ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

4 IN THE MATTER OF:

)

PROPOSED SITE SPECIFIC )

5 RULE FOR CITY OF

)

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, )

6 OFFICE OF PUBLIC UTILITIES) R09-8

CITY WATER LIGHT and POWER) (Site-Specific Rulemaking-Water)

7 and SPRINGFIELD METRO )

SANITARY DISTRICT FROM )

8 35 ILL. ADM. CODE

)

302.208(g): NEW 35 ILL. )

9 ADM. CODE 303.446

)

MERIT AND ECONOMIC HEARING BEFORE THE ILLINOIS

12 POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, taken in the above-entitled matter

13 before Ann Marie Hollo, CSR, RPR, RMR, and Notary Public for

14 Montgomery County, State of Illinois, at 10:00 o'clock A.M.,

15 on November 3, 2008, at the Illinois Pollution Control Board

16 Conference Room, First Floor, 1021 North Grand Avenue East,

17 North Entrance, Springfield, Illinois, pursuant to notice.

Keefe Reporting Company

11 North 44th Street

Belleville, Illinois 62226

(618)277-0190

(800)244-0190

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

1 APPEARANCES:

2 Illinois Pollution Control Board

100 West Randolph Street

3 Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Presiding Hearing Officer Marie Tipsord

5 and Illinois Pollution Control Board

Members: Chairman G. Tanner Girard, Thomas E. Johnson,

6 Anand Rao, Nicholas J. Melas and Andrea S. Moore

E X H I B I T S

10 NUMBER

MARKED AND ADMITTED

11 Exhibit Number 1

Exhibit Numbers 2 - 8

12 Exhibit Number 9

Exhibit Number 10

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Good morning.

My name is Marie Tipsord, and I've been

appointed by the Board to serve as hearing

officer in this proceeding entitled, In the

matter of: Proposed Site Specific Rule for

City of Springfield, Illinois, Office of Public

Utilities, City Water, Light and Power and

Springfield Metro Sanitary District from 35

Ill. Adm. Code 302.208(g): New 35 Ill Adm.

Code 303.446.

With me today to my immediate right is the

presiding Board member/Acting Chairman

G. Tanner Girard. To his right is Board Member

Nicholas J. Melas, and to Mr. Melas' right is

Board Member Thomas Johnson. To my immediate

left is Board Member Andrea Moore and to her

left is Anand Rao from our technical unit.

This rule making was sent to first notice

by the Board on September 16, 2008 and was

published for first notice on October 10, 2008

at 32 Ill. Reg. 16303. The purpose of today's

hearing is to hear the prefiled testimony in

this matter beginning with the proponents and

then the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

The testimony will be marked as an exhibit

and entered as if read. After the testimony is

marked as an exhibit, we will proceed directly

to questions. Anyone may ask a question or a

follow-up. I do ask that you raise your hand;

wait for me to acknowledge you. After I've

acknowledged you, please state your name and

whom you represent before you begin your

questions.

Please speak one at a time. If you're

speaking over each other, the court reporter

will not be able to get your questions on the

record. Please note that any questions asked

by a Board member or staff are intended to help

build a complete record for the Board's

decision and not to express any preconceived

notions or bias.

If time allows after hearing all the

prefiled testimony, I will allow anyone who has

not prefiled to testify. There is a sign-up

sheet for those who wish to testify at the far

right of the room if there's anyone here who

hasn't prefiled.

With that, Dr. Girard.

CHAIRMAN GIRARD: Good morning. On behalf

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

of the Board, I welcome everyone to this

hearing today as we consider proposal from the

City of Springfield and the Springfield Metro

Sanitary District to have a site-specific rule

for boron. We look forward to the testimony

and questions today, and we appreciate all the

hard work that's gone into it up to this point.

Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Thank you,

Dr. Girard. And with that, I will turn to

Christine Zeman.

MS. ZEMAN: Good morning, Hearing Officer

Tipsord, Chairman Girard, Board Members

Johnson, Melas and Moore. My name is Christine

Zeman of Hodge, Dwyer, Zeman here today on

behalf of the City of Springfield Office of

Public Utilities, City, Water, Light and Power,

and the Springfield Metro Sanitary District.

Thank you for allowing us to come here today on

an expedited basis to present our site-specific

rule proposal.

Seven witnesses are present who have

prefiled testimony. Dave Farris, CWLP's

environmental health and safety manager, whose

testimony addresses CWLP's facility, its NPDES

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

permit and an overview of its boron mitigation

efforts in cooperation with the Illinois EPA.

Gregg Finigan, CWLP's superintendent of

production, whose testimony addresses CWLP's

power plant operation and its consideration of

alternatives as it relates to the chemistry of

boron.

Doug Brown, CWLP's projects director,

providing information on the alternatives and

alternative technologies, including utilization

of non-Illinois coal, as well as the economies

of the site-specific rule as proposed.

Don Schilling. Don is a senior associate

chemical engineer with Burns & McDonnell in

Kansas City, Missouri, addressing boron

treatment technologies and their relative

effectiveness.

William -- Bill Brown, a senior project

manager with Crawford, Murphy & Tilly here in

Springfield, whose testimony on behalf of the

district addresses its Spring Creek plant

operations, the plant's NPDES permit and

effluent data and the beneficial impact of this

proposal.

Deborah Ramsey, a chemical engineer with

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

Hanson Professional Services, Inc. has

substantial experience in wastewater treatment,

whose testimony concerns the derivation and

calculation supporting the proposed rule,

information on receiving streams, uses of the

affected water segments and the investigation

of the flue gas desulfurization systems or FGDS

blowdown as it relates to boron.

And, finally, Jeff Bushur, an

environmental biologist with Hanson, providing

information on the toxicological effects of

boron and that the proposed rule can be granted

without anticipated adverse impact to the

aquatic life of the Sangamon River or other

known uses of the Sangamon and Illinois River

downstream from the Spring Creek plant.

From the district present to answer any of

your questions are Greg Humphrey, the director

and engineer; Jeff Slead, operations

supervisor; John Drake with Crawford,

Murphy & Tilly for the district, and Justin

Reichert, the district's attorney. Also

present to answer questions are Bill Murray,

regulatory affairs manager, and Sue Corcoran,

engineer in the environmental health and safety

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

office of CWLP.

Carl Weilert is here with

Burns & McDonnell and is sitting here to answer

questions.

And also with me representing the

petitioners is Katherine Hodge and Lauren

Lurkins of our firm.

CWLP owns and operates two power stations

referred to as the Dallman Power Station and

the Lakeside Power Station and the Potable

Water Treatment Plant at 3100 Stevenson in

Springfield, Sangamon County, Illinois. These

plants generate electricity for the residences

and businesses in Springfield and provide

potable water to Springfield and the

surrounding communities. The district owns and

operates two wastewater treatment plants. Only

the Spring Creek Wastewater Plant is at issue

here in this proceeding. It generally handles

wastewater and storm water flows from the

southwest, west and northern parts of

Springfield and the surrounding areas. It was

constructed in 1928, had some improvements in

the '30s and major improvements to increase its

capacity in 1978.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

Petitioners are seeking a site-specific

rule to establish an alternative water quality

standard for boron from the point of discharge

of Outfall 007, or 007, from the district's

Spring Creek Plant to the Sangamon River, and

then in decreasing concentrations to its

confluence with the Illinois River, and in the

Illinois River, 100 yards downstream from the

confluence with the Sangamon River.

The general use water quality standard for

boron at 35 Ill. Section 302.208(g) is

1 milligrams per liter. The Board has not

adopted an effluent standard for boron, nor has

the Illinois EPA imposed an effluent limit for

boron at Outfall 007 for the Spring Creek Plant

in the district's permit. Similarly, no

federal water quality standard for boron

exists.

Our proposal is requested to enable the

Spring Creek Plant to accept a pretreated

industrial effluent stream from CWLP's power

plant. Operation of the air pollution control

system at its power plant results in elevated

concentrations of boron in the plant effluent

stream that we propose to transfer to the

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

district's Spring Creek Plant.

The power plant is a critical power supply

for the City of Springfield and surrounding

areas. The site-specific water quality for

boron is necessary to enable CWLP to operate

its power plant in compliance with its permit,

which incorporates the effluent limit imposed

by the Board in the adjusted standard in 1994,

as well as with state and federal air pollution

regulations.

Through our testimony today, we intend to

demonstrate that treatment to the general water

quality standard for boron of 1 milligrams per

liter is neither technically feasible nor

economically reasonable for the portion of the

Sangamon River to which the Spring Creek Plant

discharges and then downstream.

Granting of the site-specific rule as

imposed is not expected to harm the aquatic

life in the waters drownstream of the Spring

Creek Plant, nor have a negative impact on the

current use of the receiving waters.

And, finally, since its operation of its

air pollution control systems, which began in

2003, when levels of boron in Outfall 004

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

increased approaching the 11 milligrams per

liter in the adjusted standard, CWLP has worked

closely with the Illinois EPA, albeit through

the violation notice process, through reports

and meetings, regarding its boron mitigation

efforts. We appreciate the Agency's support of

our proposal as stated in the Agency's prefiled

testimony by Robert Mosher.

Prior to presenting our witness, I do have

one procedural matter to address.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: All right.

Let's address that, and then I want to check

with the IEPA and make sure they want to make

opening statements.

MS. ZEMAN: Excellent.

The procedural matter concerns an errata

sheet that we would like to present as -- do

you want this presented as an exhibit?

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: That's fine.

MS. ZEMAN: It does make some corrections

to some of the terms of the site-specific rule

as proposed in the Board's first opinion and

order.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: If there's no

objection, we will admit that as Exhibit 1.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

Seeing none, it's Exhibit 1.

[WHEREBY, EXHIBIT NUMBER 1 WAS

MARKED AND ADMITTED INTO

EVIDENCE.]

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: You want to be

sure that the agency gets a copy of that.

MS. ZEMAN: Very good.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: And I appreciate

that. I do.

MS. ZEMAN: Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: With that,

Ms. Logan-Wilkey, would you like to make an

opening statement?

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: Yes.

Good morning. I am Joey Logan-Wilkey. I

am an attorney for the Illinois EPA. The

Illinois EPA is here today in support of CW --

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Ms. Logan,

could you slow down a bit? And you'll have to

speak up.

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: The Illinois EPA is

here today in support of CWLP's petition for a

site-specific rule making for the water quality

standard for boron from the Spring Creek Plant

to the Illinois River. The Agency has reviewed

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

the alternatives considered by Petitioners in

agreement that the site-specific rule making is

necessary and meets the requirement of the

Illinois Environmental Protection Act and Board

regulation. We have Bob Mosher, the manager of

the bureau of water quality standards unit,

here to answer any questions you have today.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Okay. And do

you have a motion?

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: Yes. At this time, I'd

like to make the motion to file the testimony

of Robert Mosher, which I have marked as

Illinois EPA Exhibit 1.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I'm sorry. You

need to file that instanter.

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: Yes. I'm sorry. The

motion is to file instanter.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: And that motion

is granted, and we will swear Mr. Mosher in

later, and we will mark it as an exhibit at

that point.

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Any other

procedural things?

In that case, let's go ahead and swear in

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

all the witnesses.

MS. ZEMAN: Do you just want everyone to

raise their right hand?

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Please do so,

those who have prefiled testimony.

[WITNESSES WERE SWORN.]

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: And with that,

I've been handed the copies of each person's

testimony and their attachments to the

testimony. And I'm just going to go through

these fairly quickly.

If there's no objection, we will mark Dave

Farris' prefiled testimony as Exhibit Number 2.

If there's no objection, we will mark

Gregg Finigan's as Exhibit Number 3, Doug

Brown's as Exhibit Number 4, Don Schilling's as

Exhibit Number 5, William Brown's as Exhibit

Number 6, Deborah Ramsey's as Exhibit Number 7

and Jeff Bushur's as Exhibit Number 8.

Is there any objection? Seeing none,

those are marked.

[WHEREBY, EXHIBIT NUMBERS 2 - 8

WERE MARKED AND ADMITTED INTO

EVIDENCE.]

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: And with that,

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

since we took these as if read, we will proceed

right to any questions.

First off, Ms. Zeman, do you have any

questions or clarifying questions that you'd

like to add?

MS. ZEMAN: No, I don't.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I notice you

have a better quality map than we have.

MS. ZEMAN: Yes.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: If we can, can

we get that admitted as an exhibit?

MS. ZEMAN: You may know that is attached

to the prefiled testimony of Deb Ramsey and

Jeff Bushur. So it is in the record. And it's

just an increased size. And we also have one

on the board as you come into the room, the

meeting room.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: You know what?

I'm going to go ahead and mark this as yet

another exhibit, and the reason being is that

we had real difficulty reading the maps that

were attached. So given that, I'm going to

take this map, which is a little easier to read

of the map attached to the testimony, and mark

it as Exhibit Number 9 if there's no objection.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

Seeing none, it's Exhibit Number 9.

[WHEREBY, EXHIBIT NUMBER 9 WAS

MARKED AND ADMITTED INTO

EVIDENCE.]

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: With that, are

there any questions for the witnesses? We have

some questions.

MS. BARKLEY: And I don't know if you want

to go person by person or topic by topic?

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: If you have a

person by person -- however you have them

organized on your sheet, that's fine. Identify

yourself for the record, though.

MS. BARKLEY: My name is Traci Barkley.

I'm with Prairie Rivers Network. Traci is

T-R-A-C-I and Barkley is B-A-R-K-L-E-Y.

I just outlined some questions based on

the prefiled petition. And there's three main

sections, as I see it, that are being addressed

through the petition. The first one is the

treatment of boron is neither technically

feasible or economically reasonable. And we

note that there are some alternatives that were

looked at as far as the process as moving

towards the petition. One of them being

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

looking at dry ash disposal at facilities are

currently discharged into Sugar Creek. And I

understand that Petitioner has outlined that

switching to dry ash disposal would not change

the amount of boron in the flue gas

desulfurization waste stream. However, we

think there is a potential for limiting the

amount of boron ultimately going to the

Sangamon if that alternative were considered.

So I wondered if you could explain a

little bit how far you looked into that option

of switching dry ash disposal at the facilities

that are discharging currently to Sugar Creek.

And if there's potential to switch from wet ash

to dry ash, eliminate that load of boron to

Sugar Creek, if that would then open the

alternative of switching the adjusted standard

to Sugar Creek to Spring Creek, ultimately

reducing the overall load of boron in the

Sangamon River.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: For ease of the

court reporter, when you get ready to answer

the questions, be sure and identify yourself.

MR. DOUG BROWN: My name is Doug Brown.

According to the TSD document that was

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

developed, we did look at dry ash systems for

the units -- Dallman units 31, 32 and 33. It

was done by Burns & McDonnell, actually,

through the previous study for SO2 compliance

and looking at developing the options for our

unit 31, 32 to determine if we would purchase a

new scrubber system versus using alternate coal

sources.

The dry ash systems that were looked at

for 31, 32, which are basically identical

units, the bottom ash is basically 80 percent,

and the fly ash is about 20 percent. The

bottom ash system is, as it was found out, that

due to space limitations, it was not

technically feasible, as well as the fly ash

systems for 31, 32 for the small amount of fly

ash that results from a cyclone-fired units,

economically it's not feasible.

Now, for unit 33, the bottom ash

represents 20 percent, and the fly ash

represents 80 percent. The bottom ash system

was determined that economically it was not

feasible. And with 33, fly ash, economically

and technically it is feasible, but it is of

high cost for the fly ash system, the dry fly

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

ash versus wet.

CHAIRMAN GIRARD: Can I ask a question,

Mr. Brown? What pages are you referring to?

MR. DOUG BROWN: It would be pages 63.

MS. RAMSEY: 63. And it continues on

Page 65.

CHAIRMAN GIRARD: Thank you.

MR. DOUG BROWN: The fly ash starts on 63.

The dry bottom ash starts on 65.

CHAIRMAN GIRARD: Thank you.

MS. BARKLEY: For units 31 and 32, you

determined as technically infeasible due to

space consideration?

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: We can't hear

you over here.

MS. BARKLEY: I'm sorry.

For units 31 and 32, it sounds like it was

determined technically unfeasible due to space

limitations. And I'm wondering if you could

describe what is needed for dry ash disposal

versus wet ash disposal that requires

additional space.

MR. DOUG BROWN: This is Doug Brown again.

The bottom of the boilers with the wet system

has what they call a slag tank configuration,

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

where the ash drops into the tank and basically

is ground up and sluiced out. For dry fly ash

system, like a dryer conveyor system, there's

not enough room in the basin of the boiler, the

bottom of the boiler, for that configuration to

be done, as well as to be able to -- you also

have to be able to take that outside to an area

where it can be dumped, and currently that area

is blocked in by precipitators and other

environmental control equipment.

MS. BARKLEY: You have to have conveyors

to actually do the drying there, or is it

possible to truck the ash somewhere else?

MR. DOUG BROWN: There's no way to get it

outside of the building in that setup. With

the drag chain conveyor type systems, there's

not enough room underneath the boiler to

implement those.

MS. BARKLEY: And this is all written up

in the technical support documents? Has a

formal investigation been done?

MR. DOUG BROWN: The technical support

document references the other studies that were

done. So for instance -- let me see.

MS. RAMSEY: There is a report, the water

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

study. This is Deb Ramsey.

The report, the water study, which is

really done trying to reduce water usage, and

it came in under there. That was one of the

things they looked at several times from a

water usage standpoint.

MR. DOUG BROWN: On Page 65, it references

the water conservation study done by

Sargent & Lundy in April of 2004.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: There's also a

water study referenced at the top of that page

by Burns & McDonnell. Is that the one you were

speaking about, Ms. Ramsey?

MR. RAO: If I could just follow up. It's

more to the studies. There are several studies

and evaluations that were referenced in your

technical support documents and also in the

prefiled testimonies. And has CWLP submitted

copies of these to the Board?

MS. ZEMAN: We have not, but we can do

that.

MR. RAO: Yeah, it will be helpful to look

at those studies if you can submit those.

MS. ZEMAN: We will do that.

MS. BARKLEY: Can I ask a procedural

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

question real quick?

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Sure.

MS. BARKLEY: Is there a public comment

period after this hearing?

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Yes.

MS. BARKLEY: Okay.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Yes. And,

actually, since you asked a procedural

question, in my zest to get this done and

sandwich this hearing in among many other

hearings, I miscounted days. And we will have

to told a second hearing in the middle of

December to address the DCEO letter that is

required, and I'll discuss that at the end of

the hearing. So we'll have a public comment

period that will close after that hearing, and

that will give everyone an opportunity. And we

will discuss that comment period date at the

end of the hearing as well. So we'll take care

of that.

And you had a follow-up question then?

MS. JAMES: Well, it's not exactly a

follow-up question.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Sorry. Just

state your name.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

MS. JAMES: Stacy James, Prairie Rivers

Network.

And I was looking at some of the

biological data as far as the condition of the

creeks. And, in particular, I was looking at

the 1994 technical document that was submitted

as part -- as far as the 1994 adjusted standard

petition. And in there, it's focussed on Sugar

Creek since that was the applicable creek at

the time. And there's some information in

there on IBI and MBI scores. And it seems like

that is the creek to focus on as far as we've

done this experiment. The creek has had an

adjusted standard of 11, which is the same as

what's being proposed for the Sangamon. It's

been in place for 14 years. So what's going on

with biological diversity? In Illinois, are we

safe in the system to have an adjusted standard

of 11 parts per million?

And so I guess I was disappointed of

seeing the petition and technical support

documents that there wasn't an assessment of

particularly stream -- or stream station EOA01,

which is the stream station directly downstream

of the dam on Sugar Creek. And so, you know,

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

by looking at that 1994 technical document, it

did have IBI scores and MBI scores for that

station, but only up to 89. And so I'm

wondering what the condition of the creek is

now, what kind of monitoring has been done at

that station since 1994 to basically prove that

our rivers and creeks can support without any

negative biological effect of standard of 11

parts per million.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: For the record,

that 1994 report was part of the original

proposal. I think it was.

MS. ZEMAN: It was a part of the adjusted

standard proceeding in 1994.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Right, but

wasn't it also included in this?

MS. ZEMAN: Yes, it's Exhibit 2 to the

petition in here.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Thank you.

MR. BUSHUR: My name is Jeff Bushur. And

at the start of the study -- I'm a biologist,

by the way, with Hanson.

At the start of this study, we did ask EPA

and DNR for any available information they had

on mainly most of these streams in the lower

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

Sangamon water -- Sangamon watershed. And

there were some stations that had data on Sugar

Creek, but it was upstream of the lake even.

So we didn't really have any available data,

you know, post the '94 study as far as I know,

but we did use whatever available data was

available for the Sangamon River in upstream

of, you know, the Roby station, Roby, Illinois.

And we didn't find any available data

for -- like the Sugar Creek.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Bushur, you

need to speak up because when you talk that

way, we lose you on this half of the room.

MR. BUSHUR: Just in summary, we didn't

find any available data for that station on

Sugar Creek that would have some of the higher

boron concentrations.

MR. WILLIAM BROWN: May I chime in?

MR. BUSHUR: Go ahead.

MR. WILLIAM BROWN: William Brown.

The 11 PPM numbers you quoted, the first

one from the '94 study for Sugar Creek was an

in-creek value. The second one of 11 is an

in-pipe number for the plant effluent, not the

river number. It's in the 4 range, so.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

MR. RAO: I had a follow-up question. One

of the questions I had was, has CWLP or the

IEPA during the last, you know, four or five

years, maybe since the last 15 years, have you

monitored in-stream boron concentrations in the

receiving stream anywhere close to the CWLP's

outfall to see how boron concentrations change

in the receiving stream?

MR. MOSHER: We definitely monitored in

the Sangamon River.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Excuse me.

Mr. Mosher, we haven't sworn you in yet.

MR. MOSHER: Well, I did raise my hand

when everyone else did.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Oh, did you?

All right. I'm sorry. I didn't notice that.

Mr. Mosher from the IEPA has been sworn in

then. Go ahead.

MR. MOSHER: We definitely measured boron

concentration in the Sangamon River downstream

of Sugar Creek. So we have that data

available. I'm not sure if we measured boron

in Sugar Creek itself. I can check that, and

we can supply that to the record.

Was there a second part?

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

MR. RAO: Yeah. Does this data show how

the boron levels have increased since CWLP

installed its SCRs, and they started measuring

higher levels of boron in the stream itself?

MR. MOSHER: There's definitely been a

rise in boron in the Sangamon River.

Up until -- let's see. We do something

called a 303D report on the impaired streams in

Illinois, as all states do to Congress every

two years. And the Sangamon has, to my

knowledge, not exceeded the levels granted in

the adjusted standard of several years ago.

But, again, I can put together a little report

on boron concentrations and the levels.

MR. RAO: Okay.

MR. MOSHER: But I wanted to add a comment

to the question. Since the agency is -- part

of our duties are to do the monitoring. The

Sugar Creek itself, I think the question was

why wasn't it looked at so we could see what

impacts boron was having at the previously

adjusted standard? The effluent for the past

several years has not met that adjusted

standard, not met its permit limit. So the

organisms are not -- are exposed to more boron

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

in Sugar Creek drownstream at the outfall than

the 11 milligrams per liter granted. So at

this time, it's not possible. And for the past

few years, it hasn't been possible to see what

effect 11 is having.

The other issue to that is that Sugar

Creek at that locality has other issues. It's

a stream segment right below a dam. The dam

doesn't pass water except in very, very wet

conditions. It goes months and probably years

at times without any water going through there.

So the stream, you couldn't do a study, I don't

believe, and just say, "Oh, here's the effects

of boron," because there's other things

possibly impacting that stream -- probably

impacting that stream.

MR. RAO: So right now from what you said,

CWLP is exceeding its permit limit, but the

stream itself may be in compliance to the

standard?

MR. MOSHER: I doubt very much if the

stream is in compliance with the adjusted

standard of Sugar Creek right below --

MR. RAO: Is it not?

MR. MOSHER: Again, I will check. But

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

just given the knowledge that often there's no

upstream flow at all because of the Lake

Springfield dam, there's no water coming in to

dilute the CWLP effluent. So I would surmise

that a large portion of the time the stream

contains a hundred percent effluent. We know

the effluent doesn't meet 11 parts per million

for the past several years. So my guess is the

stream doesn't either.

MR. RAO: Okay. And does the agency

believe that whether it's a good idea to modify

the existing adjusted standards of Sugar Creek

rather than have a site-specific change for the

rest of the Sangamon River?

MR. MOSHER: It's our position that 11 is

a place to stop for exposure of aquatic life,

and therefore we supported essentially the

dilution of these additional boron

concentrations with the municipal wastewater to

avoid anything over 11.

MR. RAO: Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: And, actually,

at this point, given, Mr. Mosher, I believe you

started to discuss some of the things that are

covered in your testimony, we'll go ahead and

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

mark your testimony and admit it into the

record. If there's no objection, we'll mark it

as Exhibit Number 10. Seeing no objections,

Mr. Robert Mosher's prefiled testimony is

admitted as Exhibit Number 10.

[WHEREBY, EXHIBIT NUMBER 10 WAS

MARKED AND ADMITTED INTO

EVIDENCE.]

CHAIRMAN GIRARD: Could I ask a follow-up

question then? Mr. Mosher, you mentioned in

your testimony that the Illinois EPA plans to

work with the Natural History Survey to look at

updating the boron standard, the boron water

quality standard in the State of Illinois. Do

you have any timetable on that? Or have any

contracts been let, or what's the status?

MR. MOSHER: It's our goal to finish that

process as soon as we can. We've already done

a lot of work to that end. We're in

discussions with USEPA Region 5, Chicago, who

would have to give federal approval to that

general standard. So we've had several letters

back and forth with them already.

We are very close to awarding a grant to

the Illinois Natural History Survey so they can

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

do some toxicity studies in their laboratory

that would provide some -- to fill some gaps in

the boron database as far as the USEPA's

expectations of a water quality standard

derivation. In other words, we need to test a

few more species on their sensitivity to boron.

So all of that is moving forward.

Contracting right now is difficult, but I

just this morning think I have all the

paperwork done to award this grant to the

Natural History Survey so they can begin their

testing. And, again, that might take another

four to six weeks I'm told, but after that

time, the grant will go through, and the survey

can do that testing.

CHAIRMAN GIRARD: Thank you. Do other

states have different boron standards than

Illinois?

MR. MOSHER: Very few states have anything

at all for boron. Illinois is fairly unique in

that regard. And back in the early '70s, the

original board standards came out with a boron

value. And through what we can find, most

states just don't do it that way. A few states

do have what they call a derived water quality

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

criterion. Michigan and Indiana are two of

those states. The derived water criteria are

not done to the level of completeness and

thoroughness that a water quality standard is

developed. In other words, there is not a

public comment period and so forth in a derived

water quality criterion. They're often

calculated using less data and more safety

factors to make up for the lesser amounts of

data. So that's how a couple of our

neighboring states have done it. And we would

not want to rely on what Indiana or

Michigan -- did I say Indiana and Ohio before?

Yeah, it's Indiana and Michigan. But, anyway,

those derived water quality criteria are not

done to the level of thoroughness that we want

to see with a state standard for Illinois.

CHAIRMAN GIRARD: Thank you.

BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON: Just, Bob -- Tom

Johnson -- just out of curiosity here. In your

testimony, you indicated that a hundred

eighty-five miles downstream of the Springfield

Metro Sanitary District discharge, the nearest

community that takes the water from the public

water supply, from the river, what community is

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

that?

MR. MOSHER: Alton.

MR. BUSHUR: This is Jeff Bushur again.

Could I add -- just, we were talking about

data that was available as far as current or

existing boron concentrations. There is a

summary that we put on a chart on Page 43 of

the technical support document for the Riverton

station at Sangamon River, which shows a graph

of concentrations from '99 through '04 if

anybody wants to look at that.

MS. RAMSEY: Deb Ramsey.

There is also downstream communities on

tables -- on figures 42 and 43. And probably

the fallacy in these tables is they only went

up through January of '04. That was the most

recent data that we could get. And the SCRs at

the CWLP plant did not come on line until 2003.

So you don't have a great big deal of time

after the SCRs were on line. However, Hanson's

personnel went down and took some select

samples on four dates in September and October

of 2007, and those data are shown on Page 4-8,

Table 41. And I think our highest sample was

upstream of the proposed outlet. Is it Outlet

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

004? It was 2.14 milligrams per liter on

October the 1st, 2007. Generally, those are

closer to a .1 milligram per liter.

MR. RAO: I've got a follow-up on this

issue of water quality data. Mr. Mosher, in

the TSD, we saw that the most recent data was

from 2004, other than Hanson's monitoring.

Does the agency have any more recent water

quality data for those segments of the streams

that are affected by this site-specific rule?

MR. MOSHER: Definitely for the Sangamon

River, and I'll put that together.

MR. RAO: Okay.

MR. MOSHER: I'm going to check if we have

any data for Sugar Creek or not. I'm not sure

about that.

MR. RAO: Okay. And also in your

testimony -- excuse me. I have this cough.

In your testimony on Page 5, you stated

that while existing toxicity database

summarized by CWLP is adequate for the

site-specific demonstration, you mention

additional data would likely be available

during the course of this rule making. So

could you please comment on this additional

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

toxicity data you're talking about in your

prefiled testimony?

MR. MOSHER: Well, we're going to do two

things. We're going to search the literature

for additional boron toxicity testing above and

beyond what's already been done in the

petition. We're finding some unpublished

studies through various contacts we have.

We're trying to get copies. It's very

difficult sometimes to get copies of "gray"

literature, or you know, more or less

unpublished studies, but we're working on that.

And then we'll also begin to get results from

the Illinois Natural History Survey's testing

specifically for us.

Again, I'm assuming most of these things

take maybe six months from now before it's all

said and done with the Board, and by that time,

I'm hoping that we'll be able to have an

updated table of boron, aquatic life toxicity.

Possibly that could be in the form of a general

rule making that we're ready to submit to the

Board, or it would just be something along the

way that we could put together and share.

MR. RAO: Okay. Thank you.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Go ahead.

MS. JAMES: Stacy James for Prairie Rivers

Network.

And I guess, first of all, I wanted to

point out that there is a federal criteria for

boron, and that's 750 micrograms per liter, and

that's meant to be protective of sensitive

crops during irrigation. So I mean, just as a

comment, people should keep in mind that by

adopting a higher standard on a major river

will prohibit irrigation in the future.

And then I've got a question about -- it

was said earlier in the hearing that the

proposal is actually to have 11 milligrams per

liter in the pipe, but from reading the

petition, it seemed to be a hundred eighty-two

yards downstream of the Spring Creek confluence

with the Sangamon. So I just wanted to be sure

that I am correct in that it will be 11 for

some length of the river, and that then it

would transition into about 4 1/2.

MS. RAMSEY: That is correct. It will

start out at 11, and a hundred eighty-two yards

later it will be 4 1/2. So you read that

correct.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

MS. BARKLEY: I have a follow-up question

for Mr. Mosher. You mentioned that the Sugar

Creek example wouldn't be a good one for

helping predict what might happen at Spring

Creek, at least in terms of the --

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Ms. Barkley?

MS. BARKLEY: Mr. Mosher mentioned that

using Sugar Creek as an example for predictive

value of what might happen in the Spring Creek

system with an adjusted standard for boron

wasn't appropriate because of, well, several

things, but one of them being that the

11 milligrams per liter adjusted standard had

been in violation. And I wonder if you had

could help characterize how much of a violation

and what sort of values we're talking about.

Because when we're looking at moving from

1 milligrams per liter water quality standard,

as it currently exists, to 11, that's quite a

difference. And I wonder what the difference

between the 11 milligrams per liter adjusted

standard is as opposed to what -- in comparison

to what is currently being discharged or maybe

on average is being discharged.

MR. MOSHER: Well, let me ask you. Is any

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

effluent data in the technical support document

that's been filed?

MS. RAMSEY: Not for Sugar Creek.

MR. MOSHER: Not for the discharge itself,

right? For the CWLP discharge?

MS. RAMSEY: Right.

MR. MOSHER: In that case, we can put

together through agency records, the compliance

data that's submitted every month to the

agency. And I can attach that to the stream

data that I've already promised to round up.

We can file that as a -- I don't know.

Joey, what do we call something like that?

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY: We will file it as

agency comments prior -- or after the hearing.

Excuse me.

MS. BARKLEY: I think that would be great,

because I think before dismissing the ability

to look at Sugar Creek for its potential

predictive value, we need to look at the

appropriateness as to whether the conditions

are similar enough to use for the Spring Creek

situation as Stacy pointed out. I think there

might be some value in studying this to see

what we can possibly see down the road.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

I also would like to ask about what other

constituents we can expect in the flue gas

desulfurization stream, waste stream, other

than boron. What else is going to be coming

along with it that will be sent to the Spring

Creek facility and then ultimately discharged

to the Sangamon River?

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Go ahead.

MR. WILLIAM BROWN: William Brown with

Crawford, Murphy & Tilly.

There have been some analyses done through

our jar testing where we were trying to

determine solids removal, which included

chlorides and sulfates. And then we also ran

tests on the variety of metals from everything

from iron and magnes to calcium magnesium all

the way to zinc. And so those constituents

exist in the waste stream at some

concentration.

MS. BARKLEY: Is it expected that all of

those additional constituents would be able to

meet water quality standards once it moves

through the Spring Creek system?

MR. WILLIAM BROWN: Yes, it is

anticipated, mm-hmm.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

MS. BARKLEY: Would those be considered

additional loading of pollutants as opposed to

what's currently discharged by the Spring Creek

facility?

MR. WILLIAM BROWN: Well, I'm not quite

sure of your question, but there's no suspended

solids, there's no BOD loading, none of the

traditional loading, you know.

MS. BARKLEY: But there will be higher

levels of some pollutants that haven't been in

the Spring Creek facility waste stream

previously?

MR. WILLIAM BROWN: It will add a certain

amount, but, again, the flow is a very small

percent of the entire Spring Creek plant. So

it may not even be measurable. At this point

we're not sure.

MS. BARKLEY: Are there conditions that

under which it might be hard to meet water

quality standards for sulfates, chlorides

coming from the Spring Creek facility?

MR. WILLIAM BROWN: I don't believe there

is a chloride standard beyond -- we don't think

that that it will impact that in terms of NPDES

water quality standards.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

MR. RAO: I have a follow-up question, and

this is for Mr. Doug Brown, but I'll ask, you

know, whoever can answer. This relates to the

whole issue of creek -- the Spring Creek

Treatment Plant.

I think you mentioned that CWLP has

contracted with the SMSD to treats its

wastewater. So this kind of follows on the

earlier question about does this contract spell

out what parameters in your wastewater is going

to be treated by the Spring Creek and Spring

Creek Treatment Plant?

MR. WILLIAM BROWN: There is an

intergovernmental agreement, and I

would -- that document I would defer comment to

the CWLP for that, for the answer to that.

MR. RAO: Yeah, I wanted to know if it

lists all the chemical parameters that needs to

be treated by the plant, and if so, what are

those parameters.

MS. ZEMAN: Can we swear Bill Murray to

address that?

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Sure.

[WHEREUPON THE WITNESS WAS SWORN.]

MR. MURRAY: The intergovernmental

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

agreement that Mr. Brown referred to does not

have specifications, per se, in it for the

sanitary district or for us to deliver a

certain stream, other than we have agreed to

run it through a pretreatment operation on our

plant site before we would discharge it to the

forcemain that would eventually connect with

the district's forcemain system.

MR. RAO: So whatever effluent that you

get out of the pretreatment plant, they're

supposed to accept that, accept it and treat

it? Is that how it works?

MR. MURRAY: In our preliminary

discussions with the district before the

contract was entered into, we provided them

with data developed by Crawford, Murphy & Tilly

and Mr. Brown that was intended to demonstrate

what we anticipated the constituents of that

stream to be. And before this district agreed

to meet with us further, they considered that

information and let us know that they would

pursue this proposal.

MR. RAO: Okay. Is that data part of your

petition?

MS. ZEMAN: No, it's not.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

MS. RAMSEY: No, it is not.

MR. MURRAY: I wasn't sure whether it was

part of the technical support document.

MR. RAO: Would it be possible for you to

submit that information?

MR. WILLIAM BROWN: Yes.

MS. ZEMAN: Do you have anything? Do you

have that paper?

Yes, we will certainly do that.

MR. RAO: And also, you know, in the --

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Actually, before

you go on, would it be also possible for us to

see the intergovernmental agreement?

MS. ZEMAN: Yes. We will make that as an

attachment.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Sorry.

MR. RAO: I think in Mr. William Brown's

testimony on Page 6, he had mentioned that CWLP

had contracted with SMSD to accept the FGDS

wastewater, provided that the acceptance does

not upset the normal plant operations. My

question is, do we have reason to believe that

the flue gas desulfurization wastewater may

upset the plant operations of the SMSD Spring

Creek plant?

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

MR. MURRAY: This is William Murray again.

MR. RAO: Okay.

MR. MURRAY: This was a concern that the

district had from a conservative approach that

they took in our discussions. And the

intergovernmental agreement provides for

contingencies to that effect, though we can't

identify what that might be, but we have

discussed with them to be prepared to respond

to any difficulties that they may experience

subsequent to this being implemented.

MR. RAO: Okay. Thank you.

MS. BARKLEY: In looking at -- I

understand that it's considered an

insignificant waste stream, the 270,000 gallons

per day coming from the flue gas

desulfurization stream, compared to

20 million gallons per day that's flowing

through the Spring Creek plant right now. But

as I understand it, you've considered the other

alternatives for treating boron to be

exhausted, and you're looking now at using the

ability of dilution to basically get the

concentration of boron down to meet a lower

concentrations acceptable. Knowing that you

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

need the certain waste stream, or certain

amount of water, certain volume and flow to do

that, what will happen during times of drought

when you don't have as much water flowing

through the system?

MS. RAMSEY: This is Deborah Ramsey, and

I'll answer that.

The calculations were made using drought

numbers. They were worst-case scenario.

MS. BARKLEY: I note in the petition that

it states that CWLP is proposing collecting the

flue gas desulfurization waste stream at

250,000 gallon influent holding tank, which

would provide about 20 hours -- 22 hours of

holding time for the waste stream. Do you feel

that that's adequate if you have extended

drought conditions?

MS. RAMSEY: Well, as I've said, we've

looked at historical flows out of the

wastewater plant, and, yes, it would normally

be acceptable. And if not, then holding the

water for a day or two would be enough. I

mean, if they do go lower than that, it's for a

24-hour period.

MS. BARKLEY: Is there another option if

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

that holding capacity is not available or if

it's already in use? Is there another option

for CWLP to prevent that high boron

concentration waste stream being sent to Spring

Creek facility?

MS. RAMSEY: It could obviously reduce the

flow.

MR. FINIGAN: Gregg Finigan from CWLP.

Operationally there are ways for us to

reduce that flow and maintain it within the

system for a longer period of time. And we

would take those measures in those particular

instances.

MS. BARKLEY: Okay.

MR. RAO: How long can you do that,

control the flow?

MR. FINIGAN: We estimate that with the

storage capacity, that we would be able to

maintain it for 48 hours with just the storage

capacity without any operational changes. With

the operational changes, we estimate that it

could be another 24 hours. So basically we

can't go beyond 72 hours.

MR. RAO: Okay. Ms. Ramsey, you mentioned

that in your calculation, you used the drought

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

flow. Is that the seven-day low flow that you

used from the ISW 2002 map?

MS. RAMSEY: Yes.

MR. RAO: How does the data from the ISW's

map compare with your actual flow data? Does

the plan itself have actual low flow data?

MS. RAMSEY: Yes. And I think that's what

goes into the mapping, isn't it?

MR. RAO: Does it?

MS. RAMSEY: I think so.

MR. RAO: Okay. Thank you.

MS. BARKLEY: The petition also claims

that alternative site-specific rule would have

significant economic impact. And when I went

through the petition and looked at the numbers

that were put together, it seems like some of

the cost estimates were -- that the option was

abandoned before the full cost estimates had

been completed. And I wonder as part of this

record, if you could put together cost

estimates for all of the alternatives put

forth, including reverse osmosis,

electrocoagulation, the brine concentrator

spray dryer treatment system -- I can't

remember all the others, but I think there were

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

a few others. And I think we'd like to see the

full -- both the capital cost and the operating

expenses for a set time period for all of them,

so you can look across the board and see.

Because I think the conclusion -- you came to

the conclusion that the most cost effective was

saying the Spring Creek plant, but it

doesn't -- it didn't seem to us, at least what

was presented, that the numbers were complete.

And I also would like to go back to

alternatives. In the petition, you note that

high levels of ammonia in the wastewater seem

to be contributing to the release of boron. So

I wondered if you investigated opportunities to

reduce ammonia to prevent or inhibit the

release of boron.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Ms. Barkley,

before we go to the second question, can we

stay with the first question, and that is the

cost?

MS. BARKLEY: Sorry.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I believe

Ms. Ramsey has a partial answer.

MS. RAMSEY: Yes. I believe we have laid

out the capital cost, the annual, and put it

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

into a present value in Table 6-2 on Page 6-11

of the TSD.

MS. BARKLEY: Could you repeat that?

Page 6-11?

MS. RAMSEY: 6-11, Table 6-2, cost of

treatment alternatives for the removal of

boron. And we present capital costs, annual

O & M costs and put those at a present value.

And, further, break that down into a present

value per electric service.

MS. BARKLEY: Okay. I'll have to look at

that again.

MR. RAO: I have a follow-up on that.

Ms. Ramsey, in that table, the only thing

that I found missing was the cost for your

proposed site-specific rule making and what

it's going to cost CWLP. And I think -- let's

see. In one of the prefiled testimonies --

MR. DOUG BROWN: I can tell you where to

look.

MR. RAO: Yeah. I think it was from

Mr. Don Schilling who presented a cost what it

would cost to manage your FGD wastewater by

transferring it to the Spring Creek plant.

MR. DOUG BROWN: This is Doug Brown.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

On the TSD on Page 614, it's the last

paragraph. It runs you through the costs for

the system. It's 15.5 million.

MR. RAO: So the cost of the proposed

option is higher than at least one of the

options that are listed in the table on 6.2?

MR. DOUG BROWN: This is Doug Brown again.

On 611, the costs that were associated

with the brine concentrator system were at the

time that the study was done by

Burns & McDonnell. As we pursued that option,

as you can read from the TSD, we ran through

some significant impacts through engineering

designs change on a continual basis. The

project was abandoned for about a 40 million

dollar capital cost.

MR. RAO: Yeah. That's what I wanted to

get clarified. The cost increased

significantly for the brine concentrator?

MR. DOUG BROWN: Yes.

MS. RAMSEY: In my understanding, when

Burns & McDonnell put those costs together,

they were in comparison to one another and not

necessarily confirming you could build it for

that.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

MR. RAO: And I think one of the reasons

you abandoned that brine concentrator followed

by spray dryer was significant problems of

handling and disposal of the solids?

MR. DOUG BROWN: That's correct, yeah. It

was not anticipated at the time of the design

as far as being that option, the way I

understood it, as I was not part of that at

that time, but the disposal, the amount of the

byproduct was small. And it ended up being a

major disposal system would have to be

installed, as well as trying to find a source

to landfill it, along with other technical

issues with handling the product.

MR. FINIGAN: The product was going to be

very difficult to handle. There would be

material handling problem. You'd have to keep

it out of any kind of moisture. It picked up

moisture very quickly.

MR. DOUG BROWN: Out of the atmosphere.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: And that was

Mr. Finigan.

MR. FINIGAN: I'm sorry. Excuse me.

MR. RAO: Okay. And does the cost that

you had mentioned in Table 6.2, does it reflect

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

the disposal costs at all?

MR. DOUG BROWN: No.

MR. RAO: Okay. Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: And with that, I

think we can go to your second question.

MS. BARKLEY: I was interested in hearing

about what was looked at in terms of reducing

ammonia, if ammonia was triggering the release

of boron.

MR. FINIGAN: Gregg Finigan from CWLP.

We looked at a lot of different ammonia.

I think when you phrased your question, I think

you said there were high levels of ammonia?

Could you -- actually high levels of ammonia?

They were below NPDES levels. We went from a

stream that had no -- basically undetectable

quantities of ammonia to having a stream, that

at least to ash pond stream, had a small

detectable amount of ammonia basically in the

.1 to .2 milligrams per liter range. Where as

in the gas flow, the gaseous phase, which is

released to the FGDS blowdown stream, that

level of ammonia is basically undetectable.

It's less than .1 parts milligrams per liter.

And the reason that it's very hard to detect in

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

that is because of the other constituents that

are in that waste stream, the chlorides and the

sulfates. To dilute those down to an area

where you can read the ammonia successfully is

very difficult.

MS. BARKLEY: I didn't mean to say that

they were high levels of ammonia, because I

haven't actually looked at the values, but your

petition states that trace ammonia

concentrations from the SCR operation results

in increased leaching of boron levels, and or

increased boron solubility in the Dallman ash

pond. So I wondered if you looked at the

potential of reducing ammonia in the waste

stream and then its ability then to reduce the

leaching of boron.

MR. FINIGAN: The ammonia in the waste

stream that we're discussing, the FGDS

waste -- the blowdown stream, the ammonia is

undetectable, for the most part, in that

stream.

MS. BARKLEY: So you don't see --

MR. FINIGAN: The statement that you're

talking about is the small amounts of ammonia,

trace amounts of ammonia, that we found in the

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

Dallman ash pond that leads to Outfall 004 and

to Sugar Creek, to help explain the higher

boron levels we were getting in Sugar Creek.

MS. BARKLEY: Okay. And just for

clarification, when I look at this, I see that

there is potential, and I can further comment

on this when Prairie Rivers submits their

comments. But it seems like that the reason an

additional adjusted standard is requested for

Spring Creek is because the adjusted standard

on Sugar Creek isn't sufficient for both waste

streams.

So when I'm looking at this, I'm looking

at the potential for reducing boron in both

waste streams so that they both can come over

in adjusted standard, not just keeping business

as usual at one so that we can ask for an

adjusted standard on another. So in our

review, we haven't been looking at just what's

being proposed for Spring Creek; we're looking

at the overall picture, as you have as well.

So that's why I am asking some questions about

the Dallman ash pond and the 004 Outfall and

the Sugar Creek system.

MS. RAMSEY: Can I make a little bit more

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

clarification on Gregg's comments to make sure

everyone understood them? The ammonia is a

necessary component of the SCR, the selective

catalytic reduction system. And if you take

the ammonia out entirely, we lose our air

pollution control. We lose our hydrous oxide

reductions. It is used in the gaseous stream,

and it's just the trace amount that comes out,

and they do watch that. If it falls off to

absolutely nothing, I think that means that

they're not doing a good job with the air

pollution control systems. You know, so they

keep, I want to say, 1 to 2 milligrams per

liter.

MR. FINIGAN: We test it as it comes out

of the SCR, the control system. We test the

ammonia slip at that point. It's between 1 to

2 parts per million at that point. And that

would be in the ash phase; that would be in the

ash component. And then it's tested at the ash

pond and the sluice component. And then also

we periodically test the FGDS blowdown

component.

MS. RAMSEY: Thank you.

MS. JAMES: Stacy James, Prairie Rivers

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

Network.

Would it be possible to reduce or remove

the ammonia before it gets to the ponds?

MS. RAMSEY: Can I answer that one?

MR. FINIGAN: Go ahead.

MS. RAMSEY: I think that it's already had

contact with the very small solid particulates

in the air pollution control system. And it's

happening there. It's not happening so much,

we don't think, in the ponds. We think we are

leaching boron from the very small particulates

that you run into in the air pollution control

systems, and they blow down with the liquid.

MR. FINIGAN: Gregg Finigan again from

CWLP.

The other thing is that this interaction

between the ammonia and the boron happens

before you get to an area where you could treat

it. It happens in the gaseous phase or from

the flue gas. And it happens in the sluice ash

system before it ever gets to the Dallman ash

pond.

MS. BARKLEY: I have a question about the

brine concentrator spray dryer. Aquatech

maintains that this equipment is being used

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

successfully at five other facilities, one in

Kansas and four in Italy. And I note the

petition says that this technology has not been

used as a flue gas desulfurization stream,

although it seems like it has at these five

other facilities. So I wonder if you could

clarify what's different about CWLP's

facilities.

MS. RAMSEY: This is Deborah Ramsey.

I would say the difference is the

concentration of the boron and the other ions

in the stream. All of these technologies work

on low concentration streams. It's that when

you start getting into 400 or 500 parts per

million boron, I have not seen any commercial

application for those kind of concentrations.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Okay.

MR. SCHILLING: My name is Don Schilling

with Burns & McDonnell. I just want to follow

up with that question.

The facilities have all been -- that you

referenced, one was the Iatan Power and Light,

and that has not gone into service yet. That's

scheduled to be commissioned probably in the

early spring of 2009.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

The five units in Italy that Aquatech is

doing, none of those have been put into service

yet either. I think one or two of them are

right on the doorstep of commissioning. So

we're watching those with Aquatech very closely

to see what the results are. But although

they're being designed and built, none of them

have been put into service. Actually, there's

been no brine concentrator system in service

right now that we can monitor on FGDS

wastewater.

MS. BARKLEY: Okay, yeah. I noticed in

materials that we have from Aquatech that they

have -- you have probably seen them -- facility

descriptions of what's being done at these

facilities, but they don't really give the

indication that they are in operation. And

this one for your facility, that makes it look

like it is in operation right now.

MR. SCHILLING: There's actually another

one. HPD Veolia is also a supplier of similar

equipment. They have a contract for a facility

in Spain that is in design and construction

still, but not in service as well.

MS. BARKLEY: Has the 7 million for that

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

equipment already been spent, for the brine

concentrator spray dryer? I noticed that you

have -- you've entered into a contract or you

had entered into a contract with Aquatech. Has

that money already been spent?

MR. DOUG BROWN: Yeah. This is Doug

Brown.

The contract with Aquatech is complete.

The equipment is -- yeah, the equipment was

purchased. So it wasn't taken lightly to

abandon the project.

MS. BARKLEY: Are you aware of other

coal-fired facilities with these SCR pollution

control technologies that are using either

Illinois basin coal or similar coal that would

create the same high boron concentrations?

MS. RAMSEY: Can I answer that question in

part? Because I have another client who

actually -- it's all a matter of public record,

so I can talk about it. But the Duck Creek

Station near Canton, Illinois has a similar

problem, and what they did is they changed

their discharge. They no longer discharge to

Duck Creek. They're going directly to the

Illinois River, and they're getting down to

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

within the 1 part per million.

MS. BARKLEY: There were other facilities

that were mentioned to us that might have

similar situations. The Kincaid -- I don't

have my notes with me. But have you looked at

what other power plants are doing? I mean, I

understand this is a client of yours, but have

you done a search throughout Illinois to look

at other coal-fired power plants that would

also be required to use air pollution control

technology and would also likely be using

Illinois coal?

MS. RAMSEY: Yes. If you would actually

look in the -- on Table 6-1 on Page 6.4 of the

TSD, tonnage and source of coal used by

Illinois utilities in 2005, you can see that

the majority of them are using power river

basin coal from Wyoming. It gives you the

tonnage and where they're getting their coals

from. So that is a lot of the times the

solution is to go to an alternate coal source.

MR. FARRIS: This is Dave Farris with

City, Water, Light and Power.

Just for a point of clarification.

Kincaid Power Plant was mentioned. Kincaid is

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

one of those plants that burns power river

basin western coal and does not operate a

scrubber.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: A question? Go

ahead.

MS. JAMES: Stacy James for Prairie Rivers

Network.

I'm wondering by the time the waste stream

does hit Spring Creek STP, if it would be

dilute enough to make some of these treatment

technologies a lot more economically feasible?

And therefore instead of granting another

adjusted standard, could Spring Creek -- would

it be economically feasible for them to add

some of this technology so that boron is

basically essentially diluted by their much

larger waste stream?

MS. RAMSEY: This is Deborah Ramsey.

The problem with that is, of course, now

you have 20 million gallons of water a day

instead of the CWLP flow, and the size of the

equipment would be monstrous. I mean, it would

be -- it would be huge investments in capital

equipment.

MS. JAMES: Has it been estimated, though?

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

MS. RAMSEY: I've actually done some

estimates like that for another power plant,

and they came out with higher numbers. They

were using something that was around a 4 1/2 or

a 5 milligram per liter. We had looked at that

once upon a time. When the Duck Creek facility

got their adjusted standard discharge into Duck

Creek, we did estimates of that type.

MS. BARKLEY: I have just two more

questions. One, you note in the petition that

the FGDS blowdown is a means to remove

chlorides and other contaminants that otherwise

build up in the system and cause a corrosive

environment in stainless steel towers. So I

wonder when this waste stream goes to the

Spring Creek, the treatment plant, what they

will need to do, if dilution would be enough,

or if you anticipate having to use additional

anticorrosive materials.

MR. WILLIAM BROWN: William Brown.

Initially when the waste stream is

received in the sanitary sewer, we plan to line

portions of the sewer that will make it inert

to the high chlorides initially. And then it

is believed that the dilution of the chlorides

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

throughout the system and into the plant will

be enough to keep any damage from, you know,

being caused to the plant.

MR. FINIGAN: Gregg Finigan, CWLP.

Our chloride limits on our metallurgy at

CWLP, we have two different types of metallurgy

on our towers, at the two different FGDs. One

has a limit of 15,000 milligrams per liter.

The other one has a limit of 10,000 milligrams

per liter. So the actual corrosive effect on

stainless steel is at a very high

concentration.

MS. BARKLEY: And I also note with the

brine concentrator spray dryer system, that

there was concern about how much of the waste

material would be created. And I wondered if

anyone looked at the potential for that, a

beneficial reuse of that waste product.

MR. FINIGAN: Gregg Finigan, CWLP.

Based on the -- it was -- first of all, it

was very difficult to even get a big quantity

of this material to even test. When we tested

it from landfills, we really could not

determine whether it might be a hazardous or

nonhazardous waste. The landfill would not

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

support whether -- without a larger quantity of

material, whether that was going to be a

hazardous or nonhazardous waste. Thus some of

the estimates on the landfill costs are kind of

vague. But, yeah, I don't know that we'd -- I

don't believe that -- there's additional

testing that needed to be done in order to

answer that question.

MR. DOUG BROWN: This is Doug Brown.

There's also a previous department of

energy project where at least it's referenced

in the TSD, where they had a brine concentrator

system, and that system basically was shut

down, their brine concentrator system, because

it was not commercially sellable. So that

there was no application they could find to --

MS. BARKLEY: The system wasn't or the

waste product?

MR. DOUG BROWN: The waste product was not

sellable. The system also had issues as well.

MR. RAO: A follow-up question. The part

of the pretreatment system that you're

proposing you're going to use, that cyclone,

how do you handle the solids that are removed

by that?

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

MR. FINIGAN: Gregg Finigan, CWLP.

The solids will be returned to the FGD

system.

MR. RAO: Okay. So it doesn't leave

the --

MR. FINIGAN: No. It stays in the cycle.

MR. RAO: How is -- this clarifier, what

kind of efficiency do you expect?

MR. WILLIAM BROWN: William Brown.

The clarifier is utilized for solids

removal only, and it's very efficient.

Probably, you know, 95 percent easily,

turbidities leaving will typically be less than

1 or 2. The material treats very well. It's a

very heavy solid that falls out, with the

addition of a little polymer, and forges in the

sludge blanket. The effluent qualities should

be excellent, solid free basically.

MR. RAO: Thank you.

MS. ZEMAN: I would like to go back in

response to Doug Brown's comment about the test

project. The reference to that in the

technical support document is on Page 6-12.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Anything

further?

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

MS. BARKLEY: Actually, I do. I'm sorry.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: That's quite all

right.

MS. BARKLEY: With this being a

site-specific and adjusted standard for the

stretch of the river, I wondered if there are

other facilities that currently have to

meet -- or have boron limits in their permits

that would also be benefiting from this

adjusted standard?

I just note in the 1994 petition for the

adjusted standards on Sugar Creek, I believe

that the standard was to 304.105, not through

302.208, which is being sought today. So

302.208 would be the boron water quality

standard, which would then possibly have

implications for other dischargers. And I

think 304.105 would be applicable to this

facility, or you know, this outfall. And I

wonder what the difference is or if there's a

reason why you chose one over the other.

MR. MOSHER: Bob Mosher.

I think your question has to do with

downstream facilities on the Sangamon River and

would any of them benefit. Municipal

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

wastewater typically is about half a part

boron, half a part per million. So municipal

facilities don't benefit. They don't need a

mixings on -- they're meeting the 1 milligram

per liter boron water quality standard at the

pipe. And there just aren't any other kind of

facilities downstream. There's a few

municipalities, but small ones. So I can't see

anybody benefiting.

MS. RAMSEY: To follow that up, there is a

list of all the NPDES permitted discharges to

the Sangamon River from the confluence of the

South Fork at the Sangamon River to the

Illinois River on Page 3-7. It's Table 3.3-1.

And as Bob said, they're all municipal-type

discharges, very small quantity average flows.

MS. BARKLEY: And do we know who withdraws

water from the Sangamon River?

MS. RAMSEY: No one that we could find.

MS. BARKLEY: Okay.

MR. RAO: I had a follow-up question.

Based on what Mr. Mosher said, the typical

boron level and municipal wastewater treatment

plants are like .5 parts per million.

Ms. Ramsey, in the calculation, you use

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

.25 milligrams per liter. Was that value based

on an actual measurement of boron levels?

MS. RAMSEY: Yes, it was.

MR. RAO: And was that done in a period of

time to establish that level as appropriate for

your calculations?

MR. WILLIAM BROWN: Right. We did -- it

was done in 2007, I believe, and the actual

samples from the sanitary district were taken

and analyzed. For the purpose of the -- did

that answer your question?

MR. RAO: Yes.

MR. WILLIAM BROWN: Okay.

MR. RAO: Thanks.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Ms. Barkley?

MS. BARKLEY: I believe in the supporting

technical documents you have, you have

information -- I think it's the ambient water

quality monitoring stations where you did, I

think, a plant survey of aquatic macrophyte

plant survey? But I wonder if any additional

investigations have been done past those three

sites to look at macrophytes and their

importance for fish habitat.

MR. BUSHUR: This is Jeff Bushur with

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

Hanson.

And last year, at the end of last year, we

did -- kind of field surveys we did, and it was

to pretty much generally characterize the

affected stream segments. And we mainly did it

north of Springfield along the Sangamon River

in a canoe and also by Petersburg and also up

by Oakford, and that was just the stretches we

did. I mean, there's long river miles, so we

didn't do the whole length. But it was a very

low water time. And in each of the stations,

we didn't see any aquatic microphytes in the

water. You know, the water levels were really

low. So most of the vegetation was up, you

know, on the banks, which would be typical for

the Sangamon.

MS. BARKLEY: So those three segments were

near the ambient water quality network sites?

MR. BUSHUR: Of what EPA usually uses.

MS. BARKLEY: Right.

MR. BUSHUR: Yeah. Let me check my map,

but I believe so.

MS. BARKLEY: Is that something -- well,

I'll wait.

MR. BUSHUR: And this map is on Page 310.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

And, actually, the segments that we traveled on

the north side of Springfield started at

Riverside Park is where we started, and we went

all the way into kind of the area of dispersion

that was mentioned from the outfall of Spring

Creek down approximately 200 yards. And then

over at Petersburg, that is an Illinois EPA

station, E24. So we did do that one. And then

also the E25 is where we looked at the Sangamon

River with Oakford.

MS. BARKLEY: But nothing was done between

those stations?

MR. BUSHUR: No, just a general

characterization of the Sangamon River.

MS. BARKLEY: Okay. And then for IEPA,

when you further developed the toxicity

database with the Natural History Survey, were

you looking at aquatic plants as well as other

aquatic organisms?

MR. MOSHER: We don't have any plans for

aquatic plant toxicity tests at the Illinois

Natural History Survey. We are reviewing the

literature values for aquatic plants, and we'll

be negotiating or inquiring of USEPA of how to

interpret aquatic plant data.

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Go ahead.

MS. JAMES: Stacy James, Prairie Rivers

Network.

I'm looked at the table for cost of

treatment alternatives. And so in there you

have --

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: For the record,

Ms. James, state where that is again please.

MS. JAMES: It is in the technical support

document. It's Table 62 on Page 611, I guess.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Thank you.

MS. JAMES: And there's three options

presented. One is the brine, one is the

reverse osmosis followed by the spray dryer.

And I'm wondering if when you start things off

with "RO" instead of "BC," does that change the

spray dryer product to be less of a

hydrophilic, I guess, you know, more

handleable? And if so, if it's a better -- if

it's an easier product to deal with, then how

does this option right now compare with your

15 million in the capital cost, and, plus, you

know, over 2 million a year annual costs for

O and M for what you're proposing today?

MR. SCHILLING: This is Don Schilling on

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

that.

I don't know if this will completely

answer your question, but --

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Mr. Schilling,

remember you're speaking to this end of the

room, too.

MR. SCHILLING: Since the study, we

continued to look at these options to see what

the development of the industry was. The

reverse osmosis process does -- would change

the characteristics of the solids. The reverse

osmosis process would require extensive

pretreatment. And in our study, and I think

in -- that extensive pretreatment created more

solids, and it would also have to be dewatered

and disposed.

Since our study, though, we have continued

talking to Aquatech, who was the main

vendor/supplier for the reverse osmosis-type

equipment. And, in fact, on the Iatan project,

when we went out for bids, we solicited bids

for both processes -- the reverse osmosis

process, as well as the brine concentrator

process. In response to those bids, Aquatech

has said they no longer will provide the

Keefe Reporting Company

(618) 277-0190

overall process -- the treatment process for

FGDS wastewater treatment. They had run some

pilot tests and tried to operate the reverse

osmosis water treatment on FGD wastewater. And

they found they had some significant fouling

and deposits formed on the RO membranes. So if

we even wanted to pursue the RO process,

there's not a supplier that will offer that

anymore.

MS. BARKLEY: I don't have any more.

Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Are there any