0001
1 ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
2 IN THE MATTER OF:
)
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND
) R08-09
3 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR THE ) (Rulemaking-
CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM ) Water
4 AND THE LOWER DES PLAINES
)
RIVER: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
)
5 TO 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 301, )
302, 303 and 304
)
6
7
REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS held in the
8 above entitled cause before Hearing Officer Marie
9 Tipsord, called by the Illinois Pollution Control
10 Board, taken by Steven Brickey, CSR, for the State
11 of Illinois, 100 West Randolph, Chicago, Illinois,
12 on the 25th day of September, 2008, commencing at
13 the hour of 9:00 p.m.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
0002
1
A P P E A R A N C E S
2 MS. MARIE TIPSORD, Hearing Officer
MS. ALISA LIU, Environmental Scientist
3 MR. ANAND RAO, Senior Environmental Scientist
MR. TANNER GIRARD, Acting Chairman
4 MR. JOHNSON
MR. NICHOLAS MELAS
5
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
6 1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
7 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
(217) 782-5544
8 BY: MS. DEBORAH WILLIAMS
MS. STEPHANIE DIERS
9
MR. ROBERT SULSKI
MR. SCOTT TWAIT
10
MR. HOWARD ESSIG
11 BARNES & THORNBURG
BY: MR. FREDRIC P. ANDES
12 One North Wacker Drive
Suite 4400
13 Chicago, Illinois 60606
(312) 357-1313
14
Appearing on behalf of the Metropolitan
Water Reclamation District
15
MS. ADRIENNE D. NEMURA
16 DR. SAMUEL G. DENNISON
MR. STEPHEN F. McGOWAN
17
NATIONAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
18 MS. ANN ALEXANDER
19 THE CHICAGO LEGAL CLINIC
BY: MR. KEITH HARLEY
20 2938 East 91st Street
Chicago, Illinois 606017
21 (773) 731-1762
22
23
24
0003
1 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY CENTER
33 East Wacker Drive
2 Suite 1300
Chicago, Illinois 60601
3 (312) 795-3707
BY: MR. ALBERT ETTINGER
4
MS. JESSICA DEXTER
5 OPENLANDS
BY: MS. STACY MEYERS-GLEN
6 24 East Washington Street
Suite 1650
7 Chicago, Illinois 60602
(312) 863-6265
8
FRIENDS OF THE CHICAGO RIVER
9 BY: MS. MARGARET FRISBIE
28 East Jackson Boulevard
10 Suite 1800
Chicago, Illinois 60604
11 (312) 939-0490
12 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL - STATE OF ILLINOIS
BY: MS. SUSAN HEDMAN
13 69 West Washington Street
Suite 1800
14 Chicago, Illinois 60602
(312) 814-4947
15
16
17 REPORTED BY:
18
Steven J. Brickey, CSR
CSR License No. 084-004675
19
20
21
22
23
24
0004
1
MS. TIPSORD: Let's go ahead and
2 begin with your questions, Mr. Ettinger.
3
MR. ETTINGER: I guess I'll start
4 with my pre-file questions and I'll follow up with
5 some documents and other things that we worked
6 with here. Do you know if CSO discharges contain
7 the same level of human pathogens as discharges
8 from municipal waste water treatment plants that
9 do not disinfect?
10
MS. NEMURA: Well, in general,
11 there's more fecal coliform in combined sewer
12 overflows than even in undisinfected municipal
13 effluent.
14
MR. ETTINGER: Might that vary from
15 CSO to CSO?
16
MS. NEMURA: Yes. And it could also
17 vary depending on the nature of the rainfall event
18 and at what point in the CSO discharge you collect
19 the sample.
20
MR. ETTINGER: How does that effect
21 it?
22
MS. NEMURA: The level of human
23 pathogens would be dependant upon the proportion
24 of untreated sewerage as well as the level of
0005
1 human pathogens that may be present in the storm
2 water, which generally is lower than what is in
3 untreated waste water and depending on the rain
4 event, you could have a higher proportion of
5 untreated sewerage to that storm water and also
6 over the -- during the discharge, the proportion
7 of untreated sewerage to the storm water, which is
8 a function of runoff from the streets, may vary
9 too.
10
MR. ETTINGER: How would it vary?
11
MS. NEMURA: It depends on the
12 nature of the combined sewer overflows catchment,
13 sort of the mini watershed for the CSO. So if a
14 drop of water falls here, it may go to this CSO or
15 it may go somewhere else. So it depends on the
16 size of the catchment. It depends on the relative
17 development of the catchment. It just depends on
18 a lot of things and each storm event is different.
19 So in development of long-term control plans,
20 typically for decision purposes you will select an
21 average fecal coliform concentration that you
22 apply and when you do all CSO's -- and then for
23 all the events -- and then when you evaluate CSO
24 control alternatives, you use that average
0006
1 concentration to look at relative benefits between
2 different alternatives.
3
MR. ETTINGER: So you might want to
4 control the CSO's that are principally human
5 sewage before the ones that are principally storm
6 water runoff?
7
MS. NEMURA: I wouldn't say that.
8 It depends on -- under the combined sewer overflow
9 policy, for example, there's a sensitive area
10 provision, which is intended to protect -- if you
11 have an area where you have primary contact
12 recreation such as bathing beaches, CSO policy
13 directs communities to try to eliminate or
14 relocate CSO's away from that area. Therefore,
15 those CSO's would be given a higher level of
16 priority than a CSO that might not have a lot of
17 runoff.
18
MR. ETTINGER: So there's a variety
19 of factors you would look at in deciding what the
20 priority of the controls of CSO's would be?
21
MS. NEMURA: Yes. And a lot of it
22 has to do with affordability. If you can, for
23 instance, because of the nature of the uses of the
24 water body, if there are some CSO's that are more
0007
1 easily eliminated than others or treated than
2 others, you might want to direct your resources to
3 those CSO's first and save the more expensive,
4 more capital intensive ones for later. The whole
5 concept of green infrastructure has sort of caused
6 CSO communities and EPA to reevaluate how you
7 prioritize your other overall CSO control
8 alternatives. There's a lot of factors.
9
MR. ETTINGER: How does the concept
10 of green infrastructure effect that?
11
MS. NEMURA: A lot of our CSO
12 problem is due to storm water runoff. And the
13 concept of green infrastructure is that you go
14 back into a community and you assess the amount of
15 impervious area, you know, the pavement, the roofs
16 and all of the storm water that is falling off
17 that impervious area and getting into your
18 combined sewer system causing the overflows. If
19 you can use green infrastructures such as green
20 roofs, porous pavement, rain gardens, bio swails,
21 infiltration devices, you're taking that storm
22 water, you're allowing it to infiltrate into the
23 ground or you're capturing it and reusing it for
24 irrigation, for example. You don't have to spend
0008
1 money to convey and treat that as combined
2 sewerage. From a conservationist standpoint, it's
3 a more cost -- it can be a more cost effective
4 approach to reduce the amount of combined sewer
5 overflows and it also provides ancillary
6 environmental benefits such as reducing the urban
7 heat island. It provides esthetic value to the
8 community. And it can reduce the cooling costs
9 for, you know, large buildings such as data
10 centers.
11
MR. ETTINGER: Might you consider
12 reducing the amount of impervious surfaces in some
13 circumstances?
14
MS. NEMURA: Yes.
15
MR. ETTINGER: Do you know whether
16 any of these things, I think you described as
17 green infrastructure techniques, have been
18 considered by the Water Reclamation District?
19
MS. NEMURA: I don't know of any
20 specifics. I do know that the city of Chicago and
21 the District's green infrastructure is on -- they
22 are evaluating it. I don't know the specifics of
23 how they are evaluating it.
24
MR. ETTINGER: Okay. Looking at
0009
1 page seven of your testimony, you mention a number
2 of options that states can pursue for adopted
3 standards that are identified by US EPA including
4 segmenting the water body, adopting sub classes
5 and high flow cutoffs. Do you suggest that the
6 CAWS be segmented differently for consideration in
7 the IAA than -- in the IAA and, if so, how?
8
MS. NEMURA: I'm not objecting to
9 the segmentation that the agency proposed. My
10 concern is more that they go through the processes
11 of determining the appropriate and attainable uses
12 for those segments.
13
MR. ETTINGER: Well, if they went
14 through that process, might they determine that
15 the segment lines aren't drawn right?
16
MS. NEMURA: I suppose that's a
17 possibility.
18
MR. ETTINGER: What is a high flow
19 cutoff and how does it work?
20
MS. NEMURA: A high flow cutoff is
21 when the water quality standards recognize that
22 under certain high flow conditions uses are not
23 attainable and therefore are suspended or they
24 don't apply. So you could evaluate the flow
0010
1 conditions in the water body and pick a certain
2 discharge flow and say above that -- if the flow
3 is higher than that, then the uses don't apply.
4
MR. ETTINGER: We've heard a lot of
5 talk about Ohio, but my question in 13 relates
6 specifically to ORSANCO. Are you familiar with
7 ORSANCO?
8
MS. NEMURA: Yes.
9
MR. ETTINGER: Has ORSANCO adopted
10 wet weather standards?
11
MS. NEMURA: They have not adopted
12 wet weather standards. The Ohio River is still
13 designated for primary contact recreation. What
14 they did adopt that I referred to in my previous
15 testimony is a provision that allows a CSO
16 community to submit a long-term control plan and a
17 UAA and to propose alternative criteria.
18
MR. ETTINGER: And have any CSO
19 communities in the ORSANCO area proposed such
20 standards?
21
MS. NEMURA: They have not proposed
22 such standards. Cincinnati's long-term control
23 plan acknowledges the need for wet weather
24 standards and the other communities are in the
0011
1 process of either developing or updating their
2 long-term control plans and I fully anticipate
3 that those plans will also identify the need for
4 wet weather water quality standards.
5 Particularly, what is considered to be the poster
6 child of small communities for CSO, which is
7 Wheeling, West Virginia.
8
MR. ETTINGER: Some of these
9 questions that I had here were already dealt with
10 by Ms. Williams. Did he deem the Santa Anna River
11 in California?
12
MS. DIERS: I don't think so.
13
MR. ETTINGER: Since I pre-filed it,
14 I might as well ask the question. What is the
15 standard that was adopted for the Santa Anna River
16 in California?
17
MS. NEMURA: They have not yet
18 adopted a wet weather water quality standard.
19 They have a storm water task force and this is an
20 instance where it's recognized because the storm
21 water discharges -- a wet weather standard may be
22 appropriate. They have challenges with high flow
23 conditions similar to LA county and they have been
24 considering various options including high flow
0012
1 suspensions of recreational uses, but they haven't
2 adopted anything yet.
3
MR. ETTINGER: Does the Santa Anna
4 River during dry weather times have pathogen
5 standards applicable to it?
6
MS. NEMURA: Yes, they would have
7 the recreational use standards that are in the
8 basin plans.
9
MR. ETTINGER: And those are primary
10 contact standards?
11
MS. NEMURA: I'm not -- because I
12 didn't focus on dry weather for my testimony, I'm
13 not exactly sure what those would be, but they
14 would be some sort of indicator bacteria.
15
MR. ETTINGER: Okay. Finally, what
16 is the standard that was adopted for Ballona
17 Creek, California?
18
MS. NEMURA: That is the suspension
19 of the recreational use during the half inch or
20 greater for 24 hours after a rainfall ceases.
21
MR. ETTINGER: I'm going to mark
22 some exhibits which sort of clarify the numbers
23 that we had some testimony on this morning
24 relating to these various other waterbodies and I
0013
1 just want to confirm that we have the right plan
2 and we have the right numbers and I gave a copy of
3 all of these documents to Mr. Andes during the
4 lunch break so he's had a chance to -- Well, some
5 chance to determine if I've created utter
6 forgeries.
7
MR. ANDES: That I haven't checked
8 on.
9
MR. ETTINGER: Well, Caroline is
10 here. It would be her. What I'd like to do is
11 offer these documents as well as a tooth brush to
12 Caroline and this would be 122.
13
MS. TIPSORD: Yes.
14
MR. ANDES: Do you want to mention
15 which documents you're referencing by title?
16
MR. ETTINGER: Yes. 122 is the
17 Massachusetts regulations, 314 CMR 405 and 406.
18
MS. TIPSORD: If there's no
19 objection, we'll mark these as Exhibit 122.
20 Seeing none, it's Exhibit 122.
21
MR. ETTINGER: Okay. I'm going to
22 mark them all because I'm standing here if that's
23 okay with you.
24
MR. ANDES: I didn't think you were
0014
1 allowed to.
2
MS. TIPSORD: He's going to give
3 them to me to mark.
4
MR. ETTINGER: I'm going to
5 request --
6
MR. ANDES: There's a special pen.
7
MR. TIPSORD: That is right. It's
8 my exhibit pen.
9
MR. ETTINGER: A second document,
10 which I believe was obtained from the Ohio River
11 Valley Water Sanitation Commission, entitled Wet
12 Weather Standards Proposal.
13
MS. TIPSORD: If there's no
14 objection, we'll mark that as Exhibit 123. Seeing
15 none, it's Exhibit 123.
16
MR. ETTINGER: 124 is another
17 document from the Ohio River Valley Water
18 Sanitation Commission -- that's an awfully long
19 name -- entitled Background Summary of Proposed
20 Revisions.
21
MS. TIPSORD: If there's no
22 objection, we will mark that as Exhibit 124.
23 Seeing none, it's Exhibit 124.
24
MR. ETTINGER: And then, finally,
0015
1 125 is an order of the state of California State
2 Water Resources Control Board in the matter of Own
3 Motion Review of Failure to Modify Recreational
4 Use Standards for Ballona Creek.
5
MS. TIPSORD: If there's no
6 objection, we will mark this as Exhibit 125 as
7 identified by Mr. Ettinger. Seeing none, it's
8 Exhibit 125.
9
MR. ETTINGER: I'll just stay over
10 here if you don't mind.
11
MR. ANDES: A little too close.
12
MR. ETTINGER: I showered this
13 month.
14
MR. ANDES: I knew that. Go ahead.
15
MR. ETTINGER: On Exhibit 122, which
16 is the Massachusetts regulations, the regulation I
17 believe that you brought to our attention earlier
18 is on the second to last page with writing on it.
19 This exhibit is entitled Partial Use BCSO and
20 SBCSO.
21
MS. NEMURA: Yes.
22
MR. ETTINGER: And this sets forth
23 the rules under which there can be this partial
24 use designation?
0016
1
MS. NEMURA: Yes.
2
MR. ETTINGER: Looking back at the
3 second page of what I handed you which is section
4 405, three, four, three in parens, four. I didn't
5 invent this numbering scheme.
6
MS. NEMURA: 3A4.
7
MR. ETTINGER: 3A4. I'm glad to
8 hear they got that down in Massachusetts. We see
9 a heading here for bacteria.
10
MS. NEMURA: Yes.
11
MR. ETTINGER: And under bacteria,
12 we have a little C -- B is for bathing waters. Do
13 you see where I am there?
14
MS. NEMURA: Yes.
15
MR. ETTINGER: And C is for other
16 waters?
17
MS. NEMURA: Yes.
18
MR. ETTINGER: Is it your
19 understanding that that would be the standard that
20 would be applicable during dry weather conditions
21 of the Charles River?
22
MS. NEMURA: I believe the Charles
23 River is designated Class B.
24
MR. ETTINGER: So how would that
0017
1 differ from this?
2
MS. NEMURA: If you go to the next
3 page under 405 3B4 -- I have a lot of practice
4 with these. I believe those are the numbers that
5 would apply.
6
MR. ETTINGER: Very well. So that
7 is just for the record the top of the fifth page
8 of this exhibit and it specifies a number based on
9 e-coli samples?
10
MS. NEMURA: Yes.
11
MR. ETTINGER: And that would be the
12 number applicable, you believe, to the Charles
13 River during wet weather conditions?
14
MS. NEMURA: It would be the number
15 applicable to the Charles River across the entire
16 recreation season regardless of dry or wet weather
17 conditions because the Charles, they received a
18 variance from the state.
19
MR. ETTINGER: We discussed that
20 earlier. They had a variance rather than a wet
21 weather UAA for the Charles River. Do you know
22 where those conditions came from?
23
MS. NEMURA: Those numbers are the
24 same as the 1986 criteria and I assume -- Well, I
0018
1 don't want to assume, but they're the same as the
2 1986 criteria.
3
MR. ETTINGER: Looking now at --
4
MR. ANDES: If I can follow up on
5 that for a minute?
6
MR. ETTINGER: Sure.
7
MR. ANDES: Are they trying to
8 protect the swimming use in the Charles?
9
MS. NEMURA: Yes.
10
MR. ETTINGER: Are you familiar with
11 the history of the Charles at all?
12
MS. NEMURA: Somewhat, yes.
13
MR. ETTINGER: Was it a very nice
14 river in 1970?
15
MS. NEMURA: Let's see, I would have
16 been eight. I don't recall visiting the Charles
17 when I was eight, but I did go there when I was --
18
MR. ETTINGER: Well, you're 18 now,
19 right?
20
MS. NEMURA: Seventeen.
21
MR. ETTINGER: I'm sorry.
22
MS. NEMURA: And I was watching the
23 Harvard boys sail in the Charles and watching the
24 inexperienced Harvard boys tip their sail boats
0019
1 over and saying "Oh, my God. Why are they even
2 considering doing that."
3
MR. ETTINGER: And that was when?
4
MS. NEMURA: That was when I was 17,
5 so that was '79.
6
MR. ETTINGER: Has the Charles
7 recovered some since '79?
8
MS. NEMURA: Yes, it has improved.
9
MR. ETTINGER: It there swimming
10 going on now in the Charles?
11
MS. NEMURA: I don't have firsthand
12 knowledge of that, but I do know though that when
13 they report -- when they measure the progress of
14 improvement on the Charles, it is measured and
15 recorded in terms of the number of days that the
16 swimming standard is met.
17
MR. ETTINGER: Would it surprise you
18 to know that over 50 percent of the days the
19 swimming standard is now met in the Charles
20 according to Region I?
21
MS. NEMURA: No.
22
MR. ETTINGER: Looking now, I guess,
23 Exhibit 123 and 124. First of all, did you work
24 with the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation
0020
1 Commission?
2
MS. NEMURA: Limited Tech (phonetic)
3 has conducted at least three projects for ORSANCO,
4 but in terms of did I work for them on their wet
5 weather standards proposal, no and Limited Tech
6 didn't either.
7
MR. ETTINGER: Okay. Looking at the
8 second page of this first document, wet weather
9 standards proposal, the document discusses various
10 categories of use, including light use, is it your
11 understanding that the light use is the one
12 applied to the Ohio River?
13
MR. ANDES: Do we know what date
14 this document is?
15
MR. ETTINGER: I don't.
16
MS. NEMURA: I believe this document
17 was prepared not during this round of ORSANCO's
18 triennial review, which is ongoing, but the
19 previous round and this was information that was
20 prepared for a work group most likely established
21 by the pollution control standards committee to
22 evaluate wet weather uses for the Ohio River.
23
MR. ETTINGER: Do you know whether
24 the light use category has changed since this
0021
1 document was produced?
2
MS. NEMURA: ORSANCO's standards for
3 the Ohio River designate the river for primary
4 conduct recreation. They do not distinguish
5 between different levels of use of the Ohio River.
6
MR. ETTINGER: So what standard is
7 now applicable to the Ohio River?
8
MS. NEMURA: The primary contact
9 recreation standard, which is applied on a monthly
10 basis and it includes both the fecal coliform
11 geometric means and the e-coli geometric means as
12 well as the single sample criteria.
13
MR. ETTINGER: So is that based on
14 the 1986 criteria for e-coli or some other figure?
15
MS. NEMURA: The e-coli criteria,
16 the geometric mean is the same as the 1986.
17 ORSANCO, when they -- the fecal coliform -- or the
18 e-coli criteria can be used to assess attainment
19 in the Ohio River.
20
The fecal coliform criteria, the
21 geometric means is 200 and not more than -- the
22 single sample maximum associated with that is not
23 more than ten percent of the values in a month --
24 can exceed 400. For the e-coli criteria, ORSANCO
0022
1 adopted the 1986 criteria and the problem that
2 occurred is they did not allow ten percent of the
3 values collected in a month to exceed the single
4 sample maximum of 235. So there's a disconnect in
5 the way the two criteria are applied.
6
MR. ANDES: So just to be clear,
7 this particular proposal was never adopted?
8
MS. NEMURA: Correct.
9
MR. ANDES: Go ahead.
10
MR. ETTINGER: Thank you. That's
11 helpful.
12
MR. ANDES: Just trying to be
13 helpful.
14
MR. ETTINGER: I know. The last
15 document that we've marked, 125, have you seen
16 this before today?
17
MS. NEMURA: This particular
18 document?
19
MR. ETTINGER: 125.
20
MS. NEMURA: That particular
21 document, no, I did not review that document.
22
MR. ETTINGER: Have you worked on
23 Ballona Creek?
24
MS. NEMURA: No.
0023
1
MR. ETTINGER: You did not
2 personally work on Ballona Creek?
3
MS. NEMURA: No.
4
MR. ETTINGER: Did Limited Tech work
5 on Ballona Creek?
6
MS. NEMURA: No.
7
MR. ETTINGER: What is the basis for
8 your information on Ballona Creek?
9
MS. NEMURA: Reviewing the documents
10 associated with the -- California's water quality
11 standards for the Los Angeles River Basin Plan as
12 well as Ballona Creek is a UAA case study on EPA's
13 website. But as you know in California, they
14 generate lots of documents so I'm not surprised
15 that I missed this one.
16
MR. ETTINGER: I don't get to
17 California much, but I'll take your word for it.
18 Thank you. I have no more questions.
19
MS. TIPSORD: Anything else for
20 Ms. Nemura? Thank you very much and we look
21 forward to seeing you again soon.
22
MR. ANDES: Before we move on to the
23 next witness. I do have some materials that are
24 responsive to questions that were asked of us
0024
1 yesterday.
2
MS. TIPSORD: I was beginning to be
3 despaired by the lack of exhibits we had today.
4
MR. ANDES: I'm here to help.
5 First, I have this on disc. Dr. Blatchley
6 mentioned his full report done on behalf of the
7 Water Environment Research Foundation which is
8 voluminous. We have that document on a disc.
9
MS. TIPSORD: I just need one of
10 these.
11
MR. ANDES: Sure.
12
MS. TIPSORD: And for the record,
13 this is blank, but I'm going to mark this as the
14 Blatchley Report. Is that okay?
15
MR. ANDES: Sure.
16
MS. TIPSORD: And then I'll mark it
17 as an exhibit so we know which CD ROM is which.
18 I'm going to mark this compact disc as Exhibit 126
19 if there's no objection. Seeing none, it's
20 Exhibit 126.
21
MR. ANDES: Next, we have two
22 documents which can be separate. Both respond to
23 questions that were asked regarding variances and
24 the duration of variances. One is a US EPA
0025
1 document dated January 24th, 1992, entitled
2 Requests for Views on Allowable Duration of Water
3 Quality Standards Variances.
4
MS. TIPSORD: And I've been handed
5 that document as described by Mr. Andes and if
6 there's no objection, we'll mark that as Exhibit
7 127. Seeing none, it's Exhibit 127.
8
MR. ANDES: The second document is
9 from the US EPA Water Quality Standards Academy
10 website and it's entitled Key Concepts of
11 Variance: Temporary Modification to Water Quality
12 Standards and it has an attachment.
13
MS. TIPSORD: We will mark that as
14 Exhibit 128 as identified by Mr. Andes if there's
15 no objection. Seeing none, it's Exhibit 128.
16
MR. ANDES: Next, there were
17 questions raised about the Missouri water quality
18 standards and I have copies of the relevant
19 portions of the Missouri regulations. It's in two
20 documents. One is the actual rules and the second
21 is tables that are attached to the rules on the
22 water quality standards. Here are the rules.
23
MS. TIPSORD: I think I'm going to
24 mark these separately. The rules of the
0026
1 Department of Natural Resources we'll mark as
2 Exhibit 129 if there's no objection. Seeing none,
3 it's Exhibit 129. And the tables that accompany
4 that, we will mark as Exhibit 130 if there's no
5 objection. Seeing none, it's Exhibit 130.
6
MR. ANDES: Finally, we have two
7 documents that respond to questions about existing
8 uses, the regulatory concept of existing uses.
9 One of them is a presentation series of slides
10 entitled Water Quality Standards: Wet Weather
11 Issues and Recreational Use Protection. A
12 presentation by Ephraim King of US EPA.
13
MS. TIPSORD: And we'll mark that
14 exhibit as Exhibit 131, as identified by
15 Mr. Andes, if there's no objection. Seeing none,
16 it is Exhibit 131.
17
MR. ANDES: Finally, this is a
18 document of the Indiana Department of
19 Environmental Management dated April 11th, 2008.
20 The subject is Application of Existing Use
21 Concepts in Conducting Use Attainability Analyses
22 for Long-term Control Plan Communities for Primary
23 Contact Recreational Uses.
24
MS. WILLIAMS: Do you recall which
0027
1 request this one is in response to?
2
MR. ANDES: I can go back and give
3 the number of the question, but the question is
4 about -- the question is being asked about how the
5 existing use concept was being applied and this
6 was a particular one where this document was
7 issued by Indiana in consultation with US EPA. So
8 it explains how the concept is utilized.
9
MS. TIPSORD: We will mark Indiana
10 Department of Environmental Management Agency
11 Nonrenewal Policy Document, policy number
12 Water-014 as Exhibit 132 if there's no objection.
13 Seeing none, it's Exhibit 132. If that's all
14 Mr. Andes, if you want to have Mr. McGowan come up
15 and get settled while I finish this paperwork.
16
MR. ANDES: Sure.
17
MS. TIPSORD: And do we have a copy
18 of his testimony? We will mark his pre-filed
19 testimony as Stephen F. McGowan and the attachment
20 as Exhibit 133 if there's no objection. Seeing no
21 objection, it's Exhibit 133. And then I believe
22 we go to IEPA.
23
MS. WILLIAMS: Good afternoon,
24 Mr. McGowan.
0028
1
MR. McGOWAN: Good afternoon.
2
MS. WILLIAMS: I'm Debby Williams.
3 I'm representing the Illinois EPA and I just want
4 to explain before I start that our questions were
5 not clearly broken out between the subject of your
6 testimony today and the subject of your testimony
7 later. So I'll skip over a few where I've
8 identified that they're specifically on dissolved
9 oxygen.
10
MR. McGOWAN: Okay.
11
MS. WILLIAMS: Question number one,
12 what do you base your assumption on page four of
13 your disinfection testimony that, quote, these
14 power plants are generally coal based electric
15 generating facilities?
16
MR. McGOWAN: I know we'll get into
17 this a little bit more, but there is a data basis,
18 E grid, that breaks the United States into regions
19 and Chicago is in the region referred to as RFCW
20 and in this region, 72.8 percent of the power
21 generation facilities are coal based. So,
22 generally or mostly, the power generating
23 facilities are coal based.
24
MS. WILLIAMS: So by mostly, you're
0029
1 saying 72 percent and you're getting that from --
2
MR. McGOWAN: E grid. I know you
3 had some other questions on that.
4
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay.
5
MR. ETTINGER: Can I just ask how
6 big that region is?
7
MR. McGOWAN: I believe I can give
8 you a generalization.
9
MR. ETTINGER: That's all I want.
10
MR. ANDES: Was the map in the
11 testimony?
12
MR. McGOWAN: No. I don't believe I
13 have it.
14
MR. ETTINGER: It looks like it
15 contains Northern Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, West
16 Virginia and maybe some parts of western
17 Pennsylvania and western North Carolina.
18
MS. WILLIAMS: Do you know
19 specifically for Illinois whether that percentage
20 is an accurate breakdown for Illinois?
21
MR. McGOWAN: There is not a
22 breakdown for Illinois for the power generating
23 facilities. They are broken into the regions that
24 I described and that's where the emission factors
0030
1 come from.
2
MS. WILLIAMS: In E grid, there
3 isn't?
4
MR. McGOWAN: Correct.
5
MS. WILLIAMS: Did you look for any
6 other sources?
7
MR. McGOWAN: I don't believe so,
8 no.
9
MS. WILLIAMS: Did you, in fact,
10 assume -- so you didn't assume that a hundred
11 percent was --
12
MR. McGOWAN: Correct.
13
MS. WILLIAMS: You used the factors
14 from E grid?
15
MR. McGOWAN: Correct. And they are
16 proportional to the power generating sources, a
17 certain percent of coal based, a certain
18 percentage nuclear, a certain percentage natural
19 gas. So the emissions then that would come out
20 would reflect the proportionality of the different
21 power sources in the region.
22
MS. WILLIAMS: Do you recall what
23 the percentages are for nuclear in that region?
24
MR. McGOWAN: Could we go to the
0031
1 board?
2
MR. ANDES: Sure.
3
MR. McGOWAN: This was not a table
4 in my testimony, but given that I anticipated this
5 question, I put a board together to show what the
6 breakdown was.
7
MR. ANDES: We do have copies.
8
MR. McGOWAN: I'm not sure if
9 everyone can see that. It shows that coal based
10 is about 72.8 percent and a little further down is
11 nuclear, which is listed at 23.2 percent and I
12 know one of your questions was where is the
13 information available and I do have that for you.
14
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. Would
15 Mr. Andes like to introduce that as an exhibit at
16 this time?
17
MS. TIPSORD: Yes. He said he has
18 copies.
19
MR. ANDES: Yes. As soon as I pull
20 it out of the file. I'm looking. Here we go.
21 It's always in the most obvious place.
22
MS. TIPSORD: We will mark this
23 chart that's entitled Exhibit 1, Year 2004 E grid
24 Summaries and Resource Mix, we'll mark this as
0032
1 Exhibit 134 if there's no objections. Seeing
2 none, it's Exhibit 134.
3
MS. WILLIAMS: So can you just walk
4 through with us how your outputs and conclusions
5 would change if the number under nuclear was
6 closer to 48 percent?
7
MR. McGOWAN: The emission factors
8 would then change. I don't know what they would
9 change to. For example, there's a certain amount
10 of carbon dioxide emitted based on what type of
11 plant it is. When the percentages of the plants
12 change, the emission factors would change as well.
13
MS. WILLIAMS: So if the percentage
14 of nuclear went up, would the emission factors go
15 down?
16
MR. McGOWAN: I believe so. At this
17 point in time, I would like to point out and not
18 jump the gun, but on your question number 11, you
19 ask if I am the expert in calculating air
20 emissions. I am not. I have brought Steven Frye
21 from Malcolm Pernie who worked directly for me on
22 this project and he is an expert at calculating
23 air emissions. So if the questions do get more
24 technical than that, I would suggest he be allowed
0033
1 to answer.
2
MS. WILLIAMS: I don't think my
3 questions will be very technical, but I have no
4 problems with swearing in Mr. Frey.
5
MR. McGOWAN: Because I'm not sure
6 those answers would change.
7
MS. WILLIAMS: I would like a
8 definitive answer to that, but I don't consider it
9 very difficult, but --
10
MR. McGOWAN: I am unsure how that
11 would change.
12
MR. TIPSORD: In that case, can we
13 swear in Mr. Frey and see if he can give us a more
14 definitive answer? First, let's swear you in and
15 get your name.
16
MR. FREY: The name would be Steven
17 Frey, F-R-E-Y.
18
MR. TIPSORD: And do you remember
19 the question? Could you ask the question again,
20 Ms. Williams?
21
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. I would just
22 like to know if the number that is listed here
23 that has now been marked Exhibit 134, if the
24 percentage number under nuclear were closer to 48
0034
1 percent, how would that change the emissions
2 factors in the resulting carbon dioxide
3 conclusions?
4
MR. FREY: Since the emission
5 factors are based on pounds of emission per
6 megawatt and you change the percentages of the
7 megawatts, the emission profile changes by each
8 one of those different types of fuel sources. So
9 the emission factor would change.
10
MS. WILLIAMS: It would go down?
11
MR. FREY: I'm not an expert on
12 nuclear plants so I'm not quite sure of the level
13 of emissions from a nuclear plant, but in theory,
14 a nuclear plant is not a fossil fuel plant. So,
15 yes, it should go down.
16
MS. WILLIAMS: That's about as
17 technical as I'm looking for. I want to continue
18 a little bit with that saying. Would the same be
19 true for wind and solar?
20
MR. FREY: Yes.
21
MS. WILLIAMS: So over time if those
22 emission factors were to increase from virtually
23 zero, I think, one is zero and one is 0.06
24 percent, if those numbers were to increase, how
0035
1 would that change?
2
MR. FREY: Same effect. Both of
3 those are referred to as renewable energy sources
4 so they don't actually have a combustion
5 associated with them so their factors would
6 actually drop from a greenhouse gas point of view.
7
MS. WILLIAMS: And do either of you
8 know -- I am making an assumption so I would like
9 to know if it is the correct assumption that the
10 District obtains its energy off the grid?
11
MR. McGOWAN: Does the District
12 obtain the energy or the --
13
MS. WILLIAMS: You're assuming this
14 electricity is coming from the grid so that the
15 standard percentages would apply?
16
MR. McGOWAN: Correct. That would
17 be an assumption that we were making.
18
MR. ANDES: In terms of the number
19 on nuclear you were offering, was that an
20 arbitrary number or are you planning to offer
21 evidence on that? Given a number of 48 instead of
22 23, I just wasn't sure if there was a basis for --
23
MS. WILLIAMS: I don't think I meant
24 to be arbitrary. If you would like me to call
0036
1 rebuttal witnesses on the breakdown of nuclear
2 versus coal in Illinois -- I mean I think our case
3 is closed at this point, but if there is a need to
4 call someone or provide affidavits for that
5 breakdown we could. Is that what you're asking?
6
MR. ANDES: I'm asking if we're
7 talking about a number that was being introduced
8 into evidence -- as long as it's not being offered
9 into evidence, that's fine.
10
MS. WILLIAMS: No, it's not.
11
MR. ANDES: Okay. I'd like to
12 follow up with a couple of questions. I'm not
13 sure which fellow I'm asking. In terms of nuclear
14 energy in this region, is that generally a base
15 load that it's used for?
16
MR. McGOWAN: It could be. It's my
17 understanding that in reality most folks aren't
18 exactly sure where their power is coming from.
19 Once it's in the grid, you really don't know where
20 it came from unless it's hardwired to your house
21 or to your facility or something like that.
22
MR. ANDES: So the basic assumption
23 is that, in general, people will get their power
24 in some mix reflecting this region?
0037
1
MR. McGOWAN: Yes.
2
MR. ANDES: Do you know of any
3 additional nuclear power plants being built in
4 this region in the next 20 years?
5
MR. McGOWAN: I am not a nuclear
6 facility person so I am unaware of those types of
7 things. My expertise is more in the
8 environmental.
9
MS. WILLIAMS: Just generally, do
10 you know if Illinois has more nuclear plants than
11 some of the other states you named in the region?
12
MR. McGOWAN: Excuse me?
13
MS. WILLIAMS: Are you aware of if
14 Illinois has more or less nuclear plants than
15 other states in this region?
16
MR. McGOWAN: I don't know the
17 breakdown.
18
MS. WILLIAMS: You don't know if
19 it's more or less?
20
MR. McGOWAN: No, I don't.
21
MR. ANDES: You also --
22
MR. McGOWAN: I'm sorry. Let me
23 back up. The states that I named are all from the
24 same region. They all get the breakdown for all
0038
1 of the region as this. As you go to individual
2 states, I don't know the individual breakdown. If
3 you take the region as a whole, this is the
4 breakdown.
5
MS. WILLIAMS: I understand.
6
MR. ANDES: And since you're getting
7 power off the grid, you are not necessarily
8 getting it from the power plant closest to you?
9
MR. McGOWAN: That's my
10 understanding.
11
MR. ANDES: Thank you.
12
MS. WILLIAMS: Would it be possible
13 that all the District's energy was coming from
14 nuclear power?
15
MR. McGOWAN: I am unqualified to
16 answer that question.
17
MS. WILLIAMS: One way or the other?
18
MR. McGOWAN: I am not qualified to
19 answer that question.
20
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. And did you
21 explain in your answer already how the E grid
22 database can be obtained?
23
MR. McGOWAN: I can read something
24 off to you or did we have something written on
0039
1 that or not?
2
MR. ANDES: You mean this?
3
MR. McGOWAN: Yes. This would be
4 the website that we got the basic background
5 information where people could access it.
6
MR. ANDES: We have a document that
7 we pulled off the EPA website. I would have to
8 say because of the nature of how the EPA put it on
9 the website, a lot of it does not print off well,
10 but the copy we have does at the bottom of the
11 first page have the link to the E grid material on
12 the EPA website.
13
MS. TIPSORD: We will mark this
14 seven page document, E grid FAQ Clean Energy US
15 EPA, a seven page document, as Exhibit 135 if
16 there's no objection. Seeing none, it's Exhibit
17 135.
18
MS. WILLIAMS: I think I'll skip a
19 little bit. You were doing pretty good.
20
MR. HARLEY: May I ask a question,
21 please?
22
MS. TIPSORD: Yes.
23
MR. HARLEY: Does the District buy
24 its electricity from E grid or does it buy it from
0040
1 a utility?
2
MR. McGOWAN: I'm only qualified to
3 answer that to a certain degree. E grid is not an
4 energy selling entity. It is an information
5 collecting entity. So I doubt they're buying
6 anything from E grid. After that, I don't know
7 where the District buys their energy directly
8 from.
9
MR. HARLEY: So you don't know if
10 the company which is providing power to the
11 District might be obtaining power in a different
12 proportion of sources than the one you described
13 for E grid generally?
14
MR. McGOWAN: Correct. I don't
15 think that anyone really knows that because once
16 you're pulling power from the grid, it's hard to
17 really ascertain where any of it ever came from.
18
MR. HARLEY: Would it surprise you
19 if I told you Commonwealth Edison knows exactly
20 the proportion of different energy generating
21 units in one category where it draws its energy
22 from? Would that surprise you?
23
MR. McGOWAN: Where they draw their
24 energy from and when it is distributed with other
0041
1 power, I think that's where the uncertainty comes.
2 I would understand that they know where they're
3 getting their power from. They have to track
4 their raw materials and how much energy they
5 produce, but, again, I know a certain degree about
6 this, but I am not a power expert. It is my
7 understanding in talking to folks that have worked
8 with us on the report that there is not a great
9 understanding of where all the energy comes from
10 in the breakdown.
11
MR. HARLEY: For the District?
12
MR. McGOWAN: For anyone.
13
MR. HARLEY: Would it surprise you
14 if I told you that Commonwealth Edison
15 affirmatively discloses to all of its users the
16 source of the energy it provides?
17
MR. McGOWAN: Would it surprise me?
18 I guess not if I would believe you.
19
MR. HARLEY: But you didn't inquire
20 of Commonwealth Edison about that?
21
MR. McGOWAN: No.
22
MR. HARLEY: Thank you.
23
MS. TIPSORD: We have a question in
24 the back. Ms. Hedman.
0042
1
MS. HEDMAN: Sue Hedman from the
2 Office of the Attorney General. Can I infer from
3 your answers to the earlier questions -- may I
4 conclude that you're not aware that state law
5 requires all utilities to disclose the mix of fuel
6 sources for the electricity delivered to
7 customers?
8
MR. McGOWAN: I am unaware of that.
9
MS. TIPSORD: Okay. Ms. Williams.
10
MS. WILLIAMS: Question seven asks
11 whether you have calculated the air emissions
12 impact on a per customer or per gallon of water
13 treated basis?
14
MR. McGOWAN: No, we did not.
15
MS. WILLIAMS: Could you have done
16 that?
17
MR. McGOWAN: Yes.
18
MS. WILLIAMS: Why didn't you do
19 that?
20
MR. McGOWAN: We didn't think it was
21 relative to the analysis.
22
MS. WILLIAMS: And you didn't think
23 it would have given some perspective on the
24 relevance of the total numbers you've given? Why
0043
1 wasn't it relevant?
2
MR. McGOWAN: We didn't think it was
3 relevant. I didn't see the reason to do it.
4
MS. WILLIAMS: How would one go
5 about doing that if they were going to do it, do
6 you know?
7
MR. McGOWAN: You would have to take
8 the unit in question whether that's tons of carbon
9 dioxide or methane gas and divide it by the number
10 of customers.
11
MS. WILLIAMS: So it wouldn't really
12 be that difficult?
13
MR. McGOWAN: I don't think it would
14 be that difficult, but it would give you pounds
15 per customer and I don't know that that was
16 something we were trying to get to.
17
MS. WILLIAMS: Would you be willing
18 to do that if you were asked to do this for this
19 proceeding?
20
MR. McGOWAN: At this point in time,
21 I work directly for the District and the District
22 would have to ask me.
23
MR. ANDES: I assume that the state
24 could take the pounds that are provided in his
0044
1 testimony and divide it by the number of customers
2 or any other denominators it wants.
3
MS. WILLIAMS: I'm not sure that the
4 state thinks any of this testimony is relevant to
5 the proceeding to be honest.
6
MR. ANDES: So we could stop here.
7
MS. WILLIAMS: Question ten, did you
8 consider the environmental benefit of reduced
9 transportation emissions from providing safe
10 recreational opportunities closer to the
11 population center?
12
MR. McGOWAN: No.
13
MS. WILLIAMS: Question 12 cites two
14 pages in your report and asks whether the mercury
15 calculations reflect pending and future reductions
16 in emissions from coal power generating stations
17 in Illinois or -- Well, in the region. Why don't
18 we change that to the region. Or are they based
19 on current conditions? Do we need Mr. Frey to
20 answer that?
21
MR. McGOWAN: Steve and I have
22 spoken about this. I can start the answering.
23 It's based on current conditions.
24
MS. WILLIAMS: And if there were
0045
1 changes to treatment technologies for mercury, how
2 would that impact the results of this particular
3 set of calculations?
4
MR. McGOWAN: It would change the
5 calculations if there were different controls.
6
MS. WILLIAMS: In what way would it
7 change? Would it make them go down?
8
MR. McGOWAN: You would have to tell
9 me what the regulation or requirement would be.
10 I'm assuming you're saying that the requirement
11 would allow less mercury so, yes, there would be
12 less.
13
MR. ANDES: If there were additional
14 coal power plants built, would that then increase
15 the number in terms of total mercury emissions?
16
MR. McGOWAN: If the percentage went
17 up and the coal went up, I believe the mercury
18 would go up.
19
MS. WILLIAMS: Do you have any
20 reason to think the percentage of the coal number
21 is going up?
22
MR. ANDES: Do you have any reason
23 to think -- Never mind. Answer that question
24 first.
0046
1
MR. McGOWAN: Again, what I would
2 like to clarify is our investigation wasn't to
3 find out where all the power was coming from. We
4 took the E grid information and used it in an
5 environmental analysis. So I'm unqualified to
6 tell you how many nuclear facilities or coal fired
7 facilities will be built in the future.
8
MS. WILLIAMS: Whether I asked you
9 or whether Fred asks you?
10
MR. McGOWAN: Or if anyone else asks
11 me.
12
MS. WILLIAMS: I'll try and go back
13 to question three. Can you explain in more detail
14 what you mean when you state on page five of your
15 testimony, quote, environmental impacts are
16 identified through professional --
17
MR. McGOWAN: Yes. We were trying
18 to do a holistic analysis of the environmental
19 impact and it's something that's somewhat new so
20 we had some brainstorming sessions with folks. We
21 contacted manufacturers. An example of this would
22 be the manufacturing of UV bulbs involves mercury.
23 So we wanted to talk to the manufacturers and what
24 are the environmental impacts of operating UV
0047
1 bulbs, but are there environmental impacts in the
2 manufacturer or in the use of the raw materials?
3 So what we were trying to do was go another level
4 or so beyond. So we had some brain storming
5 sessions. We had some contact with manufacturers
6 and we looked at literature to see if we would
7 make the determination and get as comprehensive of
8 a list as we possibly could.
9
MS. WILLIAMS: And can you explain
10 how the impacts were ranked and prioritized?
11
MR. McGOWAN: They were done with a
12 traditional matrix type of analysis where we
13 grouped certain effects. We gave them a weighting
14 and then we scored them and we used that as a tool
15 to help us kind of focus on what would be the more
16 critical components in the analysis and what would
17 be less critical. So it wasn't a definitive
18 ranking, it was more of a guidance ranking.
19
MS. WILLIAMS: And by, we, you
20 mean --
21
MR. McGOWAN: The project team which
22 included staff from Malcolm Pernie, the District
23 and other subconsultants that were on our team.
24
MS. WILLIAMS: Who was involved from
0048
1 the District on this process?
2
MR. McGOWAN: Matt Schultz was our
3 project manager and there were several staff from
4 M & O, maintenance and operation, and some from
5 the engineering. To get the exact names, I would
6 have to go back to the minutes of the meetings.
7 We do have that written down who participated in
8 the workshops.
9
MS. WILLIAMS: Can you describe some
10 of the assumptions that were made?
11
MR. McGOWAN: Could you be a little
12 more specific? Assumptions about what?
13
MS. WILLIAMS: That's a good
14 question. Why don't we move on for now and I may
15 come back to this.
16
MR. McGOWAN: Okay.
17
MS. WILLIAMS: On page seven of your
18 testimony, you describe --
19
MR. McGOWAN: Which question are you
20 on?
21
MS. WILLIAMS: Question five refers
22 to your discussion of baseline conditions on page
23 seven. Can you describe in more detail what you
24 mean by base line conditions and how you arrived
0049
1 at them?
2
MR. McGOWAN: Certainly. I'll use
3 an example. What we wanted to do was be able to
4 make a comparison. So, for example, we compared
5 the amount of energy currently used at the three
6 plants Stickney, Calumet and North Side. And that
7 was the baseline, the energy that was used at
8 those three facilities. Then we calculated how
9 much more energy would be used whether UV
10 disinfection or chlorination followed by
11 dechlorination was utilized and that would be
12 utilized to say what type of increase there would
13 be above the baseline.
14
MS. WILLIAMS: And whose work did
15 you rely on for assumptions regarding the engineer
16 parameters of the disinfection technologies? You
17 didn't develop those on your own, correct?
18
MR. McGOWAN: Correct. Consoer
19 Townsend CPE did the master planning and several
20 technical memos for the District and they did the
21 investigations on the technologies, ultraviolet
22 disinfection, as well as chlorination followed by
23 dechlorination. So the design parameters were
24 from those documents.
0050
1
MS. WILLIAMS: Do you know if
2 someone from that group will be testifying?
3
MR. McGOWAN: I believe so.
4
MR. ANDES: Mr. Zenz. And he will
5 be able to answer any of those questions.
6
MS. TIPSORD: Actually, I have a
7 quick follow up. I just want to be sure. On page
8 two of your testimony, you cite the Consoer
9 Townsend UV disinfection offsetting and also the
10 draft at Stickney. Are both of those in the
11 record either through Mr. Zenz's testimony or
12 through Mr. McGowan's testimony?
13
MR. ANDES: Let me check on that
14 question. I'm not sure if they are in the record
15 yet.
16
MS. TIPSORD: And that's the same
17 with the chlorination/dechlorination on page
18 three, if you could check on that. I'm not
19 positive either and I couldn't lay my hands on
20 them this morning when I tried to look for them.
21 Thank you. I apologize for interrupting,
22 Ms. Williams.
23
MS. WILLIAMS: That's okay.
24 Question six asks for your UV impact estimates of
0051
1 transportation impacts, is it possible that
2 delivery and waste transportation for this
3 technology could be absorbed by existing
4 deliveries and waste shipments with no increase in
5 transportation emissions?
6
MR. McGOWAN: I would preface it by
7 saying I'm not in charge of the manufacturers
8 shipping techniques. However, we did contact them
9 and they said anything they ship over 150 pounds
10 would go by an independent truck and they will be
11 using thousands of pounds of bulbs per year. So I
12 would conclude from that that probably not, but I
13 would not want to give an absolute definitive.
14
MS. WILLIAMS: And you considered
15 it?
16
MR. McGOWAN: We did. We looked at
17 that.
18
MS. WILLIAMS: Question eight, you
19 testified regarding the amount of land needed for
20 the various treatment technologies and the amount
21 of the impervious surface that would be created.
22 You also testified that storm water runoff will
23 increase. Could these impacts be eliminated or
24 significantly minimized by using green
0052
1 infrastructure technologies for pavement, water,
2 roof gardens, et cetera?
3
MR. McGOWAN: Theoretically, yes.
4 Given your word significantly reduce, I don't
5 know. Given the very, very preliminary stage of
6 the facilities, we don't know what they look like.
7 We don't know how feasible that would be. So,
8 significantly, I'm not sure I would agree with,
9 but, in theory, anything you would do along those
10 lines would reduce runoff.
11
MS. TIPSORD: Mr. Harley, do you
12 have a follow up?
13
MR. HARLEY: On the same topic of
14 the use of environmentally beneficial practices,
15 did you consider the possibility that the District
16 could employ power purchase options like the use
17 of renewable energy credits as an alternative to
18 purchasing power in the same portions that are
19 typically provided in E grid?
20
MR. McGOWAN: No, we did not look
21 into that.
22
MR. HARLEY: Thank you.
23
MS. TIPSORD: Ms. Williams.
24
MS. WILLIAMS: And you would agree
0053
1 that the city of Chicago is encouraging these
2 types of green infrastructure projects?
3
MR. McGOWAN: I don't know.
4
MS. WILLIAMS: Question nine, with
5 regard to Attachment Two and I cite to a
6 particular page in the table page 4-29, table
7 4-23, what percentage of the existing
8 precipitation is currently runoff and should that
9 be subtracted from the total?
10
MR. McGOWAN: I guess there's -- you
11 could do it that way. There's two ways of doing
12 it. Doing an entire total and then subtracting
13 out the old buildings or the way we did it was we
14 just looked at the amount of runoff that was
15 coming from the old and we estimated what was
16 coming from the new. So we didn't subtract
17 anything.
18
MS. WILLIAMS: Maybe you need to
19 explain better how you went about estimating the
20 runoff comparing existing to proposed.
21
MR. McGOWAN: We took existing land,
22 did normal runoff calculations and estimated an
23 amount of storm water based on, I believe, it was
24 a typical year of 36.4 inches of rain for an
0054
1 average. Then we made some estimates of what the
2 new facilities might look like and did some runoff
3 calculations for those and that would be what
4 would be in addition, somewhat in addition,
5 because one of the actual technologies,
6 chlorination followed by dechlorination, when
7 applied at Calumet would result in the removal of
8 some tanks so the actual runoff went down at that
9 facility. So I don't want to --
10
MS. WILLIAMS: I guess I'm trying to
11 understand how you address if you had a parking
12 lot and they were going to turn the parking lot
13 into a building for treatment technology, would --
14 the runoff wouldn't change. So how did you
15 account for that in your analysis?
16
MR. McGOWAN: I don't believe there
17 was a lot of replacing a parking lot with a
18 building. I think most of it was in a green space
19 area, which is why runoff went up.
20
MS. ALEXANDER: So you looked at
21 that and you accounted for that in your answer.
22
MR. McGOWAN: Yes.
23
MS. WILLIAMS: I'm moving down to
24 question 13. It says on page 2-4 of your
0055
1 environmental assessment report it states, quote,
2 the UV system proposed in the January 2008
3 estimates approximately twice the power
4 consumption trend (11.9 kilowatt hours MGD), at
5 peak hour design flow compared to the system in
6 August 2005 report (6.1 kilowatt per MGD) with all
7 other key design parameters flow and UVT equal.
8 The high-power requirements in the January 2008
9 report is due to the use of the lower e-coli value
10 400 CFU per 100 milliliters, which seems to be
11 reasonable. Please explain the basis for this
12 conclusion.
13
MR. McGOWAN: When we were hired to
14 do the analysis, there was a preliminary analysis
15 of the disinfection technologies that were using a
16 somewhat higher coliform count and somewhere
17 during the process that was changed. I believe it
18 was somewhere in the neighborhood of a 1,000 or
19 1,030 and it was subsequently changed to about
20 400. What we were just doing was documenting in
21 our report that we recognized that there was a
22 change and we wanted people to understand that we
23 knew that so when people were reading the report
24 they would say "Were they using the old number or
0056
1 the new number?" We just wanted to document that
2 we were using the newer number. So we recognized
3 that there was a change, that the coliform limit
4 in the analysis went down. Therefore, energy went
5 up and we just wanted to make sure we had that
6 documented properly in our report.
7
MS. WILLIAMS: Based on the fact --
8 you have obviously read my question because you
9 clearly have read and understood them,
10 anticipating my next question, would you agree
11 that 400 e-coli forming units per milliliter is
12 not the correct new number?
13
MR. McGOWAN: Four hundred is not --
14
MR. ANDES: If I can just interject
15 for a moment?
16
MS. WILLIAMS: Question 14, just
17 asks why do you use a 400 e-coli CFU from a 100
18 milliliter value when the effluent standard
19 proposed by the agency is 400 fecal coliform CFU?
20
MR. McGOWAN: Right number, wrong
21 letter, that's why I was getting confused. Sorry.
22 Yes, that was a typo that was passed on. We just
23 used what was given to us and, subsequently, we
24 found that was a typo, that it should have been
0057
1 fecal.
2
MS. WILLIAMS: Does this error
3 affect any of the figures in your final report?
4
MR. McGOWAN: If it doesn't affect
5 the equipment and sizing, it won't affect anything
6 in the report.
7
MS. WILLIAMS: But it might affect
8 the equipment and sizing, right?
9
MR. McGOWAN: I wouldn't be the one
10 to answer that. You'd have to get the folks who
11 did the sizing of the equipment to answer that.
12
MS. WILLIAMS: And would that be
13 Mr. Zenz as well?
14
MR. ANDES: That would be Mr. Zenz,
15 but I think what he will tell you is that fecal
16 was used, but when he gets here he can tell you
17 himself. It's simply a typo.
18
MS. WILLIAMS: If a water quality
19 standard were available that appropriately
20 represented the highest level of indicator
21 bacteria in the CAWS that would protect existing
22 regulation uses, could MWRDGC disinfection process
23 be adjusted to reduce power consumption?
24
MR. McGOWAN: So as not to frustrate
0058
1 anyone. This may be the beginning of several
2 questions where I would defer to Mr. Zenz to those
3 who did the analysis of the equipment itself.
4
MS. WILLIAMS: And if Mr. Zenz were
5 to come back to you and say this would change the
6 design standard, that would change the design
7 standard, that would reduce power consumption, how
8 would that affect your conclusion in your report?
9
MR. ANDES: Hypothetically.
10
MR. McGOWAN: Hypothetically, it
11 would -- in general, the power consumption and the
12 greenhouse gases emitted and the criteria
13 pollutants move proportionally with the size or
14 house power. That is in general. There are other
15 little factors, but proportionally, it would
16 either go up or down based on the equipment and
17 the energy usage -- it would move up or down
18 proportionally.
19
MR. ANDES: And Mr. Zenz can answer
20 that in more detail.
21
MS. WILLIAMS: Are there any other
22 components besides the bulbs in UV that would
23 affect the power consumption up and down?
24
MR. McGOWAN: There's a very small
0059
1 component that I don't know if you noticed. We
2 also used the energy being used by delivery and
3 removal, but that's a very small component and
4 then --
5
MS. WILLIAMS: That's different from
6 transportation?
7
MR. McGOWAN: No, that would be the
8 transportation aspect. I believe, by and large,
9 that was it, but I'm not a 100 percent certain. I
10 would, again, defer to Mr. Zenz on that one,
11 Dr. Zenz.
12
MS. WILLIAMS: Question 16 is
13 similar to an earlier question. But, you know, I
14 actually think you said "I don't know" to the
15 earlier question. So I'm going to read it to you.
16 On page 5-5 of your environmental assessment
17 report, you referred to Chicago's environmental
18 action agenda, does that agenda recommend energy
19 efficiencies measures and green infrastructure?
20
MR. McGOWAN: I don't know the
21 details of that.
22
MS. WILLIAMS: So you haven't
23 reviewed that?
24
MR. McGOWAN: Not in its entirety.
0060
1 I know it was suggested that that would be
2 consistent with that, but I would have to look at
3 that.
4
MS. WILLIAMS: Mr. Harley.
5
MR. HARLEY: Yes.
6
MS. TIPSORD: Mr. Harley, you're
7 going to have to speak up. The trains are going
8 by.
9
MS. WILLIAMS: Can I just finish
10 this? I'm sorry. Is that okay with you?
11
MR. HARLEY: Yes.
12
MS. WILLIAMS: I am almost done with
13 this. I just want to finish this particular
14 question on this particular page. I'd just like
15 to read the quote from the section I'm referring
16 to you. You say "as described in the study the
17 environmental impact of implementing disinfection
18 technologies at the North Side, Calumet and
19 Stickney plants are not consistent with the goals
20 of the Chicago environmental action agenda. So
21 you're comfortable telling us that implementing
22 disinfecting that agenda, but not in telling us
23 that the agenda recommends conservation and green
24 infrastructure?
0061
1
MR. ANDES: Let's go to that page.
2
MR. McGOWAN: I believe it's about
3 the last page of the report, isn't it?
4
MS. WILLIAMS: Section five.
5
MR. McGOWAN: So, yes. I'm sorry.
6 Where did your quote end?
7
MS. WILLIAMS: The first sentence on
8 that page.
9
MR. McGOWAN: As described in this
10 study, the environmental impacts of implementing
11 DO enhancement technologies in the CAWS are not
12 consistent with the goals of the Chicago
13 environmental action agenda.
14
MS. WILLIAMS: Do you agree with
15 that statement?
16
MR. McGOWAN: I think it's in two
17 spots.
18
MS. WILLIAMS: Do you agree with
19 that statement, Mr. McGowan?
20
MR. ANDES: Can you explain it
21 further by reading the next sentence?
22
MR. McGOWAN: Presented in section
23 2-4, the environmental action agenda advocates
24 environmentally friendly policies in the city's
0062
1 departments and other agencies to strengthen
2 Chicago's economy and improve the quality of life.
3
MR. ANDES: So your testimony is
4 that the environmental impact of implementing
5 disinfection are not consistent with the general
6 goals of the environmental action agenda?
7
MR. McGOWAN: Correct.
8
MR. ANDES: But you didn't look
9 specifically at what the green infrastructure
10 policies recommended?
11
MR. McGOWAN: Correct.
12
MR. ANDES: Thank you.
13
MS. WILLIAMS: Did you even review
14 the document?
15
MR. McGOWAN: I did not. My staff
16 did.
17
MR. TIPSORD: Mr. Harley, do you
18 have a follow up?
19
MR. HARLEY: Yes. As part of
20 reaching the conclusion about Chicago's
21 environmental action agenda, did you consult with
22 anybody in the city of Chicago?
23
MR. McGOWAN: No.
24
MR. ANDES: Did you figure the
0063
1 document was clear enough to read by itself?
2
MR. McGOWAN: I didn't read the
3 document. My staff did.
4
MR. HARLEY: Did your staff also
5 write that sentence?
6
MR. McGOWAN: Yes.
7
MR. HARLEY: Thank you.
8
MR. TIPSORD: If we're done with
9 that question, then let's take a ten-minute break.
10
(Whereupon, a break was taken
11
after which the following
12
proceedings were had.)
13
MS. TIPSORD: Let's go ahead and get
14 settled back in. Let's go back on the record.
15 Mr. Andes, you had something you wanted to ask on
16 the record?
17
MR. ANDES: Yes. We had provided a
18 document earlier today about Attachment Four to
19 Dr. Rigal's testimony explaining the data and
20 estimate issue. I just want to find out if
21 anybody had any follow up for Dr. Dennison or Dr.
22 Rigal or I can let them go.
23
MR. HARLEY: On these?
24
MR. ANDES: Yes.
0064
1
MR. HARLEY: Yes, I do have
2 questions about these.
3
MR. ANDES: Are those figures two
4 and three?
5
MR. HARLEY: Yes.
6
MR. ANDES: Why don't we let --
7
MS. WILLIAMS: I would like to
8 finish. I only have a couple more questions.
9
MR. ANDES: Is it possible to finish
10 with her questions and then do Dr. Dennison?
11
MS. TIPSORD: Yes. If that's all
12 right with Albert. We'll finish with the IEPA and
13 then finish with Mr. Harley questions to
14 Dr. Dennison and then come back to Mr. McGowan.
15 Go ahead, Ms. William's.
16
MS. WILLIAMS: We're going to skip
17 ahead to question 21. There are several that are
18 focused on dissolved oxygen. In appendix B of
19 your report, table B2, you identify a variety of
20 economic information you gathered for preparing
21 your report for municipal and local government
22 such as household income, bond ratings and
23 property taxes. Does this information appear
24 anywhere in your study?
0065
1
MR. McGOWAN: At one point in
2 time Malcolm Pernie -- a future witness, John
3 Mastracchio will be testifying on certain economic
4 issues. At one point in time our environmental
5 and economic analysis was going to be presented as
6 a single report. Based on the progression over
7 the last six to eight months, it had been decided
8 to separate those. It would be easier to ask and
9 answer questions. That information was left in
10 the appendix inadvertently. We don't do anything
11 with that in our environment assessment report.
12 It was not taken out when we separated the
13 reports.
14
MR. ETTINGER: I'm sorry. I'm
15 confused. What's happening with the economic?
16
MR. McGOWAN: There was separate
17 testimony filed on economic issues and --
18
MR. ANDES: John Mastracchio is the
19 witness on those issues.
20
MR. ETTINGER: So --
21
MR. ANDES: You'll have your chance.
22
MR. ETTINGER: What?
23
MR. ANDES: You'll have your chance
24 to question him.
0066
1
MR. ETTINGER: That's all I was
2 asking. So he's not the witness on the
3 economic --
4
MR. McGOWAN: Correct.
5
MR. ETTINGER: -- just this report?
6
MR. McGOWAN: Correct. So some of
7 the information was inadvertently left in an
8 appendix.
9
MS. WILLIAMS: Question 23, skipping
10 over 22, also the dissolved oxygen. I believe
11 it's dissolved oxygen. Question 23, in section
12 4.5 of your report, page 4-17, you discuss a labor
13 burden and indicate that all plaintiffs will have
14 additional mental and physical challenges with the
15 operation of the disinfection system and the
16 additional and mundane tedious labor requirements
17 associated with extensive bulb replacements.
18
Specifically, UV operations will
19 require 16 hours per day, 80 hours per week at
20 North Side, Calumet Water Reclamation Plant, but
21 will require 20 hours per day to operate and
22 maintain chlorination/dechlorination at all three
23 plants. Did you consider this -- Now, moving on
24 to question A. Did you consider using a UV
0067
1 disinfection system design that includes automatic
2 online cleaning to reduce operation and
3 maintenance costs associated with manual cleaning?
4
MR. McGOWAN: Again, that would be
5 better answered by CTE. We did not evaluate
6 different kinds of UV. We were given the system
7 and the energy and then we did an environmental
8 analysis of that. So we did not evaluate any
9 alternative UV systems for cleaning or anything
10 like that.
11
MS. WILLIAMS: So the system you
12 were given did not include automatic cleaning?
13
MR. McGOWAN: I don't know if it
14 included automated, but all of the M & O
15 information was received from CTE.
16
MS. WILLIAMS: I see. So even
17 though you're not sure, you're sure that those
18 numbers -- you didn't make any assumptions about
19 those numbers --
20
MR. McGOWAN: Correct. They were
21 given to us. They did the capital and M & O.
22
MS. WILLIAMS: I definitely would
23 have to ask this question of Mr. Zenz as well.
24
MR. McGOWAN: Yes.
0068
1
MS. WILLIAMS: I'll try B. Do you
2 know if most waste water treatment plants with UV
3 systems clean and replace the lamps after the
4 disinfection season is over?
5
MR. McGOWAN: I wouldn't want to say
6 that I know about most. First of all, a number of
7 facilities don't have a disinfection season. They
8 have all year round. So barring the word "most",
9 they do need to replace them as they go out
10 because you can only afford a couple of bulbs to
11 be out before you would start violating permit.
12 So it's more of a replacement on an ongoing basis
13 from the ones I am familiar with.
14
MS. WILLIAMS: So you would say from
15 the ones you're familiar with, you disagree that
16 most plants that you're familiar with wait until a
17 certain time of the year to replace all of them?
18
MR. McGOWAN: Correct.
19
MS. WILLIAMS: And the reason is
20 because -- why don't you --
21
MR. McGOWAN: The reason that they
22 don't wait until --
23
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes.
24
MR. McGOWAN: Because some of them
0069
1 don't have time to wait until. They disinfect all
2 year round. So there is no off season and the
3 others -- the other reason is my discussion with
4 the plants operators is you can only afford one or
5 two bulbs to be out and then you'll start
6 violating permit. You have to replace them. You
7 don't have time to wait.
8
MS. WILLIAMS: I'm going to ask C,
9 but I'm going to read first with what you've
10 explained your role is here. Would using a
11 programmable logic control system and chemical
12 disinfection system, control system integrated
13 with supervisory control and data acquisition
14 systems reduce the personnel hours required to
15 operate and maintain disinfection systems?
16
MR. McGOWAN: Again, I didn't look
17 at the different systems or using a PLC or a SKATA
18 (phonetic) system or integrating those. Those,
19 again, would have all been done by Dr. Zenz and
20 CTE.
21
MS. WILLIAMS: I understand that,
22 but would these systems identify, which I admit I
23 have no understanding of what they do, would they
24 reduce man hours, person hours?
0070
1
MR. McGOWAN: We weren't involved in
2 it, but my understanding is, and, again, you'd
3 have to talk to Dr. Zenz, most of the labor hours
4 and person hours we were talking about were talked
5 about the replacement of the bulbs. So a PLC or
6 SKATA system wouldn't go out and change a bulb.
7 So that's my understanding, but, again, you'll
8 have to ask Dr. Zenz.
9
MS. WILLIAMS: Any reductions would
10 be small is what you're saying?
11
MR. McGOWAN: I would assume so.
12
MR. ANDES: We'll have Dr. Zenz
13 here to answer that more fully.
14
MS. WILLIAMS: Next time, right?
15
MR. ANDES: Yes.
16
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. Question 24 is
17 the last one. Is it your testimony that if MWRDGC
18 is required to implement disinfection
19 technologies, that they will not have future
20 options to reduce future alternatives?
21
MR. McGOWAN: The testimony is that
22 implementing those technologies will utilize land,
23 money, air shed from emissions and things like
24 that and those resources will be utilized and
0071
1 won't be available for other treatment
2 technologies or other uses at those facilities.
3 That's all we're saying.
4
MS. WILLIAMS: Were you referring to
5 any in particular?
6
MR. McGOWAN: No.
7
MS. WILLIAMS: That's all I have for
8 this witness.
9
MS. TIPSORD: In that case then,
10 let's go ahead and ask Dr. Dennison to come up.
11 I'm sorry.
12
MR. ANDES: We just wanted to try to
13 get Dr. Dennison out of here. Do you have follow
14 up to this?
15
MS. HEDMAN: I have an exhibit,
16 however.
17
MR. TIPSORD: Is this a follow up to
18 that question?
19
MS. HEDMAN: Not that specific
20 question.
21
MS. TIPSORD: Okay. Can we ask this
22 then in just a couple minutes. Let's finish with
23 Dr. Dennison and we can get him out of here and
24 then Mr. McGowan will be back.
0072
1
MS. WILLIAMS: I would like a second
2 to review because I had no idea during this break
3 that we were going to be doing this. If someone
4 else had questions, I think that will give me
5 enough time, but I will let you know if I need
6 more time.
7
MS. TIPSORD: And I'll let you know
8 that Dr. Dennison will be back for future
9 hearings. I would remind Dr. Rigal and
10 Dr. Dennison that they're still under oath and, I
11 believe, we're talking about Exhibit 119, is that
12 correct?
13
MR. HARLEY: Is that figure 2?
14
MS. TIPSORD: Exhibit 119 includes
15 the two figures for figure two and figure three
16 both. Go ahead, Mr. Harley.
17
MR. HARLEY: On Exhibit 119, you
18 have provided information about fecal coliform
19 bacteria at the north area and south area stations
20 with estimated die off densities and along the
21 bottom you've identified miles downstream from the
22 effluent outfall. Do you see what I'm referring
23 to?
24
MR. DENNISON: Yes.
0073
1
MR. HARLEY: I wanted to call your
2 attention to figure three which is the second page
3 of Exhibit 119. On figure three, you have
4 actually provided a dry weather sample data point
5 and a wet weather sample data point below zero.
6 It's between zero and negative five. Can you
7 describe for the record what those data points
8 represent?
9
MR. DENNISON: Those data points
10 represent the values of fecal coliform densities
11 at the Indiana Avenue Station, which is upstream
12 of the Calumet Water Reclamation Plant.
13
MR. HARLEY: So what we're actually
14 seeing with those data points is what the fecal
15 coliform concentration is before the water flows
16 past the outfall of the Calumet facility?
17
MR. DENNISON: Yes.
18
MR. HARLEY: And so when we get to
19 zero, zero is the point of the outfall?
20
MR. DENNISON: Yes.
21
MR. HARLEY: And can you describe
22 why it is as to the dry weather sample the figure
23 jumps from approximately zero to between 2,500 and
24 3,000 at the point of the outfall?
0074
1
MR. DENNISON: That would be the
2 concentration. You are referring to the circle,
3 the white circle.
4
MR. HARLEY: Yes, that's correct.
5
MR. DENNISON: That is the value of
6 the geometric mean of fecal coliform bacteria at
7 Halsted Street on the Little Calumet River.
8
MR. HARLEY: Which is downstream
9 from the plant?
10
MR. DENNISON: Which is downstream
11 from the Calumet Water Reclamation Plant.
12
MR. HARLEY: Okay. Can you please
13 explain to me why it is during a wet weather
14 period upstream of the Calumet facility the level
15 of fecal coliform is still well below 1,000 colony
16 forming units?
17
MR. DENNISON: During dry weather?
18
MR. HARLEY: No. During wet
19 weather.
20
MR. DENNISON: During wet weather,
21 there are other factors that come into -- such as
22 storm water or non-point runoff that can cause
23 fecal coliform to increase.
24
MR. HARLEY: Yes. We have heard
0075
1 that as part of other testimony, but what stands
2 out is how low that wet weather sample still is it
3 still appears to be even below 500 colony forming
4 units before it goes past the waste water
5 treatment plant, is that correct?
6
MR. DENNISON: That's correct.
7
MR. HARLEY: So despite all of the
8 other factors that we've heard about, the level
9 during a wet weather event upstream of the Calumet
10 Waste Water Treatment Plant is still below 500
11 colony forming units?
12
MR. DENNISON: That's correct.
13
MR. HARLEY: And then the next
14 sample that would be plotted is after -- I'm
15 talking about the wet weather samples here. The
16 next wet weather sample that is plotted is after
17 the outfall of the Calumet falloff, is that
18 correct?
19
MR. DENNISON: Yes.
20
MR. HARLEY: And at that point, we
21 have a cluster of three samples, all of which are
22 approximately between 4,500 and 5,000 colony
23 forming units?
24
MR. DENNISON: That's correct.
0076
1
MR. HARLEY: So what would you
2 conclude about the influence during wet weather
3 conditions of the Calumet plant on the level of
4 fecal coliform, again, during wet weather
5 conditions?
6
MR. DENNISON: Certainly, the values
7 are higher than they were during dry weather
8 condition at Halsted Street, which is below the
9 plant outfall. Also, the figure at 5,000 is
10 actually at Ashland Avenue on the Little Calumet
11 River, which is a tributary. It's not in the flow
12 from the plant.
13
MR. ANDES: And that level is
14 similar to the level after the plant?
15
MR. DENNISON: Yes. And at the next
16 one in the cluster is 4,800 at Ashland Avenue on
17 the Cal-Sag Channel, which is below the entrance
18 of the tributary on the Little Cal.
19
MR. HARLEY: All three are
20 downstream of the Calumet plant?
21
MR. DENNISON: Well, the Halsted
22 location and the Ashland Avenue location on the
23 Cal-Sag Channel are actually in the stream flow
24 from the plant. The Little Calumet River location
0077
1 has not joined the flow of the Little Calumet
2 River yet.
3
MR. ANDES: So that one is not
4 affected by the plant?
5
MR. DENNISON: That is not effected
6 by the plant, no.
7
MR. HARLEY: For the two other
8 samples, why would there be any other influence
9 except the plant itself during wet weather to
10 account for that remarkable rise during wet
11 weather?
12
MR. DENNISON: Combined sewer
13 overflow.
14
MR. HARLEY: Is there a combined
15 sewer overflow in the area between where the plant
16 outfall is and where you're taking these samples?
17
MR. DENNISON: There is one at 125th
18 Street.
19
MR. HARLEY: And do you know the
20 relative allocation of introduction of fecal
21 coliform from the combined sewer overflow or from
22 the facility itself at these sampling locations?
23
MR. DENNISON: The level of -- could
24 you explain that a little bit?
0078
1
MR. HARLEY: If you were trying to
2 allocate between the combined sewer overflow
3 contribution of fecal coliform and the plant
4 contribution of fecal coliform, could you do that?
5
MR. DENNISON: I don't recall having
6 the data for the CSO.
7
MR. HARLEY: Is it safe to say or
8 would you agree that the Calumet facility is
9 contributing to the level of fecal coliform that
10 we see at these sampling locates during wet
11 weather events?
12
MR. DENNISON: It would be hard to
13 tell for sure unless you knew all the
14 contributions that were coming in, both from the
15 plant itself as well as any CSO's.
16
MR. HARLEY: So you don't believe
17 that the Calumet plant is contributing fecal
18 coliform during wet weather events?
19
MR. DENNISON: I believe it
20 certainly would have at least the dry weather flow
21 count in it and probably more flow through the
22 plant, but I don't actually know that.
23
MR. HARLEY: That last phrase you
24 used "would probably have more flow through the
0079
1 plant" --
2
MR. DENNISON: Because of the wet
3 weather.
4
MR. HARLEY: So during a wet weather
5 event, there is typically more flow through the
6 waste water treatment plant itself?
7
MR. DENNISON: I actually don't
8 know. I am not aware of any value on that.
9
MR. HARLEY: If you were to
10 disinfect at the Calumet Waste Water Treatment
11 Plant, speaking about fecal coliform here, that
12 initial white dot that's plotted on this page that
13 is below the outfall for the Calumet facility,
14 what do you think would be the result going
15 forward past the outfall if you were to disinfect
16 during dry weather?
17
MR. DENNISON: I have no data for
18 disinfection.
19
MR. HARLEY: Thank you.
20
MS. TIPSORD: Anyone else?
21
MS. WILLIAMS: I just want to be
22 sure that my Exhibit 119 is accurate and complete.
23
MS. TIPSORD: Mm-hmm.
24
MS. WILLIAMS: How many pages?
0080
1
MS. TIPSORD: Four, I believe.
2
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. I think we
3 started with only three pages so I wanted to make
4 sure I understand which page is missing.
5
MR. ANDES: It should be two pages
6 of text and then figure two and figure three.
7
MS. WILLIAMS: We only had one page
8 of text.
9
MS. TIPSORD: Please refer to the
10 report and then the difference between the wet
11 weather and fecal coliform densities and then what
12 is figure two, which is page six, and figure
13 three, which is page seven.
14
MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
15
MR. ANDES: If you don't have a
16 complete copy, I can --
17
MS. WILLIAMS: We have it now. I
18 just wanted to make sure. Thank you.
19
MS. TIPSORD: Any other questions?
20
MR. ETTINGER: Yes. Looking now at
21 figure two, I was looking at the dry weather
22 flows. There's the site above the plant and then
23 there seems to be -- do each of these little zeros
24 here, do they indicate a sampling point?
0081
1
MR. DENNISON: Yes.
2
MR. ETTINGER: Okay. So you have
3 two sampling points, one of which looks like it's
4 approximately the same amount and miles downstream
5 from the plant as the other?
6
MR. DENNISON: Yes. That I think
7 what you're referring to -- the first one that is
8 to the left of the zero mark is upstream of the
9 plant and the next one that you see very close to
10 that is at a tributary to the north branch shallow
11 portion as it's entering the north branch deep
12 portion at -- the sampling point is at Albany
13 Avenue.
14
MR. ETTINGER: Which one is that?
15
MR. DENNISON: That's the other one
16 that is very low. It's actually about a 710
17 count.
18
MR. ETTINGER: I see. And then the
19 spot that looks like about an inch higher than
20 that should be about 7500, where is that sampling
21 point?
22
MR. DENNISON: That is at Foster
23 Avenue on the North Shore Channel just upstream of
24 where the shallow portion of the north branch
0082
1 enters the deep portion of the north branch at --
2 what is that river part?
3
MR. ETTINGER: Is that above or
4 below the dam?
5
MR. DENNISON: It's above. It's on
6 the North Shore Channel above the dam at the point
7 where the north branch enters over the dam.
8
MR. ETTINGER: And then this next
9 point to the right, where is that one?
10
MR. DENNISON: Wilson, which is
11 downstream of the dam on the deep draft portion of
12 the north branch.
13
MR. ETTINGER: I asked this question
14 of Dr. Rigal yesterday. Have you -- or do you
15 know whether the Water Reclamation District has
16 studied the flows of the water waste under various
17 conditions?
18
MR. ANDES: Flow rates of the waste
19 water or of the --
20
MR. ETTINGER: Flow direction of the
21 discharge from the sewerage treatment plants, have
22 you ever studied the flow direction under various
23 circumstances?
24
MR. DENNISON: I have not.
0083
1
MR. ETTINGER: Do you know whether
2 the Water Reclamation District has?
3
MR. DENNISON: No.
4
MR. ETTINGER: Sorry. My question
5 wasn't too good. Do you know that they have never
6 done so or you don't know whether it's never been
7 done?
8
MR. DENNISON: I do not know.
9
MR. ANDES: Whether it's been done?
10
MR. DENNISON: Whether it's been
11 done.
12
MR. ETTINGER: Thank you.
13
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Can I ask one
14 follow up question, please. Stacy Meyers-Glen
15 with Openlands. You state that there are samples
16 here -- they are by the outfalls, correct, in
17 figure two and figure three of Exhibit 119, you
18 have sampling points by the outfall of the --
19
MR. DENNISON: The first sampling
20 point that is on that figure which is to the left
21 of the zero mark or upstream of the plant on the
22 North Shore Channel that's at Oakton Street, which
23 is 0.6 miles upstream on the -- that's on figure
24 two. On figure three, Indiana Avenue is 1.4 miles
0084
1 upstream from the Calumet Water Reclamation Plant
2 outfall.
3
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: And then I see
4 that there's a dot that's very close to zero for
5 dry weather, how far was that to the outfall?
6
MR. DENNISON: Which figure, please?
7
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: I'm sorry. If you
8 look at figure three, Exhibit 119, for your dry
9 weather samples, I notice that you have dots there
10 indicating that there are samples close to zero.
11 I'm presuming that's the outfall?
12
MR. DENNISON: That's to the left of
13 the zero mark?
14
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: To the right of
15 the zero mark.
16
MR. DENNISON: Okay.
17
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: How close is that
18 to the outfall that you took those samples from?
19
MR. DENNISON: The furthest right,
20 that's about 17 miles on the graph.
21
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: No. If you look
22 on figure three where you've got your zero mark,
23 that's for the outfall, correct?
24
MR. DENNISON: Yes.
0085
1
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: And that's for the
2 outfall of the Calumet Waste Water Treatment
3 Plant?
4
MR. DENNISON: Yes.
5
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: And how close were
6 the samples that are above that zero mark, how
7 close was the sampling point to the outfall?
8
MR. ANDES: Are you talking about
9 the two to the left?
10
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: I'm trying to
11 figure out how far away the samples were taken
12 from the outfall.
13
MR. DENNISON: I'm just going to
14 make sure I can answer you. Are you referring to
15 the zero -- I mean to the left of the zero mark?
16
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Downstream.
17
MR. DENNISON: Downstream.
18
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: Correct.
19
MR. DENNISON: To the right of the
20 zero mark.
21
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: That's correct.
22
MR. DENNISON: The first one, that
23 is approximately 2,700. Do you see that on the --
24
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: How close was that
0086
1 to the outfall, how many feet?
2
MR. DENNISON: Well, it's one mile
3 downstream.
4
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: One mile
5 downstream. And that's for the Calumet?
6
MR. DENNISON: Yes. The next dry
7 weather mark, which is above that at 4,000 is at
8 the Little Calumet River. That's the tributary
9 location.
10
MS. MEYERS-GLEN: I was just most
11 interested in the ones that were closest to the
12 outfall, what the proximity was to the outfall.
13 So thank you.
14
MR. ANDES: And if I could follow up
15 on that. That 4,000 was on the Little Calumet,
16 which is the tributary. So that level would not
17 be effected by the plant.
18
MR. DENNISON: Correct.
19
MR. ANDES: Thank you.
20
MR. ETTINGER: I have to ask two
21 questions. Do you have any idea where the 4,000
22 is coming from the tributary, why it's reading
23 4,000 during dry weather conditions?
24
MR. DENNISON: No.
0087
1
MR. ETTINGER: Coming off the CID
2 landfill?
3
MR. ANDES: He said no. No idea.
4 Maybe geese.
5
MR. ETTINGER: The last question I
6 had on studies, have you ever or to your knowledge
7 has the Water Reclamation District ever looked at
8 what the time of travel is of these flows, for
9 example, to look at your point on the right
10 downstream from the Calumet plant, how many days
11 it takes to go the 17 miles that's reflected by
12 that point?
13
MR. ANDES: Time for the effluent to
14 travel?
15
MR. ETTINGER: Yes. What's the time
16 of flow there? Have you calculated it?
17
MR. DENNISON: I'm not personally
18 aware of any.
19
MR. ETTINGER: Okay.
20
MS. TIPSORD: Dr. Dennison, one last
21 time.
22
MS. WILLIAMS: I have a couple quick
23 ones. Do both of the graphs, figure two and
24 figure three, have data points that were taken on
0088
1 tributaries?
2
MR. DENNISON: Yes.
3
MS. WILLIAMS: Would it be possible
4 to provide copies of these graphs with the data
5 points marked for the locations?
6
MR. DENNISON: Yes.
7
MS. WILLIAMS: I think we would find
8 that very helpful.
9
MR. TIPSORD: And just to clarify,
10 those two figures are from the Attachment 5 or is
11 it --
12
MR. ANDES: Four. Those are four.
13
MR. TIPSORD: Four was the interim
14 report?
15
MR. ANDES: Yes.
16
MS. TIPSORD: Attachment 4 to Dr.
17 Rigal's testimony.
18
MS. WILLIAMS: And these are the
19 same as the ones in Dr. Rigal's testimony?
20
MR. DENNISON: Yes.
21
MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
22
MS. TIPSORD: Mr. Harley.
23
MR. HARLEY: Just to clarify. Is it
24 your testimony that the flow -- was it in the
0089
1 Little Calumet River is not effected by the
2 Calumet Waste Water Treatment Plant?
3
MR. DENNISON: Yes.
4
MR. HARLEY: And would the same
5 thing be true with the Grand Calumet?
6
MR. DENNISON: I would think so.
7
MR. HARLEY: Why do you say that?
8
MR. DENNISON: The Grand Calumet
9 River is a considerable distance upstream of the
10 Calumet Water Reclamation Plant.
11
MR. HARLEY: And why would you say
12 that about the Little Calumet River?
13
MR. DENNISON: The Little Calumet --
14 the shallow portion of the Little Calumet River is
15 out of the flow from the plant outfall. It hasn't
16 joined the deep portion of the Little Calumet
17 River yet.
18
MR. HARLEY: But you've never done
19 any analysis of the flow as you answered Mr.
20 Ettinger's question.
21
MR. DENNISON: It was flow rates.
22
MR. HARLEY: He also asked about
23 flow pattern as well.
24
MR. DENNISON: Of the effluent.
0090
1
MR. TIPSORD: He did. It's effluent
2 and flow rates.
3
MR. ETTINGER: I asked about
4 direction, I believe, and flow rate.
5
MR. DENNISON: I'm aware of
6 direction, but flow rates, I don't measure.
7
MR. HARLEY: Thank you.
8
MS. TIPSORD: Thank you,
9 Dr. Dennison. We look forward to seeing you again
10 soon. That takes us back to Mr. McGowan and,
11 Ms. Hedman, you had a follow-up question for
12 Mr. McGowan and then we'll go to Mr. Ettinger's
13 question.
14
MR. HEDMAN: I do. I have two
15 follow-up questions and I have two exhibits.
16
MS. TIPSORD: Okay.
17
MS. HEDMAN: Do you want me to bring
18 them to you?
19
MS. TIPSORD: I'll meet you half
20 way.
21
MS. HEDMAN: All right.
22
MS. TIPSORD: Actually, I just need
23 three copies of each. I've been handed two
24 sections of the Illinois Compile Statutes. The
0091
1 first is 20 IL CS 3855/1-75, which we'll mark as
2 Exhibit 136 for ease of the record if there's no
3 objection. Seeing none, it's Exhibit 136. And
4 the second is 220 IL CS 5/16-127, which we'll mark
5 as Exhibit 127 if there's no objection --
6
MS. WILLIAMS: I think we need
7 copies.
8
MS. HEDMAN: It should be coming
9 around.
10
MS. TIPSORD: Seeing no objection,
11 it's Exhibit 137. Go ahead.
12
MS. WILLIAMS: Are they both coming
13 around?
14
MS. HEDMAN: Yes. One is a single
15 page and one is multiple pages stapled and just to
16 be clear, is it 16127 that is Exhibit 136?
17
MS. TIPSORD: No. 137.
18
MS. HEDMAN: Mr. McGowan, I'm Susan
19 Hedman from the Illinois Attorney General's
20 Office. I'm going to direct your attention to
21 Exhibit 137, which is Illinois' Environmental
22 Disclosure Statute and that statute says that --
23 and I'm reading "effective January 1st, 1999,
24 every electric utility and alternative retail
0092
1 electric supplier shall provide the following
2 information to the maximum extent practicable with
3 its bills to its customers on a quarterly basis
4 and the first item on the list is the known
5 sources of electricity supplied, broken up by
6 percentages of bio mass power, coal fired power,
7 hydro power, natural gas power, nuclear power oil
8 fired, solar power, wind power and other
9 resources, respectfully.
10
I'd like to further direct your
11 attention to sub B, which indicates that, in
12 addition, every electric utility and alternative
13 electric supplier shall provide to the maximum
14 extent practicable with its bills to its customers
15 on a quarterly basis a standardized chart in the
16 format to be determined by the commission in a
17 rule following notice of hearings, which provides
18 the amounts of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide and
19 sulfur dioxide emissions and nuclear waste
20 attributable to the known sources of electricity
21 supplied and set forth in subparagraph I of
22 subsection A. Now, I'd like to know if you had
23 known that this source of data existed, would you
24 have used it instead of -- I believe you testified
0093
1 earlier that you did not know about the statute,
2 is that correct?
3
MR. McGOWAN: Correct.
4
MS. HEDMAN: If you had known this
5 source of data existed, would you have used it
6 instead of E grid?
7
MR. McGOWAN: Again, what I would
8 like to do is defer to Steve Frey who was our air
9 emissions expert on this. What we used just as a
10 lead in was what was available from an EPA
11 published website for emissions, not just the
12 amount of power supplied, but actual emission
13 factors that would come with it.
14
MS. WILLIAMS: I would just like to
15 just clarify for the record. Do you mean the US
16 EPA website?
17
MR. McGOWAN: Yes. I'm sorry.
18
MR. FREY: To answer your question,
19 yes, we could have used that data for the
20 percentages that was used in the report, but I
21 couldn't have used that data for the emission
22 determination because they do not provide you
23 pounds of emissions for kilowatt unless -- I don't
24 know that specific statutes. That says they have
0094
1 to provide emissions on megawatt or kilowatt
2 basis. If they did, and they could say, yes, that
3 was the source of emissions for that particular
4 facility or facilities, then it could be used as a
5 reliable tool, but we just went to the US EPA for
6 a reliable tool.
7
MS. HEDMAN: So if I were to tell
8 you that Illinois utilities and other electric
9 suppliers are required to report their sales on a
10 per kilowatt hour basis of electricity each year,
11 you would have been able to make that calculation.
12
MR. FREY: We would have been able
13 to make the determination of the percentage of the
14 breakdown at the different types of fuel
15 combustion sources.
16
MR. ANDES: Let me ask you if you
17 can follow up on that with a couple of questions.
18 One is, there is a distension, am I right, between
19 the power that a particular utility actually
20 supplies in terms of generating from its own
21 production facilities and the power that it
22 specifically distributes to particular customers,
23 which may be from other sources around the
24 country, am I right?
0095
1
MS. HEDMAN: I'm going to object to
2 that question because it assumes facts that are
3 not in evidence and is not true. Illinois
4 utilities do not own electric generating plants.
5
MR. ANDES: Okay. I'm not sure how
6 that changes anything. My question was whether --
7 Fine. Let me modify the question. The question
8 is the information you would have you would need
9 to do that calculation would need to be
10 particularly key to where is the power that is
11 specifically distributed to specific customers
12 coming from, which could be coming from plants in
13 Illinois owned by whoever or from other states?
14
MR. FREY: That would be correct.
15 Yes. Based on some of the literature and I'm not
16 an electrical or utility expert on what they do
17 with their power. I do have expertise --
18
MS. TIPSORD: Mr. Frey, we're losing
19 you. There are trains going by.
20
MR. FREY: I'm not an expert
21 necessarily in electric utility and their
22 generation of power and how it's distributed
23 within the grid. I do have expertise on
24 combusting fuel in a boiler or a turban and what
0096
1 types of air pollutants are generated. So using
2 that information -- Actually, what we did was in
3 looking at the E grid database and going to the US
4 EPA web page, it actually identifies what you
5 should be using for appropriate emission factors
6 based on regions and they based it on power
7 control areas.
8
So that area that we talked
9 about, and I forget the acronyms, that is intended
10 to represent a specific control area over where
11 electricity is going and I'm assuming that they
12 grouped it that way. Another source is climate
13 registry that says if you're going to calculate
14 indirect emissions from the combustion from
15 electricity in terms of megawatts or kilowatts,
16 you should use as a provision, meaning you don't
17 have any onsite electrical generations feeding you
18 directly, you need to go to the E grid system.
19 And then it says you should not use state specific
20 factors because you don't know where the power is
21 coming from.
22
MS. HEDMAN: Is there a fence around
23 the region that you used here?
24
MR. FREY: In terms --
0097
1
MS. TIPSORD: Ms. Hedman, I only
2 heard part of that.
3
MS. HEDMAN: Is there a fence around
4 the region that you used here?
5
MR. ANDES: A wooden fence?
6
MS. HEDMAN: Is there a physical
7 fence that would prevent electrons from coming or
8 going from the regions?
9
MR. FREY: No, I'm not aware of
10 anything.
11
MS. HEDMAN: So electricity from
12 outside of those boundaries could also flow in and
13 out, is that correct?
14
MR. FREY: I'm not an electrical
15 expert so I don't have an answer for that.
16
MS. HEDMAN: But yet you asserted,
17 did you not, that does occur when using the data
18 that is collected here, but apparently it doesn't
19 occur with this particular group of states
20 somehow?
21
MR. FREY: I'm not quite sure what
22 you're referencing there.
23
MS. HEDMAN: You testified that you
24 used this group of plants and this geographic
0098
1 area, but would not use this data because --
2
MR. ANDES: What's this data?
3
MS. HEDMAN: The data collected
4 pursuant to Illinois law both with respect to
5 generation mix and emissions mix --
6
MR. ANDES: Which we don't have in
7 evidence, by the way.
8
MS. HEDMAN: I'm simply asking him
9 whether or not he would have used this data
10 source.
11
MR. FREY: And I actually said if we
12 knew that source was available, we could have used
13 that source to come up with a different percentage
14 mix. Since we weren't aware of that, we went to
15 EPA's source and the climate registry quantifying
16 emissions for the combustions of fuels to
17 determine green house emissions and determine
18 traditional --
19
MS. TIPSORD: We lost a whole lot of
20 that. You're going to have to come up all the
21 way. We have the El trains going by us and
22 everything else and the minute that train goes by
23 we can't hear anything on the other side of that
24 panel.
0099
1
MR. FREY: You had asked if we were
2 aware of that statute or citation and I indicated
3 we were not. If we were, we could have looked at
4 that data or that mix and said, yes, this specific
5 mix based on Commonwealth Edison, if that is the
6 particular source of electrical power to the
7 District, than that would be, yes, a reliable
8 source to look at.
9
One additional comment I made is
10 that, yes, that's a mix of fuel. However, to
11 calculate emissions and greenhouse gas emissions
12 as well as criteria pollutants that would not
13 necessarily help me because I don't know the
14 particular fuel, the emission factors their using
15 and so forth. So to my knowledge, the only source
16 of information available electronically or via a
17 massive database is the E grid system and it was
18 developed by the US EPA for the energy sector to
19 use as well as for folks doing greenhouse gas
20 emission quantification as well as greenhouse gas
21 calculation tools, a whole wealth of individuals
22 use that source.
23
MR. ANDES: And I'd like to follow
24 up on that question if I can on that answer.
0100
1
MS. HEDMAN: I have to ask a further
2 question.
3
MR. ANDES: Go ahead.
4
MS. HEDMAN: Did you hear me read
5 the portion of the statute that requires the
6 utilities to report the amounts of carbon dioxide,
7 nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide emissions and
8 nuclear waste attributable to the source of the
9 electricity supplied? Did you hear me read that?
10
MR. FREY: Yes. And then the
11 answer --
12
MS. HEDMAN: And you wouldn't have
13 considered that data?
14
MS. TIPSORD: Please let him answer,
15 Ms. Hedman.
16
MR. FREY: And, yes, we would have
17 considered that data if that data could be used to
18 quantify emissions on a per kilowatt basis as an
19 emission estimation tool that would be acceptable.
20 Yes, it depends on how the data is presented.
21
MR. ANDES: But to follow up, I want
22 to introduce this document, which is called
23 Exhibit 2, but it's obviously not going to be
24 Exhibit 2. It's a summary of the information that
0101
1 these fellows presented in their report and I have
2 some follow-up questions about that.
3
MS. TIPSORD: I've been handed
4 what's been called Exhibit Number 2, Summary of
5 Electrical Consumption and Air Emissions, which
6 we'll mark as Exhibit 138, I believe, if there's
7 no objection. Seeing none, it's Exhibit 138.
8
MR. ANDES: Let me ask Mr. McGowan,
9 this is a summary of -- Am I right, that this is a
10 summary of the information presented in your
11 report?
12
MR. McGOWAN: Yes.
13
MR. ANDES: And it contrasts the
14 electrical consumption and the air emotions for UV
15 versus chlorination/dechlorination.
16
MR. McGOWAN: Yes.
17
MR. ANDES: So the increase in
18 electricity, which ranges between 95 and 126
19 million kilowatts hours per year, if you took that
20 down, say, 25 percent of your numbers would be in
21 the neighborhood of maybe 75 to 85 million
22 kilowatt hours per year. The number of homes
23 equivalent energy use of 8,000 to 10,600, if you
24 took those down 25 percent, that would be, say,
0102
1 6,000 to 8,000 homes?
2
MR. McGOWAN: Yes.
3
MR. ANDES: Increase the CO2
4 emissions, which range between 75 and 100,000 tons
5 a year, reduced by 25 percent would be, maybe, 60
6 to 75 tons a year?
7
MR. McGOWAN: Yes.
8
MR. ANDES: The number of trees, 11
9 million to 15 million would reduce to, maybe, 9 to
10 12 million trees?
11
MR. McGOWAN: Yes.
12
MS. HEDMAN: I'm sorry. I'm missing
13 what we're doing here. We're doing some math
14 here.
15
MR. ANDES: And I'm doing some very
16 rough math to get a sense of if the numbers that
17 were used would reduce the air emissions by a
18 factor of, say, 25 percent, I wanted to get a
19 sense of how these numbers in his report would
20 change and I think we've done that. Thank you.
21
MS. HEDMAN: So your testimony is
22 then, Mr. McGowan, is that if you had known that
23 this data source existed, you would have
24 considered it, is that correct?
0103
1
MR. McGOWAN: Absolutely, we would
2 have considered it.
3
MS. HEDMAN: Now, let me turn your
4 attention to Exhibit 136, which is the Illinois
5 renewable portfolio standard and if you go to page
6 three of that exhibit you'll see a subsection C on
7 that page.
8
MR. McGOWAN: Yes.
9
MS. HEDMAN: And if you read in that
10 paragraph it says that a minimum percentage of
11 each utilities total supplies to serve the load of
12 eligible retail customers as defined in the act
13 procured for each of the following years, shall be
14 generated from cost effective renewable energy
15 resources. At least two percent by June 1st,
16 2008. At least four percent by June 1st, 2009.
17 At least five percent and on until we get to
18 increasing by at least 1.5 percent to each year
19 thereafter until at least 25 percent by June 1st,
20 2005. To the extent that --
21
MR. ANDES: 2025.
22
MS. HEDMAN: 2025. To the extent
23 that it is available, at least 75 percent of
24 renewable energy resources used to meet these
0104
1 standards shall come from wind generation. And I
2 believe that Mr. Andes just went through a
3 recitation of what these numbers would be if they
4 were 25 percent lower, is that correct?
5
MR. McGOWAN: Correct.
6
MS. HEDMAN: So if -- when you did
7 your study, were you aware that Illinois had a
8 renewable portfolio standard?
9
MR. McGOWAN: I personally wasn't.
10
MR. FREY: I am familiar with that
11 portfolio standard. I had not focused on the
12 state of Illinois or anybody. I know what it is,
13 but did not correlate it to this analysis. The
14 actual quantification of emissions was the E grid
15 system. Going back to that, it's actual emissions
16 based on actual combustion of fuel in the calendar
17 year 2004. And these portfolio standards are
18 looking out into the future and making sure that
19 they have renewable energy at a certain percent
20 over a certain period of time.
21
So it will effect emissions
22 within a certain graphical region or on a global
23 being greenhouse gas related over time, but our
24 focus was what was available in actual emissions.
0105
1
MS. HEDMAN: For 2004?
2
MR. FREY: Yes.
3
MS. HEDMAN: So you assumed a
4 facility that would be built in the future in
5 Illinois would be drawing electricity from the
6 same set of generating facilities as existed in
7 2004?
8
MR. FREY: No. I think the
9 assumption was that we looked to the available
10 tool to help us quantify emissions and I feel it's
11 more practical to look at emission factors that
12 are based on historical emissions to paint the
13 picture as it exists today, not necessarily --
14 because I have no idea when a certain type of
15 pollution control project may be installed and
16 operational. So I was looking at it at this
17 particular point in time using the best available
18 data that we were aware of.
19
MS. WILLIAMS: Can I please ask a
20 follow up?
21
MS. TIPSORD: Go ahead,
22 Ms. Williams.
23
MS. WILLIAMS: Mr. Frey, you
24 testified that the E grid -- I don't know. Is it
0106
1 a database or model?
2
MR. FREY: It's an electronic
3 database.
4
MS. WILLIAMS: It relies on actual
5 emission data, is that correct?
6
MR. FREY: That's correct.
7
MS. WILLIAMS: And do know which
8 plants it looks at?
9
MR. FREY: The actual database lists
10 every plant. Based on my understanding of reading
11 the technical document, it is fairly complicated,
12 but it identifies every cell within the workbook,
13 which incorporates every electrical generating
14 facility that meets a requirement within the
15 United States.
16
So they're required to provide
17 the amount of electrical power they generated on a
18 kilowatt or megawatt basis. They're required to
19 provide a list of fuels combusted and the amount
20 of emissions based on those different fuels. The
21 emissions change based on the difference in the
22 fuel being combusted, based on, also, the
23 equipment that is being combusted in.
24
So that database was prepared
0107
1 for US EPA. Technically, it was prepared by a
2 consulting firm on their behalf.
3
MS. WILLIAMS: Does it result in an
4 average figure then? I mean do they average
5 various facilities?
6
MR. FREY: What we would actually be
7 doing is we'd be taking emissions for those
8 geographical regions we talked about and then just
9 taking total emissions and dividing by the total
10 kilowatts. So you'll have so many pound of CO2
11 per kilowatt of electrical generation for that
12 geographical region.
13
MS. HEDMAN: Excuse me. Per
14 kilowatt or per kilowatt hour. You seem to be
15 mixing up the two.
16
MR. FREY: Per kilowatt hour.
17
MS. WILLIAMS: So for the purposes
18 of developing the emission factors, does it lump
19 different types of fossil fuels together or does
20 it break it up separately?
21
MR. FREY: The database -- the
22 factors we're using are an average of all the
23 different fuels. I'm not quite sure if it
24 actually breaks it down by individual types of
0108
1 fuels. It might, but the data is there. I'm sure
2 someone could calculate it as such, but, again,
3 their purpose was to look and try to help folks to
4 find what types of emissions will occur from the
5 consumption of electricity because you usually
6 don't have that data available to you being an
7 industrial facility or whatever it may be.
8
MS. WILLIAMS: I could see why an
9 industrial facility might not, but can you
10 identify whether the information put into that
11 database is the same information the state would
12 have in their own emission inventory?
13
MR. FREY: There's different
14 inventories.
15
MS. WILLIAMS: Can you explain the
16 difference? I'm not an expert in this area.
17
MR. FREY: From an air point of
18 view, the state will, they're required by statute
19 for industrial facilities, to file annual air
20 emission reports. That's the quantity of
21 regulated air pollutants, which does not include
22 CO2 or any other greenhouse gas at the time. It
23 may in the future, but that's how much they
24 actually emitted from a given facility. So the
0109
1 District would be doing that. They do file their
2 appropriate annual emission reports. So that's
3 actual emissions from the equipment on their site.
4 That's not from the consumption of electrical
5 power at that particular facility.
6
MS. WILLIAMS: Right. That's
7 recorded at the generating facility, the annual
8 emission reports.
9
MR. FREY: What they would be
10 admitting from their boiler or turbans, yes.
11
MS. WILLIAMS: Is that information
12 from the generating facilities and emission
13 reports that goes into the E grid database?
14
MR. FREY: That would be correct,
15 yes.
16
MS. WILLIAMS: That's all I was
17 trying to follow up on.
18
MS. HEDMAN: Now, I need a point of
19 clarification from what you were asking. Are you
20 suggesting the E grid database also include
21 industrial sources.
22
MR. FREY: No. If Commonwealth
23 Edison, if they have a boiler generating
24 electrical power -- by burning a certain fuel,
0110
1 they'll emit emissions and they have to file that
2 with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
3 from their particular plant.
4
MS. HEDMAN: And do you know whether
5 Commonwealth Edison owns any electric generating
6 facilities?
7
MR. FREY: I don't know. I'm just
8 assuming whoever is generating the power at the
9 facility, whatever their name is, whoever owns and
10 operates that particular combustion device has to
11 report it. So if they're generating electrical
12 power and they're also required as part of the E
13 grid system through other mechanisms, not through
14 IEPA, to file the appropriate information that's
15 needed for the database in terms of generation and
16 fuels combustion.
17
MS. HEDMAN: And do either of you
18 two know if the District purchases its electricity
19 from Commonwealth Edison or from an alternative
20 retail electric supplier?
21
MR. McGOWAN: I don't know.
22
MR. FREY: I don't know.
23
MS. HEDMAN: And did you do any
24 sensitivity analyses that would have considered
0111
1 self-generation by the District, self-generation
2 of electricity?
3
MR. McGOWAN: No, we didn't do an
4 analysis. Do you mean if they were to burn
5 methane gas and something like that -- No, we did
6 not do a sensitivity analysis to that.
7
MS. HEDMAN: I think that's all I
8 have.
9
MS. TIPSORD: Mr. Ettinger, than
10 we're ready to move on to you.
11
MR. ETTINGER: First, a point of
12 clarity, a point of clarification from me. Am I
13 the only thing standing between this body and
14 cocktail hour?
15
MS. TIPSORD: Well, for some people,
16 yes.
17
MR. ETTINGER: Okay. That will
18 affect the extent of my questioning. So moving
19 quickly, Mr. McGowan, have you worked on
20 disinfection issues regarding Milwaukee, Detroit,
21 Norwalk, Columbia, Maryland or any other plants?
22
MR. McGOWAN: Yes.
23
MR. ETTINGER: I was hoping for no.
24 That would move this along faster.
0112
1
MR. McGOWAN: If I weren't under
2 oath.
3
MR. ETTINGER: Which plants did you
4 work on disinfection?
5
MR. McGOWAN: My most experience
6 would have been with disinfection issues in
7 Detroit.
8
MR. ETTINGER: And what were the
9 issues considered there?
10
MR. McGOWAN: They use very large
11 tanker trucks of chlorine gas for their plant.
12 It's about a 1.8 billion gallon per day wet
13 weather treatment plant. So they have a lot of
14 chlorine gas. And I help them review a scrubber
15 facility where they would contain their gas and
16 certain things like that. I also help in a number
17 of -- in re-rating their waste water treatment
18 plant to treat maximum wet weather flows and we
19 had a talk about what kinds of dosing they would
20 require and those types of issues.
21
MR. ETTINGER: Are they doing
22 anything differently as a result of your work?
23
MR. McGOWAN: Some of the flow
24 proportioning and the doses for wet weather
0113
1 treatment because we did push more wet weather
2 flow through there so they have to track things a
3 little differently, but for the most part, we did
4 not change systems or anything along those lines
5 if that's what you mean.
6
MR. ETTINGER: As I understand --
7 you're actually disinfecting for wet weather
8 conditions also.
9
MR. McGOWAN: They disinfect dry and
10 wet weather flows. Their dry weather flow is
11 about 650 MGD, 700 MGD. But they can get up to
12 1.8 billion gallons of wet weather.
13
MR. ETTINGER: Are they disinfecting
14 for 1.8 billion gallons of wet weather?
15
MR. McGOWAN: Yes.
16
MR. ETTINGER: Where do they
17 discharge?
18
MR. McGOWAN: The Detroit River --
19 Excuse me. They are at the confluence of the
20 Detroit River and the Rouge River so certain
21 effluent at very high flows may go into the Rouge
22 River, but by and large it goes into the Detroit
23 River.
24
MR. ETTINGER: Do you know if there
0114
1 are any beaches at the confluence of the Rouge
2 River and Detroit River?
3
MR. McGOWAN: Have you ever been
4 there?
5
MR. ETTINGER: Actually, I worked
6 for George McGovern in River Rouge in 1972.
7
MR. McGOWAN: I am unaware of
8 anything other than steel facilities and that type
9 of thing at the Rouge and Detroit Rivers. But,
10 no, seriously I don't believe there are beaches in
11 that near facility.
12
MR. ETTINGER: Okay.
13
MR. ANDES: Do you have any idea how
14 much money the city of Detroit is spending to do
15 those things?
16
MR. McGOWAN: Oh goodness, I could
17 get back to you on that. I wouldn't want to say
18 right now because it would be -- it's been several
19 years since I've been there.
20
MR. ANDES: Thank you.
21
MR. ETTINGER: Was that the only
22 plant that you've worked disinfection issues on?
23
MR. McGOWAN: Substantially, yes. I
24 worked at that facility for about eight years.
0115
1 There are other very minor ones, but that would be
2 the best exactly.
3
MR. ETTINGER: In view of the hour,
4 we'll just talk about Detroit. Number two, to
5 your knowledge has the Metropolitan Water
6 Reclamation District of Greater Chicago ever done
7 an environmental assessment like the one you did
8 regarding DO enhancement and disinfection for any
9 of its other operations, proposed operations?
10
MR. McGOWAN: I am unaware.
11
MR. ETTINGER: Do you know whether
12 any assessment like this was done with regard to
13 any portion of TARP?
14
MR. McGOWAN: I am unaware of that
15 as well.
16
MR. ETTINGER: Ms. Williams asked a
17 more specific version of this question, but let me
18 ask the general question. Have you or to your
19 knowledge anyone else ever attempted to calculate
20 any favorable environmental effects on land, air,
21 energy use or other portion of the environment
22 that might result from disinfection at the
23 Calumet, North Side or Stickney plant?
24
MR. McGOWAN: We did not get into
0116
1 the receding water quality aspect. Which may be
2 construed as the benefit. We were only involved
3 in the maintenance and operation and construction.
4 So we did not get into those other than the
5 adverse effects, if you will.
6
MR. ETTINGER: Okay. So you didn't
7 consider whether there might be any energy savings
8 resulting from fewer trips outside the area due to
9 more recreation in this area or anything like
10 that?
11
MR. McGOWAN: Oh, I see. The
12 similar question from before. No, we did not do
13 that.
14
MR. ETTINGER: Okay. Number eight.
15 On page 2.1 of your report, you assume that
16 disinfection will be provided from March through
17 November. Why did you decide to use this
18 assumption?
19
MR. McGOWAN: Essentially, we were
20 reiterating what we were given, Consoer Townsend,
21 in their design -- laid out the operational
22 parameters. Those were the ones that were given
23 to us. So we used energy usage from March through
24 November. We didn't want to use the whole year.
0117
1 We wanted to make sure we were consistent with the
2 way they were intending the planning and design of
3 the facilities would go. So it was information
4 that was given to us.
5
MR. ETTINGER: Obviously, if you
6 used the shorter period, you would come out with
7 different results?
8
MR. McGOWAN: I would assume so.
9
MR. ETTINGER: Thank you.
10
MS. TIPSORD: Thank you, everyone.
11 We will start then in Joliet with Charles Haas,
12 your next witness and then David Zenz, followed by
13 Thomas Kunetz and John Mastracchio. Do we have
14 any realistic expectation that we can do Thomas
15 Granato while we're in those two days?
16
MS. WILLIAMS: Repeat the witnesses,
17 please.
18
MR. TIPSORD: The witness list right
19 now is Charles Haas, David Zenz, Thomas Kunetz,
20 John Mastracchio and then Thomas Granato before we
21 start aquatic uses.
22
MR. ANDES: We'll aim for that, but
23 I know there are a lot of issues that we're asking
24 Mr. Lanyon, including financial issues that we've
0118
1 deferred to Kunetz and Mastracchio. So that might
2 take a while.
3
MS. TIPSORD: Okay. We'll shoot for
4 those five witnesses in Joliet. I've been warned
5 that the line to get into the Will County
6 courthouse is atrocious in the morning. Keep that
7 in mind. Thank you very much. I'll see you all
8 at the end of October.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
0119
1 STATE OF ILLINOIS.)
2
) SS.
3 COUNTY OF COOK )
4
5
6
7
I, STEVEN BRICKEY, being a Certified
8 Shorthand Reporter doing business in the City of
9 Chicago, Illinois, County of Cook, certify that I
10 reported in shorthand the proceedings had at the
11 foregoing hearing of the above-entitled cause.
12 And I certify that the foregoing is a true and
13 correct transcript of all my shorthand notes so
14 taken as aforesaid and contains all the
15 proceedings had at the said meeting of the
16 above-entitled cause.
17
18
19
20 ___________________________
21 STEVEN BRICKEY, CSR
CSR NO. 084-004675
22
23
24