1

BEFORE THE

ILLINOIS POLLUTION

CONTROL BOARD

2

3

IN THE

MATTER OF:

4

PROPOSED

SITE SPECIFIC

RULE

FOR

CITY OF

5

SPRINGFIELD,

ILLINOIS,

)

R09—8

OFFICE

OF PUBLIC

)

(Site—Specific

6

UTILITIES, CITY

WATER,

)

Rulemaking

- Water)

LIGHT and

POWER

and

7

SPRINGFIELD

METRO

SANITARY

DISTRICT FROM

35

ILL.

ADM.

8

CODE

302.208(g); NEW

35

ILL. ADM. CODE

303.446

9

10

Proceedings

held on December

16, 2008,

at

10:11

a.m., at

11

the Illinois Pollution

Control Board,

1021 North

Grand

Avenue

East,

Springfield, Illinois,

before Marie

E.

12

Tipsord,

Hearing Officer.

13

14

15

16

Reported By:

Karen

Waugh, CSR, RPR

CSR License

No:

084—003688

17

KEEFE REPORTING

COMPANY

18

11 North 44th Street

Belleville,

IL 62226

19

(618)

277—0190

20

21

22

23

24

Keefe Reporting

Company

---

1

APPEARANCES

2

3

Board Members present:

4

Chairman

G. Tanner Girard

Board Member

Thomas E. Johnson

S

Board

Member Shundar

Lin

6

7

8

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

9

BY:

Ms. Joey Logan-Wilkey

Assistant

Counsel

10

Division of Legal

Counsel

1021

North Grand Avenue

East

11

Springfield,

Illinois 62794—9276

On behalf of the

Illinois

EPA

12

13

14

HODGE

DWYER ZEMAN

BY:

Ms. Christine

G. Zeman

15

BY:

Ms. Katherine

D. Hodge

BY:

Ms.

Lauren C. Lurkins

16

Attorneys

at Law

3150

Roland

Avenue

17

Springfield,

Illinois

62705—5776

On

behalf

of

the City of Springfield,

Illinois,

18

Office of

Public

Utilities,

City Water,

Light and

Power and

Springfield Metro

Sanitary District

19

20

21

22

23

24

Keefe Reporting

Company

2

---

INDEX

2

WITNESS

PAGE NUMBER

3

CWLP Panel

13

Bill Murray

4

Dave Farris

Doug Brown

5

Gregg

S.

Humphrey

20

Traci Barkley

23

6

Robert

G. Mosher

39

Christine G. Zeman

54

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Keefe Reporting Company

3

---

NJ

N)

[\)

N)

NJ

F—i

N-

H-

H-

F-’

F-’

H-’

F-’

F-’

F-’

(J

N)

F-’

—i

g)

(ii

U)

NJ

F-’

LO

CO

—J

0)

U)

Ui

NJ

F-’

0

CD

x

H

0

H

C)

CD

0

r1

CD

1

CD

0-

CD

CD

CD

><

CD

F-

o

H

F

rt

H-

C!)

0

0

0

‘-0

Di

0

1<

---

1

PROCEEDINGS

2

(December 16, 2008;

10:11 a.m.)

3

HEARING OFFICER

TIPSORD:

Good morning.

My

4

name

is Marie Tipsord,

and I’ve been

appointed by

the

5

Board

to

serve

as a

hearing

officer in this proceeding

6

entitled

“In the

Matter

of

Proposed

Site

Specific

Rule

7

for

the

City

of Springfield,

Illinois,

Office of Public

8

Utilities,

City Water, Light

and

Power

and Springfield

9

Metro

Sanitary District

from

35

Ill. Adrnin

Code

10

302.208(g); New 35

Illinois Admin

Code

303.446. With

me

11

today to my right

is the presiding

board member,

Acting

12

Chairman G.

•Tanner Girard.

To his immediate

right

is

13

Board

Member Dr. Shundar

Lin, and to my immediate

left

is

14

Board

Member Thomas

Johnson.

15

This rulemaking

was sent

to

first notice by

the

16

Board

on September 16,

2008, and was published

for

first

17

notice on October

10, 2008, at 32

Ill. Req. 16303.

The

18

Board held its

first hearing in

this proceeding

on

19

November 3,

2008.

20

The purpose of today’s

hearing is

twofold.

21

First,

this

rulemaking

is subject to Section

27(b) of

the

22

Environmental

Protection

Act. Section

27(b) of the

Act

23

requires the

Board to request the

Department of

Commerce

24

and Economic

Opportunity to

conduct an economic

impact

Keefe Reporting

Company

5

---

1

study on certain

proposed rules prior to the

adoption

of

2

those rules.

If

DCEO chooses to conduct the

economic

3

impact

study, DCEQ has 30 to 45 days after

such request

4

to produce a study of the economic

impact of the

proposed

5

rule. The Board must then make

the economic impact

study

6

available

or DCEO’s explanation

for not conducting

the

7

study available

to

the

public for at least 20

days before

8

public hearing on the

economic impact of the proposed

9

rule.

10

In accordance with

Section 27(b) of the Act,

the

11

Board requested by

a

letter

dated September 18, 2008,

12

that DCEO conduct an economic

impact study for the

13

above—referenced

rulemaking. The

Board has received

no

14

response.

A copy of the Board’s letter

is available

here

15

in the middle

of

the table, and we will

accept comments

16

concerning DCEO’s

actions today.

17

The second

reason for today’s hearing

is that we

18

have questions that have

been prefiled, and on

December

19

12, the petitioner

filed

a motion to strike

questions

or

20

clarify and a motion

to exclude

witnesses

of Prairie

21

Rivers Network. As they

laid out in both of those

22

motions, the response

time

will

not have had time

to run

23

by today’s hearing.

Therefore, before I rule

on the

24

motions, which I will

do so orally here

at the hearing,

I

Keefe Reporting Company

6

---

1

will

allow anyone to respond

to

the

objections on the

2

record

and then make my ruling. We will first

address

3

the motion to strike the

questions, and with that, I

4

think we’ll go ahead and

do that, and is there any

5

response to the motion

to strike? Did you have

a

6

response?

7

MS. BARKLEY:

I’d like to respond.

I went

8

through and I --

9

THE REPORTER:

Can I

have

your name, please?

10

MS. BARKLEY:

Traci Barkley, T—R—A—C—I,

11

Barkley, B-A-R-K—L-E-Y.

I’m with

Prairie Rivers Network.

12

I went through each of our questions

and looked at the

13

comments that were made in the motion

to strike or

14

clarify, and

I’d like the opportunity to clarify why

15

these questions were

asked. There were only two

16

questions where I can

see

where

the questions that were

17

asked might be somewhat irrelevant

to this adjusted

18

standard, and those were number 27 and

28.

19

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD:

Okay.

20

MS. BARKLEY:

And I don’t know if

you want

21

me to go through and -- question by question,

but I can

22

generally

say

that

some of ——

as far as some of the

23

questions

being related to Hunter Lake or being

used for

24

discovery,

that’s not the case at all. It’s

actually

as

Keefe Reporting Company

7

---

1

we’re working

on another issue, which

is the Hunter

2

proposed reservoir, we’ve learned

of information that

3

applies to CWLP’s practice

that do

have

bearing, I

think,

4

to the

adjusted standard in terms of other options,

which

5

is why

questions weren’t asked before. I think

this

6

process has

moved

very quickly and it’s

—- I feel like

7

we’ve

worked

within the guidelines and

timelines that

8

have

been

given,

but it has taken the

full amount of

time

9

that’s been

given

to us to process information,

10

understand it and be ble to ask the

questions that we’d

11

like

to ask today.

12

As far as new information or repeat

questions

13

that

petitioner thinks that have already

been answered,

14

some of these

questions

were

answered in part either

in

15

our phone conference or

at the last hearing, but the

way

16

these questions are phrased,

they’re asking for the

17

petitioner to expand on the answer

that was given.

I

18

don’t feel like any of the questions

that have been

asked

19

have been fully answered or answered

in the way that

20

we’ve been asked —— or that we’d like

to ask them today.

21

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD:

Okay.

Any other

22

comments, response? Would

you

like

to reply?

23

MS. ZEMAN:

If I may.

My name is Christine

24

Zeman. With respect to the

last part about those

that

Keefe Reporting

Company

8

---

1

may have been asked

before

in

part and now sought

to be

2

clarified, that

opportunity

was had on November

3.

If we

3

did not answer

a question

adequately at

that

time,

then

4

it

would

be up to

Prairie Rivers

at

that point

when all

5

of our

witnesses

here, when we

had

Burns

& McDonnell

6

people here

from Kansas City

to

clarify

the answer then

7

if in

fact they did not

believe that we

answered it

8

sufficiently

at that

time.

9

The primary

point we wanted

to make is

that we

10

believe

that

at the conclusion

of the hearing

you made

it

11

very

clear

that the questions

that were

to be filed were

12

to be based

upon the additional

information

that was

13

submitted

or it was repetitious

or they

had basically

14

waived

their opportunity,

and we

see

very

few of those,

15

and

the only ones that

are

that

do appear to

be

based

16

on the new information

are the very

end regarding

a 2005

17

Burns & McDonnell

report, and those

questions

indeed

do

18

pertain

to

an

entirely different

project rather

than the

19

site—specific

rule. So

we believe

that we’re

justified

20

in doing that.

We’re

not trying to be

obstructionists.

21

To the

extent that

you —— the Board

believes that it

is

22

appropriate

to

answer

some, we

certainly would ask,

23

however, that we

be

allowed

to do so in writing

after

24

this hearing.

Keefe

Reporting

Company

9

---

1

HEARING

OFFICER

TIPSORD:

Anyone

else?

I

2

would

agree that

at

the

close of

the

last hearing

it

3

seemed

that

it was pretty

clear

that today’s

hearing

was

4

either

supposed

to be

about

questions

regarding

the

5

additional

information

or

the

DCEO

action.

However,

at

6

the

bottom ——

the

bottom

line

and at

the heart

of the

7

matter,

it

is a

rulemaking

proceeding

and

informatiop

8

gathering

is what

we’re

here

to do,

and

if Prairie

Rivers

9

feels there’s

additional

information

to be gotten,

I’m

10

disinclined

to

strike

all

the questions

as a

whole.

What

11

I will

do is

allow

the petitioner

to

reserve

the right

to

12

answer

any

of the

questions

in

writing

that

they

feel

13

they can’t

clarify

here.

I will

also allow

you

to ask

14

for

clarification

from

Prairie

Rivers

Network

about what

15

they’re looking

for

in the

questions

and

take

objections

16

on

a

question—by—question

basis.

17

MS.

ZEMAN:

And is

the

latter part

of

that

18

for

us to ask

here

what exactly

they’re

looking

for?

19

HEARING

OFFICER

TIPSORD:

Let’s

get

it

on

20

the record.

21

MS.

ZEMAN:

Very

good.

22

HEARING

OFFICER

TIPSORD:

Let’s

get

it

on

23

the

record.

24

MS.

ZEMAN:

Very

good.

Keefe

Reporting

Company

10

---

1

HEARING

OFFICER

TIPSORD:

Okay.

Now, the

2

second

part was

also

a motion

to strike

any

additional

3

witnesses.

Ms.

Barkley,

you

had

indicated

you

might

have

4

a

witness?

Do you

plan to present

a

witness

today?

5

MS.

BARKLEY:

No.

6

HEARING

OFFICER

TIPSORD:

All right.

So we

7

don’t

—— that’s

been mooted

by you’re

not planning

to

8

present

a

witness.

9

MS.

BARKLEY:

We’ll

submit

written

comments,

10

but not knowing

what

we’re

coming

into

and what

would

be

11

left in

terms of

the

additional

questions

and

subject

12

matter

to be

dealt

with

today,

we decided

to

hold off.

13

HEARING

OFFICER

TIPSORD:

And

are you

okay

14

with mooting

that

objection?

15

MS. ZEMAN:

Yes.

16

HEARING

OFFICER

TIPSORD:

Okay.

With

that,

17

then, we’ll

have

Ms.

Barkley

read the

question

into

the

18

record

and then

there

will

be a

chance

to answer.

Again,

19

anyone

may ask

a

follow—up.

I ask

you to raise

your

hand

20

and

let the court

reporter

know who

you are

before

you

21

ask

your question.

Please

speak

one at

a time.

If

22

you’re

speaking

over

each other,

the

court

reporter

will

23

not be

able to

get your

questions

on

the

record,

and any

24

question

asked

by

a board member

or

staff are

intended

to

Keefe

Reporting

Company

11

---

1

help build

a

complete

record

for

the Board’s

decision

and

2

not

express

any

preconceived

notions

or

bias. And

with

3

that, let’s

go ahead

and at

least

swear

in

your

witnesses

4

again,

if that’s

okay

with

you.

5

MS.

ZEMAN:

Yes,

yes.

Do you

want for

the

6

record

who

all

will be

potentially

answering

the

7

questions?

8

HEARING

OFFICER

TIPSORD:

Yes,

please.

9

MS.

ZEMAN:

Just for

the record,

I would

10

like

to

note that

with

me from Hodge

Dwyer

Zeman

is

11

Katherine

Hodge

and Lauren

Lurkins

to

my

left.

To

the

12

far

left is

Jeff Slead

with

the District,

with

the

13

Sanitary

District,

and then

to my right

is

Bill

Murray,

14

Dave Farris,

Doug

Brown,

and -- with

CWLP.

On the

very

15

end is

Gregg

Humphrey

with

the Sanitary

District,

and

16

then

behind me

are

also representatives

either

of CWLP

or

17

the

District,

and

I’m

not

sure

whether

any

would

be

18

prepared

as

witnesses

today,

so for

now,

probably

——

19

Mr. Nika,

do you

think

you

may

be

answering

any

20

questions?

21

MR.

NIKA:

I

don’t believe

so,

no.

22

MS.

ZEMAN:

Then probably

just

the CWLP

23

witnesses

at the

table

here

can be

sworn.

24

HEARING

OFFICER

TIPSORD:

All right.

With

Keefe

Reporting

Company

12

---

1

that,

can we have

them sworn?

2

(Witnesses

sworn.)

3

HEARING

OFFICER

TIPSORD:

Anything

else,

4

Ms. Zeman?

5

MS.

ZEMAN:

No.

Thank

you.

6

HEARING

OFFICER

TIPSORD:

Ms. Barkley,

if

7

you want

to go

ahead

and start

with

question

number

1.

8

MS.

BARKLEY:

Okay.

I’d

like

to

ask the

9

question

and then

I’ll clarify

the

points

of the

10

question.

Number

1,

we’ve

learned

from

the final

11

environmental

impact statement,

Section

2.2.6.1,

for

the

12

proposed

dam

and

reservoir

also

known

as Hunter

Lake

that

13

nearly

3.3

million

gallons

per

day of

water

are lost

from

14

CWLP’s unlined

ash ponds

due to

evaporation

and

seepage

15

into the

ground.

Assuming

that

the seeped

water

would

16

drain

towards

groundwater

and Sugar

Creek

and contribute

17

to increased

boron

as well

as other

pollutant

18

concentrations and loading,

why haven’t

these

ponds

been

19

lined? Is

the

water

currently

seeping

from

the ponds

20

causing

violations

of

applicable

groundwater

standards,

21

and if

only

the

flue

gas

desulfurization,

FGDS,

22

wastewater

stream

is

diverted

from the

ponds,

which,

if

23

any,

of

the groundwater

standards

may

be exceeded?

24

The reason

we

ask

this question

is

we are

Keefe Reporting

Company

13

---

1

concerned

that there is

a loss of

boron through

the

2

groundwater

which would

allow a

lower effluent

3

concentration, which

would

have some bearing

on what

is

4

being dealt with

in this

adjusted standard

and would

also

5

allow an

artificial

estimate of loading

of boron

and

6

other

pollutants

to Sugar Creek and

Sangamon

River.

7

MS. ZEMAN:

Just

for

the record,

because

we

8

had

filed

our motion to strike,

we

actually

had not

9

prepared

to

answer each

question.

May I take a moment

to

10

confer

with my client,

please?

11

HEARING

OFFICER TIPSORD:

Absolutely.

12

(Discussion

held off

the

record.)

13

MS. ZEMAN: We’re

concerned

that the

14

question

does not

have

any

bearing on this

proceeding,

15

nor on the

issue

for

the location here.

To the

extent

16

that there

are issues

about the cost

of the

——

I mean,

17

arguably,

lining of

the

ponds is

a cost issue.

We

might

18

be able to take a

look

at that

in the post—hearing

19

submittal, and

similarly with

groundwater.

There’s

20

nothing in

the record

about that, so we

would have

to

21

reserve

any kind of comment

until

our post-hearing

22

submittal.

23

HEARING

OFFICER

TIPSORD:

Okay.

24

MS.

BARKLEY:

Okay.

I’d like

to

make

just

Keefe

Reporting

Company

14

---

1

one more

statement expanding

on why

we think this is

2

important.

I

think

both in the

Sargent & Lundy

report

3

and the Burns

& McDonnell report

it was noted

that there

4

is potential

for leaching,

and I can’t say

off the

top of

5

my

head whether there

was evidence that

there was,

but

6

there —— it was put

forward that the

life of these

ponds

7

is limited, and

we’re concerned

that if the ground

is

8

saturated

and if this is a

route of loading these

9

pollutants

in the Sangamon

River and that’s

not figured

10

into

the calculations

and the models that

are predicting

11

what needs to be

done to consider

what is already being

12

contributed to

the

river

or could

be in the future,

that

13

that

gives

an artificial assessment

of what’s

being

14

proposed for

the adjusted dam and

the ability for

the

15

District to

meet what’s being

—— the 11 milligrams

per

16

liter,

4.5 and 2.

17

MS. ZEMAN:

Thank you for

the additional

18

clarification. May

I just —-

19

HEARING

OFFICER TIPSORD:

Sure, absolutely.

20

MS.

ZEMAN:

-- speak

with

Mr. Farris?

21

(Discussion held off

the

record.)

22

MS. ZEMAN: We

will respond

in

writing.

23

Thank you.

24

HEARING

OFFICER

TIPSORD:

Thank you.

Go

Keefe

Reporting

Company

15

---

1

ahead, Ms.

Barkley.

2

MS. BARKLEY:

Number 2, several

other

3

coal—fired

electric

generating

stations in Illinois

4

currently sell

their

coal

combustion waste

to

be used

as

5

a beneficial

by-product. We’d

like to

know what

fraction

6

of the

ash currently

being produced

by Dallman

units 31,

7

32

and

33 and

what

fraction already

in the

ash ponds is

8

potentially sellable

for construction

or other

uses, and

9

we wonder if

CWLP

has explored

this option.

10

MS.

ZEMAN:

Mr. Brown, do

you

want

to take

a

11

crack

at

that,

please?

12

MR. BROWN:

This is

Doug Brown with

City

13

Water, Light and

Power.

85

percent of our ash

from

33

is

14

fly ash, and

it’s used for fill

material

on construction

15

projects if

they’re available.

85 percent

of the ash

16

from units

31 and 32 is

bottom ash and

is used by asphalt

17

companies.

18

MS.

BARKLEY:

So you’re

saying

that

30

19

percent of the

total ash, fly ash

and

bottom

ash

20

combined,

from

Dallman units

31, 32 and

33

is

being

21

sluiced

right now to the

ponds, the remaining

15 percent

22

and

the

remaining

15

percent?

23

MR.

BROWN: All of it’s

sluiced.

It’s

24

recovered at the

ponds.

Keefe Reporting

Company

16

---

1

MS. BARKLEY:

Oh,

it’s

recovered

at

the

2

ponds.

Okay.

3

MR. BROWN:

Yeah.

There’s no means

for

us

4

to be

able

to

recover

that

at the Dallman facility

5

itself.

6

MS. BARKLEY:

And could you

repeat 31 and

7

32, the 85 percent

of the bottom ash,

what that’s used

8

for?

9

MR. BROWN:

That’s

used by asphalt

10

companies.

11

MS. BARKLEY:

Asphalt.

Okay.

12

MR.

MURRAY:

Let

me clarify

that.

My name

13

is

William Murray. We

also sell some

of

it

to a

roofing

14

shingle company.

15

MS.

BARKLEY:

And

is there a reason

why

the

16

remaining

15 percent from each

of those waste

streams

is

17

not used?

18

MR.

BROWN:

So

for example,

then for the 33,

19

15

percent of it’s

bottom

ash, which is not

usable,

and

20

then

on 31, 32, 15 percent

is fly ash,

which

is

not

21

usable.

22

MS.

BARKLEY:

Can

you explain why it’s

23

usable

in one

instance and

not in the other?

24

MR. BROWN:

It doesn’t meet

the requirements

Keefe Reporting

Company

17

---

1

by the vendors.

2

MS. BARKLEY:

Okay.

Thank you.

3

CHAIRMAN GIRARD:

Could I ask

a question,

4

then? If there was

a market for your fly

ash, would

you

5

sell all

of it or

give

it away?

6

MR. MURRAY:

Let me answer

that question

two

7

ways.

First, are you referring

to ash that’s generated

8

now? Because

the ash ponds contain

ash that’s been

9

generated over

a number of years,

so ——

10

CHAIRMAN GIRARD:

Well,

it’s just a very

11

general

question. I mean, is there

any incentive for

you

12

not

to sell it?

13

MR. MURRAY:

We have

explored that, but

14

there are limited markets

in this area for that.

15

CHAIRMAN GIRARD:

So you’re -- it’s not

a

16

desire on your part; it’s

the limits of the market.

17

That’s what you’re saying.

18

MR. MURRAY:

For

us to get rid of all

ash

19

that’s on site, yes.

20

CHAIRMAN GIRARD:

Thank

you.

21

MS. BARKLEY:

I

just

have

one follow-up

for

22

the

Daliman unit 4. Will that

ash also be able to

be

23

recovered

and sold to the same

markets? Actually,

that’s

24

dry ash.

Keefe Reporting

Company

18

---

1

MR. BROWN:

Daliman

4, yeah, it’s

--- the

fly

2

ash is

dry ash, but there’s

also

other

components

there

‘3

that

probably would

not make

it

sellable to control

4

mercury,

so

that

would

probably

have

to be landfilled

5

somehow. We have

not gotten

into that, though,

yet.

6

MS. BARKLEY:

Okay.

Question

number 3, does

7

a pipeline currently

exist linking

Springfield Metro

8

Sanitary District

to CWLP power

prodpction facilities?

9

The reason

I’m asking this

again is because we

were given

10

a different

answer

at a

separate meeting

with

folks from

11

the

Sanitary

District,

and so

I ——

12

MS. ZEMAN:

A different answer

than what?

13

MS. BARKLEY:

I think last

time we asked

14

this question at

the 11 —— November

3 hearing, we asked

15

if pipeline existed

and we were

told no, pipeline

does

16

not exist

linking Springfield

Metro Sanitary

District and

17

CWLP, and

so

wondering

if

—— whether

it’s

in use or not,

18

does

a

pipeline

already

exist

linking the two

areas?

19

MS. ZEMAN:

Who wants to take

a

crack

at

20

that

answer? It

does

require clarification

of the

21

question, actually.

22

MR.

BROWN:

The --

Well, in reference

to the

23

last time

that we answered

the answer, I

guess,

the

24

pipeline

does

not exist

to the 8th Street

facility.

It

Keefe Reporting

Company

19

---

1

exists

to Sugar Creek.

2

MR.

HUMPHREY:

Sugar Creek.

3

MR. BROWN:

Sorry.

4

MS. BARKLEY:

So there

is a pipeline linking

5

CWLP

to Sugar Creek.

6

MR.

BROWN:

Right.

7

MR.

FARRIS:

This is Dave

Earns from CWLP.

8

I guess

it depends on

your —— what you’re

referring

to as

9

a pipeline.

There

are existing sewers

that leaves

CWLP’s

10

property,

obviously.

What we are

contemplating

here and

11

before the Board

is

a pipeline

dedicated for

this stream,

12

not an existing

sewer.

13

MS. BARKLEY:

A stream.

14

MS. ZEMAN:

And for

the

record, just

so that

15

it

is clear, because

you

commented

that you thought

you

16

had

received

different

information

from the District,

I

17

don’t

know

--

Gregg Humphrey could

-- you

haven’t

been

18

sworn.

Do

you want to swear

Mr. Humphrey

in, please,

so

19

that he can

clarify if there

was any misunderstanding

or

20

confirm what

has been

testified to

by

Mr. Brown

and

21

Mr. Farris?

22

(Witness

sworn.)

23

MR. HUMPHREY:

Okay.

I

guess

my first thing

24

would

be

is there’s currently

not

a pipeline constructed

Keefe Reporting

Company

20

---

1

from

City Water,

Light and Power

to connect

to our

Spring

2

Creek facility, which

is located

on 8th

Street. There

3

are existing

sanitary

sewers

that

run through

the City

4

Water,

Light and Power

property

that connect

to our

Sugar

5

Creek

plant, but

the intention

of the

discharge from

the

6

power

plants

is

to go to

the Spring Creek

plant, not

the

7

Sugar

Creek

plant.

8

MS. BARELEY:

Okay.

I understand

that.

9

I —-- And

perhaps I remembered

it

wrong,

but

I remember

a

10

discussion

about

the pipeline

linking the

—— one of the

11

facilities,

which

I thought

it was Spring

Creek,

to

CWLP

12

that could

be used in any direction,

but

-— and

my

13

recollection

is it was proposed

for

one direction,

could

14

be used in

the other,

but perhaps that

was

for the

Sugar

15

Creek

facility.

16

MR. HUMPHREY:

No,

it could not

be used

to

17

go

in

both directions.

The

system we have

only can

18

transport

waste

to the Sugar

Creek plant

from the

City

19

Water, Light

and Power power

plant property.

20

MS. BARKLEY:

Okay.

So

the only link

for

21

wastewater

between

CWLP

and Spring

Creek is the

sewer

22

system

right now.

23

MR.

HUMPHREY:

No.

There is

not

a

link

24

between the

City

Water, Light

and Power

property.

It

Keefe Reporting

Company

21

---

1

would have to

be

constructed.

2

MS. BARKLEY:

But right now there

are

3

sewers.

4

MR. HUMPHREY:

There

are sewers that

go to

5

Sugar Creek.

6

MS. BARKLEY:

Sugar Creek.

Okay.

7

MR. HUMPHREY:

The Sugar Creek plant is

a

8

completely separate watershed

area plant which is located

9

on Interstate 72

east of Interstate 55.

10

MS. BARKLEY:

Okay.

Number 4 -- and this

is

11

follow—up

to question number

1 -- please provide data

12

characterizing the quality

of the groundwater beneath

and

13

adjacent to the ash ponds, and

again,

we’re

concerned

14

that there’s an additional source of loading

to Sugar

15

Creek

and Sangamon, and if 3.3 million gallons

per day

16

are

being lost from the ash ponds, of course

some of

17

that’s

going to be evaporation, and I haven’t

seen any

18

data that

says how much is lost in

evaporation,

how

much

19

is lost towards

leachate into the groundwater,

but I

20

guess we’re concerned

this hasn’t been taken into

account

21

and looking

at the protection of water quality

standards

22

and aquatic life in

the

Sangamon/Sugar Creek systems.

23

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD:

If I may,

24

Ms. Barkley,

is your question, then, that

you’re worried

Keefe Reporting Company

22

---

1

that

the

groundwater

will —- boron

is

seeping

into

the

2

groundwater,

which

will add

to

contamination

into

the

3

Sangamon

River,

from

the groundwater

to

the river?

4

MS.

BARKLEY:

Yes, because

I

think anything

5

that

goes

into

the

groundwater

because

of

the

6

interconnectedness

between

the

Sangamon

and surrounding

7

water tables

that

you

would

have water

movement

and

8

pollutant

movement

from the

groundwater

into

the Sangamon

9

River,

and our

concern

is

that that

just hasn’t

been

——

10

that

that part

of

the model

hasn’t

been

considered.

11

HEARING

OFFICER TIPSORD:

Okay.

Can I

have

12

you ——

I’m going

to

have you

sworn in

just because

your

13

description

of

the

water table

and

stuff

I think

becomes

14

a fact,

so

I think

I would

be more

comfortable

if we have

15

you

sworn

in.

16

MS.

BARKLEY:

Sure.

17

(Witness

sworn.)

18

HEARING

OFFICER TIPSORD:

Thank

you,

19

Ms. Barkley.

20

MS.

ZEMAN:

I’m

not sure

we

agree

with

her

21

assertions

of

fact,

but in

any

respect,

we will

answer

in

22

the

post-hearing

comments.

23

MS.

BARKLEY:

Can

you

answer

if that has

24

been considered,

if

you’ve looked

at

——

Keefe

Reporting

Company

23

---

1

MS.

ZEMAN:

We will answer

that in the

2

post—hearing

comments.

Thank you.

3

MS. BARKLEY:

Okay.

And number 5, what

does

4

CWLP

propose to do with the

brine concentrator-spray

5

dryer equipment already

purchased for over 7 million

6

dollars?

7

MR. BROWN:

We --

8

MS.

ZEMAN:

Mr. Brown, if

you

would.

9

MR. BROWN:

This is Doug Brown.

We plan

to

10

either sell it

or scrap it in the end.

11

MS. BARKLEY:

It hasn’t ever

been used,

12

right?

13

MR. BROWN:

No.

14

MS. BARKLEY:

So it could be sold through --

15

MR. BROWN:

It could

be sold.

It would

-- I

16

mean,

it would be a company that would

use it for

-- that

17

would

be a brine concentrator for maybe

a —— like,

a

18

desalination

plant. It would —— You know,

it’s not

going

19

to

be used by ——

in the same manner we were

going to

use

20

it in,

so ——

21

MS. BARKLEY:

And is the vendor

open to

-- I

22

don’t know how

these business dealings

go. Is it

23

possible

to through them find another

potential buyer?

24

MR. BROWN:

The vendor,

I guess it’s their

Keefe Reporting

Company

24

---

1

choice whether they

want to sell a brand—new unit and ——

2

or

try to

resell

ours.

3

MS. BARKLEY: My concern is it’s just a

lot

4

of money to have scrapped, especially when we’re looking

5

at the economic analysis of all of the other

options. If

6

you have a pool of money and

you’re

looking

at spending

7

all these different things, this is already 7 million

8

that’s gone.

9

MR. BROWN:

It is --

10

MS. ZEMAN: And for the record, I think

11

Mr. Brown did make a comment on that specific point

the

12

last time around, which is that is what makes the fact

13

that it was

ineffective

that much more egregious to CWLP,

14

because it did acquire equipment

believing

that it could

15

address the boron through that manner and it

could not

16

function in that way,

as

we have already pointed

out, at

17

a very significant cost, and I’m confident I can

speak on

18

behalf of CWLP that if there is a way to recover some

19

money from that expenditure, it will certainly do so.

20

MS. BARKLEY:

Okay.

Number 6, what does

the

21

applicant consider economically reasonable for the

22

treatment of boron?

23

MS. ZEMAN:

Generally, I

believe we’ve

24

answered that in the petition materials and the prefiled

Keefe Reporting Company

25

---

1

testimony.

Any information

that we

provide would

likely

2

be

basically

a repetition

of

the information

provided

in

3

terms of the

——

what we have

looked at and

what is

4

effective,

what isn’t

effective, and we

can

put

that

5

together

again in

our post—hearing

comments.

6

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD:

And

if I may,

7

since the

Board’s required

to

determine

what

is

8

economically

reasonable,

would I

be

correct in assuming

9

the

petitioners feel

that what they’re

requesting

is —-

10

would meet

the legal

standard of what

the Board

has?

11

MS. ZEMAN:

Definitely.

We believe

we have

12

already

established

that

and

demonstrated that.

13

HEARING OFFICER

TIPSORD:

Wouldn’t

you

like

14

one of your

witnesses

to

answer

that,

or would

you

prefer

15

to be

sworn

in?

16

MS. ZEMAN:

Certainly,

certainly.

17

Mr. Murray?

18

MR.

MURRAY:

I believe

that

our opinion

that

19

this is economically

reasonable

is evidenced

by the fact

20

that

this

is the course

of action

that we’re trying

to

21

pursue

as the most economically

and

technically

feasible

22

method

available.

23

HEARING

OFFICER TIPSORD:

Thank

you.

I’m

24

happy to swear

you in, Chris,

but --

Keefe Reporting

Company

26

---

1

MS. ZEMAN:

No, that’s

okay.

Thank you for

2

the clarification.

I

appreciate it.

3

MS. BARKLEY:

Number

7

is a question that

4

perhaps

Bob

Mosher

might be more

able to answer,

and

this

5

is a

follow—up

to some of the

information that

was

6

provided

by -- on behalf

of IEPA after the

November

3

7

hearing.

8

HEARING

OFFICER TIPSORD:

Would

you

like

to

9

wait? I believe

they’re going

to contact Mr. Mosher

and

10

he will be

stepping in.

11

MS. BARKLEY:

Sure.

12

MS. ZEMAN:

Just to go on

the record, they

13

didn’t

know whether

this

would

be

limited to economic

14

issues

or other issues

and asked to

be

called if it

did

15

go on, and Ms. Hodge

has just stepped

out to call

them

16

in.

17

HEARING OFFICER

TIPSORD:

We can

come

back

18

to that,

then, when he joins

us.

19

MS. BARKLEY:

Okay.

20

HEARING OFFICER

TIPSORD:

Makes more sense.

21

MS.

BARKLEY:

And

then I think actually

22

number

8,

it might

be

—— well, I don’t

know.

The next

23

question is having

to do

with the

MBI index,

24

macroinvertebrates.

Keefe

Reporting

Company

27

---

1

MS.

ZEMAN:

And

just for

the

record,

these

2

issues

are

related

to

the

testimony

of

Jeff Bushur

with

3

Hanson

Services,

who

is not

present

here

today.

4

MS.

BARKLEY:

Okay.

5

MS. ZEMAN:

So if

it

goes

beyond

what

6

Mr.

Mosher

can

answer,

we will

have to

address

that

in

7

the

post—hearing

comments.

8

MS.

BARKLEY:

Okay.

I’ll

wait

on that

one

9

as

well.

Number

9,

I’ll

strike

—— well,

I’ll read

it

and

10

then

I’ll

-— I

will strike,

because

I

went

back

and

11

reviewed

the

information

and

found it

to be sufficient,

12

but there

is one ——

the second

question

I’d

like to have

13

answered.

From

the petition,

quote,

the

FGDS

blowdown

is

14

a means

to remove

chlorides

and

other

contaminants

that

15

would

otherwise

build

up in the

system

and

cause

a

16

corrosive

environment

in the

stainless

steel

towers.

17

I’ll strike

the

following

line, which

was,

please

18

characterize

with

all

available

data

the FGDS

waste

19

stream

prior to

treatment

or dilution

in terms

of

20

pollutants

and

concentrations.

The

following

question

is

21

what

I’d like

answered.

What

must be

added

to or

removed

22

from this

waste

stream

to

avoid

corrosion

within

towers,

23

pipelines

and

holding

tanks?

24

MS.

ZEMAN:

I am not

sure

that

the

Keefe

Reporting

Company

28

---

1

information

about the stainless steel towers is actually

2

relevant

to the proceeding, but to the extent —- Dave

or

3

Doug,

do you want to address just that

last

question?

4

Or, Gregg, are you in a ——

5

MR. FARRIS:

I

guess ——

This is

Dave

Farris.

6

If I could ask for clarification

in the question. It

7

says, what must

be added

or removed

from this waste

8

stream to avoid corrosion within which

towers, pipelines

9

and holding tanks? The ones on our

property or ——

10

MS. BARKLEY:

Well, it would

be the

11

pipelines linking the two facilities, the holding

tanks

12

that are -- will be used in times of drought. I’m

not

13

sure otherwise how it will be used, but anything that

the

14

FGDS waste streams

are going to be transported in or held

15

in. I just wonder if this needs

to be taken into

16

consideration between Springfield Metro

Sanitary District

17

and —— I’m sure it has, but I

guess

I’d like

to get on

18

the record what other —— what else we can anticipate

in

19

the waste stream in terms of Bioxide and what other

20

constituents will either be added to the FGDS waste

21

stream or

removed

from

to address the corrosive nature

of

22

it.

I

just didn’t see that in the petition or the

23

analysis

of

what will

be sent from CWLP to the Spring

24

Creek facility.

Keefe Reporting Company

29

---

1

MS. ZEMAN:

I’m confident

it has

been

2

considered,

but perhaps

the best witness

to address

that

3

is

William Brown,

who you may remember

was

here the last

4

time, with

Crawford, Murphy

&

Tilly, who

actually is

on

5

behalf

of the Sanitary District,

and

if you would, we

6

will

provide

an answer

to that

in our post—hearing

7

comments through

Mr. Brown.

8

MS. BARKLEY:

Okay.

9

MS. ZEMAN:

Gregg -- excuse

me.

Gregg,

is

10

that acceptable?

11

MR. HUMPHREY:

That’s

acceptable.

12

MS.

ZEMAN:

Thank

you.

13

MS.

BARKLEY:

Number

10, from

other similar

14

facilities

we expect the FGDS

waste stream will

likely

15

contain

boron, sulfates,

total dissolved

solids, total

16

suspended

solids, nitrate,

ammonia, selenium,

iron,

17

cadmium,

mercury,

manganese, as well

as other

pollutants.

18

If

this

waste

stream is piped to

the Springfield

Metro

19

Sanitary District,

what

treatment

besides dilution

can

we

20

expect from the

Springfield

Metro Sanitary

District

21

Spring Creek

treatment

process for the

pollutants

present

22

in the

FDGS waste

stream? And I know

we’ve asked

this

23

before.

I think

the answer is

primarily dilution,

but I

24

guess

I wanted

to go past that

and

see,

besides the use

Keefe Reporting

Company

30

---

1

of the ClariCone to pull some

of the solids out and

2

dilution, is there anything

else in the Spring Creek

3

plant

or the proposed expanded Spring Creek plant that

4

will

be useful in pulling out any additional pollutants?

5

MS. ZEMAN:

May we have a moment?

6

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD:

Sure.

7

(Discussion held off the record.)

8

MS. ZEMAN: At this point in time, we will

9

get an answer to you, again, through Bill Brown with

CM&T

10

in the post-hearing comments.

11

MS. BARKLEY:

Okay.

We’re on question 11.

12

How will

the

Springfield

Metro Sanitary District Spring

13

Creek facility

be

able

to meet the proposed adjusted

14

standard of 11 milligrams per liter for boron during

15

times when enough water may not be available for

16

dilution; for example, severe droughts or even with

17

future reductions in wintertime base usage as plumbing

18

fixtures and appliances are replaced with equipment

19

meeting the

federal water conservation

standards which

20

mandate

40

to

70 percent reductions?

And this does go

21

into the

next

question.

22

MS. ZEMAN:

Part of this answer we believe

23

we’ve already answered through the

testimony,

the prior

24

testimony, in terms

of

what would

happen in the time of a

Keefe Reporting

Company

31

---

1

drought, and then

the last part, we would have

to

rely

on

2

people that

are

not

here at the hearing today,

so

we

can

3

attempt

to get that to you in the post—hearing

comments

4

or

refer

to the record that already

exists.

5

MS. BARKLEY:

I think

part of the answer

6

from the testimony on November

3

was

-- leads into

the

7

next question, which

said there’s a holding tank ——

8

250,000—gallon

holding tank which

provides holding

for 22

9

hours, and

a

follow—up

question to that is we wonder

if

10

you could characterize drought

conditions for the last

25

11

years, which would catch the drought

of 1988-89 -- I

12

think that was the year —— the

more significant drought

13

for the Springfield area, and explain

how the holding

14

capacity of 22 hours proposed would

be

sufficient

to meet

15

the NPDES

permit limits and water quality standards.

16

MS. ZEMAN:

I would object

to

the request

17

that we characterize

drought conditions for the last

25

18

years. I’m not sure

that that is our burden to

do in

19

terms of response

to a question, but we are willing

to

20

have Mr. Brown address the

question without looking

at

21

drought conditions for 25

years, because we actually

22

don’t think that that may

be

relevant

to the concern

that

23

you’ve expressed. Mr. Brown?

24

MR.

BROWN:

This is Doug Brown.

In

Keefe Reporting Company

32

---

1

relations to the holding

tank of 22 hours, and in

2

addition to that,

the system can be cycled through

or

3

cycled

up as

the

water’s kept being

reused in the

4

process, and it’s

anticipated we

get basically two days’

5

worth

of storage time. Discussions

with low flow

6

conditions would

be a

controlled

release to match the

7

lower flows and the higher flows

throughout the day.

8

MS. BARKLEY:

So I guess I’d like to ask,

9

then, if you continue to cycle

•and reuse that water, will

10

you be concentrating the contaminants,

then, in that

11

water?

12

MR. BROWN: Anything that’s recycled

in the

13

scrubber, everything

gets concentrated

up.

14

MS. BARKLEY:

So I guess short of

15

characterizing for the last

25 years, I guess we’d like

16

to know if you’ve looked

at

the range

of drought

17

conditions and predicted drought

conditions and feel

that

18

the twenty—two hours’ holding time or even recycling

19

through two days’ worth of storage is sufficient

under

20

either, you know, lower flow or drought conditions

to

21

meet the

NPDES permit limits and water quality

standards.

22

MS. ZEMAN:

I can answer we do,

but of

23

course I

don’t want to be testifying, so I don’t know ——

24

Mr. Brown,

Mr. Earns or perhaps even Gregg Humphrey,

do

Keefe Reporting Company

33

---

1

you want

to simply answer

that

for the record?

Or

unless

2

you

want

to prefer

to post-hearing.

Very

good.

As

3

Mr.

Murray has

reminded

me, this is based

on

the 7QlO

low

4

flow conditions,

but

the calculations

were

prepared

by

5

Hanson,

so

we will

take another

stab at that

in the

6

post—hearing

comments because Hanson

is not

present

7

today.

8

MS. BARKLEY:

Okay.

Do you want me to

9

continue with

these

or go to IEPA’s ——

10

HEARING

OFFICER TIPSORD:

Well,

I don’t --

11

the

IEPA

attorney

has just stepped

in,

so

let’s go ahead

12

and ask the

next question and

then we’ll ——

13

MS. BARKLEY:

Okay.

14

HEARING

OFFICER TIPSORD:

I would

prefer

not

15

to have

Mr. Mosher

questioned without

his counsel

16

present.

17

MS.

BARKLEY:

Number

13, in reference

to the

18

final product

of the brine

concentrator—spray

dryer,

the

19

petition states,

quote, the

by—product

would be

20

considered

a special waste

according

to chemical

analysis

21

of

the projected waste

by—product.

22

HEARING

OFFICER TIPSORD:

Slow down.

23

MS.

BARKLEY:

Sorry.

End of

quote.

Please

24

describe the

nature of this

special waste

quantitatively

Keefe Reporting

Company

34

---

1

in terms of the

contaminant

concentrations

and the

2

thresholds

exceeded

that place it in the

special waste

3

class.

For

each

of the contaminants

responsible, what

4

options

exist

for either removing

them

upstream

or

5

downstream

of the brine concentrator,

and has the

6

applicant

investigated disposal

options

for the

7

by—product,

including

beneficial reuse

as a wetting

agent

8

for dry ash -- dry

fly ash disposal

operations?

9

MS.

ZEMAN:

Just for

the record,

I do

10

believe that

we have already

answered this

generally with

11

respect

to the material

being characterized

as a special

12

waste

as

well

as the

investigation

of

disposal options

13

for the

by—product,

but to answer

your question here

14

today,

perhaps, Mr.

Brown, if

you

would

address

her

15

question, please.

16

MR.

BROWN:

Special

waste ——

The

material as

17

a by—product

of the brine concentrator

is not

known

until

18

you actually

build it, produce

it, that you

can

actually

19

give

a characterization

of it, so at this

point you

20

cannot

do that.

The

waste

companies

that we dealt with,

21

though,

based

upon

what

—— the

type of material

that was

22

expected

to

be as far as the

difficulty in handling

it

23

classified

it as a special

waste.

24

MS. ZEMAN:

Could you explain

again, since

Keefe

Reporting Company

35

---

1

we’re

all

present,

about the

difficulty

in handling

the

2

material?

3

MR.

BROWN:

The material

-- I’m

trying

to

4

search

for

the right

term.

It basically

absorbs

moisture

5

out of the

air. Hydroscopic,

maybe?

Is that

the term?

6

Therefore,

it’s

very difficult

to

dispose

of. It’s

a —-

7

It

turns into

a

muddy-like

substance.

It

would

be

very

8

difficult

for

them to

landfill.

I

do

believe,

though,

9

that

as

far as

all

the options

to

dispose

of upstream,

10

downstream

of

the

brine concentrator

systems,

any

11

possible

disposing

of that

could

be

blowdown

in general

12

was covered

in

the TSD

and the technical

documents.

It

13

would

just

be

pretty

cumbersome

to

go

redo

all

those

14

right

now.

The by-product

disposal

operations

for

fly

15

ash as a

wetting agent,

I

believe

it

was

in the

last

16

testimony,

Burns

&

McDonnell,

Don

Schilling

stated

that

17

we didn’t

have

enough

fly

ash on

site

to do

that

for --

18

it use

that as

a

wetting

agent.

We

would

still have

19

quite

a bit

of

the contaminant

left.

20

MS.

ZEMAN:

Thank

you.

21

MS.

BARKLEY:

Can you

tell

us what

the

22

vendor,

Aquatech,

recommended

be

done

or how

those

-- how

23

the

concentrated

salt should

be

handled?

24

MR.

BROWN:

They

didn’t.

Keefe

Reporting

Company

36

---

1

MS. BARKLEY:

Are

you aware of other

2

facilities using this

equipment and what they’re doing

3

with the waste product?

4

MR.

BROWN: There is no other facility

right

5

now that’s

in commercial operation. That’s what we

6

discussed

the last testimony.

7

MR. FARRIS: For this

type

of

application.

8

MR. BROWN:

For this type of application.

9

MS. BARKLEY:

And when

you say

for this

type

10

of application,

are you saying for the ——

I know we’ve

11

distinguished

that this

waste

stream is different because

12

it’s Illinois

coal

and it’s

high boron content and the ——

13

it was said this equipment wasn’t

applicable because of

14

that high boron concentration, but when

you say for this

15

application, because I -— there is some disagreement

as

16

to

whether

there are other facilities that are using

this

17

equipment,

and I

wonder where ——

18

MR. BROWN:

For

the treatment of FGD

19

blowdown.

20

MS. BARKLEY:

Yes,

and I just wonder, when

21

you say for this application, are

you saying application

22

of that type of equipment to FDGS waste

streams?

23

MR. BROWN:

It’s for

the use of brine

24

concentrator-spray dryer on the

treatment of FGD

Keefe Reporting

Company

37

---

1

blowdown.

2

MS. ZEMAN:

May I object.

here?

Because

we

3

believe

we did

make the record

very, very

clear the last

4

time that

this equipment or

this

technology

is not

being

5

used in

this application

anywhere

commercially for

the

6

FGDS

blowdown. I don’t

believe

the record

yet

7

establishes the point

that

she is making, that

there is

8

some disagreement

on that,

and if there is,

then

I

9

believe

it

is PRN’s burden

to establish

that.

10

MS. BARKLEY:

And --

11

HEARING

OFFICER

TIPSORD:

And I would

say I

12

just ——

Ms. Barkley,

I

assumed

when you made

that

13

statement that

it was your disagreement

and

that you

14

would

be presenting

information

in

post—hearing

comments.

15

MS. BARKLEY:

That’s right.

So I -- yeah,

I

16

will. I’ll

support that

in the written

record,

but I

17

wanted

--

18

HEARING

OFFICER TIPSORD:

With that,

I think

19

your objection’s

been

addressed,

but I note your

point,

20

but I had ——

I

also

just

assumed that she

meant they

21

would be providing

that

information.

22

MS. BARKLEY:

And that’s

why I clarified,

so

23

that

we can follow

up

with

that

in terms of what

your

24

position is when

you say in

this application,

so the

Keefe Reporting

Company

38

---

1

application of the FGDS blowdown

of the brine

2

concentrator—spray

dryer

equipment. Okay.

3

HEARING

OFFICER TIPSORD:

With that, if

you

4

would like

to go back to Mr. Mosher’s questions we

5

reserved, 7

and 8.

6

MS. BARKLEY:

Okay.

So

I have --

7

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD:

First

we need

to

8

have Mr.

Mosher

sworn

in.

9

(Witness

sworn.)

10

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD:

And I would

note

11

before Ms. Barkley answers,

we have ——

we are allowing ——

12

if you need to address

this as part of post-hearing

13

comments, the Agency can

certainly

reserve

the right

to

14

do that.

15

MS. BARKLEY:

Okay.

I have two, maybe

three

16

questions that

would

be

directed to the Agency.

The

17

first one is, what evidence

is there that the aquatic

18

life on the Sangamon River downstream

of Sugar Creek

is

19

unimpaired by boron concentrations

despite compliance

20

with the adjusted standard of

2

milligrams

per liter,

and

21

this question is in response

to

the

Agency’s explanation

22

of

(d)

listing the segment for impairment

by boron,

and

23

the reason that we think this is relevant

is because we

24

maintain that there is an

opportunity to compare the

Keefe Reporting

Company

39

---

1

adjusted standard

and its potential impact

on aquatic

2

life in the

Sugar Creek stretch and

its usefulness in

3

predicting

or at least informing what

the result of

this

4

proposed

adjusted standard would

be.

5

MR. MOSHER:

I think you need

to go back

to

6

how the Agency

biologists make these

assessments.

7

Illinois EPA provided

the Board with

a

rundown

of the

8

current

status of the Sugar Creek and the

Sangamon River

9

as far as impairment

relating to the

303(d)

list of

10

impaired waters,

and --

11

HEARING

OFFICER TIPSORD:

Excuse

me,

12

Mr. Mosher. For the

record, I just want

to

note

that

13

that was filed

as

public

comment number 2.

14

MR. MOSHER:

Is

that right, Joey?

15

MS. LOGAN-WILKEY:

I don’t have it in

front

16

of me. I’m not sure. If you need

to reserve the right

17

to address the question after the hearing

through

18

comment,

I think that would be appropriate

at this

point,

19

Bob.

20

MR. MOSHER:

Okay.

We can

do that, and what

21

may

be good is if we also have our Agency

biologists who

22

make

these assessments write up an explanation

for the

23

Board

for its understanding of all this,

but

what

I

24

wanted

to say, though, is how that

303(d)

list of

Keefe Reporting

Company

40

---

1

impaired waters

is put together. The

biologists go out

2

to the

river

or the stream.

They look at the biology,

3

the macroinvertebrates

and the fish, and if those groups

4

of aquatic life aren’t what

they should be, aren’t

as

5

healthy

as they should be, then they say there’s

6

impairment

here for the biota. Once they

say

that,

they

7

then are

required to look for what is causing that

8

impairment.

They use water quality standards

to

make

9

that

judgment, including an adjusted standard that

the

10

Board

adopted years ago for those waters. They also ——

11

where there are no water

quality standards for substances

12

such as phosphorous or

total suspended solids, they will

13

use some sort of rule of thumb

based on an 85th

14

percentile of state-wide monitoring results.

15

So they look to standards, in the

case

of

boron,

16

to

make

the decision, is that —— is this particular

17

substance,

boron, causing impairment; if it meets the

18

standard, no; if it doesn’t meet

the standard, possibly,

19

is how they do it.

So

there isn’t

a -- any kind of a

20

good way to go out to the river, look

at the condition

of

21

the biota, and other than what I

just said, say, oh,

yes,

22

this is —— this impairment is due

to

boron

or

silver

or

23

anything else. There just isn’t

a

way

to do that, so I

24

don’t think that that’s

a

pathway that’s very

useful

to

Keefe Reporting Company

41

---

1

try to

say,

oh,

here’s what

the boron

site—specific

2

standard

should

be in this

case.

Rather,

I think

3

laboratory

toxicity

testing

has

to

be

the way that

we

do

4

that, and

that’s

traditionally

the

way

we do

standard

5

setting,

and I

--

when

the Agency

looks

at a

6

site—specific

petition

such as

this one,

that’s

what

we

7

look

to,

what

is

the

laboratory

data

saying

the

aquatic

8

life sensitivity

is

to boron.

Should

this

be

allowed

or

9

should

not

be

allowed

is

based on

that

information,

10

laboratory

information.

11

MS. BARKLEY:

So

is it

standard

procedure,

12

then,

to either

not

list a pollutant

or

(d) list

a

13

pollutant

if an adjusted

standard

is

applied?

I mean,

14

that ——

does

that hold

the same

weight

as a general

use

15

water

quality

standard

in

terms of

assessment

of

16

impairment?

17

MR.

MOSHER:

We believe

it

does hold

the

18

same

weight,

because

when the

Board

grants

an adjusted

19

standard

or a

site—specific

standard,

they

have

20

traditionally

looked

at laboratory

toxicity

information

21

and

what

that

tells

us is

acceptable,

so

when

—— I

think

22

your

point

is

that in our

draft

303(d)

list,

boron was

23

listed

as

a cause

of

impairment.

Now I’m

saying

it

24

shouldn’t

have

been

because

the Board

had

an

adjusted

Keefe

Reporting

Company

42

---

1

standard in place for

the Sangamon

River,

and we said in

2

our recent submission

to the Board that

was

a mistake.

3

We shouldn’t have listed

boron as a cause of impairment

4

because the

river

always meets the adjusted standard

set

5

years ago by the Board. It was just

a

mistake.

6

MS. BARKLEY:

Okay.

That helps clarify

7

that. Question number 8 -- and I will drop the request

8

for a graph —— but the question is, what changes in

the

9

macroinvertebrate

index have been observed in Sugar

Creek

10

since the creation of the ash ponds, and how does the

11

MBI, the macroinvertebrate

index, macroinvertebrate

biota

12

index, relate

to the measured boron concentrations in

13

Sugar Creek?

14

MR. MOSHER:

I’m going

to

have

to say we’ll

15

answer that later when we can get the biologists

to -—

16

you’re essentially asking to look way back in the

17

records,

you know, before any ash pond was there, so

18

we’ll ask them

to do that

and we’ll

prepare a response.

19

MS. BARKLEY:

Okay.

We have

seen what was

20

provided with the technical support document

in terms of

21

the south fork of the Sangamon River and

the

downstream

22

Sangamon River sites and the comparisons between

the MBI

23

index upstream and downstream,

but

this is

24

specifically —— what we

are

interested in

specifically is

Keefe Reporting Company

43

---

1

Sugar Creek

because of the potential

predictive value.

2

MS.

ZEMAN:

Because

of the what?

3

MS. BARKLEY:

Potential predictive value

of

4

the

response in the biota

to the adjusted

standard on

5

Sugar Creek and its

applicability

to

this

proposed

6

standard. And then

the other question

I thought might

be

7

for the Agency is

—— and also for

the petitioners, number

8

20, have

you

conducted

a study of

-- and this is right

in

9

line with this -- have

you conducted

a study of chemical,

10

biological and physical

conditions

of the segments

11

assigned in the 1994

boron site-specific

rule since

that

12

went

into effect? And we’d

be interested

in information

13

regarding macroinvertebrates,

mussels, fish,

macrophytes

14

and water

quality data

past the boron data already

15

provided.

16

MR. MOSHER:

I

can say we will go

back and

17

ask our biologists,

but I think

my response to your

first

18

question for me will

hold true,

but

we’ll

get their

19

opinions and provide

a response.

20

MS.

BARKLEY:

Okay.

Then

going back

to

21

question number

14, the Sangamon

is known to be a

22

commercially and

recreationally important river

for

23

catfish, one of

the species known

as sensitive

to boron.

24

Can

you

please

explain

how the

proposed adjusted

Keefe Reporting

Company

44

---

1

standards for

boron will

be protective

of catfish

2

residing in

the

segments

for which

the adjusted

standards

3

would be

applied?

4

MS.

ZEMAN:

For

the record,

I’d like

to

5

point

out

that we believe

this was answered

the

last

6

time,

but

because this

concerns an

issue that

is in the

7

expertise

of Jeff Bushur

with

Hanson

Professional

8

Services,

who is

not present

now, we will

take another

9

stab at it in

our post—hearing

comments.

Mr.

Mosher,

is

10

there

anything

you wanted

to add in that

respect

on this?

11

MR. MOSHER:

I’m

sorry.

I thought I was

off

12

the thing.

Could you

repeat the

question? I was

13

taking

——

14

MS. ZEMAN:

Would

you like

a

copy of this

in

15

front of you? Do

you not

have

the questions?

16

MR.

MOSHER:

Not

in front of

me,

I don’t

17

have

them.

18

MS. ZEMAN:

We have

an

extra copy.

Let

me

19

get

a copy for you so

that you

can read along with

her

in

20

black and

white

while

it’s being read.

21

MR.

MOSHER:

Okay.

Thanks.

22

MS. ZEMAN:

It’s

number 14.

23

MR. MOSHER:

Okay.

Again,

our approach

to

24

potential

toxic substances,

which

includes almost

every

Keefe

Reporting

Company

45

---

1

substance,

is

to look at

laboratory

toxicity

studies,

and

2

those

studies

are

done

with different

kinds

of

organisms

3

in mind.

Now,

there

may not

be

any catfish

laboratory

4

toxicity

studies

out

there,

but

there

are certainly

fish

5

studies,

and

again, the

Agency’s

position

is that

you

6

have

to trust

the laboratory

data in

these

cases,

that

7

that’s

what’s

really

going

to tell

you

what sensitivities

8

to

boron

are,

so

when

we

came out

in

favor of

this

9

site—specific

standard,

we were

basing

that

on responses

10

of fish

and other

organisms

to

exposures

to

boron.

11

MS.

BARKLEY:

And

I think

one

of the

12

reports

——

and

I’m

sorry,

I don’t

have

the authors,

but

13

it’s in

the technical

support

document,

one of

their

14

reports

that was

referenced

as part

of this

petition

-—

15

it was

stated

that

there

was a lowest

observed

effect

16

concentration between 1

and 25

milligrams

boron per

liter

17

of

water

that was

observed

for

channel

catfish

at their

18

embryo

and

larval stage.

19

MR.

MOSHER:

We

can go

back

and look

at

that

20

study

and

give you

our opinion

of

what

the conclusion

of

21

it

is and

how

we interpret

that

conclusion.

22

HEARING

OFFICER TIPSORD:

And,

Ms.

Barkley,

23

I’m going

to

have to

have ——

you’re

going

to

have

to let

24

us know

who

that

——

which report

you’re

referring

to.

Keefe

Reporting

Company

46

---

1

MS.

BARKLEY:

Absolutely.

I

can do that.

2

MR. MURRAY:

Madam

Hearing

Officer, I

3

believe

she was referring

to

the Birge

and Black report.

4

MS. BARKLEY:

Yes,

that’s it.

5

HEARING

OFFICER

TIPSORD:

Thank

you

very

6

much.

7

MS. ZEMAN:

And just for

the record, did

8

you —-

do you recall that

in the technical

support

9

document

there is a

Table

5—1 that

references the

report

10

and comments upon

each report where

the information

was

11

deemed to be

an outlier or where

the information

12

suggested

that there could

be impacts

different from

our

13

proposal

here?

14

HEARING

OFFICER TIPSORD:

Could you

specify

15

what page

that’s on?

16

MS. ZEMAN:

Yes.

It is Table 5—1

on

17

page 5—7 of the technical

support

document of

Hanson,

18

August 2008, which

is Exhibit 1

of the

petition.

19

HEARING OFFICER

TIPSORD:

Thank

you.

20

MS. ZEMAN:

And I only make

that

notation

21

for

the record that

it does include some

asterisks

and

22

additional

information

beyond just

the results of

the

23

data.

24

MS. BARKLEY:

Number 15, please

identify the

Keefe Reporting

Company

47

---

1

location

and

length segments

of

the

river

proposed

for

2

the

adjusted

standard

that have

been

surveyed

for

aquatic

3

plants

and describe

the

nature of

the

area

where

4

macrophyte

surveys

were

conducted,

and

I do note

that it

5

has

been

told to

us

that three

ambient

water

quality

6

monitoring

network

stations

were

the

ones surveyed.

I

7

believe

they’re

E—26,

E—25

and

E—24.

E—24,

E—25,

E—26.

8

ut

I guess

my

point in

this

question

is

I’d like

for

it

9

to be pointed

out how

much area

was covered

in

that

10

macrophyte

survey and

how that

relates

to the

entire

11

length

of the

river

segments

proposed

for the

adjusted

12

standard,

because

to just

give

a

station number

13

doesn’t

—— especially

for

a macrophyte

survey,

did

not

14

tell

us how many

linear

feet or

square

feet have

been

15

covered

in

the macrophyte

survey.

It’s

not very

telling

16

to just give

a

station

number

and say,

we

did

a

17

macrophyte

survey

there,

so I guess

I’d

like

to see

how

18

much area

was

covered so

we

can

get an

idea

of how

19

representative

that

might

be of

the

proposed

length

of

20

the

standard.

21

MS.

ZEMAN:

If

I may,

is

that

a

question

22

more for

Illinois

EPA

since

it’s —— your

question

23

specifically

identifies

in

number

16

that that

study

was

24

done

by Illinois

EPA?

Keefe

Reporting

Company

48

---

1

MS. BARKLEY:

I -- Maybe

I’m wrong

here, but

2

I thought

that the

macrophyte survey

was

done

on behalf

3

of ——

I’m sorry,

I can’t remember.

Hanson?

4

MS. ZEMAN:

We

——

If that’s

the case, we

5

will get

back with

you, again, in

our post-hearing

6

comments

when we have

Mr. Bushur

from Hanson available

to

7

assist in the answer

of the

question.

8

MS.

BARKLEY:

Because I don’t

believe the

9

IEPA would

do

a

macrophyte

survey

at those

sites unless

10

it was

part of their intensive

——

11

MS. ZEMAN:

Unless what?

12

MS.

BARKLEY: Unless

it

was

part

of their

13

intensive

basin

survey, so it was

my understanding

that

14

it was done

on behalf of the

work leading into

this

15

petition, that

those macrophyte

surveys

were

conducted.

16

MS. ZEMAN:

So

what

you want

is the

specific

17

extent

of the station or

waters

that

were

looked at.

18

MS. BARKLEY:

Uh-huh.

19

MS.

ZEMAN:

Thank

you.

20

MS.

BARKLEY:

And

number 16

-- and it was

21

noted in the

motion to strike

or clarify that

there

was

22

additional

information that

should have answered

this

23

question,

and I’m sorry

if I didn’t

see

that,

but

the

24

question is, besides

the survey conducted

at

Illinois

Keefe

Reporting Company

49

---

1

EPA’s ambient water

quality monitoring network

stations,

2

including

E-24, E-25, E-26, was any additional

3

information reviewed

in terms of

the presence,

4

identification and density of

plants

within

the

5

site—specific

rule segment?

6

MS. ZEMAN:

We

will have Mr. Bushur

address

7

that in post-hearing

comments.

8

MS.

BARKLEY:

Number 17 is, can you please

9

describe what

types of habitat are available for fish

10

residing in

the affected segments of the Sangamon River?

11

Please provide

data

in

support of the response.

12

MS. ZEMAN:

Again, that will need to be

13

addressed

by

Mr. Bushur.

14

MS. BARKLEY: And I’ll

clarify. I think

the

15

importance behind identifying those

types of habitat is

16

if there are macrophytes within the river

that currently

17

provide

a habitat for fish and that is

a dominant —— if

18

that is a dominant habitat type and limited habitat

is

——

19

limited

other types of habitat are available for fish,

20

that

could be damaging to a fish population. If

21

macrophytes

are what

provide

them breeding grounds,

22

protection,

potentially food source, we’d like

to see

23

what

other habitats exist in case the boron

does

have

a

24

negative

impact on those macrophyte stands.

Keefe Reporting Company

50

---

1

MS. ZEMAN:

Thank

you.

2

MS. BARKLEY:

Number 18,

has a

wetland

3

survey

been completed for segments within

and adjacent

to

4

Spring Creek and the

Sangamon River for which the

5

adjusted standard is

proposed? Have any wetlands

been

6

identified in these

segments? And again, in the motion

7

to strike and clarify

it

was

mentioned that this was

a

8

Hunter Lake question,

and it’s not at all related.

We’re

9

simply concerned that,

again,

wetland

plants might

be

10

sensitive or some wetland

plants are sensitive to boron

11

and this concentration might negatively

impact wetlands

12

if they exist.

13

MS. ZEMAN:

We will need the

input of Hanson

14

engineers

on that, so we will get back to you in

the

15

post—hearing

comments.

16

MS.

BARKLEY:

Number

19, I’m going to

change

17

the wording of this.

I

-- The

original question was,

18

please explain how the petitioner has

determined no

19

current irrigation or potential for irrigation

in the

20

fields adjacent to the affected segments of

the Sangamon

21

River,

and I note that there were several

agencies,

22

Illinois

State Water Survey, Illinois

State

Geological

23

Survey,

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,

24

Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Illinois

Keefe Reporting Company

51

---

1

Department

of

Agriculture,

U.S. Army Corps

of

Engineers,

2

Soil and Water

Conservation

District and

several

3

University

of Illinois

extension

units that were

asked

4

about

well,

the technical

support document

says

that

5

they were

asked about current

uses of

the river,

so I

6

guess my

question is, were

these agencies

specifically

7

asked

about existing

irrigation

as a use or the

potential

8

for future irrigation?

9

MS.

ZEMAN:

So now your question

is whether

10 - it is existing

irrigation

of the waters

or potential

for

11

irrigation?

12

MS. SARKLEY:

Uh-huh.

The technical

support

13

document made it

seem

as

if

they

were

asked about

uses,

14

and

I’m

interested

in specifically

whether

irrigation

was

15

considered knowing

that boron

concentrations

could affect

16

that.

17

MS. ZEMAN:

We -- And

just for the

record,

18

the --

this information

was

gathered

by

Hanson

engineers,

19

both

Deb Ramsey and

Jeff Bushur,

and the

question

20

regarding irrigation

uses actually

was clarified

in

21

response to a

question that

Mr. Mosher had

in

our

22

discussions

with EPA

before the filing,

and we

clarified

23

all of

the agencies

and —— to make

it more

specific.

24

With

respect

to

the specific question

of whether

each

Keefe Reporting

Company

52

---

1

agency was

asked about the potential for irrigation,

I

2

will need

to get back with you in the post-hearing

3

comments because that is a question that

only Deb Ramsey

4

or Jeff Bushur can answer.

5

MS. BARKLEY:

Okay.

Question

20 we’ve

6

already asked.

7

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD:

We’ve asked and

8

answered.

9

MS. BARKLEY:

21,

please explain why this

10

petition seeks an adjusted standard

to 302.208 rather

11

than the adjusted standard sought and approved

in 1994 to

12

304.105.

13

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD:

And if I may,

14

Ms. Barkley,

I

want

to

clarify.

You use the term

15

“adjusted standard” often throughout

here. You are

16

talking about the site—specific

rulemaking,

correct?

17

MS. BARKLEY:

Yes,

yes, yes.

18

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD:

All right.

And I

19

know that it seems the same term, but they are legally

20

different before the Board, so just to be clear,

you are

21

asking why they’re looking for a site—specific

rule -—

22

MS. BARKLEY:

Okay.

Yes.

23

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD:

-- versus what

the

24

current adjusted standard is, correct?

Keefe Reporting Company

53

---

1

MS. BARKLEY: Yes,

and I’ll -- can I clarify

2

just briefly? 302.208 is

the general water quality ——

3

general

use

water

quality standard for boron, which

sets

4

it

at

1

milligram per liter. 304.105 is, there

shall be

5

no

violations

of the water quality standard.

The exact

6

language is, no effluent shall alone or

in combination

7

with other sources cause

a

violation of

any applicable

8

water quality standard.

So the adjusted standard

9

approved in 1994 allows for exceedances

of the general

10

use water quality standard for Outfalls

003 and 004 in

11

the CWLP permit —— NPDES permits for boron

specifically,

12

and I’m wondering why the same type of site—specific

rule

13

isn’t being sought right now.

14

MS.

ZEMAN: As that is a legal question,

may

15

I submit the first

response, and then if you want

16

something more factual?

17

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD:

If you’re going

to

18

give me a response now, I’m going

to

swear

you in too.

19

MS. ZEMAN:

That’d

be fine.

20

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD:

Okay.

21

MS. ZEMAN:

That’d

be

fine.

22

(Witness

sworn.)

23

MS. ZEMAN:

I’m going

to refer you to

24

another matter

to

help

determine

the

answer to this.

Keefe Reporting

Company

54

---

1

We —— Our office was involved in

a

matter

called

“A

2

Site-Specific Rule for the City

of

Effingham

Treatment

3

Plant Fluoride Discharge.”

In that, a —— it was proposed

4

to

have ——

5

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD:

Excuse me.

Can

6

you

give

us the rulemaking number?

7

MS. ZEMAN:

Yes.

It’s R03—ll.

8

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD:

Thank you.

9

MS. ZEMAN:

And I will give you a copy

of

10

this

so

that

you can take a look at it.

11

MS. BARKLEY:

That’d be great.

12

MS. ZEMAN: At that

particular time, a

13

request was made consistent with

past

practice

before the

14

Board to seek an adjusted standard for effluent, and

in

15

discussions with the Illinois EPA before the filing

and

16

during that proceeding, the Illinois EPA submitted an

17

extensive basically brief on why

the standard should

18

actually

be

revised for the water

quality standard as

19

opposed

to

the effluent limitation, and I did not

bring

20

the petition —— or excuse me —— the legal brief of

the

21

Illinois EPA with me, but certainly if

you access the

22

Pollution Control Board Web site once

you

have this,

23

you’ll be able to see their rationale.

24

MS. BARKLEY:

Okay.

Keefe Reporting Company

55

---

1

MS. ZEMAN:

In

the decision

of

the Board,

2

the Board

specifically

concurs

with

the Agency

that

3

granting

relief

from the

and it

gives

the

specific

4

standard

—— the

effluent

limit

instead

of

a

water

quality

5

standard

could lead

to inconsistencies with

federal

law.

6

Accordingly,

the

Board

switched

the

proposal

essentially

7

to a

water quality

standard

rather

than

a new effluent

8

limit.

So

basically,

it’s ——

it was

a legal

change.

In

9

1994 it was

standard

to do

what CWLP

did.

Since

Blue

10

Beacon

——

that’s

how

this

matter

has come

to be known

-—

11

since

the Blue

Beacon matter

and

the brief

of the

12

Illinois

EPA,

these things

have

changed

from seeking

13

effluent

limitation

changes

to water

quality

standard

14

changes.

And just

for

the record,

I’ll

just hand

her

15

the

--

if you

would

hand her

the

copy

of the

opinion,

I’d

16

appreciate

it.

17

MS.

BARKLEY:

Thank

you.

18

HEARING

OFFICER

TIPSORD:

Thank

you,

19

Ms.

Zeman.

20

MS.

BARKLEY:

Okay.

You

indicated

that

was

21

a legal response.

Would there

be another

one

in the

22

written

record or

is that

——

23

MS.

ZEMAN:

Very good.

We

will supplement

24

that

response.

Or you

want to

do it today?

Very

good.

Keefe

Reporting

Company

56

---

1

Mr. Murray

will also

address it.

2

MR. MURRAY:

Thank

you.

Prior

to the

time

3

that we retained

Hodge,

Dwyer

and Zeman

to represent

the

4

petitioners,

we had

had

many meetings

with Mr. Mosher

and

5

his colleagues

since

2003, and

as this whole

process

6

developed

and

we

brought the

proposal regarding

using the

7

Sanitary

District

to the Agency,

they explained

to us

8

exactly what

Ms. Zeman has

run

through

about how

the lay

9

of the land

has changed

in these

matters,

and they

—— we

10

were told

that

we’d

have to

seek

a site—specific

11

standard,

so

with

that knowledge,

we

proceeded

to pursue

12

that

type of relief.

13

MS.

BARKLEY:

Okay.

And

this document

14

that

-- the legal

brief that

IEPA provided

is

on the

15

Pollution

Control Board Web

site so we

can

see this?

16

MS. ZEMAN:

Correct.

17

HEARING

OFFICER TIPSORD:

And quite

18

honestly,

if the

Board’s decision

—— I mean,

the

Board’s

19

decision

is —— has

been handed

to

you, Ms.

Barkley,

so, I

20

mean, that ——

21

MS.

BARKLEY:

That’s it.

Okay.

22

HEARING

OFFICER TIPSORD:

The

entire

case

is

23

available

on COOL

on the Web site,

so ——

24

MS. BARKLEY:

Okay.

Number

22, at the

time

Keefe Reporting

Company

57

---

1

the

pollution

control technologies

such as the

SCRs, the

2

selective

catalytic

reduction ——

3

MR.

FARRIS:

Reduction.

4

MS. BARKLEY:

——

were

selected for

5

installation

on the

Dallman

units,

was

CWLP provided

with

6

information

regarding

the

concentration

of boron

that

7

would

be in the

FGDS waste

stream? Also

at this

time,

8

was CWLP

aware

of effluent

concentrations

of boron

both

9

entering

and discharged

from

the ash

ponds?

10

MR. FARRIS:

I

guess

I need some

11

clarification

to

your question.

We

have

a lot

of

air

12

pollution

control

technology.

Is your question

relating

13

to

when

the

SCR5 were installed

or ——

14

MS. BARKLEY:

Well, in looking

into this,

15

there are

a couple of

things that I noted;

one,

that

the

16

FGDS system

has

been

on the unit 33

for 19

years,

so

17

that’s

—— had information

coming

from that

or what’s in

18

that waste stream.

The

SCRs,

I don’t remember

what

year

19

they were added.

20

MR. FARRIS:

2003.

21

MS. BARKLEY:

2003?

But in one

of the Burns

22

& McDonnell

reports where

you lay

out —- actually,

it was

23

in the phase II compliance

report, the musts

and the

24

wants, and looking

through

that report,

there wasn’t

Keefe

Reporting

Company

58

---

1

anything in

there about —- in

terms of -- the report

2

talked

about compliant with

air quality standards and

3

what’s.

needed

in terms of

space and logistical layout

and

4

pieces of equipment and

the cost, but I just wonder

why

5

water

and the other permitting

requirements

for

CWLP

6

weren’t considered

as part of this. It

seems like this

7

waste stream high in

boron and how it would

need to

be

8

dealt with in terms of

meeting water quality

standards

9

should have been anticipated,

or I guess my

question

10

would

be, why wasn’t it

anticipated at that point?

11

MR. FARRIS:

Well,

now I really don’t

12

understand

your question,

but I’ll try. When -- If

we’re

13

talking

about when the SCRs were

installed and the

14

question was when

the SCR5 --

15

MR.

MURRAY:

The part she

just referred

to

16

had nothing

to do

with

SCRs.

17

MR. FARRIS:

So

what

do you want me

to do?

18

MR. MURRAY: Well,

I’m just trying to

figure

19

out

what

question you’re answering.

20

MS. BARKLEY:

I’ll

just take this way

back.

21

CWLP has

air permits and water

permits, and I’m just

22

wondering why we’re

in this position

today, why this

23

couldn’t have

been anticipated knowing

that you were

24

using

Illinois coal high in boron,

knowing that there

Keefe Reporting

Company

59

---

1

were

changes

in technology

that

would

affect

the

waste

2

stream

that

was being

created.

Why are

we now

dealing

3

with

dilution

as

the

answer

to

pollution

instead

of

4

looking

at this

eight

years ago

and

anticipating

that

5

boron

was going

to

be a problem

and

that

you

couldn’t

6

meet water

quality

standards?

7

MR.

FARRIS:

Well, we

installed

the SCRs

to

8

control

emissions

of oxides

and

nitrogen

in

our air

9

emissions,

and,

no,

we

didn’t

—— we

were not

provided

10

with

information

regarding

what

effect

installation

of

11

the SCRs

might have

on our

boron

concentration

of

our

12

FGDS blowdown.

13

MS.

BARKLEY:

No information

was

provided,

14

but

it wasn’t

--

did anyone

ask?

15

MR.

FARRIS:

This --

SCR5 are

a new

16

technology,

and I

don’t

think

all the unintended

17

consequences

of

installing

a

new air

pollution

control

18

technology

for

removal

of

NOx existed

because

SCR5

19

weren’t

in

use

in

the United

States.

The

second question

20

you

had,

were

we

aware

of effluent

concentrations

of

21

boron

both entering

and

discharged

from

our ash

ponds at

22

the

time of

the SCR

installations,

as

you

know, we

23

received

an adjusted

standard

in 1994

and a

boron

24

limitation

was -—

or effluent

limit

was put

in our

Keefe Reporting

Company

60

---

1

renewal

in

1991,

so

we

would have

data and

submitted

in

2

our

reports

to

the Agency

on our

discharge

from

the ash

3

ponds,

but at

the time

the SCRs

were

installed

at

4

Dallman,

we did

not

have

numbers

concerning

all the

5

various

discharges

into

the ash

pond.

We

were monitoring

6

discharge

into

Sugar

Creek.

7

MS.

BARKLEY:

Okay.

So

the

answer

to the

8

first question

on

whether

CWLP was

provided

with

9

information

regarding

the

concentration

of boron

is

no,

10

but

at the time

was CWLP

aware

of

effluent

concentrations

11

of

boron, yes,

from the

DMR?

12

MR.

FARRIS:

Discharging,

but not

entering

13

into the

ash

pond.

14

MS. BARKLEY:

Is there

any

-- Not

that

that

15

would

be

reflected

in the

discharge

monitoring

reports

to

16

the Agency,

but

internally

did CWLP

monitor

the influent

17

concentrations? Influent,

I

mean

what was

coming into

18

the

ash ponds.

19

MR.

FARRIS:

The

various

components,

no, not

20

to my knowledge,

at

the time

of the SCR

installation.

21

MS.

BARKLEY:

Okay.

Number

--

You’ve

22

already

answered

question

number

23.

Do

I

need to

read

23

it

into the

record?

24

HEARING

OFFICER TIPSORD:

No, that’s

fine.

Keefe

Reporting

Company

61

---

1

MS. BARKLEY:

Okay.

Question

24, I think

2

this has

been

partially

answered

both

by testimony at

the

3

November

3 hearing and

the

technical

support document.

4

The question is,

please explain

what space is

required

5

for CWLP

to

convert

each

facility, Dallman

units

31,

32

6

and

33, from

wet

to

dry fly ash and bottom

ash

disposal.

7

Please

describe each

component, the

space

required

and

8

the configuration

needed to accomplish

handling

and

9

removal

of

dry ash. I believe

the technical

support

10

document

talks about ——

and this was mentioned

at the

11

last

hearing -- how

the boiler -— the

bottom of

the