BEFORE

THE ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

iN

THE

MATTER

OF:

)

CLERKED

)

WATER

QUALITY

STANDARDS

AND

)

AUG

25

2008

CHICAGOEFFLUENT

AREALiMITATIONSWATERWAY

FOR

SYSTEM

THE

))

R08-09

(Rulemaking

- Wt)on

STATE

OF

Control

ILLINOIS

Board

AND THE

LOWER

DES PLAINES

RIVER:

)

PROPOSED

AMENDMENTS TO

35111.

)

Adm.

Code Parts

301, 302,

303 and 304

)

NOTICE

OF FILING

To:

John Therriault,

Clerk

Marie

Tipsord,

Hearing

Officer

James R.

Thompson

Center

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

100 West

Randolph

Street, Suite

11-500

Chicago,

Illinois

60601

SEE

ATTACHED

SERVICE

LIST

PLEASE

TAKE

NOTICE

that

I

have

filed

today with

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

Illinois EPA’s

Motion

to

Preserve

Opportunity

to Submit

Pre-filed

Questions

for Julia

Wozniak

and

Illinois EPA’s

Pre-Filed

Questions,

a

copy

of

which

is

herewith

served

upon

you.

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

BYJQ

6

Dated:

August 22,

2008

JN

Deborah

J.

William

4uDQI\J

1021

North Grand

Avenue

East

Assistant

Counsel

P.O.

Box 19276

Springfield,

Illinois

62794-9276

(217)

782-5544

THIS FILING

IS SUMBITTED

ON

RECYCLED

PAPER

---

---

BEFORE

THE

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARJ1

1ECEVED

CLERK’S

OFFICE

AUG

25

2008

)

STATE

OF

ILLINOIS

)

Pollution

Control

Board

)

(Rulemaking

—

Water)

MOTION

TO

PRESERVE

OPPORTUNITY

TO

SUBMIT

PRE-FILEI)

QUESTIONS

FOR

JULIA

WOZNIAK

NOW

COMES

the Proponent,

the

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

(“Illinois

EPA”),

by

one

of its

attorneys,

and

pursuant

to 35

Ill.

Adm. Code

101.500,

101.502,

101.522,

102.402

and

102.420

moves

that

the Hearing

Officer

allow the

Illinois

EPA

to submit

its

pre-filed

questions

for

Midwest

Generation

witness

Julia

Wozniak

at

such

time

as the

Hearing

Officer

Orders

the

filing

of

pre-filed

questions

for

Midwest

Generation

witnesses

Greg Seegert

and

Dr.

Alan Burton.

In

support

of its

Motion,

the

Illinois

EPA

states

as follows:

1.

On May

19,

2008,

the

Hearing

Officer

issued

an

order scheduling

additional

hearings

in

this matter

for

September

8,

9 and

10

and

23, 24

and

25.

In

addition,

a

Pre-filed

Testimony

deadline

of

August

4,

2008

and a

Pre-Filed

Question

deadline

of

August

25, 2008

were established.

2.

The

Metropolitan

Water

Reclamation

District

of

Greater

Chicago

filed

a

Motion

to Stay

these

proceedings

on

June

12, 2008.

On

July

21,

2008,

the

Board

denied

that

Motion

and

upheld

the

Pre-filed

Testimony

and

Question

deadlines

established

in

the

May

19,

2088

Hearing

Officer

Order.

IN

THE

MATTER

OF

WATER

QUALITY

STATh.DARDS

AND

EFFLUENT

LIMITATIONS

FOR

THE

CHICAGO

AREA

WATERWAY

SYSTEM

AND

THE

LOWER

DES

PLANES

RIVER:

PROPOSED

AMENDMENTS TO

35111.

Adm.

Code

Parts

301,

302,

303

and

304

)

)

)

---

3.

Midwest

Generation filed

a Motion for

Extension of

Time

to

File

Pre-filed

Testimony

of

Greg

Seegert

and

Dr.

Alan Burton

on

July

25, 2008. Tn

its Motion,

Midwest Generation requested

an extension

of

time

until

September

8, 2008 to file

testimony for

these

two witnesses.

Midwest

Generation

stated that “this

extension is

limited

in

both

time

and scope...

[Midwest Generation]

is not seeking

an extension

of

time to file

pre-filed testimony

of

any other

witnesses.”

Motion

at pp:

2-3.

4.

Midwest

Generation’s Motion

was granted

by the Hearing

Officer

on

August

1,

2008.

On August

4, 2008,

Midwest Generation

timely pre-filed

testimony

of

Julia Wozniak. No other

testimony

has been filed by

Midwest Generation

to date.

5.

In

addition to Ms. Wozniak,

forty-six

(46) pieces

of testimony were

filed

on

August 4,

2008 from

approximately

thirty-nine

(39) different

witnesses.

Simultaneously

with this

Motion, the Agency

is timely

filing its pre-filed

questions for

these witnesses.

6.

Ms. Wozniak’s

testimony and

the thirteen (13) Attachments

to it

overlaps

in many

respects subject

matters that the Illinois

EPA expects

will also

be covered

in the

key testimony

of Greg

Seegert

and Dr. Alan

Burton. Therefore,

it would

confuse the

Record for

cross-examination

of Ms. Wozniak

to occur

before

testimony

has even

been

filed by Mr. Seegert and

Dr. Burton. In addition,

it

would

prejudice

the

Illinois

EPA’s

case

in support

of its

rulemaking proposal

to prepare pre-filed

testimony

of this one

Midwest Generation

witness

prior to the deadline

for submittal

of testimony

by the

other

Midwest Generation

witnesses on the same

subject. For

example,

any subjects

of cross

examination

of Ms. Wozniak would

be subject

to rehabilitation

on the same

issues in the

later testimony. This

makes it necessary for

the

Agency

to

seek leave

from

the Hearing

---

Officer to

preserve its right to submit

questions ofMs. Wozniak on the same date and

time as the Hearing Officer orders the parties to

submit

pre-filed questions for Midwest

Generation’s

remaining use designation

witnesses.

WHEREFORE, for the reasons

set forth above, the Illinois EPA moves that the

Hearing Officer GRANT the Agency’s Motion to preserve

the

opportunity to submit

pre

filed questions for Midwest Generation witness Julia

Wozniak

until the date the Hearing

Officer

Orders submittal of Pre-filed Questions for Greg Seegert and Dr. Alan Burton.

•

Respectfully submitted,

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

By:U)A

Deborah

J.

Willi

s

•

Assistant Counsel

Dated: August

22, 2008

1021 North

Grand Avenue East

• P.O. Box

19276

Springfield, Illinois

62794-9276

(217)

782-5544

---

---

BEFORE

THE

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

ECEVED

IN THE

MATTER

OF:

)

CLERK’S

OFFICE

)

AU6252008

WATER

QUALITY

STANDARDS

AND

)

EFFLUENT

LIMITATIONS

FOR

THE

)

R0809

pnJd

CHICAGO

AREA

WATERWAY

SYSTEM

)

(Rulemaking

-Water)

AND

THE

LOWER

DES

PLAINES

RIVER:

)

PROPOSED

AMENDMENTS

TO 35

III.

)

Adm.

Code

Parts

301, 302,

303

and

304)

)

)

Illinois

EPA’s

Pre-Filed

Questions

for

Kevin

J.

Boyle,

Ph.D.

The

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(“Illinois

EPA”

or “Agency”),

by and

through

its attorneys,

hereby

submits its

Pre-Filed

Questions

for

Kevin

J.

Boyle,

Ph.D.

based

on

his pre-filed

testimony

in the

above-captioned

matter.

The

Agency

reserves the

right

to ask additional

follow-up

questions

as

necessary.

1.

Has your

approach

for

calculating

economic

benefits

been

used

in

other

states

to set

water

quality

standards?

If so,

what

states?

And

what

action

did

these states

take based

on this

approach?

2.

Does

your

report address

any

environmental

benefits

of

this

rulemaking

from

improved

aquatic

life

uses?

3.

Explain

where

fishing

fits

into your

analysis.

Fishing

is

a

recreational

activity and

the economic

benefits

of

the

proposed

recreational

uses

would

be

reflected,

but

does your

analysis

reflect

any

economic

benefits

from

improvements

in

the

fish consumption

use

or from

improvements

to game

fish

species

from

improved

aquatic

life

uses?

---

4.

What

is a

benefit-function transfer?

5.

Explain

the

difference

between a linear

and log

linear equation?

6.

You testify that

MWRDGC

monitoring

data was

Used

to calculate

the Water Quality Index

improvements

of this

rulemaking

from 6.1 to 6.8.

a.

Was

this ambient

data or effluent

data?

b.

Did you make these

calculations

or did

someone else?

c.

Can

you

provide the Water

Quality Index

and resulting

calculations for

the

Record?

d.

Do the

improvements

in the index

reflect improvements

to

fecal coliform

concentrations

only or do

they also reflect

projected

improvements

to the temperature and

dissolved

oxygen conditions

of the

waterway?

7.

Can you provide

a copy

for

the

Record of the

1986 survey of

Chicago

and surrounding

communities’ residents

that

use

the

CAWS

from

your

report and reference

list?

8.

Explain

your testimony

that

0MB

2006

Standards

and Guidelines

for

Statistical Surveys

says to

use a

value of

80

percent

for

the response rate

variable? How would

use of

a

different

variable

change the

conclusions of

your

testimony?

9.

Please explain

your calculation of

the

in-person

interview variable.

Why do you

state that

your use of

a

variable

of

one

(1)

is consistent

with the

National

Oceanic

and Atmospheric

Administration’s

Blue

Ribbon Panel

recommendations?

2

---

10.

Explain how the

Water

Quality

Recreational

Use variable

is

calculated

or derived?

11.

Have

you considered

the

economic

costs of recreation-related

illnesses

in your analysis?

Would

incorporating

these costs

result in

additional

economic benefits

from this

rulemaking?

12.

On page

55

(Exhibit

2)

you list the three

journal articles you

rely

on

for

the Meta-analysis

results,

the

adjustment for potentially

over-stated

values,

and the percent

of Chicago Area

Waterway

System users.

Could you provide

copies

of these

articles

for the rulemaking Record?

13.

You list three

guidance

documents

your analysis is based

on

or

consistent

with:

0MB 2003

Guidance

on Development

of Regulatory

Analysis

U.S. EPA’s

2000

Guidelines

for Preparing Economic

Analyses

U.S.

EPA’S 1995 Interim

Economic Guidance

for Water

Quality

Standards

The 1995 U.S. EPA

Guidance document

is Attachment

C to the

Statement

of Reasons. Are

the other

two

guidance

documents

in

the Record?

Can

you

submit them?

14.

Please provide

copies for the

Record of any

additional

publications

relied on or underlying

data

used in

developing

your

recommendations

that would

have

to be

made

available to

the public by

the

Board

or the

Agency pursuant to

the Illinois Administrative

Procedure

Act,

5 ILCS

I

0015-40(b)(3.5).

3

---

Respecifully submitted,

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

Byi4

Deborah J. Williams

Assistant Counsel

Dated:

August

22, 2008

1021

North Grand

Avenue

East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield,

Illinois 62794-9276

(217)

782-5544

4

---

BEFORE

THE

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

CEVE

CLERK’S

OFFICE

)

AUG25

2008

STATE

OF

ILLINOIS

)

R0809

Pollution

Control

Board

)

(Rulemaking

—Water)

)

)

)

)

Illinois

EPA’s

Pre-Filed

Questions

for

Southeast

Environmenta[Task

Force

Witnesses

Alan Mammoser

and Victor

Crivello

The

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency (“Illinois

EPA”

or

“Agency”),

by and

through

its

attorneys,

hereby

submits

its Pre-Filed

Questions

for

Southeast

Environmental

Task

Force Witnesses

Alan Mammoser

and

Victor

Crivello

based

on their

pre-filed

testimony

in the

above-captioned,

matter.

The

Agency

reserves

the

right to ask

additional

follow-up

questions

as necessary.

Pre-filed

questions

for Victor

Crivello

How

does

the Lake

Calu met

Vision

Committee

promote

public

access

and

boating

on

Lake

Calumet?

Pre-filed

questions

for

Alan

Mammoser

How

does

the

Calumet

Area Land

Use Plan

“focus

on the

creation

of

public

access

through

small open

spaces

to the

rivers.”

(See

page

4

of

pre-filed

testimony).

How

is

disinfection

a “key component

to the

success

of the Calumet

Area

Vision

Plan?”

(See

page

7 of

testimony).

IN THE MATTER

OP

WATER

QUALITY

STANDARDS

AND

EFFLUENT

LIMITATIONS

FOR

THE

CHICAGO

AREA

WATERWAY

SYSTEM

AND

THE

LOWER

DES

PLAINES

RIVER:

PROPOSED

AMENDMENTS

TO

35 III.

Adm.

Code

Parts

301, 302,

303

and 304)

---

Respectfully

submitted,

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

By:4

Deborah J. WiIlia(iis

Assistant

Counsel

Dated: August

22,

2008

1021

North Grand Avenue

East

P.O. Box

19276

Springfield,

Illinois 62794-9276

(217)

782-5544

2

---

IN

THE

MATTER

OF:

WATER

QUALITY

STANDARDS

AND

EFFLUENT

LIMITATIONS

FOR

THE

CHICAGO

AREA

WATERWAY

SYSTEM

AND

THE

LOWER

DES

PLAINES

RIVER:

PROPOSED

AMENDMENTS

TO

35

III.

Adm.

Code

Parts

301,

302,

303 and

304)

Illinois

EPA’s

Pre-Filed

Questions

for

Natural

Resources

Defense

Council

Witnesses

Marc

H. Gorelick,

M.D.,

Marilyn

V.

Yates,

Ph.D.

and

Peter

Orris,

M.D.,

M.P.H.

The

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(“Illinois

EPA”

or “Agency”),

by

and

through

its

attorneys,

hereby

submits

its

Pre-Filed

Questions

for

Natural

Resources

Defense

Council

witnesses

Drs.

Marc

H. Gorelick,

Marilyn

V.

Yates

and

Peter

Orris

based

on their

pre-filed

testimony

in

the above-captioned

matter.

The Agency

reserves

the

right to

ask additional

follow-up

questions

as

necessary.

Illinois

EPA’s

Pre-filed

questions

for

Marc

Gorelick,

M.D.

and

Peter

Orris,

M.D.,

M.P.H.

1.

How would

someone

know

if they

had

contracted

an

asymptomatic

Giardia

infection

from

recreational

activity

and

passed

it on

to

their

family?

2.

What conclusions

have

you

drawn

from

the

Tables

you

include

as

Exhibits

3

and

2 (respectively)

to your

testimonies?

3.

Why

is a negative

epidemiological

result

more

difficult

to

interpret

and apply

than

a

positive

one?

BEFORE

THE

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

AUG

25

2008

)

STATE

OF

ILLINQI

PølIt,n

Control

Board

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

R08-09

(Rulemaking

—

Water)

---

4.

On

page 11

of Dr.

Gorelick’s

testimony

it states “This

may

be

especially

true

when

water

conditions

are thought

to be ore

hazardous.”

Did

you

mean

to

say

“more”

hazardous?

5.

Why would

the

District’s

CHEERS

study

not fully

reflect

the

potential

danger

of

unintended

ingestions

and significant

exposure

to especially

vulnerable

individuals?

6.

Who are

you

referring

to

when

you say

“vulnerable

individuals”?

Questions

for

Marvlynn

V.

Yates, Ph.D.

1.

What

major

cities

use disinfection?

What

smaller

communities

use

disinfection?

2.

In your opinion,

what were

the

analytical

errors you

found with

the

microbial

risk

assessment

(“MRA”)

study

conducted

by MWRDGC?

3.

In

your

opinion,

why

is

MWRDGC’s

epidemiological

study

(“CHEERS”)

not a

sufficient

tool

to

assess

the

need

for disinfection?

How

could

the epidemiological

study

be useful

in

this

rulemaking

process?

4.

In

your

opinion,

what

would

be

a sufficient

number

of individuals

for

sampling

in the

CHEERS

study? If

you

were

to

conduct

an

epidemiological

study of

the

risk to recreators

in these

waters

how

would

you

go

about it?

5.

Your

testimony

on

page

2 in the

second

bullet

point states,

“Previous

studies

of

waterbodies

with much

lower

concentrations

of

indicator

bacteria

in

the

CAWS

have

demonstrated

risk

to

recreational

users

from

2

---

waterborne

pathogens,

even

absent

primary

contact

.

.

.use.”

Can

you

provide

citations

to some

of these

studies

for

the

Record?

6.

Why

do

you

believe

that

U.S.

EPA’s

revised bacteria

criteria

will

be

more

stringent

than

the

current

criteria

rather

than

less

stringent

or simply

more

targeted

to

the

better

indicator

organisms?

7.

Explain

what

you

mean

on

page

6 of

your

testimony

when

you

state

that

viruses

are

species

specific?

8.

Why

is

Geosyntec’s

use of

the

term

“enteric

viruses”

not

an

accurate

characterization

of

the

analysis

performed?

9.

On

page

13

you

state

“U.S.

EPA

has

in

recent

years

informally

applied

a

standard

of 5

times

the

primary

contact

standard

(sometimes

as

high

as

10 times),

or a

1,000

cfu/1

OOmL

—

in

evaluating

proposed

state

standards

for

recreational

waters

in which

non-primary

contact

recreation

takes

place.”

Do

you

have

an

opinion

on

whether

this

informally applied

standard

is appropriate

or

based

in

scientific

literature?

Would

you

recommend

a

different

non-primary

contact

numeric

ambient

water

quality

standard?

10.

You

testify

that

the

Agency’s fecal

coliform

general

use

water

quality

standard is

30

years

old.

Do

you

have

an opinion

on

a better

indicator

of

the

presence of

pathogenic organisms

than

fecal

coliform,

E

coil

or

Enterococci?

11.

On

page

20

you

state

“The

process

of disinfection

itself

is not

susceptible

to fine

tuning,

Its

impact

is binary.”

Please

explain

this statement.

3

---

12.

Is it

your testimony

that

the

risk levels

of

8 in

1,000

illnesses

for

freshwater

and

19

in 1,000

illnesses

for

marine

waters

are

arbitrary?

1

3.

On

page 24

you

state

that

invalid

ampling

methods

were

used

in

MWRD’s

Dry

Weather

Risk

Assessment.

Please

explain

which

sampling

methods

you

think

are

flawed?

14.

On

page

26 you

list

a

number

of informational

gaps

in

MWRD’s

Dry

Weather

Risk

Assessment.

Have

you

received

answers

to

fill

in these

gaps

by

reviewing

additional

pre-filed

doqumentation from

the

District?

15.

You

testify

on

page

28, bullet

I that

“people

canoeing

on

clean

water

are

much

more

likely

to

be

careful

to

avoid

accidental

immersion

and

otherwise

behave

in a manner

unlikely

to

result

in

ingestion

of water.”

Do you

mean

to

say contaminated

water instead

of

clean

water?

Or that

they

are

less

likely

instead

of more

likely?

Respectfully

submitted,

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

Deborah

J.

hams

Assistant

Counsel

Dated:

August

22,

2008

1021

North

Grand

Avenue

East

P.O.

Box

19276

Springfield,

Illinois

62794-9276

(217)

782-5544

4

---

BEFORE

THE

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL BOARD

IN

THE

MATTER

OF:

)

)

WATER

QUALITY

STANDARDS

AND

)

EFFLUENT

LIMITATIONS

FOR

THE

)

CHICAGO

AREA

WATERWAY

SYSTEM

)

AND

THE

LOWER

DES

PLAINES

RIVER:

)

PROPOSED

AMENDMENTS

TO

35111.

)

Adm.

Code

Parts 301,

302,

303

and

304

)

ILLINOIS

EPA’S

PRE-FILED

QUESTIONS

FOR

ENVIRONMENTAL

LAW

AND

POLICY

CENTER

WITNESSES

The

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(“illinois

EPA”

or

“Agency”)

by and

through

its

attorneys,

hereby

files pre-filéd

questions

to Environmental,

Law

and

Policy

Center

regarding

the

pre-filed

testimony

oftheir

various

witnesses

in

the above

captioned

case.

The

Agency

reserves

the right

to

ask

additional

follow-up

questions

if necessary.

Questions for Gerald

W.

Adelmann

(Openlands)

1) Can

you please

give

us some

names

of

the waterfowl

migrating

through

this

region?,

2)

On

page

2 of your

pre-filed

testimony

you state,

“...

and will

help

shape

smart

growth

throughout

the

Greater

Chicagoland

area

for

years

to

come.”

How

will

this

proposal

help

shape

“smart

growth”?

3)

How

does

Openlands work with

local

governments

to

increase

the

number

of

available

non-motorized

boat

launches?

4)

How

is “safe

and

adequate

paddling

access’

defined?

5)

What

is the

May

2000

CAWS

study

you

cite

in

your

pre-filed

ECEVED

CLERK’S

OFFICE

AUG

2 5

2O8

R08-09

STATE

OF

ILLlNOJ

(Rulemaking

—

4i9fl

Control

Board

testimony?

1

---

Questions

for

Laura

Barghusen

(Openlands)

1) What

local

and

state

agencies

do you

partner

with?

2)

What

does

this

partnership

consistent

of?

3)

What

is

a

“water

trail”?

4) How

do these

“water

trail”

plans get

approved?

5) How

are

the various

launches

chosen?.

6)

When

do you think

the

seven proposed

launch

sites along

the

stretches

of

the

CAWS

and

Lower Des

Plaines

River will

be

approved?

7)

On

page 2 of

your

pre-filed

testimony

you

state,

“The

Lower

Des

Plaines River

(LDPR)

below

the

confluence

of

the Chicago

Sanitary

and

Ship

Cahal

(CSSC)

is

part of the

Northeastern

Illinois

Regional

Water

Trail Plan.

However,

it was

characterize

in 1999

as ‘major

improvements

needed,’

. .

.“ What

major

improvements

are needed?

Is

safety

a concern?

-

8) On

page

5 of

your pre-filed

testimony

you state,

“These

include

and

unimproved

access point

. .

.“ What is

an “unimproved

access

point”?

Are

they

safe?

9)

On page 8

of

your pre-filed

testimony

you

state,

“The

interest

that

college

and

high school

rowing

teams

are

showing in

using

the

Calumet-Sag

Channel for

regattas

indicates

that

this

use

is very

likely

2

---

to

continue

to

increase

in the

future.”

What

information

is

given to

the

participants

about

water

quality

and

safety

precautions?

Questions

for

Dr. David

L.

Thomas

1) In

your

opinion,

why

do

you

believe

it is

sensible to

determine

the

highest

attainable

aquatic

use

of a

waterway

by

studying

the physical

characteristics?

2)

In

your

opinion,

why

do

you

believe

that

the

QHEI

is

a.

sound

methodology

for

assessing

physical

habitat?

3) Do you

know

if this

methodology

is accepted

in otherstates,

specifically

Region

5 states?

4) Why

do

you believe

that

it is

a

reasonable

conclusion

that

a

QHEI

score

of 60

generally

indicates

that

a

waterway

can attain

the Clean

Water

Act

goal

of a balanced

indigenous

population

of

fish?

5)

What do

you mean

by

“generally?

6)

What

do you

mean when

you

say you

understand

the

arguments

with

respect

to

a QHEI

score

of

45-60 in that

it

may

be

able to meet

thern.

Clean

Water

Act Goal,

depending

on the

particular

characteristics

of

the

area?

7)

What

would

those particular

characteristics

be?

8)

Why

do you believe

that the

Upper Dresden

Island

Pool can

support

a

more

balanced

and

diverse

fish

population?

9)

What

experience

are

you referring

to

with

respect

to contaminated

sediments?

3

---

10)

Explain

why

you

state

would be

“surprised

if

spawning

does not

currently

take

place”

in the

Use

A

waters

“for

those species

that

are

common

to the

waterway”.

Pro-filed

questions

for

Margaret

Frisbee

•

1) On

page

3 of

you pre-filed

testimony

you

state, “Over

the past 11

years, these

guides

have

taken at least

2,640

people canoeing

on

the

North

Shore Channel,

North Branch

of

the

Chicago

River, Main

Stem,

South

Branch,

down

Bubble

Creek and

along the

Chicago

Sanitary

and

Ship

Canal

• .“

What

information

do they

receive

on

the water

quality?

Do

you know

if

any

of the

guides

gotten

sick

from contact

with

the

water? Do

you

know

if any of

the guides

had

to visit

the

doctor?

Do you

know if

any

guests

have gotten

sick?

2) On

page 5

of your pre-filed

testimony

you

mention,

“The Chicago

River

Agenda

..

.“ Who wrote

the

report?

V

3)

In

your

pre-filed

testimony

you refer

to

a

“state-sanctioned

water

trails.”

Please

explain

what

this is.

- V

R sp

ctfullysub

1

t

Stefanie

N. Diers

Dated:

August22,

2008

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

1021

North

Grand

Avenue

East

Post Office

Box

19276

Springfield,

Illinois

62794-9276

217-782-5544

V

4

---

IN THE

MATTER

OF:

WATER

QUALITY

STANDARDS

AND

EFFLUENT

LIMITATIONS

FOR

THE

CHICAGO

AREA

WATERWAY

SYSTEM

AND

THE LOWER

DES

PLAINES

RIVER:

PROPOSED

AMENDMENTS

TO 35111.

Adm.

Code

Parts 301,

302,

303 and

304)

Illinois

EPA’s

Pre-Filed

Questions

for

Corn

Products

witness

Alan

J. Jirik

The Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(“Illinois

EPA”

or

“Agency”),

by

and

through

its

attorneys,

hereby submits

its

Pre-Filed

Questions

for Corn

Products

witness

Alan J.

Jirik

based

on his pre-filed

testimony

in

the

above-captioned

matter.

The

Agency

reserves

the right

to ask

additional

follow-up

questions

as

necessary.

1.

Your

testimony

indicates

that

Corn

Products

uses

the

waters

of the

Chicago

Sanitary

and Ship

Canal

at its

Argo

Plant

for non-contact

cooling

purposes.

a.

Does

Corn

Products

take intake

temperature

measurements

of

these waters?

Does

Corn Products

take

effluent

temperature

measurements?

How

frequently?

b.

What

restrictions

are

placed

in

Corn

Products

NPDES

permit

regarding

the

effluent temperatures?

2.

What

proportion

of the

Argo

Plant’s

effluent

is

discharged

to the

CSSC?

What portion

is sent

to MWRDGC

for

treatment?

3.

On

page

3 of your

testimony,

you state

that

the

CSSC

is a

“relatively

recently

created

artificial

man-made

channel.”

Recently

created

in relation

to

what?

BEFORE

THE ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

RECEIVED

CL.ERK’S

OFFICE

AUG

25

2UO

STATE

OF

ILLINOIS

Control

Board

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

R08-09

(Rulemaking

—

Water)

---

4.

On

page 3

of your

testimony

you

state that

the

CSSC

is

more

like an

aqueduct

than

a

natural

stream

or

river.

Explain

how

this

is this

different

from

the

Chicago

River,

North

Branch

Chicago

River

below

North

Avenue

Turning

Basin,

South

Branch

Chicago

River,

South

Fork

of

South

Branch,

Brandon

Pool,

Lake

Calumet

connecting

channel

and

the CAWS

and

Brandon

Pool

Aquatic

Life

Use B

segment

of

Calumet

River?

What

are the

criteria

that

differentiate

an

“aqueduct”

from

a stream?

5.

Your

testimony

states

that

the

CSSC

provides

a

commercially

important

navigation

function.

Is this

different

from

the

Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool,

Brandon

Pool,

South

Branch

Chicago

River

and

Cal-Sag

Channel?

6.

On

page

3 of your

testimony

you state

that

small

boats

cannot

safely

navigate

the

CSSC

due

to

the

wakes

from

larger

boats

and

barges

and recreational

users

cannot

easily

exit the

water.

Is this

different

from

the

Brandon

Pool

or

the

North

and

South

Branches

of

the Chicago

River?

How

is it different?

7.

Are

you

aware

of

the existence

of

the

Western

Avenue

and Summit

Boat

launches

which

allow

hand-powered

boat

access

to the

CSSC?

-

8.

On

page

4 of

your

testimony

you

cite

to

page

36

of the

Illinois

EPA’s

Statement

of

Reasons

to support

the fact

that

MWRCGC

prohibits

wading

in the

CSSC.

Doesn’t

the

Statement

of Reasons

actually

state

that

“wading

is

prohibited

by

MWRDGC

on

all of

the

human-made

reaches

of

CAWS,

including:

North

Shore

Channel,

the

upper

North

Branch

Chicago

River,

CSSC,

Calumet-Sag

Channel

and

Lake

Calu

met”?

9.

On page

5 you

testify

regarding

the

vertical

walls

or steep

slopes

in

the

CSSC.

Wouldn’t

this

also

describe

the South

Branch

Chicago

River,

South

Fork

of

the

2

---

South

Branch

Chicago

River,

Chicago

River

and North

Branch

Chicago

River

downstream

of

the

North

Avenue

turning

basin?

10.

You state

on

page

6 that

“Taken

from

a

biological

perspective,

the

Sanitary

& Ship

Canal

therefore

essentially

terminates

at

the fish

barrier.”

Please

explain

what

is meant

by

this statement?

11.

Explain

why

you believe

that

the

CSSC

is sufficiently

distinct

to

support

a

unique

use classification

for

aquatic

life uses?

Explain

why

you

believe

that

the

CSSC

is

sufficiently

distinct

to

support

a

unique

use classification

for

recreational

uses?

12.

How

would

you

define

the

CAWS

Use

C

waters

for

regulatory

purpoes?

13.

How

will you

distinguish

the CSSC

from

the

reach

of North

Branch

Chicago

River that

extends

from

the

south

end of

the North

Avenue

Turning

Basin

to

its

confluence

with

South

Branch

Chicago

River

and Chicago

River?

a.

From

Chicago

River?

b.

From

South

Branch

Chicago

River

to

its

South

Fork?

c.

From

Calumet

River

from

Lake

Michigan

to

Torrence

Avenue?

d.

From

the Lake

Calumet

Connecting

Channel?

e.

From

the Lower

Des

Plaines

River

from its

confluence

with

the

CSSC

to

the

Brandon

Road

Lock and

Dam?

14.

Will you

be

proposing

language

to

the

Board

for aquatic

life or

recreational

uses

of

the CSSC?

15.

You

quote

from the

Board

opinion

in

AS

96-10

to

conclude

that

the

Board

has

recognized

the

unique

character

of the

CSSC.

Did

this

opinion

distinguish

the

CSSC

from

the

Lower

Des

Plaines

River

or

South

Branch

Chicago

River?

3

---

16.

How

would

your

facility

be impacted

if the

electrical

generating

facilities

located

upstream

were

required

to

add

supplemental

cooling

capacity?

Respectfully

submitted,

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

By:__________________

Deborah

J.

Williams

Assistant

Counsel

Dated:

August

22,

2008

1021

North

Grand

Avenue

East

P.O.

Box

19276

Springfield,

Illinois

62794-9276

(217)

782-5544

4

---

BEFORE THE

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

CLERK’S

OFFICE

AUG

25

2008

IN THE

MATTER OF:

)

STATE

OF

ILLINOIS

Pollution

Control

Board

WATER

QUALITY STANDARDS

AND

)

EFFLUENT

LIMITATIONS

FOR

THE

)

R08-09

CHICAGO

AREA WATERWAY

SYSTEM

)

(Rulemaking

- Water)

.AND

THE LOWER DES

PLAINES RIVER:

)

PROPOSED

AMENDMENTS

TO

35111.

)

Adm.

Code

Parts3Ol,

302,

303 and 304

)

ILLINOIS

EPA’S

PRE-FILED

QUESTIONS FOR

ROBERT S. ELVERT

The

Illinois

Environmental

Protection Agency (“Illinois EPA”

or

“Agency”),

by

and through

its

attorney,

hereby files the following pre-filed

questions to

Exxon

Mobil

regarding the pre-filed testimony of Robert

S.

Elvert in the

above-captioned

case. The Agency

reserves

the right

to ask additional

follow-up

questions if

necessary.

1.

Can you describe the

recreational

uses

you have

observed near the

Joliet refinery upstream of

the

-55

Bridge?

V 2.

Can you describe the

recreational uses you have

observed near the

Joliet refinery downstream

of the

1-55

Bridge?

3.

Do you believe the

current recreational uses of the

Lower Des

Plaines

River represent a

security risk

at

your

facility?

If

so, please state

why?

4.

Do you

believe the

current

recreational

uses of the

Lower

Des Plaines

River represent a

safety risk

to the

recreational user?

If so,

please

state

why?

5.

Why

do believe a

change in use

from

Secondary

Contact to

Incidental

Contact will encourage

increased recreational

use

of the Upper

Dresden Island Pool?

1

---

6.

On

page

5

of your

testimony

you

use the

term

“federally

protected

Energy

facility.”

What

is the definition

of this

term?

7.

On page

5 of your

testimony

you

call

the Joliet refinery

a “U.S.

Coast

Guard

governed

facility.”

What is

the

definition

of

this

term?

8.

If

you

are

not supporting

an incidental

contact

recreational

use

designation

as

proposed

by

Illinois

EPA,

what would

you

propose

for

the

Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool?

9.

Where

did

you

get

the figures

cited

on

page

3 of

your.pre-filed

testimony?

10.

Can you

cite in

the record

where people

testified

that there

would

be

increased

recreational

use

in

the

Upper Dresden

Island

Pool?

11.

Please

state

what

your additional

safety

concerns

are?

12.

What

local

and

state agencies

are

you referring

to

on page

6 of your

pre-filed

testimony?

13.

How do think

the

Agency

could

address

these

concerns

in its proposal

now

before

the

Board?

14.

On

page

2 of

your

pre-filed

testimony

you

state,

“... will

encourage

increased

use

of the

Dresden

Pool,

and consequently,

increased

numbers

of recreational

users

may

be

placed

in

danger since

the

Dresden

Pool

... is heavily

used to navigate

barges

in and

out of the

area.”

Are there

fleeting

operations

in

General

Use Waters?

Do

you

know

how they

deal

with the

safety/security

issues

that

you

have

brought

up?

Do

you know

if

they

allow

boaters

to use

the

waters?

2

---

15.

On

page 4 of your

pre-filed

testimony

you state,

“... witnesses indicated

that the CAWS

and

Lower Des

Plaines

River will

continue

to see an

increased

use by

canoes,

kayaks, and

other small

watercraft

if the

proposed rules

are

adopted.”

Can you please

explain

how you came

to

this conclusion?

16.

Would you agree that

your safety

concerns cannot be

addressed in

setting

•water quality standards?

17.

On page 3 of your pre-filed testimony

you

discuss

the

periodic

existence

•

of double barges being

110 feet wide in

the

areas where

the

pool

is 500

feet wide. Is

a clear

path

of 4/5ths of the waterway, especially

around

Treats Island and other side stream

areas not

enough space

for

hand

powered watercraft

to avoid the commercial activity in the Upper

Dresden

• Island Pool?

18.

Do

you

have photographs Or any other evidence (other than

the

drowning

mentioned in your pre-filed testimony) of small crafts being

overwhelmed

by the barges

inthe

pool?

19.

Was

the cited

drowning

the result of wakes?

20.

Is the

pooi

a

straight-walled channel or

does it

have side zones

with

more

gradual banks that buffer

or absorb wakes?

3

---

21.

Is

your

“specific

designated

area”

demarcated

with signs

or other warning

systems?

If so, are

the

warnings

obvious

to

recreational

users?

Respectfully

submitted

Stefanie

N. iers

Dated:

August 22,

2008

Illinois Environmental

Protection

Agency

1021 North

Grand

Avenue

East

Post

Office

Box

19276

Springfield,

Illinois

62794-9276

217-782-5544

4

---

BEFORE

THE

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

CRVEc

RKS

OFFICE

IN THE MATTER

OF:

)

AUG

25

2008

STATE

OF

ILLINOIS

WATER

QUALITY

STANDARDS

AND

)

Pollution

Control

Board

EFFLUENT

LIMITATIONS

FOR

THE

)

CHICAGO AREA

WATERWAY

SYSTEM

)

AND

THE

LOWER

DES

PLAIN ES RIVER:

).

PROPOSED

AMENDMENTS

TO 35

III.

)

Adm.CodeParts3Ol,302,303and304

)

V

ILLINOIS

EPA’S PRE-FILED

QUESTIONS

FOR

JAMES

HUFF, P.E.

The

Illinois

Environmental Protection

Agency

(“Illinois

EPA” or

“Agency”)

by

and

through

its attorneys,

hereby

files

the

following

pre-filed

questions

to

CITGO

Petroleum

and.PDV Midwest,

LLC, regarding

the

pre-filed

testimony

of

James

E.

Huff, P.E. in the

above-captioned

case. The

Agency reserves

the

right

to

ask

additional

follow-up questions

if

necessary.

1) On

page 2 of your

pre-filed

testimony you state

that you

have

reviewed

“many”

reports

submitted

into the

record,

could

you please

state

what

reports you are referring

to?

2)

Are you

proposing

that

the CSSC

shouldbe

made

into its own

separate

category,

how

would

you describe this new

category?

3)

What water quality

standards

would

you propose

for CSSC?

4)

How

would

you

address

the

violations of

the

chloride

standard during

the

winter months?

5)

Can

you

please

explain how

you go

about

developing a best

management

practice

for

chlorides

and

sulfates

in place of winter

water

quality

standards?

R08-09

(Rulemaking

— Water)

---

6)

On

page 2 of

your

pre-filed

testimony

you

state,

“I have

also

evaluated

the impact

the

proposed

use

designation

will

have

on

Citgo and

Corn

Products.”

What

are

the

impacts

on Citgo

and

Corn Products?

7)

On

page

2 of

your

pre-filed

testimony

you

state,

‘With the

exception

of

the

Lake

Calumet

Connecting

Channel,

all of

the

waterways

in

this

group

are natural

waterways.”

Could

you define

“natural waterway”?

In your

opinion,

are

the

waterways

deep-draft

shipping

channels

with

limited

habitat?

.8).

Page 3, paragraph

3 of your

pre-filed

testimony

you

state, “There

is

no

other

water body

in

the

Chicago Area

Waterway

System

(CAWS)

which

has the

unique

physical features,

commercial

shipping,

discharge

loadings,

and

lack

of appropriate

habitat

for

aquatic

life,

as

does

the Ship Canal.”

Other

than the

fact that

the Brandon

Pool is

not

in the

CAWS,

could

you

describe

how the

CSSC

is

different from

Brandon

Pool?

9)

From an

aquatic

life habitat

stand

point,

how does

the

CSSC

differS

-

from

the

upper

Calumet

River?

Lower

North

Branch Chicago

River?

Chicago

River?

Upper

South

Branch

Chicago

River?

10)

On

page 2 of

your

pre-filed

testimony

you

state, “When

barges

pass,

the

physical

design

of the

canal

functions

as

a dangerous

wave

machine

that amplifies

the

wake

and

creates

very

large waves

when

the

barges

wakes

bounce

off

the

vertical

walls.”

In

this regard,

how

does

the

CSSC

differ from

the

upper Calumet

River?

From

portions

of

2

---

the

North Branch

Chicago

River

and

South

Branch

Chicago River not

governed

by the

no-wake

zones?

II) Are

you

aware

of the

existence

of the Western

Avenue

and

Summit

Boat

launches, which

allow

hand-powered

boats

access to

the

CSSC?

V

12)

In various parts

of your pre-f

lIed

testimony

you

discuss the

fish

barrier. Doesn’t

the upper

CSSC, upstream

of

the electrical fish

barrier, constitute a

waterway

link between

the Chicago

and Calumet

River systems,

providing for

aquatic

life

movement

between

the two

systems?

13)

On page 3 of

your pre-filed testimony

you

state,

“A single canoe,

•

sculling

or

hand powered

boat was observed

over

the

28

days.”

At

the time of the study,

were

there

any operating

boat launches in

the

CSSC?

14)

On page 4

of your

pre-filed

testimony you state,

“The

safest

thing

is

-

to

keep people

out of

the

water entirely”.

Oäes

the U.S. Army

Corps of

Engineers

prohibit

recreation

in and around

the electric

barrier?

15)

On

page 7

of

your

pre-filed

testimony you

state,

“... make two

significant

assumptions.

First, that

fish

passage

even occurs

or

second fish

passage is

even desirable.”

If

as

you say

there

is no

fish

passage,

shouldn’t

we still

protect

the

existing

aquatic

3

---

community?

What

about

fish that

swim

from

the

Calumet

system

to

the Chicago

River

system

and vice

versa?

Tern

peratu

re

I)

On

page

13

paragraph

I of your

pre-fUed

testimony

you

state

“In

essence,

the

Agency

discounted

Mr.

Yoder’s

analysis,

and set

the

non-summer

temperatures

so that the

MWRDGC

would

not

have

to

install cooling

towers.”

Shouldn’t

the

source

of

water

be the

“background”

temperature?

2)

On

pages 4

and 5,

of

your

pre-filed

testimony

you

state, “On

an

annual

average,

the municipal

treatment

plants

contribute

70

percent

of the

total flow

exiting

the

Ship

Canal

at

Lockport.”

Because

70 percent

Of

the

flow is

from the

municipal

treatment

plants,

aren’t

these

plants

the source

of water?

3)

On

page

13 of your

pre-filed

testimony

you state,

“the

Agency

discounted

Mr.

Yoder’s

analysis,

and

set the

non-summer

temperatures

so

that

the

MWRDGC

would not

have to

install

cooling

towers.”

Did Mr.

Yoder

propose

limits

in his

document

titled

“Temperature

Criteria Options

for

The Lower

Des

Plaines River”

(Exhibit

15)?

4)

On page

13

of your

pre-filed

testimony

you state,

“No attempt

was

made to

look

at the Ship

Canal

temperatures

at the

edge of

the

mixing zones

from

these

industrial

discharges.”

Do

any of these

facilities

have defined

mixing

zones?

4

---

5)

On page 13 of

your

pre-filed

testimony

you

state, “what

about

the

‘optimum’

amount

of barge

traffic

for fish

(undoubtedly

zero)?”

Should

the

Agency

ignore the Clean Water

Act and

restrict barge

traffic (a

protected

use)?

6)

On

page

14

of

your pre-filed

testimony

you

state,

“Over

the

years

there

appears to be

a general increase

in

its

population.” Is

100

°F

protective for

bluntnose

minhow?

Do

believe

the

current

standard

will

protect the

bluntnose minnow?

What

about the

proposed

standards?

You also state

“There is no

indication

thaf the

bluntnose minnow

is being

negatively affected

by

the current

temperature

regime in

the Ship Canal.” What

evidence did you

find

that the temperature

regime is not

impacting the blunt nbse

minnow?

7)

On Page 14

of

your

pre-filed testimony

you

state,

“If

thermal

is what

is

limiting the

fish quality/populations,

then one should

see a

dramatic

drop in

fish

diversity,

IBI,

and

fish

population at the -

downstream

stations.

At Cicero Avenue, immediately

below

two

of

the

coal-fired power

plants,

the

MWRDGC

found the greatest

fish

diversity (19

species).” When

was this sample

collected?

8)

On

page 15,

bullet point I of your

pre-filed testimony

you state,

“If

the

bluntnose

minnow

is

as sensitive

to

temperature

as

the

laboratory

studies indicate, why

do they

represent

a significant

5

---

portion of the

fish

population?”

Are temperatures in the CSSC the

same from

beginning

to end?

9)

Page 15, bullet

point

4 of

your pre-filed testimony you

state,

“If all

eight fish

species

already

exist in the waterway and are not shown

through

field collection

studies to

be negatively

impacted

by the

current temperature

regime,

then

given

the documented habitat

limitations

on the Ship

Canal, what benefits will be derived from

more restrictive

temperature

limitations

on

the Ship Canal?”

How

have field collection

studies shown

that the fish species are

not

negatively

impacted by the current

temperature regime? What

is

the minimum

amount of scientific

information required

to

prove that

aquatic

life in CSSC are not

being negatively impacted?

10)

On

your Page 11 of your pre-filed

testimony you state that there

are

two

methods for setting thermal

water quality standards. Please

identify a state that has set thermal

water

quality

standards

based

solely on

field data and what methodology

was used?

Respectfully submitted,

cAJke&

Deborah J. With

s, Assistant

Counsel

Dated: August 22, 2008

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021 North Grand Avenue East

Post Office

Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

217-782-5544

6

---

BEFORE THE

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

IN THE

MATTER OF:

)

AUG

25

20O

WATER

QUALITY STANDARDS

AND

)

)

POllUtjOfl

STATE

OF

Control

1LLlN

Bod

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

FOR

THE

)

R08-09

CHICAGO

AREA WATERWAY

SYSTEM

)

(Rulemaking

-Water)

AND THE LOWER DES

PLAINES RIVER:

)

PROPOSED

AMENDMENTS

TO 35111.

)

Adm. CodeParts30l,302,

303 and 304

)

ILLINOIS EPA’S

PRE-FILED

QUESTIONS FOR

STEPAN

COMPANY’S

WITNESSES

CARL ADAMS AND ROBIN

GARIBAY

The

Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency

(“Illinois

EPA” or “Agency”)

by and through

its attorneys, hereby submits

pre-flled

questions

to Stepan

Company

regarding the pre-filed testimony of their witnesses

in the above

captioned case. The Agency reserves

the right to

ask

additional

follow-up

questions

if

necessary.

1.

Explain your analysis specifically with the

impacts related to

temperature,

dissolved oxygen, disinfection?

2.

When did you begin

this study for Stepan?

3.

Who

participated in

developing the task of this study?

4.

What data was provided

to

you

by Stepan for your analysis?

5.

What other

information did you obtain based on your knowledge and

experience in

the

wastewater field?

6.

Who

did you

consult with

at the Millsdale plant

to develop your

findings?

7.

When did you

visit

the

Millsdale

plant?

8.

When you state

that you supervised

and requested

efforts from

1

---

several individuals

are you referring to

individuals

who

work

at

ENVIRON?

9.

What is

ENVIRON?

10.

Mr. Adams can you

please explain your role in

preparing this

study?

11.

Robin Garibay can

you please explain your role in

preparing this

study?

12.

What

was

the time

period for the 600 results

generated to monitor

the quality of effluent discharged to

the Lower Des Plaines

River?

13.

How did

you

come

up with the conditions

on page 4 of your Exhibit.

A?

V

14.

Please provide the details of the evaluation you

refer to

on page 10

of Exhibit A with respect to the effluent bacteria standard proposed by Illinois

EPA.

15.

On page 11 of Exhibit A, you state the Illinois

EPA

has not

developed the

data to

assess the

assimilative capadity

of

the

Upper

Dresden Island Pool water for dissolved oxygen; in your opinion what

data would

be

needed to do such an analysis?

16.

What

were

the cross-media impacts your study found?

17.

What is the

margin of safety you are referring to in your

analysis?

18.

What

environmental damage would be caused

by having Illinois

EPA’s

proposal adopted?

I

9.

When did

Stepan begin to

evaluate whether

additional controls

would

be

necessary

to assure compliance with

certain

metals and

salt

criteria?

20.

What evalUation has been done with respect to this issue?

2

---

21.

Have any

controls

been

determined?

If

so, what?

22.

What

metals are

you considered

with?

23.

Is road salt an

issue

in winter

months for

Stepan?

24.

Why

did your

conclusions

not address the impact

on the

river directly?

25.

Why have you

concluded Stepan

will

have no mixing zone for

temperature?

..

26.

What upstream river

temperatures did you assume

in drawing

this

conclusion? .

V

27.

On page 3 of your pre-filed testimony you

state, “without the option

of

a

mixing zone due to upstream sources of warm effluent and the general

nature of

the LDPR.” What is the general nature

of

the Lower Des Plaines River

that

you

are referring

to

in the context of the mixing zone?

28.

Do you think Stepan will have

trouble meeting

both the summer

and

winter

temperatures?

V

V

29.

On

pane 4, bullet point 2 of

the pre-filed

testimony you state, “...

engineering

will be such that the

daily temperature

will

be at the

proposed ‘period

average

temperature

Vstandards.

Therefore,

the

potential

Ouffall 001

temperature

discharge limits are

equal to the proposed

‘period average

temperature

standards’. For

engineering design, a margin-of-safety

of 3°F would

be

applied.” Based on this

statement,

are

you

saying

that the design of

the

cooling

would

be

to cool the

effluent to

3°F

below

the

period average? Where

you

aware

that

the

daily maximum

during the summer

months

is

3.6°F above

the

3

---

period

average?

At

what

point

does

a

conservative

design

become

overly

conservative?

30.

Are

both

closed

circuit

and

open

direct

contact

cooling

towers

infeasible?

31.

Why

are

the

operational

costs

so

high

for

the

treatment

technologies

mentioned

in your

pre-filed

testimony?

32.

Why

are

all

your

emissions

figures

from

electric

generators

based

on

coal-fired

utilities?

Does

Stepan

get

power

from the

grid?

Do

you know

if

Illinois

generates

as

much

power

from

nuciCar

as

from

coal?

33.

Why

do

you assume

that

dissolved

oxygen

standards

will be

needed

at end

of

the pipe

if they

are not

needed

now

to

meet

4.0

mg/L?

34.

Are

you

proposing

to

add

dissolved

oxygen

before

the

effluent

goes

through

the

cooling

tower?

Wouldn’t

the

proàess

of

going

through

the

cooling

tower

add

dissolved

oxygen

just

based

on

the

turbulence?

35.

On

page

9 of your

pre-filed

testimony

you

state,

“ Hence,

installation

of a

disinfection

system

to

achieve

the

effluent

fecal

standards

will be

required.”

How

much

internal

dilution

is

available

for

the

discharge

from

the

septic

systems?

Is

there

enough

dilution

to meet

an effluent

limit of

400

CFU/1

00

mL?

36.

On

page

11

of your

pre-filed

testimony, you state,

“Solid Waste:

Generation

is

significant”.

Please

explain

the significant

solid waste

that

would

be

generated

by

chlorination/dechlorination?

4

---

37.

Figure

3 shows

compliance

with the

proposed

water

quality

standard

from

June

through

October,

however,

Figure

4

shows

a line

where

cooling

is

required

to

attain

discharge

limits.

Is this

an

error?

spectfully

submitted,

efa

I

N.

Diers

Dated:

August

22,

2008

Illinois

Environmental

Protection Agency

1021 North

grand

Avenue

East

Post

Office

Box 19276

Springfield,

Illinois

62794-9276

217-782-5544

5

---

---

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION

CONTROL BOARD

INTHEMATTEROF:

)

AVG

WATER

QUALITY

STANDARDS

AND

)

f

1

TE

OF

ILLINOIS

EFFLUENT

LIMITATIONS FOR THE

)

R08-09

U

lOfl

Control

Soard

CHICAGO

AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM

)

(Rulemaking — Water)

AND

THE LOWER DES PLAIN ES

RIVER:

)

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

TO 35111.

)

Adm. CodeParts 301, 302, 303

and 304)

)

)

Illinois EPA’s Pre-Filed

Questions

for the

Metropolitan

Water

Reclamation

District of Greater

Chicago

(“MWRDGC”)

Witnesses

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(“Illinois EPA” or “Agency”),

by

and

through its attorneys, hereby submits its Pre-Filed

Questions for the Metropolitan

Water

Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (“MWRDGC”) Witnesses

for the

September

8,

9 and 10,

2008 hearings in the above-captioned matter.

The Agency reserves

the

right

to ask additional follow-up questions as necessary.

Questions

for

Richard

Lanyon

1.

You

state

on page

3 of your testimony that

of the 78 miles of the

Chicago

Area Waterway System (“CAWS”),

57 of those miles are

man-made and the

other

21

have been “deepened,

straightened,

and/or widened

to such

an extent that they

no

longer resemble a

natural river or

channel.”

a.

Do

you

see a

difference

in the biological

potential of the

57

miles

of

man made

channels and 21 miles

of altered channels?

Why

or why not?

b.

Do you see a

difference in the

recreational

use

potential

between

the 57 miles of

man-made channels and

21 miles of

altered

channels? Why or

why

not?

---

c.

In

your

opinion

is

the aquatic

life

and

recreational

use

potential

of

the

Chicago

Sanitary

and

Ship

Canal

(“CSSC”)

different

from

that

of the

South

Branch

Chicago

River

and

its

South

Fork,

the

Cal-Sag

Channel

or

other

man-made

or heavily

altered

reaches?

2.

You

describe

the features

of a

natural

river

on page

5,

paragraph

2 of

your

testimony

and

explain

that

the

CAWS

does

not have

these

natural,

features.

How

far

downstream

does

this

non-natural

waterbody

extend?

3.

On

page 5

of your

testimony

you

state

that

70

percent

of the

annual

flow

in this

system

is

from

the four

MWRDGC

sewage

treatment

plants

and

that

dry

weather

(winter

months)

flow

is

virtually

100

percent

from

these

four

plants

and

other

sewage

treatment

plants

located

on

tributaries

to the system.

Explain

the

summer

discretionary

diversions

from

Lake

Michigan.

What

is allowed

and

how

does

that

change

over

time?

How

does

this translate

to

a

percentage

of flow?

Can

the

entire

allotment

be

diverted

in

I

week?

What

does

the allotment

decrease

to

in 2015?

4.

You state

in

your

testimony

at

the

bottom

of

page

4 that

“All outflow

exits

the

CAWS

at

the Lockport

Powerhouse

and

Lock

and

Lockport

Controlling

Works.”

Does

water

ever

flow

out

to

Lake

Michigan?

When?

5.

On

page

5,

you

testify

that

the

wet weather/summer

season

flow

in the

CAWS

is

made

up

of 50

percent

sewage

treatment

plant

effluent.

Of the

other

50

percent

of the CAWS

flow in

the

summer

(or the

30

percent

over

the year)

what

portion

is made

up

from

discretionary

diversions?

What

portion

is

wet

weather

discharges

or

run

off?

2

---

6.

On

page 6, you

cite four

texts related

to

the

impact of

impervious

surfaces

in the

watershed

on habitat

quality

and

use

attainability

and

you

testify that

Cook

County

has about

42 percent

impervious

surfaces.

a.

How does

that compare

to

the surrounding

counties

of DuPage,

Lake,

McHenry,

Kane,

Kendall

and

Will.

What

impact

will

the

City of

Chicago’s

plans

for green

infrastructure

projects

have

on these

figures?

b.

Is it

your testimony

that

42 percent

of

all runoff

to

all CAWS

waters

originates

from

impervious

surfaces?

Does

this

take

into account

the impervious

surfaces

that are

located

in

combined

sewer

areas

where wet

weather

discharges

do

not

reach the

CAWS

without

treatment

unless

there are

combined

sewer

overflows?

c.

Is

the reference

to 42

percent

impervious

surfaces based

on

any

data

that characterizes

the actual

impervious

component

of

runoff to

the

CAWS?

If

so,

could

you

share

the

data?

7.

You

testify

on page

8 as

follows:

“The

District’s

treated

wastéwater

has

been

demonstrated

to have

relatively

low

levels of

pathogenic

microorganisms.”

What

is the basis

for

this

statement?

What

are

the

typical

concentrations

of pathogenic

or

indicator

organisms

in

the

District’s

effluent?

What

would

be

the level

in a typical

effluent?

Provide

the

citation or

explain

the

data

on which

you

base

this

statement.

8.

In

the

second

paragraph

on

page 8 of

your

pre-filed

testimony

you

make

the statement:

“Moreover,

the

pathogenic

microorganisms

do not

thrive well

outside

the

human body

and the

freshwater’s

natural

disinfection

process

is aided

by exposure

to

indigenous

bacteria

and

sunlight.”

3

---

a.

Are

you

suggesting

that

the

best

way

to

deal with

pathogens

from

the

District’s

treatment

plants

is

to disinfect

the

effluents

in

situ in

waters

that

experience

human

recreational

use?

b.

Can

you

describe

how

this method

of

disinfection

would

be

consistent

with

the

Clean

Water

Act

and

with your

opinion

that

the CAWS

is not

natural?

9.

On page

9

you explain

that

the

District

is

currently

averaging

43

days

per

year

of Combined

Sewer

Overflow

(“CSO”)

discharges.

How

many

discharges

or

days

per

year

of

discharges

will be

expected

after

the

completion

of

the

Tunnel

and

Reservoir

Project

(“TARP”)?

10.

On page

3 of

Attachment

4 to

your

testimony

it states

that

“the

Calumet

River extends

upstream

of the

OL&D

to

Lake

Michigan.

However,

since

the Calumet

River

is directly

connected

to Lake

Michigan,

it

is not

considered

part

of

theCAWS.”

Is

it

your testimony that

this reach

should

be

left

out

of this

rulemaking?

Are

there any

other

reaches

the

Agency

has

included

in

this rulemaking

that

you believe

should

be

left

out?

11.

On

page

5 of

Attachment

4 it

states

that

most

of

the

discretionary

diversions

occur

during

the

summer

except

for

the North

Shore

Channel

where

“Some

flow

is

scheduled

throughout

the

year

for

the

NSC due

to more

sensitive

water

quality

conditions.”

What

is meant

by

“more

sensitive

water

quality

conditions?”

12.

Is

it

accurate

that

there

are no

USGS

gauges

to

monitor

enforcement

of

the

discretionary

diversion

at

the

O’Brien

Lock

and

Dam

or

Wilmette

Pumping

Stations

due

to

lack

of

funds?

4

---

13.

On page

10 of

your

testimony

you state that “the District

is

prepared

to

take

on new

challenges

to further improve

our treatment

plant effluent

quality

and

water

quality

in the

CAWS

if sound

scientific

and

engineering studies

demonstrate

feasibility,

significant

benefit

and

economic

reasonableness.”

•

a.

What

would be necessary

to demonstrate

feasibility

of an

improvement

to the District?

b.

What

is

your definition of

a significant benefit?

c.

How are

you defining

economic

reasonableness in

this

context?

d.

What evidence do

you have that

imprbvements in

effluent

quality

will

not result in significant

benefits?

5

---

Questions for William

J. Stuba

1)

On

page

2

of your pre-filed

testimony

you

state that

most of the

scheduled

runs were on Tuesday,

Wednesday,

and Thursday.

What

percentage

of

observations

are made

on the weekends?

2)

Are

the given

observations

representative

of

the

weekends?

3)

What percentage

of the

day are you at

each site?

4)

On page

3 of your pre-filed

testimony

you

state that

primary

contact

activity

has been

observed infrequently.

How often

would

primary contact with

the water

have

to happen

for the District to

consider

disinfecting

it

wastewater?

5)

On

page

4

of your pre-filed testimony

you

seem to conclude

that

there

is

not

a trend toward changing

recreational

use of the

CAWS. Please

explain how

you

come

to

such a

conclusion?

6)

It

appears that

the numbers

for the recreational

surveys

you

mention

in

your pre-filed

testimony start

in 2005 but

your observations

began in June

2003,

can

you please

explain why

you

did not

submit

data from 2003

and 2004?

6

---

Questions

for

Sam

Dennison

Sam Dennison

(Bubbly

Creek

Testimony)

1)

Can

you

please explain

the

difference

you

see

between

South

Branch

of

the

Chicago River

and the

South

Fork

of

the South

Branch

Chicago River?

2)

Is it your

opinion

that

the South

Fork of the

South Branch

Chicago

River

and the

CSSC

only

differ

due to

dissolved

oxygen

levels

seen in

these

two

segments?

3)

In your

opinion,

why

would

flow augmentation

not enable

the

South

Fork

of the South

Branch

Chicago

River to

attain dissolved

oxygen

standards?

4) Please

explain

the need

for a

narrative

standard?

5)

Would

this

narrative standard

only

apply

to the

South Fork

of South

Branch

Chicago

River

segment?

6)

Do you

envision

language

similar

to what

was used

in the

dissolved

oxygen

General

Use

rulemaking?

7)

If

not, is

MWRD

going to

propose language

for

a

narrative

standard

to

the

Board?

If yes,

please

provide

the

proposed

language.

8)

On page

4 of

your pre-filed

testimony

you

state,

“... the District

measured

a

sediment

oxygen demand

(SOD)

of

3.64 g/m

2

/day

at

Interstate

1-55

. . .“ on

the

South

Fork

of South

Branch

Chicago

River. Are

there

established

criteria

or

guidelines

that

indicate

sediment

condition

based

on SOD concentrations

(e.g.,

what

levels

of

SOD

are

considered

low,

moderate,

high?)

What

were the highest

and lowest

concentrations

and where

in

the Chicago

Area

Waterway

System

were

they

found?

9)

On

page 4 of

your pre-filed

testimony

you

state

regarding

South

Fork

of

South

Branch Chicago

River, “...

chemical

analysis

of

the

sediments

...

have

detected

7

---

legacy organic

contaminants

... (USACE,

Chicago

District,

2006,

Attachment

2)”.

Is

it

indicated

on

pages

3 and

11

of Attachment

2 that sampled sediment

does not

exceed

toxicity

criteria established

under RCRA

or maximum

allowable PCB

concentrations

under the Toxic

Substances Control

Act?

10)

On

page 4

of your

pre-filed

testimony

you

state,

“High

phytoplankton

levels,

sustained by

abundant nutrient

loads . . .“

How were “high

phytoplankton

levels”

determined?

Are

you aware that

the median

chlorophyll concentration

in

South

Fork

of South Branch

Chicago

River

from January

2004 through

May 2007 was

8:8

ug/L?

11)

On

page 4 of your

pre-filed testimàny

you state

for South

Fork

of

South

Branch

Chicago River, “During

2006, dissolved

oxygen was

below the IPCB

Secondary

Contact

dissolved oxygen

standard ..

.“ How many CSO

events

occurred in 2006?

On

pages 10

and 11

of

Attachment

2, it is indicated that

between 1996

and 2005

overflows

at RAPS averaged

14/year,

with the highest

(21) in 2001

and the lowest

(9) in 2005.

What

were continuous monitoring

dissolved

oxygen concentrations

in

South

Fork

of

South

Branch Chicago

River in 2001

and 2005?

-

12)

On

page 5 of your

pre-filed

testimony you

state

for South

Fork

of

South

Branch

Chicago River,

“Increasing

DO... by the use of

artificial

controls

could

make

the

waterway

an ‘attractive

nuisance’ to

fish.” Should this condition

be

the overriding

factor

for

not improving

any river environment?

Could fish

avoid the

high flow and

resulting

low dissolved

oxygen by re-entering

South Branch

Chicago

River?

At what

rate

does

dissolved oxygen decrease

throughout

South

Fork

of South

Branch

Chicago

River

during

CSOs from

the Racine

Avenue Pump

Station?

a

---

13)

On

page

6 of your

pre-filed

testimony

you

state, “To this

end the

District

recommends

a

narrative

DO standard

be

developed

that

prevents fish kills .

.

.“ Are

you

aware

that

the

U.S. EPA

National

Criteria

Document

(1986) included

dissolved

oxygen

concentrations

to

avoid acute

mortality?

Is the

proposed

daily minimum

dissolved

oxygen

standard

less

restrictive than

the

current

Secondary Contact

and

Indigenous

Aquatic

Life

Use

standard?

14)

On page 2

of your

pre-filed

testimony

you

state that flow

in South

Fork

of

the

South

Branch Chicago

River primarily

fluctuates

as a result

of the Racine

Pump

Station.

How

often

does that- pump

station

discharge? What

is the

range

in flow

values

from that station?

15)

Do

you

believe that the

Aquatic Life

Use potential

of the

South

Fork

of

South

Branch

Chicago River is lower

than

that

of the

Chicago

Sanitary

and Ship

Canal?

Brandon

Pool? Please

explain through

examples or

general descriptions

of

types

of

aquatic

life

that could

never

be

attained

in South

Fork of

South

Branch

Chicago

River?

16)

You

state

on page

3 of your pre-field

testimony

that dissolved

oxygen

levels are

low in dry weather.

How

Jow?

What is the cause

of this situation?

Is it

reversible?

If so,

how? If

not,

why

not?

17)

On page

4 of your pre-filed

testimony

you state,

for

South

Fork

of

South

Branch Chicago

River,

that

dissolved

oxygen recovery

following

wet weather

events

takes

longer than in other

areas of the CAWS.

How much

longer?

Is

this

because

of

the size

of the pump

station?

If not, what is the

cause?

18)

You

state

on page 4

of

your

pre-filed

testimony

that

dissolved

oxygen

can

fall to

zero for 3 days during

a typical wet weather

event.

What happens

to

the

aquatic

9

---

life during these

periods?

19)

On page 4

of

your pre-filed

testimony

you indicate

that the

second

highest

sediment oxygen

demand

value

obtained

by the District was

found in South Fork

of

South Branch

Chicago

River. Where

is the highest?

20)

On page

5

your

pre-filed

testimony

you

indicate that

efforts in

2006

to

drawback

water

at

the Racine

Avenue

Pump Station

and

send it to the Stickney

Plant

for treatment

demonstrate

that flow

augmentation

will not

enable South

Fork of South

Branch Chicago

River

to attain the dissolved

oxygen

standard proposed.

Would it

result

in attainment

of

the current Secondary

Contact

Standard in dry weather?

If not,

please

explain why. Would

supplemental

aeration

work

alone or would both

be necessary?

21)

Attachment 2

on

pages 11-12

you mention a sediment-capping

project

at

the confluence of South

Branch Chicago

River and the South

Fork of South

Branch

Chicago River.

Can you tell us

the status of this project?

22)

On page

4

of

your

pre-filed testimony,

you state with

regard to

South

Fork

of the

South Branch Chicago

River

that “... chemical

analyses of

the

sediments

have

detected legacy organic

contaminants,

such as polycyclic

aromatic

hydrocarbons

and

heavy

metals....”

What do you mean

by

legacy

and how

do you differentiate

between

legacy and contemporary

contaminants?

23)

Are

the

contaminants

available

to

aquatic life?

If so, what data

do

you

have and

what methodologies

did you

use to support that

the

contaminants

are

available to aquatic

life?

24)

Are the levels of

listed contaminants

in

South Fork

of South Branch

Chicago

River much different

than the

levels

reported

for

other

reaches of CAWS?

10

---

25)

On

page 5 of your

pre-filed

testimony

you

state for South Fork

of

South

Branch

Chicago River that

“... low

levels of DO

concentrations

prevailed

.... during

2006 in

spite of the district’s

efforts to limit

stagnation

by

drawing ... water

back

through

RAPS [Racine Avenue

Pump Station].”

Isn’t

supplemental aeration proposed

along

with

flow augmentation

to mitigate

dissolved

oxygen levels below the proposed

standards?

26)

On page

5 of your pre-filed

testimony

you

state for South

Fork of

South

Branch

Chicago River: “Increasing

DO..

.by

the

use of artificial controls could

make

the

waterway an ‘attractive

nuisance’ to

fish.” and “Resulting fish kills

could create

an

odor

problem that would

be offensive to the area

residents and would be very

difficult

to

rectify.”

How long would

it

take

for fish, if they were to

die, to become odorous?

Is

dead fish odor a primary concern

in determining appropriate

aquatic life uses?

27)

Do

you know if Racine Avenue Pump Station

generated flow

would

tend

to push

any

fish, if they

did die, out of South Fork of South Branch

Chicago

River?

28)

Are

you

suggesting that

it is better to allow lethally

low or no

dissolved

oxygen in South Fork of South Branch Chicago River?

29)

On page 5 and 6 of your pre-filed

testimony

you

state

regarding

flow

augmentation

in South Fork of

South

Branch Chicago River:

“The proposed

high

volume

pump

station

that

would be required ... may create

a situation

of fish

colliding

with screens (impingement) and/or being sucked into pumps

(entrainment),

as well.”

Can you quantify

impingement or entrainment situations

at the

existing SEPA

stations?

30)

Is it possible and customary

to take

impingement

or

entrainment

potential into consideration when

designing waterway

intake

pump stations?

11

---

Sam

Dennison

(Dissolved

Oxygen

Testimony)

1)

on

page

3

of

your

pre-filed

testimony

you

state,

“Results

from

the

Continuous

Monitoring

Program

show

that

many

waterways

in

the

CAWS

do

not

comply

with

the

DO

standards

proposed

by

IEPA.”

Are

you

aware

that

the

proposed

designated

uses

for

CAWS

“A”

and

“B”

waters

are

below

the

Clean

Water

Act

goal

for

aquatic

life?

Do you

believe

that

use

designations

should

be

based

on

biological

potential

of

the system

or

on

meeting

proposed

standards?

2)

Can

you

please

describe

the

Winkler

titration

method

mentioned

on

page

3

of

your

pre-filed

testimony?

3)

Why

are

you

of

the

opinion

that

additional

aeration

systems

will

not

increase

the fish

population

in

the

CAWS?

4)

On

pages

3-4 of

your

pre-filed

testimony

you

reference

compliance

statistics

for

continuous

monitoring

stations,

with

the

lowest

compliance

rates

for the

proposed

dissolved oxygen

standards

occurring

during

the years

2005-2007.

Why

is

compliance

with

the

proposal

lower

at

the

identified

stations

than

at

the other

stations?

5)

What

do you

recommend

the

dissolved

oxygen

standard

be

for

CAWS

Aquatic

Life Use

A

waters?

For

CAWS

and Brandon

Pool

Aquatic

Life

Use

B

waters?

Sam

Dennison

(Cal-Sag

channel

Testimony)

1)

Please explain

why

you

disagree

with

the

Cal-Sag

being

classified

as

CAWS Aquatic

Life

Use

A

water?

2)

Would

you

propose

a

stand

alone

classification

for

the

Cal-Sag?

12

---

3)

In

your

opinion

is the

Cal-Sag similar

to the CSSC?

If

yes, explain

how

their

similarities.

4)

What

additional

habitat

data

are

you

preparing?

5)

Why

will

this

information

not be

completed

until 2009?

6)

On

page 2

of your

pre-filed

testimony

you state,

“At

Cicero

Avenue

...

a

QHEI

score

of

37.5 was

classified

as a

poor

habitat.”

Are you

aware

that the

correct

score of

47.5

(fair

habitat)

was provided

at

the April

2008 hearing?

7)

On page

2 of

your

pre-filed

testimony

you state,

“At

Route

83 ...

the

QHEI

sãore (42)

is still in

the

poor

range.” Are

you aware

that the

correct

QHEI score

of 54

(fair habitat)

was provided

at

the

April

2008 hearing?

8)

On

page 2

of your

pre-filed

testimony

you state,

“The Calumet-Sag

Channel

and the

Chicago Sanitary

and

Ship Canal

share

similar physical

characteristics.

For example

...

each has

limited

shallow

area

along its

banks . .

Edward Rankin

in

his report

(Attachment

R)

indicated

that

“The Cal-Sag

channel

had

QHEI

scores in

the

fair range,

largely

because

of

the limestone

rubble

and

coarse

materials

... in

the

littoral

areas ...

this

littoral habitat

is

notjsolated,

but occurs

along

much

of

the shoreline.

This

waterway

had

four

positive

attributes

with the

most

important

being

the

substrates

and

shoreline

structure.

Habitat

in

the

CSSC

ranged

from

poor

to very

poor.

The

sites

at Lockport,

Romeoville

and Willow

Springs

Road

were

canal-like

in

nature

with steep

sides

and

little functional

cover

or substrate.

The

site at

Lockport

was

wider

and had

some

littoral

habitat,

however,

this

were

very

limited

in scope

and were

extremely

embedded

with

silty

mucks and

sand

that

were

of

poor

13

---

quality”. Can

you

explain

this

difference

in opinions

of these

two

waterways

between

MWRDGC

and Mr.

Rankin?

9)

On page 2

of your pre-filed

testimony

you state, “All of

the

QHEI

scores

calculated

by the District’s

Aquatic

Ecology

and Water Quality

Section

for

the

Calumet

Sag Channel

and

the

Chicago

Sanitary

and

Ship Canal

... have

been in

the

“poor”

range ..

.“ Did all personnel

involved

go through

QHEI

training prior

to the

survey?

The

referenced

MWRDGC

reports

for

the above

statement

only

provide

QHEI

scores.

Individual

metric scores

are not

provided.

Could

the

District

provide copies

of the

QHEI

field

sheets along with

other pertinent

field sheets?

10)

On page 3 of

your pre-filed testimony

you

state, “According

to the

Illinois

EPA

QHEI classification

scale . .

.“ This

is an

Ohio

EPA not an Illinois

EPA

classification

scale,

correct?

11)

On

page 3 of your

pre-filed testimony

you state,

“In

addition,

both

the

Chicago

Sanitary and Ship

Canal and the

Calumet-Sag

Channel are

dominated

by

soft

homogenous

sediments

that are not conducive

to a

balanced benthic

invertebrate

community.”

Has

Illinois

EPA proposed

a

designated

use that

represents

a

balanced

benthic

invertebrate

community?

12)

On page

3 of your pre-filed

testimony you

state,

“In

fact, the

waterways

are both dominated

by pollution-tolerant

invertebrates

. .

.“ How

does

the

current

condition of

the waterway

indicate potential

aquatic life

conditions?

13)

On page

3

of

your pre-filed

testimony

you state, “Since

the

physical

habitats

are not

substantially

different, there is

no apparent

reason why

the

Calumet

Sag Channel

should

not be classified

as an Aquatic

Life Use

B Water,

similar

to

the

14

---

Chicago

Sanitary

and Ship

Canal.”

It appears

that

the

only phycial

habitat

information

provided

by the

District

are

QHEI

scores.

No information

on positive

and negative

habitat

attributes

are

provided

as

had been

included

with

Mr. Rankin’s

report

(Attachment

R). So

how

was it

determined

that

the physical

habitat

is not

substantially

different?

14)

On

page

3 of your

pre-filed

testimony

you

state,

“Over

the

years,

there

has

been

extensive

land

use development

(urbanization)

in

the Calumet-Sag

Channel

watershed”.

How

many

acres of

forest preserve

are

available

in this

watershed?

How

many

miles of

the Calumet-Sag

Channel

are bordered

by

foresupreserves?

15)

On page

4 of your

pre-filed

testimony

you

state, “These

conditions

prevent

the

waterway

from

attaining

a healthy

biological

community.”

What is

meant

by

“healthy”?

16)

Do

you agree