ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September 23,2008

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND

)

4 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR THE

) R08-9

CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM AND ) (Rulemaking -

5 THE LOWER DES PLAINES RIVER:

) Water)

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 Ill. )

6 Adm. Code Parts 301, 302, 303

)

and 304

)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held in

9 the above-entitled cause before Hearing Officer

10 Marie Tipsord, called by the Illinois Pollution

11 Control Board, pursuant to notice, taken before

12 Rebecca Graziano, CSR, within and for the County of

13 Cook and State of Illinois, at the Will County

14 Courthouse, 14 West Jefferson Street, Room 308,

15 Joliet, Illinois, on the 27th Day of October, A.D.,

16 2008, commencing at 9:00 a.m.

A P P E A R A N C E S

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD:

Ms. Marie Tipsord, Hearing Officer

Ms. Alisa Liu, P.E., Environmental Scientist

Mr. Tanner Girard, Acting Chairman

Mr. Thomas Johnson

Mr. Nicholas Melas

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY:

Ms. Stefanie Diers

Ms. Deborah Williams

Mr. Robert Sulski

Mr. Scott Twait

Mr. Roy Smogor

THE NATURAL RESOURCE DEFENSE COUNSEL:

Ms. Ann Alexander

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY CENTER:

Mr. Albert Ettinger

Ms. Jessica Dexter

METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF

GREATER CHICAGO:

Mr. Fredric Andes

Mr. David Zenz

Mr. Eric Cockerill

Mr. Charles Haas

Mr. Thomas Kunetz

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS:

Ms. Susan Headman

Mr. Andrew Armstrong

THE SOUTHEAST ENVIRONMENTAL TASK FORCE:

Mr. Keith Harley

MS. TIPSORD: Good morning. My name

2 is Marie Tipsord, and I've been appointed by the

3 Board to serve as hearing officer in this proceeding

4 entitled Water Quality Standards and Effluent

5 Limitations for the Chicago Area Waterway System and

6 Lower Des Plaines River, Proposed Amendment to 35

7 Ill. Adm. Code 301, 302, 303, and 304. The Docket

8 Number is R08-9. To my far right in the middle is

9 Dr. Girard. To his right is member Melas, and to

10 Dr. Girard's left is member Thomas Johnson, all here

11 today, and I think that's it for right now. This is

12 the sixth set of hearings to be held in this

13 proceeding.

Today's hearing is -- the purpose

15 of today's hearing is to continue hearing testimony

16 from the participants, other than the proponent the

17 IEPA. At the close of hearing on September 25th, we

18 had finished with 12 witnesses from the Metropolitan

19 Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, and

20 we will continue with the District starting

21 witnesses day, starting with Charles Haas, then

22 David Zenz, Thomas Kunetz --

MR. ANDES: Kunetz.

MS. TIPSORD: John Mastracchio.

MR. ANDES: Mastracchio.

MS. TIPSORD: Mastracchio -- not even

3 close that time -- and then Thomas Granato . Now I

4 will note that we received a motion to allow Thomas

5 Granato to read his testimony. We will wait and rule

6 on that when we get there. Generally, we will take

7 testimony and mark it as an exhibit, and enter it as

8 if read. We will then go immediately to questions

9 beginning with the Natural Resource Defense Counsel,

10 IEPA, The People of the State of Illinois, Open Land,

11 and the Environmental Law and Policy Center.

Anyone may ask a followup question,

13 and you need not wait until your turn to ask

14 questions. I do ask that you raise your hand, wait

15 for me to acknowledge you. After I've acknowledged

16 you, please state your name and whom you represent

17 before you begin your questions.

Please speak one at a time. If

19 you're speaking over each other, the court reporter

20 will not be able to get your questions on the

21 record. Please note that any question asked by a

22 board member or staff are intended to help build a

23 complete record for the Board's decision and not

24 express any preconceived notion or bias. We will --

1 did anyone notice downstairs what time the building

2 closes? I noticed it opened at 8:30. Did anybody

3 notice what time it closes?

MS. WILLIAMS: I thought it said 4:30.

MS. TIPSORD: That's kind of what I

6 was thinking too. We will shoot for about 4:15 then

7 and -- so that we can be out of here when they

8 close, because we'll have to move the tables back

9 around. I also, on the record, want to thank the

10 Will County Courthouse for giving us this room and

11 helping us out. They've been very generous with

12 their assistance to me, and so on the record I want

13 to thank them. We will take a lunch break, but

14 remember you have to come back in through security,

15 so we will figure that in when we get to lunch.

Dr. Girard, do you have anything

17 to say this morning?

MR. GIRARD: Yes, good morning. On

19 behalf of the Board, I welcome everyone to another

20 set of hearings in this water rulemaking. The Board

21 really does appreciate all the time and effort

22 everyone is putting into this endeavor. It helps us

23 build a better record so that we can have a better

24 rule, and so we really do appreciate all the time

1 and effort and look forward to your testimony and

2 questions today. Thank you.

MS. TIPSORD: And with that,

4 Mr. Andes?

MR. ANDES: Yes. Before we get

6 started with testimony, there are a few documents

7 and materials that I want to put into the record.

8 One is we were asked for rain gauge data for

9 October/November of 2006. That was voluminous. I

10 have that on disk, and I have disks for anyone who

11 wants them.

MS. TIPSORD: If there's no objection,

13 we will mark the MWRD's precipitation data CD as

14 Exhibit 139. Seeing none, it's Exhibit 139.

MR. ANDES: Okay. There were

16 questions asked concerning a USGS research project

17 concerning E. Coli levels in the CAWS, so we have

18 two documents. One is the research proposal for

19 that USGS research project just concerning other

20 sources of E. Coli on the CAWS. So we have -- this

21 is the revised proposal titled E. Coli Sources and

22 Microbiological Quality of Water Above and Below the

23 North Side Wastewater Reclamation Plant, NSWRP,

24 Metropolitan Reclamation District of Greater

1 Chicago, MWRDGC. It does not have a date on it.

MS. TIPSORD: If there's no objection,

3 we'll mark the document as described as Exhibit 140.

4 Seeing none, it's Exhibit 140.

MR. ANDES: And there are preliminary

6 data from that study, and we have -- one, two, three

7 -- four sheets showing data from that study.

MS. TIPSORD: Now, Fred, are these

9 four separate copies or four different graphs?

MR. ANDES: I'm sorry. Four separate

11 sheets, four separate sets of --

MS. TIPSORD: Okay. So what you

13 handed me, though, is that four copies?

MR. ANDES: Oh, I'm sorry. I gave you

15 four copies of the set.

MS. TIPSORD: Okay.

MS. WILLIAMS: It's two pages?

MS. TIPSORD: Two pages. All right.

19 If there's no objection, we'll mark this document as

20 described, the two-page document, as Exhibit 141.

21 Seeing none, it's Exhibit 141.

MR. ANDES: There was also testimony

23 concerning storm water samples and E. Coli levels or

24 coliform levels, and we have three sheets of data

1 from three separate days showing levels of coliform

2 bacteria in storm sewers.

MS. WILLIAMS: Can you clarify for the

4 record, Fred, which testimony this is related to?

MR. ANDES: I believe it was Dr.

6 Rijal. Those are the three pages.

MS. TIPSORD: Okay. We'll mark these

8 three pages as one exhibit, and if there's no

9 objection we will mark these as Exhibit 142. Seeing

10 none, they're Exhibit 142.

MR. ANDES: And then finally, we have

12 a document concerning sources of energy supplied to

13 the District, titled Electricity Sources and

14 Emissions from Integrys -- I-n-t-e-g-r-y-s -- for

15 the 12 Months Ending March 31st, 2008. There's

16 three copies of that document.

MS. TIPSORD: If there's no objection,

18 this will be marked as Exhibit --

MS. HEADMAN: Madam Hearing Examiner,

20 I'd like to see the document and make an objection.

21 Susan Headman on behalf of the People of State of

22 Illinois from the office of the Attorney General.

23 Is there a copy of that document?

MS. TIPSORD: Okay. Everyone has it

1 now.

MS. HEADMAN: I'm going to object to

3 this document for lack of foundation. We've had no

4 information tying Integrys to this docket. There's

5 been no testimony.

MS. WILLIAMS: I don't understand what

7 it is. I mean, there's no testimony. This was not

8 something, I don't think, that was specifically

9 requested.

MR. ANDES: During -- it was. During

11 Mr. McGowan's testimony, we were asked about

12 documents provided to the Reclamation District by

13 its energy suppliers. This is an example of a

14 document provided to the District by its energy

15 supplier concerning sources of power.

MS. HEADMAN: We've not had any

17 testimony as to who the source of power for the

18 District is.

MS. TIPSORD: Actually, Mr. McGowan's

20 testimony was -- if I recall right, and forgive me,

21 I didn't review the transcripts before we came --

22 but his testimony was -- and the questions you

23 specifically asked was how they came up with some of

24 these numbers and where they got their information.

1 And this is, my understanding, Mr. Andes, is this is

2 one of the sources of information.

MS. WILLIAMS: No.

MS. TIPSORD: Am I missing something?

MR. ANDES: It was by Mr. McGowan.

6 However, Mr. McGowan said if those -- that

7 information was not available to him, but we

8 committed to look for those documents and provide

9 them, and that's what we're trying to do. If we

10 need to provide a basis for that in later testimony

11 today by Dr. Granato from the District, we can

12 certainly do that.

MS. WILLIAMS: I would like to make a

14 suggestion.

MS. TIPSORD: Wait, wait a minute.

MS. WILLIAMS: Can I make a

17 suggestion?

MS. TIPSORD: Yeah.

MS. WILLIAMS: Mr. McGowan's coming

20 back giving very similar testimony on the dissolved

21 oxygen issues. Why couldn't we just enter this

22 later when he comes back to give almost the same

23 testimony focused on a different treatment

24 technology?

MS. HEADMAN: Madam Hearing Examiner,

2 I asked Mr. McGowan whether or not he knew the

3 source of the electricity that the MWRD uses, and

4 his answer to the question was no.

MS. TIPSORD: I think that -- I'm

6 going to overrule the objection and enter the

7 document. I -- I think the District is attempting

8 to be responsive to questions. I don't think any of

9 us are -- the Board can certainly understand that

10 this is not being offered for proof of the matter

11 here. It was offered as here are some examples, and

12 I believe Andes said that when he was doing it --

13 and certainly anyone who has continued issues with

14 this can raise them in their comments or testimony

15 later.

MS. HEADMAN: So, Madam Hearing

17 Examiner, it would be appropriate for us to also

18 submit electricity sources and emissions for all

19 other utilities and alternative suppliers in this

20 district?

MS. TIPSORD: If you think it's

22 relevant to the rulemaking. Remember, in a

23 rulemaking, anything relevant or -- I mean, there's

24 a pretty wide latitude. This is a legislative

1 process, not an a adjudicatory process, so we take

2 in a lot of information that can be taken, frankly,

3 for what it's worth.

Mr. Ettinger, you had something?

MR. ETTINGER: I understand that and

6 rely on that indulgence frequently myself, but I'm

7 still asking what this is, is my question. Who is

8 Integrys? Is this a representation as to what the

9 District's sources of power are? I guess my problem

10 is I'd just like to know what we got here. First of

11 all, who is Integrys?

MR. ANDES: An energy supplier to the

13 District. We can certainly provide further detail,

14 and that could be when Mr. McGowan comes back in

15 terms of what percentage of the District's power

16 supply is provided by Integrys. There's also some

17 power that generates for itself. We thought this

18 would be helpful information, and this wasn't

19 intending to be the end of the story. We simply

20 felt that this was something we were requested to

21 provide, were the documents that were provided to

22 the District by its energy -- outside energy

23 suppliers.

MR. ETTINGER: And I'm not criticizing

1 at all, I'm just asking. I've never heard of

2 Integrys. Are they an energy supplier?

MS. TIPSORD: Excuse me. You have to

4 share it for the record.

MS. HEADMAN: It's the holding company

6 for the People.

MS. TIPSORD: And for the record, as

8 Mr. Williams pointed out, Mr. McGowan will be back.

9 If you have questions specific to this, we can

10 certainly ask them at that time.

MR. ETTINGER: Okay. Thank you.

MS. TIPSORD: Anything further?

MR. ANDES: No.

MS. TIPSORD: Okay. Can we have Mr.

15 Haas sworn in?

(Witness sworn.)

MS. TIPSORD: And do you have a copy

18 of Mr. Haas' testimony for us to mark?

MR. ANDES: I do.

MS. TIPSORD: And gentlemen, there are

21 a couple of chairs up there if you want to take

22 these two. If there's no objection, we will mark

23 Mr. Haas' testimony as Exhibit 143. Seeing none,

24 it's Exhibit 143. Oh, wait, 144. Thank you. I

1 hadn't entered that on the sheet. Mr. Haas'

2 testimony is Exhibit 144 with no objection. Seeing

3 none, it's Exhibit 144. Thanks, Deb.

MS. WILLIAMS: You're welcome.

MS. TIPSORD: And then I do believe

6 that NRDC does, in fact, Ms. Alexander, have some

7 questions for Mr. Haas?

MS. ALEXANDER: That is correct.

MS. TIPSORD: We will start with your

10 questions.

MS. ALEXANDER: Good morning, Dr.

12 Haas. My name is Ann Alexander from the Natural

13 Resources Defense Counsel. I will be asking you

14 questions this morning, and I'd like to start out by

15 asking when were you first hired by the Water

16 Reclamation District for any purpose?

MR. HAAS: For any purpose?

MS. ALEXANDER: For any purpose, not

19 just this one.

MR. HAAS: Well, if you include as a

21 researcher, it was sometime in the mid-1980s when I

22 was in the faculty IIT and the research project.

MS. ALEXANDER: And prior to being

24 retained in connection with the current proceeding,

1 did you do additional work for the District?

MR. HAAS: Yes. I've done chairing

3 blue ribbon committees for them.

MS. ALEXANDER: And you've compensated

5 for this work you've done?

MR. HAAS: Yes. Those were -- prior

7 to this, those were done as formal research

8 contracts through my University.

MS. ALEXANDER: Prior to being

10 retained for this proceeding, did you do any other

11 work for the District?

MR. HAAS: I think I did some work,

13 again, in the form of a research contract when I was

14 back here in Chicago in the late 80s, very early

15 90s, on biosolids.

MS. ALEXANDER: Anything else?

MR. HAAS: That's all that I can

18 recall.

MS. ALEXANDER: The blue ribbon

20 commissions you chaired, when did that occur?

MR. HAAS: May I ask a favor? Since I

22 chaired two committees and I get the names blue

23 ribbon and the other one confused, if we can refer

24 to them as the disinfection committee and the risk

1 committee --

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay.

MR. HAAS: -- I would appreciate it.

4 I would appreciate it.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. When did you

6 serve on the disinfection committee?

MR. HAAS: The disinfection -- they

8 were actually pretty much concurrent. The term was

9 -- had ended about two years ago and started about a

10 year or so before that.

MS. ALEXANDER: What was the -- what

12 was that committee charged with? What were its

13 duties?

MR. HAAS: The disinfection committee?

MS. ALEXANDER: Yes.

MR. HAAS: That was charged with --

17 that was actually work done formally for CTE, the

18 contract with CTE, and that was to look at available

19 disinfection technologies, rank them in terms of

20 their various pros and cons on attributes that the

21 District was concerned with, and develop a short

22 list for recommendations to CTE.

MS. ALEXANDER: What methods were on

24 this short list that was developed?

MR. HAAS: The short list contained

2 chlorination, dechlorination, UV, and ozone.

MS. ALEXANDER: Did the commission --

4 the committee -- excuse me -- the disinfection

5 committee make a recommendation as to which of these

6 technologies on the short list was the preferred

7 technologies?

MR. HAAS: No, because we were really

9 charged with making the recommendation for further

10 study in terms of some detailed design that would

11 lead to the District's evaluation of choice.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. And I have now

13 already forgotten the name of the second committee.

MR. HAAS: The risk, risk committee.

MS. ALEXANDER: The risk committee.

MR. HAAS: Yes.

MS. ALEXANDER: When did you serve on

18 the risk committee?

MR. HAAS: They were pretty much

20 overlapping in the same period.

MS. ALEXANDER: What was the risk

22 committee charged with?

MR. HAAS: That was charged with

24 evaluating the EPA recreational water standards,

1 both the 1986 recreational guidelines and the draft

2 guidelines of the early 2000s for application to the

3 CAWS.

MS. ALEXANDER: Outside of your work

5 on this committee, have you done any research or

6 studies specifically concerning the 1986 risk

7 guidelines from EPA that you referenced?

MR. HAAS: The bulk of my professional

9 career has been concerned with microbial risks. So

10 a lot of it, in one way or the other, certainly --

11 we're doing related work in Philadelphia where we're

12 using 1986 information.

MS. TIPSORD: Let's go off the record

14 for a half second.

(Whereupon, a discussion was had

off the record.)

MS. ALEXANDER: Dr. Haas, am I

18 correct that you're on the Board of the Water

19 Environment Research Foundation?

MR. HAAS: That's correct.

MS. ALEXANDER: Has any of your

22 research work been funded by WERF?

MR. HAAS: No.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay.

MR. HAAS: And, in fact, as a Board

2 member, I'm prohibited to being the PI or co-PI in

3 any work project.

MS. ALEXANDER: Is the Water

5 Reclamation District -- excuse me -- a member of

6 WERF?

MR. HAAS: I believe they are.

MS. ALEXANDER: Were you hired by the

9 Water Reclamation District to do any work with

10 respect to the Geosyntec risk assessment?

MR. HAAS: Strictly speaking, no. But

12 as part of my work on the -- on this matter, they

13 asked me to review an early draft in the Geosyntec

14 report.

MS. TIPSORD: Miss Alexander, for the

16 record, could you please identify the exhibit that

17 the Geosyntec --

MS. ALEXANDER: I'm sorry. The

19 Geosyntec risk assessment that I referenced is

20 Exhibit 71.

MS. TIPSORD: Thank you.

MS. ALEXANDER: I think that's right.

MS. TIPSORD: Just to keep the record

24 clear.

MS. ALEXANDER: When you say an early

2 draft, are you referencing the interim dry risk

3 assessment, or was it an early draft of the dry and

4 wet weather risk assessment?

MR. HAAS: I -- I'm not certain in

6 terms of the way you identified it. You know, I

7 don't know which version it was, but it was a newly

8 drafted document that Geosyntec prepared.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Did you review

10 a draft that included conclusions with respect to

11 risk of contact and wet weather?

MR. HAAS: Yes.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Did you discuss

14 this draft with the District?

MR. HAAS: They -- there was a

16 telephone conference and the District was on that

17 telephone conference.

MS. ALEXANDER: What was the nature of

19 that discussion?

MR. HAAS: It was to summarize my

21 conclusions with respect to the draft for it.

MS. ALEXANDER: And what were those

23 conclusions?

MR. HAAS: The Geosyntec conclusions

1 or my conclusions?

MS. ALEXANDER: Your conclusions

3 regarding the Geosyntec report.

MR. HAAS: I didn't retain any written

5 notes of the call. I know I -- you know, aside from

6 editorial comments, I know I had some points of

7 clarification with respect to methodology that the

8 report could undertake.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. First of all,

10 what were the editorial comments you just

11 referenced? Do you mean typo kind of comments, or

12 what kind of editorial comments?

MR. HAAS: Well, when I use editorial

14 phraseology, it clarifies, you know, possibly

15 rearranging the text, making it clear, that sort of

16 thing.

MS. ALEXANDER: And what were the

18 points of clarification regarding methodology?

MR. HAAS: As I said, I don't -- I

20 didn't retain any notes of the conversation, so I

21 don't recall.

MS. ALEXANDER: Do you recall, as a

23 general matter, that you disagreed in any manner

24 with the methodology?

MR. HAAS: I -- disagree is too strong

2 a word. You know, when two researchers are in the

3 same area, almost no two researchers on every topic

4 are going to read perfectly on everything that can

5 be done. And so I believe I had questions as to why

6 one thing was done and perhaps another thing, but I

7 wouldn't use the term disagreeing to that.

MS. ALEXANDER: Did you receive a

9 response to the concerns you expressed that

10 satisfied or resolved those concerns?

MR. HAAS: The role of the conference

12 call was for me to provide my observations of

13 Geosyntec and the District, and, you know, I don't

14 know what actions Geosyntec took in response to it.

MS. ALEXANDER: Are you familiar with

16 the conclusion of the report that the risk of

17 contact in either dry or wet weather is less than 9

18 illnesses per 1,000 users?

MR. HAAS: I haven't reviewed the

20 final Geosyntec report. So, you know, I can't

21 comment on any findings that were in there.

MS. ALEXANDER: Are you aware of the

23 comments concerning the reports that were submitted

24 by USEPA?

MR. HAAS: I know there were comments.

2 I haven't reviewed them.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. All right.

4 Turning, now, to the pre-filed questions, I'm going

5 to turn to question number one, and ask you what

6 methods of disinfection overall do you understand to

7 be available for wastewater treatment?

MR. HAAS: Chlorine to include

9 hyperchloride, and gaseous chlorine, chlorine

10 dioxide, bromine chloride and related bromine

11 compounds, ozone, UV, peracetic acid, and various

12 combinations of those agents.

MS. ALEXANDER: Did your testimony

14 submitted today and marked as Exhibit 144 concern

15 any method of tests -- of disinfection, other than

16 chlorination?

MR. HAAS: No.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Is it your

19 understanding that ultra violet UV disinfection

20 emits the same type and level of disinfection

21 byproducts as chlorination?

MR. HAAS: No, it does not.

MS. ALEXANDER: Does it create more or

24 fewer?

MR. HAAS: It creates fewer

2 chlorination byproducts and it may create other

3 products not related to chlorination byproducts.

MS. ALEXANDER: When you say it may

5 create other products, what research are you aware

6 of on that?

MR. HAAS: Well, we know that UV

8 creates hydroxyl radicals, and we know that hydroxyl

9 radicals can interact with organic material to

10 produce oxygenated byproducts.

MS. ALEXANDER: Are you familiar with

12 the statement in the Geosyntec risk assessment that

13 the formation of harmful byproducts by UV is

14 negligible at conventional UV doses?

MR. HAAS: I don't recall that, but I

16 would not disagree with that.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Now regarding

18 the discussion at Page 2 of your testimony

19 concerning USEPA water quality criteria for

20 trihalomethanes, in deriving these criteria, do you

21 know what assumptions were made by USEPA regarding

22 exposure in terms of dose and duration?

MR. HAAS: Other than using a typical

24 two liter per capita per day water ingestion factor,

1 which is standard, I haven't delved into it. I

2 don't hold myself out to be a toxicologist.

MS. ALEXANDER: So just to clarify, in

4 arriving at those criteria, there was an assumption

5 made of an individual consuming two liters every

6 day?

MR. HAAS: Correct.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Does this type

9 of research, in your view, provide any basis to

10 determine the health risks of occasional ingestion

11 of trihalomethanes?

MR. HAAS: You've jumped here. We

13 were talking about the water quality criteria, and

14 now you're asking me about research.

MS. ALEXANDER: Well, what we've

16 established -- correct me if I'm wrong -- is that

17 the criteria for trihalomethanes are based on

18 research that assumes consumption of two liters per

19 day per capita, correct?

MR. HAAS: Correct.

MS. ALEXANDER: So could the

22 conclusion of that research have any substantial

23 meaning in determining the risk of occasional

24 consumption, as in gulping a mouthful on a canoe

1 trip, for instance, of trihalomethanes?

MR. HAAS: It's not clear.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Do you know

4 what the current MCL is for trihalomethanes?

MR. HAAS: It's 80 microns per liter.

MS. ALEXANDER: And that number is

7 significantly higher than the figures that you cited

8 in your -- from the EPA criteria in your testimony.

9 Is that correct?

MR. HAAS: That's correct.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. And MCLs, am I

12 correct, define the highest level of a contaminant

13 that is allowed in drinking water?

MR. HAAS: Correct.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay.

MR. HAAS: Well, you know, to be

17 strict about it, the MCL per THM is based on a

18 running average. So there could be higher

19 instantaneous levels.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. And am I also

21 correct that MCLs are set as close to the health

22 base limits, the MCLGs, as feasible using the best

23 available analytical and treatment technologies? Is

24 that correct?

MR. ANDES: I think you're asking him

2 for a legal interpretation of the regulations.

MS. ALEXANDER: Well, no. I mean, I

4 think that he's -- I mean, he's an expert in

5 understanding what MCLs and MCLGs are. I think

6 that's something he can testify to.

MR. ANDES: I don't think -- you're

8 asking him to restate what the legal requirements

9 for setting MCLs and MCLGs. I don't think he's

10 saying he's an expert on that part, he's an expert

11 on the science.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. But you -- you

13 understand, Dr. Haas, what MCLs and MCLGs are. Is

14 that correct?

MR. HAAS: Yes.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. And is it your

17 understanding that an MCLG is a maximum goal for

18 zero health risk?

MR. HAAS: The MCLG is a level at

20 which there is believed to be no health risk.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. And is it also

22 your understanding that when MCLs are established,

23 the goal -- the idea is to set them as close to the

24 MCLGs as possible?

MR. HAAS: I would -- I would actually

2 stick with your earlier wording in terms of

3 feasibility.

MS. ALEXANDER: Yes. Okay. And that

5 earlier wording, just to be clear, was that they are

6 set using the best available analytical and

7 treatment technologies. Is that correct?

MR. HAAS: Correct.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Chloroform is

10 one type of trihalomethane. Is that correct?

MR. HAAS: That's correct.

MS. ALEXANDER: And what's the MCLG

13 for chloroform?

MR. HAAS: It's at .07 milligrams per

15 liter.

MS. ALEXANDER: Which would be the

17 same as 77 parts per billion.

MR. HAAS: 70 parts per billion.

MS. ALEXANDER: Yeah, I'm sorry, 70

20 parts per billion. And the MCLGs are also based on

21 an assumption of two liters a day per capita

22 consumption. Is that correct?

MR. HAAS: That's correct.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Are you aware

1 of any studies specifically concerning the health

2 impacts of trihalomethanes on recreational water

3 users?

MR. HAAS: No, I'm not.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Do you have any

6 basis to believe that those effects would be

7 comparable to the affects from chronic ingestion?

MR. ANDES: I'm sorry. Can you

9 clarify?

MS. ALEXANDER: Do you have any basis

11 to believe that the health effects from -- the

12 health impact of trihalomethanes on recreational

13 users would be any -- in any way comparable to the

14 health impact of chronic ingestion of

15 trihalomethanes?

MR. HAAS: I have no basis for

17 assuming one or the other, assuming the

18 comparability by comparability.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Is chlorine

20 used to disinfect swimming pools?

MR. HAAS: Yes.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Are you aware

23 of research concerning the concentration of

24 trihalomethanes in swimming pools?

MR. HAAS: I am.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Specifically,

3 are you familiar with a study entitled Distribution

4 and Determinants of Trihalomethane Concentrations in

5 Indoor Swimming Pools published in the Journal of

6 Occupational Medicine in 2002?

MR. HAAS: I don't recollect that

8 specific paper, no.

MS. ALEXANDER: I am going to enter

10 that study into the -- I have the study marked.

11 Let's see if that refreshes your recollection at

12 all. You folks need two.

MS. TIPSORD: She doesn't need it. I

14 keep track of all the exhibits for her. They have

15 enough to do in this rulemaking without giving them

16 exhibits to handle. I've been handed an OEM online

17 paper, Distribution and Determinants of

18 Trihalomethane Concentration in Indoor Swimming

19 Pools. If there's no objection, we will mark this

20 as Exhibit 145. Seeing none, it's Exhibit 145.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Are you

22 familiar with the conclusion in this study that the

23 geometric concentration of the trihalomethanes in

24 the swimming pools tested was 132.4 parts per

1 billion?

MR. ANDES: I think he already

3 testified he hadn't reviewed the report.

MS. ALEXANDER: But he may be familiar

5 with the conclusions.

MR. HAAS: I haven't seen this paper,

7 no.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. What is the

9 most common method of disinfection of wastewater

10 effluent currently being used in the US?

MR. HAAS: Chlorination to include DS

12 plus hyperchloride.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Do you have an

14 understanding of what percent of wastewater

15 disinfection is currently achieved through

16 chlorination as opposed to other methods?

MR. HAAS: There's not a good

18 statistical survey done recently. I believe,

19 though, the numbers are in the high 70s to 80s

20 percent.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Are you aware

22 that the Water Reclamation District currently

23 disinfects several of its wastewater treatment

24 plants in suburban areas?

MR. HAAS: Yes, I am.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. And that would

3 be the Cary, Hanover, and Egan facilities?

MR. HAAS: Yes.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. What type of

6 disinfection is used at those facilities?

MR. HAAS: They're using liquid sodium

8 hydrochloride.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Now regarding

10 the section in your testimony, it had a relative

11 insensitivity of some pathogens, where you state at

12 Page 3 that "attainment of satisfactory indicator

13 levels in disinfected wastewater does not assure a

14 low level of risk from exposure to viruses as well

15 as protozoan pathogens." Am I correct in

16 understanding that your concern here is that the

17 indicators are potentially -- that your concern with

18 falls negatives on the health risks and not

19 positives. Is that correct?

MR. HAAS: That's correct.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. And now turning

22 to the first paragraph of Page 4, which is headed

23 Security and Safety Issues, is there any reason that

24 the Water Reclamation District would need to use

1 gaseous chlorine if it decided on chlorination as

2 its disinfection method?

MR. HAAS: That would be an

4 engineering judge for the District.

MS. ALEXANDER: And you indicated a

6 moment ago that it's, in fact, using liquid chlorine

7 at its suburban facilities. Is that correct?

MR. HAAS: Correct.

MS. ALEXANDER: So do you know of any

10 reason one way or the other why it would not be

11 possible to use liquid chlorine at its three CAWS

12 facilities?

MR. HAAS: It certainly would be

14 possible.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. And to your

16 knowledge, do the majority of wastewater treatment

17 facilities in the country that use chlorination use

18 gaseous or liquid chlorine?

MR. HAAS: Here we're really at the --

20 at the mercy of a lack of good national surveys. I

21 know there's been a movement toward liquid

22 hyperchloride away from gas, but I don't know if we

23 have a sense of the magnitude of the percentage of

24 that shift.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. And regarding

2 the second paragraph of that section in which you

3 state that "liquid sodium hyperchloride solution is

4 corrosive and prevents potential worker safety

5 hazard," is sodium hyperchloride solution more

6 commonly known as bleach when sold for household

7 use?

MR. HAAS: Commercial bleach and the

9 sodium hyperchloride used for disinfection both have

10 the same active ingredient as the sodium

11 hyperchloride. However, typically in waste

12 treatment plants -- and this is the case of the

13 District -- the concentration of sodium

14 hyperchloride is greater than it is in commercial

15 bleach.

MS. ALEXANDER: Would I be correct in

17 understanding that the disinfection solution of

18 sodium hyperchloride is approximately 12.5 percent?

MR. HAAS: At the District, that's

20 right.

MS. ALEXANDER: At the District.

22 Okay.

MR. HAAS: That's my understanding as

24 well.

MS. ALEXANDER: Would I be correct in

2 understanding that the solution for household bleach

3 is 5.25 percent?

MR. HAAS: That's correct.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Would it be

6 fair to say that any dangers you site that would

7 attend shipping and consumer use of sodium

8 hyperchloride for purposes of disinfection would

9 also attend shipping for a consumer use?

MR. HAAS: To a major degree, although

11 with our concentration there is a bit more hazard in

12 the spill.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. And would you

14 say that other types of chemical shipments commonly

15 used in industry pose similar types of risks?

MR. HAAS: Well, that -- to me that's

17 an overly-broad question because of the number of

18 chemicals.

MS. ALEXANDER: Well, would you say

20 that shipping a tank car of gasoline poses some

21 risk?

MR. HAAS: Oh, some risk, yeah. You

23 used the word "similar."

MS. ALEXANDER: Oh, okay.

MR. HAAS: I think the word similar

2 was problematic.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. Is it your view

4 that the risk of shipping a tank car of gasoline is

5 unacceptable?

MR. HAAS: Spending a lot of time in

7 the world of risk, when I hear the word

8 "unacceptable" -- and my apologies for being a bit

9 too pedantic here, perhaps -- when I hear the word

10 "unacceptable," to me that incorporates some element

11 of social judgment and equity that's beyond the

12 realm of science. So the only way I can answer that

13 question is to say by the fact that those shipments

14 remain permitted, society has deemed that risk to be

15 acceptable. I -- I don't believe it's appropriate

16 to express a psychic opinion on that matter.

MS. ALEXANDER: Okay. All right. I

18 have no further questions for this witness.

MS. TIPSORD: With that, I think we

20 move, then, to the IEPA.

MR. ANDES: If I can just get up for

22 one moment and get a very quick bathroom break and

23 be right back.

MS. TIPSORD: Sure. All right. Let's

1 take five minutes.

MR. ANDES: Thank you.

(Whereupon, a break was taken,

after which the following

proceedings were had.)

MS. TIPSORD: And I think we're ready

7 to start with the IEPA.

MS. DIERS: Stefanie Diers of Illinois

9 EPA. I'm going to start with our pre-filed question

10 number one. On Page 5 of your pre-filed testimony,

11 opinion one states "If chlorine, either as gaseous

12 chlorine or hyperchloride, disinfection is used,

13 there is a very high likelihood of producing organic

14 disinfection byproducts, including those that are

15 the subject of water quality guidelines, and those

16 that are regarded as likely carcinogenic." In your

17 opinion, do you think the Board should require all

18 facilities that currently use chlorination to go to

19 using a different disinfection method?

MR. HAAS: I think that disinfection

21 is best approached as a site-specific basis. When

22 disinfection is required, I believe the best policy

23 is to allow the discretion of the utility and its

24 consultants to develop a design that complies with

1 whatever criteria there are.

MS. DIERS: Okay. On number two, on

3 Page 3 of your pre-file testimony you state, "It has

4 long been known that some pathogens, such as

5 viruses, are more resistant than indicator

6 organisms, such as coliform, to chlorinate

7 disinfection in wastewater." Is it your opinion

8 that chlorinating of effluent should stop?

MR. HAAS: As a general case, again, I

10 don't believe that there should be a single site

11 that sits alone in those considerations. It's a

12 very site-specific basis.

MS. DIERS: What would you look at --

14 when I said it's site specific, what would I be

15 looking at to make those determinations?

MR. HAAS: The use of the receiving

17 water, potential exposures that might occur, the

18 degree to which the wastewater could be disinfected

19 by particular disinfectants, cost and safety, and

20 ecological effects.

MS. DIERS: Number three, what was

22 your role on behalf of MWRDGC in the Pollution

23 Control Board rulemaking of district disinfect

24 requirements in the early 1980s?

MR. HAAS: Actually, on behalf of the

2 District, I had no role. In fact, in that

3 proceedings in the early 80s I was a witness. My

4 recollection is, in fact, here in Joliet against the

5 district.

MS. DIERS: Can you explain what you

7 did in that?

MR. HAAS: That was a rulemaking in

9 which disinfection was proposed to be eliminated,

10 and I testified opposing that recommendation, citing

11 the need for disinfection.

MS. DIERS: And what was your

13 reasoning for taking that position?

MR. HAAS: Based on public health,

15 potential exposure or recreational users.

MR. ANDES: And to follow up with

17 that, specifically as to the District and these

18 waterways, or more generally?

MR. HAAS: More generic.

MR. ANDES: As to secondary contact or

21 primary contact?

MR. HAAS: Primary contact.

MR. ANDES: Thank you. So that was a

24 statewide rulemaking, and you were discussing health

1 risks for primary contact recreation?

MR. HAAS: That's my recollection,

3 yes.

MS. DIERS: What statewide rulemaking?

5 Do you recall?

MR. HAAS: Well, again, to go back in

7 history, in the very inception of the definition of

8 secondary treatment at the federal level, the

9 coliform standard was included in the definition of

10 secondary treatment. In, I think, 1974 the feds

11 removed the coliform criteria from the definition of

12 secondary treatment, and so this was a rulemaking in

13 response to that change of definition on the federal

14 part.

MS. DIERS: Okay. Number four. Is

16 the problem of chlorinated disinfection byproducts

17 an issue when using UV radiation or ozone as a

18 disinfectant?

MR. HAAS: No.

MR. ANDES: And to follow up, our --

21 so your answer is as to chlorinated disinfectant

22 byproducts?

MR. HAAS: Correct.

MR. ANDES: Are there other

1 disinfection byproducts for UV?

MR. HAAS: There could be. As I

3 indicated earlier, you can produce hydroxyl

4 radicals, which can result in organic alterations

5 from UV, and from ozone you can produce brominated

6 and bromine-contained byproducts.

MS. DIERS: I'm going to skip five and

8 go to six. Do such byproducts exist at a level that

9 poses risks to humans dermal contact?

MR. HAAS: Which byproducts are you --

MS. DIERS: I think we're talking

12 about UV radiation in the ozone from the prior

13 question, sorry, chlorination disinfected

14 byproducts. I'm sorry.

MR. HAAS: Chlorinated byproducts.

16 Since there are no chlorinated byproducts being

17 produced, then they would pose no risk.

MR. ANDES: Let me see if I can

19 clarify. Are we talking about chlorinated

20 byproducts from chlorination, or we're talking about

21 chlorinated byproducts from UV?

MR. HAAS: You're talking about your

23 pre-filed question four, right?

MS. DIERS: Yes.

MR. HAAS: Yeah.

MS. DIERS: Yeah. We're answering

3 six, but I was referring to the byproduct.

4 Chlorinated disinfection byproducts, I think, is

5 what we're using on six.

MR. HAAS: From UV or ozone?

MS. DIERS: Well, we'll start with UV.

MR. HAAS: Okay. Well, since -- in

9 both cases, since there are no chlorinated

10 byproducts, then there's no issue resulting from the

11 byproducts produced.

MS. DIERS: So they're using chlorine

13 as a risk through dermal contact?

MR. HAAS: I don't think we know that

15 well enough. We know that there can be human

16 exposure to the chlorinated byproducts. We don't

17 know directly whether there can be a health risk.

MS. DIERS: We have no further

19 questions. Thank you.

MS. TIPSORD: Is there anything else,

21 then, for Mr. Haas? Thank you very much.

MR. ETTINGER: Wait a minute.

MS. TIPSORD: Oh, sorry. I didn't see

24 your hand come up. I apologize.

MR. ANDES: You need to be a little

2 faster, Albert.

MR. ETTINGER: You're quick.

MS. TIPSORD: We're moving right

5 along, finally.

MR. ETTINGER: We're just starting to

7 get warm here, literally. Are there -- are you

8 aware of any studies of the effects of chlorinated

9 byproducts on fish or other aquatic life?

MR. HAAS: I believe I am, yes.

MR. ETTINGER: And what do you -- what

12 do we know about that?

MR. HAAS: Well, it's been a long time

14 since I reviewed that literature. I certainly am

15 aware that that body of knowledge exists, but I'm

16 not prepared to summarize it.

MR. ETTINGER: Does dechlorination

18 take out any of the THMs or other byproducts for

19 chlorination?

MR. HAAS: Can you repeat that again?

21 THMs or any of the other byproducts?

MR. ETTINGER: I'm not very good at

23 repeating myself.

(Whereupon, the record was read as

requested.)

MR. HAAS: There's not good evidence

4 that it takes out THMs. There is evidence,

5 certainly, that it takes out other byproducts,

6 including, for example, chlorines.

MS. ALEXANDER: So the dechlorination

8 takes care, in part, of the chlorinated byproducts

9 problem?

MR. HAAS: I have to do a yes, but --

11 strictly speaking yes, but it doesn't take care of

12 the THMs and the stable organic carbon chlorinated

13 byproducts, which are the ones that appear to be a

14 greater health concern.

MR. ETTINGER: Now would it be fair to

16 say that in general the literature has focused on

17 creation of chlorinated byproducts from the

18 disinfection of drinking water?

MR. HAAS: That's the case recently,

20 although, in fact, some of the earliest work on

21 this, if you go back to the 70s and 80s, there's a

22 lot of work done on wastewater.

MR. ETTINGER: Okay. Well, going back

24 to the 70s and 80s, were there -- what, in general,

1 was the concern about chlorination of wastewater

2 with regard to human health?

MR. HAAS: The concern in that era was

4 primarily understanding the chemistry of what

5 happens when you add chlorine to an organic

6 container of liquid, such as wastewater, and also

7 some level of concern with respect to

8 bioconcentration in aquatic life.

MR. ETTINGER: What bioconcentration

10 in the aquatic life?

MR. HAAS: Many of the organic

12 byproducts are hydrophobic, and hydrophobic

13 materials of any kind are in the aquatic life.

MR. ETTINGER: And then they would be

15 a problem to people who ate the fish?

MR. HAAS: They could be.

MR. ETTINGER: And what specific would

18 be the chemicals in the fish that would be bad for

19 you to eat?

MR. HAAS: Well, just generically, I

21 would, you know, refer you to the various EPA water

22 quality guidelines in terms of aquatic use that have

23 been generated. These include the THMs.

MR. ETTINGER: Regarding THMs and

1 other chlorinated byproducts of chlorination, do

2 these break down in the environment?

MR. HAAS: Anything breaks down in the

4 environment. The question is of rates, and, you

5 know, when you use the word "break down," I'm also

6 interpreting it to be volumination of the water

7 because the significant loss of water is

8 volumination.

MR. ETTINGER: Well, how long does

10 that take?

MR. HAAS: You know, I don't know that

12 they -- we have a large enough body of knowledge to

13 give typical values, but, you know, people have

14 measured loss rates and we know it occurs.

MR. ETTINGER: Well, if we have THMs

16 in the water in Chicago and a drinking -- the

17 nearest drinking water source was in Peoria, should

18 we be concerned about that?

MR. HAAS: In what context? In terms

20 of the drinking water supply in Peoria?

MR. ETTINGER: Yes.

MR. HAAS: You know, first of all, I

23 mean, without doing measures on the specific body of

24 water, you can't predict how much tabulation will

1 occur of the THMs from one point to another. But in

2 general, what THMs produce within a drinking water

3 plan by chlorination of the water far exceeds

4 whatever might be left in the source water from an

5 upstream wastewater treatment.

MR. ETTINGER: Are you aware whether

7 the city of Chicago chlorinates its drinking water?

MR. HAAS: They do.

MR. ETTINGER: Is the -- does that

10 process create chlorination byproducts?

MR. HAAS: Undoubtedly, yes, it does.

12 I haven't seen any recent data on THMs, but I'm sure

13 it does.

MR. ETTINGER: And the city of Chicago

15 does not dechlorinate, does it?

MR. HAAS: To my knowledge, no.

MR. ETTINGER: In fact, isn't it

18 generally considered beneficial to release the

19 chlorine in they system because of the bacteria

20 and other things in the pipes?

MR. HAAS: That's the typical US

22 practice.

MR. ETTINGER: Does the -- do the

24 wastewater treatment plants take the chlorine -- I'm

1 sorry. Strike that. Do the wastewater treatment

2 plants take the chlorinated byproducts out of the

3 water that come to them from the drinking water

4 plants?

MR. HAAS: There's certainly nothing

6 in typical design that's done deliberately to do

7 that. On the other hand, most wastewater treatment

8 plans, and all wastewater treatments plans of the

9 District, have stages where there is heavy addition

10 of oxygen or air to the water, and that heavy

11 aeration acts -- many of the materials, including

12 THMs.

MR. ETTINGER: So your understanding,

14 then, would be that some, but probably not all, of

15 the chlorinated byproducts in the drinking water

16 plants are taken out by the wastewater treatment

17 plants?

MR. HAAS: Correct.

MR. ETTINGER: Do you have any idea

20 what percentage that would be, most, some?

MR. HAAS: It really -- it really

22 depends on the -- on the design, the mechanically --

23 the aeration. So, you know, again, without

24 site-specific measurements I wouldn't hazard a

1 guess.

MR. ETTINGER: And you don't have any

3 site-specific measurements regarding --

MR. HAAS: No.

MR. ETTINGER: I'm sorry, Mr. Haas. I

6 understand my brain moves slower than yours, but you

7 got to let me finish my question before you answer.

MR. HAAS: I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

MR. ETTINGER: I believe the -- could

10 you just read back what we had there?

(Whereupon, the record was read as

requested.)

MR. ETTINGER: Okay. And my question

14 was: Do you have any specific information about the

15 Metropolitan Water reclamation District plants?

MR. HAAS: In general?

MR. ETTINGER: No, about how well they

18 take out chlorination byproducts.

MR. HAAS: No.

MR. ETTINGER: What factors cause more

21 or less dechlorination byproducts to be formed in

22 the disinfection process?

MR. HAAS: Again, we're talking about

24 wastewater?

MR. ETTINGER: Either.

MR. HAAS: Okay. Dose of

3 disinfectant, contact time, type of nitrogen that's

4 present, whether it's ammonia versus nitrite, level

5 of organic material that's present, PH. Those would

6 be the major variable. And also a level of bromide

7 as well.

MR. ETTINGER: How does the ammonia

9 versus nitrate issue affect it?

MR. HAAS: Well, if you have -- if you

11 have a high level of ammonia -- which is typically

12 not the case in drinking water, and in wastewater

13 would be the case if you do not nitrify -- then the

14 chlorine can combine with the ammonias for combined

15 chlorine, and combined chlorine generally does not

16 form organic chlorinated or organic halogenated

17 disinfectant byproducts.

MR. ETTINGER: So you're actually

19 better off with ammonia in terms of avoiding

20 byproducts?

MR. HAAS: In terms of byproducts

22 alone, yes. Avoiding ammonia? No, you're better

23 off with ammonia. You're better off with ammonia in

24 terms of avoiding byproducts.

MR. ETTINGER: I think that's what I

2 said.

MR. HAAS: Okay.

MR. ETTINGER: I think we're clear

5 now.

MR. HAAS: Okay.

MR. ETTINGER: What would cause you to

8 add more or less chlorine in the disinfection

9 process?

MR. HAAS: Well, you're adding

11 chlorine to meet, typically, some biological

12 standard, and so the chlorine dose and time are

13 designed to achieve that biological standard.

MR. ETTINGER: Would you generally add

15 more chlorine in a drinking water plant, or in a

16 sewage treatment plan, per gallon?

MR. HAAS: It's really going to depend

18 on what effluent criteria you're trying to meet on

19 the wastewater side. There are wastewater plants

20 that are designed to achieve high level treatment

21 that uses doses far in excess of the drinking water.

MR. ETTINGER: And why would you do

23 that?

MR. HAAS: You know, the examples I

1 have in mind are in the water reuse plants in the

2 west and the southwest that have tried to achieve

3 very high level of reduction of contaminants.

MR. ETTINGER: For the plants that we

5 see in Illinois, which typically do not have a reuse

6 situation, would you expect them to use more

7 chlorine or less chlorine per gallon than you do in

8 a drinking water plant?

MR. HAAS: On average, at this point

10 my guess is that -- and I haven't seen specific

11 data -- but my guess is the wastewater side may use

12 slightly more because of the greater demand of the

13 organic material.

MR. ETTINGER: The greater demand of

15 the organic material, meaning the pollutants that

16 are remaining in the water of the secondary

17 treatment?

MR. HAAS: Well, it's -- you know,

19 pollutant, to me, has a very specific meaning,

20 pollutant plus natural organic material that's

21 present in the wastewater. You may give a chlorine

22 demand that has to be overcome to get good

23 disinfection.

MR. ETTINGER: So basically having to

1 kill the BOD in order to get the disinfectant?

MR. HAAS: Well, you're not killing

3 the BOD. The BOD and the other organic material

4 consume the chlorine and prevent it from acting

5 against the target microorganisms.

MR. ETTINGER: I think that's it for

7 me.

MS. TIPSORD: Mr. Harley?

MR. HARLEY: Keith Harley, Southeast

10 Environmental Task Force. You've testified about

11 different technologies that are presently in use in

12 order to achieve disinfection. Are there any

13 emerging technologies that may be available five,

14 ten years in the future to achieve disinfection at

15 wastewater treatment plants?

MR. HAAS: Well, I think in my initial

17 list I mentioned one that I would class as emerging.

18 That's peracetic acid. Beyond that, I'm not sure

19 that there's anything on the horizon that I would

20 mention. In this particular context, we're dealing

21 with a very, very large utility plant.

MR. HARLEY: And could you describe

23 the peracetic acid disinfection process?

MR. HAAS: Peracetic acid is a

1 dissolved chemical. It's -- basically vinegar is a

2 acetic acid, and peracetic acid has extra oxygen

3 compared to peracetic acid. So it's a

4 highly-oxidized species, and it can be applied in

5 solution like you would any other liquid chemical

6 and wastewater. So it's a direct application of the

7 solution and the mixing.

MR. HARLEY: And what are the

9 advantages and disadvantages of uses peracetic acid

10 as opposed to ozonization, or chlorination

11 dechlorination?

MR. HAAS: Well, you know, since it's

13 emerging, we don't have a full spectrum of the pros

14 and cons. Its advantage relative to UV and ozone in

15 particular are that UV and ozone are highly capital

16 intensive processes, and peracetic acid, being a

17 solution that can be directly applied, doesn't need

18 the level of capital equipment that you would need

19 with UV or ozone.

MR. HARLEY: Thank you.

MS. TIPSORD: Mr. Ettinger?

MR. ETTINGER: Your testimony

23 indicates that some of the indicator species are

24 less resistant to chlorination than some of the

1 pathogens in your view. Is that correct?

MR. HAAS: Correct.

MR. ETTINGER: Do you believe in using

4 indicator species in order to determine the

5 effectiveness of disinfection?

MR. HAAS: Our historical evidence is

7 that indicators have been helpful. I think the

8 world of environmental microbiology is in

9 transition, and in some timeframe in the future

10 we'll probably no longer be relying on indicators

11 because it's becoming easier to measure the

12 pathogens. But we're not there yet.

MR. ETTINGER: Thank you.

MS. TIPSORD: Anything further? Thank

15 you very much, Mr. Haas. We'll move on to Dr. Zenz.

16 And can we have Dr. Zenz sworn in?

(Witness sworn.)

MR. ANDES: I'm sorry. I should also

19 mention that there may be some issues where we may

20 need to refer them to Eric Cockerill, who is also

21 here from CTE who participated in the development of

22 Dr. Zenz's report.

MS. TIPSORD: Okay.

MS. WILLIAMS: Should we swear him in

1 then?

MR. ANDES: Sure.

MS. TIPSORD: All right. Let's go

4 ahead and do that then.

(Witness sworn.)

MS. TIPSORD: And do you have a copy

7 of Dr. Zenz's testimony, please?

MR. ANDES: Sure do.

MS. TIPSORD: Thank you. If there's

10 no objections, we will mark the pre-filed testimony

11 of David R. Zenz as Exhibit 146. Seeing none, it's

12 Exhibit 146. And I believe that IEPA was the first

13 of the group to file questions, and RDC had none, so

14 we'll begin with IEPA.

MS. WILLIAMS: Good Morning Mr. Zenz.

16 It's Mr. Zenz, right, not Dr. Zenz?

DR. ZENZ: It is Dr. Zenz. I have a

18 PHD.

MS. KATZ: There's so many witnesses

20 to keep track of. My name's Deborah Williams with

21 Illinois EPA. I'm going to start with question one

22 from our pre-filed questions. Can you explain the

23 difference between the Level 3 cost estimate and the

24 Level 4 cost estimate?

DR. ZENZ: I can. The Level 3 and

2 Level 4 cost estimates, which appear in my

3 testimony, are definitions which are -- have been

4 put together by the Association for the Advancement

5 of Cost Engineering, and they produced a recommended

6 practice Document, 18R-97, and it classifies

7 different types of cost estimates.

MS. TIPSORD: Dr. Zenz, you're going

9 to have to speak up. We're having a hard time.

DR. ZENZ: There are five levels of

11 estimates, Level 5 being the least detailed, and

12 Level 1 being the most detailed. In my testimony, I

13 talk about two different types of cost estimates

14 according to this classification system. A Level 4

15 estimate represents a study -- or feasibility

16 estimate with an expected deviation range of actual

17 cost of minus 20 percent or plus 40 percent. A

18 Level 3, which is a more detailed cost estimate,

19 represents a budget estimate with an expected

20 deviation range of actual cost of minus 15 percent

21 plus 30 percent.

MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you. You

23 testified on Page 10, Paragraph 3, that, quote, "The

24 total estimated schedule for implementation is

1 approximately eight years to operate for the North

2 Side and Calumet facility, and ten years for the

3 Stickney facility." Explain why eight years is

4 necessary to construct this infection at the North

5 Side and Calumet plant and why ten years is

6 necessary for the Stickney plant.

DR. ZENZ: The difference between the

8 North Side and Calumet plant schedules and the

9 Stickney schedule is related to larger size and

10 scope of the potential Stickney project. Stickney

11 is much larger than these other two plants, and the

12 issues include the relocation of railroad tracks,

13 there's much longer lengths of conduits, the

14 conduits are much larger, and there will have to be

15 construction of a new wall, all of which will

16 lengthen both the designing construction periods for

17 the Stickney plant.

MS. WILLIAMS: I think I was intending

19 also -- I mean, that's a good answer, I think, to

20 the question that was asked, but I was also trying

21 it get at generally the eight-year length of time

22 for even the smaller plants, and what is the cause

23 for such a long schedule for those plants?

MR. ANDES: Well, I think that the

1 specific time lines within that were in his

2 testimony. Are you asking about specific parts of

3 that eight years?

MS. WILLIAMS: I find eight years to

5 be a very long schedule, so I would like you to

6 explain why eight years -- why, even for the shorter

7 scheduled plants, we have such a long schedule.

DR. ZENZ: Well, I can assure you

9 there's no cushion in these schedules, and by the

10 way, it's been my experience most schedules put

11 together by engineering firms usually take longer

12 than what they do. So no cushion to these, I assure

13 you. Well, first of all, we have a pilot plant

14 study, and we think the pilot plant study is

15 absolutely mandatory for the size of these

16 particular facilities. Now if you're going to go

17 ahead and construct that pilot facility, you need a

18 design, you need to design it, and it has to be

19 constructed. We think it's going to take at least

20 18 months, and that includes the design, regulatory

21 view, construction, and startup, and then we need

22 another year to run the pilot plant, and if we need

23 the pilot plant we think is necessary we might want

24 to look at things like --

MS. TIPSORD: Dr. Zenz, slow down as

2 well. Speak up and slow down.

DR. ZENZ: We need information about

4 bulb life. The system is going to -- we're looking

5 at automatic cleaning systems for the UV

6 disinfection system. We're going to look at just

7 the geometry and the design of the facility. We

8 want to get most efficient and cost effective design

9 that we can possibly put together. You have to

10 realize that the UV disinfection system for the

11 Stickney plant could be -- could be one of the

12 largest ever constructed in North America, and

13 probably one of the largest constructed in the

14 entire world. So the pilot plant facility, we

15 think, is absolutely necessary. So we think the two

16 and a half years is, you know --

MS. WILLIAMS: The pilot plant --

DR. ZENZ: -- a good schedule for that

19 particular part. Now to go on --

MS. WILLIAMS: Can I propose -- let's

21 talk about this a little bit.

DR. ZENZ: Sure.

MS. WILLIAMS: And I'm not recalling

24 from your testimony, is there a pilot plant facility

1 at each -- are you doing a pilot at each facility or

2 one pilot?

DR. ZENZ: No, at each particular

4 facility.

MS. WILLIAMS: All right. Go ahead.

6 You can move on.

DR. ZENZ: Well, so the next part of

8 the schedule is a design period, okay? We want to

9 get into -- we've constructed and reviewed our pilot

10 plant data, and now we're getting the construction.

11 Well, again, we have to review the pilot plant data,

12 we have to construct the preliminary design, the

13 final design, the regulatory review, there's a

14 bidding period, and we're finally going to award

15 contractors. Now we -- CP has done a lot of work

16 for the District over the years, and we have

17 extensive experience in what this whole process,

18 design process, would be, and recent at -- a recent

19 project of the District at the Calumet plant,

20 similar magnitude and complexity, estimated

21 construction cost of excess of $240 million. The

22 total design period from notice to award a design

23 contract, the advertisement of bid was 30 months,

24 which is exactly what is the proposal.

MS. WILLIAMS: DR. ZENZ --

DR. ZENZ: And that does not include

3 -- that does not include the bidding period or

4 contract negotiations. Again, there's no cushion

5 here, no cushion.

MS. WILLIAMS: So in your experience

7 with the District, do you feel that the bidding and

8 contract stage takes longer than other publicly

9 owned treatment works?

DR. ZENZ: My experience, other

11 municipal organization go through this extension

12 period. It's certainly no better, no worse, than

13 other places.

MS. WILLIAMS: So you think it's about

15 the same?

DR. ZENZ: About the same.

MS. WILLIAMS: So let's review. So

18 the 30 months --

DR. ZENZ: 30 months.

MS. WILLIAMS: -- is that -- that

21 would be a typical period?

DR. ZENZ: For a large contract

23 like -- again, you have to look at the size of these

24 facilities. The Calumet plant was about a

1 $250 million contract. Actually these contracts

2 would be larger than this. But yes, I would say two

3 and a half years is a reasonable number for a

4 schedule with no cushion. And again -- I'll repeat

5 what I said before -- most schedules put together by

6 engineering firms take longer than what they --

7 that's typically what happens.

MS. WILLIAMS: And have you worked on

9 other UV designs for other municipalities?

DR. ZENZ: I have -- yes, I have.

MS. WILLIAMS: And on those projects,

12 I would assume you're using your same philosophy of

13 wanting to give an accurate schedule --

DR. ZENZ: Yes.

MS. WILLIAMS: -- unlike other

16 engineering firms?

DR. ZENZ: Yes, yes.

MS. WILLIAMS: Can you tell us what

19 the schedules were for some of those other projects?

DR. ZENZ: The projects -- in fact,

21 it's actually only one. The project I worked on was

22 much smaller in scale --

MS. WILLIAMS: Right.

DR. ZENZ: -- than this. So there's

1 no comparison.

MS. WILLIAMS: And for a smaller --

3 but I would like to understand for a small project

4 about how long would the schedule be.

DR. ZENZ: You know, I can't honestly

6 remember.

MS. WILLIAMS: You don't recall?

DR. ZENZ: No.

MS. WILLIAMS: It was probably smaller

10 than this -- shorter than this, obviously?

DR. ZENZ: You know what, I'm not

12 sure.

MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. Did you have

14 anything else you wanted to explain about what went

15 into the construction schedule? We talked about the

16 30 months and the two years for the pilot. Did you

17 want to move on to the rest of it?

DR. ZENZ: Well, I would just say

19 that, you know, adding the schedules together, the

20 construction of these facilities, you'd have to

21 relocate railroad tracks, you'd have to enlarge

22 conduits, got to put in large pumping facilities.

23 Each one of these facilities requires a pump station

24 in addition to the disinfection. I think, you know,

1 our -- and again, I think our schedule is a

2 reasonable one to put forward at this particular

3 point in time. That's all I can say.

MS. TIPSORD: Mr. Harley, you have a

5 followup?

MR. HARLEY: Dr. Zenz, my name is

7 Keith Harley. Doctor, although you can't remember

8 the specifics of the previous UV project that you

9 worked on, can you tell us where that was?

DR. ZENZ: Yeah. It was the Hanover

11 Park facility, not the District's Hanover Park, but

12 the DuPage County site. A small, 1.5 MDG facility.

13 And again, the comparison to the district, not at

14 all.

MR. HARLEY: And although you can't

16 recall the specifics of that project, can you tell

17 us approximately when you worked on that

18 installation?

DR. ZENZ: It was the later part of

20 the 90s.

MR. ANDES: So that's the one UV

22 project you've worked on, but you've worked on a

23 number of other treatment projects --

DR. ZENZ: Yes, yes.

MR. ANDES: -- for municipalities?

DR. ZENZ: Yes.

MS. WILLIAMS: Did Mr. Cockerill work

4 on the Hanover Park project as well? Am I

5 pronouncing your name properly, Mr. Cockerill?

DR. ZENZ: No, did he not.

MR. ETTINGER: Can I follow up on

8 Mr. Andes question? What other disinfection plants

9 have you worked on?

DR. ZENZ: Well, most recently, the --

11 I worked with the Urbana-Champaign sanitary

12 districts, their northeast plant and their southwest

13 plant. I designed a disinfection facility for them.

MR. ETTINGER: Okay. Well, what did

15 they do?

DR. ZENZ: Well, they had an existing

17 chlorination facility, which had been not used for

18 many years because of the permit from the Illinois

19 EPA, which exempted them from year-round

20 disinfection.

MS. TIPSORD: Dr. Zenz, you're fading.

DR. ZENZ: They were exempt from

23 year-round disinfection, and so a new permit came

24 through from the Illinois EPA, and they had to put

1 their disinfection system back in operation again.

2 So it's a matter of rehabilitation and some redesign

3 work, and it was not an extensive engineering and

4 design project.

MR. ETTINGER: It was not extensive?

DR. ZENZ: No, because they already

7 had -- they already had an existing chlorine contact

8 chamber in each of the facilities. They had

9 remnants of the chlorine dosing system, but it

10 hadn't been used in over 25 years, and so it was a

11 necessity to rehabilitate and rejuvenate the old

12 system.

MR. ETTINGER: Is there an existing

14 chlorination facility at the Calumet plant at the

15 Water Reclamation District?

DR. ZENZ: There is an existing

17 chlorine contact, yes.

MR. ETTINGER: Other than the

19 Champaign Urbana -- or Urbana-Champaign plant and

20 the Hanover Park plant, do you have any other

21 experience on disinfection systems?

DR. ZENZ: We -- CT did a planning

23 study for Genesee County, which included working on

24 various disinfection alternatives for the Anthony

1 Ragnone Plant, which is outside Michigan. So I was

2 involved in that in late 90s, maybe, that area.

MR. ETTINGER: And that -- what did

4 they do?

DR. ZENZ: They -- there was some

6 rehabilitation and reworking of the existing

7 chlorination, so it was mainly a planning study

8 looking at different alternatives.

MS. TIPSORD: Excuse me, Dr. Zenz,

10 we're going to have to try the microphone because

11 you are fading away.

DR. ZENZ: Okay.

MS. TIPSORD: I don't know if they're

14 on, but could we move it over and see if it on?

DR. ZENZ: I'm sorry.

MS. TIPSORD: Because we -- either

17 that or you're going to have to really work at

18 speaking up.

DR. ZENZ: I'll try speak up louder.

20 I'm sorry.

MS. TIPSORD: Okay.

MR. ETTINGER: Okay. I'm sorry. So

23 we have -- Genesee County, that was very much

24 different from this project, too, right? And

1 Hanover Park was different from this project, and

2 Urbana-Champaign was very different from this

3 project. You're nodding. Do you mean to say yes in

4 response to those questions?

DR. ZENZ: Yes, that's correct, yes.

MR. ETTINGER: Okay. So do you have

7 any relevant experience with regard to this project?

DR. ZENZ: Well, I don't know what you

9 mean by relevant experience. I --

MR. ANDES: Well, let me clarify. Are

11 there any projects in the country as big as this

12 project?

DR. ZENZ: No.

MR. ANDES: Okay. Do you have

15 experience as to disinfection requirements that you

16 think is helpful for this project?

DR. ZENZ: Yes.

MR. ETTINGER: Have you worked on any

19 project similar -- that you believe is similar to

20 this project?

DR. ZENZ: No.

MS. WILLIAMS: Dr. --

MR. ANDES: You're speaking in terms

24 of size?

DR. ZENZ: We're talking about size.

2 I assume that in terms of the size, the magnitude of

3 the project, the cost of the project. The answer is

4 I don't think -- I'm not sure anybody has such

5 memory. Now I must say, you have to realize -- and

6 maybe you didn't look at my resume -- I was a

7 30-year employee of the Metropolitan Water

8 Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, and when I

9 joined the District in 1968, they were chlorinating

10 at all three of the major treatment plants. I was

11 involved in the troubleshooting and working with

12 that existing disinfection system until it was

13 finally eliminated in the late 70s. So I have

14 experience with that.

Also, when I was with the Water

16 Reclamation District, there were two of its, what I

17 would call, smaller plants, which were put online in

18 the 70s and 80s, the John E. Egan plant, and the

19 Cary plant, both of which were being planned,

20 designed, and took place during that period. As a

21 member of the RMD department I participated in the

22 planning and in design meetings that we had with

23 consulting engineers on those two projects. These

24 plants are now in full operation and have been

1 chlorinated for many years. And again, I was

2 involved in troubleshooting those, you know, and

3 working with the MNL department to make sure that

4 those chlorination facilities were operating and

5 meeting their permit. So, I mean, I have -- my

6 30 years with the District, I think I have extensive

7 experience with these plants and working with them

8 and their disinfection systems in general.

MR. ETTINGER: I'm not quibbling with

10 your experience as an engineer. I'm asking whether

11 you had worked on any project that you consider to

12 be similar to this one in whatever you -- or I think

13 your term at one point was relevant when discussing

14 Hanover Park. Have you worked on any other project

15 that you consider relevant to this project?

DR. ZENZ: Well, other than what I

17 just told you about in terms of my experience with

18 the District, that's the only thing I can offer at

19 this point.

MR. ETTINGER: Okay.

MS. TIPSORD: Actually, I have a

22 followup. Dr. Zenz, I have looked at your resume,

23 as a matter of fact, which was attached to your

24 pre-filed testimony, and you have -- under your

1 project experience, you have a Hanover Park landfill

2 study. Is that the same study that you've been

3 talking about here, or is that a different one?

DR. ZENZ: Well, it's for the same

5 client, the Village of Hanover Park and DuPage

6 County, but it had nothing to do with their

7 disinfection system at the wastewater treatment

8 plant.

MS. TIPSORD: Thank you. Mr. Harley?

MR. HARLEY: When you say that there's

11 nothing been done on this scale before, do you mean

12 cumulatively among all three facilities in terms of

13 capacity?

DR. ZENZ: I would say that just the

15 facility at the Stickney plant alone is enough to

16 make this, you know, a project that's somewhat

17 unique, and the Stickney plant is often referred

18 to -- and again, I can't give you a study or a

19 survey which ranks treatment plants in terms of

20 their relative size in North America, but it's my

21 understanding that the Stickney plant is the largest

22 plant in North America. And so I would just say

23 that that alone, that plant alone, is a 1,200 MGD

24 design plant, and any engineer would tell you that

1 that far dwarfs any project that they probably have

2 worked on. In my profession, working on a 50 MGD

3 plant, we consider that to be a very large plant.

MR. HARLEY: Putting aside Stickney --

DR. ZENZ: 1,200 is just outside the

6 realm of most engineers.

MS. WILLIAMS: Dr. Zenz, that plant

8 had previously been chlorinating. So when you talk

9 about no one having experience like this, are you

10 referring specifically to the UV aspect of the

11 project, to whatever type of disinfection it's

12 chosen?

DR. ZENZ: I'm saying that this plant

14 is unique because of its large size.

MS. WILLIAMS: Well, we know that,

16 but --

MR. ANDES: Well, let me follow up.

18 When was chlorination put in at Stickney initially?

19 Do you recall that?

DR. ZENZ: No, I do not.

MR. ANDES: But that was in operation

22 for years --

MS. WILLIAMS: Objection. He said he

24 doesn't know.

MR. ANDES: Okay.

MS. WILLIAMS: If you want to testify

3 you can.

MR. ANDES: Would you say that the

5 requirements of putting chlorination or UV now are

6 somewhat different than they were, say, back in the

7 60s in terms of the requirements that would apply,

8 the various things you would have to look at in

9 terms of designing a new system, anatomy, and all

10 the regulatory requirements?

DR. ZENZ: Oh, sure.

MR. ANDES: Thank you.

MS. TIPSORD: Mr. Harley?

MR. HARLEY: Putting aside Stickney

15 for one moment, are you familiar with any projects

16 equivalent in size to the Calumet facility where UV

17 or chlorination have had to be installed at that

18 facility?

DR. ZENZ: I can't give you any plant

20 of that size that's practicing UV disinfection

21 anywhere in the United States. I don't know of any.

MR. HARLEY: How about the North Side,

23 same question.

DR. ZENZ: Same answer.

MR. HARLEY: So there are no

2 facilities similar in size to Calumet or North Side

3 where their disinfecting wastewater anywhere in the

4 United States?

DR. ZENZ: Well, I thought your

6 question was on UV disinfection, but I'll stick with

7 my answer as far as UV disinfection for those size

8 plants. I don't know of any. I don't know of my

9 plant that large that's used for disinfection. I

10 don't know of any. But as far as chlorination is

11 concerned, I'll make the same statement. I don't --

12 I can't give you a specific answer for a specific

13 plant that size that's using for chlorination in the

14 United States. I'd be guessing. I know of plants

15 that are that large, but I don't know for a fact

16 what exact disinfection method they are or are not

17 using.

MR. HARLEY: So then you also would

19 not be able to be prepared to testify today about

20 how long construction schedules may have been for

21 any other facility of that size?

DR. ZENZ: Well, as I testified

23 earlier, we were comparing -- and I spoke about a

24 design schedule two and a half years for a project

1 at the Calumet plant across the -- about

2 $250 million, and I feel that that is a good example

3 of terms of the cost of the construction project and

4 the magnitude of the project for a facility like

5 Calumet, that it was a good comparison.

MR. HARLEY: But that was the

7 disinfection plant?

DR. ZENZ: No, it was not.

MR. ANDES: We see that the timelines

10 for other types of projects at these wastewater

11 treatment facilities would be similar to

12 disinfection, that there wouldn't be a fundamental

13 difference?

DR. ZENZ: No, I do not see why this

15 comparison wouldn't be appropriate.

MS. TIPSORD: Ms. Williams?

MS. WILLIAMS: Dr. Zenz, I know you

18 feel pretty good about your timeline, and I just

19 wanted to ask this in a different, more specific

20 way. Based on your opinion and your experience at

21 both other facilities and at the District, do you

22 believe these construction schedules represent the

23 earliest reasonable date MWRDGC could achieve

24 compliance with the disinfection requirements?

MR. ANDES: Can I ask, since you put

2 those terms --

MS. WILLIAMS: I would like him to try

4 to answer the question as was asked.

MR. ANDES: Well, I'm asking if you're

6 asking about a legal term, or are you asking his

7 technical judgment? Because you --

MS. WILLIAMS: I am certainly asking

9 his technical judgment.

MR. ANDES: -- put that statement in

11 quotation marks.

DR. ZENZ: Well, I would just repeat

13 what I said before, is that these schedules took

14 some time. And by the way, you have to understand

15 that this is a collective process. When I give a

16 schedule out that's contained in a District report,

17 that is a CTU report. That's not a Dave Zenz

18 report, and it involves the judgment of other

19 engineers putting that together. And so again, I'm

20 going to repeat myself. There's no cushion here.

MS. WILLIAMS: But would you agree

22 it's the earliest reasonable date?

DR. ZENZ: Well, our schedules don't

24 have any dates in them. Only time periods.

MS. WILLIAMS: Correct.

DR. ZENZ: We cannot predict or know

3 when a design contract would begin or when a

4 construction contract would begin. So I'm not

5 prepared to give any dates.

MS. WILLIAMS: So assuming it began

7 today, eight years from today and ten years from

8 today, would that be the earliest reasonable date?

DR. ZENZ: If the design contract was

10 signed on the desk with a consulting engineer, it

11 would be eight years from now.

MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you.

DR. ZENZ: Correct.

MR. ANDES: But do you think that it

15 could easily go beyond that?

DR. ZENZ: Very easily.

MR. ANDES: Thank you.

MS. WILLIAMS: Did you receive

19 comments from USEPA on the cost estimates that CTE

20 developed?

DR. ZENZ: Well, CTE as you saw in my

22 testimony, we actually -- for UV disinfection, we

23 presented a Level 3 cost estimate and a Level 4 cost

24 estimate. A Level 4 cost estimate is prepared as

1 part of the UAA process at the request of, actually,

2 IEPA, and that report was submitted prior to the UAA

3 process, our Level 4 cost estimate, and the USEPA

4 did prepare comments on that report.

MS. WILLIAMS: Do you know if those

6 comments are the same as the document included in

7 that record as Exhibit 12?

DR. ZENZ: I'm afraid I don't. He

9 tells me yes, it is.

MS. WILLIAMS: And the date on the

11 document you're looking at?

DR. ZENZ: April 26th, 2006.

MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. Did you agree or

14 disagree with their comments?

DR. ZENZ: Well, the District asked us

16 to review that document, and as a result of our

17 review and working with the District, comments on

18 the report were prepared, and a letter was issued by

19 the general superintendent of the District that

20 contained some of this -- CTE's comments, and

21 comments from the District. So it was a collective

22 process. That document was then sent over to USEPA

23 and it was presented to me.

MS. WILLIAMS: And do you know what

1 date that letter was sent to USEPA?

DR. ZENZ: See my -- he just corrected

3 me. I thought it was sent to USEPA. It was not.

4 It was sent to Illinois EPA on June the 22nd, 2006.

MS. WILLIAMS: Are you --

MR. ANDES: We can certainly provide

7 that if it's not already in the record.

MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. I don't recall

9 that being in the record, but can I take a look at

10 it, I guess?

MR. ANDES: Sure. It was sent to

12 Mr. Freevert (phonetic) on June 22nd, 2006.

MS. TIPSORD: Let's go ahead and put

14 it in the record even if it's there already. I've

15 been handed a document that is a letter to

16 Mr. Freevert, dated June 22nd, 2006, from the

17 District, which we will mark as Exhibit 147 if

18 there's no objection. Seeing none, it's

19 Exhibit 147.

MS. WILLIAMS: Without going through

21 and reading the whole letter -- I don't believe it's

22 in the record at this point. I could be wrong --

23 can you summarize for us generally was the -- was

24 your response an explanation of why you disagreed

1 with USEPA's comments, basically?

DR. ZENZ: Yes.

MS. WILLIAMS: Do you -- did you make

4 any changes to your process as a result of USEPA's

5 comments?

DR. ZENZ: We did not make any changes

7 to our Level 4 cost estimate file report.

MS. WILLIAMS: But later you prepared

9 a Level 3 report?

DR. ZENZ: Later at the request of the

11 District, we prepared a more detailed cost estimate.

12 That cost estimate, the Level 3 cost estimate, is in

13 my desk.

MS. WILLIAMS: And did you take any

15 other new factors into account when preparing the

16 Level 3 estimate as a result of the UAA process?

DR. ZENZ: Yes. Now I can just

18 briefly summarize?

MS. WILLIAMS: That would be great.

DR. ZENZ: I'm not going to give you

21 all the nuts and bolts, but there were three major

22 comments which came out of this USEPA review of our

23 Level 4 cost estimates, and of course when we got

24 this new contract with the District, the Level 3

1 cost estimate, we wanted to make sure that we were

2 cognizant of these comments from USEPA and that we

3 reviewed them carefully, and the first comment they

4 made was they said they were very skeptical that

5 tertiary treatment may not be needed, and you'll

6 recall from my testimony that we actually had a

7 Level 4 cost estimate. We presented costs for UV

8 disinfection plus filtration, and UV disinfection

9 without filtration. So the comment was why, you

10 know, they questioned the need for tertiary

11 filtration as an additive process to UV

12 disinfection.

Well, when we began our Level 3

14 cost estimate, we decided that we needed more data

15 on turbidity of the waters at three major plants.

16 We did our Level 3 cost estimate, and we did very

17 little work on this area, and based on this more

18 recent data, we concluded that actually tertiary

19 filtration did not appear to be necessary. And

20 actually, if you look at our cost estimates that are

21 in my testimony, those cost estimates do not include

22 tertiary filtration. But however, we must say the

23 final decision should be made during preliminary

24 design based on additional sampling, including the

1 pilot plant study which we recommend. So obviously

2 we feel that the additional data indicates the issue

3 of filtration is something we think is probably not

4 necessary. Again, this points to the need for a

5 pilot plant.

Next issue that they brought up,

7 and they said, "Why are you providing pump stations

8 in combination with each of the UV disinfection

9 facilities?" So we did, at the request of the

10 District, more detailed hydraulic analysis than we

11 originally did for our Level 4 cost estimate. And

12 based on this more extensive review of the

13 hydraulics of each plant, we concluded exactly the

14 same thing as we have done before. We feel that a

15 pumping station is used at each of the three

16 stations. It is necessary to -- in order to get the

17 water through a UV disinfection facility with the

18 number of bulbs and hydraulic resistance of the

19 facility and supporting structures that you would

20 need a pumping station.

Lastly, one of the major comments

22 they made is, "Why are you putting your UV

23 disinfection facility in a building," and they felt

24 that it could be out in the open. It didn't

1 necessarily have to -- did not have to be in a

2 building. We reviewed this issue quite extensively,

3 and I can give you more detail about it. It's going

4 to take a little time, but if you want to go through

5 it I can do it.

MS. WILLIAMS: Sure.

DR. ZENZ: Well, if we haven't all

8 realized, these are huge facilities, and there's

9 going to be multiple maintenance activities that

10 would be required to replace the lamps on the

11 periodic basis. Both lamps -- slowly, UV lamps

12 slowly lose their ability to produce UV rays, and

13 they have to be periodically replaced whether they

14 burn out or not, and then other lamps just burn out.

15 So they have to be replaced, you have to inspect the

16 leads, there's going to be some -- although we

17 included in our cost estimate an automatic bulb

18 cleaning system based upon surveys that we did,

19 telephone surveys, other facilities that have online

20 cleaning systems -- inline cleaning systems, but

21 they still practice manual cleaning, and we felt

22 that was going to be necessary.

MS. WILLIAMS: Do you recall who you

24 talked to?

DR. ZENZ: Yes. Give me a minute

2 here. I talked to Racine, Wisconsin, Sutton,

3 Georgia, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Jacksonville,

4 Florida, and Valley Creek, Alabama. Those were

5 surveys. What we did was we asked them about the

6 quality of their water that was used for bulb

7 cleaning and other issues, and all said that some

8 type of manual cleaning was still necessary in

9 addition the use of the inline cleaning systems. So

10 that is another issue for the maintenance people to

11 deal with.

They also have to deal with the

13 balance and electrical components at the same time.

14 These maintenance facilities would be conducted

15 daily from March to November, and periodically

16 during the winter because they would be replacing

17 bulbs. We think it's reasonable to expect that the

18 reason we would continue to expect normal weathers,

19 is that Chicago has very bad winters, hot summers.

20 In order to protect the safety of the MNO staff and

21 the operational maintenance is recommended, and UV

22 equipment is expensive.

If you look at the cost estimates,

24 the costs are in the millions, and there's sensitive

1 electrical equipment. And considering weather

2 patterns in this area, we think having it in the

3 building is necessary. And by the way, there are UV

4 systems in the local area, which are enclosed. The

5 Village of Hanover Park, for example, which I worked

6 at, even though it's a small facility, the UV

7 facility is enclosed. The Glenbard Wastewater

8 Treatment Plant, the Racine Water Facility, among

9 others, are all enclosed indoors. So we disagree

10 with them, so our cost estimate includes a building.

MS. WILLIAMS: Is there a third issue

12 that we're missing?

DR. ZENZ: No, that's the three. The

14 three issues were the issue of tertiary filtration,

15 the second issue is the issue of low lift pump

16 stations, and the third is the building. Those are

17 the three major issues which we tried to address

18 when we did our Level 3 cost estimate.

MS. TIPSORD: Mr. Harley?

MR. HARLEY: You mentioned that you

21 consulted with other operators, Racine, you said

22 Sutton, you said Jacksonville. What were the

23 others?

DR. ZENZ: Grand Rapids, Michigan.

MR. HARLEY: Grand Rapids.

DR. ZENZ: Jacksonville, Florida, and

3 Valley Creek, Alabama.

MR. HARLEY: Valley Creek, Alabama.

DR. ZENZ: These all have UV

6 facilities, and we were inquiring about routine

7 maintenance that they would -- could do.

MR. HARLEY: Did you also inquire how

9 long it took those facilities to install their UV

10 systems?

DR. ZENZ: No.

MR. HARLEY: So in developing their

13 estimate for what would be necessary, for example,

14 at the Calumet facility, you didn't take into

15 account the length of time from initial decision to

16 install UV to a final installation in any one of

17 these other --

MR. ANDES: He already answered, and

19 he said he couldn't answer the question. Asked and

20 answered.

MR. ETTINGER: Well, he was asking a

22 broader question.

MR. HARLEY: Why not?

MS. TIPSORD: Mr. Harley asked a

1 followup point on why didn't you ask.

DR. ZENZ: That was -- our intention

3 was to inquire about maintenance of UV systems.

4 That was our only intention.

MR. HARLEY: Thank you.

MS. WILLIAMS: Back to me? Okay. On

7 question seven of my pre-filed question, it's states

8 on Page 5, Paragraph 1, "You mention that

9 disinfection alternatives, such as UV, have lower

10 environmental and health impacts." Can you just

11 briefly explain what you mean by lower environmental

12 and health impacts?

DR. ZENZ: Well, it's just the simple

14 fact that -- I'm sure many witnesses, including Dr.

15 Haas, has testified to the same thing, that other

16 disinfection systems use chemicals, and those

17 chemicals produce known disinfection byproducts.

18 And UV disinfection alone, you know, further

19 research is needed to check into this, but it's

20 generally believed that they produce fewer

21 disinfection byproducts than any other ones. That

22 was what I was referring to.

MS. WILLIAMS: You testify on Page 6,

24 Paragraph 2, that, quote -- that you, quote, "Assume

1 that the effluent standards were those outlined in

2 the UAA study, 2740, E. Coli."

DR. ZENZ: Well, when we did our

4 Level 4 cost estimate as part of the UAA process,

5 the standards that were being proposed was

6 approximately the 2740 and another number that was

7 slightly over 1,000 E. Coli per 100 ML.

MS. WILLIAMS: Were those ambient

9 standards or effluent standards?

DR. ZENZ: Those were water quality

11 standards. So what we did in our cost estimate, we

12 assumed that those water quality standards would

13 have to be met in the pike of the treatment plants,

14 that there would be no -- we assume no pollution

15 factor or any other factor to get a lower target.

16 So we assume that those numbers apply in the

17 treatment.

MS. WILLIAMS: And you use those in

19 both the Level 4 and Level 3?

DR. ZENZ: No.

MS. WILLIAMS: Okay.

DR. ZENZ: In the Level 3 cost

23 estimate, because the -- at that point of the Level

24 3 cost estimate, things had progressed past the UAA

1 process, and IEPA produced a 400 fecal coliform

2 count for a 100 ML standard, so our Level 3 cost

3 estimate is based on that.

MS. WILLIAMS: Can you explain how the

5 costs -- because those are two different analysis,

6 right, it's hard to make a link how costs may or may

7 not have changed as a result of the changed

8 standard. Can you explain to us what impact that

9 had on your level of the cost estimate?

DR. ZENZ: Well, let me try to give

11 you a few facts to bear on. When we contacted

12 manufacturers and began our Level 4 cost estimates,

13 which we're looking at the -- meaning these UAA

14 standards, the E. Coli standards that we just talked

15 about, we talked to the manufacturers about this

16 issue, and all of them said that they really had no

17 significant experience in dealing with numbers in

18 that range, that they -- their experience was

19 dealing with fecal coliform concentrations of 400,

20 and they had mentioned the opinion that they didn't

21 think there was any significant difference, that

22 they would not design the system with any

23 significant difference between -- to meet any of

24 those particular target values.

MS. WILLIAMS: So actually --

DR. ZENZ: Let me finish my answer.

MS. WILLIAMS: Sorry.

DR. ZENZ: Also another fact to

5 remember is that when operators are disinfecting

6 their effluent, you would go and look -- if you ever

7 look at the actual bacteria counts that come out of

8 the plants that are disinfected, they're usually far

9 below the permit numbers. The reason for that is

10 fairly simple. There are major fluctuations that

11 occur in wastewater treatment plants through organic

12 concentration and numerous other factors, and you're

13 always involved -- when you're involved in

14 disinfection, you're always getting the data after

15 the fact. 24 hours, 48 hours later, microbiology

16 gives you an answer. So you never -- you can't

17 exactly track your performance.

So there's a tenancy to overdose

19 chlorine or change other factors to make sure that

20 you're meeting the standards under a variety of

21 solutions. So we put those two facts together, the

22 fact that there's really -- we at CTE really had no

23 experience in these so-called higher numbers, and I

24 should explain. When I say -- I know there's an

1 issue between E. Coli and fecal coliform, so the UAA

2 standards were E. Coli, but the District did a

3 fairly extensive study where they took samples, and

4 then on the same sample ran both fecal coliform and

5 E. Coli, and they were pretty close numerically,

6 pretty close. Even though, you know, E. Coli is a

7 subset of fecal coliform, they were pretty close.

8 In the District effluent, they were pretty close.

So when I say a higher number at

10 400, I think I'm on pretty safe ground to say that

11 the E. Coli numbers would translate to hire fecal

12 coliform. So anyway, the manufacturers just don't

13 have much experience, and they didn't think the

14 difference was that much. Plus you have the issue

15 of disinfecting to meet a standard where you're

16 almost always greater than. To be honest with you,

17 I don't think there really is any significant

18 difference in terms of the two targets in terms of

19 the cost either --

MS. WILLIAMS: Now wait --

DR. ZENZ: -- in design or in

22 maintenance operation.

MS. WILLIAMS: When you say two

24 targets, though, I'm confused now whether you mean

1 E. Coli versus fecal, or whether you mean 2,000

2 numbers per --

DR. ZENZ: Well, I was trying to

4 collaborate the two targets. You know, the UAA

5 standards was approximately 1,000 E. Coli or 2740 E.

6 Coli, and 400 is fecal coliform. But what I was

7 trying to say those E. Coli numbers are higher.

8 They're higher, it's a less stringent standard,

9 maybe is a better way to say it. So that's why I

10 meant the two targets. A more stringent standard,

11 and a lesser --

MS. WILLIAMS: And I just --

DR. ZENZ: I don't think -- you know,

14 to be honest with you, I can't give you an absolute

15 answer. Because again, I think this would be the

16 issue for the pilot's next study, and you're asking

17 me, sort of, a theoretical question the difference

18 between these two, and the answer is I don't really

19 know. I really don't know. But the fact that I

20 just gave to you makes me think that there probably

21 isn't that much difference. Long answer, sorry.

MS. WILLIAMS: No, it's okay. So

23 basically, would you say we'd mischaracterize what

24 you just said to say that really in your Level 4

1 cost estimate you actually designed it, sort of,

2 more for a 400 type number than a 2,000 number,

3 correct?

DR. ZENZ: That's correct.

MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. Now I just want

6 to wrap up one thing because there was some

7 confusion at our last set of hearings when

8 Mr. McGowan testified, and he was asked in his

9 testimony -- he stated that a 400 E. Coli number was

10 what he relied on.

DR. ZENZ: That -- I'm sorry.

MS. WILLIAMS: So, I mean, I think

13 what you're also saying -- but he relied on you, so

14 basically he was relying on these lower numbers,

15 whether they were fecal or E. Coli -- it's pretty

16 much the same -- but if I had said 400 fecal, would

17 that -- was that really what you targeted at? I'm

18 not making this clear. I'm sorry.

DR. ZENZ: The information he relied

20 on to give that answer, that was a typographical

21 error on our part, okay? So that's why he said what

22 he said.

MS. WILLIAMS: He should have said 400

24 fecal?

DR. ZENZ: We used 400 fecal.

MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you.

DR. ZENZ: I guarantee it. Read our

4 report.

MS. TIPSORD: Mr. Harley, you have a

6 followup?

MR. HARLEY: You said that you

8 consulted with manufacturers in assessing the

9 comparison between E. Coli and fecal coliform.

10 Could you elaborate, please? Manufacturers of what?

DR. ZENZ: Well, that's somewhat

12 mischaracterized. Manufacturers are not telling us

13 anything about the relationship between E. Coli or

14 fecal coliform or anything like that. We were

15 telling them. But what they were saying was these

16 are manufactures of UV equipment. I mean, it's no

17 secret when a consulting engineer is going to do a

18 cost estimate, we contact the manufacturers to get

19 the latest pricing. We don't -- we don't have, you

20 know, an independent means of assessing the cost of

21 UV disinfection. We have to go to the

22 manufacturers, and so the issue was -- and they

23 asked us when giving us cost estimates for the

24 equipment "What's the target," and we explained what

1 the target was, and again, they were -- they were --

2 they knew less about E. Coli and fecal coliform

3 relationships than we did.

MR. ANDES: I'm sorry to interrupt.

5 The target -- there was 2740 E. Coli --

DR. ZENZ: Right.

MR. ANDES: -- that you provided to

8 the manufacturers?

DR. ZENZ: And there was another

10 standard, and I have to admit there was another

11 waterway target which was approximately 1,000 E.

12 Coli, and it applied to, I think, the North Side

13 plant, but I don't remember. It's been awhile.

14 They had two targets, depending on which waterway

15 the plant was discharging to, so I don't remember

16 which is which now. But there were actually two

17 targets in the UAA water quality standards that were

18 being processed.

And so we presented those targets

20 to the manufactures so that we could get the best

21 cost estimate for them for their equipment, and they

22 basically said "We don't have any real experience in

23 dealing with numbers less stringent than the typical

24 400 count per IML," and they basically said, "And we

1 don't think there's any equipment that we provided

2 would be anything significantly different."

MR. HARLEY: How many manufactures did

4 you consult with?

DR. ZENZ: I don't recall. More than

6 one.

MR. ETTINGER: Can I just follow up on

8 this, because I'm hopelessly confused. Let's

9 just -- part of the problem is we're shifting

10 between fecal, and fecal E. Coli, and fecal. Are

11 there any breakpoints that any of the manufacturers

12 identified between zero and 2,000 fecal? Does it

13 kill them all, or you kill none? Could you just

14 characterize the way the equipment works in terms of

15 this?

DR. ZENZ: I can only repeat what I

17 said before, is that the manufactures all said that

18 they didn't think -- again, they all said, "We don't

19 have experience in dealing with less stringent

20 standards than the typical 400 count per 100 ML, so

21 please explain to us what these E. Coli numbers

22 mean," so we did. I explained what I said before,

23 that the District had done studies and numerically

24 they're very similar. Okay. I understood that,

1 then they said, "Well, we don't have any experience

2 in that, but we think -- we think -- there's

3 probably no difference in the design and the cost of

4 the equipment involved to meet that particular

5 standard."

MR. ETTINGER: Between the E. Coli

7 standard and the fecal standard?

DR. ZENZ: That's correct, the less

9 stringent standard.

MR. ANDES: But there wasn't -- so, in

11 essence, if I can restate for clarifying, so the

12 numbers that you were given should also suffice to

13 meet a 400 fecal standard?

DR. ZENZ: That's correct.

MR. ANDES: And you did not ask about

16 a lower more stringent standard than that, because

17 that wasn't part of the proposal?

DR. ZENZ: Correct.

MR. ETTINGER: And if we were to look

20 at an ambient standard that was higher than 400 in

21 the water that would allow you to, say, discharge

22 1,000, would that effect the cost of the District at

23 all?

DR. ZENZ: I would give the same

1 answer, and the answer is I don't really know. I

2 don't know. Because I don't think, you know, there

3 is a lot of experience with this. I would just say

4 based on the fact that people generally operate

5 their systems at very low bacterial counts to make

6 sure that they don't violate permit standards, and

7 the fact that the manufactures said that they didn't

8 think there was any difference, I don't think -- I

9 don't think you're -- I don't think there'd be any

10 difference in the capital cost and the MNO cost

11 between the two, but that is somewhat of a guess on

12 my part. Again, the pilot study would show whether

13 that was true or not. I mean, there's so many

14 variables involved here, I just don't -- I don't

15 have a good answer.

MR. ETTINGER: So a looser voting

17 standard would not really affect the engineering?

DR. ZENZ: I don't think so, but I'm

19 not -- you know, that's not a definitive statement.

MR. ANDES: And you're talking there

21 in terms of a -- when we're talking a looser

22 standard, you're talking about an effluent standard

23 that they would have to meet for their discharge?

DR. ZENZ: Correct.

100

MS. WILLIAMS: And I -- I mean, I

2 think you've just answered this question, but I had

3 flagged Question 15 to Mr. McGowan that he was

4 unable to answer that's quite similar to this. If a

5 water quality standard were available that

6 appropriately represented the highest level of

7 indicator bacteria in the CAWS that would protect

8 existing recreational uses, could MWRDGC's

9 disinfection process be adjusted to reduce power

10 consumption?

DR. ZENZ: I think that was the same

12 question I was just asked and answered.

MS. WILLIAMS: As far as you --

DR. ZENZ: And the answer is I really

15 don't have a definitive answer, but my best guess is

16 there would not be any difference.

MS. WILLIAMS: Are there any other

18 design changes of the proposed UV disinfection

19 system that could reduce power consumption?

DR. ZENZ: Well, in our cost

21 estimates, we included costs for systems to keep the

22 power cost as low as possible. The District is

23 very, very conscious of the high electrical charges

24 that are coming out, and even worse, the potential

101

1 for significant increases in power cost in the

2 future. So for example, there's a -- in the costs

3 for the UV disinfection system, we included a

4 complex instrumentation control system to operate

5 the system. There's available frequency drives on

6 the lower pump stations that can conserve power,

7 or -- I'm trying to think of some of the other

8 things that -- we have an automatic bulb cleaning

9 system, which I already mentioned. So in the cost,

10 we've tried to include as many features to the

11 system to reduce power costs as possible.

MR. ANDES: If I can follow up. I

13 assume -- just to follow up on that question and

14 Mr. Ettinger's -- if an ambient standard were set

15 such that the District could meet -- such that those

16 things could be met without disinfection, obviously

17 we'd be talking about something very different.

MS. WILLIAMS: Is that a question?

MR. ANDES: So are you assuming --

20 you're assuming that some standard is set that would

21 require disinfection. Am I right?

DR. ZENZ: That's correct.

MR. ANDES: Okay.

MR. ETTINGER: Just a followup on

102

1 Fred's question. Are you -- it's all or nothing on

2 disinfections is the impression that I'm getting.

3 Is that correct?

DR. ZENZ: I'm not sure I understand

5 what you mean by all or nothing.

MR. ANDES: Either you install a

7 system or you don't.

MR. ETTINGER: Either you install a

9 system and you have all of these costs, or you don't

10 install a system and you have none of these costs.

DR. ZENZ: I agree with that, yes.

MR. ETTINGER: I'm sorry. I don't

13 know -- we're all out of order here if there was

14 one, but I had -- well, I said all or nothing in

15 terms of capital cost, I guess. There are different

16 cost depending on how much you run the system,

17 right?

MR. ANDES: You mean seasonal?

MR. ETTINGER: Seasonal.

DR. ZENZ: Oh, yes.

MR. ETTINGER: You would save money by

22 not running in March, for example?

DR. ZENZ: I want to make sure it's

24 clear that our maintenance operational cost assumes

103

1 the seasonal disinfection would take place, so the

2 system is not operating year round.

MR. ETTINGER: Right. And how --

4 sorry. How much work to turn this thing on and off?

5 Can you flip a switch that makes significant savings

6 right away, or is it something that --

MR. ANDES: Savings as compared to

8 what, because his costs were based on seasonal, not

9 annual.

MR. ETTINGER: I understand, but say

11 you decided to turn it off for a couple of days for

12 some reason, would you save any money?

DR. ZENZ: Sure.

MR. ETTINGER: Okay.

MS. TIPSORD: Mr. Harley, you have a

16 followup?

MR. HARLEY: Again, we're out of

18 order, and I apologize for that. When you were

19 talking to these manufactures of UV equipment, more

20 than one as you testified, did you talk to them at

21 all about how long it took for them for UV

22 installations to take place on projects that they

23 worked on?

DR. ZENZ: Yes, we did.

104

MR. HARLEY: And could you describe to

2 us some of the range of -- the range that they

3 described in terms of the time it took to install

4 the UV system?

DR. ZENZ: Well, none of them had any

6 experience or the size that we were talking about.

MR. HARLEY: But in terms of what they

8 had experienced, in terms of --

DR. ZENZ: I can't recall.

MR. HARLEY: How long ago were these

11 conversations?

DR. ZENZ: They were in 2005, maybe

13 2004. Three, four years ago.

MR. HARLEY: Thank you.

MS. TIPSORD: Back to Ms. Williams

16 then.

MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. I have one more

18 area of questions that Mr. McGowan deferred me back

19 to you on, and I think you've answered some of it,

20 and this is my pre-file question number 23, and the

21 question that he didn't know the answer to was: Did

22 you consider using a UV disinfection system design

23 that includes automatic online cleaning?

DR. ZENZ: Well, yeah. I've answered

105

1 that question. Our cost estimate assumes automatic

2 online cleaning.

MS. WILLIAMS: That's what I thought.

4 I wanted to just make sure. And then the

5 following -- the next question was whether UV lamps

6 can be replaced during the non-disinfection season,

7 rather than on an ongoing basis year-round.

DR. ZENZ: Well, it's true --

MR. ANDES: I'm sorry. So the

10 question was about whether you could simply clean

11 and replace after disinfection season.

MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, replace,

13 primarily, is the issue, I think, but yeah. Now

14 that we know there's online cleaning, I'm asking it

15 more focused on the bulbs to be replaced.

DR. ZENZ: Well, I mean, it's a

17 well-known fact that bulb cleaning and replacement

18 schedules, they vary at different plants, and some

19 plants do replace their bulbs principally during the

20 winter season when the disinfection system is not

21 being used. But our feeling was that that was not

22 an effective way to run the maintenance on these

23 particular facilities.

MS. WILLIAMS: Did you ask the other

106

1 plants this question that you talked to?

DR. ZENZ: Yes, yes. Those -- that

3 was one of the issues that we talked about with

4 these plants on their schedule.

MS. WILLIAMS: Can you tell us how

6 many of them did it that way in the off season?

DR. ZENZ: I cannot. I can't give you

8 an exact date.

MR. ANDES: Can you say whether the

10 smaller systems tended to do that offseason?

DR. ZENZ: Yes. The smaller systems

12 tended to, but the smaller systems typically do not

13 use self-cleaning bulb systems. They use manual

14 cleaning systems. Plus there are a much smaller

15 number of bulbs involved. Again, the bulb

16 replacement schedule, you have to periodically

17 replace bulbs because they -- they're at the end of

18 their useful life, but there's bulbs that typically

19 burn out. Plus, there's manual cleaning facilities

20 that -- manual cleaning has to take place from time

21 to time.

So because we follow up the

23 magnitude of the potential -- for the systems of

24 pure size, we assume that the bulb replacement -- we

107

1 had ongoing operation to replace bulbs that reach

2 their typical life span, and bulbs that fail

3 prematurely, and we'd do this throughout the year.

4 We want to optimize the number of personnel. We

5 don't want to have an accumulative number of

6 personnel. We didn't think that was smart to have a

7 huge number of personnel in an intensive maintenance

8 schedule during the winter and have, you know, a

9 relatively small force during the actual

10 disinfection season.

Typically in municipal

12 organizations, they like to have a fairly stable

13 labor force throughout the year. They don't like to

14 have to bring people in for certain periods, you

15 know, of intensive operations, and this coupled with

16 the fact that we would have a building -- we talked

17 about having a building place. So during the winter

18 season, and summer season, the personnel could have

19 access so they could perform all these functions.

20 So our MNL costs assume a stable labor force, which

21 is doing maintenance on the system throughout the

22 year.

MS. WILLIAMS: So you actually think

24 it would be a higher cost for ONM in order to do it

108

1 the other way, to do it in the offseason?

DR. ZENZ: Yes. I think it's just the

3 more practical way to approach it.

MS. WILLIAMS: Okay.

DR. ZENZ: I think you also have a

6 better operating system this way by having, you

7 know, maintenance throughout the year.

MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. Last question

9 from Mr. McGowan: Did you consider using a UV

10 disinfection system designed with the programmable

11 logic control system?

DR. ZENZ: Yes. Again, as I

13 explained, you know, the District, of course, is

14 intentionally interested in saving labor costs as

15 much as possible. So yes, we got PLCs and all the

16 major control points and an integrated system to

17 integrate the whole system and touch screens and

18 everything. So there's a substantial cost for

19 instrumentation and control in PLCs in our cost

20 estimate.

MS. WILLIAMS: But in theory, those

22 also were reflected as reducing the number of

23 personnel?

DR. ZENZ: Yes, yes.

109

MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. The last -- I

2 think you answered my question nine when you

3 discussed your response to USEPA about the tertiary

4 filtration, so I'm going to move on to the question

5 number 11. I don't know what happened to number

6 ten, but number 11, "Have you calculated those costs

7 on a unit basis, such as cost per million gallons

8 treated or cost per household?"

DR. ZENZ: No. We were not asked to

10 do that. We did not do that.

MS. WILLIAMS: What about the cost

12 compared to the median income of the population?

DR. ZENZ: We were not asked to do

14 that.

MS. WILLIAMS: I think that's all I

16 have.

MS. TIPSORD: Mr. Harley, followup?

MR. HARLEY: Just to make sure the

19 record is clear on this point, you testified that

20 you did talk to manufacturers of UV about how long

21 it took to do installations, but you don't recall

22 the answers that they gave you.

DR. ZENZ: We talked to various

24 manufacturers to get some idea of what the

110

1 construction schedule would be for UV disinfection

2 facilities. All the facilities that they talked

3 about with us were not of comparable size. We

4 didn't think the information was useful for our

5 schedule. So we did not -- we didn't think the

6 information that gave us was helpful at all.

MR. HARLEY: So to tie this in, then,

8 to the cost estimate report that you actually did,

9 did you not include information from manufacturers

10 in developing your estimate of how long it would

11 take to do the installations of UV equipment at

12 Water Reclamation District facilities?

DR. ZENZ: That's correct.

MR. HARLEY: Thank you.

MS. TIPSORD: Anything further as

16 followup? All right. It's 11:30, and I think we're

17 ready --

MR. ANDES: I think Albert may have --

MS. TIPSORD: Oh, I'm sorry.

MR. ETTINGER: Wait a minute. I'm

21 sorry. I have -- I've not asked even my pre-filed

22 questions yet.

MS. TIPSORD: That's correct. You

24 follow the People.

111

MR. ETTINGER: Oh, we're breaking for

2 lunch. I'm sorry. I misunderstood.

MS. TIPSORD: Having reached 11:30,

4 and since the next group is the People, why don't we

5 go ahead and break for an early lunch and try and

6 keep it to an hour, and get back at about 12:30.

(Whereupon, a break was taken,

after which the following

proceedings were had.)

MS. TIPSORD: We will begin the

11 People's questions. Ms. Headman?

MS. HEADMAN: Thank you. Dr. Zenz, my

13 name is Susan Headman.

MS. TIPSORD: You're going to have to

15 speak up.

MS. HEADMAN: My name is Susan

17 Headman. I represent the People of the state of

18 Illinois. I'd actually like to start with the

19 letter that was introduced as Exhibit 147 during the

20 questioning this morning. Now that letter is dated

21 June 22nd, 2006. Is that correct?

DR. ZENZ: Yes.

MS. HEADMAN: And it's a -- your

24 analysis of an EPA report that was issued on April

112

1 26th, 2006. Is that correct?

DR. ZENZ: Well, as I said earlier,

3 this is a -- this is a document which CTE prepared

4 some of the comments that are in here, and the

5 District prepared some of the other comments in

6 there. So some of the comments were by the

7 District, and some were by CTE, and maybe even

8 others I don't necessarily know about. So this was

9 a compilation of comments from at least two sources,

10 the District and CTE, and maybe others. I don't

11 know.

MS. HEADMAN: But the comments are

13 dated June 22nd, 2006?

DR. ZENZ: They are.

MS. HEADMAN: And they related to a

16 report that was prepared for USEPA dated April 26th,

17 2006.

DR. ZENZ: It was comments on that

19 report. Yeah, comments on that report.

MS. HEADMAN: Yes. And do you know

21 did USEPA subsequently revise that report in

22 response to your comments?

DR. ZENZ: I don't know.

MS. HEADMAN: I'd like to have a

113

1 document marked.

MS. TIPSORD: First, for the record,

3 let's be clear that what you're -- the report you're

4 referring to, Ms. Headman, is Exhibit 12 in the

5 record.

MS. HEADMAN: It's Exhibit 12 in the

7 record. That's correct.

MS. TIPSORD: Go ahead. I've been

9 handed review of Technical Memorandum 1WQ

10 Disinfection Evaluation Prepared on behalf of the

11 Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater

12 Chicago, the filing of the report, October 26, 2006,

13 prepared by the USEPA, and you want this marked as

14 Exhibit 148?

MS. HEADMAN: Yes, please.

MS. TIPSORD: If there's no objection,

17 then we'll mark this as Exhibit 148.

MS. HEADMAN: And in it, the --

MS. TIPSORD: Excuse me. Seeing no

20 objection, it's Exhibit 148. Go ahead.

MS. HEADMAN: In that the witness has

22 testified that he has no knowledge of this document,

23 I would ask that the Board take judicial notice of

24 this document, which is a final report of the US

114

1 Environmental Protection Agency. Dr. Zenz, in our

2 pre-filed questions, we asked that the Metropolitan

3 Water Reclamation District provide the revised cost

4 study that CTE prepared to estimate the cost of

5 disinfection at the North Side, Calumet, and

6 Stickney plants. Is that correct, that we asked for

7 that?

DR. ZENZ: Yes, you did.

MS. HEADMAN: And do you have a copy

10 of that study with you today?

DR. ZENZ: No, I don't.

MR. ANDES: But we filed those in the

13 docket.

MS. HEADMAN: They are filed in the

15 docket. We do have copies. It's not clear to me

16 that they have been given an exhibit number yet.

17 They were filed on Monday of last week.

MS. TIPSORD: They were probably,

19 then, given a public comment number when they were

20 filed, or should have been. If they weren't given a

21 public comment, then they should have been given a

22 public comment.

MR. ANDES: I believe they were.

MS. WILLIAMS: I don't know if that's

115

1 how they were entered as a public comment. It was

2 more like a filing motion.

MS. TIPSORD: Right, but John

4 instructed that anything that comes in a rulemaking

5 that is not a response to a motion gets a public

6 comment number. So if it didn't, it should have.

MR. ANDES: Okay. They are listed on

8 the docket, I know that.

MS. TIPSORD: Yeah, they're there.

10 But I, frankly, have not had a chance to check the

11 docket to know.

MS. HEADMAN: In any event, would it

13 be appropriate to submit a portion of that report --

MS. TIPSORD: That's fine.

MS. HEADMAN: -- as an exhibit today?

MS. TIPSORD: If you would like to do

17 that, that's fine. I really don't want to repeat

18 the entire document if we can avoid it. They should

19 be given public comment numbers. If they weren't,

20 they will be for the ease of all of you to site

21 them. I'll check that tonight, and I can actually

22 email John with regard to taking that off. I do

23 know that was a particular heavy docket name as well

24 with pre-filed testimony and a couple of other

116

1 hearings as well.

MR. ANDES: Question, I don't have any

3 reason to doubt that this is an EPA document, but I

4 do have reason to doubt whether the eighth District

5 actually received a copy.

MS. TIPSORD: Okay. Noted for the

7 record. All right. Ms. Headman, could you tell me

8 exactly what I'm being handed here?

MS. HEADMAN: You're being handed

10 volume one of two of the cost study report prepared

11 by MWRD for the Stickney plant, and volume one of

12 two prepared by MWRD, a cost study report for UV

13 disinfection for the North Side.

MS. TIPSORD: Are these complete

15 copies of those two documents?

MS. HEADMAN: Yes. And in it they

17 also include Appendix A.

MS. TIPSORD: Okay.

MR. ANDES: And when we -- for the

20 record, when we filed all these documents on

21 October 20th, it looks like they don't have numbers

22 assigned yet in the system. They're classified as

23 other.

MS. TIPSORD: Okay. All right.

117

MR. ANDES: And that included the

2 documents and various appendices.

MS. TIPSORD: All right. Well, for

4 ease of today's record, we'll go ahead and mark the

5 North Side as Exhibit 149, and Stickney as

6 Exhibit 150 if there's no objection. Seeing none,

7 they're Exhibit 149 and 150.

MS. HEADMAN: Now this study is a 2008

9 study that updates the cost studies that you

10 prepared originally in 2005. Is that correct?

DR. ZENZ: Well, I wouldn't refer to

12 them as an update. I would not refer to them that

13 way. These were separate studies. As I explained

14 earlier in my testimony, these were Level 3 cost

15 estimates, so they involved much more detailed --

16 especially in some cases with some design work,

17 which we did not do for a Level 4 cost estimate. So

18 they're not updates. These are separate studies

19 under separate contract with the District that are

20 much more detailed.

MS. HEADMAN: And so these numbers

22 have a higher degree of accuracy --

DR. ZENZ: That's correct, as I

24 explained earlier.

118

MS. HEADMAN: -- than the 2005

2 testimony? Now the 2008 study answers many of the

3 questions that were in my pre-filed questions, but

4 they also raise some additional questions. So I'd

5 like to start with my first refiled question, 2A and

6 D.

DR. ZENZ: Okay.

MS. HEADMAN: And I'd like to have --

9 to discuss your assumptions in the 2008 disinfection

10 studies regarding average flow and electricity usage

11 for UV disinfection plants.

DR. ZENZ: Okay.

MS. HEADMAN: Let's start with the

14 North Side.

MR. ANDES: If I can help in this, we

16 have a set of the assumptions printed, and we can

17 enter that as an exhibit.

MS. TIPSORD: And I thought we weren't

19 going to get to 150 today.

MR. ANDES: Sorry to disappoint you.

MS. TIPSORD: Oh, no I'm excited. I

22 want to set a record.

MS. WILLIAMS: Have you figured out

24 what we're shooting for to get a record?

119

MS TIPSORD: I understand that other

2 than the landfill regs, I think I already own it --

3 or I should say we already own it. I think we have

4 now surpassed Mercury.

MR. ETTINGER: Well, what do we need

6 to do to hit the landfill record?

MS. TIPSORD: Ten years.

MR. ETTINGER: Ten years?

MS. TIPSORD: Ten years of rulemaking.

MR. ETTINGER: Fred can.

MS. WILLIAMS: We're on our way.

MS. TIPSORD: Okay. I've been handed

13 pre-filed of the People of the State of Illinois of

14 David R. Zenz to -- with David -- Dr. Zenz'

15 response. We'll mark that as Exhibit 150 if there's

16 no objection. Seeing none, it's Exhibit 150.

MS. DIERS: 151. Shouldn't we be on

18 151 now?

THE COURT: Oh, yes. I have my pages

20 all messed up.

MS. DIERS: Sorry.

MS. TIPSORD: Thank you. No, no,

23 thank you.

MS. HEADMAN: All right. So then

120

1 started with the flow rate, average flow of the

2 North Side plant, I take it that would be 333

3 million gallons per day. Is that correct?

DR. ZENZ: That's correct.

MS. HEADMAN: And I believe daily

6 electricity usage for the plant, you have here 3,182

7 kilowatts per hour.

DR. ZENZ: Again, just a point of

9 clarification, that was for the disinfection.

MS. HEADMAN: For the disinfection.

11 And could you tell me, then, how many gallons of

12 effluent would be disinfected per kilowatt hour of

13 electricity? Did you do the math on that?

DR. ZENZ: Not in my head. I mean...

MS. HEADMAN: And the reason I ask you

16 to do that is that we actually worked through these

17 numbers, but these numbers are a little bit

18 different than the ones that appear in the report.

19 So maybe we should just go to the report.

MR. ANDES: Which report?

MS. HEADMAN: Right now we're talking

22 about North Side, so I believe that would be

23 Exhibit 149. I believe that if we go to Appendix F,

24 the page that is -- these pages are kind of oddly --

121

1 this would be page one of one, and the title on the

2 page is "NSWRP Annual ONM Costs for UV Disinfection

3 System and Low Lift Pump Station."

DR. ZENZ: We're at Appendix F, and

5 page one of four?

MS. HEADMAN: One of one.

MR. ANDES: What was the title at the

8 top again?

MS. HEADMAN: NSWRP Annual ONM Costs

10 for UV Disinfection.

MS TIPSORD: I'm not finding that

12 still. What was the title again?

MR. ANDES: Go to Appendix F. First

14 there is a four-page table.

MS. TIPSORD: Right and then there's a

16 one-page table. The four-page capital cost labeled

17 on one page, ONM Cost Table.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

MS. HEADMAN: So when you say that the

20 electricity usage in your smaller table here means

21 electric uses just for disinfection, you're not

22 including any of the electricity usage associated

23 with the lift pump or the general site usage. Is

24 that correct?

122

MR. COCKERILL: That's correct.

MS. HEADMAN: Okay. So now let's look

3 at the Calumet plant, which I believe the similar

4 data can be found two pages later in Appendix F, the

5 average flow.

DR. ZENZ: We're trying to find a

7 correct page.

MS. HEADMAN: CWRP Annual ONM Costs

9 for UV Disinfection in Low Lift Pump Stations.

DR. ZENZ: Yes, we found it.

MS. HEADMAN: Okay. And there --

DR. ZENZ: Page one of one?

MS. HEADMAN: Page one of one.

DR. ZENZ: All right.

THE COURT: And on that page, what

16 does it show for the average flow. I believe in the

17 left hand column under B it gives an average flow

18 number.

MR. ANDES: Hold on.

DR. ZENZ: 305 billion gallons per day

21 average.

MS. HEADMAN: Okay. And so that's a

23 little different than what you show on your summary

24 chart where you have 319, right?

123

DR. ZENZ: Well, they're two different

2 numbers.

MS. HEADMAN: They're two different

4 numbers?

DR. ZENZ: If you look at the title,

6 it says "design average flow." That is the capacity

7 of the plant that it was designed for, but it may

8 operate and flow less than that, so we're

9 calculating cost here. We looked at the actual flow

10 data for the plant, and the actual flow which is

11 typical at a municipal wastewater plant. So we

12 tried to estimate the cost -- the actual cost for

13 the existing flow at the North Side treatment plant.

14 That's the difference between the two numbers.

MS. HEADMAN: Okay. And the

16 electricity usage at the Calumet facility for the

17 disinfection system is shown on Exhibit F as 69,672

18 kilowatt hours per day. Is that correct?

MR. ANDES: I'm sorry. Where on the

20 form are you looking?

MS. HEADMAN: In the column entitled

22 "Power Usage in the Cells for Disinfection Systems."

DR. ZENZ: Yeah the kilowatt hours per

24 day are shown as 69. You are correct.

124

MS. HEADMAN: And how does that

2 compare with the figures that you've given in your

3 Exhibit 151?

DR. ZENZ: Yeah. We -- it's a

5 different number. It's per hour.

MS. HEADMAN: Can you tell me if they

7 are the same?

DR. ZENZ: Multiply this times 24. I

9 don't know if they are the same or not. Do you want

10 me to get my calculator out of my briefcase?

MS. HEADMAN: I think we're going to

12 do one of two things. We're either going to have to

13 work from the numbers that you filed in the report,

14 or we're going to work from this summary sheet that

15 you've presented to us today. And given that this

16 was your formal report, I would be more comfortable

17 working with these numbers.

MR. ANDES: Fine.

DR. ZENZ: Okay.

MS. HEADMAN: All right. So why don't

21 we then start over again.

DR. ZENZ: Okay.

MS. HEADMAN: The North Side plant, I

24 think we established that the average flows was 333

125

1 million gallons a day. Is that correct?

DR. ZENZ: Again, that's the capacity

3 of the plant that it was designed for. Flows

4 entering the plant may be considerably less than

5 that, or they could be considerably more than that

6 at any particular time. So if you also notice on

7 that same sheet, the maximum flow is 450. That's

8 the maximum flow the plant can handle, but only get

9 to treat effectively for a short period time at that

10 maximum flow. The 333 flow is -- when I say design

11 flow, that means the plant can consistently meet

12 permit standards and that flow, basically, forever.

13 So I'm just trying to explain what the numbers mean.

MS. HEADMAN: Well, so the average

15 flow is 300 million gallons per day, correct?

DR. ZENZ: Design flow is 333.

MS. HEADMAN: And the average flow

18 would be more likely to be lower than that?

DR. ZENZ: Yes.

MS. HEADMAN: And what would that be

21 likely to be?

DR. ZENZ: 305.

MS. HEADMAN: 305.

MR. COCKERILL: That's for Calumet.

126

DR. ZENZ: Oh.

MR. COCKERILL: The 333 is for North

3 Side.

DR. ZENZ: I'm sorry.

MR. ANDES: We're going back and

6 forth.

DR. ZENZ: We're going back and forth.

8 I apologize for that. The design flow for the

9 Calumet plant, as stated in my table here, is

10 actually 319, and the number we recorded here was

11 305. I'm sorry.

MS. HEADMAN: Madam Hearing Officer, I

13 wonder if we can take a short recess and see if we

14 can do this more efficiently, just have a brief

15 conversation amongst ourselves to see if we can -- I

16 didn't know that they were going to be presenting

17 new numbers today. I thought we'd work with these,

18 and I think that it might be useful if we just took

19 about ten minutes.

MS. TIPSORD: I'll give you five off

21 the record.

MS. HEADMAN: Okay. Thank you.

(Whereupon, a discussion was had

off the record.)

127

MS. TIPSORD: I'm not sure that there

2 was a question pending. I think the request was to

3 go off the record. So Ms. Headman, do you have a

4 question that you can formulate?

MS. HEADMAN: I do. I believe that

6 you just calculated the relationship between gallons

7 of water disinfectant and electricity usage for the

8 three plants. Is that correct?

MR. COCKERILL: Yes.

MS. HEADMAN: And that the North Side

11 and Calumet plants were roughly -- you came up with

12 essentially the same number, they were about equally

13 efficient in terms of energy efficiency for

14 disinfection?

MR. COCKERILL: That's right.

MS. TIPSORD: Could we have those

17 numbers? If you've calculated them, let's go ahead

18 and get those on the record.

MR. COCKERILL: Sure. I calculated

20 for all three plants. The numbers I calculated for

21 North Side was 0.0023 kilowatts per gallon

22 disinfectant. Calumet was the same number, 0.0023

23 kilowatts per gallon. Stickney was 0.00018

24 kilowatts per gallon disinfectant.

128

MS. HEADMAN: And what was the flow

2 rate you used for the Stickney plant?

MR. COCKERILL: 1,250 million gallons

4 per day.

MS. HEADMAN: And what was the

6 electricity usage that you used for the Stickney

7 plant?

MR. COCKERILL: 9,225 kilowatts per

9 hour. That was provided by the manufacturer.

MS. HEADMAN: All right. Let's talk

11 about lamps. In the 2005 Level 4 study, is it

12 correct that MWRD estimated that 1,152 lamps would

13 be needed for the North Side facility?

DR. ZENZ: We have the advantage -- I

15 don't recall that number. That was the -- I

16 shouldn't be referring to our Level 4 cost estimate.

MS. HEADMAN: Yes.

DR. ZENZ: I don't -- I don't have

19 that number in my head.

MS. HEADMAN: Mr. Andes, may I refresh

21 the witness' recollection?

MR. ANDES: Sure. This document is --

23 I believe it already has an exhibit number.

MS. HEADMAN: This is attachment NN to

129

1 the Statement of Reasons.

MR. ANDES: Okay. Is there a page

3 we're referring to here?

DR. ZENZ: You were asking me about

5 which plant again?

MS. HEADMAN: North Side.

DR. ZENZ: North Side.

MS. HEADMAN: Page 46.

DR. ZENZ: Yes. Page 46 of the

10 report, the 2005 report indicates 1,152 lamps,

11 correct.

MS. HEADMAN: And in the 2008 study,

13 is the number of lamps for the North Side plant

14 listed at 1,680?

DR. ZENZ: Yes, it is.

MS. HEADMAN: That's about a 46

17 percent increase in the number of lamps. Is that

18 correct?

DR. ZENZ: Well, sounds about right,

20 yes.

MS. HEADMAN: How much does each lamp

22 cost?

DR. ZENZ: I have no idea.

MR. COCKERILL: The manufacturer

130

1 quotes approximately $200. That was in 2007.

2 That's for a replacement bulb.

MS. HEADMAN: And how often --

DR. ZENZ: Would you like me to

5 explain why the number went up?

MS. TIPSORD: I would. I would like

7 you to explain what the difference between what was

8 filed with the proposal and this Exhibit 149.

DR. ZENZ: Well, as I explained

10 earlier in my testimony, this is a Level 3 cost

11 estimate, and --

MS. TIPSORD: Which is a Level 3?

DR. ZENZ: It's a more detailed --

MS. TIPSORD: No, I mean which

15 document was the Level 3?

DR. ZENZ: The Level 4 estimate

17 contains the number --

MR. ANDES: No, no, no. Tell her

19 which one is which.

MS. TIPSORD: Attachment NN is the

21 Level 3?

MR. ANDES: Four.

DR. ZENZ: Four.

THE COURT: Level 4. And the one for

131

1 -- Exhibit 149 is the Level 3?

DR. ZENZ: Yes.

MS. TIPSORD: Thank you.

DR. ZENZ: You guys got all the

5 exhibit numbers memorized, I don't. But anyway, so

6 you have to understand that we took more time and

7 effort, more engineering time and more effort, and

8 we actually did an actual preliminary design of the

9 UV system. So it's a more --

MR. ANDES: For the --

DR. ZENZ: For the Level 3 estimate

12 with the higher number of bulbs. So we gathered

13 more information, took more information from the

14 manufacturers. We started to look at the bulb

15 geometry and the rest. Well, in the other estimate

16 we didn't do that.

MS. TIPSORD: Thank you.

DR. ZENZ: You're welcome.

MR. ETTINGER: These were dated

20 January 2008?

MS. TIPSORD: Yes. Exhibit 149 is

22 January 2008.

MR. ANDES: Yes.

MR. ETTINGER: But the thing you filed

132

1 later, was it August, right? When did we file all

2 these exhibits?

MR. ANDES: Testimony --

MS. TIPSORD: Attachment -- I'm sorry.

5 Attachment NN came in with the proposal.

MR. ANDES: It was years ago.

MS. TIPSORD: With the proposal.

MS. WILLIAMS: October 26th, 2007.

MR. ETTINGER: Sorry. I'm lost in

10 space and time yet again.

MR. ANDES: The earlier study done in

12 2005 was part of the rulemaking.

MR. ETTINGER: And this just came out

14 this year?

MR. ANDES: This year.

MS. TIPSORD: Sorry for that little

17 detour, Ms. Headman.

MS. HEADMAN: Well, actually -- so

19 just do clarify, the Stickney Level 3 report came

20 out September 9th, 2008, and the North Side report

21 came out in January 2008. Is that correct?

MR. COCKERILL: That is correct.

MS. HEADMAN: Now this morning we

24 talked about the replacement rate for these lamps,

133

1 and I believe you were projecting that they needed

2 to be replaced once a year, and that's what's

3 reflected in the study. When you talked about --

MR. ANDES: You got to say yes.

DR. ZENZ: Yes.

MS. HEADMAN: And when you talk about

7 once a year, do you mean once every 365 days that

8 the bulbs operate, or do you mean once every

9 calendar year?

DR. ZENZ: Once every calendar year.

MS. HEADMAN: Now you also increased

12 the number of bulbs at the Stickney and Calumet

13 plants. Isn't that correct?

DR. ZENZ: If you don't mind, could I

15 just double check that? I'm questioning that, and I

16 want to make sure that that's -- you're correct.

MS. HEADMAN: And so those also

18 increased around 40 percent?

DR. ZENZ: Yes.

MS. HEADMAN: Now are the UV lamps

21 that you looked at in the Level 3 study the same

22 type of lamp that you looked at in the Level 4

23 study?

MR. COCKERILL: Yes.

134

DR. ZENZ: Yes.

MS. HEADMAN: So they were medium

3 pressure --

DR. ZENZ: Yes.

MS. HEADMAN: -- high intensity lamps.

DR. ZENZ: Yes.

MS. HEADMAN: Same wattage?

MR. COCKERILL: I don't know the

9 answer. I don't know the answer to that. The

10 manufacturer relied on it, but I would assume they

11 would be the same -- same bulbs.

MS. HEADMAN: Now I'd like to focus on

13 MWRD's Capital Cost Estimates for UV Disinfection.

MR. ANDES: Is this an exhibit?

MS. HEADMAN: Yes.

THE COURT: I've been handed a table,

17 UV Disinfection Capital Cost Estimates. There's a

18 Page 6 at the bottom of this. I'll mark this as

19 Exhibit 152 if there's no objection. Seeing none,

20 it's Exhibit 152.

MS. HEADMAN: Dr. Zenz, at the top of

22 Exhibit 152, you'll see two sets of numbers. The

23 first set of numbers are labeled MWRD 2005. That

24 would be for your Level 4 study. Is that -- do

135

1 those numbers look familiar to you?

DR. ZENZ: Yes. I guess the only

3 thing I'm not sure if -- do those include tertiary

4 filtration, or they do not? I'll have to go back.

5 Yeah, those costs are without filtration, yes.

MS. HEADMAN: And if you compare those

7 numbers with the MWRD numbers in 2008, do those

8 numbers include tertiary filtration?

DR. ZENZ: No, the numbers in 2008 do

10 not.

MS. HEADMAN: No. Now going back to

12 the 2005 numbers, the Level 3 numbers --

MR. ANDES: I'm sorry. 2005 or

14 Level 4?

MS. HEADMAN: I'm sorry, the Level 4

16 numbers. If we would compare the North Side

17 estimates provided by MWRD with the USEPA estimates

18 -- and I should ask you -- are you familiar with

19 those? You've looked at that report?

DR. ZENZ: It's been a long time since

21 we reviewed this report. It's in 2006, so I don't

22 exactly recall what they included in those costs,

23 and I'm -- I strongly suspect it did not include the

24 cost of the low lift pump station, because that was

136

1 one of the issues they were contentious about. I

2 would really wonder what was included in their cost

3 and what isn't.

MR. ANDES: Can you refer us to a

5 specific number in Exhibit 12 that we're talking

6 about?

MS. HEADMAN: If you look at Page 9, I

8 believe.

DR. ZENZ: Yeah. They did not include

10 pumping.

MS. HEADMAN: And --

DR. ZENZ: It says right above the

13 table, "UV cost estimates assume that no pumping is

14 required at any of the plants." And I've said

15 before, this issue is addressed in both of our cost

16 studies, and the second cost study in much greater

17 detail. The did, actually, a hydraulic analysis,

18 which they did not do. They did not do hydraulic

19 analysis at our plant. They just assumed that there

20 was no pumping required. So their cost estimate did

21 not -- that caused a major difference in cost.

MS. HEADMAN: And in your 2008 cost

23 estimate, what was the estimate for the cost of the

24 lift station at the North Side plant?

137

DR. ZENZ: Well, let's do it on an

2 apples and apples basis. Since they were looking at

3 our Level 4 cost --

MS. HEADMAN: Actually, you've told us

5 already that your Level 4 number is a better

6 number -- I mean your Level 3 number is a better

7 number.

DR. ZENZ: It is a better number, but

9 we --

MS. HEADMAN: Let's use your 2008

11 number.

DR. ZENZ: Oh, boy. I'm going to

13 defer to Eric. He can probably find it faster than

14 I can. He has an inquisitive look on his face, and

15 I think he could find it.

MS. HEADMAN: I think your summary

17 table may provide --

MR. COCKERILL: The summary answer to

19 that question is about the pumping methods --

MR. ANDES: It also analyzes capital.

DR. ZENZ: Yeah. In your pre-filed

22 question, we assumed you wanted to know the cost of

23 the pump. So that didn't include, like, the wet

24 well and other things that go with the pump station.

138

MR. COCKERILL: I found it.

DR. ZENZ: Good.

MR. COCKERILL: The -- these are in

4 June 2007 dollars. The cost for the low --

MR. ANDES: Can you tell us what page

6 on the --

MR. COCKERILL: It's page three of

8 four of Appendix F of the UV Disinfection Cost Study

9 for North Side, line one of two.

MS. TIPSORD: Exhibit 149.

MR. COCKERILL: 149. The cost in June

12 of 2007 dollars is approximately $27 million.

MS. HEADMAN: And how about -- and

14 let's, then, look at the -- your estimate for the

15 North Side plant, the capital costs in 2005 was

16 $83 million. Is that correct? And that was

17 including the lift pump?

MR. ANDES: The -- including the whole

19 lift station assembly?

MS. HEADMAN: Yes.

MR. COCKERILL: It included all costs.

MS. HEADMAN: All costs, all capital

23 costs to the North Side plant in your Level 4 study

24 were $83 million?

139

DR. ZENZ: Yes.

MS. HEADMAN: And USEPA estimated that

3 the costs without the lift station was $23 to

4 $47 million. Is that correct?

DR. ZENZ: Yeah. They did it using

6 two different methodologies. And by the way, those

7 methodologies come from the literature.

MS. HEADMAN: And one methodology

9 showed that the cost was $23 million, and the other

10 showed that the cost could be as high as

11 $47 million. Is that correct?

DR. ZENZ: Yes.

MS. HEADMAN: So that was your range

14 they reported. And your results in the 2008 study

15 suggest that the cost of adding a lift station to

16 that would be $27 million?

MR. COCKERILL: That the cost of a

18 lift station is $27 million, yes. There are other

19 costs.

DR. ZENZ: Yeah.

MS. HEADMAN: And so even if the lift

22 station were added to the USEPA number, it would

23 still be lower than your 2005 cost, I assume. Is

24 that correct?

140

MR. COCKERILL: Yes.

MR. ANDES: What is -- I'm sorry. If

3 you add $27 to $47 you come up with what? Is that

4 $74 million?

DR. ZENZ: Yeah.

MR. COCKERILL: $74 million, and it

7 doesn't include all the costs.

MR. ANDES: Thank you. So there are

9 other issues that also account for the difference?

MR. COCKERILL: Yes.

MS. HEADMAN: What costs are those?

MR. COCKERILL: General work costs,

13 including the conduit and junction structures to the

14 flow to the lowest pump stations --

MS. TIPSORD: We're losing you.

MR. COCKERILL: In addition to the

17 lift pump station facility and the UV disinfection

18 facility, there are also site work in other related

19 structures to convey the flow to and from those

20 facilities, including large flow conduits and

21 junction chambers.

MS. HEADMAN: All right. Now let's go

23 to the Calumet figures for 2005. You estimated the

24 capital costs for disinfection at Calumet would be

141

1 $100 million in 2005. Is that correct?

DR. ZENZ: Yes.

MS. HEADMAN: And USEPA estimated that

4 the cost would be $25 to $45 million. Is that

5 correct?

MR. ANDES: Just a minute. We're

7 getting there.

DR. ZENZ: Yes, you're correct.

MS. HEADMAN: And how much would the

10 lift station for the Calumet facility be in --

11 according to your 2008 report?

MR. COCKERILL: I don't think we have

13 an exact number for that, because we use -- because

14 the two facilities are so close in size, we used the

15 ratio of the flow rate. So the number we quote you

16 back would be the 480 MGD for Calumet divided by the

17 450 MGD for North Side multiplied times the North

18 Side low lift pump station cost.

MS. HEADMAN: And subject to check,

20 would you accept that that number might be $28 to

21 $48 million?

MR. COCKERILL: That's probably

23 accurate.

MS. HEADMAN: Just slightly higher

142

1 than the amount for the North Side plant?

MR. COCKERILL: Yes.

MS. HEADMAN: So once again, even if

4 we add the cost of the lift station to the Calumet

5 plant, the USEPA number is still significantly below

6 your estimate in 2005, correct?

MR. COCKERILL: That is true. Though

8 again, it doesn't include the other related psyche

9 work that we required.

MS. HEADMAN: Now again, going to

11 Stickney, your 2005 estimate for Stickney was

12 $358 million, is that correct, for disinfection

13 capital costs?

DR. ZENZ: Yes.

MS. HEADMAN: And USEPA estimated that

16 capital costs would be somewhere between $70 and

17 $150 million. Is that correct?

DR. ZENZ: That's correct.

MS. HEADMAN: And --

DR. ZENZ: I want -- I just want to

21 remind everybody here what I said earlier about cost

22 estimates and the range of cost estimates. You're

23 splitting hairs between what our cost estimates

24 said, and what their cost estimate said. So our

143

1 cost estimate has a plus or minus, and so does

2 theirs. So actually they're pretty close. I mean,

3 within a range of -- we already stated -- and I

4 don't know what the range of accuracy of their cost

5 estimate is. We used accepted standards, and our

6 level cost estimate -- let me find the exact

7 number -- maybe you remember.

MS. HEADMAN: Well, do you have any

9 reason to believe that USEPA's contractor would use

10 methods that were not substandard?

DR. ZENZ: I have no idea what

12 standards they would use.

MR. COCKERILL: I would say that use

14 the Level 5 estimate. They use an equation, which

15 is by definition, a Level 5 estimate.

MR. ANDES: And what is the -- and

17 describe how a Level 5 differs from a Level 4 or

18 Level 3.

MR. COCKERILL: It's basically related

20 to the amount of information you have available to

21 make the estimate. So if you determine an equation,

22 you're generally using an equation based on previous

23 work based solely on the flow rate in this case,

24 which is what they usually have attached to the end

144

1 of their report. I would also state that because of

2 that fact, they are using -- they have to

3 extrapolate the cost to our larger facility --

4 proposed facilities.

DR. ZENZ: I want to add something,

6 which is a direct quote right out of their report on

7 page 60. "SAIC's estimates for UV disinfection show

8 general agreement with those done by the MWRD, given

9 the accuracy of cost estimates at a preliminary

10 design costing stage."

MS. HEADMAN: But SAIC had the

12 information available to them that you had to you at

13 that time. Isn't that correct?

DR. ZENZ: They were doing a Level 5

15 cost estimate. They were not using the level of

16 information that we were using. We were doing a

17 Level 4 cost estimate, which I think by definition,

18 it contains more information. We used a greater

19 volume of information than what they used.

MS. HEADMAN: So let me understand.

21 You were asked to share your 2005 cost study with

22 USEPA so that they could look at it, but you did not

23 share with them the information that they would need

24 to assess it?

145

DR. ZENZ: They reviewed our report,

2 and through -- and they did an independent cost

3 estimate based upon like Eric said, using these

4 equations. So they did an independent cost estimate

5 completely different from ours that did not -- they

6 had our information, and they chose not to use it.

MR. ANDES: Did you deny them any

8 information they asked for?

DR. ZENZ: No.

MR. ANDES: Thank you.

DR. ZENZ: They never asked for that

12 information.

MS. HEADMAN: Now I'd like to look at

14 your 2008 cost estimates. Your 2008 cost estimates

15 for the North Side plant have increased from

16 $83 million to $103,700,000. Is that correct?

DR. ZENZ: Yes.

MS. HEADMAN: And how do you account

19 for that difference?

DR. ZENZ: Well, again, we were asked

21 by the District to do -- to do a more detailed cost

22 estimate than we originally did.

MS. HEADMAN: And what did --

DR. ZENZ: And so they asked

146

1 specifically instead of doing a Level 4 cost

2 estimate, which we did for the UAA study -- which by

3 the way is a considerably less expenditure on their

4 part as an engineering cost -- and the Level 3 cost

5 estimate is a considerably greater cost. Eric, what

6 was the total cost of the contract for doing the

7 Level 3 cost estimates, just offhand?

MR. COCKERILL: For the North Side

9 report, I believe it was $250,000.

DR. ZENZ: Do you recall the others?

MR. COCKERILL: Well, for Stickney,

12 are approximately $150,000, but I'm not as familiar

13 with those numbers.

MR. ANDES: And are those partly

15 because they involve doing the actually building

16 design for the facilities?

MR. COCKERILL: I would describe it as

18 conceptual design, but yes, that's correct.

MR. ANDES: And that's not involved in

20 a Level 4 estimate?

MR. COCKERILL: No.

DR. ZENZ: So based on that, you would

23 expect changes in the cost estimate. But if you

24 look at the range of accuracy of the Level 4 cost

147

1 estimate plus or minus 100 percent, when you look at

2 the level of accuracy of our Level 3 cost estimate,

3 they're actually -- they're within the range of the

4 accuracy. So that actually when you say yes,

5 $83 million is different than $103 million, but

6 given the range of the accuracy, all the two cost

7 estimated processes, Level 4 and Level 3, they're

8 actually --

MR. ANDES: And isn't it a little

10 different -- I'm sorry -- with Stickney where

11 actually estimate is a lower cost?

MR. COCKERILL: That's right.

MR. ANDES: Stickney went from

14 $358 down to $260.

MR. COCKERILL: Yes, that's right.

MS. HEADMAN: And what about Calumet?

DR. ZENZ: Well, your figures are

18 correct. I mean, numerically the Calumet facility

19 is estimated $100 million in our Level 4 cost

20 estimate, and in our Level 3 cost estimate it was

21 almost $110.

MR. ANDES: So that was in a margin of

23 error?

DR. ZENZ: Yes.

148

MR. ETTINGER: Can I just clarify

2 that? You say margin of error. Does your study

3 have a particular margin of error, or is there a

4 margin of error study done?

DR. ZENZ: Yes, yes. See, the

6 society -- if society cost estimators, they

7 establish criteria for a Level 5, Level 2, Level 3,

8 and as I've said before, the difference between a

9 Level 5 is and a Level 1 is the amount of

10 information that's available. I can give you a much

11 better cost estimate -- if I have a set of plans and

12 specifications in front of me -- and this is what

13 consulting engineers do, is have a set of plans and

14 specifications, go to the client and say, "This is

15 what the contractor is going to probably bid on,"

16 and even then you'll get prices higher or lower than

17 that.

But that is a much more accurate

19 cost estimate than any of the other levels. Why,

20 because you have more information. I can actually

21 look at the pipe and tell you how many feet of pipe.

22 I can tell you how many yards of concrete, so forth

23 and so on. So I give you a more accurate testimony.

24 So as we go from a Level 5 estimate to a Level 1,

149

1 the accepted range of accuracy diminishes.

MR. ETTINGER: So, like, the 95th

3 percentile of your Level 3 would be how wide?

DR. ZENZ: Well, I'll give you the

5 definition that we use for the -- and this, again,

6 it's not our definition. We try to correspond to

7 the -- a Level 4 cost estimate, which is our very

8 first cost estimate, it's called a study or

9 feasibility estimate. Again, by advancements of

10 cost engineering, and as an exacted deviation Range

11 of minus 20 to plus 40. Now a Level 3 -- minus 20

12 to plus 40. The Level 3, because we have more

13 information that has a range of minus 15 to plus 30.

14 So you see, the range has narrowed because we have

15 more information. As we go down and get more

16 information, we finally get to, you know, plant

17 specification. Unfortunately, I don't remember what

18 a deviation range for a Level 1 is.

MR. GIRARD: I have a quick followup

20 question. Dr. Zenz, looking again at Calumet, if

21 your 2005 estimate was $100 million, and then your

22 2008 estimate was $109 million, wouldn't that

23 essentially be about the same amount of money if you

24 assume a three percent inflation rate per year?

150

DR. ZENZ: Yeah.

MR. GIRARD: Okay.

DR. ZENZ: Yes.

MS. HEADMAN: Now returning, finally,

5 to the Stickney plant where the cost estimate went

6 down considerably, can you explain the major

7 components that caused that to go down?

DR. ZENZ: I'm going to defer to Eric

9 here.

MR. COCKERILL: Sure. Stickney

11 largely was related to -- the cost difference was

12 related to the cost for the pump station going down.

13 The method that was used in the original Level 4

14 estimate was closer to, you know, parametric

15 equation-type committee, and over estimated the cost

16 for that pump station. So when we did more detail,

17 we found it to be considerably lower, which is true

18 for the other two plants as well. But as those --

19 that equation became less accurate, the higher the

20 flow rates became. So obviously with Stickney

21 having a flow rate significantly more than the other

22 two, it's error was greater.

MS. HEADMAN: I think that's all I

24 have.

151

MS. TIPSORD: Okay. I have a couple

2 of questions about Exhibit 152 before it goes on.

3 And Ms. Headman, I'm going to have to have you sworn

4 in to answer these. But first, let's ask the

5 question, the -- on Exhibit 152, the MWRD 2005

6 numbers for North Side, Calumet, and Stickney, those

7 come from what is attachment NN to the proposal,

8 correct?

MR. ANDES: You're talking about the

10 MWRD 2005 numbers?

MS. TIPSORD: Yes. Those came from

12 attachment NN, correct? Those are your --

DR. ZENZ: Yes.

MS. TIPSORD: -- Level 4 studies?

DR. ZENZ: Yes.

MS. TIPSORD: The numbers across from

17 those, then, USEPA 2006, are numbers from

18 Exhibit 12, which is what -- the USEPA's review of

19 the UAA. Is that correct?

DR. ZENZ: Yes.

MS. TIPSORD: Okay. And then the next

22 line down, the MWRD 2008 numbers, those are from

23 what has been admitted today as Exhibit 149 and 150?

24 I was given to the --

152

DR. ZENZ: Yes.

MS. TIPSORD: Thank you. And then the

3 USEPA in 2008 dollars, those numbers are -- do you

4 know?

MR. ANDES: We don't.

THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. Headman,

7 I'm going to have to have you sworn in, and you're

8 going to have to explain what those numbers are.

MS. HEADMAN: I didn't end up asking

10 any questions about them.

MS. TIPSORD: I understand that, but

12 they are a part of your exhibit that you put in here

13 so -- I and I want to know what they are. So could

14 we have you sworn in, please?

(Witness sworn.)

MS. TIPSORD: Ms. Headman, can you

17 tell me what those numbers are?

MS. HEADMAN: Those numbers are the

19 numbers that were reflected in the USEPA 2006 report

20 that has been marked as Exhibit 12, and also the

21 same numbers that have been in the USEPA report that

22 has been marked as Exhibit 151, I believe.

MS. TIPSORD: No.

MS. HEADMAN: Exhibit 148?

153

MS. TIPSORD: Yes, okay.

MS. HEADMAN: Updated using what our

3 cost consultant described as a standard construction

4 cost inflator from 2006 to 2008 dollars.

MS. TIPSORD: Thank you. And you were

6 done with questions, then, of Dr. Zenz?

MS. HEADMAN: I am.

THE COURT: That moves us, then, to

9 ELPC.

MR. ETTINGER: Well, looking at my

11 questions here, I've got 12 listed. I've got some

12 followup beyond that, but the first nine, I think,

13 have been answered. So we're going to go to ten,

14 and say in calculating the capital cost of

15 disinfection at three plants, when is it assumed

16 that construction will begin at each plant?

DR. ZENZ: We assume no construction

18 date. We just give -- the dollars are given at a

19 certain period of time. In our particular case they

20 were June of 2008, was my testimony. So there's no

21 start of construction date. It's just -- we're

22 telling you if you want to purchase a UV

23 disinfection system, with today's dollars, that's

24 how much it would cost. Now that system might be

154

1 constructed in 2020, and you want to know how much

2 it's going to cost in 2020. Use the engineering --

3 use the record index and figure out what it's going

4 to cost you in 2020. We don't -- with we did not

5 assume a construction date, did not.

MR. ETTINGER: Okay. Well, would it

7 not be normal practice with present value a figure

8 for an investment in the future?

DR. ZENZ: Yes. We presented it in my

10 testimony present worth cost. Present worth cost

11 assumes then that you're paying for the capital

12 costs in June 2008 dollars, plus you're paying for

13 -- I think it was 20 years. Was the present worth

14 factor 20 years? I don't remember. But anyway,

15 there's also MNL costs for every year out into the

16 future, and we bring those all back to single

17 payment this year and give you what we call present

18 worth dollars, which is a very large number.

MR. ETTINGER: Wouldn't it make a

20 difference if your plant were getting an opening in

21 2020 versus 2010?

MR. ANDES: Well, in the sense that

23 the dollar value for capital costs would be higher

24 and the dollar value for the MNL cost would be

155

1 higher for the inflation and other factors.

MR. ETTINGER: But the number would

3 have to be present value with an interest rate to

4 make it lower?

MR. ANDES: We wouldn't be spending.

MR. ETTINGER: No, you wouldn't be

7 spending it then, you'd be spending it in 2020.

DR. ZENZ: Well, if the plant is

9 constructed in 2020, you'll have to pay for it in

10 2020 dollars, and you'll have to also pay for the

11 MNL costs, and we usually figure -- well, Eric and I

12 can't exactly remember, but we think -- usually it's

13 the annual MNL costs for electricity, labor, and all

14 the rest.

MR. ETTINGER: Right.

DR. ZENZ: So we usually assume that

17 that MNL cost in 20 years out in the future after

18 the plant is constructed, and then we bring it all

19 back using the present worth factor to give you a

20 present worth number. So we do -- and if you'd

21 like, you can just -- if that's confusing to you, we

22 also can give you capital dollars, 2008 dollars, and

23 we can give you an annual MNL cost of 2008 dollars

24 as well.

156

MR. ETTINGER: So you're saying it

2 would make no difference to your figures whether you

3 began the plant -- or whether the plant went online

4 in 2015 or 2025?

DR. ZENZ: Well, the numerical numbers

6 we changed based upon inflation factors,

7 constructions costs, and other things. But that's

8 an absolute number, you're right. Except that we

9 adjust it -- you know, as engineers we adjust -- we

10 adjust numbers based upon economic realities. So if

11 something is going to happen --

MR. ETTINGER: Someone does, but I'm

13 still questioning how does your calculation take

14 into account the time value of money?

DR. ZENZ: Through the use of the

16 present worth factor and getting your present worth

17 costs.

MR. ANDES: There are capital and ONM

19 cost numbers --

MS. WILLIAMS: Objection. If Fred

21 wants to testify -- I mean, I don't understand

22 why --

MR. ANDES: I can ask a clarifying

24 question. Are you presenting two sets of

157

1 information, capital, ONM, and present worth costs?

DR. ZENZ: Yes.

MR. ETTINGER: Well, let's -- all

4 right. Let's -- Ms. Headman?

MS. HEADMAN: I'm just following up on

6 your --

MR. ETTINGER: Yeah, I've got some

8 other problems. Go ahead.

MS. HEADMAN: Dr. Zenz, did I

10 understand you to testify to Mr. Ettinger's question

11 that it makes no difference whether the project

12 starts in 2015 or 2025? In terms of -- your present

13 value calculation wouldn't be affected if the

14 project started in 2015 versus 2025?

DR. ZENZ: The answer is of course it

16 would change, because money -- the amount of money

17 that you spend today is different in a numerical

18 sense than what you spend later on --

MR. ETTINGER: Furthermore.

MS. TIPSORD: Let him finish.

DR. ZENZ: -- with what they call time

22 value of money. I mean, this is a simple concept to

23 understand in terms of numeric data changes.

MR. ANDES: Well, let me ask a

158

1 question for just a moment. Given that the

2 compliance deadline in this proposal is 2011, would

3 there be any reason for you to assume that a date

4 14 years out from there would be relevant? In terms

5 of compliance, wouldn't you need to assume that, in

6 fact, compliance would be required sometime in the

7 near future?

MR. ETTINGER: I'm not trying to make

9 a rhetorical question here. Let me ask -- I mean,

10 we all agree that if I have $100 million now --

11 should I be -- were I so lucky -- I could put it in

12 the bank, assuming I pick the bank carefully, I

13 would --

MR. ANDES: Albert, are you testifying

15 now? Because this isn't a question.

MR. ETTINGER: This is a question.

MR. ANDES: Okay.

MR. ETTINGER: I'm setting a little

19 background, which I think we can all agree on, which

20 is that under normal circumstances, you get interest

21 when you put money in the bank, correct?

DR. ZENZ: (Nodding).

MR. ETTINGER: So if I put money in

24 the bank now and waited for ten years, I would have

159

1 more than $100 million.

DR. ZENZ: (Nodding).

MR. ETTINGER: You're not denying

4 that. Okay. So it may make a difference in terms

5 of the total cost of the plant, whether you are to

6 build it in 2011 or 2031. Is that correct?

DR. ZENZ: Yes, it could make a

8 difference.

MR. ETTINGER: And getting the

10 interest rate right would be an important factor in

11 doing that, in making that calculation?

DR. ZENZ: That's correct.

MR. ETTINGER: Okay. Now then, I am

14 looking at your testimony, and I'm just a little

15 confused. On Page 8 of your testimony, you say "All

16 costs are in June 20, 2008 dollars based on a

17 30-year life, a three percent interest rate, and a

18 three percent inflation rate." Could you explain

19 that?

DR. ZENZ: Well, you just helped us

21 remember what the present worth value is. It's a

22 30-year present worth factor.

MS. WILLIAMS: It says 20.

MR. ETTINGER: Did I misstate? I'm

160

1 sorry.

DR. ZENZ: Well, I guess I was right

3 after all. It was 20 years. Yeah, I mean, you

4 know, when we -- you know, when you're trying to

5 bring dollars to present time, what you have to

6 assume is that -- as you stated previously, that

7 that money could have been invested in an interest

8 rate. So that's one -- why the numbers change,

9 because you could've gotten a better -- you could've

10 -- instead of building a UV system, you could invest

11 it in a bank and get money back. The second issue

12 is inflation. That's why we use the inflation

13 factor. I mean, just -- prices go up, gas goes up,

14 labor goes up.

MR. ETTINGER: Well, and this is --

16 did you assume that the inflation rate would be the

17 same as the interest rate?

DR. ZENZ: No. The interest rate

19 was -- we had -- you know, when we -- we don't make

20 these decisions on a willy-nilly basis. The

21 District typically gets three percent on short-term

22 investments, and three percent is typical number

23 that engineers use, so we felt that that number was

24 correct. Inflation rate, we looked at -- there's a

161

1 variety of inflation indices which are out there,

2 and actually for the period that we were looking at,

3 they were actually a little bit less than three

4 percent. So we actually -- I can give you the exact

5 quote here if you're interested in the details.

6 Give me a minute to find it.

MR. ETTINGER: Well, let me throw

8 something out on the table -- well, go ahead.

DR. ZENZ: Yeah. Just to close the

10 loop on it, we looked at three common inflation

11 indicators, gross domestic product equator, consumer

12 price index and producer's price index. And for the

13 last ten years, they've been 2.6 percent,

14 2.9 percent, and 2.6 percent. We use three percent

15 because we thought this was a reasonable yet

16 conservative number. So that's what we used.

17 That's how we arrived on it. And again, repeating

18 most -- for most District calculations, we use an

19 interest rate of three percent, and that's their

20 typical actual rate that they usually receive on

21 short-term investments, and that, of course, changes

22 depending on the investment market. So that's how

23 we reach a decision on those two numbers.

MR. ETTINGER: Okay. Well, I'm

162

1 confused further. If we look at Exhibit 149 on

2 Page 44 --

MR. ANDES: Is that the North Side?

MR. ETTINGER: This is the North Side.

MR. ANDES: Page 44?

MR. ETTINGER: Right.

MR. ANDES: Okay.

MR. ETTINGER: In the first paragraph,

9 is states "In order to develop a net present worth

10 value for comparison to other alternatives with

11 different MNL costs, a present wort factor of 23.17

12 was used for all present worth calculations based on

13 a nominal 4.375 percent interest rate for 20 years

14 with a 3 percent inflation factor." So could --

15 frankly, could you --

DR. ZENZ: I'm going to let Eric

17 answer that.

MR. COCKERILL: Sure. I can answer

19 that. When we first developed the reports, we

20 didn't have information from the District on their

21 actual investment rates. So we used the Water

22 Resources Act rate, which at that time was the 4.375

23 that was -- subsequent to that, the District, in

24 some of their other cost estimates, provided the

163

1 number for their actual investments return, which is

2 3 percent. So that was why this has been changed.

MS. TIPSORD: Go ahead, Ms. Headman.

MS. HEADMAN: In your 2005 study, I

5 take it that you used an entirely different --

DR. ZENZ: I don't honestly recall.

MS. TIPSORD: And this is attachment

8 NN?

MS. HEADMAN: NN.

DR. ZENZ: We used -- oddly enough, we

11 used exactly -- we used a 3 percent interest rate

12 and a 3 percent inflation factor for our Level 4

13 cost estimate. I found that on Page 44 of our

14 report.

MR. ETTINGER: Wait a minute. Which

16 would --

MS. TIPSORD: Attachment NN.

DR. ZENZ: NN. Yes, thank you.

MR. ETTINGER: So they -- the old one

20 used 3 percent, 3 percent, the new one uses 4.8 and

21 3 percent?

MR. COCKERILL: That's -- that's

23 correct. And then the testimony went back to the 3

24 percent to make it consistent with that previous

164

1 support and the actual --

MR. ETTINGER: Help me out, guys.

3 What numbers do you want to use?

MR. COCKERILL: Three percent.

MR. ETTINGER: What is your testimony,

6 3 percent and 3 percent?

MR. COCKERILL: Yes.

DR. ZENZ: Three percent is what my

9 testimony is.

MR. ETTINGER: So your testimony is

11 that the Water Reclamation District gets no real

12 earnings on any of this money? Once you take

13 inflation rates into account, the Water Reclamation

14 District is breaking even on this.

MR. ANDES: I don't think --

DR. ZENZ: Well --

MR. ANDES: He stands by the numbers

18 he gave you.

MR. ETTINGER: Okay. Great. Thank

20 you.

MS. TIPSORD: Go ahead, Ms. Headman.

MS. HEADMAN: So Dr. Zenz, do I

23 understand, then, that you stand by both numbers,

24 the 3 percent interest rate that's stated in your

165

1 testimony and the 4.875 percent rate that is in the

2 study on which your testimony is based?

MR. COCKERILL: For the calculation of

4 present worth value, which should only be used to

5 compare alternatives, and not as an actual value of

6 facility. Depending on which basis you want to

7 discount your future valued money, they're both

8 correct. The District -- the more accurate number

9 for the District, I would say, is the 3 percent

10 discount factor, or interest rate, because that's

11 the value they get for their investments.

MR. ANDES: And that was used in

13 the testimony?

MR. COCKERILL: That was used in the

15 testimony. That was reported in the testimony.

MR. ETTINGER: Okay. Are you done,

17 Ms. Headman?

MS. HEADMAN: Yes, I am.

MR. ETTINGER: Okay. Now for

20 something completely different, pilot plants.

21 What's a pilot plant?

DR. ZENZ: Well, it can be something

23 as small as plexiglas reactors in the laboratory

24 where you bring in wastewater effluent that you put

166

1 through a tester, or as big as a facility which is

2 big as a full scale facility that's being operated

3 at some small treatment plants in the suburbs

4 someplace. So it really depends on -- it depends on

5 site-specific factors in terms of, you know, what --

6 you know, how much money is at stake in the capital

7 cost and in other factors. Scale -- you know, how

8 well can you scale up from a laboratory to a full

9 scale unit for this particular type of process.

10 There's always issues like that.

MR. ETTINGER: Okay. For the money

12 we're talking here, we're not contemplating an HL

13 model, are we?

DR. ZENZ: No.

MR. ETTINGER: So the -- what do you

16 contemplate building as a pilot plant?

DR. ZENZ: Well, you know, quite

18 honestly, we have not been asked to look at any --

19 look at that issue in any detail whatsoever. So, I

20 mean, I would be sitting here speculating wildly as

21 to what should or should not be done in terms of a

22 pilot plant facility. I'm sure when the District --

23 when it embarks on -- it would take some great care

24 to figure out an answer to your question. But I'm

167

1 not going to speculate here what that would be.

MS. WILLIAMS: May I ask a followup?

MR. ETTINGER: I'm going to be playing

4 with the pilots for a little while.

MS. WILLIAMS: I just want to

6 understand how you know it's been two and a half

7 years.

DR. ZENZ: I'm sorry. I didn't hear.

MS. WILLIAMS: How do you know it's

10 going to take two and a half years if you really

11 don't know what you're going to do?

DR. ZENZ: Well, we know that it's

13 going to be a large scale facility because of the

14 amount of dollars here which we've been talking

15 about, which is hundreds of millions of dollars. So

16 it's going to be a large-scale facility. As I went

17 through in my previous testimony, we figured they're

18 going to have to hire a consultant to design it, and

19 then it's going to be a -- it's going to take some

20 construction time to build this full-scale facility.

21 And I think 18 months to design and construction is

22 a fairly short time for a full-scale power facility.

23 Again, there's no cushion.

MR. ETTINGER: I'm sorry. What's a

168

1 full-scale pilot facility?

DR. ZENZ: Well, I have no idea how

3 big this would be, but it would be something -- in

4 the order of an MGD size, million gallons per day --

5 it would be at least probably one MGD.

MR. ETTINGER: How big is the Hanover

7 Park plant?

DR. ZENZ: 1.5 MGD.

MR. ETTINGER: Can't you just look at

10 it?

DR. ZENZ: No, no. There's more to

12 it. You know, I don't want to get into all the

13 details, but you're trying to get information for

14 design and operation, so you have to think about

15 what type of flow rates are you going to look at,

16 what's the range of flow rates you're going to look

17 at, and the size of the facility accordingly. You

18 also have to -- in power plant facilities, you have

19 to plan much more flexibility in terms of what you

20 can do, because you don't know -- you know, what is

21 the -- what is this UV facility going to -- you

22 know, how much flow can it really take and meet the

23 effluent disinfection targets. We really don't know

24 the answer to that.

169

That's the idea of why you're

2 doing the pilot plant. So you want to have -- you

3 want to have the ability to -- for the pilot plant

4 to operate under a range of flow rates. UV

5 geometry, of all places -- well, you can make a

6 decision up front exactly what the geometry is going

7 to be without knowing. So you're going to probably

8 want to be able to change the geometry. You want

9 flexibility, so you're going to move some things

10 around.

You know, so you know there's a

12 lot of issues that have to be addressed in a pilot

13 plant design. It's not an easy facility. You don't

14 just call a manufacturer and say give me a 1 MGD

15 facility and I'm going to test it. No. It's going

16 to be something that's going to allow, you know,

17 some range, you know, try different configurations,

18 different UV dosage rates, and then number of bulbs

19 and configuration of bulbs. So that's a fairly

20 complex issue, and to have to be addressed and

21 designed is not a simple matter.

MR. ETTINGER: Did they build a pilot

23 plant before they built the Grand Rapids plant?

DR. ZENZ: I have no idea.

170

MR. ANDES: Do you know what size

2 Grand Rapids is?

MR. ETTINGER: Do you know if they

4 built a pilot plant before they built a plant in

5 Dublin, 250 million gallons per day?

MR. ANDES: Is that smaller than any

7 of the ones we're talking about here?

MR. ETTINGER: Not much.

MR. ANDES: Really?

MS. TIPSORD: Wait a minute. You

11 can't ask Albert the question. You can ask the

12 witness the question.

MR. ANDES: He's providing the

14 evidence about Dublin.

MR. ETTINGER: I asked him whether

16 he'd study the Dublin plant --

DR. ZENZ: No.

MR. ETTINGER: -- and his answer is

19 no. And why did you decide you needed three pilot

20 plants?

DR. ZENZ: Well, in the wastewater

22 treatment business, each plant has its own unique

23 wastewater. I don't think -- if there's anything

24 that I've learned in this business over the years is

171

1 it's difficult to make predictions from what one guy

2 does and from what you do. And because wastewaters

3 are so unique and they have different metal

4 concentrations and different BOD concentrations,

5 they go on, and on, and on. And again, we're

6 talking about some of the, probably, largest

7 facilities that will probably ever be constructed in

8 the United States. And so you -- if you're going --

9 if you want to get the most cost effective facility

10 that's going to do the job at the lowest cost and do

11 the job, then you want to do each individual

12 treatment.

MR. ETTINGER: Do you generally build

14 a pilot plant before you build a sewage treatment

15 plant?

DR. ZENZ: No.

MR. ETTINGER: I had a few other

18 questions here. These -- I'm sorry. This'll

19 overlap a little into the other testimony relating

20 to other costs and studies, but there's no good way

21 to break these down, so I'm going to have to, kind

22 of, deal with them the best they can, because they

23 are, sort of, linked issues. On Page 1 of -- I'm

24 looking at Exhibit 149. I like the North Side plant

172

1 study because it's shorter.

MR. ANDES: We can give you some other

3 ones that are shorter.

MR. ETTINGER: No, no. It says,

5 "However, the exclusion of --

MR. ANDES: I'm sorry. What page?

MR. ETTINGER: Page 1 of the executive

8 summary. It says "The exclusion of tertiary filters

9 from this report should not suggest that tertiary

10 filters would not required in the future to move

11 stricter suspended solids or phosphorus limits."

12 Are you anticipating stricter suspended solid

13 levels?

DR. ZENZ: We have been involved doing

15 planning studies for the Water Reclamation District,

16 and these studies go out, to some cases, as far as

17 2040, and we have to make predictions on what we

18 think might happen in the future. And yes, we go

19 out that far. We do sometimes -- and we have

20 assumed that an existing suspended solid limits will

21 be lower in the future than they are now.

MR. ETTINGER: Now same question as to

23 phosphorus limits. Do you anticipate phosphorus

24 limits will be stricter?

173

DR. ZENZ: In our planning studies for

2 the District, we assume that phosphorus limits will

3 be imposed in the future.

MR. ETTINGER: If you put these

5 tertiary filters on the plant to help you with your

6 UV, would it help you meet a phosphorus plant in the

7 future?

DR. ZENZ: Yes.

MR. ANDES: Do you know -- I'm sorry.

10 Do you know if that would be sufficient,

11 phosphorus --

DR. ZENZ: Well, you used the word

13 "help," so I assume that -- no, no. By itself, no.

MR. ETTINGER: Well, we don't know

15 what the phosphorus limits would be, do we?

DR. ZENZ: No. Fair enough.

MR. JOHNSON: One rulemaking at a

18 time.

MR. ETTINGER: That's the next

20 proceeding. I'm just trying to find out the

21 language.

MS. WILLIAMS: I don't think it's

23 next.

MR. ANDES: I'm just going to ask if

174

1 we can use your position as to a level.

DR. ZENZ: To a more direct answer to

3 your question, certain low phosphorus limits can

4 only be met by having filtration in addition to

5 other limits.

MR. ETTINGER: Actually, it looks like

7 more of my questions are already answered than I

8 anticipated. Would people want to take a

9 five-minute break here and then I can conclude

10 almost immediately?

MS. TIPSORD: I was hoping to finish

12 with Dr. Zenz.

MR. ETTINGER: All right.

MS. ALEXANDER: But if you need to if

15 you need to look through some stuff -- no, no, no.

16 That's okay. If you need to look through some

17 stuff, let's go ahead and take ten minutes now and

18 we'll do that then. Go ahead. Take ten minutes.

(Whereupon, a break was taken,

after which the following

proceedings were had.)

MS. TIPSORD: Mr. Ettinger, we were

23 with you.

MR. ETTINGER: Yeah. I want to get

175

1 back to these pilots just a little bit more. Where

2 do you expect the pilots to be built?

DR. ZENZ: Well, they would be built

4 right at the plants themselves to make easy access

5 to the effluent.

MR. ETTINGER: So you'd have a

7 separate pilot of about one million gallons per day

8 at each of the plants?

DR. ZENZ: I -- that's just a guess on

10 my part as to what the size would be. But yes, I

11 would think it would be in that order.

MR. ETTINGER: And it would be taking

13 the particular sewage that's currently going to that

14 particular plant?

DR. ZENZ: The effluent from that

16 particular plant.

MR. ETTINGER: I'm sorry. The

18 effluent from that particular plant.

DR. ZENZ: We'd have to find out a

20 spot where there was access to the effluent conduit.

21 I'm making some assumptions here, but probably a

22 pumping facility would be required.

MR. ETTINGER: I have one last thing.

24 On Page 42 of Exhibit 149, you have a basis of

176

1 opinion of capital costs. It has down here "UV

2 disinfection. UV transmission, 65 percent minimum

3 for IEPA standard."

MR. ANDES: We're getting there.

5 Okay. We're there.

DR. ZENZ: We're there.

MR. ETTINGER: Okay. How did that

8 affect your cost estimates?

DR. ZENZ: Well, as I stated before

10 earlier in my testimony, one of the issues was the

11 UV transmission. When we did our Level 4 cost

12 estimate, we had laboratory tests, but a very

13 limited amount, and we only did tests for, I think,

14 two weeks. We found that some of the transmissions

15 were less than 65 percent, hence, we thought that

16 effluent filtration might be a good idea. So that's

17 why we included cost for effluent disinfection --

18 effluent filtration in the Level 4 cost estimate,

19 which was done earlier.

But here -- and this is a correct

21 statement -- the -- you would have a very difficult

22 time getting approved for a UV disinfection system

23 for effluent that had a transmission below 65

24 percent. But we found that, based on more testing

177

1 that was done, this did not seem to be the issue we

2 thought it originally was. Therefore, we did not

3 include effluent filtration in our Level 3 cost

4 estimate, which was our most recent cost estimate.

5 So this is why this is presented the way it is.

MR. ETTINGER: Okay. It wouldn't

7 affect your cost if that number were 55 or 70

8 instead of 65?

DR. ZENZ: If it was lower than that,

10 if the -- we would -- we'd have to do something in

11 addition to UV disinfection. We'd have to put in

12 some kind of proprietary process, probably effluent

13 filtration, and that cost would have to be added on.

14 It if it was -- if it was if the 65 percent minimum

15 was not met, then the cost would go up.

MR. ETTINGER: So if a higher minimum

17 were set, then the cost would go up?

MR. ANDES: I'm sorry. If the Agency

19 set a higher minimum?

MR. ETTINGER: Right.

MR. ANDES: If the Agency said you had

22 to meet 70 percent?

DR. ZENZ: I don't recall the

24 laboratory data enough to say whether its -- the

178

1 70 percent would effect the numbers consistent above

2 70.

MR. COCKERILL: I don't think they

4 were consistently above 70 percent.

DR. ZENZ: So to answer -- we -- our

6 recollection of the data is that they were not

7 consistently above 70 percent. So if the Agency

8 should raise the number, we'd probably have to start

9 looking at effluent filtration as an addition to a

10 system and considerable costs.

MR. ETTINGER: And lowering the number

12 to 60 percent wouldn't affect things, or would it?

MR. COCKERILL: I think you have it

14 reversed. Lower is worse. So lower as the

15 filtration.

DR. ZENZ: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.

17 Thank you, Eric. We got our --

MR. ETTINGER: I'm probably confused

19 too.

MR. ANDES: Eric do you want to go

21 ahead?

MR. COCKERILL: Sure. This is --- UV

23 transmission -- or UV transmissivity is essentially

24 a measure of how much of the light passes through a

179

1 certain amount of the water. So it's how much of

2 the UV radiation penetrates the water. So a higher

3 percentage is better. More of the radiation is

4 hitting -- is getting through the water and hitting

5 the target. So, hence, the lower the number the

6 worse. That means you have to increase the amount

7 of energy you're putting in the water in the

8 equivalent UV dose to the target organism. So I

9 think the train of your question was if this number

10 was differed, would it change the cost estimate. If

11 the number is lower, it increases the cost.

MR. ETTINGER: And if it were higher?

MR. COCKERILL: I believe that IEPA

14 requires you to design 65 percent.

MR. ETTINGER: Thank you. That's all.

MR. ARMSTRONG: A few quick questions.

17 Andrew Armstrong for the People of the State of

18 Illinois. Still on Exhibit 149, I had a question

19 about Page 45 at the bottom, the definition of

20 contingency, and the first sentence reads

21 "Consistent with AACE guidelines and District

22 policy, the contingency factor of 30 percent has

23 been added to the OPCC to cover unknown costs

24 associated with the project," and I assume AACE is

180

1 the Association for the Advancement of Cost

2 Engineering?

DR. ZENZ: That's correct.

MR. ANDES: Can you site any specific

5 document that would have AACE guidelines on

6 contingency?

MR. COCKERILL: I think -- I believe

8 it's the same document that we referenced before

9 with the guideline classifications.

DR. ZENZ: Eric is saying that he

11 thinks it would be in this document, the Association

12 for the Advancement of Cost Engineering, recommended

13 practice number 18R-97.

MR ARMSTRONG: Is there a title for

15 that?

MR. ANDES: Yeah. We can provide it

17 for the record.

MR ARMSTRONG: That would be great.

19 Thank you. Just one more question then. On

20 Appendix F, the second page of Appendix F on the

21 North Side, the estimate at the bottom under

22 subtotal, there are several line items.

MR. ANDES: It says on capital cost?

MR. ARMSTRONG: Yes, yes. This

181

1 capital costs for the general site work. There is

2 GC markup on subs of five percent, effluent of 7.5

3 percent. Contractor overheaded profit of 15

4 percent, a plain level contingency of 30 percent,

5 legal and fiscal fees of 50 percent, and then

6 engineering fees of 20 percent. My question is:

7 Are all these line items consistent with AACE

8 guidelines?

MR. COCKERILL: I believe that the

10 AACE doesn't go into detail on -- if you go through

11 them one at a time, the GC markup on subs, that's

12 dependant on your method of estimating. That is the

13 industry standard. The effluation for the midpoint

14 of construction, again, this is depending on your

15 method of estimation, but I don't believe the AACE

16 provides a standard of that. And the same issue

17 with the contractor overhead and profit markup is,

18 there's not a guideline that recommends that, but it

19 is an industry standard for this type of cost

20 estimate. The plan level contingency we just

21 discussed, and then the legal and fiscal fees and

22 the engineering, are again, are not an AACE

23 guideline, but they're more what I would call an

24 industry standard practice to include those in the

182

1 estimate.

MR. ALEXANDER: When you say an

3 industry standard of practice, is there any document

4 you could site to me that would show the industry

5 standard?

MR. COCKERILL: Well, it's not a

7 published standard, is what I'm trying to differ

8 from the Agency recommended practice document.

9 There's numerous cost estimating textbooks and other

10 literature that would reflect those same types of

11 markups.

MR ALEXANDER: Could you give me an

13 example of one of the textbooks?

MR. COCKERILL: Not off the top of my

15 head.

MR. ANDES: We can provide further

17 information on that as well.

MS. TIPSORD: Mr. Harley?

MR. HARLEY: You described pilot

20 projects that could run even -- almost in a

21 laboratory setting. To your knowledge, has the

22 Water Reclamation District commenced any pilot

23 projects on any scale to evaluate different

24 disinfection options?

183

DR. ZENZ: I have a very informal

2 knowledge --

MR. ANDES: Let me stop you there. I

4 know that they have, and we can have people from the

5 District testify to that. I don't think that's an

6 issue to him, but this has -- is going on

7 disinfection, and we can have a District witness

8 talk about that further if you'd like.

MS. WILLIAMS: Do you mean, like, Mr.

10 Granato?

MR. HARLEY: Who would that be? I'm

12 not sure I saw that --

MR. ANDES: I think Dr. Granato could

14 speak about those, and he'll be up tomorrow.

MR. HARLEY: I believe your witness

16 was about to start answering that question, and

17 because we've already been speaking about pilot

18 projects and how that would add 30 months to the

19 front end of any execution of installation and cost

20 as well, I would like to hear what this witness has

21 to say about how what may be going on in the

22 District right that now may have influenced the way

23 he then evaluated pilot projects for purposes of his

24 cost estimate.

184

DR. ZENZ: All I know is -- and I hope

2 I'm stating this accurately -- is that there is a

3 pilot study, which has not commenced yet and is

4 still under construction. The pilot plant is still

5 under construction at the Hanover Park plant.

MR. HARLEY: And that's a UV?

DR. ZENZ: Yes. That's as much as my

8 knowledge as I can testify to.

MR. HARLEY: Just one more question,

10 if I may. Assuming that it does take eight years,

11 and hypothetically Mr. Andes succeeds in this

12 rulemaking beyond his wildest dreams, and the Board

13 concludes that there's no requirement at this time

14 for disinfection at all.

MR. ANDES: I don't even know where to

16 object to that. No comment.

MR. HARLEY: And then it's time for

18 another review in 2012, and based on significantly

19 greater recreational use of these waterways, we now

20 then, again, face the prospect that the District

21 will have to disinfect, and then we would be facing

22 eight years from 2012 before we would be able to see

23 actual limitation of disinfection in District

24 facilities?

185

MR. ANDES: I -- I lost the train on

2 that.

MR. HARLEY: He -- I think your

4 witness is prepared to answer the question. I'm not

5 asking you to answer, Mr. Andes.

DR. ZENZ: Well, I mean, you know,

7 you -- the premise in the question was that the

8 Board would pass an order which required some kind

9 of effluent disinfection standard for the District,

10 and he said "Well, if you add eight years to that,

11 our schedule, it would turn out to be 2020," and

12 your math is correct. I would only go on further to

13 state that the issue is when -- you know, when does

14 this -- all this regulatory requirement kicks in and

15 when would the process begin to meet that new

16 standard. But in terms of your math, I think it's

17 correct.

MR. HARLEY: And just one other

19 clarifying question for the record. If a pilot

20 project were not necessary -- and I do believe it

21 is -- the Illinois EPA filed a proposal rule in

22 2007, which anticipated compliance by the conclusion

23 of 2011, which is an '07, '08, '09, '10, basically a

24 four to five-year period. If you eliminated your

186

1 pilot project, wouldn't you basically be in a four

2 to five-year period for installing UV equipment at

3 your facilities?

DR. ZENZ: Well, you know,

5 subtracting, you know, two and a half years from our

6 estimate, the other math that you did is all

7 correct. I think the issue, then, is when did

8 the -- would there be an effect -- not having the

9 pilot project information, would there be an effect

10 on the design time, and the answer is I'm not sure.

11 There's a possibility that that -- that not having

12 pilot plant information may lengthen the design

13 process, simply because you have more unknowns and

14 there'd be more study time required in the initial

15 design process to come up with a design, especially

16 if that -- especially if that standard was different

17 than the standard 400 count per 100 ML standard,

18 which is typically in the industry.

MR. ANDES: If I can ask a followup,

20 would it ordinarily be a recommended practice to

21 start designing a facility when you don't know what

22 the final standard is going to be or if, in fact,

23 the Board will be adopting it?

DR. ZENZ: Well, I mean, you know, the

187

1 client starts the whole design process, and he'll

2 make a decision, then, when that process would

3 begin, and I would think he would expect all the --

4 all the decisions that have been made, and there's

5 no other -- no shoes are going to hit the floor and

6 then start the process to begin that design. So I

7 would think that there would be some delay.

MR. HARLEY: Thank you.

MS. TIPSORD: Anything further for Dr.

10 Zenz? Thank you very much.

DR. ZENZ: Thank you.

MS. TIPSORD: Your next witness, Mr.

13 Andes. Could you pronounce your last name for me

14 one more time? I promise I'll get it better.

MR. KUNETZ: Kunetz.

MS. TIPSORD: Kunetz.

(Witness sworn.)

MS. TIPSORD: And do we have a copy of

19 his testimony?

MR. ANDES: I do.

MS. TIPSORD: If there's no objection,

22 we will mark the pre-filed testimony of Mr. Kunetz

23 as Exhibit 153. Seeing none, it's Exhibit 153. And

24 I believe we start again with IEPA.

188

MS. WILLIAMS: Good afternoon,

2 Mr. Kunetz. I guess first I would like to ask you

3 to explain briefly your role in the master planning

4 process for the District.

MR. KUNETZ: Okay. I am the assistant

6 chief engineer in the engineering department. I

7 participated in the interview panel to select the

8 consultant to prepare the in infrastructure and

9 feasibility studies from which the master plan was

10 derived. I was also, at the time, supervisor of the

11 project manager who served as the direct liaison to

12 the engineering consultant who prepared the studies.

13 I participated in workshops, and participated in the

14 decision making process.

MS. WILLIAMS: And is a master plan

16 being prepared for the District's Lemont facility?

MR. KUNETZ: There is not.

MS. WILLIAMS: Can you tell us why?

MR. KUNETZ: The -- there is a study

20 being done now, actually preliminary design, to turn

21 the Lemont plant into a pumping station.

MS. WILLIAMS: Is the District's

23 master planning process subject to public notice and

24 comment? This is pre-filed question number two now.

189

MR. KUNETZ: It is not. These are

2 internal planning tools.

MS. WILLIAMS: And were the use

4 attainability studies for the Chicago Area Waterway

5 and Lower Des Plaines River underway when these

6 master plans were being developed?

MR. KUNETZ: I'll answer that request

8 by telling you the dates that the master plans were

9 under development, since I don't know the dates of

10 the UAA studies. The master plan study for the

11 Stickney Water Reclamation Plant was in progress

12 from approximately April 2003 to February 2005. The

13 master plan study for the Calumet plant was in

14 progress from approximately October 2003 to April

15 2006. The master plan study for the North Side

16 plant was in progress from approximately November

17 2004 to July, 2007.

MR. ANDES: Can I follow up? Can you

19 tell me, Mr. Kunetz, when did the whole master

20 planning process start?

MR. KUNETZ: Initial discussions

22 within the District for the need to develop such

23 master plans started in the 2000/2001 timeframe.

MR. ANDES: And can you explain a

190

1 little bit about -- you talk about these documents

2 in internal tools, I believe, in the engineering

3 department. Can you explain a little bit about what

4 they are, how they're used, and also how they tie in

5 eventually to the publicly available for the

6 District?

MR. KUNETZ: We use the master plan as

8 a planning tool to determine what the treatment

9 plants need to look like in -- within the term of

10 the planning horizon. We chose the year 2040 as our

11 planing horizon, and it gives us a roadmap on how to

12 get to that point, what are the projects that need

13 to be done, and what order do they need to be done

14 in, and then approximately what is going to be the

15 cost of these projects.

So it is used as a planning tool

17 for us to know which projects need to be done in the

18 particular order, because some processes need to be

19 in place before another process can be rehabbed or

20 built, and it also gives us a budgetary planning

21 tool so that the finance people within the District

22 can have some sort of long-term sense in how much

23 money we need to spend in the future.

MS. WILLIAMS: So when DR. ZENZ

191

1 testified earlier about looking into the future

2 towards 2040 and believing that the District needed

3 to look at the possibility of total suspended solids

4 limits or phosphorus limits, is that part of what

5 you're talking about?

MR. KUNETZ: It is. We looked at the

7 year 2040 planning horizon. The base plan was

8 established assuming that the regulations -- the

9 effluent limitations would stay the same, but we

10 looked at what would be the potential flows and

11 loads at that time, how would population or

12 commercial use change in the future that the loads

13 or the flows coming to the treatment plant may

14 change, and what we would need to do to meet current

15 effluent standards. That was our base.

In order to be prudent with our

17 planning, we also took out a crystal ball and said

18 "Well, what if the IEPA makes more stringent

19 effluent standards, what if the IEPA decides that we

20 need to have a certain amount of nutrient removal.

21 What if?" And we used that as a tool so we could

22 establish within the real estate of our plants where

23 such processes would have to be placed so that they

24 could effectively be inserted into the flow train so

192

1 as not to take a valuable real estate with the

2 current process only to know that in the future

3 possibly something would come up.

MS. WILLIAMS: So the crystal ball did

5 not anticipate that the Agency would want to see

6 bacteria water quality standards or effluent

7 disinfection requirements out in that, right?

MR. KUNETZ: It looked into to the

9 extent of if we needed to do disinfection, where

10 would we need to locate this within the plant

11 property. So we did block out an area for potential

12 future disinfection.

MS. WILLIAMS: But not from a

14 financial standpoint, just from a physical

15 standpoint. Is that what you're saying?

MR. KUNETZ: That is correct.

MS. WILLIAMS: And then how did you

18 come up with this list of non-master plan projects?

19 That's Attachment 4.

MR. KUNETZ: There's two ways that we

21 look at as we're planning and determining what

22 projects will be needed at our treatment plants, and

23 one of them -- one of the steps is to form a study,

24 which the master plan process was part of that

193

1 study. The other way we do it is through routine

2 and normal communications internally with their

3 maintenance and operation staff and the engineer

4 department. Discussions of issues that are raised,

5 we have where we discuss potential issues, projects,

6 that may come up or that need to be addressed, and

7 so through internal discussions we generate an

8 annual list.

MS. WILLIAMS: I think that's all I

10 have for this witness. Thank you.

MS. TIPSORD: Okay. Then we move to

12 the People. Ms. Headman?

MS. HEADMAN: Thank you. Susan

14 Headman. I represent the People of the State of

15 Illinois in this proceeding. In our pre-filed

16 questions, we requested copies of all of the master

17 plans for the Stickney, Calumet, and North Side

18 plants, and I believe that you provided those to us.

19 Is that correct?

MR. ANDES: I believe those have been

21 provided.

MS. HEADMAN: And have those been put

23 on the record?

MR. ANDES: I don't recall.

194

MS. HEADMAN: I don't believe those

2 have been put on the record.

MR. ANDES: I know we have them in

4 electronic format.

MS. HEADMAN: Let me ask you Madam

6 Hearing Officer, would you like the entirety of the

7 master plans placed in the record, or I have some

8 selected portions that I would be presenting as

9 exhibits. Would that be sufficient?

MS. TIPSORD: What does everyone else

11 think?

MS. WILLIAMS: Did we reference the

13 website? Is that how we handled that?

MR. ANDES: The budget books are on

15 the website. The master plan is not. I do have a

16 disc.

MS. TIPSORD: Let's go ahead and --

MR. ETTINGER: We can give a higher

19 exhibit number if we let her introduce them

20 individually.

MS. TIPSORD: Well, why don't we admit

22 the disc as an exhibit, and then we'll also admit

23 your portions as exhibits as well, and that way --

24 because we are trying to get those numbers up, right

195

1 folks? We really want to set a record that'll never

2 be met.

MS. WILLIAMS: Is there just one disc?

4 Is there some -- oh, is there more than one disc?

MR. ANDES: I have several. We can

6 burn more if you want.

MS. WILLIAMS: No. One is good.

MS. TIPSORD: I've been handed a CD

9 ROM, Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of

10 Greater Chicago, September 9th, 2008, North Side

11 master plan.

MR. ANDES: I believe it has the other

13 information on it, too, though.

THE COURT: And the other information

15 as well. And we'll mark as Exhibit 154 if there's

16 no objection. Seeing none, it's Exhibit 154. I've

17 been handed Executive Summary, and this is for the

18 Stickney MWRP. We will mark this as Exhibit 155 if

19 there's no objection. Seeing none, it's

20 Exhibit 155.

MS. HEADMAN: Mr. Kunetz, do you

22 recognize the document that's been marked as

23 Exhibit 155?

MR. KUNETZ: I do.

196

MS. HEADMAN: Is that the executive

2 summary for the Stickney plant master plan?

MR. KUNETZ: It is.

MS. HEADMAN: Could you read the first

5 several sentences that are highlighted in yellow?

MR. KUNETZ: "The master plan is the

7 final report prepared by Black and Beach Corporation

8 and Greeley and Hanson, LLC, in connection with the

9 infrastructure and prophecy and feasibility study

10 for the Stickney MWRP."

MR. ANDES: Slow down.

MS. TIPSORD: Thanks.

MR. KUNETZ: "It is a prioritized

14 master plan that includes a summary of all the

15 documents presented during the study. It presents

16 the consultant team's conclusions regarding existing

17 conditions, future needs, and recommended

18 improvements, including opinions of construction

19 costs for budgeting purposes and a staging and

20 scheduling plan for implementation."

MS. HEADMAN: Now could you turn to

22 the next page, please, and could you please read the

23 highlighted section through the bulleted items?

MR. KUNETZ: "In the initial report,

197

1 the consultant team confirmed" -- I'm sorry. Do

2 you want me to read that or the --

MS. HEADMAN: All the material

4 highlighted in yellow.

MR. KUNETZ: "In the initial report,

6 the consultant team confirmed that the eight areas

7 identified at the onset of the project are the areas

8 in greatest need for improvement. These areas of

9 concerns are preliminary primary treatment,

10 treatment of the pump vac from TARP, sludge

11 thickening, digester gas utilization, blowers and

12 processed air supply systems, nutrient control,

13 biosolids processing, effluent disinfection."

MS. HEADMAN: So the consultants

15 identified effluent disinfection as one of their

16 concerns. Is that correct? That's the last item on

17 that list.

MR. KUNETZ: According to this list,

19 it says it was one of the areas of concern.

MS. HEADMAN: Now in my pre-filed

21 questions, I ask whether or not you've been involved

22 in the MWRD's capital improvements planning process.

23 Have you been involved in that process?

MR. KUNETZ: Yes.

198

MS. HEADMAN: And when did you first

2 get involved in that process?

MR. KUNETZ: You're asking a different

4 question than what's in your pre-filed question.

MS. TIPSORD: She's on question three.

MS. HEADMAN: I'm on question three.

MS. TIPSORD: She skipped two and went

8 to three.

MS. HEADMAN: In response to IEPA's

10 questions, I think you've covered the material in

11 Item 2.

MR. KUNETZ: Okay.

MR. ANDES: If I can -- I'm sorry.

14 It's okay. I'll have a followup question after

15 that.

MR. KUNETZ: Okay. Here we go. Yes,

17 I have been.

MS. HEADMAN: And when did you first

19 get involved in that process?

MR. KUNETZ: 2005.

MS. HEADMAN: And what was your role

22 in the capital improvements planning process?

MR. KUNETZ: As the assistant

24 engineer, I evaluate and gather information on

199

1 various projects that may be of need for

2 improvements at our treatment plants, and

3 determining which projects need to be done to budget

4 and approximate year for implementation.

MR. ANDES: Then to follow up, I'd

6 like to bring back, Mr. Kunetz, to the executive

7 summary document you were just referring to with the

8 areas of concern, including effluent disinfection,

9 and I wonder if you could read the paragraph about

10 effluent disinfection on page ES13.

MR. KUNETZ: "Depending on the final

12 outcome of the use attainability analysis for the

13 Chicago Area Waterways, disinfection may be required

14 at one or more of the MWRDGC's largest water

15 reclamation plant, North Side, Calumet, and

16 Stickney. An assessment to determine the

17 disinfection technology that would be the most

18 appropriate for application at the District's three

19 largest water reclamation plants is underway as part

20 of the master planning study for the North Side

21 water reclamation plant."

MR. ANDES: Thank you.

MS. HEADMAN: Now, Mr. Kunetz, I'd

24 like to direct you back to the second page of that

200

1 summary. Now just to review again, the consultant

2 team identified areas of concern that included

3 effluent disinfection. Is that correct?

MR. KUNETZ: That's what the statement

5 says.

MS. HEADMAN: And then what does the

7 next sentence say?

MR. KUNETZ: Please point out where

9 you are at.

MS. HEADMAN: The sentence that begins

11 with "The District's management team."

MR. KUNETZ: Yes. "The District's

13 management teams confirmed that these were the

14 primary area of concern, and authorized the

15 consultant team to provide further evaluation."

MS. HEADMAN: I think -- actually,

17 please continue reading the next sentence.

MR. KUNETZ: "Concept design reports,

19 CERs, or in one case, a concept overview report,

20 COR, were prepared and submitted as separate volumes

21 to address each area of concern with the exception

22 of effluent disinfection. Effluent disinfection is

23 currently being --

MS. HEADMAN: That's -- that's far

201

1 enough.

MR. ANDES: Would you please read the

3 next sentence?

MR. KUNETZ: "Effluent disinfection is

5 currently being evaluated for the District's three

6 largest plants, Stickney, North Side, and Calumet,

7 as a part of the master plan study for the North

8 Side walker reclamation plan."

MR. ANDES: And if you can explain to

10 me a little bit about when the District management

11 team confirmed that these were primaries of concern,

12 does that mean as a planning matter or as a public

13 health matter?

MR. KUNETZ: As a planning matter.

MR. ANDES: Thank you.

MR. HARLEY: And so the District

17 confirms that all of the areas except effluent

18 disinfection were areas of concern. Is that

19 correct?

MR. KUNETZ: For the purpose of the

21 planning, yes.

MS. HEADMAN: Thank you.

MR. ANDES: And if I can follow up,

24 they prepared new reports for the other areas of

202

1 concern, but already had reports being prepared for

2 disinfection. Is that correct?

MR. KUNETZ: Could you rephrase that

4 question?

MR. ANDES: I'm sorry. Were these all

6 identified, including effluent disinfection, as

7 areas of planning concern? All eight that are

8 listed here were all identified as areas of planning

9 concern?

MR. KUNETZ: Yes.

MR. ANDES: Okay. And did they

12 authorize new reports to be developed for seven out

13 of the eight areas, again, concept design reports,

14 concept overview reports? I believe they prepared

15 new volumes for each of the other seven years.

MR. KUNETZ: Yes.

MR. ANDES: Okay. As to the effluent

18 disinfection, was it not necessary to do that

19 because they were already doing reports?

MR. KUNETZ: It was determined that

21 this would be handled under the North Side master

22 plan, because at that time it was determined that we

23 were best served by pulling together the blue ribbon

24 disinfection panel, the panel on disinfection, which

203

1 I believe testimony was provided on earlier. So we

2 believe that was a more appropriate way to handle

3 looking at effluent disinfection for Stickney.

MR. ANDES: Thank you.

MS. HEADMAN: How often is the capital

6 improvement plan updated?

MR. KUNETZ: Annually.

MS. HEADMAN: And you may have already

9 answered this question, but if you could review it

10 for me again, is the -- is the non-master -- master

11 plan project list also prepared annually?

MR. KUNETZ: Yes.

MS. HEADMAN: And I believe your

14 testimony appends a list of non-master plan projects

15 for the 2008 budget year. Is that correct?

MR. KUNETZ: Yes.

MS. HEADMAN: And was a similar list

18 prepared in 2007?

MR. KUNETZ: No.

MS. HEADMAN: No. Why was that?

MR. KUNETZ: This list was prepared

22 for my testimony for this process.

MR. ANDES: So there may be some

24 confusion. Is the list of non-master plan projects

204

1 prepared annually?

MR. KUNETZ: A list of all projects

3 that are needed is provided -- is prepared annually

4 as part of our budgeting process, yes.

MR. ANDES: Oh, okay. I think that's

6 a separate question.

MS. HEADMAN: Let me ask it to you

8 this way: Would it be accurate to say that some

9 items listed in Attachment 4 are not included in

10 the master plan, but may, nonetheless, be included

11 in the budget?

MR. KUNETZ: Yes.

MR. ANDES: Can you explain a little

14 bit about how is it decided what projects go in the

15 master plan versus the non-master plan project?

MR. KUNETZ: The projects which are

17 identified by the master planning project are, by

18 and large, large capital projects, and projects

19 which affect the treatment plant process, and need

20 to be established in some sort of prioritized

21 fashion or scheduling fashion so that they can be

22 accomplished in a particular order. Some of the

23 projects that were identified in the master plan, as

24 an example, may have already been known by District

205

1 staff even before we started the master planning

2 process, that these were areas of concern that may

3 need to be addressed.

Once we started the master

5 planning process, then these known projects became

6 incorporated into that process. Projects that are

7 non-master plans are projects that are, nonetheless,

8 required to keep the treatment plan operating

9 functionally, and may not necessarily fall within

10 this prioritized schedule to maintain the process.

MR. ANDES: So they can still find

12 their way into the budget?

MR. KUNETZ: Yes, they do.

MS. HEADMAN: So if we were to take,

15 for instance, from your Attachment 4 the -- from the

16 second page of your Attachment 4, the storage

17 building at the North Side Water Reclamation Plant,

18 that's a $4.2 million budget. Would we expect to

19 see that in the budget?

MR. KUNETZ: Yes.

MS. HEADMAN: You have just been

22 handed a document that I would like to have marked

23 as, I believe, Exhibit 156.

MS. TIPSORD: I've been handed a

206

1 document. The front page is 2007 Budget,

2 Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater

3 Chicago. If there's no objection we will mark this

4 as Exhibit 156. Seeing none, it's Exhibit 156.

MS. HEADMAN: Now I would -- Madam

6 Hearing Officer, I would note for the for the record

7 that Mr. Andes previously submitted an electronic

8 link to the 2007 and 2008 budget books. I believe

9 in the transcript those were identified as

10 Exhibit 66, but on the exhibit list they are

11 identified as Exhibit 67. So for purposes of

12 recordkeeping, I think we should say that these are

13 pages from Exhibit 67.

MS. TIPSORD: Okay.

MS. HEADMAN: So following up on my

16 previous question to you, if we were to go to the

17 last page of the document that I handed out, does

18 that show the construction budget for the North Side

19 service area for 2007?

MR. ANDES: And this is Page 334 of

21 the 2007 budget?

MS. HEADMAN: Right. It would be

23 Page 334 of the 2007 budget.

MS. TIPSORD: Which is the last page

207

1 of the Exhibit 156?

MS. HEADMAN: Right.

MR. KUNETZ: Yes, that appears to be

4 the 2007 budget for North Side.

MS. HEADMAN: And so would the storage

6 building, the $4.2 million storage building that

7 shows up in Attachment 4 of your testimony be the

8 same storage building that shows up under project

9 development on that page?

MR. KUNETZ: Yes.

MS. HEADMAN: Now I noticed that on

12 the same page of the 2007 budget, the last item

13 listed under projects under development for the

14 North Side reclamation plant is labeled "North Side

15 WRP Master Plan." Can you please tell me what the

16 estimated construction cost is for that item in the

17 2007 budget?

MR. KUNETZ: $225 million.

MS. HEADMAN: Would it be accurate to

20 say that the total estimated construction cost for

21 the North Side service area in the 2007 budget for

22 the master plan and non-master plan projects was in

23 excess of $650 million?

MR. KUNETZ: No, that would not be

208

1 accurate.

MR. ANDES: Can you rephrase the

3 question? What was the --

MS. HEADMAN: The question is whether

5 the sum of the construction projects on Page 334 of

6 the master plan projects and the non-master plan

7 projects adds up to something just above

8 $650 million.

MR. KUNETZ: That's not correct.

10 Would you like me to clarify?

MS. HEADMAN: Yes.

MR. KUNETZ: This list also includes

13 projects which are involved in our interceptor

14 system, and the interceptors are not considered part

15 of our treatment plants when we categorize projects

16 for improvements at the water reclamation plants,

17 whether they are master plan or not master plan.

MR. ANDES: So this is for the whole

19 North Side service area?

MR. KUNETZ: Correct.

MS. HEADMAN: So the sum total of the

22 inception budget for the North Side service area in

23 2007 was around $650 million?

MR. KUNETZ: Correct.

209

MS. HEADMAN: Now I'd like to look at

2 an earlier page in the 2007 budget. It's actually

3 the second page in Exhibit 156.

MR. ANDES: Page 1 or Page 2?

MS. HEADMAN: It's actually Page 2.

6 It's labeled as Page 2. There's a diagram there

7 that shows MWRD's master plan recommendations, circa

8 2007, for the North Side WRP. Do you see that?

MR. KUNETZ: I do.

MS. HEADMAN: Now the legend for that

11 diagram shows the master plan projects sorted into

12 various phases delineated by color, and could you

13 tell me what those -- what those faces are and what

14 colors those are?

MR. KUNETZ: I can tell you generally

16 what this is about, but I don't have the legend to

17 tell me what the particular colors are.

MS. HEADMAN: The legend is --

MR. KUNETZ: Well, I don't --

MS. HEADMAN: If you could just read

21 to me what the legend says.

MR. KUNETZ: Okay. The green color is

23 for infrastructure improvements, the yellow color is

24 for what's called phase two, the orange color for

210

1 phase three, the blue color for phase four.

MS. HEADMAN: And is the -- is the

3 disinfection unit yellow, in other words, in phase

4 two on this diagram?

MR. KUNETZ: It is.

MS. HEADMAN: Now I'd like for you to

7 look at the 2008 budget.

MS. TIPSORD: We've been handed the

9 Metropolitan Water Reclamation District 2008 Budget,

10 Lockport powerhouse and dam, 100 years, 1907 to

11 2007, which we will mark as Exhibit 157 if there's

12 no objection. Seeing none, it's Exhibit 157.

MS. HEADMAN: Now, Mr. Kunetz, I'd

14 like to direct your attention to Exhibit 157, and is

15 that, again, the construction budget for the North

16 Side service area for the 2008 budget year?

MR. KUNETZ: It is.

MS. HEADMAN: And what's the total

19 amount of the construction budget for the North Side

20 during -- in the 2008 budget?

MR. KUNETZ: $365,380,000.

MS. HEADMAN: And that's significantly

23 less than the $605 million in the 2007 budget.

24 Isn't that correct?

211

MR. KUNETZ: It is less.

MS. HEADMAN: Would you agree that the

3 main reason for that difference is that the line

4 item for master plan projects has been removed? You

5 can compare it.

MR. KUNETZ: I do see that the line

7 North Side Water Reclamation Plant master plan for

8 $225 million is not in the 2008 budget.

MS. HEADMAN: Thank you. Now I'd like

10 to the return to the master plan docket. I take it

11 during the preparation of the master plan that

12 MWRD's consultants looked initially at a long list

13 of disinfection alternatives, which was narrowed

14 down to a short list. Is that correct?

MR. KUNETZ: Correct.

MS. TIPSORD: I've now been handed

17 Selected Plan Technical Memorandum 12 Master Plan,

18 Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater

19 Chicago, North Side Water Reclamation Plant and

20 Surrounding Chicago Area Waterways. I will mark

21 this as Exhibit 158 if there's no objection. Seeing

22 none, it's Exhibit 158.

MS. HEADMAN: Mr. Kunetz, exhibit --

24 is Exhibit 158 technical memorandum one to the North

212

1 Side master plan?

MR. KUNETZ: It is.

MS. HEADMAN: And if you could look

4 through that, are those the -- do those diagrams

5 depict the alternatives that were examined on the

6 short list?

MR. KUNETZ: Your previous question

8 was about alternatives for disinfection. Are you

9 now talking about alternatives in general, or

10 specifically alternatives in disinfection?

MS. HEADMAN: Alternatives. I guess

12 these were the alternatives for these dates.

MR. KUNETZ: These are the

14 alternatives for that site, not specifically

15 alternatives for disinfection.

MS. HEADMAN: Thank you. And could

17 you take a look at the legend for these diagrams,

18 which was, I think, the same for each of those

19 diagrams, and tell me what the various colors mean?

MR. KUNETZ: The green color indicates

21 infrastructure improvements. The yellow color

22 indicates if there were to be put forth effluent

23 limitations for total phosphorus at 1.0 milligrams

24 per liter and a bacterial limit for E. Coli at 1,030

213

1 CFUs per 100 milliliter. The orange color is if

2 there were to be effluent limitations for total

3 phosphorus as 0.5 milligrams per liter, total

4 nitrogen at 6 milligrams per liter, and E. Coli at

5 400 CFUs per 100 milliliters. The blue color is if

6 there were to be regulations put forth for effluent

7 limitations of total phosphorus, and 0.5 milligrams

8 per liter, total nitrogen at 5 milligrams per liter,

9 and E. Coli at 400 CFUs per 100 milliliters.

MS. HEADMAN: So that would mean that

11 the items that are shown in yellow would be

12 necessary to achieve an E. Coli effluent standard of

13 1,030 CFUs per 100 milliliters. Is that correct?

14 Is that what the legend shows?

MR. KUNETZ: And a total phosphorus of

16 1.0 milligrams per liter.

MS. HEADMAN: And could you look at

18 alternative one and tell me whether or not the

19 disinfection unit is included in that yellow phase?

MR. KUNETZ: It is.

MS. HEADMAN: And could you look at

22 alternative two and tell me whether or not the

23 disinfection unit is yellow?

MR. KUNETZ: It is.

214

MS. HEADMAN: So it would be necessary

2 to achieve even the 1,000 CFUs for 100 milliliters

3 for bacteria?

MR. KUNETZ: Correct.

MS. HEADMAN: And is the same true for

6 alternative three?

MR. KUNETZ: It is.

MS. HEADMAN: And is the same true for

9 alternative four?

MR. KUNETZ: It is.

MS. HEADMAN: And for alternative

12 five?

MR. KUNETZ: It is.

MS. HEADMAN: And alternative six?

MR. KUNETZ: It is.

MS. HEADMAN: And for the site plan

17 that was actually selected from all the

18 alternatives, is the disinfection unit also depicted

19 in yellow, indicating that it would be necessary to

20 meet a standard -- the bacterial standard of 1,300

21 CFUs per 100 milliliter?

MR. KUNETZ: 1,030. It is.

MS. HEADMAN: 1,030.

MS. WILLIAMS: Can I ask a followup

215

1 here, Susan?

MS. HEADMAN: Certainly.

MS. WILLIAMS: So can you explain --

4 you were here for Dr. Zenz's testimony, correct?

MR. KUNETZ: Yes.

MS. WILLIAMS: And it was his

7 testimony that designing for 1,030 CFU per 100

8 milliliter E. Coli and 400 CFU E. Coli would be the

9 same design. Do you agree with that testimony?

MR. KUNETZ: I'm not equipped to make

11 that decision. I'd have to refer to Dr. Zenz.

MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. But can you

13 explain -- I mean, each of these charts lists an

14 alternative different -- the first alternative -- or

15 the yellow color -- I'm sorry -- lists one E. Coli

16 value, while the other -- the orange and the blue

17 listed a different one, right?

MR. KUNETZ: Yes, they do.

MS. WILLIAMS: Can you point us to

20 where in orange and blue there are any capital

21 projects marked that would be necessary for treating

22 for E. Coli as opposed to phosphorus and nitrogen?

23 Do you understand my question?

MR. KUNETZ: I do. To answer your

216

1 question, there are no additional facilities besides

2 what you see in yellow to meet the 400 CFU per 100

3 milliliter limit.

MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you. That's all

5 I wanted.

MR. ANDES: So in other words, if I

7 can clarify the --

MS. WILLIAMS: I don't think it needs

9 clarifying. It was very clear.

MR. ANDES: I need to make sure I

11 understand.

MS. TIPSORD: He can certainly ask a

13 followup, Ms. Williams.

MS. WILLIAMS: He can ask a followup,

15 of course.

MR. ANDES: So what arrow points at

17 disinfection unit, that's basically where the

18 disinfection unit would be in all of these

19 scenarios, depending -- regardless of what the E.

20 Coli limit is, whether it's 1,030 or 400. Am I

21 right?

MR. KUNETZ: Yes.

MR. ANDES: So the other differences

24 between the various colors are based on what the

217

1 phosphorus limits is?

MR. KUNETZ: Phosphorus and/or

3 nitrogen, yes.

MR. ANDES: Thank you.

MS TIPSORD: Ms. Headman, go ahead.

MS. HEADMAN: But to be clear, the

7 disinfection unit would be necessary to achieve the

8 bacterial effluent limitation of 1,030 per 100

9 milliliters. Is that correct?

MR. KUNETZ: That's correct.

MS. HEADMAN: So am I correct to say

12 that the master plans for the Stickney, North Side,

13 and Calumet plants have been completed?

MR. KUNETZ: Correct.

MS. HEADMAN: And is there a schedule

16 for updating those plants?

MR. KUNETZ: The master plans will be

18 updated if major changes occur during the process,

19 but there is not a planned schedule for update.

MS. HEADMAN: I think that's all I

21 have.

MS. TIPSORD: That takes us to

23 Environmental Law and Policy Center.

MR. ETTINGER: Somehow when I wrote

218

1 those questions, I was already obsessed with

2 interest rates.

MR. ANDES: We knew that about you.

MR. ETTINGER: Yeah. Well, what --

5 how is the value of money taken into account in

6 calculating the various costs that are provided in

7 your testimony?

MR. KUNETZ: My testimony costs are

9 given in current dollars. There's no adjustment

10 made for the timed value of money.

MR. ETTINGER: When do you assume that

12 these -- does it make no difference to your

13 analysis, then, when the various capital

14 improvements are made?

MR. KUNETZ: These dollar values,

16 these capital costs, are for budgeting purposes, and

17 we do that in current dollars because that's the

18 simplest known information. As you pointed out

19 earlier, we don't know what the costs are going to

20 be. We can predict in 2015, 2020. But for

21 budgeting purposes, we do them in current dollars.

MR. ETTINGER: Okay. Well, some of

23 these things you know we're not going to be building

24 any time soon. That doesn't affect your budgeting

219

1 at all?

MR. KUNETZ: I can't answer that. I

3 would have to defer to our budgeting people who make

4 the determination that they refer thighs in current

5 dollars.

MR. ETTINGER: Okay. I guess that

7 answers question number two. For your purposes, you

8 assume everything's going to be constructed

9 instantly in one year?

MR. KUNETZ: Correct.

MR. ETTINGER: And so then as far as

12 question number three, you don't need to consider an

13 interest rate because you're not taking into account

14 the timed value of money?

MR. KUNETZ: Right, because we're not

16 comparing alternatives here.

MR. ETTINGER: And you don't need to

18 think about an inflation rate, because you're

19 assuming it's all going to built?

MR. KUNETZ: Correct.

MR. ETTINGER: Okay. How -- well,

22 number six, does the MWRDGC also have plans for work

23 on the tunnel and reservoir plan?

MR. KUNETZ: I would like to preface

220

1 my response to that by stating that the TARP system

2 doesn't fall under my area of expertise and the

3 treatment plants. But in order to answer your

4 pre-filed questions, I have written answers, if I

5 may read them, from the staff who does work on our

6 TARP system. They prepared the answers for them.

MR. ETTINGER: Please do.

MR. KUNETZ: "The District does have

9 ongoing work with the tunnel and reservoir. These

10 plants mainly consist of completing the McCook

11 reservoir and Thornton composite reservoir, which,

12 along with the O'Hare pump reservoir, make up phase

13 two, the flood control portion of TARP. Other plans

14 for TARP include hydraulic modeling work, additions

15 of louvers on drop shafts, repair of back flow

16 gates, completion of the Calumet TARP pumping

17 station valve chamber and replacement of the pumps,

18 and rehabilitation of mainstream pumping station

19 pumps."

MR. ETTINGER: How much has MWRDGC

21 invested in the TARP?

MR. KUNETZ: "$2.33 billion was spent

23 on phase one. $555 million has been invested in

24 phase two so far. These numbers are in actual

221

1 dollars spent over the life of the project. If

2 these numbers were to be updated to 2000 dollars,

3 the cost would be higher."

MR. ETTINGER: How much does MWRDGC

5 intend to invest in the future in TARP?

MR. KUNETZ: Approximately

7 $660 million is needed to complete phase two.

MR. ETTINGER: What are the yearly

9 operating and maintenance costs of running TARP?

MR. KUNETZ: The 2008 budgeted costs

11 are $12.3 million. This includes the cost to

12 operate pumps, clean the reservoirs, inspect,

13 maintain, and repair facilities, and cleaning of the

14 screens.

MR. ETTINGER: This wasn't on my

16 pre-filed questions, so you may not be able to

17 answer this, but is there also a master plan for

18 TARP?

MR. KUNETZ: From my understanding,

20 the TARP system is coming to fruition with the

21 completion of phase two. So I don't know that a

22 master plan would be in order.

MR. ETTINGER: So you don't -- well, I

24 guess the answer to my question is you didn't design

222

1 a master plan that covered TARP for the way you have

2 for the three treatment plants?

MR. KUNETZ: I'm going to have to say

4 that I don't know the answer to that question, since

5 I'm not an expert at TARP.

MR. ETTINGER: Thank you. No more

7 questions.

MS. TIPSORD: Anything else for

9 Mr. Kunetz? All right. Thank you very much. Given

10 that it's 3:20, and the building closes at 4:30, and

11 we only have two more witnesses that we plan to get

12 to in this stretch, I think we can finish both of

13 them tomorrow, don't all of you? Why don't we go

14 ahead and end for the day, then, a little early,

15 which is unique with us. And we'll start again --

16 and we'll shoot for 9:00 o'clock, and we'll wait and

17 make sure that everybody can get in. Thank you.

223

1 STATE OF ILLINOIS )

) SS

3 COUNTY OF COOK )

REBECCA A. GRAZIANO, being first

duly sworn on oath says that she is a court reporter

7 doing business in the City of Chicago; that she

reported in shorthand the proceedings given at the

8 taking of said hearing and that the foregoing is a

true and correct transcript of her shorthand notes

9 so taken as aforesaid and contains all the

proceedings given at said hearing.

________________________

REBECCA A. GRAZIANO, CSR

29 South LaSalle Street,

Suite 850

Chicago, Illinois 60603

License No.: 084-004659

20 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO

21 before me this 27th day

22 of October, A.D., 2008.

23 _____________________

24 Notary Public

224