offer,
I guess,
the pre-filed
23
testimony.
I’m not sure what we called it,
24
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Exhibit
4.
Any objections to
17
Reefe
Reporting
Company
3.
entering the pre-filed testimony of Professor
Lemke
as is read as
2
Exhibit
4?
Seeing
none,
we’ll
admit
that.
Mr.
Ettinger,
do
you
3
want to have him
--
4
MR.
ETTINGER:
Yes.
Dr.
Lemke,
would
you
please
read
just
5
the
part
of
your
testimony
from
--
going
from
introduction
down
6
to qualifications and
I think that will
--
7
MR.
LEMKE:
Including
qualifications?
8
MR.
ETTINGER:
No,
skip
qualifications.
We’ll
let
people
9
read that.
And I think just the introduction
is sufficient for
10
the
people
who
didn’t
bother to read their package in advance.
11
MR.
LEWCE:
Ready?
12
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Yes,
sir.
Please
swear
him
in.
13
(The
witness
was
sworn.)
14
MR.
LE~E:
Introduction:
Eutrophication is the most
15
wide-spread water quality problem in the U.S.,
and say Carpenter,
16
et al.,
1998, and accounts
for over one half of impaired river
17
reaches
in
the
United
States,
cited
TJSEPA
report
in
1996.
18
On the basis of my experience
as
a biologist who has worked
19
in Illinois aquatic systems,
I think it is important that
20
Illinois
strictly
limit
increase
discharges
of
phosphorus
going
21
into Illinois rivers and streams.
I would like to stress three
22
major points in this introduction which
I describe in greater
23
detail in the body of this testimony.
24
First,
it is important that rivers and streams be protected
18
Reefe
Reporting
Company
1
from
a
natural
level
of
phosphorus
just
as
it is important that
2
lakes be
protected
from
such
pollutions.
While
early
research
3
described
the
relationship
between
excessive
phosphorus
and
4
harmful environmental effects of lakes,
it is now well known that
5
excess phosphorus
harms
riverine
systems.
Both
extensive
6
research documented in the scientific literature and my
own
7
experience working in Illinois rivers and strew support this
8
observation.
9
Second,
the addition of naturally high amounts
of
10
phosphorus
to a river or lake almost always has some
11
environmental
effect.
In
Illinois
phosphorus
most
often
ends
up
12
in the algal and bacterial growth and where phosphorus
is
13
limiting, further addition of phosphorus will lead to
a natural
14
growth of algae
and
bacteria.
Phosphorus enriched
systems
often
15
support algal and bacterial growth at levels that are considered
16
offensive and harmful to
the
environment.
Further,
even
when
a
17
natural phosphorus loadings do not immediately affect the stream
18
segment they initially entered, they
may
affect the downstream
19
waters.
20
Finally, while excessive levels of phosphorus
in any
form
21
can be
a problem, inorganic,
soluble phosphorus
is immediately
22
biologically
available
as
a
nutrient
for
algae
and
bacteria
23
growth.
Other factors such as suspended particles and amounts of
24
sunlight and flow rate are all factors affecting the particulars
19
ICeefe
Reporting
Company
1
of the outcome of the phosphorus enrichment.
Even phosphorus
2
that is in particulate
form seemingly unavailable can be
3
subsequently released in the benthos and affect the water in
4
which it was stored or contribute to problems downstream.
These
5
factors must be considered in the development of the management
6
plan.
7
HEARING
OFFICER KNITTLE:
Thank you,
sir.
We’ve admitted
8
his pre-filed
testimony as it is read.
At this time it’s
9
appropriate
to see if anyone has any questions.
Dr.
Scheaffer,
10
does anyone have any questions?
11
MR.
SCHAEFFER:
No.
12
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Mr. Harsch?
13
MR.
HARSCH:
Dr. Lemke, you’re still researching, studying
14
the issue of the impacts of phosphorus on river systems are you
15
not?
16
MR.
LEMKE:
I didn’t hear
the
last part.
17
MR.
HARSCH:
On river systems?
18
MR.
LEMICE:
Yes.
19
MR.
RARSCH:
You don’t mean to leave the impression that
20
everything is
known
about that problem?
21
MR.
LEMICE:
I do not want
to leave that impression.
22
MR.
HARSCH:
Do you have an opinion if you eliminated all
23
of the publically owned treatment works effluent discharging up
24
stream how long it would take for the drain pool of
the Illinois
28
Iceefe Reporting Company
1
river
to recover?
2
MR.
LENKE:
I have an opinion that it would be
a
3
considerable amount of time.
And
due to that,
I mentioned like
4
flow
rate, the way water
is pumping through the systems and just
5
the amount of reservoir of phosphorus
that has accumulated in
6
some of these systems,
it’s
a very diverse reach of river.
7
MR. HARSCH:
In page
--
in figure five of your pre-filed
8
testimony is photographs of fish kill that occurred
--
9
MR.
LEMKE:
Uh-.huh.
10
MR.
RABSCU:
--
in South Pigley in July of 2003?
11
MR.
LEMKE:
True.
12
MR.
HARSCN:
The Pollution Control Board currently has the
13
phosphorus limitations that would apply to discharge upstream of
14
Pigley; isn’t that correct?
15
MR.
LEMKE:
I’m not aware of that.
16
MR.
HARSCH:
Give an opinion as to the relative magnitudes
17
of the phosphorus loading that is attributable to public
18
treatment works versus that is attributable
to agricultural
19
practices in the state of illinois?
20
MR.
LENKE:
Do
I have an opinion?
21
MR. RARSCH:
On the relative magnitude on those?
22
MR.
LEMKE:
Not a quantitative sense, only a concentration
23
sense.
24
MR.
HPStSCH:
Are you aware that the State of Illinois
21
ICeafe
Reporting
Company
1
Environmental
Protection
Agency
is
currently
evaluating
the
whole
2
issue of nutrient loadings in the development of proposed final
3
nutrient regulations?
4
MR.
LEMKE:
I’m aware of the issue but not the particulars.
5
MR.
HABSCH:
Are you participating in
--
So you’re not
6
participating
in the Illinois EPA Stakeholder Group?
7
im.
tEI~cE:
I was approached by somebody at a recent
8
conference but,
no,
I’ve not attended any of the hearings or of
9
briefings
of the Illinois EPA.
10
MR.
EARSCH:
Like your research, you’re aware that’s an
11
ongoing effort?
12
MR.
LE~.E:
I’m aware of that.
13
MR.
NAflCfl:
Are you aware that the Illinois Pollution
14
Control Board used to have
a phosphorus limitation that would be
15
applicable to discharges in the Fox River and repealed or removed
16
that limitation because phosphorus was in essence not the
17
limiting nutrient?
18
MR. ETTINGER:
I object to the characterization of
the
19
question but Mr.
Lemke
can answer it to the extent that he knows
20
what the Pollution Control Board rules are.
21
MR.
LEMEE:
I wasn’t aware of the overturning of that.
I’m
22
kind of interested in finding out how they
did
that.
23
MR. HARSCU:
I don’t have anything further.
24
MR. ETTINGER:
I have one.
Is Big Lake typologically
22
Keefe
Reporting
Company
3.
connected to any river or stream?
2
MR.
LEMKE:
Yes, South Big Lake and occasionally North Big
3
Lake is seasonally connected, especially during flooding times,
4
but South Big Lake even during the traditional spring flood.
5
MR. ETTINGER:
Connected
to what?
6
MR.
LENKE:
The Illinois river.
7
MR.
ETTINGER:
Thank you.
I think that’s all my questions.
8
MR.
RAO:
Dr.
Lemke,
the part of your research on Illinois
9
rivers, you know,
do you have any idea about what
the point
10
source loading is and non—point source loading?
Have you made
11
any estimate of what kind of loads you’re getting from the
12
non—point source?
13
MR.
LEMEE:
It’s a big system.
I haven’t gone into the
--
14
into looking at all
the sources, point versus non—point.
What
15
we’re trying to do is characterize some of these flood plain
16
systems even in, you know,
in a scientific manner,
get baseline
17
information at this point.
18
MR.
RAO:
And
in response to Mr.
Harsch’s question about if
19
phosphorus loading from point source were eliminated or
20
controlled, you said it would take
a while for it to recover.
21
Does that response also presume that non-point phosphorus loading
22
will
also
be
controlled
or
--
23
MR.
LEMEE:
Non-point should be controlled you said?
24
MR.
RAO:
No.
Does your response assume that non—point
23
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
loading are controlled or it’s just based on control of point of
2
loading?
3
MR.
LENKE:
You’re asking me if non-point
--
Sir,
I’m not
4
sure I’m understanding.
5
MR.
RAO:
Is the point source loading was controlled or
6
eliminate,
you said if you take a while for it to recover.
I’m
7
asking you whether that answer assumes
the point
—-
non-point
8
source of loading will continue?
9
MR.
LEMIcE:
Well,
I mean,
if you keep loading it no matter
10
what the source,
that will prolong any kind of recovery, whether
11
it’s
a source not even phosphorus.
So am
I answering
——
am I
12
still missing it?
13
MR.
RAO:
So
I just wanted to know whether both point and
14
non—point source control needs
to be in put into place for the
15
river to recover?
16
MR.
LEMIcE:
In my opinion,
yes.
I mean,
if you are
17
interested in recovery of the Illinois river and it’s
—-
I
guess
18
it’s still alleged contribution
to the developed hypoxia,
yeah,
19
you’re going to have to consider all sources,
sure.
20
MR.
RAO:
Okay.
21
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Anything further down there?
22
Anybody else?
23
MR.
HARSCH:
One follow-up clarification question.
In your
24
introduction in your pre—filed testimony you have
a reference to
24
Keefe Reporting Company
1
Carpenter,
et al.,
1998?
2
MR.
LEMEE:
Yes.
3
MR.
HABSCH:
I don’t find that in your reference list.
Is
4
that an oversight?
5
MR.
LEMEE:
That is definitely an oversight.
That is
6
Steven Carpenter’s work.
7
MR.
HAflCH:
Can you provide me that?
8
MR.
LEMEE:
Yes,
I would be happy
to.
I apologize.
9
BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON:
Just briefly I’m curious, maybe
10
you’re not
the
right
guy
to ask, maybe you are.
You know the
11
Board’s currently
--
that’s why we’ve been together lately
12
considering the proposed amendment
to the dissolved oxygen.
13
standards and Roy alluded to the stakeholder group discussing
14
nutrients
as
a whole.
Do you have an opinion as to the value, or
15
the lack thereof,
addressing each of these issues in the
16
piecemeal basis as opposed to
a larger and broader
——
broader
17
rulemaking that would address each of
--
each of them together?
18
MR.
LEMEE:
If I’m understanding,
is it better to look at
19
each individual parameter and put regulations on it rather than
20
as a whole
--
21
BOARD
MEMBER
JOHNSON:
Right.
22
MR.
LEMKE:
--
study?
Measurements like dissolved oxygen
23
like many measures,
there’s many reasons why you get different
24
levels of dissolved oxygen.
And
I think you need to put them in
25
Keefe Reporting Company
1
perspective with other measurements like chlorophyl A and your
2
nutrients.
Once
--
Depending upon the time of day when you take
3
dissolved oxygen readings, you could have vast different
4
measurements
even if the system is highly productive or not very
5
productive.
So
I think any tip of comprehensive plan you want to
6
put in, you want to have some definite indicators.
You can’t
7
measure
everything
but
you
want
to
be pretty careful and select
8
your indicators and get someone who knows how to interpret those
9
also.
10
MR.
JOHNSON:
Thank you.
11
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Anybody else have any further
12
questions of this witness?
13
BOARD MEMBER GIRAPO:
I have a question.
On that section
14
of Illinois River
I have some historical data going back quite a
15
ways with the historical survey.
Is there any phosphorus data
16
going back, you know,
several decades or even
100
years
17
comparable to the kind of data you’re collecting now to say
18
whether or not things are changing on that stretch of the river
19
in terms of phosphorus levels?
20
MR.
LEMKE:
There
is.
The Illinois National History Survey
21.
in conjunction with the Long-term River Monitoring Program keeps
22
a lot of data.
And
to answer one part of your question,
some of
23
the data goes back about 100 years ago
to the time of Forbes and
24
Richardson especially with,
you know, readings of some of the
26
Keefe Reporting Company
1
different algal and fish life.
But we are in the process of
2
looking at the last
--
or
I shouldn’t say not the last,
nine
3
years of
long-term
data
to
see
the
trends
that
have
occurred
not
4
only due
to air culture but due
to, you know,
due to the change
5
in hygrograph when the locks and dams and changed the hygrograph
6
amazingly and also the amount of trench districts creating very
7
severe pulses
and
divorcing the levies that divorce the historic
8
flip from the channel,
so,
yes, there are data.
9
BOARD
MEMBER
GXRAPD:
Have you
--
have you been able to
10
make
any, you know, any sort of reasonable conclusions
about
11
changes in phosphorus levels over the past several decades not
12
going back nine or 10 years but
--
13
MR.
LEMKE:
No,
the current data that we’ve been analyzing
14
is nine years.
I haven’t simply just gone back
to comparing that
15
to like pre-levy time or something like that.
I
--
Some day I
16
hope
to.
17
MR.
GIRABD:
Thank you.
18
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Anything further?
Thank you,
19
sir.
You
can
step down.
Can we go off the record for a second.
20
(A discussion was held off
the record.)
21
MR. ETTINGER:
I just
want
to again
--
we would prefer not
22
to read the Wentzel testimony instead as opposed to the
23
introduction.
We’d like Beth to read her conclusion which
24
summarizes to some extent and then we will have questions to go
27
Keefe Reporting Company
1
from there if that’s okay with you.
2
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
That’s perfectly okay with me.
3
You want to offer her testimony, her pre-filed testimony,
as
4
Exhibit No.
5?
5
MR. ETTINGER:
Actually
I can do the lawyer thing and ask
6
her questions here after you have sworn her
in.
7
HEARING OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Swear her in.
8
(The witness was sworn.)
9
NEARING OFFICER ENITTLE:
Mr. Ettinger.
10
MR. ETTINGER:
Okay.
Ms. Wentzel,
did
you draft the
11
testimony that is the pre-filed testimony of Beth Wentzel that
12
was filed in this matter?
13
MS. WENTZEL:
Yes.
14
MR. ETTINGER:
I would therefore like to offer as Exhibit
5
15
the pre-filed testimony.
16
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Any
objections?
17
MR.
HARSCH:
With its two attachments?
18
MR. ETTINGER:
Yes, with its two exhibits.
The two
19
exhibits are Highest Levels of Phosphorus in Low Trench for
20
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants and the second exhibit
21
here,
the Ultimate Challenge For Technology
.02 milligrams per
22
liter effluent total phosphorus.
23
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Okay.
With both exhibits
are
24
there any objections to admitting that pre-filed testimony?
28
Keefe Reporting Company
1.
MR.
SOFAT:
No.
2
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
It will be admitted as Exhibit
3
No.
5.
Ms. Wentzel.
4
MS. WENTZEL:
In conclusion,
the literature on nutrient
5
removal technology suggested that one
milligram
per
liter
is
6
reliability
met,
well-established
and
reasonable
technology.
7
Several states have applied the similar limit broadly and have
8
applied considerably more stringent limits for many permits.
9
Several facilities in Illinois have demonstrated the ability to
10
comply with this limit.
Based on these reasons,
I belive that
11
the effluent limit of
1.0 milligrams per liter as
a monthly
12
average for total phosphorus that the Illinois EPA has proposed
13
is technically and economically reasonable.
14
HEARING OFFICER IcNITTLE:
Thank you.
I’m assuming
--
Do
15
you have any questions for Ms. Wentzel before we open her up for
16
questions for anybody else?
17
MR.
ETTINGER:
I would just like to get one more thing in
18
the record.
What exhibit are we up to?
19
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
6.
20
MR.
ETTINGER:
Ms. Wentzel,
on page
--
the attachment,
in
21
your testimony you make reference to
a Northeast Illinois
22
Planning Commission Water Review of the City of Elgin,
and I just
23
wanted to ask you whether this document on the City of
--
24
prepared by Robinson Engineering Limited is the document that’s
29
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
being referred to there?
2
MS. WENTZEL:
This is the document that is referred to in
3
the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission Water Quality
4
Review,
so the report that
I dated
——
or
I referenced is a report
S
that includes excerpts from this report and that is dated
May
6
27th,
2004.
But this is the original document that includes that
7
information.
S
MR.
ETTINGER:
Okay.
I would like to offer it as Exhibit
9
6,
the City of Elgin Responses, Revisions
and
Supplemental
10
Material for NIPC reviewed by Robinson Engineering Limited.
11
MR.
HARSCH:
Do you have
a copy of that document?
12
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Here,
you can have this.
13
MR.
ETTINGER:
Beth, did you bring any?
14
MS.
WENTZEL:
I have my copy.
It’s not complete.
15
MR.
ETTINGER:
He can have that one.
16
MR.
HARSCH:
Thanks.
17
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Any
objection
to that being
18
admitted as Exhibit
6?
Seeing none, we will admit that as
19
Exhibit
6.
20
MR.
ETTINGER:
I have no further questions of this witness.
21
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Anybody else have any questions?
22
MR.
HARSCH:
I have a few.
Ms. Wentzel,
have you ever
23
designed a wastewater treatment plant?
24
MS. WENTZEL:
My course work in graduate school involved
30
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
several design courses in which we did do a lot of design work.
2
MR.
HARSCH:
Since graduating,
have you ever designed a
S
wastewater treatment plant?
4
MS. WENTZEL:
No.
5
MR.
HARSH:
Have you ever operated a was
tewater
treatment
6
plant?
7
MS. WENTZEL:
No.
8
MR.
HARSCB:
You don’t hold yourself out to be an expert in
9
this area, do you?
10
MS. WENTZEL:
I’m not sure how you define expert.
In your
11
response to your earlier questions,
no,
I do not design nor
12
operate
a facility..
I do regularly review some of the designs
13
for several wastewater facilities.
I’ve also been involved in
14
discussions with designing engineers about those designs.
15
MR.
HARSCH:
Can you please explain your understanding of
16
what constitutes
a process of biological nutrient removal?
17
MS. WENTZEL:
Yes,
the most straight forward design for
18
biologically removing phosphorus is the
--
you know, essentially
19
including an anaerobic stage in your activated sludge system
20
prior to the wastewater moving to an aerobic stage.
Essentially
21
what happens is in the anaerobic tank, there are microorganisms
22
that are commonly referred to as phosphate accumulating organisms
23
that are able to use energy that they’ve used to store as
24
phosphate to take up organic material, and then when we move into
31
Reefs Reporting Company
1
the aerobic phase,
they then accumulate more of that phosphate
2
than most typical microorganisms.
So
it’s the procedure that
3
allows for
the selection of these organisms that we accumulate
4
more phosphate.
5
MR. HARSCH:
So you would need both the tank for anaerobic
6
and almost a tank for aerobic?
7
MS. WENTZEL:
Or one tank with
a baffle.
8
MR.
HARSCH:
Your pre-filed testimony on page two, you
9
reference an expansion project of Minooka, how large a treatment
10
plant was it before the expansion project?
11
MS. WENTZEL:
Let me see.
I don’t remember off the top of
12
my bead but I can certainly find that.
13
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Offer the
record.
14
(A discussion was held off the record.)
15
MS.
WENTZEL:
The existing facility is
a 1.092 MGD plant.
16
The expanded facility will be
--
have a design average flow of
17
2.2
1401)5.
18
MR.
HARSCH:
Who
is the design engineer that you had your
19
discussions with?
20
MS. WENTZEL:
That was the Hamilton Engineers.
21
MR. HARSCH:
Page two of your pre-filed
testimony you
22
reference
the Village of Roxana with the high levels of iron
23
hydroxide,
how common is that in Illinois?
24
MS. WENTZEL:
I do not know how comon that
is.
32
Keefe Reporting Company
1.
MR.
HARSCH:
Do you know the source of iron hydroxide that
2
have discharged
to the Roxana plant?
3
MS.
WENTZEL:
On this particular facility, based on my
4
understanding of this engineering plant, the high iron hydroxide
5
was coming from the drinking water treatment plant which was
6
removing iron from groundwater which was high in iron.
7
MR.
HARSCH:
Does the City of Elgin treat wastewater?
B
MS. WENTZEL:
I believe that
the Fox River Water
9
Reclamation District treats the waste for
the City of Elgin.
10
MR.
HARSCH:
Was Robinson Engineering representing the City
11
of Elgin or the Fox River Water Reclamation District?
12
MS. WENTZEL:
I believe they were representing the City of
13
Elgin per the report.
14
MR.
HAflCH:
Do you know if the Fox River Reclamation
15
District agrees with these figures?
16
MS. WENTZEL:
I do not know if they agree or disagree.
I
11
know that there were not objections to the statements made by
18
NIPC about This report.
19
MR. HARSCH:
On page,
they’re not numbered, one,
two,
20
three,
I guess four of your pre-filed testimony where you list a
21
number of facilities that are achieving phosphorus reduction in
22
that table
--
23
MS. WENTZEL:
Yes.
24
MR.
HARSCH:
--
how many of those POTWs discharge either to
33
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
a lake or upstream of
a lake?
2
MS. WENTZEL:
I did not identify all of the locations of
3
these facilities precisely,
I believe that at least most of
them
4
are discharging upstream or to
a lake.
5
MR.
BARSCH:
So they would then be subject to the existing
6
Pollution
Control
Board
nile?
7
MS. WENTZEL:
Right.
And
just
to clarify, you’re talking
$
about those that are identified in this table,
correct?
9
MR.
HARSCH:
The table on page,
one,
two,
three,
four of
10
your pre-filed testimony.
11
145. WENTZELt
Yeah,
I apologize for
--
I apologize for
12
failing to number the pages.
That’s the
table,
I believe,
is on
13
the fifth page.
14
MR. ETTINGER:
It’s on the fourth page for us
I think,
15
Beth.
16
MS.
RARSCH:
When you reference, again,
be the second full
17
paragraph up there,
the end right before your paragraph and your
18
conclusion, can you draw your attention
to that paragraph,
starts
19
out in addition?
20
MS.
WENTZEL:
Yes.
21
MR.
HARSCH:
What are the benefits you’re referring to?
22
Benefits simply outweigh the costs?
23
MS. WENTZEL:
It’s difficult for me to enumerate all of the
24
benefits that go into this decision.
Obviously in this paragraph
34
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
we’re referring to
a number of communities and facilities that
2
have agreed to some type of phosphorus removal process in their
3
permits,
you know,
and there are some deliberations
that went
4
into
that decision.
I was involved in some of the discussions
S
but
I certainly was not in on all of the discussions between
the
6
consultants and the clients,
7
MR.
HARSCH:
Can
you provide
any
examples of benefits to
8
these communities?
9
MS.
WENTZEL:
You know, certainly better treated effluent.
10
Some of the communities that we have worked with have
11
acknowledged that there is
a value to the community of having the
12
highest quality that is achievable in their effluent.
13
MR.
RAESCH:
And
when you’re referring
to the costs, you’re
14
referring to the capital of costs that you’re talking about in
15
the pre-filed testimony?
16
MS. WENTZEL:
Again, in that paragraph, you know,
when the
17
consultants in their communities,
their clients are discussing
18
the costs and benefits, you know,
there
——
many of them are
19
looking at long-term costs in addition to capital costs.
20
MR.
HIRSCH:
If
I go through the list of communities that
21
you’ve provided in that paragraph,
Plano, Manhattan, Minooka,
22
DuQuoin,
Richmond,
and
Wauconda,
those
are
rapidly
growing
areas
23
in the state of Illinois;
is that correct?
24
MS. WENTZEL:
t believe
so.
35
Keefe Reporting Company
1
MR.
HIRSCH:
In fact, all of these permittees were in the
2
process
of
expanding
a
wastewater
treatment
plant,
were
they
not?
3
MS. WENTZEL:
Correct.
4
MR.
HIRSCH:
And
in all incidences during your negotiations
5
that you referred, agreed where you negotiated permit conditions,
6
one of the principal benefits would be the agreement by your
7
organization, Sierra Club and others,
not to object to those
8
permits,
to request public hearings and delay the issues of those
9
permits so that the necessary planning could proceed.
Wasn’t
10
that
the principal benefit to those communities?
11
MS.
WENTZEL:
I
--
I can’t say.
12
MR.
HIRSCH:
My characterization of the negotiations
13
process that led up to those agreements is accurate,
is it not?
14
MS. WENTZEL:
Can you restate?
15
MR.
HIRSCH:
That your organization and Sierra Club and
16
others during those negotiations said basically if you agree to
17
treat nutrients,
we won’t object to your permit, request
a public
18
hearing and delay the issuance of that permit,
request the delay
19
of that?
20
MR. ETTINGER:
That is not a correct statement.
21
MS. WENTZEL:
I mean,
certainly we discussed permit terms
22
and conditions that we all could agree would comply with existing
23
state law.
24
MR.
HIRSCH:
And
as long as the fast growing, smaller
36
Keefe Reporting Company
1
communities agreed to the nutrient treatments, you didn’t object
2
to the permits?
3
MR. ETTINGER:
With the exception
of Wauconda.
4
MR.
HARSCH:
With the exception of Wauconda,
sorry.
There
S
is
--
Everybody will
--
I’ll take that one back.
6
MS. WENTZEL:
I think we certainly have not appealed any of
7
the
other permits in that list.
B
MR.
HAIkSCH:
In
fact, you’re in similar discussions with
9
the villages that you’ve listed at the end of that paragraph;
is
10
that correct?
11
MS. WENTZEL:
Yes, we are
——
we are having some discussions
12
with all of those communities.
13
MR.
HIRSCH:
And
those are the same type of communities
14
that are rapidly growing communities and need to expand their
15
sewage treatment plant, need a permit for that?
16
MS. WENTZEL:
I wouldn’t describe all of
them
as rapidly
17
growing.
Certainly the City of Salem is not a rapidly growing
18
community.
19
MR.
HAIkSCH:
I’m sorry.
Itasca, Hampshire and
--
20
MS. WENTZEL:
They are each communities that have expressed
21
an interest in expanding their sewage treatment plant.
22
MR.
HABSCU:
Do you know if these communities have been
23
advised by individuals within Illinois EPA to negotiate
24
environmental groups
to hopefully resolve any difference prior
to
37
Keefe Reporting Company
1
the Agency going to final notice on drafting impedious permits as
2
to avoid the possibility of public hearings on those permits?
3
MS. WENTZEL:
I don’t know about those discussions.
4
MR.
HARSCH:
In addition to the capital costs that you’ve
5
referenced in your testimony,
is there any impact on ongoing
6
operating costs for POTWs that installs phosphorus treatment?
7
MS. t1ZNTIEL:
It depends largely on what type of process
is
8
chosen.
And
as
I discussed in my testimony,
and as was mentioned
9
or discussed at the previous hearing, there are a couple of
10
principal mechanisms or processes
to choose from.
There are
a
11
group of biological processes and there are also the chemical
12
processes.
When somebody chooses
a chemical process where they
13
are adding some type of chemical
to essentially precipitate the
14
phosphate out,
there typically isn’t an increase in the amount of
15
sludge produced.
16
MR.
HIRSCH:
That would increase the sludge disposal cost,
17
sludge handling cost?
18
MS. WENTZEL:
Sure.
19
MR.
HIRSCH:
In addition to the chemical cost itself?
20
MS. WENTZEL:
Yes.
Now for the biological processes,
on
21
the other hand, you know, there are several references in the
22
literature
to adding a biological nutrient removal process and
23
actually
having
the
effect
of
improved
settleability
of
the
24
sludge.
There also have been some savings in the amount of
38
Keefe Reporting Company
1
aeration that’s necessary in developing some other pollutant
2
perimeters
such as BOD, we’re certainly
to impact the biological
3
processes.
4
MR.
HIRSCH:
When you referred,
I
think,
in your testimony
5
to the environmental benefits from this rule, aren’t you really
6
assuming that all of the wastewater treatment plants will be
7
required to achieve at least one milligram per liter of
8
phosphorus ultimately from the adoption of
--
of nutrient
9
standards in Illinois?
10
MS.
WENTZEL:
I don’t think
I would assume that in my
11
testimony.
12
MR.
HARSCH:
Mr.
Daugherty has specific questions he would
13
like to ask.
14
MR. DAUGHERTY:
Probably several questions but
this relates
15
to costs.
The record so far there’s been some site specific cost
16
numbers have been put in.
And
of course the report by Mr.
Lemke
17
has been introduced which is
a statewide cost figure.
On your
18
Exhibit B,
the last table there,
has cost figures.
Do you have
19
that?
20
MS. WENTZEL:
Yes.
21
MR. DAUGHERTY:
In these papers we were looking at two sets
22
of effluent standards of one of
.2 and one of
.02.
They list a
23
cost of five million gallons per
day
of
a smaller plant going to
24
.2
of $500,000 per MGD of operating cost of $90 per liter gallons
39
Keefe Reporting Company
1
treated.
Those costs seem in the ballpark as far as your
2
experience or your
--
3
MS.
WENTZEL:
I have no reason to believe that they are
4
inaccurate for this study.
tf you’d like me to comment further,
5
I think it’s important
to note that we’re not talking about
6
achieving the
.2 milligram per liter standard and we’re also not
7
talking about achieving
.5 milligram per liter total phosphorus
8
and the 3 milligram per liter total nitrogen which is what is in
9
the NPDES report document.
10
I
think it’s also worth noting that we’re only looking at
11.
new and expanding facilities and there are going to be some
12
deficiencies gained when in the process of building a new plant
13
or expanding an existing plant incorporating these technologies
14
at that time which is perhaps why several communities are
15
agreeing to do currently.
16
MR. DAUGHERTY:
The difference between the one milligram
17
per liter decimal and the subject of this hearing and
.5 that you
18
communicated in this testimony, which you said is basically the
19
same technology, would you expect those costs to be similar?
20
MS.
WENTZEL:
They
can
be.
The
thing
about
using
a
21.
biological process is that in order to
--
to
achieve
the
best
--
22
the lowest phosphorus limits possible using a biological process,
23
you know,
if you wanted to achieve a very low level, you can do
24
so according to much of the literature by working with some
of
48
Keefe Reporting Company
1
the, you know, perimeters within the sewage treatment plant such
2
as,
you know, your waste activated sludge rate versus your return
3
activated sludge rate
and, you know,
there’s
a lot of information
4
out there that says operating those biological processes and the
5
smartest way possible you can achieve down to
.5 and lower.
But
6
short of that,
there may be
times when you’re going to need to
7
use the chemical precipitation and you’ll want to have that as
a
8
back-up process.
And the differences between achieving a one
9
milligram liter there and
.5 milligram liter, you may very well
10
be in the increase amount of sludge that you may have from these
11
chemical
additions.
12
MR. DAUGHERTY:
Thank you.
13
MR.
HIRSCH:
A couple of additional
--
page three of your
14
testimony, Milwaukee discharges to Lake Michigan, does
it not?
15
MS.
WENTZEL:
It does.
16
MR.
HIRSCH:
And Syracuse, does it discharge
to
a lake?
17
MS. WENTZEL:
It does discharge
to a lake in the state of
18
New York.
19
MR.
HIRSCH:
No further questions.
20
MS. LW:
Good
morning, Ms. Wentzel.
It’s been alluded to
21
here today that phosphorus in the environment is kind of
a
22
multi-faceted problem and today we’re focusing on POTWs,
I was
23
wondering if Prairie Rivers Network had any active work with
24
other sources
of phosphorus
in the environment whether you were
41
Keefe Reporting Company
1.
pursuing the sale and use of phosphorus in common household
2
products or phosphorus on agricultural front as non-point source?
3
MS. WENTZEL:
I personally have not been involved in those
4
issues.
We certainly are very interested in phosphorus reduction
S
initiatives.
And
we have some other people on our staff that are
6
somewhat involved in some of agricultural policies and issues as
7
well.
8
MS.
LIU:
Thank you.
9
MR.
HARSCH:
I have just one.
10
MR. ETTINGER:
Maybe
I better be sworn.
I would just like
11
to correct a question or impression.
Beth is only testifying on
12
behalf of Prairie Rivers,
I think.
13
HEARING OFFICER
KNITTLE:
You want
to be sworn in on all
14
issues?
15
MR. ETTINGER:
I think I’d better.
16
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Would you swear him in,
8ev.
17
(The witness was
sworn.)
18
MR. ETTINGER:
I just wanted to say because she’s here for
19
Prairie
Rivers
and
those that know about what Prairie Rivers did,
20
the
Sierra
Club
have
worked
in
the
past
on
issues
relating
to
21
phosphorus on agricultural
settings.
God knows I’ve spent many a
22
hour in Springfield working on
CAPO
legislation in the
‘90s and
23
some other things that are directly related to plant application
24
of phosphorus.
So Beth with Prairie Rivers doesn’t go back far
42
Keefe Reporting Company
1.
enough to remember.
Prairie Rivers was also involved in a lot of
2
issues regarding CAFOs and other problems
that are specifically
3
related to agriculturally based phosphorus.
Also of course the
4
Sierra Club is trying to work on federal farm bill programs and
5
other programs that will reduce farm erosion and stream erosion.
6
I’m very involved in that for about 20 years that I’ve been
7
working with the Sierra Club
so,
yes, we do realize there are
8
other sources of phosphorus and we’re doing what we can.
We
9
don’t have the same set of handles on that that we have on this.
10
We’ve got to look at other tools.
12.
MR.
HIRSCH:
Just a clarifying question or whatever.
You
12
also
--
All of those organizations are also involved in the
13
ongoing efforts by Illinois EPA to develop a long-term nutrient
14
rule?
15
MR. ETTINGER:
Yes.
16
MS.
WENTZEL:
Yes.
17
MR.
ETTINGER:
Beth,
are you on the nutrient group?
18
MS.
WENTZEL:
Yes.
19
MR.
ETTINGER:
We also only got a few troops on many
20
battles.
Cindy is the one,
I believe,
is the one that is going
21
to the nutrient group at the state level.
I go
to the ARTAG
22
(phonetic) meetings at the regional USEPA level looking at the
23
nutrients.
24
MS.
WENTZEL:
I’ve been attending those groups.
43
Keefe Reporting Company
1.
BEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Mr.
Rao, do you have a question?
2
MR.
RAG:
Yes,
one question for Ms. Wentzel.
You know
3
based on your review of economic information on upgrading some of
4
these treatment plants to control phosphorus,
right now the
5
appropriate level is one milligram per liter and we have heard
6
that there is
a company working on
a nutrient plant in hopefully
7
by 2008 that we have a final number.
If that ultimate number is
$
much lower than one milligram per liter, what you’re
--
and you
9
have any idea as to what it may do to some of the plants that
10
have
to come in compliance with
the one milligram per liter cost
11
to meet
a much lower standard?
12
MS. WENTZEL:
Based on my review of some of the literature,
13
and some of that is summarized in the Exhibit A,
the conclusions,
14
talks about some of the technologies
that may be effective in
15
achieving different ranges of total phosphorus in the effluent.
16
But
I also see in the literature that the key to getting much,
17
much lower levels of phosphorus is really good solids removal,
18
particularly through some type of filtration process.
So
19
essentially combining, you know, either
a biological process with
20
filtration or biological
--
or a chemical process with filtration
21
or biological and chemical processes plus filtration,
And you
22
can see in the Exhibit B they are testing
--
they have been
23
testing some of those different filtrations systems to see if
24
they can get down to vary, very low levels.
44
Keefe Reporting Company
1
MR.
RAO:
So in your opinion they have not expanded
2
significant amounts of costs to come to
a lower level, you know,
3
put in different units to come in compliance with one milligram
4
per liter?
5
MS.
WENTZEL:
I think it will depend on,
you know,
the
6
particular situation but, you know,
based on the literature
it
7
doesn’t look like
--
it certainly doesn’t look like people would
$
be having to rip out anything that they put in place right now.
9
I think at the last hearing the Illinois EPA witness testified
10
that they believe that many folks would use chemical
13.
precipitation which is
a pretty minimal capital investment and
12
most of the processes for achieving much, much lower levels of
13
phosphorus include the same equipment for
--
at least for back-up
14
purposes.
15
MR.
RAO:
Thank you.
16
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Anything further for Ms. Wentzel?
17
All
right.
Ms. Wentzel,
thank you very much for your testimony.
18
Let’s take
a recess.
19
(A short break was taken.)
20
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
We are back on the record.
Mr.
21
Ettinger, let me remind you you still are under oath and we’re
22
going to ask some questions for you.
Do you have
a clarification
23
you would like to make.
24
MR. ETTINGER:
Yes,
I have a couple clarifications
I want
45
Reefs
Reporting
Company
1
to make.
First of all,
I referred to a Cindy in my earlier
2
presentation,
that is Dr. Cynthia Scrucrude
(phonetic)
who is
3
participating in the Nutrient Work Group at the state level.
4
Also
I believe there was mention to various Illinois plants that
5
have a one milligram per liter phosphorus level.
That among
?
those mentioned were Wauconda,
also
I don’t know whether it was
7
mentioned or not, McHenry South and Richmond and the
--
there was
B
some confusion on the record, Wauconda does have
a one milligram
9
liter phosphorus limit in the permit that was issued but that was
10
after a hearing,
and there were appeals of that permit despite
11
the one milligram per liter phosphorus limit due
to other issues.
12
In addition,
there is reference
to Richmond.
The one milligram
13
--
I
think they do have
a one milligram per liter phosphorus
14
limit in Richmond but it has been discussed, but their
15
anti-degradation on Richmond, the village of Richmond,
discharges
16
to a high quality stream and that’s raised a number of issues on
17
a number of perimeters that they are concerned about.
18
McHenry South also was mentioned.
I believe,
I don’t know
19
if the final permit has come out, but there was an agreement I
20
believe to have a one milligram per liter phosphorus limit for
21
Mcflenry South which discharges to the Fox River but that was
22
after
a hearing that that was
-—
was discussed.
23
With that,
I just want
to,
I guess, move the admission of
24
my
own
pre-filed testimony,
and
I don’t want to read any of this.
46
Reefe
Reporting
Company
1
It is in the nature of
a legal brief, but
I did want to give
2
people an opportunity to ask questions about
it.
I never really
3
did know how to handle presentation of law to the Board.
Tell me
4
and I’ll do it some other way next time.
I thought this would,
5
at least,
give people an opportunity to ask questions about it if
6
they wanted to.
7
The other thing that I’m prepared to answer
questions
about
B
is this part four which is the proposed ELPC PRN Sierra revisions
9
to the proposal.
And if people have any questions about how
I
10
envision this language will work out as opposed to the Agency
11
language,
this
is the time to ask questions.
12
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
First off,
are there any
13
objections to admitting Mr. Ettinger’s pre-filed testimony
as
14
Exhibit No.
7?
15
MR.
SOB’AT:
No.
16
MR.
ETTINGER:
Maybe we can make the proposed revision and
17
discussion of proposed revisions
as Exhibit
8.
18
HEARING OFFICER ENITTLE:
Certainly.
Any objections
to
19
Exhibit $ being the proposed revision?
20
MR.
SOFAT:
No.
21
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
And
discussion therein?
Both of
22
those are admitted.
Any
questions of Mr.
Ettinger?
Mr. Harsch?
23
MR.
HARSCH:
Albert,
I have to ask this question.
You do
24
not have
a scientific background,
do you?
47
Reefs Reporting Company
1
MR.
ETTINGER:
No.
2
MR.
HARSCH:
So to the extent that you’re
--
introduced
a
3
number of exhibits along with your testimony,
you’re not
4
testifying as a scientist in any way,
shape or form?
5
MR.
ETTINGER:
I attached the exhibits.
You can read them.
6
I can read them.
I presented part of the exhibits that
I like.
7
If you like other parts, you can argue from it for
--
and no
8
weight based on me presenting them should be added on the basis
9
of
my
juris doctorate degree.
10
MR.
HARSCH:
Let’s look at Exhibit B to your testimony.
11.
Water Column,
I’m not
--
12
MR. ETTINGER:
I’m
sorry?
13
MR.
RARSCH:
Exhibit
B.
14
MR. ETTINGER:
Fox River Fish Capacity Studies?
15
MR.
HARSCH:
I think something called Water Column,
then
16
you
have
the
Department
of
Environmental
Management
--
17
MR.
ETTINGER:
No, that’s
a different document.
That’s the
1$
exhibit
--
For
some
reason
in
my
set
it’s
the
Fox
River
Fish
19
Passage
which
is
D.
20
MR.
HARSCH:
My set it was Exhibit B.
21
MR.
ETTINGER:
Well,
that
was
--
22
MR.
RARSCR:
Whatever, it’s the
--
23
MR. ETTINGER:
It’s
the water
--
the pictures from Indiana,
24
right, Exhibit A is?
48
Reefs
Reporting
Company
I
MR.
SOFAT:
D.
2
MR.
HAflCH:
I’m saying Exhibit B,
as in boy.
3
MR. ETTINGER:
In my B is the Invasive Blue/green Algae
--
4
MR.
HARSCH:
Yes,
that’s what I’m talking about.
It’s from
S
a document entitled some publication Water
Column?
6
MR.
ETTINGER:
Right.
7
MR.
HARSCH:
What is
--
I’m not familiar with this.
What
8
is the Water Column?
9
MR.
ETTINGER:
Something
I
got
off
the
state
of
Indiana
10
website.
11
MR.
RARSCH:
Well,
if
I look
—-
12
MR.
fl’TINGER:
I believe
I got it from the Illinois
13
Department
of Environmental Management website.
14
MR.
HARSCR:
I note on page two of that document right
15
above the
--
that there have been no
human
deaths from blue/green
16
algae,
is that correct, according
to the United States?
17
MR.
ETTINGER:
That’s
what
it
says.
That’s
all
I
know
18
about it.
19
MR.
HARSCH:
And the
--
in the next column we observed
20
effect has been observed in finished drinking water in Australia?
21
MR.
ETTINGER:
That’s
what
it says.
I principally
put
this
22
in because it gave a good description of what blue/green algae
23
was in
layman’s
terms.
24
MR.
HARSCH:
Do you
--
Be then on the third page
of the
49
Keele Reporting Company
I
document right at the end, like any other plant,
the growth of
2
blue/green algae requires light, nutrient and heat to survive
--
3
thrive.
This is a problem that,
I guess,
was written about in
4
2001,
do you know what’s occurred since 2001,
if this process has
5
existed?
6
MR. ETTINGER:
In Indiana?
I would be surprised if the
7
nutrient problem was taken care of in Indiana since 2001, but
I
$
don’t know that.
9
MR.
HARSCH:
You probably can’t answer then why there’s
10
been
such
rare
documentation
of
human
exposure
to
these
types
of
11
toxins
then, can you?
12
MR. ETTINGER:
I don’t know.
All
I
know is there’s been
--
13
MR.
HARSCH:
The document says it’s very rare.
14
MR. ETTINGER:
All
I know there’s been hundreds of cases
15
since 2001, but this document is as of 2001, it was very real.
16
MR.
NABSCE:
If I draw your attention to what you submitted
17
as Exhibit D,
that would be the relevant pages from the Illinois
1$
Water Report of 2004, correct?
19
MR. ETTINGER:
Correct.
20
MR.
HARSCH:
What’s your understanding of the basis that
21
the Illinois EPA lifts
a segment as impaired for phosphorus?
22
MR. ETTINGER:
Well,
there are rules for doing that.
It
23
seems to change every two years but my current
--
my
24
understanding
is that as the large streams, which
I think the
.50
Keele Reporting Company
1
ones
that
they
have
got
here
in
Mississippi
and
Wood
River
and
2
other
non-beatable
waters
that
they
look
at
on
a
percentage
3
basis, and essentially they try and identify
a problem that could
4
be related to nutrients.
And if they
then in turn find that the
5
water body has a higher
than normal for Illinois level of
6
nutrients, that they’ll list that as a potential cause of the
7
problem.
B
MR.
HARSCR:
That’s the statistical guideline approach
9
where they use 85th percentile?
10
MR.
ETTINGER:
I believe that’s correct.
So essentially if
11
they look at a water and say, for example,
we had
a problem
12
before they used to
--
they would say it was impaired by copper
13
or something and then they would use the statistical approach and
14
leave
--
list as a potential
cause for
the copper impairment that
15
there was high phosphorus, which
didn’t
make any sense at all.
I
16
believe for
this report they corrected this and that
they
--
17
there’s probably
a DO violation,
in fact,
I think in all of these
18
cases there is
a low DO number,
and so that could be related to a
19
nutrient problem.
They then go look at the percentage basis and
20
with that as a potential cause.
21
MR.
HARSCH:
For code
0910 total phosphorus,
isn’t that the
22
footnote three, 85th percentile for the state AWQM data for
the
23
years 1978?
24
MR. ETTINGER:
I think that’s correct.
51
Keele Reporting Company
1
MR.
HARSCH:
That’s
the
statistical
--
that’s achieved
--
2
that’s exceeding 85th percentile of those statistical guidelines
3
on the standard?
4
MR. ETTINGER:
Correct.
We don’t have a water quality
5
standard in Illinois with regard to overflowing water.
6
MR.
HARSCH:
In fact, we don’t know if the waters are
7
listed
actually
have
any
visible
impairment,
we
just
know
they
B
exceed 85th percentile?
9
MR.
ETTINGER:
Well,
that’s
not
quite
true.
First
of
all,
10
there’s
lakes,
so
lakes
that
are
listed,
they’ve
got
chlorophyl
A
11
data.
12
MR.
HARSCH:
I
think
I was referring
to streams.
13
MR.
ETTINGER:
Right.
As to the streams that were listed,
14
as
I tried to explain earlier,
I believe they found some sort of
15
impairment such as dissolved oxygen and then we went
— -
I
think
16
they
looked
at
potential
causes
then
and
they
identify
a
cause
17
would
be
total
phosphorus
but
they
found
some
other
kind
of
--
18
they generally found some other kind of impairment such as
19
generally
a low dissolved oxygen.
So we know
that the stream has
20
some sort of issue with
it, other than that it just has high
21
phosphorus levels, but
the cause and effect relationship between
22
that issue, that’s why they call
it a potential cause rather than
23
a proven cause.
24
MR.
HARSCH:
And
there is currently,
and you’re well aware,
52
Keele Reporting Company
1
proceedings brought by IAWA to amend the dissolved oxygen
2
standard
in
Illinois?
3
MR. ETTINGER:
Correct.
4
MR.
RARSCH:
Now go to Exhibit D,
at least my Exhibit D,
5
the Fox River Fish Passage Feasibility Study?
6
MR. ETTINGER:
Yes, it’s my exhibit too.
7
MR. HARSCH:
Do you know how Mr.
Santuski took his
8
dissolved
oxygen
measurement
readings?
9
MR. ETTINGER:
No.
10
MR.
HARSCH:
You don’t know if he measured dissolved oxygen
12.
at the interface between sediment and the water column?
12
MR.
E2’TINGER:
I don’t know where it
came
from.
13
MR.
HARSCH:
Do you know the temperature either the day
14
that
you
were
out
at
Fox
River?
15
MR. ETTINGER:
Well,
some of this could be found in the
16
data
that
he
lists.
He
does
give
temperatures
and
other
things
17
like that in some of the data.
But sitting here today,
and not
18
even
having
the
study
in
front
of
me,
I
--
I wouldn’t be able to
19
help you with that.
But if the questions are important, we could
20
of course give the full report to the Board.
It is all available
2.
on the internet.
22
MR.
HARSCH:
I
draw
your
attention
to
that
table
that
you
23
included as page 45 of the report.
24
MR. ETTINGER:
Yes.
53
Keele Reporting Company
1
MR.
HARSCR:
If
I understand the table correctly,
there
2
would be
an effect showing that that if the
P value was less than
3
or greater than 0.05
-—
less than, excuse me,
less
than
--
less
4
than or equal to 0.05,
do you know if there is any statistical
5
effect
given
in
that
table
for
nutrients?
6
MR.
ETTINGER:
P is
--
I think the safest thing for me to
7
do now is say
I don’t know.
8
MR.
HABSCH:
Okay.
We don’t have any further questions.
9
Thank you.
10
HEAflING OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Sir,
could
you
state
your
name
11
for the record.
12
MR.
HILL:
Ron Hill,
I represent the Metropolitan
13
Reclamation District of Greater Chicago.
Mr. Ettinger,
with
14
respect to your proposal vision to the Ink proposal, you state
15
that you believe that the only plants now discharging through
16
waters that are not sediment which are Stickney plants
or the
17
MWRDGC, did you know that Bobonson
(phonetic)
also discharges
to
18
water as general use?
19
MR.
ETTINGER:
I guess
I didn’t.
20
MR.
HILL:
Do you know whether or not the District intends
21
to expand it’s Clinton and Southern Ridge
--
Southern
Ridge
22
Contract?
23
MR.
ETTINGER:
I was going to ask him.
24
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Anything
further,
Mr.
Hill?
54
Keefe Reporting Company
2.
MR.
HILL:
No.
2
HEaRING OFFICER KNITTLE:
All right.
Thank you, Mr.
3
Ettinger, you may step
down.
4
MR.
SOFAT:
I’m going to ask two questions.
5
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
I thought you indicated no.
6
MR.
SOFAT:
Actually
I was going to go and Ron wanted to
7
go.
8
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
My misunderstanding.
Please
9
proceed.
10
MR.
SOFAT:
Mr. Ettinger, I’m looking at proposed revisions
ii.
that you have filed and I’m looking at subsection G.
It seems
12
that the language of subsection G triggers
the Agency’s
13
obligation to incorporate a total phosphorus permit level of one
2.4
milligram per liter
any
time there is
a proposed increase in
15
pollutants.
and
because of that the Agency has
to either issue a
16
new permit or renew a permit or modify a permit.
This language
17
also suggests that pollutant doesn’t have to be phosphorus.
It
18
could be,
for example,
copper.
Also the language
seems to convey
19
that the discharge pollutants could be in general use water
or
20
public and food processing water or secondary contact.
Is that
21
the intent of the proposed language?
22
MR. ETTINGER:
You asked me two questions.
Let me address
23
both of
them.
General use waters,
I think
I discussed in the
--
24
in the discussion of proposed revisions,
yes,
it was intended
55
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
into the secondary contact waters.
At the time
I wrote that
I
2
thought
I was only addressing the Stickney, Alma and North Side
3
plants.
Sitting here today, and learning for the first time
that
4
it also applies to Lemont, sitting here today learning that
5
Lemont also discharges through secondary contact waters,
that I
6
would not change my answer.
I believe that all new or increased
7
discharges
should
be
subject
to
the
one
milligram
per
liter
8
phosphorus limit.
So I believe that answers the general use
9
question.
10
As
to the other question,
I would note,
first of all,
that
11
my
change
really
didn’t
--
my change of your language didn’t
12
really alter
the situation as
to that.
What
I read the subject
13
to language to mean was that you would still be following your
14
normal practice of the Agency of not placing limits on
--
for
15
pollutants
that
--
for
people
who
are
unlikely
to
ever
reach
that
16
limit.
So if there was no discharge,
if the person’s new or
17
increased discharge was not going to involve phosphorus, you
18
would not put
a
phosphorus
limit
on
it.
So
what
--
the way
I
19
read your language, subject to math, subject to if it was
20
necessary to limit phosphorus,
if you want to put that in and add
21
the wording in to say any proposed increase in pollutant loading
22
or you could say any proposing increase in phosphorus pollutant
23
loading, we
--
I’d be pleased to make that clarification
if we
24
think there is, although we can talk about
it.
I sort of read
56
Keefe Reporting Company
1
that
into
yours
and
into
mine.
2
MR.
SOFAT:
Second question
I have is the language that is
3
proposed in subsection I
--
4
MR.
ETTINGER:
Yes.
5
MR.
SOFAT:
--
that’s a
--
would
you
tell
with
that
example
6
as
possible
under
what
circumstances
an
additional
phosphorus
7
limit
would
be
required
under
that
subsection?
8
MR.
ETTINGER:
Well,
the
--
it
is
basically
tempting
with
9
this
language
to
treat
phosphorus
the
way
the
other
effluent
10
limits
in
part
304
are
generally
treated
by
the
Agency
with
11
regard
to
BOD
and
other
components.
That
normally
the
Agency,
in
12
my experience of reviewing Agency permits, uses the 304 rule as
a
13
rule
of
thumb,
which
they
almost
always
apply
in
setting
effluent
14
limits.
However,
I
believe,
the
Agency
has
testified
in
15
regarding other proceedings, regarding 304 rules,
if it is shown
16
for some reason that something beyond that is necessary
to meet a
17
water quality standard, some other rule,
then they’ll do it.
The
18
most obvious case for that,
and I believe this was essentially
19
presented
by
Mr.
Frevert
at
the
last
rule
on
BODe
CBOD,
is
a
case
20
in which there was
a TEICJ done.
So,
for example,
if TEML had
21
been
done
that
showed
a
phosphorus
limit
was
necessary
for
the
22
water,
then that would be
a situation in which a phosphorus limit
23
would be needed.
Also
I believe Robert Mosher and others talked
24
about
other
situations
in
which,
if
for
some
reason,
we
knew
in
57
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
this case of this particular stream that a phosphorus limit was
2
necessary either to avoid an effect of existing use or comply
3
with the anti-degradation, otherwise then you would put that
4
limit
in.
That’s not going to be the normal situation.
However,
5
given the way that we have to handle permits pretty quickly here,
6
and we generally are not in position to do that kind of
7
scientific studies or permit before decisions are made.
I think
S
I answered your question?
9
MR.
SOFAT:
Yes.
10
MR. ETTINGER:
Yes.
11
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
1~nythingfurther?
Mr.
Ettinger,
12
thank you.
I believe we also have scheduled to testify Richard
13
Lanyon and James Daugherty.
I don’t know which order we want to
14
go in.
15
MR.
HARSCR:
District.
16
THE COURT:
Mr.
Lanyon, would you like
to come on up,
17
please.
18
(The witness was sworn.)
19
HEARING OFFICER ENITTLE:
Mr.
Lanyon, would you please
20
provide your testimony.
21.
MR.
LANYON:
Okay.
My name is Richard Lanyon.
I am
22
currently employed by the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District
23
of Greater Chicago as its Director of Research
& Development.
24
The District is
a unit of local government created by the state
58
Keefe Reporting Company
1
legislature for the purpose of collecting and disposing of
2
sewerage, reducing pollution of the waterways and preventing
3
flooding.
70 ILCS 2605/1.
The District’s service area is most
4
of Cook County.
In its capacity as a water reclamation district,
5
the District operates seven treatment facilities in its service
6
area,
serves five million residents and treat an average of 1.4
7
billion gallons of sewage daily.
8
I have been the District’s Director of R&D since 1999.
As
9
Director of Research
& Development,
I supervise the District’s
10
Research
& Development Department,
which has
a staff of 340.
11
Prior to becoming Director of Research
& Development,
I was
the
12
Assistant Director of Research
& Development.
I held this
13
position from 1975 until 1999.
I have been employed with
the
14
District since 1963.
15
I received both Bachelors and Masters in Civil Engineering
16
degrees from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
I
17
received the American Society of Civil Engineer’s National
18
Government Civil Engineer of the Year Award in 1999 and
19
Distinguished Alumnus of the Department of Civil and
20
Environmental Engineering at the UIUC in 2003.
I am also a past
21
President of the Illinois Section of
the American Society of
22
Civil Engineers and have been involved in a variety of technical
23
activities for ASCE,
the Water Environment Federation and the
24
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies.
59
Keefe Reporting Company
1
My responsibilities as the District’s Director of Research
2
& Development include, but are not limited to,
to the following:
3
*
Control of commercial and industrial waste discharges to
4
the District’s sewers and the waterways via the Sewage
S
and Waste Control Ordinance;
6
*
Recovery of certain District operating, maintenance and
7
replacement costs via administration of the User Charge
8
Ordinance;
9
*
Providing analytical laboratory support for the control
10
of commercial and industrial wastes and for control of
11
treatment and other operations;
12
*
Monitoring the environmental quality of Lake Michigan and
13
area waterways;
and
14
*
Conducting basic and applied research on new wastewater
15
and sludge treatment processes.
16
IEPA Proposal
17
The IEPA has proposed that IPCB adopt an interim phosphorus
18
standard
for
General
Use
Waters
and requirements for compliance
19
with
the interim standard.
I submit this statement on behalf of
20
the District in opposition to the IEPA’s May
1.4,
2004, Notice of
21
Filing and Statement of Reasons.
Our opposition is based on the
22
following comments:
23
On the bottom of Page
7 of the Statement and continuing on
24
Page
8,
the IEPA discusses the “shortage of sound scientific
60
Keefe Reporting Company
1
information available to examine relationships between nutrient
2
concentrations, biological parameters,
and dissolved oxygen in
3
the receiving waters.”
IEPA also discusses the document
(labeled
4
as Exhibit
A)
that presents IEPA’s approach for developing
5
numeric nutrient standards.
On Page
4 of Exhibit A at the top of
6
the page, ISPA states that “The Illinois Plan for Adoption of
7
Nutrient Water Quality Standards was submitted to USEPA on August
8
14,
2003, and was one of the first plans in the nation to have
9
received “mutually agreed upon” status from USEPA.”
This plan,
10
which USEPA agreed to, does not call for the promulgation of any
11
interim
effluent
phosphorus
standards in Illinois.
It clearly
12
states that more scientific study is neede4 before numeric
13
standards can be recommended.
Therefore there is no pressing
14
need for the IEPA to rush into promulgating interim effluent
15
phosphorus standards, and to do so actually contradicts the IEPA
16
submittal
to USEPA.
17
On page
9 of the Statement, the paragraph beginning at the
18
bottom and continuing through page 10 cites
a wide variety of
19
phosphorus inputs to the environment,
demonstrating how complex
20
the control
of this nutrient can be.
tEa’s proposal ultimately
21
places the responsibility for control solely on certain point
22
source dischargers of phosphorus,
thereby discriminating against
23
these dischargers by ignoring the significant phosphorus
24
contributions on non-point dischargers.
61
Keefe Reporting Company
1.
In the paragraph that begins on the bottom of page
tO,
IEPA
2
discusses eutrophication and the adverse environmental impact of
3
these phenomena.
The paragraph closes on page
ii, with the
4
following statement:
“Some research has indicated that phosphorus
S
concentrations
above
0.1
milligram per liter can result in
6
excessive algal growth affecting municipal,
industrial
7
recreational uses in North
American
fresh
water
environments.”
8
IEPA bases this claim upon
a 25-year-old Canadian sourcebook and
9
guide for water quality in North America waters.
This is not
10
research, but simply guidance that is over 25 years old,
and IEPA
11
has waited until now to act on it.
Further,
the IEPA fails
to
12
cite any specific algal growth problems in Illinois lakes or
13
rivers that affects uses and that can be attributed to excess
14
phosphorus.
15
In the second sentence of the second paragraph on page
11,
16
IEPA indicates that
a certain level of phosphorus in lakes and
11
streams is
“.
.
.necessary to ensure desirable biological
18
activity.
.“
but higher levels are detrimental.
IEPA goes on to
19
define the classic approach of phosphorus management as one that
20
determines
the upper limit of beneficial nutrient concentration.
21
However,
IEPA fails to determine the phosphorus concentration at
22
which the change occurs from desirable
to detrimental.
23
The last paragraph beginning on page 11 and continuing on
24
page 12 discusses current phosphorus numeric and narrative
62
Keefe Reporting Company
1
standards and cites
the current General Use dissolved oxygen
2
standard.
IEPA
fails
to
cite
any evidence that
deficiencies
in
3
dissolved oxygen concentrations in Illinois lakes or rivers are
4
the result of excessive phosphorus concentrations.
5
On page
12,
second paragraph, second sentence,
IEPA states
6
“The scientific relationships between algal concentrations,
7
phosphorus concentrations, and other variables that influence and
8
control plant growth rates, species composition, and chemical
9
dynamics in an aquatic environment are complex and currently
10
insufficiently understood.”
XEPA continues to explain their
11
current effort to conduct a comprehensive multi-year nutrient
12
standards development program.
This program is fully explained
13
in Exhibit A attached to the IEPA Statement of Reasons.
Thus,
14
IEPA not only admits
to a lack of adequate science upon which to
15
base
the proposed interim standard, but also is unwilling to even
16
wait for the results of the scientific studies which they are
17
sponsoring.
There is no scientific basis for the proposed
18
phosphorus standard of 1.0 milligram per liter.
IEPA’s proposal
19
is arbitrary and capricious.
20
IEPA states in the second paragraph on page 12 that the
21
current narrative standard provides no practical guidance in
22
establishing preventative or protective limits.
IEPA claims that
23
the interim standard will provide needed guidance while it awaits
24
the completion of the multi-year program.
With
the potential
63
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
scientific basis for
a justifiable and defensible phosphorus
2
standard but
a few years away,
there is no justification for an
3
interim limit that IEPA cannot demonstrate is needed and has no
4
scientific basis.
5
On page
13,
IEPA reveals its actual motive in seeking
6
adoption of an interim limit now rather than waiting until data
7
exists to adopt a scientific based limit.
IEPA claims that
8
interim limit is needed to forestall further delay and litigation
9
over pending permits that may be,
in part,
related to the need
10
for
a phosphorus limit.
IEPA is asking the IPCB to adopt
11.
unscientific and unsound standards in an effort to rectify the
12
tEPA’s permit backlog.
A permit backlog can be remedied by other
13
means, but not by implementation of a standard that has no basis
14
in science.
15
tn Section IV on page
13,
IEPA cites the increasing usage
16
of phosphorus compounds for corrosion control in potable water
17
supply
systems.
Thus
at
the
same
time
that
the
ZEPA
is
seeking
18
to
place
a
burden
upon
POTWs for removal of phosphorus,
it is
19
also
requiring
the
use
of
a
corrosion
inhibitor
by
potable
water
20
suppliers with high metal concentrations in their distribution
21
network.
A phosphorus compound is the most popular corrosion
22
inhibitor.
Phosphorus used for corrosion control eventually
23
flows into
the POTW.
ZEPA does not indicate any relief for this
24
burden that ultimately falls upon the ratepayer and/or taxpayer,
64
Keefe Reporting Company
1
that is,
to pay for both the addition of and removal of
2
phosphorus.
A more practical and direct solution would be for
3
the IEPA to initiate a program to replace the offending metal
4
plumbing
systems
that
are
susceptible
to
corrosion,
thereby
5
eventually removing this double burden from the ratepayer and/or
6
taxpayer.
7
IEPA explains the available technology for removal of
8
phosphorus at POTWs beginning at the top of page 14 and ending on
9
the top of page
15.
IEPA does not explain the economic impact on
10
Illinois POTWs to which this proposed rule would apply,
or
1.
explain what environmental benefits will result from the proposed
12
interim phosphorus controls.
The reference cited byIEPA,
13
Exhibit G, estimates
a significant capital and operating cost for
14
the removal of nitrogen and phosphorus by Illinois POTWs, but
15
does not identify the cost of phosphorus removal alone.
In this
16
day and age of scarce public money to meet a standard that has no
17
scientific basis,
and has no proven benefit to the environment.
18
Phosphorus Contributions
to POTWs
19
As explained by IEPA,
there are a number of sources
of
20
phosphorus,
in addition to human waste, which are discharged into
21
the influent sewage to
PO’Ws.
Among these sources
are
22
residential and commercial automatic dishwasher detergents,
which
23
still contain appreciable amounts of phosphorus.
The Minnesota
24
Pollution Control Agency commissioned a detailed study of the
65
Keefe Reporting Company
1.
sources
of
phosphorus
of
Minnesota
POTWs
and
watersheds.
The
2
results
of
the
Minnesota
study
have
been
useful
for
the
3
estimation of phosphorus sources,
especially ADWDs,
to the
4
District’s water reclamation plants.
5
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency had a legislative
6
mandate requiring a comprehensive study of phosphorus
7
contributions
to
POTWs
and
Minnesota
surface
waters.
A
report
8
entitled,
“Detailed
Assessment
of
Phosphorus
Sources
to
Minnesota
9
Watersheds,” prepared by Barr Engineering Company,
was completed
10
in February 2004.
(See Ex.
1)
Volume
2 of the report,
entitled
11
Point Sources Technical Memorandum,
February
16,
2004, includes
12
an estimate
of various phosphorus sources discharged to POTWs
in
13
Minnesota.
The sources included residential ADWDs,
14
commercial/institutional ADWDs, water treatment chemicals,
food
15
soils/garbage disposal waste, dentifrices,
as well as
16
commercial/industrial process wastewater.
17
The estimated contributions to the Minnesota POTWs from the
18
various sources in terms of percent total phosphorus load to the
19
PO1’Ws statewide are as follows:
20
Residential ADWD
7.3
21
Commercial/Institutional ADWD
3.4
22
Dentifrices
1.0
23
Foods Soils!
16.2
24
Garbage Disposals
66
Keefe Reporting Company
1
Commercial/Industrial
26.5
2
Process Wastewater
3
Water Treatment Chemicals
3.1
4
tnflow and Infiltration
0.1
S
These sources accounted for 57.6
of the total phosphorus load to
6
the Minnesota POTWs.
The remaining 42.4
of the phosphorus load
7
was attributed to human waste.
8
The contribution of P~DWDswas based upon the 2000 reported
9
amount of phosphorus used for ADWD formulation in the United
10
States,
from the Stanford Research Institute publication Chemical
11
Economics Handbook
-
Industrial Phosphates, and the estimated
12
U.
S. population for the year 2000
(approximately 281,422,000)
13
This data was used to calculate
a per capita per year ADWD
14
phosphorus usage in Minnesota.
Then the per capita values were
15
applied to the population served by the POTWs.
The following are
16
the per capita phosphorus values estimated in the Minnesota
17
study,
for ADIOs:
18
Residential ADWDs
0.085 Kg/person/year
19
Commercial/Industrial ADWDs
0.04 Kg/person/year
20
Using the per capita values from the Minnesota report, and
21
overall estimate of the phosphorus load from ADIOs in Cook County
22
has been made.
The 2002 population for Cook County was reported
23
by the Census Bureau as 5,283,888.
This value does not include
24
persons living in institutions such as hospitals or college
67
Keefe Reporting Company
1
dormitories.
The following estimates were made:
2
Residential ADWD is 449,131 Kg phosphorus/yr
(494 tons/yr)
3
Commercial/Institutional ADWD is 211,355 Kg phosphorus/yr
4
(232 tons/yr)
5
The combined total phosphorus load to the District’s WRPs,
6
based upon 2003 average influent phosphorus concentrations and
7
average daily flows is 63,748 lbs/day,
or 11,634 tons/yr shown in
8
the following table.
Thus,
the phosphorus contribution to the
9
District WRPs influent phosphorus load is 4.24
for residential
10
ADWD and 2.0
for commercial/institutional ADWO.
These are
11
broad-based estimates since we do not have data as to ADWD usage
12
specifically for Cook County.
However,
it is clear from the
13
above information that a ban on phosphorus in ADWDs in Illinois
14
could be
a more effective approach to achieving immediate
15
phosphorus reductions in P0Th effluents than enacting the limited
16
scope of P0Th effluent limits proposed by the IEPA.
17
You can see the Average Daily Phosphorus Loadings to
19
District WRPs in 2003 in the chart.
19
Agricultural Sources of Phosphorus are Significant
20
While focusing on POTWs as significant sources of
21
phosphorus,
IEPA ignores the fact that agricultural drainage and
22
runoff are also a significant source.
The lack of control of
23
this source will result in continued water quality problems.
24
This source is not due to entirely natural causes, but results
68
Keefe Reporting Company
1
from the excess use of fertilizer containing phosphorus and other
2
nutrients.
In the year 2000,
a study reported in the Journal
of
3
Soil and Water Conservation found that farmers in Wisconsin
4
over-apply nutrients.
(See Exhibit 2)
As reported,
on average,
5
farmers applied an excess of 83 Kg/ha
(74 lb/ac)
of phosphorus
6
beyond University of Wisconsin recommendations for growing corn.
7
In addition,
it was found that the simple promotion of best
8
management practices will not guarantee water quality protection
9
and/or improvement.
This study is reported in the Journal of
10
Soil and Water Conservation,
First Quarter 2000, pages
63 through
11
68, Nitrogen and phosphorus management on Wisconsin farms:
12
Lessons learned for agricultural water quality programs, by R.
13
$hepard.
Undoubtedly,
farming practices in Illinois are similar
14
to those in Wisconsin.
Even modest reductions in overuse of
15
agricultural fertilizers would have
a far larger effect on
16
reducing the phosphorus levels in Illinois streams,
than adoption
17
of the current IEPA proposal.
18
Large
concentrated
animal
feeding
operations
have
been
long
19
identified as major sources of excess agricultural phosphorus
20
that is discharged into surface waters in the United States.
The
23.
contribution of CAFOs
to excess agricultural phosphorus in the
22
environment is discussed on pages 36 and 37 in a bulletin titled
23
Plant Nutrient Use in North America Agriculture, published in
24
2002 by the Potash and Phosphate Institute.
(See Exhibit 3)
In
69
Keefe Reporting Company
1
Appendix 6.3 of this bulletin, on pages 112 and 113,
it is
2
reported that in the state of Illinois, CAFOs generate about 27
3
million pounds of excess phosphorus pentoxide annually, which is
4
equivalent
to
12
million
pounds
of
phosphorus.
This
excess
5
phosphorus is prone to over application on the farms where
it is
6
generated and potentially lost through runoff and drainage.
7
Appendix 6.3
of the report also shows that besides the excess
8
phosphorus generated by CAFOs, unconfined animals on Illinois
9
farms excrete about
67 million pounds of phosphorus pentoxide
10
annually, which is equivalent to 29 million pounds of phosphorus.
11
This
is calculated by the difference between the total amount of
12
manure phosphorus excreted by all
farm, animals
(162 million
13
pounds of phosphorus pentoxide)
and the total excreted by CAE’Os
14
(95 million pounds of phosphorus pentoxide).
This excess
15
phosphorus can contribute to agricultural phosphorus runoff if it
16
is not accounted for in farm nutrient management plans.
17
The IEPA has apparently embraced these findings, but does
18
not inform the IPCB of this matter in their proposal.
On July
19
14,
2004,
IEPA issued a news release titled “ILLINOIS EPA WILL
20
IMPLEMENT ADVISORY GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS Pilot Projects
in Rock
21
River Easin will demonstrate comprehensive watershed planning.”
22
(See Exhibit
4)
The press releases states “‘Governor Rod
23
Blagojevich asked the Illinois EPA to work with
a broad range of
24
interests and to rethink how we can protect our vital water
70
Keefe Reporting Company
1
resources,
which are essential
to both our quality of life and
2
economic well-being, and I want to thank the B-HAG members for
3
their vital work,’ said Illinois EPA Director Renee Cipriano.”
4
The B-HAG is
a stakeholder group from a broad range of interests
S
that assisted the IEPA in reaching consensus on the Facility
6
Planning Issue.
7
One of the B-HAG recommendations
(VII.C.1) reads as
$
follows:
“IEPA should embark on a process that utilizes existing
9
resources
to develop a statewide watershed management approach to
10
protecting and preserving water quality in the seven major basins
11
across Illinois.”
(See Exhibit
5)
The news release indicated
12
that pilot projects would occur for the Green and Kishwaukee
13
River watersheds
in the Rock River Basin.
Agricultural non—point
14
sources of nutrients are dominant in these two watersheds.
The
15
IEPA should inform the IPCB and others how this new initiative
16
will solve water quality problems caused by phosphorus and other
17
nutrients and use this initiative as the basis for
a statewide
18
plan for the control of nutrient discharges.
19
Phosphorus Not the Only Nutrient of Concern
20
IEPA correctly points out in their Statement of Reasons
21
that nitrogen is also
a nutrient of concern and that federal
22
water quality criteria has also been published for nitrogen.
23
Dodds,
Smith and Lohman
(Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
24
Aquatic Sciences, Vol.
59,
pp.
865-874,
2002) note that “Although
71
Keefe Reporting Company
1
the occurrences of Nitrogen limitation in streams is inconsistent
2
with the early view that Phosphorus is generally the primary
3
limiting factor in inland freshwaters,
experimental nutrient
4
enrichment bioassays have confirmed Nitrogen limitation
in
a
5
variety of different stream ecosystems.
The data reveal
a
6
significant Nitrogen Phosphorus interaction in streams and
7
suggest that it is necessary to consider both Nitrogen and
8
Phosphorus as potentially limiting nutrients for periphyton
9
biomass accrual in lotic systems.”
Statistical techniques
10
established
significant
breakpoints
of
about
30
ug total
11
Phosphorus per liter and
40 ug total Nitrogen per liter,
above
12
which mean benthic chlorophyll values were substantially higher.
13
Thus
it
is
questionable
whether
an
interim
effluent
phosphorus
14
limit of 1.0 milligram per liter, by itself,
would have any
15
noticeable impact on Illinois streams.
16
However,
IEPA does not explain that there has also been a
17
significant amount of federal study of the problem of hypoxia in
18
the Gulf of Mexico.
In January 2001,
the report of Mississippi
19
River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force identified
20
nitrogen as the cause of hypoxia in the Gulf.
(See Exhibit
6)
21
This report also stated the need to reduce the contribution of
22
Nitrogen
to the Gulf because of the point and non-point sources
23
of nitrogen in the state.
24
In another news release dated June 30, 2004, Governor
72
Keefe Reporting Company
1
Blagojevich identified farm nutrient runoff as a cause of hypoxia
2
in the Gulf.
(See Exhibit
7)
This
release,
titled Gov.
3
Blagojevich joins Mississippi River Water Quality Initiative,
4
expressed
the
Governor’s
disappointment
at
not
being
able
to
join
5
the Governors of Minnesota and Wisconsin on June
30 in LaCrosse,
6
Wisconsin,
to
pledge
continuing
commitment
to
protect
and
improve
7
the Mississippi River.
8
In the news release,
Governor Elagojevich states:
“While I
9
will not be able to be there in person,
in spirit
I join my
10
fellow Upper Mississippi Valley Governors in our
commitment
to
11
continuing to protect and improve the great river that first
12
brought settlers and commerce
to our region.
Recently, at my
13
request,
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency proposed
14
new limits on phosphorus discharges for most new and expanding
15
wastewater
treatment
plants
and
last
fall
I
nominated
the
16
Mississippi River segment that borders Illinois and Missouri for
17
the federal Watershed Initiative Program to help reduce farm
18
chemical runoff into the Mississippi River.”
19
The news release continues
“Governor Blagojevich said he
20
has requested nearly $1.3 million in federal funding for
21
innovative programs
to help address
‘Gulf Hypoxia’
-
a
condition
22
caused by farm
(fertilizer
runoff that has been blamed for
23
killing off aquatic life in
a large and growing area in the Gulf
24
of Mexico.
73
Keefe Reporting Company
1
Because Governor Elagojevich has joined with the Governors
2
of Minnesota and Wisconsin in this commitment,
it is helpful to
3
know what these two Governors have committed to do.
A news
4
release issued jointly by both Governors dated June
30,
2004,
5
includes the following:
6
*
Focus on meeting the two states’ shared
7
responsibility of nutrient and sediment reduction,
8
including making progress on the multi-state plan
9
to reduce nitrogen discharges into the Gulf of
10
Mexico by 30 percent by 2015;
11
*
Expand the partnership beyond Minnesota and
12
Wisconsin to also include the other three
13
states in the Upper Mississippi River basin:
14
Iowa, Illinois
and Missouri;
15
(See Exhibit
8)
16
We bring this matter to the attention of the Board because
17
there have been significant discussions with IEPA, USEPA Office
18
of Water, and USEPA Region
V
Division of Water regarding the use
19
of constructed and restored wetlands in Illinois to reduce the
20
concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus
in the Illinois River
21
Basin.
These discussions were initiated by several members of
22
the Illinois Association of Wastewater Agencies,
including the
23
District,
and The Wetlands Initiative,
a not-for-profit
24
corporation in Chicago.
The discussions have also included other
74
Keefe Reporting Company
1.
not-for-profit environmental advocacy organizations.
The TiC and
2
the several members
IAWA, including the District, have proposed a
3
by comprehensive research program involving several Midwestern
4
universities,
including the University of Illinois,
and the
5
Argonne
National
Laboratory
to
demonstrate
the
effectiveness
of
6
large—scale constructed or restored wetlands
in removing
7
nutrients.
8
The use of wetland technology to control
the contribution
9
of nitrogen and phosphorus
was not mentioned by IEPA, but it
10
should be included as
a viable control technology.
The use of
11
this technology would serve to control the discharge of nitrogen
12
and phosphorus
in Illinois waters as well as to reduce the
13
contribution
of nitrogen to the Gulf by the State of Illinois.
14
The use of this technology bring other benefits as well,
such
as,
15
reduced demand on nonrenewable energy,
reduced demand on
16
treatment process chemicals,
increased wildlife habitat,
reduced
17
flood damages and biodiversity.
(See Exhibit
9)
18
The use of wetland technology for point and non-point
19
sources can be integrated with the use of conventional treatment
20
technology by POTWs in a watershed.
To create
a useful planning
21
tool for the use of these two technologies,
the District recently
22
submitted a project proposal to the Water Environment Research
23
Foundation, IAWA and Illinois Water Resource Center.
(See
24
Exhibit
10)
The project will involve the University of Illinois
75
Keefe Reporting Company
1
to develop the planning tool under contract to the District and
2
under the oversight of a project steering committee including the
3
IAWA,
IEPA, Region V, other departments
of federal and state
4
government and other interested parties.
5
Effective control of nutrients
in watersheds will also
6
require some form of water quality trading to create incentives
7
for trading between point and non-point sources of these
8
nutrients,
Recognizing this need, EPA adopted a Water Quality
9
Trading Policy on January 13,
2003.
(see Exhibit
11)
Water
10
Quality trading programs have been successfully tested and
it
demonstrated in other states.
Already, trading is an effective
12
tool in attaining air emission reductions in Illinois.
Water
13
quality trading will be an effective component in the development
14
of nutrient standards in Illinois where it can be shown that
15
trading within upstream watershed areas will not contravene water
16
quality standards and will be effective in controlling nutrients
17
from point and non—point sources impacting downstream areas.
18
This policy has received much support nationwide.
Recently, the
19
National Association of Counties adopted a resolution on July
18,
20
2004,
in support of the EPA Water Quality Trading Policy.
(See
21
Exhibit 12)
22
The use of wetland technology for nutrient management on a
23
watershed scale would provide
a cost-effective technology to
24
control nutrients from both point and non-point sources
in a
76
Meete Reporting Company
1
watershed.
It would not place the entire burden for nutrient
2
control solely on the POTWs.
Several IAWA members, including the
3
District, are willing to proceed with this technology only if the
4
IEPA creates
a mechanism for it to be recognized with
the current
5
body of rules.
It is extremely important for the POTWs that the
6
burden for control of nitrogen and phosphorus be eq~aitable,
7
therefore
a means must be found to reduce the contribution of
8
these nutrients from non—point,
as well as point surfaces.
9
There are
significant
efforts
underway
in
neighboring
10
states to address
the discharge
of nitrogen in the Mississippi
it
River Basin.
As mentioned above,
the Governors of Minnesota and
12
Wisconsin have agreed on mutual efforts to control the discharge
i3
of nitrogen.
Iowa has been funding the construction of wetlands
14
in agricultural areas in watersheds tributary to the Mississippi
15
River to reduce the discharge
of nitrogen.
The states in the
16
Ohio River Basin have begun
a voluntary effort to address the
17
discharge
of nitrogen.
However, only about 15 percent of the
18
area of Illinois is in the Ohio River Basin.
It appears that
19
Illinois
is behind its neighboring states in controlling the
20
discharge of nitrogen.
21
Illinois representation in the Ohio River Basin initiative
22
incudes the IEPA and Department of Agriculture.
Region V is also
23
represented.
With this Illinois participation in the Ohio River
24
Basin,
the commitment to join Minnesota and Wisconsin in the
77
Reefe Reporting Company
1
nitrogen reduction initiative and the work underway in Iowa, it
2
is remarkable that the IEPA,
faced with the mountain of evidence
3
regarding Gulf hypoxia,
has not shown any inclination to address
4
the reduction of nitrogen from point and non-point sources.
5
Instead,
ZEPA proposes
a rulemaking for phosphorus that is
6
lacking scientific foundation and is discriminatory in its
7
application to certain POTWs.
8
The District recommends that until
the IEPA develops
(1)
a
9
plan for statewide control of nitrogen discharges to meet the
10
desired 30 percent reduction target for nitrogen and
(2)
a
11
watershed water quality trading program,
an allowance be granted
12
for those dischargers who wish
to voluntarily participate in
13
nitrogen reduction efforts through participation in the creation
14
or restoration of treatment wetlands
in the watershed in which
15
the discharger is located.
The District proposes such an
16
allowance.
17
District’s Findings Related to Phosphorus
18
The District has three plants that discharge
to General Use
19
waters.
The effluent monthly average total phosphorus
20
concentrations range from 0.17 to
4.45
milligram per liter for
21
the 2000 through 2003 period.
Individual plant data is as
22
follows:
You can refer to the chart below.
23
The 2003 annual average and monthly grab sample maximum and
24
minimum TP concentrations in the receiving streams downstream of
78
Keefe Reporting Company
1
the outfalls
for these plants are as follows:
Refer to the chart
2
below.
3
As can be seen above,
there is considerable variability in
4
effluent and stream TP concentrations.
However,
at this point
5
neither the District nor the IEPA has been able to correlate the
6
varying
stream
PP concentrations with differences
in attainable
7
uses or the general biological health of these waterways.
8
Therefore,
if this proposed interim effluent standard were to be
9
applied to one of these WRPs some clay, there is no certainty of
10
any environmental gain being achieved, or of even knowing how to
11
assess if the change in effluent phosphorus levels even
12
significantly effected in-stream phosphorus levels.
13
MWRDGC attempted to determine if industrial contributors
14
were
a significant source of phosphorus.
Based on our review of
15
plant influent loadings and regulated industrial contributor
16
loadings
for 2002, we determined that the industrial phosphorus
17
loading that could be controlled through local pretreatment
18
limits varied from zero to three percent of the influent loading
19
at six of the District~sseven plants.
The variation
is detailed
20
as follows:
You can see in the box below.
21
There is no significant industrial phosphorus loading at
22
the temont WRP.
23
Most of the phosphorus in raw sewage results from human
24
waste and residential uses of products containing phosphorus.
As
79
Keefe Reporting Company
1
explained earlier, although phosphorus
is no longer used in
2
residential laundry detergents,
it is used in 2DWD,
dentifrice
3
products and commercial and industrial cleaning products.
IEPA
4
should consider controlling phosphorus
at its source by banning
5
some of these products that contain phosphorus.
Such controls
6
would remove far more pounds of phosphorus from Illinois waters
7
than
the current IEPA proposal.
8
For example,
IEPA should consider
a ban on the use of
9
phosphorus
in fertilizers for residential use.
It is noted that
10
Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty signed on May
10,
2004,
a law
11.
(Minnesota Mouse File No.
2005, 83rd Legislative Session)
that
12
bans
the use of fertilizer containing phosphorus on turf.
The
13
ban will become effective on January
1,
2005,
and applies to
14
fertilizer to be used on turf that is purchased at retail after
15
August
3.,
2004.
The ban prohibits
the application to turf of
16
phosphorus-containing fertilizer on property unless
(i)
a soil
17
test indicates that phosphorus
is needed,
(ii)
the application is
18
for the first turf growing season and
(iii)
the property is
a
19
golf course.
(See Exhibit
13)
It would appear that such a
20
statewide ban would eliminate more phosphorus
in Illinois waters
21
than
the limited approach taken by the IEPA.
22
District’s Suggestions for Measures to Control Phosphorus
23
The District has proposed to the IEPA,
transmitted by
24
letter dated April
27,
2004, to conduct a demonstration project
80
Keefe Reporting Company
1
at its Egan Water Reclamation Plant in Schaumberg to determine if
2
phosphorus removal would show any impact or improvement in Salt
3
Creek downstream of the plant outfall.
(See Exhibit
14)
The
4
proposed project includes comprehensive monitoring of Salt Creek
S
upstream and downstream of the Egan WRP outfall.
The monitoring
6
program will be coordinated with downstream discharges
to Salt
7
Creek in DuPage County and must be approved by the IEPA.
The
B
IEPA has indicated an interest in proceeding with this and other
9
similar initiatives at other POTWs
to develop
a scientific basis
10
to demonstrate whether or not justification for
a phosphorus
11
standard exists.
The Region V Division of Water has also shown
12
support for the District’s proposed demonstration project.
The
13
District’s monitoring results and conclusions will be prepared in
14
a
scientific
report
available
to
the
public.
Should
the
report
15
demonstrate that phosphorus causes impairment,
it will support
16
the need for a water quality based effluent limit.
17
If the results of this demonstration project show that the
18
removal of phosphorus will have
a beneficial effect on Salt
19
Creek, then the IEPA will modify the District’s NPDES permit for
20
the Egan WRP by incorporating a water quality based effluent
21
limit for phosphorus.
22
District’s Recommendations on the flPA Interim Phosphorus
23
Proposal
24
The District requests that
the IPCB deny the entire
81
Keefe Reporting Company
1
proposed interim limit as described in the IEPA petition for
2
Section 304.123
(9)
through
(j).
In the event the IPCB deems
it
3
advisable
to adopt regulations at this time,
it is recommended
4
that the IPCB adopt the following requirements:
5
1.
The IEPA shall, upon
a demonstration by a scientifically
6
sound receiving stream monitoring program that existing
7
phosphorus loadings are causing or increased phosphorus
B
loadings will cause impairments, petition the Board for a
9
site-specific phosphorus standard for
the waterway
10
segment impacted by
a proposed new or increased
11
phosphorus discharger prior to issuing a new permit for
12
said discharger.
13
2.
Any
applicant for
a permit to discharge additional
14
phosphorus loadings to
a receiving stream that is
15
identified as phosphorus impaired,
shall include controls
16
to limit phosphorus discharges to a water quality based
17
effluent limit based on an appropriate water quality
18
phosphorus standard.
19
3.
A point source discharger that participates
in a
20
dedicated wetland creation or restoration project in the
21
same watershed as the discharger is located,
shall
22
receive credit for the nutrients removed by the
23
project
as
if the nutrients were removed at the outfall
24
of the discharger, provided that the amount of credit
82
Keefe Reporting Company
1
received is proportional
to the monetary participation
2
of the discharger
in the nutrient removal portion of the
3
total project cost.
4
Respectfully submitted, Metropolitan Water Reclamation
S
District of Greater Chicago,
Richard Lanyon,
Director of R&D.
6
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Thank you,
sir.
Mr.
Hill, do you
7
have any questions that you would like to ask?
B
MR.
HILL:
I have a few follow-up questions.
9
HEARING OFFICER KNZTTLE:
And before we get to that,
were
10
you intending to submit the prepared testimony as an exhibit?
11
MR.
LANYON:
Yes,
I was.
With the exhibits attached.
12
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
With the exhibits.
Are there any
13
objections
to that?
14
MR.
SOFAT:
No.
15
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Seeing none,
that will be
16
admitted as Exhibit No.
9.
You may proceed,
Mr.
Hill.
17
MR.
HILL:
Mr.
Lanyon, your testimony you identified
18
automatic dishwasher detergent other than human waste and in the
19
effluent sewage to publicly own
treatment
works.
Are
20
non-phosphate automatic dishwasher detergent products variable?
21
MR.
LANYON:
Yes,
they are.
Such products available at
22
local stores and the product has been seen at Peopl&s Market.
23
Cole Foods carry four brands of ADWD under the names Bio Kleen,
24
B-I-O-E-L-E-E-N,
Citrasuds, C-I-T-R-A-S-tJ-D-S,
7th Generation and
83
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
Wave.
People’s Market I found some of these brands and one other
2
Ecos E-C-O—S. Most of these were in powder form.
Some of these
3
are also in gel form.
Those on my list predominantly officially
4
did not carry any of these brands but did carry products Cascade,
S
Electrosol, E-L-E-C-T-R-O-S-O-L, Palmolive,
Simply Clean and
6
sunlight.
Again most of these were available in powder and some
7
in gel form.
According to the product labels all, except
8
Palmolive,
contain phosphate ranging from 6.4 to
4.5 percent as
9
phosphorus.
Palmolive contained phosphates at 1.9 percent as
10
phosphorus.
I also found that all of the non-phosphorus brands
11
were approximately
50 percent more expensive than the phosphorus
12
brand.
This is probably
a market monopoly since the large
13
retailers did not carry products that cost more.
14
In our home we formerly used Cascade but we now use a
15
non-phosphorus
ADWD
product
and
we
find
no
difference
in
the
16
leading effectiveness
of the non-phosphate ADWD as compared to
17
Cascade.
18
MR.
HILL:
Do you believe that a ban on phosphates
19
containing ADWDs can be effectively implemented?
20
MR.
LANYON:
Yes,
I do.
I
recall in the early 1970s
the
21
city of Chicago put a ban on the sale of residential laundry
22
products containing phosphorus.
Today all such products would be
23
phosphorus free.
The same can be done for liDWDs since
24
non-phosphate products are available and are effective.
Such a
84
Keefe Reporting Company
1
ban would force the large retailers to carry the non-phosphate
2
brands and the
additional
sales
volume
would
probably
bring
down
3
the production cost and the retail price of these products.
4
MR.
HILL:
If ADWDs were banned,
can you estimate what load
5
of phosphorus would be eliminated from Illinois waters?
6
MR.
LANYON:
Yes,
I estimate
that approximately 1,200 tons
7
per year would be eliminated from Illinois waters.
This estimate
8
is based on residential ADWD products only and is calculated
9
using the Minnesota per capita usage in my testimony.
And the
10
population of Illinois which is 12,419,000.
Adding commercial
11
ADWDs to the ban would increase the eliminated load by about 50
12
percent.
This is pollution prevention at its best and reduces
13
the
introduction
to
phosphorus
into
the
environment.
14
MR.
HILL:
Do you have an estimate of the excess class
15
versus crop land to Illinois?
16
MR.
LJ4NYON:
Yes, as noted in my testimony on page
9,
17
farmers in Wisconsin applied an excess of 74 pounds of phosphorus
18
per acre.
According
to information available from Illinois
19
agricultural statistics service for 2003, there were a total of
20
22,237,000 acres in production in Illinois for corn,
grain,
21
sorghum,
oats,
soybeans and winter wheat.
Assuming that Illinois
22
farmers over apply at the same rate as do farmers in Wisconsin,
I
23
estimate that there is an approximate excess of 823,000
tons per
24
year
of phosphorus applied annually.
85
Reefe Reporting Company
1
MR.
HILL:
Do you have an estimate of reduction of
2
phosphorus loading on Illinois waters that would result from a
3
proposed rule and how this would compare to other sources in
4
phosphorus rule?
5
MR.
LANYON:
The proposed rule would probably remove over
6
200 or 300 tons of phosphorus per year.
I base this estimate on
7
a few of these that now remove phosphorus and the number of water
8
reclamation plants that will be removing phosphorus under the
9
proposed ruling.
This quantity of phosphorus reduction
is far
10
below the amount of phosphorus from non—point sources and below
11
the amount that would result if a ban of ADWDs was implemented.
12
MR.
HILL:
I think the only thing
I will offer is
a very
13
brief rebuttal testimony
to Professor Walter Dodd’s testimony.
14
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Offering that as Exhibit No.
10.
15
MR.
BILL:
Yes.
16
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Any objection
to that testimony?
17
Seeing
none,
we
will
admit
that.
Are there any further
18
questions,
Mr. Hill?
19
MR.
HILL:
Not at this time.
20
BEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Any questions of this witness?
21
MR. ETTINGER:
You gave
an estimate as to the amount of
22
reduction in phosphorus and the proposed rule would go,
I didn’t
23
quite catch the end, you said how many,
200
to 300?
24
MR.
LANYON:
Tons per year.
86
ICeefe Reporting
Company
1
MR.
ETTINGER:
I
have
some
questions.
First
of
all,
2
looking at your
--
looking at your Exhibit A or one here,
I’m
3
sorry,
at Roman Numeral Two,
the executive summary,
is the first
4
or second paragraph here it talks about phosphorus
is the
S
nutrient primarily responsible for the beautification of
6
Minnesota surface water and then it goes on to say phosphorus
7
from point surface may be more by vital available impacting
8
surface water quality one in similar found in non—phosphorus that
9
enters
the same surface water.
Do you know
——
have any research
10
that either proves or disproves that based on your experience?
11.
MR.
LANYON:
There is current research under way in
12
Illinois as part of the nutrient standard development program
13
that is collecting data on this
--
the subject of nutrients in
14
Illinois streams and rivers.
15
MR.
ETTINGER:
Are you part of that task force?
16
MR.
LANYON:
No.
We are cooperating with one of the four
17
investigative teams and supplying samples and data for waterways
18
in the Chicago area.
19
MR.
ETTINGER:
Do
you
know
Professor
Mark
David
of
the
20
University of Illinois?
21
MR.
LAN’ZON:
Yes.
22
MR. ETTINGER:
Is he participating in that task force?
23
MR.
LANYON:
Yes.
24
MR.
ETTINGER:
Get some data here on estimates of the point
87
Keefe Reporting Company
1
source versus non—point source loading in Minnesota.
Are you
2
aware of any data of
a similar sort for specific to Illinois?
3
MR.
LAI4YON:
Ho,
I searched for such data but couldn’t find
4
no similar data especially for the run-off from non-point
5
sources.
6
MR. ETTINGER:
You’re aware that this proposal only applies
7
to newer increase discharges?
$
MR.
LANYON:
Yes.
9
MR. ETTINGER:
Does the Water Reclamation District intend
10
to increase the amount of discharge of any of its plants within
11
the next five years?
12
MR.
LANYON:
Well,
that’s
a good question.
There is
13
variability in the flow of our plant due to the weather of course
14
so——
15
MR. ETTINGER:
Let me
--
let me
--
I should clarify that.
16
That is
--
No, actually it was a bad question.
Does the Water
11
Reclamation District intend to request permit changes in the next
18
five years that would allow an increased average discharge over
19
and above the current permitted levels?
20
MR.
LA1qYON:
Currently we are preparing a plan or expansion
21
of our Lemont Water Reclamation Plant that probably will put in
22
such a permitting request.
We’re completing master plan studies
23
for our three large plants and will anticipate that will result
24
in increase dry weather flow capacity.
88
Reefe Reporting Company
1
MR.
ETTINGER:
I’m sorry.
You’re very soft spoken,
and
2
with the truck behind you,
the three big plants you’re not
3
anticipating requesting an expansion of?
4
MR.
LANYON:
Right.
5
MR.
ETTINGER:
Lemont you may request an expansion?
6
MR.
LANYON:
Correct.
7
MR.
ETTINGER:
What would the expansion be at Lemont?
8
MR.
LANYON:
Well,
it would be an increase in plant
9
capacity for Lemont.
temont is one of those rapidly growing
10
communities.
11
MR.
ETTINGER:
And when would you anticipate making this
12
request?
13
MR.
LANYON:
Probably within the next three years.
14
MR.
ETTINGER:
I was confused also by your testimony about
15
with regard to Governor Blagojevich’s press release in joining
16
the Mississippi Water Quality Initiative,
do you like Governor
11
Blagojevich’s proposal here or do you not like it?
18
MR.
LANYON:
Yes,
I find them acceptable.
19
MR. ETTINGER:
Well, part of this says recently at my
20
request the Environmental Protection Agency proposed two limits
21
on phosphorus discharges for most new and expanding wastewater
22
treatment plants, isn’t this the proposal we’re talking about
23
here?
24
MR.
LANYON:
Well,
I didn’t see that the Governor requested
89
Keefa Reporting Company
1
the limit of
.1.
2
MR. ETTINGER:
You don’t think this is what he’s referring
3
to
--
well,
the press author of the press release was referring
4
to this?
5
MR.
LAWION:
I don’t know what the Governor had in his mind
6
specifically.
7
MR. ETTINGER:
Okay.
Well,
do you think the fact that the
8
Governor proposes something makes it more or less likely to like
9
it?
10
MR.
LAWION;
Well, he may like it but I don’t know that he
11
did the science for making such a proposal.
12
MR.
ETTINGER:
This is just perhaps
a hyper technical point
13
except of you refer to various places in your testimony about
14
Minnesota and Wisconsin agreeing on mutual efforts to control the
15
discharge of nitrogen, do you know that discharge
is a magic
16
water under the Clean Water Act?
Do you mean
that to say that
17
the efforts of Wisconsin and Minnesota were limited to point
18
sources,
i.e., discharges opposed to loadings of phosphorus
19
generally
--
I’m sorry, nitrogen generally?
20
MR.
LANYON:
Well,
reading the press releases that you’re
21
reading, that had nothing to get into sources specifically
22
knowing that in those states that they have large areas of
23
agricultural such as in Illinois, presumably they address
24
non-point sources also.
90
Reefa
Reporting
Company
1
MR. ETTINGER:
Okay.
But
I
guess
I was
just clarifying
2
that.
I didn’t mean to limit this to discharges meaning point
3
sources.
You also meant that you believe their efforts also
4
refer to non-point as well sources?
S
MR.
LANYON:
I do believe that.
6
MR. ETTINGER:
If
--
You make very good recommendations
as
7
to automatic dishwasher detergents.
If there was ordinances or
B
laws passed that would reduce the amount of automatic dishwasher
9
detergent phosphorus coming into your plant, would that reduce
10
the cost of treating for phosphorus if
it
becomes later necessary
13.
for
the
sewage
treatment
plant
to
treat
with
phosphorus?
12
MR.
LANYON:
Well, given that the portion of phosphorus
13
from ADWDs that contributory
to a treatment plant is less than
10
14
percent,
I don’t see that there would be
a measurable cost
15
difference.
They
may not even be a measurable difference in
16
effluent
cost
simply
by
that
reduction.
17
MR.
ETTINGER:
I’m
sorry.
Perhaps
I
didn’t understand your
18
testimony, your answer.
I believe you testimony was that if
19
there were these reductions in or shifting in uses of phosphorus
20
land detergents,
that you would have 1,200 tons less phosphorus
21
discharge
a year;
is that correct?
22
MR.
LANYON:
That’s correct.
23
MR. ETTINGER:
So you don’t mean
to say that take the
24
phosphorus out of the discharge or out of the detergent would
91
Reefe
Reporting
Company
1
have
no
effect
on
effluent
quality,
do
you?
2
MR.
LANYON:
Well,
it
may
be
difficult
to
determine
the
3
effect on effluent quality.
When you operate
a treatment plant,
4
this
plant
varies
by
day,
by
hour
in
loadings.
And
the
extent
to
5
which
you’re
reducing
a
portion,
which
I’ve
identified
it
about
6
four or five percent from ADWDs,
you may have very little impact
7
on the variations that you see in the daily operation
of the
S
water reclamation plants.
9
MR.
ETTINGER:
I
don’t
have
any
further
questions
at
this
10
time.
11
HEARING OFFICER RNITTLE:
Mr. Barsch?
12
MR.
HARSCH:
A clarifying question if
I might.
In your
13
recommendation
as
to
an
alternate
rule
the
Board
might
want
to
14
consider adopting,
if they don’t follow the District’s
15
recommendation to deny it in its entirety, you refer to a stream
16
that is identified as phosphorus impaired, you’re not talking
17
about
a stream that exceeds the 85th percentile value, you’re
18
talking
--
you mean
a stream that’s actually showing by cause and
19
effect to have
a phosphorus impairment issue;
is that correct?
20
MR.
LANYON:
Correct.
21
MR. ETTINGER:
Let me follow-up on that.
Is it your
22
knowledge now that IEPA identifies any streams as impaired by
23
phosphorus in a cause and effect manner?
24
MR.
LANYON:
Well,
they identify streams as impaired
92
Reefe
Reporting
Company
1.
according to certain criteria.
At the present time that’s used
2
in their annual bi-annual water quality report.
But this is
3
based on the criteria that was discussed earlier.
4
MR.
ETTXNGER:
Correct.
But
to
your
knowledge
IEPA
now
5
just
uses
the
percentage
method
that
Mr.
Harsch
has
identified
6
for identifying potential causes but in your view that would not
7
be sufficient to lead to any phosphorus controls?
8
MR.
LANYON:
No.
9
MR.
ETTINGER:
Are you aware of any research being done now
10
by IEPA that would lead to that sort of cause and effect
11
phosphorus sciences as you’re working from?
12
MR.
LANYON:
Well,
IEPA
does
include
as
part
of
their
13
monitoring
strategy
so
called
intensive
base
in
surveys
and
14
facility surveys where they look at the receiving stream.
And it
15
would
be
possible
from
those
surveys
to
determine
impairments
by
16
virtue
of
algae
or
excessive
growth
in
streams
downstream
of
a
17
source.
18
MR.
ETTINGER:
Okay.
Now I
guess
we
got
something
going
19
here differently then.
You’re saying if we identify by looking
20
at algal or chlorophyll levels, high levels,
then that would
21
justify phosphorus controls?
22
MR.
LJU4YON:
Well, you would
have
to
conduct
a study and
23
make
a
determination
that
the
stream
had
already
demonstrated
24
that
these
conditions
existed,
then
aggravating
those
conditions
93
Keefe Reporting Company
1.
wouldn’t be
a good move.
2
MR.
ETTINGER:
Thank you.
3
MR.
flO:
Just for a follow-up,
so in your proposal,
that
4
the scientific studies with the
impairment,
would
that
be
the
5
trigger for aquatic phosphorus control?
Right now the Agency’s
6
proposals
are
based
on
new
and
expanded
loading.
But
the
way
in
7
your proposal is set up it can be existing loading and if the
8
Agency determines an impairment, then they can require controls
9
on possibility
to be the cause?
10
MR.
LANYON:
Yes.
11
MS.
LII):
In
your
alternative
recommendations
you
mentioned
12
uses
water
quality
trading
as
part
of
that.
You
also
mentioned
13
that
the
Agency
came
out
with
a
water
quality
trading
process
in
14
2003
and
I
was
wondering
if
the
Metropolitan
Water
Reclamation
15
District
has
seen
any
progress
in
that
since
then?
16
MR.
LANYON:
To my knowledge there has been no progress in
17
use of trading in Illinois.
18
MS.
LII):
In your testimony you also say there’s
a
19
potential scientific basis for
a justifiable, sensible phosphorus
20
a few years away and there is no justification for an interim
21
limit?
22
MR.
LANYON:
Correct.
23
MS.
LII):
Would you be more receptive
to
a phosphorus limit
24
if it were to come in the form of
a package along with
other
94
Reefe
Reporting
Company
1
nutrient standards when the Agency has completed its nutrient
2
standard multi-year program?
3
MR.
LANYON:
Yes.
4
MS.
LIU:
Thank
you.
5
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Any
further
questions
for
Mr.
6
Lanyon?
Seeing none,
thank you,
sir, for your testimony and you
7
may step down.
8
MR.
ETTINGER:
I’m going just to offer as an exhibit
a
9
study so
I don’t have to carry them home.
I would otherwise have
10
them
--
otherwise
submitted
afterwards.
This
is
Anthropogenic
11
Inputs
of
Nitrogen
and
Phosphorus
and
Riverine
Export
for
12
Illinois USA by Hark B.
Davis.
13
MR.
HARSCH:
You’re not finding any testimony supportive of
14
that study or
--
15
MR.
ETTINGER:
I’m submitting it as it’s
a published.
16
MR.
HARSCH:
Other than
the fact it’s a published study,
17
you
believe
no
support
presented
for
it,
with
that
I
have
no
18
objection.
19
MR.
ETTINGER:
Fine.
20
HEARING
OFFICER
IcUITTLE:
Any
other
qualification
or
21.
objections?
This will be admitted.
Mr.
Harsch,
we have the
22
testimony of James Daugherty.
Let me just check real quick.
Is
23
there anybody else here
today
planning
on
testifying
today
at
24
this hearing today?
Go off the record for
a second.
95
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
(A discussion was held off the record.)
2
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Mr.
Harsch
is
offering
testimony
3
of James Daugherty.
Sir, do you mind having a seat and we’ll
4
swear you
in.
S
(The witness was sworn.)
6
MR.
RARSCH:
Mr. Daugherty, have you prepared the pre-filed
7
testimony
that
was
previously
submitted
to
the
Pollution
Control
8
Board on October 20th?
9
MR. DAUGHERTY:
Yes.
10
MR.
HARSCR:
At this point would you please read your
11
pre-filed testimony.
12
MR.
DAUGHERTY:
My
name
is
James
Daugherty.
I
am
currently
13
employed by
the Thorn Creek Basin Sanitary District as its
14
general manager.
The sanitary district operates
a wastewater
15
treatment
facility
in
southern
Cook
and
northern
Will
counties,
16
Illinois,
with
a
design
flow
of
16
million
gallons
per
day.
The
17
facility
currently
serves
a
population
of
100,000.
I
have
been
18
employed
by
Thorn
Creek
Basin
Sanitary
District
since
1973.
I
19
have
held
the
position
of
District
Manager
since
November
of
20
1976.
21
I have received both a bachelors and masters degree in
22
civil engineering from the University of Illinois at
23
Urbana/Champaign.
I hold an Illinois Environmental Protection
24
Agency Class
1 and Class K operator’s license for wastewater
96
Reefe
Reporting
Company
1
treatment and an Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Class A
2
license
for
potable
water.
I
have
been
active
in
many
technical
3
organizations,
including
the
Water
Environment
Federation
and
the
4
Association of Metropolitan Sewage Agencies.
S
My testimony is provided on behalf of the Illinois
6
Association of Wastewater Agencies.
I am a past president of the
7
lANA and currently serve as chairman of the Technical Committee
8
on the Proposed Interim Phosphorus limit.
IAWA is
a professional
9
association representing the major wastewater treatment plants in
10
the
State
of
Illinois.
We
have
about
100
members
and
affiliate
11
members,
which
includes
approximately
55
districts
and
12
municipalities
throughout
the
state.
These
agencies
operate
13
approximately
75
publically-owned
treatment
works,
including
14
almost
all
of
the
sate’s
major
facilities.
In
addition
to
these
15
sanitary
districts,
water
reclamation
district
and
16
municipalities,
the
largest
Illinois
private
wastewater
utility
17
that operates 12 plants is also
a member.
Representatives of
18
these
organizations
are
public
officials
and
include
both
elected
19
and
appointed
trustees
of
districts
and
appointed
officials
at
20
municipalities throughout the state.
Our constituents are the
21
citizens and taxpayers of Illinois, who are the same constituents
22
as any other state or public agency.
23
IAWA Goals
24
Our members are responsible both for the operation of
97
Reefe
Reporting
Company
1
existing
wastewater
treatment
facilities
and
the
construction
of
2
new facilities.
New facilities are constructed either to meet
3
additional
environmental
protection
needs
or
to
provide
more
4
capacity
for
expanding
service
areas,
IAWA
members
are
committed
5
to both ensuring that the aquatic environment is maintained in a
6
healthy
state
and
to
providing
wastewater
treatment
services
at
a
7
reasonable cost to our constituents.
IAWA is proud of its long
8
commitment
to
the
application
of
sound
science
to
the
development
9
of
water
quality
and
effluent
standards.
When
standards
are
10
developed from sound science, IAWA members have
a high level of
11
confidence
that those standards will be in place for many years.
12
This allows us
to do our job, which is to provide needed
13
wastewater
treatment
at
a
minimum
long—term
cost
to
our
14
constituents.
In contrast, when standards are developed without
15
the use of sound science,
lANA members are forced to use interim
16
solutions
to
treatment
needs
to
avoid
building
facilities
that
17
might not be needed once more appropriate limits are developed.
18
I would like to thank the Board for this opportunity
to
19
participate in an important
rulemaking.
20
Nutrient Limits
21.
IAfl supports the Agency’s work plan,
as approved by USEPA,
22
to develop nutrient water quality standards for Illinois.
That
23
plan calls for the application
of sound science to develop
24
nutrient limits by the year 2008.
The development of such limits
98
Reefe
Reporting
Company
1
is
consistent
with
IAWA’s
long
standing
support
of
science-based
2
water quality standards.
ZAWA has and will continue to
3
participate in the Agency’s Illinois Nutrient Work Group.
4
Proposed
Interim
Phosphorus
Limit
5
IAWA
is
opposed
to
the
proposed
interim
effluent
phosphorus
6
limits.
We urge the Board to reject the Agency’s proposal in its
7
entirety.
As
proponent
of
the
proposal,
the
Agency
is
required
B
to
provide
an
environmental,
technical,
and
economic
9
justification for the proposed rule.
See 35 Il.
Acbn. Code
10
102.202.
The
Agency
has
not
provided
an
adequate
environmental,
11
technical
or
economic
justification
for
a
new
statewide
effluent
12
limitation.
With
respect
to
the
environmental
justification
for
13
the proposed rule, the Agency has repeatedly stated that it
14
cannot determine what,
if any, would be the environmental benefit
15
of the proposed effluent limitation,
or whether there will be any
16
benefit
on
a
state—wide
basis
to
receiving
streams
where
17
dischargers
will
be
subject
to
the
proposed
limitations.
18
The
Agency
has
stated
that
the
proposed
interim
phosphorus
19
limits
are
based
on
the
application
of
certain
technology
in
the
20
wastewater
treatment
process
for
the
reduction
in
phosphorus.
21
For streams where phosphorus can be shown to be impairing
a
22
recognized stream use, there are already regulations which would
23
allow the Agency to give those dischargers effluent limitations
24
that will address such impairments.
For receiving streams where
99
Reefe
Reporting
Company
1
it cannot be determined that there will be
a benefit from
2
reductions
in
phosphorus
levels,
the
proposed
interim
limit
would
3
result
in
the
installation
and
operation
of
treatment
technology
4
with
no
known
benefit.
5
With respect to the technical justification and economic
6
cost of the proposed rule,
the Agency has stated that it expects
7
facilities
to
use
chemical
phosphorus
removal
processes
to
meet
8
an interim limit.
The Agency readily acknowledges that the
9
application of this technology will increase the cost of
10
wastewater
treatment,
but
it
has
failed
to
provide
a
sound
and
11.
accurate
estimate
of
the
cost
and
omits
important
components
of
12
the
cost.
The
most
significant
omission
from
the
Agency’s
cost
13
figures
is
the
cost
of
handling
and
disposal
of
additional
14
sludge.
The Agency has estimated sludge volumes would increase
15
by 15 to 30.
For
a proposed limitation where the Agency is on
16
record as admitting that it does not know what,
if any,
benefit
17
to
the
receiving
streams
will
be
realized
if
the
standard
is
18
adopted,
the prospective costs are unsupportable.
19
IAWA
believes
there
is
no
need
for
the
proposed
interim
20
phosphorus limitation.
Given that nutrient limits based on sound
21
science are “on the way” and that the Agency currently has means
22
to deal with streams that have known nutrient problems, adoption
23
of an interim technology-based phosphorus limit is not wise
24
public policy.
The Agency has at times represented this interim
100
Reefe
Reporting
Company
1.
limit as the first step in
a nutrient control program.
The
2
Agency has also admitted that at this point in tine
it does not
3
understand the role of elevated levels of nutrients in the wide
4
range of stream conditions found in Illinois.
The Agency is
5
saying it does not know what the nutrient control problem in
6
Illinois will look like when it has completed the scientific
7
studies.
We
question
how
anyone
can
know
that
the
proposed
8
interim
limit
is
the
first
step
in
that
process
when
the
9
scientific
studies
have
not
been
completed
on
the
appropriate
10
nutrient
limitations
for
this
state.
11
The Agency has also argued that there would be savings
to
12
the public when POTWs install phosphorus removal technology as
13
they undergo expansion or new construction.
The Agency has
14
stated its expectation that treatment facilities will install
15
chemical phosphorus removal
in lieu of biological phosphorus
16
removal given the fact that this is an interim limit,
as
17
biological
phosphorus
removal
has
a
much
higher
capital
cost.
18
POTW
managers
are
unlikely
to
spend
significant
capital
dollars
19
on
a
process
their
facilities
may
not
need
when
real
phosphorus
20
water quality standards are adopted.
P01W managers are more
21.
likely to install chemical phosphorus removal which has a lower
22
capital cost, but higher operating costs.
The facilities needed
23
for chemical phosphorus removal are not in-line facilities.
They
24
are not facilities where an additional unit needs to be inserted
101
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
within
the
treatment
train
of
unit
processes.
Chemical
removal
2
facilities
are
sideline
facilities.
They
include
chemical
3
storage and pumping facilities that inject chemicals into
4
existing treatment units.
For this
reason,
they are fairly easy
5
to
add
to
the
treatment
facility
at
any
time,
not
just
during
6
construction
or
expansion.
IAWA
does
not
believe
there
will
be
7
long-term
cost
savings
by
requiring
facilities
to
add
chemical
8
phosphorus
removal
as
they
currently
undergo
expansion
or
9
construction,
except
possibly
for
the
increase
in
the
solids
10
production
due
to
chemical
removal.
Again,
we
would
point
out
11
that
the
increase
in
solids
production
(between
15
and
40
as
12
mentioned
by
the
Agency)
would
have
significant
capital
and
13
operating cost implications to any facility.
These costs have
14
not been documented by the Agency.
15
Specific
Technical
Issues
16
Written testimony has been provided by the Metropolitan
17
Water
Reclamation
District
of
Greater
Chicago
on
September
28,
18
2004.
IAWA has reviewed that testimony.
It raised many
19
important
specific
technical
issues.
ZAWA
urges
the
Board
to
20
give them careful consideration
to the issues they raise.
21
Conclusion
22
IAWA requests
the Board to reject
the Agency’s proposed
23
interim phosphorus effluent limits,
the Agency has failed to
24
demonstrate
that
the
proposed
limits
are
justified
from
an
102
Reefe
Reporting
Company
1
environmental,
technical or economic basis,
for
streams
where
2
phosphorus can be shown to be impairing a recognized stream use,
3
there
are
already
regulations
which
would
allow
the
Agency
to
4
give those dischargers effluent limitations
that will address
5
such impairments.
6
Thank you for your consideration
to our comments.
7
HEARING
OFFICER
IcNITTLE~
Thank
you,
sir.
Mr.
Harsch,
do
8
you have any questions that you would like to ask?
9
MR.
HARSCH:
A couple of clarifying questions.
On page one
10
of
your
pre-filed
testimony
I
think
you
referenced
55
districts
11.
and municipalities and you may have read that number as 75.
The
12
correct number is 55;
is that correct?
13
MR. DAUGHERTY:
That’s correct.
14
MR.
HARSCH:
You’re aware that IAWA has filed and is
15
currently under consideration before
the Board revisions to the
16
State’s General Use Water Quality For Dissolved Oxygen?
17
MR. DAUGHERTY:
Yes.
18
MR.
HARSCH:
Was that proposal in part intended to develop
19
a dissolved oxygen standard based on sound sciences which could
20
then be utilized in the long-term development of nutrient
21
limitations by Illinois?
22
MR. DAUGHERTY:
Yes, IAn looked at the basis
for current
23
limits and felt that they were inadequate based on currently
24
available information.
103
Reefe
Reporting
Company
1
MR. RABSCB:
No further questions.
2
HEARING OFFICER fQIITTLE:
Mr.
Ettinger,
do you have any
3
questions?
4
MR.
ETTINGER:
Yeah,
I
have
a
few
questions.
This
is
sort
5
of
on
IAWA’s
general
policies.
Does
tWA
--
IAWA
support
the
6
current
phosphorus
rule?
7
MR.
HARSCH:
Which
rule?
As
it
relates
to
discharge
of
--
8
MR.
ETTINGER:
One,
two,
three,
A
limits
shall
contain
no
9
more than one milligram per liter of phosphorus
to be discharged
10
into
Lake
Michigan,
does
the
IAWA
support
that
rule?
11
MR.
DAUGHERTY:
We
haven’t
done
a
detailed
review
for
the
12
basis of that rule.
Are
you
asking
if
we
think
it’s
based
on
13
sound
science?
14
MR.
ETTINGER:
Actually
I
asked
the
question,
I
asked
do
15
you support it or not?
You can tell me why you don’t support it
16
depending
on
what
you
think.
17
MR.
DAUGHERTY:
We’re
not
objecting
to
it.
But
we
haven’t
18
done a review to conclude
it is based on sound sciences.
19
MR.
ETTINGER:
Okay.
What
about one milligram per liter
20
limit
on
phosphorus
where
it’s
discharged
above
a
lake
of
8.1
21
hectares
or
more,
does
IAWA
support
that
rule?
22
MR.
DAUGHERTY:
Again,
I
would
say
we
have
not
chosen
to
23
object to it but we have not done
it,
review a scientific basis
24
for
that.
104
Reefe
Reporting
Company
1
MR. ETTINGER:
And
going
back
to
the
EFD the effluent
2
limits for
oxygenating
waste,
does
IAWA
support
that
effluent
3
rule?
4
MR.
KARSCH:
It’s not an issue in this proceeding.
I fail
5
to
understand
the
relevancy
of
that
question.
We
can
go
through
6
all
the
board
rules
today
and
find
out
if
tAWA
objects
to
if
7
that’s
your
intent.
8
MR. ETTINGER:
Well,
I guess that’s true.
I guess the
9
question is
--
well,
if
you
don’t
want
to
answer
the
question,
10
fine,
don’t
answer
the
question,
Mr.
Harsch
has
pointed
out
11
limitations
to.
12
MR.
DAUGHERTY:
There’s
a
whole
series
of
POTW limits.
13
MR.
ETTINGER:
Do
you
believe
those
limits
never
require
14
any sewage treatment discharge
or to put on more treatment than
a
15
strict study of stream conditions would require?
16
MR.
DAUGHERTY:
I believe the different levels of effluent
17
permits
are
based
on
making
available,
to
a
degree,
and
over
a
18
period of many years they have been found to be fairly reasonable
19
limits
the
vast
majority
of
times.
20
MR.
ETTINGER:
Okay.
We’ll
stop
there.
21
HEARING OFFICER RNITflE:
Any questions from the Agency?
22
Mr. Hill?
Ms.
Liu?
23
MS. flU:
Mr. Daugherty,
if a treatment found it necessary
24
to add-on in order to meet the 1.0 proposed phosphorus
limit, and
105
Reefe
Reporting
Company
3.
later on the final numbers were changed to
a lower number where
2
other nutrient standards came into play, how effective would that
3
treatment
process
be
that
they
had
to
spend
money
on?
How
easy
4
would it to be to dial it up and treat more?
5
MR.
DAUGHERTY:
tn
most
cases
it
would
require
some
6
modifications.
It’s hard to answer that question without knowing
7
what level you’re going
to.
And whether you can work it into
8
that
final
design
with
certain
modifications
and
whether
it
would
9
be the same facilities that you would put in if you had a clean
10
piece
of
paper
to
work
from.
It’s
probably
not
the
case.
13.
MS.
1.10:
Would you be more acceptable to
a nutrient
12
standard
proposal
that
was
more
comprehensive
than
just
one
13
element at time
that would allow you to design something that
14
would
be
productive
for
all
perimeters?
15
MR. DAUGHERTY:
Yes,
I think it would be more an efficient
16
approach.
17
MR.
ETTINGER:
One
more
question,
Mr.
Daugherty.
Have
you
18
ever
designed
a
biological
phosphorus
removal
system?
19
MR. DAUGHERTY:
No.
20
MR.
ETTINGER:
Nave
you
studied
any
biological
phosphorus
23.
removal?
22
MR. DAUGHERTY:
Yes.
23
MR. ETTINGER:
Where
have
you
studied
them?
24
MR. DAUGHERTY:
Water Environment Federation Technical
106
Keefe
Reporting
Company
1
Presentations.
2
MR. ETTINGER:
Are there any to your knowledge being
3
operated
in
Illinois?
4
MR.
DAUGHERTY:
No.
5
MR.
ETTINGER:
Thank
you.
6
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTLE:
Anything
further?
Thank
you,
7
sir.
You can step down.
Mr.
Sofat, did you want to have
8
testimony provided?
9
MR.
SOFAT:
Toby is going to meet some Agency comments and
10
be
open
for
any
questions
that
the
Board
or
other
people
may
11.
have.
l2~
HEARING
OFFICER
KNITTIJE:
Do
you
mind
having
a
seat
up
here
13
so
the
court
reporter
can
heat
you
better.
14
(The withess was sworn.)
15
HEARING OFFICER IWITTLE:
You can begin your testimony,
16
sir.
17
MR. FREVERT:
Yeah,
I don’t want to duplicate the testimony
18
I
gave
at
the first hearing but
I did want to give a little bit
19
of
reaction
to
today’s
testimony.
I
think
you’ve
heard
from
the
20
various witness.
Number one,
I don’t think there is anybody in
21
the room that’s against sound science.
We
all, want sound
22
science.
Based on the testimony nobody has that sound science
23
and knows exactly what to do with nutrients.
There’s good,
24
strong cause against many of Illinois waterways
so that’s a thing
107
Reefe Reporting Company
3.
that we’re going to have to deal with the reality of that.
2
The next point I want to bring out is in an ideal world if
3
we could wait for the perfect conclusion,
we probably would, but
4
reality is putting it on day after day a program to operate.
Our
S
existing
regulation
that
require
the
agency
to
have
documentation
6
and determine what controls the limitations are necessary upon a
7
discharge before they can authorize the discharge.
At the
8
present time we don’t know,
I think everybody in the room has
9
agreed,
we don’t know exactly what rule specific phosphorus plays
10
in
the
overall
environment.
We
know
that
phosphorus
is
11
problematic
in
streams
in
Illinois.
We
know
that
phosphorus
is
12
not problematic in some streams and we want to keep it that way.
13
The
first
point
I
want
to
make
our
proposal
is
not
intended
14
solely to be remedial or respond to adherent laws.
There’s no
15
distinction in our proposal between discharges to impaired water
16
and discharges to high quality waters.
We’re basically saying
17
it’s prudent.
A point source discharge
is required under both
18
state and federal law to get prior authorization to the extent
19
that there is a parameter of question out there,
we don’t know
20
exactly how to deal with the traditional or perhaps the only
21
legal
response
so
a
higher
authority
can
make
a
policy
decision
22
on that.
We have what we believe is
a measured and balance
23
policy for application that deal
with
that.
24
Lacking this specific sciences and the data to demonstrate
lOB
Keefe Reporting Company
1
a particular level of phosphorus
in a discharge that’s acceptable
2
today,
I don’t know how
I can authorize an NPDES on these
3
changes, and
quite
frankly
that’s
not
just
limited
to
expanding
4
facilities,
that’s all facilities.
So that’s the other thing
I
S
want
to
bring
out
in
this
proposal.
We’ve
been
talking
greatly
6
about
the
impact and the economic upon impact of sources which we
7
estimate to be 20 sources per year or less.
In the state of
8
Illinois there are only 2,000 permitted sources.
Over 500 of
9
those facilities have domestic sewage limits.
This proposal
10
specifically
says
until
during
this
interim
period,
unless
those
11
facilities
are
expanding
or
relocating
to
a
new
stream,
have
some
3.2
new discharge
to that effect,
they do not have an obligation in
13
the
immediate
time
to
invest
the
money
and
resources
to
that
14
spot.
They’re
allowed
to
continuing
operating.
I
know
I
made
15
that
point
in
my
earlier
testimony.
But
that
gets
direct
with
16
the
economics
in
mind.
It’s
not
a
consequence
for
a
new
cost.
17
We
recognize
and
admit
it
that
there
is
some
incremental
cost.
18
And we recognize up front that the exact impact of that
19
incremental cost and incremental treatment beyond our ability to
20
measure and predict with axes at this point in time.
21
Nevertheless,
for those new sources what we know there’s going to
22
be an increased load,
we’re recommending this technology.
It’s
23
not excessively expensive.
We do have some general cost data on
24
the record.
To the extent the Board needs more, we’ll be happy
109
Reefs
Reporting
Company
1
to work with them.
2
I do have some requests that some sources in Illinois that
3
currently
are
removing
phosphorus
have
been
removing
them
for
4
over
a
decade.
I
can
assure
you
there
are
a
capital
——
operating
5
expenses
are
being
met.
And so
it
is
affordable.
In
that
regard
6
we
don’t
believe
we’re
creating
unnecessary
burden,
but
the
7
bigger
benefit
is
for
the
other
500
plus
facilities,
this
8
proposal
would
say
that
you
do
not
have
to
move
forward
with
9
phosphorus removal and the Agency does indeed have a policy
10
directive
and
an
interpretation
of
how
the
water
quality
11
standards and committee regulations and the like.
Again,
we need
12
to
permit
and
allow
you
to
continue
operating
as
is
without
13
incurring
that
expense.
I
think
those
are
the
primary
things
I
14
wanted
to
mention.
15
A little bit of response to Dick’s statement.
In our
16
proposal we’re establishing a discharge limitation on the
17
concentration that can be discharged to the stream.
We’re not
18
mandating and requiring any particular technology.
To the extent
19
that Dick and his operation and his facility can achieve,
if they
20
are subject to this standard,
they can achieve this standard
21.
through source control that is perfectly acceptable for them to
22
pursue
that route.
That’s a good decision as to whether or not
23
it adequately effects any level of cost disruption.
I guess I’ll
24
finish that point.
We’re specifying
a discharge level that’s
110
Keefe Reporting Company
1
consistent with prudent technology.
We’re not mandating that
2
exact
technology.
3
The other thing I’d point out when we have the records,
4
things are complete.
We will,
of course,
file our final closing
5
comment and we will specifically look at the alternative language
6
produced by Albert Ettinger here and the question raised at the
7
prior heating and we will do that.
8
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Thank you,
sir.
Do we have any
9
questions of Mr.
Frevert?
10
BOARD MEMBER GIRARD:
Toby, early we heard testimony from
13.
Dick taanyon that several IAWA members would consider the using of
12
wetland technology or nutrient management if the Illinois EPA
13
created rules to cover that situation.
Has the Illinois EPA
14
considered creating a set of rules to cover that.
15
MR.
FREVERT:
We were involved with discussions last year
16
with Dick Lanyon and some of his affiliates at the wetland
17
institute and the I3SEPA staff and the wire regarding that same
18
issue and the possibility of developing a trading type approach
19
and wetland type approach.
That’s how we deal with nutrients in
20
a broader range.
That particular initiative is kind of wound
21
down to
a back burner.
There’s not a lot of activity today but
22
we’re still amenable about discussing about wetland technology,
23
still amenable to concepts on training and things of that nature.
24
At the present time
I would say that most promise I’m aware of
111
Keefe Reporting Company
1
discussions
costs to develop those technology, particularly the
2
technology and the specific legal administrative measures
3
relative to
trade,
are taking place within the Ohio River Valley
4
Group on hypoxia issues.
There is such a thing as Orsanco,
5
O-R-S-A-N-C--O, which Illinois is
a member
of, and they receive
6
funding from headquarters
to fund that effort.
A major part of
7
that effort includes bringing point sources down and non-point
8
sources and how to proceed.
9
On a similar side
the state of Illinois works with the
10
upper Mississippi river and other effluents through the state
to
11
formulate similar groups to address new issues on the effluent
12
river basin,
and we will participate in that.
I believe that
13
effort is initially being funded by, not headquarters, but Region
14
5 and Region
7 of the USEPA.
Those are the two areas where the
15
talks and the opportunity to have advanced these concepts are
16
probably the most promising.
Either way
I think there is a fair
17
amount of leg work to get to the point where anybody would want
18
to set
a regulatory policy that a statutory approach we need to
19
put it in place.
20
BOARD MEMBER GXRABD:
Okay.
21
MR.
ETTflTGER:
I just wanted to add that we have worked
22
with permit applicants,
and actually much more unreasonable than
23
Mr.
Harsch suggested, not solely phosphorus
that we look at in
24
these permit questions and sometimes we have been very happy and
112
Keefe Reporting Company
1
work with permit applicants.
One was
the Village of Manhattan
2
which put in a wetland polishing on Manhattan Creek.
The Village
3
of
Manhattan
has
had
some
work
done
in
Illinois.
Also
with
4
village
of
Huntley,
a
lot
of
their
wastewater
is
going
on
the
S
golf course and there are other places like that where we are
6
specifically looking at ways of dealing with the wetlands, or
7
rather, with the wastewater that will involve some sort of
8
biological polishing or wetland treatment in addition to
a sewage
9
treatment plant.
10
MR.
FEEVERT:
I’ll follow-up on that.
The Agency routinely
11
creates validly to look at those technologies as part of their
12
early facility plan.
13
BOARD MEMBER GIRARD:
So just to clarify,
are those wetland
14
technology projects that are being used in Illinois are developed
15
in the context of the NPDES permit under current rules?
16
MR.
FREVERT:
I don’t know the specifics of Manhattan.
I
17
know in the case of land application through irrigation where
18
you’re actually applying the water
to the land and you don’t have
19
a surface discharge, we’re increasing wetland polishing.
20
Ultimately there is still is
a point where that water, that
21
surface water, leaves the treatment process and enters the water
22
of the nation and waters of the state.
And at that point that is
23
a discharge subject to Clean Water Act and the Environmental
24
Protection Agency has to make, and we got to work with people to
113
Keefe Reporting Company
1
identify what specific limitations are to be put in that whether
2
or not phosphorus applies
to that point.
To the extent the
3
wetland removes the phosphorus and it no longer makes
it,
then
4
the wetland requires the treatment process,
not an independent
5
resource in and of itself.
6
BOARD
MEMBER
GIRARD:
Would
there
be
any
problems
with
the
7
discharge or utilizing saying an adjusted standard process or
8
site specific rulemaking process
to incorporate those current
9
technologies or evening
a training stream?
10
MR.
FREVERT:
I would specifically assume
regulatory
11
authority of the Board can help address some complexities we
12
have.
If
we
still
involve
the
discharge.
That
discharge
would
13
have
to
be
subject
to
whatever
requirements
came on that site
14
with specific rule adjustment
to the extent they investigated
15
water quality,
it would be subject to USEPA review and approval.
16
But
to
the
extent
there
is
a
good
technology,
there
is
the
17
existing regulatory structure prevents
it,
yeah,
I think state
18
and federal people are looking more ways to address
that.
19
BOARD MEMBER GIRAP.D:
Thank you.
20
MR.
FREVERT:
I think part of our issue here is the science
21
and technology testimony is regulatory structure.
We got to find
22
the right way to deal with that.
23
RENtING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Anything further?
24
MS.
LITJ:
Mr.
Frevert, could you give us an idea of what
114
Keefe Reporting Company
1
the final nutrient standard looks like?
I know it’s
a ways off
2
but I’ve only seen a small glimpse of it and I was wondering what
3
might be coming down the pipeline.
4
MR.
FREVERT:
I guess I’m not going
to speculate on behalf
5
of the Agency.
At this point we believe the primary parameters
6
are focused on an increase in the phosphorus.
We ideally would
7
like
to have and find a numeric concentration of phosphorus with
8
whatever temporal applications are appropriate and whatever
9
perhaps spacial areas are necessary.
Such that number is
a
10
protective number protecting against the detrimental of the
11
excess plan and probably going to vary from location to location
12
around the state.
I don’t believe there’s one size fits all.
13
This is complicated science.
14
When
I was
a sophomore in college, my basic water quality
15
course
I had an introduction
to nutrient cycle concepts and
16
really should quantify and say stream A versus stream B becomes
17
problematic if that concentration stays below that concentration.
i.8
We don’t have the answer.
The rest of the participates
in the
19
room don’t have the answer.
My counterparts in the state don’t
20
have the answer.
That’s the goal.
Get there where we can say
21
with some rationality this stream or these
10 streams we’ve got
22
to manage phosphorus.
This concentration for this time of the
23
year is
a set of circumstances and we met other goals for
24
protecting the environment.
It may be
a different number in a
115
Keefe Reporting Company
1
different stream.
It will probably be
a different number in a
2
different stream.
I guess that’s the longwinded way of saying I
3
can’t give you a great deal of vision other than we think
4
primarily phosphorus
is going to be the most difficult parameter
5
to create.
6
MS.
LIU:
Given your uncertainly and the fact that,
I think
7
the year 2008
I think was mentioned,
that is when you might be
8
able to propose something more solid.
Could you maybe speak to
9
the environmental disbenefits of waiting that four years before
10
going ahead with proposing this phosphorus limit?
11
MR.
FREVERT:
I think what our proposal is suggesting
is we
12
think there are
a lot of places where there’s excessive
13
nutrients,
at least certain times of the year now,
well,
we don’t
14
know exactly what to do with that.
We don’t want to make
the
15
situation worse,
therefore,
the new significant loading subject
16
to this permitting program under permitting regulations needs to
17
be dealt with.
We spent a lot of money.
We go to a lot of
18
meetings.
We do a lot of work on the non—point source side.
19
We’re also addressing nutrient and primarily phosphorus in
20
non-point sources.
Hopefully we’re getting some reduction there
21
but those programs are
a little more flexible and fluid to a
22
great extent they move with the flow of money.
They don’t move
23
fast.
24
One example,
I guess
I could point out now,
CAFO
116
Keefe Reporting Company
1
regulations,
that
particular
permitting
program
now
will
require
2
a nutrient management plan, management of manure for those
3
operations and
I believe technical practicing standards both
4
managing that manure primarily on phosphorus loading and
5
phosphorus agronomic applications
to the land whereas more focus
6
on nitrogen.
So even in the non—point source program or the
7
agricultural program you see a fair amount of emphasis
on
8
managing phosphorus.
9
MS.
LIU:
Thank you.
10
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
Anything further?
You remain
11
there but technically steps down if you prefer.
Let’s go off the
12
record for just a second.
13
(A discussion was held off the record.)
14
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
We’re back on the record.
If
15
anyone has any questions about the procedural aspects about this
16
rulemaking,
I can be reached by telephone at
(217)
278-3109.
You
17
can also reach me by E-mail.
I think everyone has my E-mail.
As
18
we talked off the record, we’re going to set
a written public
19
comment deadline of December 10th.
Also just a housekeeping
20
matter,
I never got a copy of the reference that
--
that one that
21
goes to the City of Elgin.
You took it and gave it to Roy.
I
22
may need that.
That was Exhibit No.
6.
And, Mr.
Harsch,
you
23
never,
I don’t think offered,
correct me if I’m wrong,
24
Daugherty’s testimony as an exhibit.
I’m assuming you want to do
117
Keefe Reporting Company
1
that?
2
MR.
H.ARSCH:
Sure.
3
HEARING OFFICER KNITTLE:
That would be Exhibit
12.
Do you
4
have any objections to that?
Admitted as Exhibit 12.
That’s all
5
I have.
Thank you all very much.
The transcript,
as we said,
6
will be on available on November 4th.
We will post it on the
7
Board’s website thereafter.
And please give me a call if you
$
have any other
issues.
Thank you.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
118
Keefe Reporting Company
STATE OF ILLINOIS
COUNTY
OF
FAYETTE
CERTIFICATE
I, BEVERLY
S.
HOPKINS,
a Notary Public in and for the
County of Fayette,
State of Illinois,
DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the
foregoing 11$ pages comprise
a true,
complete and correct
transcript of the proceedings held on the 25th day of October,
2004,
at the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Lakeview
A,
B,
and C,
One Natural Resources Way, Springfield,
Illinois, in
the case of In the Matter
of:
Interim Phosphorus Effluent
Standard, Proposed 35
Ill.
Adm.
304.123
(G-K),
in
proceedings
held before Hearing Officer John Knittle, and recorded in machine
shorthand by me.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF
I have hereunto set my hand and affixed
by Notarial Seal this 3rd day of October,
2002.
OFFICIAL
SEAL
~
_____________________________
~
BEVERLY
S
HOPKINS
~
py ptJ~uC,
STATE 01
LLW.~0tSt
Beverly S.
Hopkins
Notary Public and
Certified Shorthand Reporter and
Registered Professional Reporter
CSR License No.
084-004316
KEEfl
REPORTING
COMPANY
119
Keefe Reporting Company
A
41:3
82:3,4
99:10.13,18.23
along48:3
94:24
ability
29:9
309:19
active4l:23
97:2
adopted
76:8,19
100:6,8,14,15,21
already
35:8
76:13
able 27:9
31:23
activitiess9:23
100:18
101:20
100:24
301:2,4,11
93:23
99:22
103:3
53:18
73:4,9 79:5
activtty62l8
adopting92:14
101:13
302:12,14
alter 56:12
316:8
111:21
adoption 39:8 61:6
102:23
103:3
alternate92:13
about 6:15
9:1
12:10
actual
64:5
64:6 69:16
100:22
105:21
107:9
alternative
37:2,17
15:13
16:2,16
17:2
actually 5:10
16:15
adopts 4:20
108:5
110:9
17:17
94:11
111:5
20:2023:9,18
16:17
28:5
38:23
advance 38:30
113:10,24
115:5
although 56:24
26:23
27:10 31:14
52:755:661:15
advanced
112:15
Agency’s55:12 94:5
73:24
80:1
33:38
34:8 35:14
88:16 92:18
adverse62:2
98:21
99:3,6
Alumnuss9:19
38:3 40:5,7,20
104:14
112:22
advisable 82:3
100:12
102:22
always
15:22
19:10
42:19 43:6 44:14
113:18
advised
37:23
aggravated
15:22
57:13
46:17 47:2,5,7,9
add 11:2156:20
advisor 9:7
aggravating 93:24
amazingly 27:6
49:4,38
50:3 56:24
102:5,7
112:21
ADVISORY 70:20
ago
10:1
15:626:23
amenable 111:22,23
57:24
70:2,9 72:10
added 48:8
advocacy 75:1
agree 33:1636:16
amend 53:1
77:17
85:11
87:4
adding 38:13,22
ADWO 66:20,21
36:22
amendment25:12
89:14,22 90:13
85:10
67:9,13 68:2,3,10
agreed
6:15
9:3
35:2
America 62:9
69:23
92:5,17 97:10
addition 4:23
14:4
68:10,11
80:2
36:5
37:1
61:9,30
American 59:17,21
104:19
109:6
19:9,13
34:19
83:23
84:15,16
77:12
108:9
62:7
111:22,22
117:15
35:19
38:4,19
85:8
agreeing40:15
ammonia 13:8
117:15
46:12 65:1,20
69:7
ADWOs 66:3,13,14
90:14
among46:5
65:21
above 9:15 49:15
97:14
113:8
67:8,17,18,19,21
agreement 36:6
amount 11:2221:3
62:5 68:13
72:11
additional 11:6
14:8
68:13
84:19,23
46:19
21:5
27:6 38:14,24
77:11
79:3
88:19
41:13
57:6
82:13
85:4,11
86:11
agreements36:13
41:10 67:9
70:11
104:20
85:298:3
100:13
91:13
92:6
agrees 33:15
72:17
82:24
86:10
accept
14:18
101:24
aerated 11:4
agricultural 12:11
86:11,21
88:10
acceptable8:14
additions4l:11
aeration39:1
15:4,921:1842:2
91:8
112:17
117:7
89:18
106:11
address
16:24
25:17
aerobic 31:20
32:1,6
42:6,21
68:19,21
amounts
19:9,23
109:1
110:21
55:22
73:21
77:10
affect 19:17,18 20:3
69:12,15,19,21
45:2
65:23
according4O:24
77:16 78:3
90:23
affecting 19:24
62:6
70:15
71:13
77:14
anaerobic 31:39,21
49:16
84:7
85:18
99:24
103:4
affects 62:13
85:19
90:23
117:7
32:5
93:1
112:11114:11,18
affiliate 97:10
agriculturally 43:3
analytical 60:9
accounted 67:5
addressing 25:15
affiliates 131:16
Agriculture 69:23
analyzing 27:13
70:16
56:2
116:19
affixed 119:16
77:22
Anand2:44:8
accounts
18:16
add-on
105:24
affordable
110:5
agronomic 117:5
and/or 64:24
65:5
accrual 72:9
adequate 63:14
Africa
15:11
ahead
116:10
69:9
accumulate32:1,3
99:10
after
5:19,21
6:3
air
12:14
27:4 76:12
anhydrous 13:8
accumulated 21:5
adequately 110:23
10:16
28:6 46:10
al
38:16 25:1
animal 69:18
accuinulating3l:22
adherent 108:14
46:22
80:34
108:4
Albert2:19 7:3
animals 33:4,5 70:8
accurate 36:13
Adjoining 8:23
afterwards 95:10
16:1447:23
111:6
70:12
100:11
adjusted 114:7
Agadir 35:9
algae 4:19
19:14,22
annual 78:23 93:2
achievable 35:12
adjustment 114:14
again
14:23
27:21
49:3,16,22 50:2
annually 70:3,30
achieve 39:7
40:21
Adm
1:4 99:9
34:16 35:16 84:6
93:16
85:24
40:23
41:5
110:19
119:13
102:10 104:22
algal 19:12,35
27:1
another 72:24
110:20
Admin4:5
110:11
62:6,12 63:6 93:20
answer
16:16
17:1
achieved 52:1
79:10
administration60:7
against 61:22
Algeria 15:11
22:19 24:7 26:22
achieving
33:21
administrative
107:21,24
115:10
Alisa
2:5
4:8
47:7
50:9 56:6
40:6,741:844:15
112:2
age6s:16
alleged24:18
91:18
305:9,10
45:12 68:14
admission46:23
agencies
10:16
allow 6:4,17 88:18
106:6
115:18,19
acknowledged
admit
13:24
14:19
59:24
74:22 97:4,6
99:23
303:3
115:20
35:1!
18:2 30:18
86:17
97:12
106:13
110:12
answered 58:8
acknowledges
100:8
109:17
agency 2:12 4:13
allowance 78:11,16
answering 24:11
acre
12:13,16 85:18
admits 63:14
6:18,23,24 7:2,11
allowed
109:14
answers 56:8
acres 10:4
13:15
admitted 6:2 20:7
7:12,13
10:22
allows 32:3
98:12
Anthropogenic
85:20
29:2
30:18 47:22
16:23
22:1
38:1
alluded
10:21
25:13
95:10
across 15:30 71:11
83:1695:21
101:2
47:1055:15 56:14
41:20
anticipate88:23
act 5:1,7
9:9,10
10:9
118:4
57:10,11,12,14
Alma
56:2
89:11
62:11
90:16
admitting 28:24
65:24 66:5
73:13
almost
15:1
19:10
anticipating 89:3
113:23
47:13
100:16
89:20 94:8,13
95:1
32:6
57:13
97:14
anti-degradation
activated3l:!941:2
adoptô0:17 64:7,10
96:24 97:1,22
99:7
aloneó5:15
46:15
58:3
Keefe Reporting Company
anybody 4:12
5:37
71:24
73:23
94:5
Australia 49:20
85:1,11
86:11
93:9
107:2
110:5
5:22
16:16
24:22
98:5
author 90:3
banued
85:4
112:33113:14
26:11
29:16
30:21
arbitraryô3:19
authority
108:21
banning 80:4
believe
12:15
33:8
95:23
107:20
area
31:9 59:3,6
114:11
hans 80:12
33:12
34:3,12
112:17
60:13
73:23
77:38
authorization
Barr 66:9
35:24 40:3
43:20
anyone 6:6 34:17
87:18
108:18
Barrington
14:9
45:10
46:4,18,20
20:9,10
101:7
areas35:22 76:15
authorize
108:7
hase63:!586:6
49:12 51:10,16
117:15
76:17
77:14
90:22
109:2
93:13
52:14 54:15
56:6,8
anything7:109:15
98:4
112:14
115:9
automatic65:22
based
30:24
24:1
57:14,18,23
58:12
10:5
34:7
15:17
Argonne75:5
83:18,2091:7,8
29:1033:343:3
84:18
91:3,5,18
22:23
24:21
27:18
argue48:7
available 5:13
8:5
44:3,1245:648:8
95:17
102:6
45:8,16
54:24
argued
101:11
11:119:2253:20
60:2!
64:7
67:8
105:33,16
108:22
58:11107:6
argumentsô:5
61:1
65:7
81:14
68:6 79:14
81:16
110:6
112:12
114:23
117:10
Army9:6
83:21
84:6,24
81:20 82:16,17
115:5,12
117:3
apologize2s:8
around 115:12
85:18 87:7 103:24
85:8 87:10 93:3
believes 11:2 100:19
34:11,11
ARTAG 43:21
105:17
118:6
94:6 99:19
100:20
belive 29:10
apparently 70:17
ASCE
59:23
Avenue2:6,13
103:19,23
104:12
Belleville
1:24
appealed
37:6
Aside 5:16
avenues
15:2
104:18
105:17
below
78:22 79:2,20
appeals 46:10
asked 9:2,7
55:22
average 29:12
32:36
107:22
86:10,10
115:17
appear 80:19
70:23
304:14,14
59:6
68:6,7,17
baseline 23:16
beneficial
62:20
appears77:18
asking24:3,7 64:10
69:4 78:19,23
bases62:8
81:18
Appendix7O:1,7
104:12
88:18
basic
60:14
115:14
benefit 36:10
65:17
applicable
22:15
aspects
317:15
avoid 38:2
58:2
basically 36:16
99:14,36 100:3,4
applicant 82:13
Assembly 8:21
98:16
40:18 57:8
108:
16
100:16
110:7
applicants
112:22
asserting 4:13
awaits 63:23
basin 70:21
71:13
benefits 34:21,22,24
113:1
assess79:I1
Award59:18
74:13,21
77:13,16
35:7,1836:639:5
application
11:5
Assessment66:8
aware 8:21
21:15,24
77:18,21,24 96:13
65:11
75:14
42:23
70:5 78:7
assigned
4:3
22:4,10,12,13,21
96:18
112:12
benthic 72:12
80:15,3798:8,23
Assistant 59:12
52:24 88:2,6 93:9
basins 71:10
benthos 20:3
99:19
100:9
assisted 71:5
103:14 111:24
basis4:20
13:16
besides7O:7
108:23
113:17
assisting4:3
away
12:19,24 64:2
18:18 25:16
48:8
best 15:23
17:1
applications 115:8
association 6:23 7:2
94:20
50:20
51:3,39
40:21
69:7
85:12
117:5
10:16
59:24
74:22
AWQMS1:22
63:17 64:1,4,13
Beth2:22
7:6
16:19
applied 29:7,8 60:14
76:19 97:4,6,9
axes
109:20
65:17
71:17
81:9
17:16
27:23
28:11
67:15
69:5 79:9
assume23:2439:l0
a.m
1:8
94:1999:16
103:1
30:13
34:1542:11
85:17,24
114:10
303:22
104:12,23
42:24
43:17
applies56:4
80:13
assumes 24:7
B
battery 9:4
better 25:18
35:9
88:6
114:2
assuming 15:19
B 1:9 2:3 39:18
battles 43:20
42:10,15 107:13
apply4:20 21:13
29:14 39:6 85:21
44:22
48:10,13,20
beautification 87:5
between 8:5
19:3
57:1365:10 85:22
117:24
49:2,395:12
become80:13
35:540:3641:8
applying 113:18
assure6:l1,12 110:4
115:16 119:11
beconies9l:10
52:21 53:11 61:1
appointed 97:19,19
attached 48:5 63:13
bachelors
59:15
115:16
63:6 70:13 76:7
appreciable 65:23
83:11
96:21
beconiings9:1
I
102:11108:15
approach 51:8,13
attachment29:20
back4:9,22 26:14
before
1:1,9
6:14,16
Bev42:16
61:4 62:19
68:14
attachments28:17
26:36,23 27:12,14
7:10
14:18
29:15
Beverly
1:17
119:6
71:9 80:21
106:16
attainable79:6
37:5
42:24
45:20
32:10
34:17
51:12
119:20
111:18,19 112:18
attaining7ó:12
105:1
111:21
58:7 61:12
83:9
beyond 57:16
69:6
approached 22:7
attempted 17:18
117:14
103:15
108:7
74:11
109:19
appropriate 20:9
79:13
background4:1
1
116:9
119:14
big
16:4
17:13
22:24
44:5
82:17
98:17
attended 22:8
47:24
begin
107:15
23:2,2,4,13
89:2
101:9
115:8
attending43:24
backlog 64:12,12
beginning 61:17
bigger 110:7
approval
114:15
attention34:18
back-up4l:8 45:13
62:23
65:8
bill 8:24
9:5,8
43:4
approved 81:7
50:16 53:22
74:16
bacteria
19:14,22
begins 62:1
billion
10:18
59:7
98:21
attorney 4:2 6:21
bacterial 19:12,15
begun 77:16
Bio
83:23
approximate
85:23
attributable 21:17
bad 88:16
behalf
6:237:1
bioassays 72:4
approximately
21:18
baffle 32:7
42:1260:1997:5
biodiversity 75:17
10:19
67:12
84:11
attributed 62:13
balance
108:22
115:4
biological 31:16
85:6
97:11,13
67:7
ballpark40:1
behind
77:19
89:2
38:11,20,22 39:2
April
80:24
Angnst4:22 61:7
ban68:13 80:8,13
being 13:18
30:1,17
40:21,22 41:4
aquatic
18:19
63:9
80:15
80:15,20 84:18,23
47:19
73:4 79:10
44:19,20,21
61:2
2
Keefe Reporting Company
62:17 79:7
101:15
briefings 22:9
Carpenter’s 25:6
100:7
101:15,21
99:9
101:17
106:18,20
briefly 25:9
carry 83:23
84:4,4
101:23
102:3,2,7
Cole 83:23
113:8
bring 30:13
74:16
84:13
85:1
95:9
102:10
collecting 26:17
biologically 19:22
75:14
85:2
108:2
Carton 3:2 6:23
chemicals66:l4
59:1
87:13
31:18
109:5
Cascade 84:4,14,17
67:3 75:16
102:3
college
15:9 67:24
biologist
38:18
bringing 112:7
case4:12 8:8 57:18
Chicago2:18
3:3
115:14
biomass72:9
broad70:23 73:4
57:19
58:1
106:10
4:23
9:2 54:13
column48:11,15
bit
107:18
110:15
broader25:16,l6
113:17
119:12
58:23
74:24
83:5
49:5,8,19 53:11
hi-annual 93:2
313:20
cases 50:14 53:38
84:21
87:18
combined 68:5
Blagojevich
70:23
broadly29:7
106:5
102:17
combining44:19
73:1,3,8,19
74:1
broad-based 68:11
catch 86:23
Chief 1:10
come 8:4 9:5 44:10
Blagojevich’s 89:15
brought 53:1
73:12
catching
15:14
chlorophyl
26:1
45:2,3 46:19
58:16
89:17
bnildiug4:23 15:12
cause
30:3
51:6,14
52:10
94:24
blamed 73:22
40:1298:16
51:2052:16,21,22
chlorophyll 72:12
comes
15:16
blood
15:24
built
10:2
15:8
52:23
72:20
73:1
93:20
comingó:10 33:5
blue/green49:3,15
bulletin 69:22 70:1
82:8 92:18,23
choose 8:5 38:10
91:9
115:3
49:22 50:2
burden
64:18,24
93:10 94:9
107:24
chooses 38:12
comment 5:22,24
board
1:1
2:2,4,5,6
65:5
77:1,6
110:6
caused
71:16
73:22
chosen
38:8
104:22
40:4
111:5
117:19
2:8,9,114:3,3,6,7
Bureau 67:23
causes 52:16
68:24
Cindy43:20 46:1
comnientss:3,16
4:10,16,20
5:14
bnrner 111:21
81:15
93:6
Cipriano7l:3
6:9 7:13,14
60:22
6:8 8:9,19 21:12
B-l-O-K-L-E-E-N
causing 82:7
circumstances 57:6
103:6
107:9
22:14,2025:9,21
83:24
CBOD 57:19
115:23
commerce
5:2
73:12
26:13
27:9
34:6
B-MAC 71:2,4,7
Census67:23
cite 62:12 63:2
commercial6O:3,10
47:3 53:20
74:16
Center 2:167:4
cited
18:37
65:12
65:22
80:3 85:10
82:8
92:13
96:8
C
75:23
cites 61:18
63:1
commerciallindns...
98:1899:6
302:19
Cl:92:1,33:l
certain60:661:21
64:15
66:1667:1,19
102:22
103:15
119:4,4,11
62:16 78:7
93:1
citizens97:21
commercial/instit..,
105:6
107:10
CAFO42:22 116:24
99:19
106:8
Citrasuds83:24
66:14,21
68:3,10
109:24
111:10
CAFO543:2
69:21
116:13
city29:22,23 30:9
commission8:23,24
112:20
113:13
70:2,8,13
certainly
34:5 32:12
33:7,9,10,12 37:17
29:22 30:3
114:6,13,19
calculate67:13
35:5,9 36:21
37:6
84:21
117:21
commissioned6s:24
Board’s 5:6,8
6:1
calculated
70:11
37:17
39:2
42:4
civil 59:15,17,18,19
commitment73:6
25:11
118:7
85:8
45:7 47:18
59:22
96:22
73:10
74:2 77:24
Bobonson 54:17
call 9:23
52:22
certainty 79:9
claim 62:8
98:8
BOD 39:2
57:11
61:10
118:7
Certified
119:21
claims 63:22
64:7
committed 74:3
BOVC 57:19
called 8:22
10:2
CERTIFY 119:7
clarification
8:3
98:4
body 10:10
13:5
11:117:2348:15
chairman
97:7
24:23
45:22
56:23
committee7ó:2 97:7
18:23 51:5
77:5
93:13
Challenge28:21
clarifications4s:24
110:11
books 15:15
calls98:23
Champaign2:10,21
clarify34:7
88:15
common32:23 42:1
borders73:16
came9:2
53:12
chance6:l7
113:13
commonly3l:22
born
10:9
13:11
94:13
106:2
change 27:4
50:23
clarifying 43:11
communicated
both
19:5
24:13
114:13
56:6,11,11
62:22
91:1 92:12
303:9
40:18
28:23
32:5 47:21
Canadian 62:8
79:11
class 85:14 96:24,24
communities 11:15
55:23
59:15
65:1
71:23
changed
27:5
106:1
97:1
35:1,8,10,17,20
71:1
72:7
74:4
capacity 9:19 48:14
changes 27:11
88:17
classic 62:19
36:10 37:1,12,13
76:24 96:21
97:38
59:4 88:24 89:9
109:3
clean 9:9,10 10:9
37:14,20,22 40:14
97:24 98:5
108:17
98:4
changing26:18
13:16 84:5 90:16
89:10
117:3
capita 67:13,14,16
channel 27:8
106:9
113:23
community 15:4
bother
18:10
67:20 85:9
characterization
cleaning 80:3
35:1137:18
bottom 60:23
61:1
capital 10:18
35:14
22:38
36:12
Cleanwater 14:16
comon 32:24
62:1
35:19
38:4
45:11
characterize 23:15
clear 7:18
17:12
companies 14:3
box 2:7,13 79:20
65:13101:17,18
Charge 60:7
68:12
company 1:22
2:24
boy 49:2
101:22
102:12
charged
10:6
clearly61:11
3:24
10:1 44:6
brand 84:12
110:4
chart 68:18
78:22
clients 7:3 35:6,17
66:9
119:24
brands 83:23 84:1,4
capricious 63:19
79:1
Clinton 54:21
comparable 26:17
84:1085:2
carbon 12:12,17,17
check 95:22
closes 62:3
compare 86:3
break 45:19
care 50:7
chemical 38:11,12
closing 6:5,5,5 111:4
compared 84:16
breakpoints72:10
careful26:7 102:20
38:13,1941:7,11
Club2:l7
7:436:7
comparing27:14
brief 4:13
16:15
Carpenter
18:15
44:20,21
45:10
36:15
42:20 43:4,7
coniplete6:4 8:11
47:1
86:13
25:1
63:867:1073:18
code 1:44:5 51:21
30:14
111:4
119:8
3
Keefe Reporting Company
completed 66:9
95:1
69:30
66:5 68:22 73:18
96:15
dams 27:5
101:6,9
consider24:1972:7
75:8,10,11
76:5,24
Countys9:4 67:21
data2ô:14,l5,17,22
completing 88:22
80:4,8 92:14
77:2.6,12 78:9
67:22
68:12
81:7
26:23
27:3,8,13
completion63:24
111:11
80:22
90:14
94:5
119:2,7
51:22
52:11
53:16
complex6l:1963:9
considerable2l:3
96:7
101:1,5
couple38:941:13
53:1764:6 67:13
complexities
114:11
79:3
110:21
45:24
103:9
68:11
72:5 78:2!
compliance 44:10
considerably 29:8
controlled 23:20,22
course
14:9
16:6
87:13,17,2488:2,3
45:3
60:18
consideration 6:13
23:23
24:1,5 79:17
30:24 39:16 43:3
88:4
108:24
complicated
115:13
102:20
103:6,15
controlling 76:16
53:20
80:19
88:13
109:23
comply29:10 36:22
considered 19:15
77:19
80:4
111:4
113:5
date 17:9
58:2
20:5
111:14
controls
65:12 80:5
115:15
dated
30:4,5 72:24
component76:13
considering25:12
82:15
93:7,21 94:8
conrses3l:1
74:4
80:24
components 57:11
consisted
17:13
108:6
court 7:16 58:16
Daugherty
7:1,1
100:11
consistent 99:1
conventional 75:19
107:13
39:12,14,21
40:16
compositionó3:8
111:1
conveys5:18
coverlll:13,14
41:1258:1395:22
compound 64:21
constituents 97:20
Cook 59:4
67:21,22
create 8:24
75:20
96:3,6,9,12,12
compoundsG4:16
97:21
98:7,14
68:12 96:15
76:6
316:5
103:13,17,22
comprehensive 26:5
constitutes 31:16
cooperating 87:16
created
8:22
58:24
104:11,17,22
63:11
66:6
70:21
constructed
11:4
coordinated 81:6
111:13
105:12,16,23
75:3
81:4
106:l2
74:19
75:6
98:2
coordinating4:6
creates 77:4
113:11
106:5,15,17,19,22
comprise 119:8
construction 77:13
copper 51:12,14
creating 13:7 27:6
106:24 107:4
concentrated69:18
98:1 101:13 102:6
55:18
110:6 111:14
Daugherty’s 117:24
concentration 21:22
102:9
copy5:1
1 30:11,14
creation 78:13
David 87:19
62:20,21
110:17
consultants 35:6,17
117:20
82:20
Davis 95:12
1l5:7,l7,17,22
contact 55:20
56:1,5
corn 69:6 85:20
credit 10:10 82:22
day 7:13 26:2 27:15
concentrations4:18
contain65:23 80:5
corporation74:24
82:24
39:23 53:13
6516
61:2
62:5 63:3,4,6
84:8
104:8
correct2l:14
34:8
Creek8l:3,4,7,19
79:9 92:4 96:16
63:7
64:20
68:6
contained 84:9
35:23
36:3,20
96:13,18
113:2
108:4,4
119:9,17
74:20 78:20,24
containing 69:1
37:10 42:11
49:16
criteria
71:22
93:1,3
days 12:8,8
15:8
79:4,6
79:24
80:12
84:19
50:18,19 51:10,24
crop 85:15
DCO’s
5:4
concepts
111:23
84:22
52:4
53:3
89:6
crops
12:12
dead 12:22
112:15
115:15
context
113:15
91:21,2292:19,20
cross-examination
deadline 117:19
concern 71:19,21
continue6:12 24:8
93:4 94:22
103:12
6:3
deal 100:22
108:1
concerned9:1
46:17
99:2
110:12
103:12,13
117:23
Crow
10:1
108:20,23
111:19
conclude
104:18
continued 3:1
68:23
119:8
CSR
1:17,17
119:23
114:22
116:3
conclusion 27:23
continues 63:10
corrected 51:16
culture 27:4
dealing
113:6
29:4
34:18
102:21
73:19
correctly 54:1
71:20
curious 25:9
dealt 116:17
108:3
continuing 60:23
correlate 79:5
current
27:13
50:23
deaths 49:15
conclusions27:10
61:18 62:23
73:6
corrosion
64:16,19
62:24
63:1,11,21
decade 110:4
44:13
81:13
73:11
109:14
64:21,22
65:4
69:17 77:4
80:7
decades 16:3 26:16
condition 73:21
contract 54:22
76:1
cost
10:8,14
15:23
87:11
88:19
27:!!
conditions36:5,22
contradicts 61:15
38:16,17,19
39:15
103:22
104:6
December
117:19
93:24,24
101:4
contrast 98:14
39:17,18,23,24
113:15
114:8
decimal4o:17
105:15
contravene 76:15
44:10 65:13,15
currently 21:12
decision 5:4
15:19
conduct63:1l
80:24
contribute2o:4
83:3
84:13
85:3
22:1
25:11
40:15
34:2435:4
108:21
93:22
70:15
91:10,14,16
98:7
52:24
58:22
63:9
110:22
conducted
5:2
contribution 24:18
98:13
100:6,9,1!
88:20
96:12,17
decisions 58:7
Condncting6o:14
67:8
68:8 69:21
100:12,12,13
97:7
100:21
102:8
dedicated 82:20
conference 22:8
72:21
75:8,13
77:7
101:17,22
102:7
103:15,23
110:3
deems 82:2
confidence 98:11
contributions 61:24
102:13
109:16,17
cycle 13:3,4
115:15
defensible 64:1
confirmed 72:4
65:18
66:7,17
109:19,23
110:23
Cynthia 46:2
deficiencies 40:12
confused 89:14
contributor 79:15
costs 34:22
35:13,14
C-I-T-R-A-S-U-D-S
63:2
confusion 46:8
contributors 79:13
35:18,19,19 38:4,6
83:24
define 31:10 62:19
congressional 9:16
contributory 91:13
39:15 40:1,19 45:2
definite 26:6
conjunction 26:21
control
1:1 2:2,6,9
60:7
100:18
D
definitely 25:5
Conley4:9
6:1921:1222:14
101:22
102:13
D48:1949:1 50:17
degree48:996:21
connected 23:1,3,5
22:20
24:1,14 34:6
112:1
53:4,4
105:17
consensus 71:5
44:4
60:3,5,9,10
cost-effective 76:23
daily 59:7
68:7,17
degrees 59:16
consequence
109:16
61:20,21
63:8
counterparts 115:19
92:7
delay 36:8,18,18
Conservation 69:3
64:16,2265:24
counties
76:19
damages 75:17
64:8
4
Keefe Reporting Company
Delhi 15:13
76:! 81:9 98:22,23
dischargers 61:22
District’s 59:3,8,9
due 6:13 21:3 27:4,4
deliberations3s:3
103:18
112:!
61:23,24 78:12
60:1,466:4
68:5
27:446:11
68:24
demand7s:15,15
developed
11:12
99:17,23
103:4
78:1779:19
80:22
88:13
102:10
demonstrate 64:3
24:18
98:I0,14,17
discharges 9:15,15
81:12,13,19,22
DuPageXl:7
70:2!
75:5
81:10
113:14
10:13,17
11:12
92:14
duplicate
107:17
81:15
302:24
developing 4:14
18:20 22:1541:14
diverse 21:6
DuQuoin 35:22
108:24
39:1
61:4
111:18
46:15,21
54:17
Division
6:20
74:18
during23:3,4 36:4
demonstrated
10:14
development
10:3
56:5,7 60:3
71:18
81:11
36:16
102:5
29:9
76:11
93:23
11:13
20:5
22:2
73:14
74:9
78:9
divorce27:7
109:10
demonstrating
58:23
59:9,10,11
81:6
82:16
88:7
divorcing
27:7
dynamics 63:9
61:19
59:12
60:2 63:12
89:21
90:18
91:2
doctorate48:9
demonstration
76:13
87:12 98:8
108:15,16
docnment29:23,24
E
80:24
81:12,17
98:24
103:20
discharging20:23
30:2,6,11 40:9
E2:1,1,11
3:1,1
82:5
develops 78:8
34:4
54:15
48:1749:5,1450:1
119:4,4
dense
10:21
dial 106:4
discriminating
50:13,15 61:3
each 25:15,17,17,19
dentifrice 80:2
Dick
110:19
111:11
61:22
documentation
37:20
dentifrices 66:15,22
111:16
discriminatory78:6
50:10
108:5
earlier 31:1!
46:1
deny 81:24
92:15
Dick’s 110:15
discussed
36:21
38:8
documented
19:6
52:14 80:1
93:3
Department 1:92:2
difference37:24
38:9 46:14,22
102:14
109:15
5:1 48:1649:13
40:16
70:11
84:15
55:23
69:22 93:3
docnments5:15
early4:177:20 19:2
59:10,19 77:22
91:15,15
discusses60:24 61:3
Dodds7l:23
72:2
84:20
111:10
119:10
differences4l:8
62:2,24
Dodd’s86:13
113:12
departments76:3
79:6
discnssing25:l3
doing
15:13
16:4
East2:6,13,17
depend
45:5
different25:23 26:3
35:17
111:22
43:8
50:22
easy
102:4
106:3
depending 26:2
27:1 44:15,23 45:3
discussion 27:20
dollar
14:10
eat 13:4,4
104:16
48:17
72:5
105:16
32:1447:17,2!
dollars
101:18
economic5:2,3
44:3
depends38:7
115:24
116:1,1,2
55:24 96:1
117:13
domestic
109:9
65:9
71:2 99:8,1!
describe 18:22
differently 93:19
discussions 31:14
dominant 71:14
100:5
103:1109:6
37:16
difficnlt34:23
92:2
32:19 35:4,5 37:8
done 10:7,1111:18
economically29:13
described
19:3
82:1
116:4
37:11
38:3 74:17
16:20
57:20,21
economics67:11
description 49:22
direct
65:2
109:15
74:21,24
111:15
84:23
93:9
104:11
109:16
design3l:1,1,ll,17
directive 110:10
112:1
104:18,23
113:3
Ecos84:2
32:16,38 96:16
directly 42:23
dishwasher 65:22
door
14:11
ecosystems 72:5
106:8,13
director 9:3
58:23
83:18,20 91:7,8
dormitories 68:1
EFD
105:1
designed 30:23
31:2
59:8,9,11,12
60:1
disposal 38:16
66:15
double 65:5
effect 19:1!
38:23
106:18
71:3
83:5
100:13
Douglas 3:2 6:23
49:20
52:21
54:2,5
designing 31:14
disagree 33:16
Disposals 66:24
down
15:16,22
18:5
58:2
69:15
81:18
designs 31:12,14
disappear 15:17
disposing 59:1
24:21
27:19
41:5
92:1,3,19,23 93:10
desirable 62:17,22
disappointment
disproves 87:10
44:24
55:3
85:2
109:12
desired 8:9
78:10
73:4
disruption
110:23
95:7
107:7
111:21
effected
79:12
despite 46:10
disbenefits
116:9
dissolved 25:12,22
112:7
115:3
effective
10:8,14
detail 18:23
discharge 9:12,22
25:24 26:3
52:15
117:11
44:14
68:14
76:5
detailed 65:24 66:8
10:5
13:10
21:13
52:19
53:1,8,10
downstream
15:24
76:11,13,16 80:13
79:19
104:11
33:24
41:16,17
61:2
63:1,3
103:16
19:18
20:4 76:17
84:24
106:2
detergent 83:18,20
55:19
56:16,17
103:19
78:24
81:3,5,6
effectively 84:19
91:9,24
75:11
77:10,12,15
distinction
108:15
93:16
effectiveness 75:5
detergents 65:22
77:17,20 78:18
Distinguished
59:19
Dr 7:19
8:2,8
10:20
84:16
80:2 91:7,20
82:13
88:10,18
distribution 64:20
15:6
16:8
17:4,15
effects 15:20
19:4
determination93:23
90:15,15 91:21,24
district 33:9,11,15
18:4 20:9,13 23:8
110:23
determine 11:7
104:7 105:14
54:13,2058:15,22
46:2
efficient 106:15
62:21
79:13
81:1
108:77,17
109:1
58:24 59:4,5,14
draft
17:18
28:10
effluent 1:3 4:4,17
92:2
93:15
99:14
109:12
110:16,24
60:6,20 68:9,18
drafting
16:24 38:1
11:9
12:20
20:23
108:6
113:19,23
114:7
74:23
75:2,21
76:1
drain
20:24
28:22
29:11
35:9
determined 79:16
114:12,12
77:3 78:8,15,18
drainage 68:21
70:6
35:12
39:22 44:15
100:1
discharged 33:2
79:5
80:23
81:24
draw 34:18
50:16
57:9,13 61:11,14
determines62:20
65:20
66:12
69:20
83:5
88:9,17 94:15
53:22
68:16
72:13
78:19
94:8
104:9,20
110:17
96:13,14,18,19
drinking33:5 49:20
79:4,8,11
81:16,20
detrimental4:19
discharger78:1S
97:15 102:17
Drive2:173:3
82:17 83:19 91:16
62:18,22
115:10
82:11,12,19,21,24
districts27:6 97:11
drugs
15:23
92:1,3 98:9
99:5
develop 43:13
71:9
83:2
97:15,19
103:10
dry 88:24
99:11,15,23
5
Keefe ReportingCompany
102:23
103:4
enters87:9
113:21
Ettinger’s47:13
53:661:4,5
63:13
extremely77:5
105:1,2,16
112:11
entire77:1
81:24
eutrophication
65:13
69:4,24
E-C-O-S84:2
119:12
entirely 68:24
18:14
62:2
70:22
71:11
72:20
E-L-E-C-T-R-O-S...
effluents 68:15
entirety 92:15
99:7
evaluating 22:1
73:2 74:1575:17
84:5
112:10
entitled
14:14,16
even
19:16
20:1 23:4
75:24
76:9,21
E-mail
117:17,17
eflort22:11
63:11
49:5 66:8,10
23:1624:11
26:4
80:19
81:3 83:10
64:11
77:16
112:6
enumerate34:23
26:16
53:18
63:15
83:16
86:14 87:2
F
112:7,13
environment
19:16
69:14
79:10,1!
95:8
117:22,24
F2:19
119:4
efforts43:1377:9
41:21,2459:23
91:15
117:6
118:3.4
faced78:2
77:1278:1390:14
61:1963:965:17
eveningll4:9
exhibitsl7:1428:18
facilities29:931:13
90:17 91:3
69:22
75:22
85:13
event 11:2082:2
28:19,23 48:3,5.6
33:2!
34:3
35:1
Egan 81:1,5,20
97:3
98:5
106:24
eventually 64:22
83:11,12
40:11
59:5
97:14
Egypt
15:11
108:10 115:24
65:5
existed 50:5 93:24
98:1,2,2,16
100:7
either
15:1633:24
environmental2:12
ever3o:22
31:2,5
existing32:15 34:5
101:14,19,22,23
44:19 53:13
55:15
2:16
7:4
19:4,11
56:15
106:18
36:22
40:13
58:2
101:24
102:2,2,3,7
58:2 87:10 98:2
22:1
37:24 39:5
every
11:20,21,21
71:8
82:6 94:7
106:9
109:4,4,9,11
112:16
48:16 49:13
59:20
50:23
98:1
102:4
108:5
110:7
elected97:18
60:12
62:2
65:11
everybody37:5
114:17
facility3l:12
32:15
Electrosol84:5
73:13
75:1
79:10
108:8
existsó4:781:11
32:1633:3
71:5
element
106:13
89:20
96:23
97:1
everyone
117:17
expand37:14
54:21
93:14
96:15,17
elevated
101:3
98:3 99:8,10,12,14
everything
20:20
74:11
102:5,13
110:19
Elgin 29:22
30:9
103:1
113:23
26:7
expanded 32:16
113:12
33:7,9,11,13
116:9
evidence8:16
14:18
45:!
94:6
fact36:1
37:851:17
117:21
environmentsó2:7
63:2
78:2
expanding36:2
52:6 68:21
90:7
eliminate9:11,l4
envision 47:30
Ex66:10
37:21
40:11,33
95:16
101:16
10:12,12,13,17
EPA22:6,929:12
exactlO9:18
111:2
73:14 89:21
98:4
116:6
24:6 80:20
37:23
43:1345:9
exactly
107:23
109:3,11
factor 72:3
eliminated 20:22
50:21
70:19,23
108:9,20
116:14
expansion 32:9,10
factors
19:23,24
23:19 85:5,7,!!
71:3 76:8,20
examineól:1
88:20
89:3,5,7
20:5
ELPC47:8
111:12,13
example5l:1l
101:13 102:6,8
facultativell:4
embark7l:8
equal 54:4
55:18
57:5,20 80:8
expect4:16 40:19
fail 105:4
embraced 70:17
equipment45:13
116:24
expectation
101:14
failed 100:10
102:23
emission 76:12
equitable 77:6
examples 14:8
35:7
expects
100:6
failing 34:12
emphasis
117:7
equivalent 70:4,10
exceed 52:8
expense
110:13
fails 62:1 3,21
63:2
employed 58:22
Erin 4:9
exceeding 52:2
expenses 110:5
fair 112:16
117:7
59:13
96:13,18
erosion 43:5,5
exceeds 92:17
expensive84:1!
fairly
102:4
105:18
enacting 68:15
especially 16:4 23:3
except 84:7
90:13
109:23
fall 73:15
end 7:13
16:18
26:24 66:3 88:4
102:9
experience 18:18
falls 64:24
34:17 37:9 50:1
ESQ2:19 3:4
exception 37:3,4
19:7 40:2
57:12
familiar4:11 49:7
86:23
essence 9:9 22:16
excerpts 17:16
30:5
87:10
far39:15 40:1
42:24
ending65:8
essential7l:1
excess
19:5 62:13
experimental72:3
69:15 80:6
86:9
ends
19:11
essentially 4:13
69:1,5,19,21
70:3
expert 31:8,10
farm43:4,5 70:12
energy3l:23
75:15
31:18,20 38:13
70:4,7,1485:14,17
explain 31:15
52:14
70:36 73:1,17,22
engineer32:18
44:1951:3,10
85:23
115:1!
63:1065:9,11
farmerl2:14
59:18
57:18
excessive 19:3,20
72:16
farmers 69:3,5
engineering 29:24
established 72:10
62:6 63:4 93:16
explained 63:12
85:17,22,22
30:10
33:4,10
establishing 63:22
116:12
65:19
80:1
farming 69:13
59:15,20 66:9
110:16
excessively
109:23
explaining
17:18
farmland 12:3
96:22
estimate 23:11
excrete 70:9
explains 65:7
farms 69:11
70:5,9
engineers
15:7
66:12
67:21
85:4,6
excreted 70:12,13
exploring
15:3
fashion 6:7
31:1432:2059:22
85:7,34,23
86:1,6
excuselO:2054:3
Export95:l1
fast3G:24
116:23
Engineer’s
59:17
86:21
100:11
executive 9:3 87:3
exposure 50:10
favor 7:20
enough
13:24
43:1
109:7
exhibit 13:24
14:16
expressed 37:20
Fayette
119:2,7
enriched
19:14
estimated66:17
14:17,19
17:21,24
73:4
Feasibility 53:5
enrichment 20:1
67:13,16 100:14
18:2 28:4,14,20
extensive
19:5
feasible 9:23
72:4
estimates 65:13
68:1
29:2,18
30:8,18,19
extent22:19
27:24
February 66:10,11
ensure 62:17
68:1187:24
39:18
44:13,22
48:2 92:4
108:18
federal 43:4
71:21
ensuring98:5
estimation 66:3
47:14,17,19 48:10
109:24
110:18
72:17 73:17,20
entered
19:18
et
18:16
25:1
48:13,18,20,24
114:2,14,16
76:3
108:18
entering
18:1
etc
16:5
49:2
50:17 53:4,4
116:22
114:18
6
KeefeReporting Company
Federation 59:23
88:18 92:6
48:18 53:5,14
39:24 59:7 96:16
golf 14:9 36:6 80:19
97:3
106:24
flex
13:8
frankly
109:3
Garbage 66:24
113:5
feeding 69:18
flexible 116:21
free 16:1 84:23
Gardner 3:2 6:22
gone 23:13 27:14
feel
13:10
16:3
flip 27:8
fresh
62:7
gave49:22
86:21
good 9:21
11:24
feet
10:3
flood
12:6,7 23:4,15
freshwaters72:3
107:18
117:21
41:2044:17 49:22
feIlow73:10
75:17
Frevert2:l56:!S
ge184:3,7
88:1291:694:1
fe!t9:21
103:23
flooding 23:3
59:3
57:19
107:17
general 8:21
54:18
107:23
110:22
fertilizer69:1
73:22
floods
12:13
111:9,15 113:10
55:19,23
56:8
114:16
80:12,14,16
flow
11:5 19:24
21:4
113:16
114:10,20
60:18 63:1
78:18
Gov73:2
fertilizers 69:15
32:16 88:13,24
114:24
115:4
79:7 96:14
10316
govern 6:!
80:9
96:16
116:22
116:11
104:5
109:23
governmentl5:13
few8:20
11:12
12:7
flows64:23
68:7
froms:16
12:23
generally52:18,19
58:24
59:18
76:4
30:22
43:19 64:2
fluid
116:21
17:10
18:5,5
19:1
57:10 58:6
72:2
Governor7O:22
83:8
86:7 94:20
focus 12:19 74:6
19:2 23:11,19 27:8
90:19,19
72:2473:8,19 74:1
104:4
117:5
28:1
30:5 33:5,6
generate 70:2
80:10
89:15,16,24
fifth 2:20 34:33
focused
115:6
38:10 39:5,8 41:10
generated 70:6,8
90:5,8
figure 21:7
39:17
focusing4l:22
48:7,23 49:4,12,15
Generation 83:24
Governors 73:5,10
figures33:15
39:18
68:20
50:17
53:12
59:13
gets 109:15
74:1,3,4
77:11
100:13
folks4S:10
59:16 61:9
62:22
getting
15:4 23:11
Governor’s73:4
file 4:16
5:23 7:13
follow 92:14
65:5,11 66:17
44:16116:20
grab 78:23
7:15,19
80:11
following
11:2
56:13
67:10,20,21
68:12
Girard2:8 4:7
graduate9:4 30:24
311:4
60:2,22
62:4
67:15
69:1
71:4 76:17,24
26:13
27:9,17
graduating 31:2
filed5:17
17:13
68:3,8 74:5 82:4
77:8 78:4,20
79:18
111:10
112:20
grain 85:20
28:12
55:11
follows66:1971:8
79:23
80:6
84:8
113:13 114:6,19
Grand2:6,13
103:14
78:22 79:1,20
85:5,7,18 86:2,10
give 4:12
8:12
13:13
granted 78:11
Filing6O:21
follow-up24:23
87:7
88:4
91:13
21:1647:1,5
53:16
great7:16
73:11
filings 5:16
83:8
92:21
94:3
92:6 93:11,15
53:20
99:23
116:3,22
filtration 44:18,20
113:10
96:22
98:10
100:1
102:20
103:4
greater 18:22
54:3
44:20,21
food 55:20 66:14
100:12
102:24
107:18
114:24
54:13
58:23
83:5
filtrations44:23
Foods66:23 83:23
105:21
106:10
116:3
118:7
102:17
final
11:39
22:2
38:1
footnote5l:22
107:19 111:10
given54:5
58:5
greatly
109:5
44:746:19
106:1,8
footnotes8:12
112:6
115:11
91:12
100:20
Green7l:12
111:4 115:!
Forbes2ô:23
front42:2 53:18
101:16 116:6
gronndwater33:6
Finally 19:20
force 72:19
85:1
109:18
glimpse
115:2
group 22:6 25:13
find
11:21
15:23
87:15,22
fulfill 4:24
go
15:21,22 16:10
38:11
43:17,21
25:3
32:12
51:4
forced98:l5
fu1134:16 53:20
17:5
27:19,24
46:3 70:20
71:4
84:15
88:3
89:18
foregoing 119:8
fully 63:12
34:24
35:20 42:24
99:3
112:4
105:6
114:21
forestall 64:8
fund
112:6
43:21
51:39 53:4
groups 37:24 43:24
115:7
Fork
14:16
funded
112:13
55:6,7
58:14
86:22
112:11
finding 22:22
95:13
form 19:20
20:2
funding 73:20
77:13
95:24
105:5
grow 13:4,7
findings7o:17 78:17
48:476:6 84:2,3,7
112:6
116:17 117:11
growing35:22
fine
17:8 95:19
94:24
further 19:13,16
goal 9:11,11,14
12:5
36:24
37:14,17,17
105:10
formerly 84:14
22:23
24:21
26:11
115:20
69:6 73:23
80:18
finish
110:24
formulate 112:11
27:18 30:20 40:4
goals 97:23
115:23
89:9
finished 49:20
formulation 67:9
41:1945:1654:8
God 42:21
growth 4:19
19:12
finishing 9:6
forward 31:17
54:24 58:11
62:11
goes
16:21
26:23
39:14,15,23 50:1
firm 6:22
110:8
64:8
86:17
92:9
62:18
87:6
117:21
62:6,1263:8 93:16
first2:10 6:16
7:38
found52:14,17,18
95:5
104:1
107:6
going5:22 8:17
guarantee69:8
9:11
10:11
13:11
53:15
69:3,7 77:7
114:23
117:10
13:19
15:11
16:1
guess 16:10
17:22
18:24
46:1 47:12
84:1,10
87:8
101:4
future
15:1
16:13,21
18:5,20
24:17 33:20 46:23
52:9 56:3,10 61:8
105:18,23
futures 12:17
24:19
26:14,16
50:3 54:19 91:1
69:10 73:1!
80:18
foundation 75:23
F-R-E-V-E-R-T
27:12
38:1
39:23
93:18
105:8,8
87:1,3
101:1,8
78:6
6:19
40:11
41:6 43:20
110:23
115:4
107:18
308:13
four
16:22,22
17:16
45:22
54:23
55:4,6
116:2,24
fish 21:8
27:1 48:14
33:20
34:9 47:8
G
56:17
58:4
93:18
guidance 62:10
48:18
53:5
83:23
87:16 92:6
g2:8
55:11,12 65:13
95:8
105:1
106:7
63:21,23
Fisheries 71:23
116:9
82:2
107:9
108:1
guide 62:9
fits 115:12
fourth34:14
gain79:10
109:21
113:4
guideline5l:8
five 10:3,18 21:7
Fox22:15 33:8,11
gained4o:12
115:4,11116:4,10
gnidelines52:2
39:23
59:6
88:11
33:14 46:21
48:14
gallons 13:14 39:23
117:18
Gulf 12:23
33:6
7
KeefeReporting Company
72:18,20,22 73:2
86:16,20
92:11
65:20 67:7 79:23
ILCS 59:3
66:11
74:5 81:4
73:21,23 74:9
95:5,20,24
96:2
83:18
1111:4 4:5 139:13
97:11
112:7
75:13
78:3
103:7
104:2
hundreds 50:14
Illustration
11:17
including
18:7 31:19
guy
25:10
105:21
107:6,12
Huntley 113:4
illustrations
11:17
74:8,22 75:2,4
C-K
1:4 4:5
119:13
107:15,18
111:7,8
hydrologic 13:3
immediate68:14
76:2
77:2 97:3,13
114:23
117:30,14
hydroxide32:23
109:13
income
12:14
II
118:3
119:14
33:1,4
immediately
39:17
inconsistent 72:1
habitat
75:16
hearings 22:8
36:8
hygrograph 27:5,5
19:21
incorporate
55:13
half
18:16
38:2
hyper 90:12
impact 5:3 38:5
39:2
114:8
Hamilton
10:2
heat
50:2
hypoxia 24:18
72:17
62:2
65:9 72:15
incorporating40:13
11:1032:20
hectares
104:23
72:20 73:1,21
78:3
81:2 92:6
109:6,6
81:20
Hampshire37:19
held 1:8 4:22,24
112:4
109:18
increase 12:11
hand
38:21
119:16
27:20
32:14 59:12
impacted 82:10
18:20 38:14,16
Handbook67:I1
96:1,19
117:13
1
impacting76:17
41:10
55:14
56:21
handle 47:3
58:5
119:9,14
IAWA
11:1
53:1
87:7
56:2285:11
88:7
haudles43:9
help 53:19
73:17,21
75:2,23
76:3
77:2
impacts20:14
88:10,24 89:8
handling 38:37
114:11
97:7,8,2398:4,7
impaired
18:16
100:9,14
102:9,13
100:13
helpful 74:2
98:10,15,21
99:2,5
50:21
51:12 82:15
115:6
happens 31:21
her 27:23
28:3,3,6,6
300:19
102:6,18
92:16,22,24
increased 56:6,17
happy 25:8
109:24
28:7
29:15
102:19,22
103:14
108:15
75:16
82:7,10
112:24
hereunto 119:16
103:22
104:5,10
impairing99:21
88:18
109:22
hard 4:18
306:6
hey 12:19
104:21
105:2,6
103:2
increasing 64:15
harmful
19:4,16
high 15:24
19:9
111:11
impairment5l:14
113:19
harmony 11:7
32:22
33:4,6 46:16
IAWA’s 99:1
104:5
52:7,15,18
81:15
incremental 109:37
harms 19:5
51:15
52:2064:20
idea23:944:9
92:1994:4,8
109:19,19
Harrary
15:6
93:20 98:10
114:24
impairments 82:8
incudes
77:22
Harsch’s 23:18
108:16
ideal 108:2
93:15
99:24
103:5
incurring
110:13
HARSH 31:5
higher 51:5 62:18
ideally
115:6
impedious
38:1
indeed
110:9
having
14:22
17:4
72:12
101:17,22
identified 34:8
IMPLEMENT
independent
114:4
35:11
37:11
38:23
108:21
69:19
72:19
73:1
70:20
Indian
15:12
45:8
53:18
96:3
highest 28:19 35:12
82:35
83:17 92:5
implementation
Indiana 48:23 49:9
107:12
highly
11:12 26:4
92:16
93:5
64:13
50:6,7
head
32:32
Hill 54:12,12,20,24
identifies 92:22
implemented
84:19
indicate 64:23
headquarters 112:6
55:1 83:6,8,16,17
identify 34:2
51:3
86:11
indicated 55:5
62:4
312:13
84:18 85:4,14
86:1
52:1665:15 92:24
implications
102:13
71:11
81:8
health
79:7
86:12,15,18,19
93:19
114:1
important
13:1
indicates 62:16
healthy 98:6
105:22
identifying 93:6
18:19,24
19:1 40:5
80:17
hear7:17 20:16
him6:87:17,23,24
IEPAS4:1460:16
53:19
77:598:19
indicators26:6,8
107:33
17:6 18:3,12 42:16
60:17,24 61:3,6,14
100:11
102:19
individual2s:19
heard
12:15
16:2
54:23
61:15
62:1,8,10,11
imported 13:8
78:21
44:5
107:19
historic 27:7
62:16,18,21
63:2,5
impression 20:19,21
individuals 37:23
111:10
historical 26:14,15
63:10,13,14,20,22
42:11
industrial 60:3,10
hearing
1:10
2:4 4:1
History 26:20
64:3,5,7,10,15,37
improve73:6,1
I
62:6
67:11
79:13
4:2,22,24 5:5,5,7
hold 16:18
17:3
31:8
64:23
65:3,7,9,12
improved 38:23
79:15,16,21
80:3
5:10,14,21
6:2,6
96:23
65:19
68:16,21
improvement69:9
Infiltration 67:4
6:14,15 7:9,168:3
home84:14
95:9
69:17
70:17,19
81:2
Inflow
67:4
8:14
13:18,21,24
homebuilders
16:4
71:5,8,15,20
72:16
improving
12:13,14
influence 63:7
14:14,22
16:8,11
hope27:16
74:17
75:9
76:3
12:14
influent6s:21
68:6
17:1,8,20,24
18:12
hopefully
37:24
77:4,22 78:2,5,8
inaccurate 40:4
68:9 79:15,18
20:7,12
24:21
44:6
116:20
79:5 80:3,7,8,21
inadequate
103:23
inform7O:18
71:35
26:11
27:1828:2,7
Hopkinsl:17
119:6
80:23
81:7,8,19,22
incentives76:6
information6:2
28:9,16,23
29:2,14
119:20
82:1,5 92:22 93:4
incidences36:4
7:15
11:1
23:17
29:19 30:12,17,21
hospitals 67:24
93:10,12
incidentally
14:9
30:741:344:3
32:13
36:18
38:9
hour 42:22 92:4
IEPA’s60:2061:4
inclination 78:3
61:1 68:13 85:18
40:17
42:13,16
House 80:11
61:20 63:18
64:12
include4s:13
60:2
103:24
44:1
45:9,16,20
household 42:1
ignores 68:21
67:23
74:12 82:15
inhibitor 64:19,22
46:10,22 47:12,18
housekeeping
ignoring 61:23
93:12
97:18
102:2
initially
19:18
47:21
54:10,24
117:19
ii 80:17
included
53:23
112:13
55:2,5,8
58:11,19
houses
14:10
iii 80:18
66:13
74:24
75:10
initiate 65:3
83:6,9,12,35 86:14
human49:15
50:10
111:2499:9
includes30:5,6
initiated74:21
8
KeefeReporting Company
initiative7l:15,17
invest 109:13
Jouraal69:2,9
54:24 55:2,5,8
12:1,1,13,16 13:15
73:3,17 74:23
investigated
114:14
71:23
58:1
1,19 83:6,9,12
13:15
14:3
85:15
77:21
78:1
89:16
investigative87:17
July2I:lO 70:18
83:15
86:14,16,20
91:20
113:17,18
111:20
investment45:1 1
76:19
92:11
95:5,20
96:2
117:5
initiatives42:5 81:9
involve 56:17 75:24
June 72:24 73:5
103:7 104:2
lands 12:6
inject 102:3
113:7 114:12
74:4
305:21 107:6,12
language 16:23
17:2
inland 72:3
involved30:24
juris48:9
107:15 111:8
17:17,19 47:10,11
innovative73:21
31:13 35:442:3,6
just4:12 8:12 14:2
114:23 117:10,14
55:12,16,18,21
inorganic 19:21
43:1,6,12 59:22
15:2 16:5 17:17
118:3 119:14
56:11,13,1957:2,9
inputs6l:1995:l1
111:15
18:4,9 19:1 21:4
knows:18 12:22
111:5
inserted 101:24
involving7s:3
24:1,13 25:927:14
16:1 23:9,1624:13
Lanyons8:13,16,l9
install 101:12,14,21
in-tine 101:23
27:21 29:17,22
25:10 26:16,24
58:21,21 83:5,11
installation 100:3
in-stream79:12
34:7 42:9,10,18
27:4,10 31:18
83:17,21 84:20
installs 38:6
Iowa 74:14 77:13
43:11 46:23 52:7
32:24 33:1,14,36
85:6,16 86:5,24
instead 13:6,7 16:20
78:1
52:20 90:12 91:1
33:17 35:3,9,16,18
87:11,16,21,23
27:22
78:5
IFCB 60:17
64:10
93:5
94:3
95:8,22
37:22 38:3,21
88:3,8,12,20 89:4
institnte67:lO
70:18 71:15 81:24
102:5 106:12
40:23 41:1,2,3
89:6,8,13,18,24
69:24
111:17
82:2,4
109:3
112:21
42:19 44:2,1945:2
90:5,10,20 91:5,12
institutions67:24
iron32:22 33:1,4,6
113:13
117:12,19
45:5,6 46:6,18
91:22 92:2,20,24
insufficiently 63:10
33:6
justifiable 64:1
47:3 49:17 50:4,8
93:8,12,22 94:10
integrated 75:19
irrespective 15:15
94:19
50:12,12,14 52:6,7
94:16,22 95:3,6
intend 88:9,17
irrigated
14:11
justification
64:2
52:19 53:7,10,12
111:11,16
intended 12:21
irrigation 113:17
81:10 94:20 99:9
53:33 54:4,7,17,20
large32:9 50:24
55:24
103:18
issuance36:18
99:11,12
100:5
58:13
74:3
87:9,19
69:18
73:23
84:12
108:13
issue 20:14 22:2,4
justified 102:24
90:5,10,15
100:16
85:1
88:23 90:22
intending83:10
52:20,22
55:15
jnstify93:21
101:5,7
108:8,9,10
largely38:7
intendss4:20
71:6 92:19
105:4
108:11,19
109:2
larger 15:1
25:16
intensive93:13
111:18
114:20
K
109:14,21
113:16
69:15
intent 55:21 105:7
issued46:9 70:19
K 96:24
113:17
115:1
largest97:16
interaction 72:6
74:4
KEEFE 1:222:24
116:14
large-scale 75:6
interest 37:21
81:8
issues2S:15
36:8
3:24
119:24
knowing 79:10
last 5:10
11:23
17:1
interested 6:17 15:4
42:4,6,14,20 43:2
keep 11:1924:9
90:22 106:6
20:16 27:2,2 39:18
22:22
24:1742:4
46:11,16
102:15
108:12
knowledge92:22
45:9 57:19
62:23
76:4
102:19,20
112:4
keeps26:21
93:494:16
107:2
73:15
111:15
interests 70:24 71:4
112:11118:8
key44:16
known 7:23 19:4
late 8:22
interface 53:11
issuing 82:11
Kg 68:2,3
20:20 100:4,22
lately6:11 25:11
interim
1:3 4:4,20
Itasca37:19
Kg/ha69:5
knows22:19 26:8
later 17:3 91:10
60:17,1961:11,14
1V64:15
Kg/person/year
42:21
107:23
106:1
63:15,23 64:3,6,8
IWA 104:5
67:18,19
laundry 80:2
84:21
65:12
72:13
79:8
i.e90:18
kill2l:8
L
law2:16
6:22
7:4
81:22
82:1
94:20
killing 73:23
labeled 61:3
9:17,17 36:23
47:3
97:8
98:15
99:4,5
J
kind 22:22
23:11
labels 84:7
80:10
108:18
99:18
100:2,8,19
j
82:2
24:10 26:17 41:21
laboratory 60:9
lawns
14:11
100:23,24
101:8
Jack 14:9
52:17,18 58:6
75:5
laws
91:8
108:14
101:16
102:23
James58:13 95:22
111:20
lack2s:15
63:14
lawyer 28:5
109:10
119:12
96:3,12
Kishwaukee 71:12
68:22
layman’s 49:23
International 7:21
January 72:18 76:9
Kleen 83:23
lacking 78:6 108:24
lbs/day 68:7
8:1
14:4
80:13
knew 57:24
LaCrosse 73:5
lb/ac 69:5
internet 53:21
Jim 7:1
Knittle 1:10 2:4 4:1
lagoons 11:4
lead 19:13 93:7,10
interpret26:8
job 98:12
4:1 6:14 7:9,16
lake8:22,24 9:1,5,8
leading 15:7 84:16
interpretation
John
1:9 2:4 4:1
8:3,14 13:38,21,24
11:10 19:10 22:24
learned69:12
110:10
119:14
14:14,22 16:8,11
23:2,3,4 34:1,1,4
learnings6:3,4
introdnce6:8,17
Johnson 2:11
4:3,6
17:8,20,24
18:12
41:14,36,17 60:12
least 34:3 39:7 45:13
introduced 39:17
6:8,10 25:9,21
20:7,12
24:21
104:10,20
47:5
53:4
116:13
48:2
26:10
26:11
27:18
28:2,7
lakes
10:2
19:2,4
leave
13:5 20:19,21
introduction 16:13
join73:4,9
77:24
28:9,16,23
29:2,14
52:10,10 62:12,16
51:14
17:7
18:5,9,14,22
joined 74:1
29:19 30:12,17,21
63:3
leaves
113:21
24:2427:23
85:13
joining89:15
32:1342:13,16
Lakeview 1:92:3
led36:13
115:15
joins73:3
44:145:16,20
119:10
left4:8
Invasive49:3
jointly74:4
47:12,18,21 54:10
land 8:23 11:4,22,23
leg 112:17
9
Keefe Reporting Company
legal
16:1547:1
45:2348:6,7 50:1
116:21
113:4
116:12,17
43:1945:10
86:23
108:2!
112:2
53:17
58:16
83:7
Liu2:5
14:21,23,24
116:17,18
97:2
98:11
102:18
legislation42:22
89:16,17 90:8,10
16:7 41:20 42:8
lotic 72:9
105:18
107:24
legislative66:5
98:18
101:6
103:8
94:11,18,23 95:4
low
11:3,8 28:19
Marie4:9
80:11
110:11113:5
105:22,23
106:11
40:2344:2451:18
mark
14:15,17
legislatnre59:1
115:1,7
114:24
116:6
52:39
87:19
95:12
Lemke7:7,7
16:9,19
likeIy9O:8
101:21
117:9
lower4l:544:8,ll
market83:22
84:1
16:20
17:4,15
18:1
limit4:18
18:20
living 67:24
44:17 45:2,12
84:12
18:4,7,11,1420:13
29:7,10,11
46:9,11
load66:1867:5,6,21
101:21
106:1
master88:22
20:16,18,21
21:2,9
46:14,20 56:8,16
68:5,9 85:4,11
lowest4O:22
masters 59:15
96:21
21:1 1,15,20,22
56:18,20 57:7,21
109:22
Lni4:8
material3o:10
22:4,7,12,19,21
57:22
58:1,462:20
loading2l:1723:10
31:24
23:2,6,8,13,23
64:3,6,7,8,30
23:10,19,21
24:1,2
M
math 56:19
24:3,9,16 25:2,5,8
72:14
81:16,21
24:5,8,9
56:21,23
NI
3:4
matter
1:2 4:4,22
25:18,22 26:20
82:1,16,17 90:1
79:17,18,21
86:2
machine 119:14
24:9 28:12
70:18
27:13
39:16
91:294:21,23
97:8
88:1 94:6,7
116:15
made
17:12
23:40
74:16
117:20
Lemont56:4,5
99:4
100:2,8,23
117:4
33:17
58:7 67:22
119:12
79:22
88:21
89:5,7
101:1,8,16
104:20
loadings
19:17
22:2
68:1
109:14
maximum78:23
89:9,9
105:24
116:10
68:17
79:15,16
magic90:15
may4:18 8:7,7
11:2
less 13:14
54:2,3,3,3
limitation 22:14,16
82:7,8,14 90:18
magnitude2l:21
39:18
30:5 41:6,9
90:8 91:13,20
72:1,4 99:12,15
92:4
magnitndes2l:16
41:10
44:9,14
55:3
109:7
100:15,20
110:16
loads 23:11
maintained 98:5
60:20 64:9
80:10
Lessons 69:12
limitations2l:13
local 58:24
79:47
maintenance 60:6
83:46 87:7
89:5
letS:18
15:24
18:8
99:17,23 101:10
83:22
major
18:22
69:19
90:1091:1592:2,6
32:11
45:21
55:22
103:4,21
105:11
located
12:5 78:15
71:10 97:9,14
95:7
101:19
88:15,15
92:21
108:6
114:1
82:21
112:6
103:1 1107:10
95:22
limited29:24 30:10
location
115:11,11
majority
105:19
115:24
117:22
letter 80:24
60:2 68:15 80:21
locatious34:2
make 7:18,23
12:!
maybe
12:5 25:9,40
let’s13:845:l8
90:17
109:3
locks27:5
14:3
15:1727:10
42:1047:16116:8
48:10
117:11
limiting
19:13 22:17
logical9:23
15:48
29:21
45:23 46:1
Mdllenry 46:7,18
level
19:1 40:23
72:3,8
17:5
47:16 51:15
56:23
46:21
43:21,22 44:5 45:2
limits29:8
40:22
Lohman7l:23
91:6 93:23
108:13
mean9:13 20:19
46:3,5 51:5
55:13
56:14 57:10,14
long 8:15 20:24
108:21
113:24
24:9,16
36:21
62:16
98:10
106:7
63:22
68:36
73:14
36:24
69:18
98:7
116:14
56:13
72:12
90:16
109:1
110:23,24
79:18 89:20 98:17
99:1
makes9o:8
114:3
94:2,23 92:18
levels4:19
11:3
98:20,24,24 99:6
longer9:18
80:1
making74:8 89:11
meaning9l:2
19:15,20 25:24
99:19
100:20
114:3
90:11
105:17
means9:13,17
64:13
26:19
27:11
28:19
102:23,24 103:23
longwinded 116:2
manage 11:23
13:2
77:7
100:21
32:22
44:17,24
104:8
105:2,12,13
long-term26:21
115:22
meant9l:3
45:12
52:21
62:18
105:19
109:9
27:335:1943:13
managed 12:16
measurable9l:14
69:16
79:11,12
list 5:12,13,15
25:3
98:13
102:7
management20:5
91:15
88:19
93:20,20
33:20 35:20
37:7
403:20
48:16 49:13
62:19
measure 26:7
100:2
101:3
39:22 51:6,1484:3
look
12:18
34:18
69:8,11
70:16 71:9
109:20
105:16
listed 37:9 52:7,10
15:14
25:18 43:10
76:22
111:12
measured 53:10
levies 27:7
52:13
45:7,7 48:10 49:11
117:2,2
108:22
liability
16:5
lists 53:16
51:2,11,1993:14
manager 6:19 96:14
measurement 53:8
Libia 15:11
liter
28:22 29:5,11
103:6
111:5
96:19
measurements
license 1:17
96:24
39:7,24 40:6,7,8
112:23
113:11
managers
101:18,20
25:22 26:1,4
97:2
119:23
40:47 41:9,9 44:5
looked
52:16
103:22
managing 117:4,8
measures 25:23
lieu 101:15
44:8,1045:446:5
looking 14:10
15:8
mandate66:6
80:22
112:2
life 27:1
71:1 73:23
46:9,11,13,20
23:14
27:2 35:19
mandating 110:18
mechanism77:4
lifts 50:21
55:14
56:7
62:5
39:21
40:1043:22
111:1
mechanisms 38:10
lightsO:2
63:18
72:11,11,14
55:10,11
87:2,2
Manhattan
35:21
meet8:19
11:3,8
like6:97:15
10:15
78:20
104:9,19
93:19
113:6
113:1,2,3,16
44:11
57:16
65:16
14:7
16:5,10
18:21
literature 19:6 29:4
114:18
manner23:16 92:23
78:9
98:2
100:7
21:3 22:10
25:22
38:22 40:24 44:12
looks 115:1
manure7o:12 117:2
405:24 107:9
25:23
26:1
27:15
44:16 45:6
lost 70:6
117:4
meeting 74:6
27:15,23 28:14
litigation 64:8
lot 6:11
8:11
15:15
many
14:5
16:2
meetings43:22
29:1730:8
39:13
little 12:292:6
16:1
26:22 31:1
25:23,23 29:8
116:18
40:4 42:1045:7,7
107:18
110:15
41:3
43:1
111:21
33:24
35:18 42:21
member2:4,5,8,11
10
Keefe Reporting Company
4:3,3,6,76:8 25:9
minimum 78:24
79:23
84:2,6
89:21
108:6
115:9
85:1
25:21
26:13 27:9
98:13
100:12
106:5
need 5:13 25:24
non-phosphorus
97:17
111:10
Minnesota65:23
111:24
112:16
32:5 37:14,15 41:6
84:10,15
87:8
112:5,20
113:13
66:1,2,5,7,8,13,17
116:4
61:1464:9
72:21
non-point23:10,l2
114:6,19
67:6,14,16,20 73:5
motive 64:5
76:8
81:16
100:19
23:14,21,23,24
members7l:2 74:21
74:2,11
77:11,24
mountain7S:2
101:19
110:11
24:3,7,14 42:2
75:2
77:2
97:10,11
80:10,11
85:9
87:6
move7:16
12:6
112:18
117:22
61:2471:13
72:22
97:2498:4,10,15
88:1
90:14,17
15:24
33:2446:23
needed
11:6
57:23
75:18
76:7,1724
111:11
Minooka 32:9
35:21
94:1
110:8116:22
61:12
63:23
64:3,8
77:8
78:4 86:10
Memorandum
missed 9:14
116:22
80:17
98:12,17
88:1,4 90:24 91:4
66:11
missing24:12
moving9:22 13:16
101:22
112:7
116:18,20
mention 8:20
46:4
Mississippi
51:1
31:20
ueeds 5:11
24:14
117:6
110:14
72:18
73:3,7,10,16
much
11:13
15:18
98:3,16
101:24
normal5l:5 56:14
mentioned 7:22
73:18
74:13
77:10
16:7 40:24 44:8,11
109:24
116:16
58:4
10:1021:3 38:8
77:14
89:16
44:16,1745:12,12
negotiate37:23
normallys7:11
46:6,7,18 75:9
112:10
45:17 76:18
negotiated
36:5
North
1:23 2:6,13
77:11
94:11,12
Missouri
73:16
101:17 112:22
negotiations36:4,12
14:16
15:10
23:2
102:12
116:7
74:14
118:5
36:16
56:2 62:7,9 69:23
met29:6
110:5
misunderstanding
multiple
10:7
12:1
neighboring77:9,19
Northeast29:21
115:23
55:8
multi-faceted 41:22
neither 79:5
Northeastern 30:3
metal 64:20
65:3
mitigating 12:13
multi-million 14:10
network 2:16,20 7:5
northern 96:15
method 93:5
moderate
13:11
multi-state 74:8
7:641:2364:21
Notarial
119:17
Metropolitan
54:12
modest69:14
multi-year63:1
1,24
never
10:947:2
Notary
119:6,21
58:22
59:24 83:4
modifications
106:6
95:2
105:33
117:20,23
note5:940:5 49:14
94:14
97:4
102:16
106:8
municipal28:20
Nevertheless
109:21
56:10
71:24
Mexico 12:23
13:6
modify 55:16
81:19
62:6
new
15:13
40:11,12
noted
80:9
85:16
72:18,19
73:24
Modutar 14:15
municipalities97:12
41:18
55:16 56:6
nothing 7:24 90:21
74:10
monetary 83:1
97:1620
103:11
56:16
60:14
71:15
notice 5:12,13
16:9
NIGH
32:15
39:24
money 65:16
106:3
Muskie 9:17
73:14,14 82:10,11
38:1
60:20
MGDs 32:17
109:13
116:17,22
must 20:5
77:7
81:7
89:21
94:6 98:2,2
noticeable 72:15
Michigan 8:23,24
Mongolia
15:12
mutual 77:12
90:14
99:11101:13
noticed 5:7
9:1,5,841:14
monitoring 26:21
mutually 61:9
109:11,12,16,21
noting 40:10
60:12
104:10
60:12
81:4,5,13
MWRDGC
54:17
112:11
116:15
not-for-profit74:23
microorganisms
82:6
93:13
79:13
newer 88:7
75:1
31:21
32:2
monopoly
14:7
news70:19
71:11
November96:19
Midwestern
75:3
84:12
N
72:24
73:8,19
74:3
118:6
might92:12,13
month
11:21,21,23
N2:1
3:1,3
next 14:11
17:547:4
NPDES4O:9
81:19
98:17
115:3
116:7
11:24
name4:1
54:10
49:19
88:11,17
109:2
113:15
Mike 7:7
monthly 29:11
58:21
96:12
89:13
108:2
number 33:21
34:12
miles
12:22
78:19,23
names 83:23
Nicholas’s
14:9
35:1 44:7,7 46:16
milligram29:5 39:7
more6:5
11:14,24
narrative62:24
nine27:2,12,14
46:17
48:3 51:18
40:6,7,8,1641:9,9
13:1,7
15:18
16:3
63:21
NIPC3O:1033:18
65:19 86:7
103:11
44:5,8,1045:3
16:3
17:12
29:8,17
nation9:11 61:8
nitrogen
11:3,8
12:9
103:12
106:1
46:5,8,11,12,13,20
32:1,4 61:12 65:2
113:22
40:8 65:14
69:11
107:20
115:9,10
55:14
56:7
62:5
68:14
80:6,20
National26:20
71:21,22 72:1,4,6
115:24
116:1
63:18
72:1478:20
84:11,13
87:7
90:8
59:17
75:5 76:19
72:7,11,20,22,23
nnmbered33:19
104:9,19
94:23
98:3,17
nationwide76:18
74:9,20
75:9,11,13
numbers39:16
milligrams28:21
101:20
104:9,21
natural 1:9,9 2:2,3
77:6,10,13,15,17
106:1
29:11
105:14
106:4,11
11:1,2,7
19:1,13
77:2078:1,4,9,10
Nnmeral87:3
million
10:3,19
106:12,15,17
19:17
68:24
78:13
90:15,19
nnmeric4:14,21
11:21
13:14 39:23
109:24
112:22
119:10,11
95:11
117:6
61:5,12 62:24
59:6
70:3,4,9,10
114:18
116:8,21
naturally 19:9
nobody 5:3
107:22
115:7
70:12,14 73:20
117:5
nature 16:15
47:1
nominated73:15
nntrient4:14,16
96:16
morning4l:20
111:23
none 8:15
14:19
13:3
19:22
22:2,3
Milwaukee4l:14
Morocco
15:7,9,10
navigable9:12
18:2 30:18
83:15
22:17 29:4
31:16
mind 11:20
14:22
Mosher 57:23
nearly 73:20
86:17
95:6
37:1
38:22
39:8
90:5
96:3
107:12
most 15:21
18:14
necessary 36:9
39:1
nonrenewable 75:15
43:13,17,21 44:6
109:16
19:11
31:17
32:2
56:2057:16,21
non-beatablesl:2
46:3 50:2,751:19
mine57:1
34:3 45:12 57:18
58:2 62:17 72:7
non-phosphate
61:1,5,7,20 62:20
minimal4s:11
59:3
64:21
73:14
91:10
105:23
83:20
84:16,24
63:11
69:23
70:16
11
Keefe Reporting Company
71:18,19,21
72:3
offer
11:2
13:19
89:9
103:9
104:8,9
14:2
15:2
19:23
p
72:19
73:1
74:7
17:20,22 28:3,14
104:19
106:12,17
26:1
37:7
38:21
P2:4,1
3:1,4
54:2,6
76:14,22 77:1
83:2
30:8
32:13
86:12
107:20
113:1
39:1 41:24
42:5,23
package 16:12,23
87:5,1295:1,1
95:8
115:12 116:24
43:2,5,8,10
46:11
17:11,13,21
18:10
98:20,22,24 99:3
offered
117:23
117:20
319:11
47:4,748:7
50:1
94:24
100:20,22
101:1,5
offering86:1496:2
ones 11:15
51:1
51:2 52:17,18,20
page
10:16
21:7
101:10
103:20
Office74:17
ongoing22:11
38:5
53:16
56:10
57:9
29:20
32:8,21
106:2,11
111:12
officer
1:102:44:1
43:13
57:11,15,17,24
33:1934:9,13,14
115:1,15 116:19
4:25:146:147:9
only5:14 12:2 15:10
60:11 63:764:12
41:1349:14,24
117:2
7:16 8:3,14
13:18
24:22 27:4 40:10
69:1 71:16
74:12
53:23
60:23,24
nutrients
12:9,20,23
13:21,24 14:14,22
42:11
43:19
54:15
74:24
75:14
76:3,4
61:5,6,17,18
62:1
13:5,9,17 25:34
16:8,11
17:8,20,24
56:2 63:14 71:19
76:11
81:8,9 83:18
62:3,15,23,2463:5
26:2
36:17 43:23
18:1220:7,12
77:3,17
85:8
86:12
84:1
86:3 94:24
63:20 64:5,45 65:8
51:4,6
54:5
69:2,4
24:21
26:11
27:18
88:6
108:20
109:8
95:16,20 97:22
65:9 85:16
103:9
71:14,17
72:875:7
28:2,7,9,16,23
115:2
106:2
107:10
pages 34:12
50:17
76:5,8,l6,24
77:8
29:2,14,19
30:12
open29:15
107:10
109:4
110:7
111:3
69:10,22 70:1
82:22,23 87:13
30:17,21 32:13
operate 10:19
31:12
112:10
113:5
119:8
101:3
107:23
42:13,1644:1
92:3 97:12
108:4
115:23
116:3
Palmolive 84:5,8,9
111:19
116:13
45:16,2047:12,18
operated3l:5
107:3
118:8
paper8:11
106:10
47:21
54:10,24
operates
59:5
96:14
others 36:7,16 57:23
papers 14:8 39:21
0
55:2,5,8
58:11,19
97:17
74:15
paragraph 34:17,17
oath45:21
83:6,9,12,15
86:14
operating 11:10,11
otherwise58:3
95:9
34:18,24 35:16,21
oats85:21
86:16,20
92:11
11:15
38:6 39:24
95:10
37:9 61:17
62:1,3
object8:15 22:18
95:5,20 96:2 103:7
41:4 60:6 65:13
ought 13:12
62:15,23 63:5,20
36:7,17
37:1
104:2
105:21
101:22
102:13
out 8:7,10 13:8
87:4
104:23
107:6,32,15
111:8
109:14 110:4,12
15:23
22:22 31:8
parameter25:19
objecting 104:17
114:23 117:10,14
operation 11:14
34:1938:1441:4
108:19 116:4
objection 13:21
138:3 119:14
92:7 97:24 100:3
45:8 46:1947:10
parameters6l:2
30:1786:1695:1
officelhotell0:3
110:19
53:1471:2091:24
115•5
objections 14:19
officially 84:3
operations 60:11
91:2494:13
parks 16:6
17:24 28:16,24
officials97:18,l9
69:18
117:3
102:10
105:6,10
partô:1
9:18
10:22
33:17
47:13,18
often 49:11,14
operator’s96:24
108:2,19 109:5
16:23,22 17:12,16
83:13
95:21
118:4
Ohio77:16,18,21,23
opinion2o:22
21:2
111:3
116:24
17:20
18:5 20:16
objective 9:22
112:3
21:16,20 24:16
outcome 20:1
23:8 26:22 47:8
objects 105:6
oil 13:8
25:14 45:1
outfall 81:3,5 82:23
48:6 57:10
64:9
obligation55:13
okay7:98:13,14
opinionss:14
ontfalls79:1
87:12,1589:19
109:12
16:12
17:20 24:20
opportunity 5:2
outweigh 34:22
93:12
94:12
observation
19:8
28:1,2,10,23
30:8
47:2,598:18
over5:11
12:3
18:16
103:48
112:6
observed49:l9,20
54:8 58:21 90:7
112:15
27:11 62:1064:9
113:11 114:20
obviouss7:l
91:1 93:1
104:19
opposed25:16
70:5 85:22 86:5
participate78:12
obviously 14:6,12
105:20 112:20
27:22 47:1090:18
88:18 105:17
98:19 99:3 112:12
34:24
old 9:4 62:10
99:5
109:8
110:4
participates 82:19
occasionally 23:2
omission
100:12
opposition 60:20,21
overall 67:21108:10
115:18
occur 71:12
omits 100:11
order6:1540:21
overflowing
52:5
participating 22:5,6
occurred 21:8 27:3
once 26:2 98:17
58:13 105:24
overland 11:5
46:3 87:22
50:4
one 1:92:3
5:9 9:17
orderly 6:7
oversight 25:4,5
participation 77:23
occurrences
72:1
10:15,19 12:3,13
orders 5:14,15
76:2
78:13 83:1
occurs 41:20 12:7,7
14:2,8,14,16,21
Ordinance 60:5,8
overturning 22:21
particles 19:23
62:22
15:7,9,12
17:13
ordinances 91:7
overuse 69:14
particular
33:3 45:6
October
1:1,8
17:11
18:16
22:24 24:23
organic 31:24
over-apply 69:4
58:1
109:1
110:18
96:8
149:9,17
26:22
29:5,17
organisms3l:22
own
19:6 46:24
141:20
117:1
odor 14:12
30:15 32:7 33:19
32:3
83:19
particularly44:18
odors
10:12
34:9
36:6
37:5
organization 36:7
owned 20:23
112:1
off 27:19,2032:11
39:7,22,22 40:16
36:15
oxygen 25:12,22,24
particulars 49:24
32:14 47:12
49:9
41:8
42:9
43:20,20
organizations
14:3
26:3 52:15,19
53:1
22:4
73:23 95:24
96:1
44:2,5,8,10
45:3
43:12
75:1 97:3,18
53:8,10
61:2
63:1
particulate 20:2
115:1
117:11,13
46:5,8,11,12,13,20
original30:6
63:3
103:16,19
parties6:4,17 8:15
117:18
55:1356:761:8
Orsanco 112:4
oxygenating 105:2
76:4
offending 65:3
62:19 74:779:9
other 5:167:14 8:9
0RSANC0
partnership
74:11
offensive
19:16
84:1
87:2,8,16
8:15 9:19,20
11:15
112:5
parts 48:7
12
Keefe Reporting Company
Passage48:19 53:5
36:8,9 37:2,7 38:1
plant4:19 30:23
65:24 66:5 85:12
prepared 29:24 47:7
passed
8:22
9:17
38:2
57:12
58:5
31:3,6 32:10,15
96:7
66:9
81:13
83:10
91:8
64:9
105:17
33:2,4,5
36:2
pollutions
19:2
96:6
past 27:11
42:20
permitted 88:19
37:15,21
39:23
pool 20:24
preparing
88:20
59:20 97:6
109:8
40:12,1341:1
poputar 64:21
prescription
15:23
Pawlenty 80:10
permittees 36:1
42:23
44:6 50:1
population
11:22
present
93:1
108:8
pay
65:1
permitting 5:18
63:8
69:23
78:21
67:12,15,22 85:10
111:24
pending 64:9
88:22
116:16,16
79:15
81:1,3
88:13
96:17
presentation
46:2
pentoxide7O:3,9,13
117:1
88:21
89:8 91:9,11
portion
83:2
91:12
47:3
70:14
person 17:1,5 73:9
91:13
92:3,4
113:9
92:5
Presentations
107:1
people
5:19,208:21
personally
42:3
plants 7:22
13:4,4,7
position 58:6
59:13
presented 48:6
9:13,15,23,23
persous67:24
28:20 39:6 44:4,9
96:19
57:19
95:17
11:2112:15
14:5
person’s 56:16
46:4 54:15,16 56:3
possibility 38:2 94:9
presenting 7:19 48:8
15:13
16:2,4
18:8
perspectivels:1
66:473:1578:18
111:18
presents6l:4
18:1042:545:7
26:1
79:1,1986:8
88:10
possiblell:740:22
preserving7l:10
47:2,5,9
56:15
petition4:16 82:1,8
88:23 89:2,22
92:8
41:5
57:6
93:15
president 59:21
97:6
107:10
113:24
pharmaceuticals
97:9,17
possibly 102:9
press 70:22
89:15
114:1
15:21
play
106:2
post 118:6
90:3,3,20
People’s
83:22
84:1
phase 32:1
plays
108:9
potable 64:16,19
pressing 63:13
per 28:21
29:5,11
phenomena 62:3
please 7:17
18:4,12
97:2
pressure 15:24
33:13
39:7,23,24
phonetic 15:6 43:22
31:15 55:8
58:17
Potash
69:24
presnmably9o:23
39:2440:6,7,8,17
46:2
54:17
58:1996:10
118:7
potential 11:3 51:6
presume23:21
44:5,8,10 45:4
phosphate 31:22,24
pleased
16:15 56:23
51:14,2052:16,22
pretreatment 79:17
46:5,11,13,20
32:1,4 38:14
69:24
pleasnre8:19
63:24
93:6 94:19
pretty26:7
45:11
55:14
56:7
62:5
84:8
pledge 73:6
potentially 70:6
58:5
63:18
67:13,13,14
phosphates 67:11
plumbing 65:4
72:8
preventative 63:22
67:16,2072:11,11
84:9,18
plus 5:1644:21
POTW
64:23
68:15
preventing 59:2
72:14 78:20 85:7,9
phosphorus-conta...
110:7
68:16
101:18,20
prevention 85:12
85:18,23
86:6,24
80:16
point 6:9 7:15
8:7
105:12
prevents
114:17
96:16
104:9,19
phosphorus/yr 68:2
8:10
10:8
12:24
POTWs 33:24
38:6
previous 38:9
109:7
68:3
16:16
23:9,14,17
41:22 64:18
65:8
previously96:7
percent
12:3
66:18
photographs2l:8
23:19 24:1,5,7,13
65:10,14,18,21
pre-filed
5:9,10,17
74:10 77:17
78:10
Ph.D2:8
61:21
66:11
72:22
66:1,7,12,47,19
13:19
16:14
17:9
79:18
84:8,9,11
Ph.D.s9:5
75:18
76:7,17,24
67:6,15 68:20
17:34,14,15,22
85:12
91:14 92:6
pick 8:5
77:8
78:4
79:4
75:20 77:2,5 78:7
18:1 20:8
21:7
percentagesl:2,19
pictures48:23
82:19 87:7,24
81:9
101:12
24:24 28:3,11,15
93:5
piece 106:10
90:12,17 91:2
pounds 70:3,4,9,10
28:24
32:8,21
percentile 51:9,22
piecemeal 25:16
96:10
101:2
70:13,14 80:6
33:20
34:10 35:15
52:2,8 92:17
Pigley
21:10,14
102:10
108:2,13
85:17
46:24 47:13
96:6
perfect
108:3
pilot
70:20
71:12
108:17
109:15,20
powder 84:2,6
96:11103:10
perfectly 28:2
pipeline
115:3
110:24
111:3
pp 71:24
pre-levy 27:15
110:21
place 13:12
24:14
112:7,17
113:20
practical
16:3 63:21
price 85:3
perhaps
10:22
15:3
45:8 64:18
77:1
113:22
114:2
65:2
primarily 87:5
40:14 90:12
91:17
98:11
112:3,19
115:5
116:24
practicality
13:13
116:4,19
117:4
108:20
115:9
places 11:13
13:10
pointed 105:10
practice56:14
primary72:2
perimeters39:2
61:21
90:13
113:5
pointsl8:2271:20
practices2l:1969:8
110:13
115:5
41:1 46:17
106:14
116:42
policies42:6
104:5
69:13
principal36:6,l0
period 5:22 78:21
placing 56:14
policy 2:16 7:4 76:9
practicing 117:3
38:10
105:18
109:10
plain
12:6
15:22
76:18,20 100:24
Prairie 2:16,20
7:4
principally49:2l
periphyton72:8
23:15
108:21,23
110:9
7:641:23 42:12,19
prior3l:20
37:24
permission
17:6
plan 20:6
26:5
61:6
112:18
42:19,24 43:1
59:11
82:14
permit36:5,17,18
61:9
71:18
74:8
polishing
113:2,8,19
precipitate38:13
108:18
444:7
36:21
37:45
46:9
78:9
88:20,22
pollutant39:1
55:17
precipitation4l:7
private97:16
46:10,19 55:13,16
98:21,23
113:12
56:21,22
45:11
PRN47:8
55:16,16 58:7
115:11
117:2
pollutants 9:12
precisely 34:3
probably
17:1,4
64:12,12 81:19
planning29:22 30:3
13:11 55:15,19
predict
109:20
39:14
50:9
51:17
82:11,1388:17
36:9 70:21 71:6
56:15
predominantly 84:3
84:42 85:2 86:5
110:12
112:22,24
75:20
76:1
95:23
pollution
1:1
2:2,6,9
prefer27:21
117:11
88:21
89:13
113:1,15
PIano 35:21
6:19 21:12
22:13
premature 14:23
106:10
108:3
permits29:8 35:3
plans6l:8 70:16
22:20 34:6 59:2
Premier 15:9
112:16 115:11
43
Keefe Reporting Company
116:1
69:12
73:21
76:10
protecting7l:10
qualifications 18:6,7
range70:23 71:4
problem
5:20
18:15
116:21
115:10,24
18:8
78:20
101:4
19:21
20:20 41:22
progressl4:8
94:15
protection 2:12 22:1
quality 4:15,21
9:1
114:20
50:3,751:3,7,11
94:16
69:8
73:13
89:20
12:14,14 18:15
ranges44:l5
51:19
72:17
101:5
prohibits8o:15
96:23
97:1
98:3
30:3
35:12
46:16
ranging84:8
problematic
108:11
project
11:10
14:9
113:24
52:4
57:17
60:12
Rao2:44:8
23:8,18
108:12
115:17
14:16
32:9,10
protective 63:22
61:7
62:9 68:23
23:24 24:5,13,20
problems
14:12
75:22,2476:2
115:10
69:8,1271:1,10,16
44:1,245:1,15
46:24
20:4 43:2
80:24 81:4,12,17
proud98:7
71:22 73:3 76:6,8
94:3
62:12
68:23
71:16
82:20,23 83:3
proven
52:23
65:17
76:10,13,16,20
rapidly3s:22 37:34
100:22
114:6
projects70:2071:12
proves87:10
78:11
81:16,20
37:16,17 89:9
procedural 6:1
113:34
provide 6:4 25:7
82:16,17 87:8
rare 50:10,13
117:15
prolong24:10
35:7 58:2063:23
89:1692:1,3 93:2
rate
19:2421:441:2
procedure 32:2
promise
131:24
76:23
98:3,12 99:8
94:12,13 98:9,22
41:3
85:22
proceed 5:18
36:9
promising
112:16
100:10
99:2
101:20
ratepayer 64:24
55:9
77:3
83:16
promotion69:7
provided 35:21
103:16
108:16
65:5
112:8
promulgating 61:14
82:24
97:5 99:10
110:10 114:15
rates
63:8
proceeding 4:2
7:22
promulgation 61:10
102:16
107:8
135:14
rather 9:20
16:18,19
81:8
305:4
prone 70:5
provides 63:21
qnantify
115:16
25:19 52:22
64:6
proceedings
1:8
properly
42:5
providing 60:9 98:6
quantitative
21:22
113:7
53:3
57:15
119:9
property 80:16,18
prudent 108:17
quantity 86:9
rationality
115:21
119:13
proponent99:7
111:1
Qnarter69:10
raw79:23
process4:14 9:19
proportional 83:1
public 5:16,22,23
question 6:6
14:21
reach
21:6
56:15
27:1
31:1635:2
proposal4:11 47:9
10:1021:17 36:8
22:19
23:1824:23
117:17
36:2,13 38:7,12,22
54:14,14 60:16
36:17 38:2 55:20
26:13,22
42:11
reached
117:16
40:12,21,2241:8
61:20 63:48
69:17
65:16 81:14
97:18
43:41
44:4,247:23
reaches
18:17
44:18,19,20 50:4
70:18
75:22
80:7
97:22
100:24
56:9,1057:2 58:8
reaching 71:5
66:16
67:2
71:8
81:23
88:6
89:17
101:12
117:18
88:12,1692:12
reaction 107:19
75:16
94:13
99:20
89:22
90:11
94:3,7
119:6,21
101:7
104:14
read
7:12 8:8,11,16
103:8,19
106:3
99:6,7
103:18
publically 20:23
105:5,9,9,10
106:6
8:17 9:10,16
10:15
113:21
414:4,7,8
106:12 108:13,15
publically-owned
106:17
108:19
13:2!
16:17
17:6
processes 11:8 38:10
109:5,9
110:8,16
97:13
111:6
17:21
18:1,4,9,10
38:11,12,2039:3
116:11
publication 49:5
questionable 72:13
20:8 27:22,23
41:444:21 45:12
proposals 94:6
67:10
questioning
16:20
46:24 48:5,6 56:12
60:15
100:7
102:1
propose 16:17
116:8
publicly83:19
qnestions5:3 7:11
56:19,2496:10
processing 55:20
proposed 1:4 4:5
published 5:8 69:23
14:115:16
16:16
103:14
produced 38:15
10:17
17:2,17
22:2
71:22
95:15,16
16:18
17:2,7 20:9
readily
100:8
111:6
25:12 29:12 47:8
pulses27:7
20:10 23:7
26:12
reading9o:20,21
product
83:22
84:7
47:16,17,19 55:10
pumping2l:4
102:3
27:24 28:6
29:15
readings 26:3,24
84:15
55:14,21,24 56:21
purchased
80:14
29:16 30:20,21
53:8
production 85:3,20
57:3 60:17 63:45
purpose
8:23
59:1
33:!!
39:12,14
reads7l:7
102:10,11
63:17
65:10,11
pnrposes45:14
41:19 45:22 47:2,5
Ready
18:11
prodnctive2ó:4,5
68:1673:13
75:2
pursuant4:15 5:7
47:7,9,11,22
53:19
real5O:l5
95:22
106:14
79:8
80:23
81:4,12
pursue
110:22
54:8 55:4,22
83:7
101:19
productivity
12:11
82:1,10
86:3,5,9
pursuing42:1
83:8 86:18,20
87:1
reality 108:1,4
products
42:2 79:24
86:22 89:20 97:8
put 6:16 9:4 10:22
92:9 95:5
103:8,9
realize
13:1 43:7
80:3,3,5
83:20,24
99:4,5,9,13,15,17
12:20
43:6,12
104:1,3,4
405:21
realized
100:17
84:4,13,22,22,24
99:18
100:2,6,15
16:1224:1425:19
107:10
111:9
really4:12
7:19
8:10
85:3,8
100:19
101:7
25:24
26:6 39:16
112:24 117:15
10:9
39:5 44:17
professional 97:8
102:22,24
105:24
45:3,8 49:21
56:18
quick 95:22
47:2 56:11,12
119:22
119:13
56:20 58:3
84:21
quickly 58:5
115:16
Professor 16:19,20
proposes 78:5,15
88:21
105:14
quite 26:14
52:9
reason 40:3 48:18
18:1
86:13
87:19
90:8
106:9
112:19
86:23
109:3
57:16,24
102:4
program 26:21
proposing4:17
113:2
114:1
reasonable 8:8
63:12,12,24 65:3
56:22
116:10
putting
13:22
108:4
Ii
27:10
29:6,13 98:7
73:17 75:3
78:11
prospective 100:18
P.E2:5
142:1
3:1
69:12
105:18
81:6 82:6
87:32
protect 70:24
73:6
P.O 2:7,13
119:4
reasons2S:23 29:10
95:2
101:1
108:4
73:11
raise 102:20
60:21
63:13
71:20
116:16 117:1,6,7
protected 18:24
Q
raised
16:24
46:16
rebuttal
86: 13
programs43:4,5
19:2
qualification 95:20
102:18
111:6
recall 84:20
14
Keefe Reporting Company
receive 5:14,15
74:9,19
75:12
77:7
112:3
representation
rest 12:8 115:18
82:22
112:5
77:15
91:8,9
release70:19 71:11
77:21
restate36:14
received 59:15,17
reduced 75:15,15,16
72:24 73:2,8,19
Representatives
restoration
78:14
61:9
76:18
83:1
reduces8s:12
74:4
89:15
90:3
97:17
82:20
96:21
reducing 59:2
69:16
released
20:3
represented
77:23
restored 74:19 75:6
receiving 61:3
78:24
92:5
releases 70:22
90:20
100:24
result 4:19
62:5 63:4
82:6,14 93:14
reduction 33:21
relevancy
105:5
representing 8:1
65:11
68:23 86:2
99:16,24
100:17
42:474:7
78:1,4
relevant6:2
50:17
33:10,12 97:9
86:11
88:23
100:3
recent 22:7
78:10,13 86:1,9,22
reliability 29:6
request
36:8,17,18
resultsO3:16 66:2
recently
73:12 75:21
91:16 99:20
relief 64:23
73:13
88:17,22
68:24
79:23
81:13
76:18
89:19
116:20
relocate
15:17,19
89:5,12,20
81:17
receptive 94:23
reductions
68:15
relocating
15:20
requested 73:20
retail 80:14 85:3
recess 45:18
69:14
76:12
91:19
109:1
I
89:24
retailers 84:13
85:1
reclaim
11:16
12:3
100:2
rely
11:7
requesting
89:3
rethink 70:24
13:12,17
14:6
refer78:2279:1
remain
117:10
requests8l:24
retrospect
17:13
15:16
16:5
90:13
91:4
92:15
remaining67:6
102:22
110:2
retnrn4l:2
reclaimed
10:4,7
reference 24:24
remarkable 78:2
require
76:6 94:8
reuse
11:16
12:4
13:14
25:3
29:21
32:9,22
remedial
108:14
105:13,15
106:5
13:12,17
14:6,15
reclaiming
15:18
34:1646:12
65:12
remediedó4:12
108:5
117:1
15:17
16:6
reclamation
14:15
117:20
remember32:1
I
required 39:7
57:7
reused
10:4
13:14
33:9,11,14
54:13
referenced 30:4
43:1
99:7
108:17
reusing 15:18
58:22
59:4 66:4
38:5
103:10
remind 45:21
requirements 5:1,2
reveal 72:5
81:1
83:4
86:8
references
8:12
removal 29:531:16
60:1882:4
114:13
reveals 64:5
88:9,17,21
92:8
38:21
35:2 38:22 44:17
requires 50:2
114:4
review4:15
10:24
94:1497:15
referred30:1,2
64:1865:1,7,14,15
requiring64:19
29:2230:431:12
102:17
31:22 36:5
39:4
81:2,18
83:2
100:7
66:6
102:7
110:18
44:3,12
79:14
recognize 109:17,18
46:1
101:12,15,16,17
research 19:2,6
104:11,18,23
recognized 77:4
referring 10:21
101:21,23 102:1,8
22:10 23:8 58:23
114:15
99:22
103:2
34:21
35:1,13,14
102:10
106:18,21
59:9,10,11,12
60:1
reviewed9:21
30:10
Recognizing
76:8
52:12 90:2,3
110:9
60:14
62:4,10
102:18
recommendation
reflects
5:5
remove 80:6 86:5,7
67:10 75:3,22 87:9
reviewing 57:12
92:13,15
regard
52:5
57:11
removed 22:15
87:11
93:9
revision 47:16,19
recommendations
89:15 110:5
82:22,23
researching 20:13
revisions 30:9 47:8
69:6 70:2071:7
regarding 5:4 43:2
removes
114:3
reserved 9:20
47:17 55:10,24
81:2291:694:11
57:15,1574:18
removing3l:18
reservoir2l:5
103:15
recommended 61:13
78:3 111:17
33:6 65:5 75:6
residential 65:22
reworking 16:23
82:3
region73:12 74:18
86:8
110:3,3
66:13,20 67:18
Richard 58:12,21
recommending
76:3 77:22 81:11
Renee7l:3
68:2,9 79:24 80:2
83:5
109:22
112:13,14
renew
55:36
80:9
84:21
85:8
Richardson 26:24
recommends 78:8
regional 43:22
repealed 22:15
residents 59:6
Richmond 35:22
record 4:23 8:16
Registered 119:22
repeatedly 99:13
resolution 76:19
46:7,12,14,15,15
9:16
10:22
13:22
regularly 31:12
replace 65:3
resolve 37:24
Ridge 54:21,21
27:19,2029:18
regulated 79:15
replacement 60:7
resource 15:5 75:23
right 4:7 12:11,12
32:13,14 39:15
regulation 108:5
report
10:21,21
114:5
14:13,14 15:21
45:20 46:8
54:11
regulations 5:8
22:3
18:17
30:4,4,5
resources 1:9,9 2:2
16:1
25:10,21
34:7
95:24
96:1
100:16
25:19 82:3 99:22
33:13,18 39:16
2:3 71:1,9
109:13
34:1744:445:8,17
109:24
117:12,13
103:3
110:11
40:9
50:18
51:16
119:10,11
48:2449:6,14
50:1
117:14,18
116:16
117:1
53:20,23 66:7,10
respect 54:14
99:12
52:13
55:2
89:4
recorded 119:14
regulatory 112:18
67:20 70:7 72:18
100:5
94:5 114:22
records
11:11
111:3
114:10,17,21
72:21 81:14,14
Respectfully83:4
Rights8:249:5,8
recover 21:1 23:20
reject 99:6 302:22
93:2
respond 108:14
rip 45:8
24:6,15
related 42:23
43:3
reported 1:1767:8
response 23:18,21
river
12:20
15:22
recovery24:l0,17
51:4,1864:978:17
67:2269:2,4,9
23:2431:11
18:1619:1020:14
60:6
relates39:14 104:7
70:2
108:21 110:15
20:17 21:1,6 22:15
recreational 62:7
relating42:20
reporter 7:17
Responses30:9
23:1,624:15,17
rectify 64:11
relationship 19:3
107:13
119:21,22
responsibilities 60:1
26:14,18,21
33:8
recycle 12:8
13:9
52:21
REPORTING
1:22
responsibility6l:21
33:11,14 46:21
recycling 13:11
relationships 61:1
2:24 3:24 119:24
74:7
48:14,18 51:1
53:5
reduce 10:17 15:23
63:6
represent 7:21
responsible 87:5
53:14 70:21 71:13
43:5 72:21 73:17
relative2l:16,21
54:12
97:24
71:13 73:3,7,11,16
15
Keefe Reporting Company
73:38 74:13,20
37:13 40:39
43:9
Scrucrude46:2
Session
80:11
sign-up 5:12
77:11,15,16,18,21
45:13
64:17
82:21
Seal
119:17
set5:2243:948:1S
similar29:7
37:8
77:23
112:3,10,12
84:23
85:22
87:9
searched
88:3
48:20 94:7
111:14
40:19
69:13
81:9
riverine 19:5
95:11
97:21
106:9
season8O:18
112:18
115:23
87:8 88:2,4
112:9
rivers2:16,207:4,6
111:17
seasonally23:3
117:18
119:16
112:11
9:18
18:21,24 19:7
sample78:23
seat8:4
14:23
17:9
sets39:21
simple9:17
12:18
23:9 41:23
42:12
samples 87:17
96:3
107:12
setting 57:13
15:14,16 69:7
42:19,19,24 43:1
sanitary 96:13,14,18
seats 8:6
settings42:21
simply27:l4 34:22
62:13
63:3
87:14
97:15
second
19:9 27:19
settleability38:23
62:10
84:5 91:16
River/Gu1f72:19
Sanjay2:15
6:21
28:20
34:16 57:2
settlers73:12
simulative9:19
Roberts7:23
Santuski53:7
62:15,15 63:5,5,20
seven59:5
71:10
since5:l0
11:24
Robinson 29:24
sate’s 97:14
87:4 95:24
117:12
79:19
16:2031:250:4,7
30:10
33:10
satisfactory 17:6
secondary
55:20
several 26:16 27:11
50:15 59:8,14
Rock7O:20
71:13
save 8:10
56:1,5
29:7,9 31:1,13
68:11
84:12,23
Rod 70:22
savings 38:24
Secretary9:6
38:21
39:14 40:14
94:15 96:18,19
role
101:3
101:11
102:7
sectionS:!
26:13
74:21
75:2,3
77:2
single
12:18
Roman87:3
saying 10:17
11:15
59:21
64:15
82:2
111:11
sir
13:18
14:20,24
Ron
54:12
55:6
13:6
15:18
16:5
sediment53:1 I
severe 27:7
18:12
20:7
24:3
room
107:21
108:8
49:2
93:19
101:5
54:16 74:7
sewage9:19,20
27:19
54:30
83:6
115:19
108:16
114:7
see
13:12
15:19
20:9
12:19
37:15,21
95:696:3
103:7
route 110:22
116:2
27:3
32:11
44:16
41:1
59:7
60:4
107:7,16
111:8
routinely
113:10
says9:11,17
10:24
44:22,23 66:10
65:21
79:23
83:19
site
10:5
11:12
39:15
row4:9
16:13
41:449:17
68:17 69:4,24
91:11
97:4
105:14
114:8,13
Roxana32:22 33:2
49:21
50:13
89:19
70:22 71:11
72:20
109:9
113:8
site-specific
82:9
Roy3:4 6:22
25:13
109:10
73:2
74:15
75:17
sewerage59:2,24
sitting
15:12
53:17
117:21
scale 76:23
75:23
76:9,20
sewers 60:4
56:3,4
RPR
1:17
scarce 65:16
79:2080:1981:3
shape 48:4
situation 45:6
56:12
rule34:6
39:5 43:14
Schaeffer 10:20,24
89:24
91:14 92:7
shared 74:6
57:22
58:4
111:13
57:12,13,17,19
13:20
14:4,5
15:6
99:9
117:7
sheet 5:12
116:15
65:10
86:3,4,5,22
16:8
20:11
Seeing
14:19
18:2
sheets 17:18
situations 57:24
92:1399:9,13
Schaumberg8l:1
30:1883:1586:17
Shepard69:13
sixll:21
12:17
100:6
104:6,7,10
Scheaffer 6:16
7:19
95:6
shifting9l:19
79:19
104:12,21
105:3
7:21,22,22
8:1,2,4
seekingó4:5,17
short4l:645:19
size 115:12
108:9
114:14
8:8,16,19
10:2
seem4O:l
shortage5:21
60:24
skip
18:8
rulemaking 1:44:2
14:1,11,21
20:9
seemingly 20:2
shorthand
119:15
sludge 10:12
12:19
4:7,22,24 6:6,13
Scheaffer’s9:24
seems
15:1
50:23
119:21
15:22
31:19 38:15
15:2 25:17
78:5
scheduled 5:20
55:11,18
show
12:2
14:8
81:2
38:16,17,2441:2,3
98:19
114:8
58:12
seen79:383:22
81:17
41:1060:15
117:16
school3o:24
94:15
115:2
showed
10:11
57:21
100:14,14
rules 6:1
22:20
science 9:7 63:14
segment
19:18
50:21
showing 54:2
92:18
small
115:2
50:22
57:15
77:5
64:14 90:11
98:8
73:16 82:10
shown
57:35
68:7
smaller 36:24
39:23
105:6
111:13,14
98:10,15,23
select
12:12 26:7
76:14 78:3
81:11
smartest4l:5
113:15
100:21
104:13
selection 32:3
99:21
103:2
Smith7l:23
ruling
86:9
107:21,22,22
selling
12:17
shows
11:11
70:7
Society 59:17,21
runoff68:22 70:6,15
114:20
115:13
Senator9:17
sides6:2
112:9
Sofat2:15 6:21,21
73:1,18,22
sciences7l:24 93:11
sense7:21
21:22,23
116:18
7:9,11
13:23 29:1
run-off 88:4
103:19
104:18
51:15
sideline 102:2
47:15,20 49:1
55:4
rush 61:14
108:24
sensible 94:19
Sierra2:177:436:7
55:6,10 57:2,5
R&D
59:8
83:5
science-based 99:1
sentence 62:15
63:5
36:15
42:20 43:4,7
58:9
83:14
107:7,9
R04-26
1:4 4:4
scientific
19:6 23:16
separate
17:21
47:8
soft 89:1
47:24
58:7
60:24
September 5:8
sign 5:13
soil 69:3,10 80:16
5
61:12
63:6,16,17
102:17
signed 80:10
Soils 66:23
S
1:172:1
3:1
67:12
64:1,4,7
65:17
sequester 12:12,16
significant
11:20
soils/garbage 66:15
119:6,20
78:6 81:9,14
94:4
series
105:12
45:2
61:23
65:13
solely6I:21 77:2
safests4:6
94:19
101:6,9
serve75:11
97:7
68:19,20,22 72:6
108:14
112:23
sale42:1
84:21
104:23
served
67:15
72:10,17 74:17
solid 116:8
Salem 37:17
scientifically 82:5
serves 59:6 96:17
77:9 79:14,21
solids 44:17
102:9
sales
85:2
scientist48:4
services:12,l559:3
100:12
101:18
102:11
Salt
81:2,4,6,18
scientists
15:7
59:5
85:19
98:4
102:12
116:15
soluble 19:21
same
11:22
16:21
scope 68:16
services 98:6
significantly 79:12
solution 65:2
16
Keefe Reporting Company
solutions98:16
66:12,13,18
67:5
standards4:15 9:16
111:22,23
113:20
subsection 55:41,12
solve7l:16
68:19,20 69:19
9:21,22
10:18
11:9
114:12
57:3,7
some5:9
9:15,22
71:14 72:22
75:19
25:13 39:9,22
61:5
stop
105:20
subsequeutly 20:3
10:30
11:35
32:24
76:7,17,24 78:4
61:7,11,13,1563:1
storage
102:3
substantially 72:12
16:15,24
19:10
86:3,10 88:5
90:18
63:12
64:11
76:14
store3l:23
successfnlly76:lO
21:6
23:15
26:6,14
90:21,24 91:3,4
76:16
95:1
98:9,9
stored 20:4
sufficient
18:9 93:7
26:22,24
27:15,24
109:6,7,8,21
410:2
98:11,14,22 99:2
stores
12:7 83:22
suggest
17:2
72:7
31:12
35:2,3,4,10
112:7,8
116:20
101:20
106:2
straight3l:17
suggested
16:22,23
37:11
38:13,24
South 2:10,2021:10
110:11117:3
strategy
93:13
29:5
112:23
39:1,15 40:11,24
23:2,4 46:7,18,21
standing99:1
stream
19:7,17
suggesting
116:11
42:5,6,23 44:3,9
southern 54:21,21
Stanford 67:10
20:24 23:1 43:5
Suggestions 80:22
44:12,13,14,18,23
96:15
start
12:24
46:16
52:19 58:1
suggests 55:17
45:22
46:8 47:4
soybeans 85:21
started
7:10
11:10
72:5 79:4,6 82:6
Suite2:173:3
48:18
49:5
52:14
space
10:4
startiag6:l8
82:14
92:15,17,18
summarized44:13
52:17,18,20 53:15
spacial
115:9
starts 34:18
93:14,23 99:22
summarizes27:24
53:17 57:16,17,24
speak7:20
14:24
state 11:1321:19,24
101:4
103:2
summary4:13
8:12
62:4
76:6
79:9
116:8
35:23
36:23
41:17
105:15
109:11
87:3
80:5
84:4,2,6
87:1
species63:8
43:21
46:3
49:9
110:17
114:9
sunlight
19:24 84:6
87:24
106:5
107:9
specific39:12,15
51:22
54:10,14
115:16,16,21
supervise 59:9
108:12 109:11,17
62:12
88:2
102:15
58:24 70:2 72:23
116:1,2
Supplemental 30:9
109:23
110:2,2
102:19
108:9,24
75:13
76:3 97:10
streams 9:18
18:21
suppliers 64:20
111:16
113:3,7
112:2
114:1,8,14
97:12,20,22
98:6
18:24
50:24 52:12
supply64:17
114:11
115:21
specifically 43:2
101:10
108:18
52:13
62:17
69:16
supplying 87:17
116:20
68:12
90:6,21
109:7
112:9,10
72:1,6,15 78:24
support 19:7,15
somebody5:ll
22:7
109:10
111:5
113:22
114:17
87:14
92:22,24
60:9 76:18,20
38:12
113:6
114:10
115:42,19
119:1,7
93:1699:16,21,24
81:12,15 95:17
someone26:8
specifics
113:16
stated72:21
99:13
100:17,22
103:1
99:1
104:5,10,15
something 8:20
specifying
110:24
99:18
100:6
108:11,12
115:21
104:15,21
105:2
27:15
48:15
49:9
speculate 415:4
401:44
Street
1:23 2:10,20
supportive 95:13
51:13
57:16 90:8
spend
101:18
106:3
statement 6:5,6
stress
18:21
supports 98:21
93:18
106:13
spendingb:11
36:20
60:19,21,23
stretch 26:18
sure
17:23
24:4,19
116:8
spent 15:742:21
61:17
62:4
63:13
strict 105:15
31:10 38:18
118:2
sometimes
112:24
116:17
71:20
110:15
strictly
18:20
surface 66:7
69:20
somewhat 42:6
spirit 73:9
statements 33:17
stringent 29:8
87:6,7,8,9
113:19
sophomore
115:14
spoken 89:1
states
14:4
18:17
strong 107:24
113:21
sorghum 85:21
sponsoring 63:17
29:7
49:16 61:6,12
structure 114:17,21
surfaces 77:8
sorry
44:22
37:4,19
spot 109:14
63:5,20 67:10
students9:4
surprised 50:6
48:12
87:3
89:1
spring 23:4
69:20
70:22
73:8
studied
106:20,23
survey 26:15,20
90:19
91:17
Springfield
1:9 2:3
74:6,13
76:11
studies 11:6 48:14
snrveys93:13,14,15
sort 16:13
27:10
2:7,14 7:8 42:22
77:10,15,19
90:22
58:7 63:16
88:22
survive 50:2
52:14,20
56:24
119:11
statewide 39:17
94:4
101:7,9
susceptibleó5:4
88:2 93:10
104:4
sprinkler 10:5
66:19
71:9,17 78:9
study 5:3,4 8:23
suspended 19:23
113:7
sprinklers 10:6
80:20
99:11
25:22
40:4
53:5,18
swear 8:5
18:12
sound
60:24
82:6
square
10:3
12:22
State’s4:14
103:16
61:12
65:24 66:2,6
28:7 42:16
96:4
98:8,10,15,23
staff4:8 9:242:5
state-wide 99:16
67:17 69:2,9 72:17
sworn 6:3 8:48
100:10,20
103:19
59:10
111:17
statistical5l:8,l3
93:22
95:9,14,16
18:13
28:6,8 42:10
104:13,18
107:21
stage 31:19,20
52:1,2 54:472:9
105:15
42:13,17 58:18
107:21,22
stakeholder22:6
statistics 85:19
studying 20:43
96:5
107:14
source 23:10,10,12
25:13
71:4
status 61:9
subject 6:3 34:5
synthesized
13:1
23:19
24:5,8,10,11
standard 1:4 4:5,14
statutory
112:18
40:17
56:7,12,19
Syracuse4l:16
24:14
33:1
42:2
4:16,17,21
40:6
stays
115:17
56:19
87:13 99:17
system
10:2,5,11
61:22 68:22,23,24
44:11
52:3,5 53:2
steering76:2
110:20 113:23
13:11
14:15 23:13
79:14
80:4 82:19
57:47
60:18,19
step 27:19 55:395:7
114:13,15
116:15
26:4
31:19
106:18
88:1,1
93:17
63:2,15,18,21,23
101:1,8
107:7
snbmits:4
14:7,13
systems9:24
11:1,2
108:37 110:21
64:2,13
65:16 79:8
steps 117:11
60:19
83:10
11:5,6,8
14:3,11
116:18 117:6
81:11
82:9,18
Steven 25:6
submittal6l:16
45:8,13
48:19
19:5
sourcebook 62:8
87:12
95:2
100:17
Stickney 54:16
56:2
submitted 7:24
19:14
20:14,17
sources23:14
24:19
103:19
106:12
still9:14
11:11,14
50:16 61:7 75:22
21:4,6 23:16
44:23
41:24
43:8 65:19
110:20,20 414:7
20:13
24:12,18
83:4 95:10 96:7
64:17
65:4 72:9
65:21
66:1,3,8,11
115:1119:13
45:2!
56:13
65:23
submitting95:15
17
KeefeReporting Company
T
49:23 66:18
16:1 26:18 42:23
tip 26:5
33:5 36:2 37:35,21
T119:4,4
test80:17
53:16 110:13
Tipsord4:9
38:639:641:1
table33:22 34:8,9
tested76:10
111:4,23
titled69:22 70:19
44:4
59:5
60:11,15
34:12 39:18 53:22
testified4s:9 57:14
think 5:20 8:10
10:6
73:2
66:14 67:3 73:15
54:1,5 68:8
testifys:18,23 58:12
10:20 11:19 12:18
Toby2:15 107:9
75:16,19 78:14
take8:15 10:10
13:8
testifying 12:15
13:15 17:4,5,6
111:10
83:19 89:22 91:11
14:18
15:21
17:7
42:11
48:4
95:23
18:6,9,19 23:7
today4:6 5:7,18,2!
91:13
92:3
96:15
20:24
23:20 24:6
testimonys:9,lO,17
25:24 26:5
34:14
5:23
6:15
7:3,12
97:1,9,13 98:1,6
26:2
31:24
37:5
5:19
6:4 7:12,19
37:6
39:4,10 40:5
8:2 41:21,22
53:17
98:13,36 99:20
45:18
91:23
8:1,9,11,20
10:23
40:1042:12,15
56:3,4 84:22
95:23
100:3,10
101:14
taken4s:19 50:7
12:2 13:19,19
45:5,9 46:13 48:15
95:23,24 105:6
102:1,4,5 105:14
80:21
16:14,17,22
17:7,9
50:24
51:17,24
109:2
111:21
105:14,23
106:3
taking 112:3
17:14,15,15,23
52:12,15 54:6
today’s 107:39
109:19 113:8,9,21
talk 56:24
18:1,5,23 20:8
55:23 56:24 58:7
together 6:1116:12
114:4
talked 6:14 7:20
21:8 24:24 27:22
86:12 90:2,7
25:11,17
treatments 37:1
15:3
57:23
117:18
28:3,3,11,11,15,24
103:10
104:12,16
Tom4:6
treats33:9
talking 12:10 1513
29:2! 32:8,21
106:35 107:19,20
ton 12:18
trench 27:6 28:19
16:2 34:7 35:14
3320 3410 35:15
108:8 110:13
tons 12:17 85:6,23
trends27:3
40:5,7 49:4
89:22
38:5,8 39:4,11
112:16
114:17,20
86:6,24 91:20
tributary 77:14
92:16,18
109:5
40:18
41:1445:17
116:3,6,7,11,12
tons/yr68:2,4,7
trieds2:14
talks 44:14
87:4
46:24 47:13
48:3
117:17,23
Tony
6:18
Triennial 4:15
112:15
48:1058:20
83:10
thinking
12:24
tool75:21
76:1,12
trigger94:5
tank3l:21 32:5,6,7
83:17 85:9,16
third49:24
tools43:I0
triggers55:12
Tanner2:8 4:7
86:13,13,16 89:14
THOMAS 2:1!
top32:lI 61:5 65:8
troops43:19
target78:10
90:1391:18,18
Thorn96:13,18
65:9
truckl2:1989:2
task 72:19
87:15,22
94:18
95:6,13,22
thought47:4
55:5
total 11:3,3,8,8
true 21:11 52:9
taught 13:2,3
96:2,7,11 97:5
56:2
28:22 29:12 40:7,8
105:8 119:8
taxpayer64:2465:6
102:16,18 103:10
three 18:21 33:20
44:15 51:2152:17
trustees97:19
taxpayers97:21
107:8,15,17,19,22
34:9 41:13 51:22
55:13 66:18 67:5
try 51:3
teams87:17
109:15 111:10
74:12 78:18 79:18
68:570:11,13
trying23:l543:4
technical4:8 59:22
114:21 117:24
88:23 89:2,13
72:10,11 78:19
turf80:12,14,15,18
66:11
90:12 97:2,7
testing44:22,23
104:8
83:3 85:19
turn 51:4
99:8,11100:5
thank6:10,13 8:3
thrive 50:3
tour 7:21
TWI 75:1
102:15,19
103:1
13:18
14:20
16:7,8
through 15:21
21:4
towards 9:22
12:5
two 8:5
14:7,7,13
106:24
117:3
20:7 23:7 26:10
35:2044:18
54:15
13:16
15:6,16
17:17
technically29:13
27:17,1829:14
56:561:1869:10
toxins50:ll
28:17,18,1832:8
11731
41:12 42:8 45:15
70:6 78:13,21
TP78:24 79:4,6
32:21 33:19 34:9
techniques 72:9
45:17 54:955:2
79:17 82:2 105:5
trade 112:3
39:21 49:14 50:23
technologies4o:13
58:12 71:2 83:6
110:21 112:10
trading 76:6,7,9,10
55:4,22 71:14 74:3
44:14 75:21
94:2 95:4,6 98:18
113:17
76:11,13,15,20
74:6 75:21 87:3
113:11
114:9
103:6,7
107:5,6
throughout97:12
78:11
94:32,13,17
89:20
104:8
technology28:21
111:8 114:19
97:20
111:18
112:14
29:5,640:19 65:7
117:9 118:5,8
throwing 12:23
traditional23:4
type3s:2 37:13 38:7
75:8,10,11,14,18
Thanks3o:16
thumb 57:13
108:20
38:13
44:18
75:20
76:22,23
their9:3,5
18:10
TimSO:lO
train
102:1
111:18,19
77:3
99:19
100:3,9
35:2,12,17,17
Timberville 14:17
training 111:23
typessO:10
101:12
109:22
37:14,21 46:14
time 5:18,21
6:11
114:9
typical 32:2
110:18
111:1,2,12
63:10 64:20 70:18
7:24
8:11
9:6
Trammell
10:1
typically38:14
111:22
112:1,2
71:3,20
91:3
93:2
12:24
16:21
20:8
transcript 5:5
118:5
typologically22:24
113:14 114:16,21
93:12 101:19
21:3 26:2,23 27:15
119:9
technology-based
113:4,11
40:1447:4,11
transmitted 80:23
U
100:23
themselves6:18
55:14 56:1,3 64:17
treat 12:19
33:7
U 67:12
telephone 117:16
theoretically 12:16
82:3 86:19 92:10
36:17 57:9 59:6
ug 72:10,11
tell 47:3
57:5
104:15
thereof25:15
93:1
101:2
102:5
91:11
106:4
Uh-huh2l:9
TEML 57:20,20
thing 9:18 10:15
106:13 108:8
treated 35:9 40:1
UIUC 59:20
temperatures3:13
11:19 28:5 29:17
109:13,20 111:24
57:10
ultimate28:21 44:7
temperatures 53:16
40:20 47:7 54:6
115:22
treating9:2091:10
ultimately39:8
temporal 115:8
86:12 107:24
times23:3 41:6
treatment9:19 14:3
61:20 64:24
tempting 57:8
109:4
111:3
112:4
100:24
105:19
20:23
21:18 28:20
113:20
terms 26:19
36:21
things 9:20
13:2
116:13
30:23
31:3,5 32:9
unavailable 20:2
18
Keefe Reporting Company
45:40 51:9,13
very 8:20 9:21 11:12
wastewater 6:24 7:2
1 1b:li
i
ivy..,
JJ.L1
19
