Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0022-0058
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-02-24T05:00Z

ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
REGION
4
ATLANTA,
GEORGIA
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
REGARDING
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
THE
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
January
23,
2003
Holiday
Inn
Ballroom
#
1
Wilkinson
Boulevard
Frankfort,
Kentucky
40601
*******************************************************
SAMDY
H.
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
2015
HAMPSTEAD
LANE
FRANKFORT,
KENTUCKY
40601
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
e­
mail:
SHardingcr@
aol.
com
*******************************************************
HEARING
PANEL:

THOMAS
McGILL
Chief,
West
Standards,
Monitoring
and
TMDL
Section
Water
Management
Division
EPA
Region
4
Atlanta,
Georgia
JENIFER
WIGAL
EPA's
Office
of
Water
EPA's
Headquarters
Office
Washington,
D.
C.

CRAIG
HIGGASON
Associate
Regional
Counsel
EPA
Region
4
Office
of
Regional
Counsel
FRITZ
WAGENER
Water
Quality
Standards
Coordinator
EPA
Region
4
Atlanta
Office
3
January
23,
2003
INDEX
TO
AFTERNOON
SESSION:

Opening
Comments
by
Mr.
McGill
5
­
19
Statement
by
Lloyd
Cress
19
­
28
Statement
by
Tony
Sholar
28
­
31
Statement
by
Rusty
Cress
31
­
34
Statement
by
Lee
Dew
34
­
37
Statement
by
Betsy
Bennett
38
­
42
Statement
by
Doug
Doerrfeld
42
­
46
Statement
by
Teena
Halbig
46
­
51
Statement
by
Heather
Mayfield
51
­
58
Statement
by
Albert
Ettinger
58
­
66
Statement
by
Winnie
Hefler
66
­
70
Statement
by
Judith
Petersen
70
­
84
Statement
by
Hank
Graddy
84
­
99
Statement
by
Perrin
de
Jang
100
­
103
Statement
by
Kori
Jones
104
­
106
Statement
by
Aloma
Dew
106
­
113
Statement
by
Ed
Councill
113
­
116
4
January
23,
2003
INDEX
TO
EVENING
SESSION:

Opening
Comments
by
Mr.
McGill
117
­
131
Statement
by
Tom
Vierheller
131
­
134
Statement
by
Ron
Colwell
134
­
138
Statement
by
William
E.
Flaherty
139
­
140
Statement
by
Beverly
Juett
140
­
142
Statement
by
Jerry
Junker
142
­
144
Statement
by
William
Montgomery
145
­
146
Statement
by
Judith
Petersen
146
­
154
Statement
by
Becky
Raff
155
­
158
Statement
by
Dwight
Fitch
159
­
162
Closing
Discussion
163
­
166
Court
Reporter's
Certification
167
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
5
MR.
McGILL:
Good
afternoon,
1
ladies
and
gentlemen.
I
am
Thomas
McGill
and
I
am
2
Chief
of
the
West
Standards,
Monitoring
and
TMDL
3
Section
of
the
Water
Management
Division
of
the
EPA
4
Region
4
Office
in
Atlanta,
Georgia.
5
This
hearing
is
being
held
to
receive
6
public
comments
on
proposed
water
quality
standards
for
7
the
Commonwealth
of
Kentucky.
EPA
proposed
the
water
8
quality
standards
for
the
Commonwealth
in
the
Federal
9
Register
on
November
14,
2002.
The
information
from
10
this
hearing
will
be
used
by
EPA
to
review
the
proposed
11
water
quality
standards
and
the
methodologies
to
be
12
used
by
the
Commonwealth
in
the
implementation
of
the
13
standards.
14
Background
information
on
EPA's
proposed
15
action
is
included
in
a
Fact
Sheet
that
is
available
at
16
the
registration
table.
Also,
a
copy
of
the
November
17
14,
2002
Federal
Register
which
contains
the
text
of
18
EPA's
proposed
rule
and
the
supporting
preamble
to
the
19
proposal,
is
available
at
the
registration
table.
20
If
you
have
not
filled
out
a
21
registration
form,
please
do
so,
as
that
is
how
I
will
22
know
that
you
would
wish
to
speak.
This
hearing
will
23
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
6
be
held
in
two
sessions:
from
2:
00
o'clock
until
5:
00
1
o'clock
this
afternoon,
and
from
7:
00
o'clock
until
2
10:
00
o'clock
this
evening.
If
you
are
planning
to
3
speak
today,
please
specify
on
the
registration
form
if
4
you
are
only
available
for
one
of
the
sessions,
or
for
5
a
limited
time
during
one
of
the
sessions.
We
will
try
6
to
make
sure
that
you
are
called
to
speak
during
those
7
times.
After
I
have
explained
the
ground
rules
for
the
8
hearing
and
a
few
details
about
how
EPA
will
use
the
9
information
gathered
today,
I
will
begin
to
call
the
10
names
of
those
people
who
have
expressed
an
interest
in
11
making
comments
during
the
hearing.
12
This
public
hearing
was
announced
on
13
November
18,
2002
in
the
Louisville
Courier­
Journal,
14
and
on
November
20,
2002
in
the
Lexington­
Herald­
15
Leader.
A
notice
of
this
hearing
was
also
announced
in
16
the
Federal
Register,
Volume
67,
Number
220,
on
17
November
14,
2002.
These
notices
stated
that
EPA
is
18
requesting
that
written
information
and
other
data
be
19
submitted
to
EPA
by
March
14,
2003.
These
written
20
comments
should
be
directed
to
Mr.
Fritz
Wagener
at
EPA
21
Region
4,
Atlanta
Federal
Center,
Water
Management
22
Division,
61
Forsyth
Street,
Southwest,
Atlanta,
23
Georgia
30303.
This
address
is
also
listed
on
the
Fact
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
7
Sheet
available
at
the
registration
desk.
The
Federal
1
Register
Notice
also
describes
other
ways
that
comments
2
may
be
submitted
to
EPA,
including
comments
submitted
3
by
E­
Mail,
by
hand
delivery
or
courier,
and
by
4
commenting
through
EPA's
Internet
web
site
at
5
www.
epa,
gov/
edocket.
The
Federal
Register
Notice
also
6
contains
instructions
on
how
to
review
EPA's
official
7
public
docket
for
this
proposal.
The
docket
can
be
8
reviewed
either
at
EPA's
Region
4
Office
in
Atlanta,
or
9
on
EPA's
Internet
site.
I
encourage
you
to
read
the
10
Federal
Register
notice
for
a
full
explanation
of
how
11
to
view
the
docket
online.
12
Although
the
proceedings
of
this
hearing
13
are
being
recorded
and
a
transcript
will
be
included
in
14
the
administrative
record,
I
also
ask
that
you
leave
a
15
copy
of
your
comments
if
you
have
prepared
a
printed
16
version.
17
Based
on
the
number
of
requests
to
18
speak,
I
ask
that
you
use
a
general
rule
of
thumb
that
19
presentations
not
exceed
a
maximum
of
ten
minutes.
20
This
should
allow
time
for
everyone
to
speak
within
the
21
time
available.
22
In
the
event
that
we
were
to
get
a
23
significant
number
of
speakers,
it
is
possible
that
I
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
8
may
ask
you
to
reduce
the
time
in
which
you
speak
to
1
less
than
ten
minutes
but
we'll
see
how
that
goes.
2
We
will
make
every
effort
to
allow
each
3
person
who
has
requested
to
make
a
statement
to
have
an
4
opportunity
to
speak
today
at
this
hearing.
If
5
necessary,
we
may
extend
the
hearing
during
all
or
part
6
of
the
time
between
5:
00
and
7:
00
this
evening.
I
will
7
make
an
announcement
later
during
the
afternoon
session
8
should
that
become
necessary.
9
I
also
ask
that
you
keep
your
10
presentations
on
the
topic
that
is
the
subject
of
this
11
hearing,
which
is
information
that
relates
to
the
12
proposed
antidegradation
policy
and
implementation
13
methods
for
the
policy
for
the
Commonwealth
of
14
Kentucky.
I
may
interrupt
and
cut
short,
if
necessary,
15
any
oral
presentations
exceeding
this
limit
or
outside
16
the
scope
of
this
hearing.
There
may
be
times
that
I,
17
or
other
EPA
representatives
with
me
today,
may
ask
18
questions
of
those
of
you
making
comments
to
EPA
where
19
it
is
necessary
to
clarify
the
nature
or
substance
of
20
the
comments.
21
Section
303(
c)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
22
directs
states,
with
oversight
by
EPA,
to
adopt
water
23
quality
standards
to
protect
public
health
and
welfare,
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
9
enhance
the
quality
of
water
and
serve
the
purposes
of
1
the
Act.
Under
Section
303,
States
have
the
primary
2
responsibility
to
establish
water
quality
standards,
3
which
are
defined
as
designated
uses,
or
use
goals,
of
4
a
water
segment,
the
water
quality
criteria
to
support
5
those
uses,
and
an
antidegradation
policy
applicable
to
6
all
state
waters.
The
Act
specifies
the
minimum
7
beneficial
uses
to
be
considered
by
states
in
8
establishing
water
quality
standards
as
public
water
9
supplies,
propagation
of
fish
and
wildlife,
recreation,
10
agricultural
uses,
industrial
uses
and
navigation.
11
Also,
Section
101(
a)(
2)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
states,
12
"...
it
is
the
national
goal
that
wherever
attainable,
13
an
interim
goal
of
water
quality
which
provides
for
the
14
protection
and
propagation
of
fish,
shellfish,
and
15
wildlife
and
provides
for
recreation
in
and
on
the
16
water."
17
Section
303
of
the
Act
also
includes
a
18
requirement
that
states
review
their
standards
at
least
19
once
every
three
years
using
a
process
that
includes
20
public
participation
and
EPA
review
of
the
state­
21
adopted
standards.
Under
Section
303(
c),
EPA
is
22
required
to
either
approve
new
or
revised
state
23
standards
that
meet
the
requirements
of
the
Act,
or
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
10
disapprove
standards
that
fail
to
meet
those
1
requirements.
Where
EPA
takes
an
action
to
disapprove
2
a
state
standard,
section
303(
c)(
4)(
A)
of
the
Act
3
states
that
EPA
is
to
promptly
propose
substitute
4
federal
standards
and
promulgate
federal
standards
5
within
90
days
thereafter.
6
EPA's
regulation
at
40
CFR
131.12
7
requires
that
States
and
authorized
Tribes
adopt
8
antidegradation
policies
and
identify
implementation
9
methods
to
provide
three
levels
of
water
quality
10
protection.
The
first
level
of
protection
at
40
CFR
11
131.12(
a)(
1)
requires
the
maintenance
and
protection
of
12
existing
instream
water
uses
and
the
level
of
water
13
quality
necessary
to
protect
those
existing
uses.
14
Protection
of
existing
uses
is
the
floor
of
water
15
quality
protection
afforded
to
all
waters
of
the
United
16
States.
Existing
uses
are
"...
those
uses
actually
17
attained
in
the
water
body
on
or
after
November
28,
18
1975,
whether
or
not
they
are
included
in
the
water
19
quality
standards."
20
The
second
level
of
protection
is
for
21
high
quality
waters.
High
quality
waters
are
defined
22
in
40
CFR
131.12(
a)(
2)
as
waters
where
the
quality
of
23
the
waters
is
better
than
the
levels
necessary
to
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
11
support
propagation
of
fish,
shellfish,
and
wildlife
1
and
recreation
in
and
on
the
water,
in
other
words,
the
2
Section
101(
a)(
2)
goal
uses
of
the
Clean
Water
Act.
3
This
water
quality
is
to
be
maintained
and
protected
4
unless
the
State
or
authorized
Tribe
finds,
after
5
public
participation
and
intergovernmental
review,
that
6
allowing
lower
water
quality
is
necessary
to
7
accommodate
important
economic
or
social
development
in
8
the
area
in
which
the
waters
are
located.
In
allowing
9
lower
water
quality,
the
state
or
authorized
Tribe
must
10
assure
water
quality
adequate
to
protect
existing
uses.
11
Further,
the
State
or
authorized
Tribe
must
ensure
that
12
all
applicable
statutory
and
regulatory
requirements
13
are
achieved
for
all
new
and
existing
point
sources
and
14
all
cost­
effective
and
reasonable
best
management
15
practices
are
achieved
for
nonpoint
source
control.
16
Finally,
the
third
and
highest
level
of
17
antidegradation
protection
is
for
outstanding
national
18
resource
waters
or
(
ONRWs).
If
a
State
or
authorized
19
Tribe
determines
that
the
characteristics
of
a
water
20
body
constitute
an
outstanding
national
resource,
such
21
as
waters
of
National
or
State
parks
and
wildlife
22
refuges
and
waters
of
exceptional
recreational
or
23
ecological
significance,
and
designates
a
water
body
as
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
12
such,
then
those
characteristics
must
be
maintained
and
1
protected.
2
The
focus
of
EPA's
November
14,
2002
3
proposed
rule
is
the
second
level
of
antidegradation:
4
high
quality
waters.
Paragraph
(
2)
of
401
KAR
5:
029
5
section
1
of
Kentucky's
current
water
quality
standards
6
contains
the
provisions
of
Kentucky's
antidegradation
7
policy
which
addresses
the
requirements
for
waters
with
8
quality
that
is
better
than
the
levels
necessary
to
9
support
propagation
of
fish,
shellfish
and
wildlife
and
10
recreation
in
and
on
the
water.
Currently,
Kentucky
11
limits
the
application
of
the
high
quality
waters
12
provisions
to
waters
designated
by
the
Commonwealth
as
13
"
Exceptional
Waters."
Exceptional
Waters
are
defined
14
in
401
KAR
5:
030,
section
1.(
1)(
b),
as
all
surface
15
waters
designated
as
a
Kentucky
Wild
River;
waters
16
designated
as
an
Outstanding
State
Resource
Water
that
17
do
not
support
a
federally
threatened
or
endangered
18
aquatic
species;
waters
that
contain
a
fish
community
19
that
is
rated
"
excellent"
by
the
use
of
Kentucky's
20
Index
of
Biotic
Integrity;
waters
that
contain
a
21
macroinvertebrate
community
that
is
rated
"
excellent"
22
by
Kentucky's
Macroinvertebrate
Bioassessment
Index;
23
and
any
water
in
Kentucky's
Natural
Resources
and
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
13
Environmental
Protection
Cabinet's
reference
reach
1
network.
2
In
an
August
7,
1997,
letter,
EPA
Region
3
4
disapproved
the
Commonwealth's
eligibility
criteria
4
in
401
KAR
5:
030
section
1.(
3)
for
designating
waters
5
to
be
given
high
quality
water
protection,
and
6
specified
the
changes
needed
for
EPA
to
approve
a
7
revised
water
quality
standard.
In
an
October
9,
1997,
8
letter
from
the
Kentucky
Natural
Resources
and
9
Environmental
Protection
Cabinet
to
EPA
Region
4,
10
Kentucky
stated
its
intention
to
expand
the
universe
of
11
high
quality
waters
receiving
added
protection
from
the
12
effects
of
point
source
discharges
regulated
under
a
13
KPDES
program.
Kentucky
also
indicated
that
the
14
revisions
would
be
part
of
its
next
triennial
review
of
15
water
quality
standards.
16
Kentucky
began
its
water
quality
17
standards
triennial
review
in
October
of
1998
with
a
18
public
notice
of
intent
to
update
uses,
revise
numeric
19
criteria,
strengthen
mixing
zone
language,
and
to
20
respond
to
EPA's
1997
antidegradation
disapproval.
21
After
adoption
of
revisions
to
Kentucky
water
quality
22
standards
on
December
8,
1999,
Kentucky
submitted
the
23
results
of
its
triennial
review
to
EPA
on
December
15,
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
14
1999.
However,
the
revisions
did
not
sufficiently
1
broaden
the
criteria
to
increase
the
number
of
eligible
2
waters
for
the
exceptional
waters
category,
consistent
3
with
EPA's
regulation
at
40
CFR
131.12(
a)(
2).
4
Therefore,
on
August
30,
2000,
EPA
Region
4
notified
5
the
Commonwealth
that
the
high
quality
waters
6
provisions
of
Kentucky's
water
quality
standards
7
remained
disapproved.
8
In
a
letter
dated
May
24,
2001,
the
9
Kentucky
Division
of
Water
clarified
that
the
10
Exceptional
Waters
category
is
intended
to
provide
a
11
higher
level
of
protection
than
the
level
for
other
12
high
quality
waters.
Several
States
and
authorized
13
Tribes
have
created
an
additional
category
of
water
14
between
high
quality
waters
and
ONRWs
in
their
15
antidegradation
policy.
Kentucky's
exceptional
waters
16
category
generally
includes
more
stringent
controls
17
than
those
required
for
high
quality
waters,
but
allows
18
more
flexibility
to
make
adjustments
in
criteria
and
in
19
permitting
decisions
that
would
normally
be
allowed
if
20
the
water
body
were
designated
as
an
ONRW.
EPA
21
believes
such
a
category
is
consistent
with
the
intent
22
and
spirit
of
the
antidegradation
policy
when
23
supplementing
the
high
quality
water
and
the
ONRW
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
15
categories.
1
The
Commonwealth
has
an
active
program
2
to
identify
candidates
for
the
Exceptional
Waters
3
category.
The
Kentucky
Division
of
Water
has
4
identified
133
segments,
which
cover
approximately
567
5
stream
miles,
meeting
the
criteria
for
inclusion
in
the
6
exceptional
waters
category
since
the
previous
7
triennial
review
completed
in
1999.
These
waters
have
8
been
found
to
meet
the
exceptional
waters
criteria
9
based
on
ambient
sampling
in
the
Salt,
Licking,
Upper
10
and
Lower
Cumberland,
Tennessee,
and
Mississippi
river
11
basins.
Many
of
these
segments
have
been
included
in
12
Kentucky's
Reference
Reach
network,
and
others
have
13
been
found
to
contain
either
fish
or
macroinvertebrate
14
communities
rated
as
excellent
using
the
Commonwealth's
15
assessment
methodologies
for
evaluation
of
biological
16
integrity.
However,
as
I
outlined
before,
Kentucky
has
17
no
separate,
readily
identified
high
quality
waters
18
category
commensurate
with
the
federal
requirement
at
19
40
CFR
131.12(
a)(
2),
which
is
the
high
quality
waters
20
provision
of
the
federal
water
quality
standards
21
regulation.
22
As
I
stated
previously,
Section
303(
c)
23
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
authorizes
the
EPA
Administrator
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
16
to
promulgate
water
quality
standards
to
supersede
1
State
standards
that
have
been
disapproved,
or
in
any
2
case
where
the
Administrator
determines
that
a
new
or
3
revised
standard
is
necessary
to
meet
the
requirements
4
of
the
Act.
It
is
these
Section
303(
c)
authorities
5
that
EPA
used
in
releasing
the
proposed
standards
that
6
are
the
subject
of
today's
hearing.
7
The
citation
for
the
proposed
standards
8
in
40
CFR
Section
131.39.
Subsection
(
a)
is
entitled,
9
"
What
antidegradation
policy
applies
to
high
quality
10
waters
in
the
Commonwealth
of
Kentucky?"
Subsection
11
(
b)
is
entitled,
"
What
are
high
quality
waters?"
12
Subsection
(
c)
is
entitled,
"
How
will
the
Commonwealth
13
evaluate
requests
to
lower
water
quality?"
14
In
the
November
14,
2002
notice
of
the
15
proposed
rule,
EPA
asked
for
a
comment
on
several
16
aspects
of
the
proposed
rule.
17
Regarding
the
definition
of
high
quality
18
waters,
the
proposal
would
allow
Kentucky
to
use
19
several
types
of
data
for
the
purpose
of
identifying
20
high
quality
waters,
including
both
chemical
and
21
biological
data.
EPA
is
soliciting
comments
on
this
22
approach,
which
provides
Kentucky
broad
latitude
in
23
identifying
high
quality
waters.
EPA
is
also
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
17
soliciting
comments
on
whether
a
final
regulation
1
should
limit
the
Commonwealth
to
a
particular
approach
2
in
lieu
of
any
others
in
identifying
high
quality
3
waters.
4
Regarding
the
implementation
methodology
5
for
evaluating
proposed
lowering
of
water
quality,
the
6
preamble
to
the
proposed
rule
requests
public
comment
7
on
two
issues.
8
The
preamble
requests
comment
on
whether
9
EPA
should
use
Kentucky's
current
provisions
for
10
Exceptional
Waters
as
the
implementing
provisions
to
11
evaluation
proposed
lowering
of
water
quality
to
the
12
high
quality
waters
addressed
by
EPA's
proposal.
13
The
preamble
also
requests
comment
on
14
whether
Kentucky's
detailed
October
1,
1999,
proposal
15
should
be
part
of
a
final
Federal
regulation,
or
16
whether
this
proposal
should
be
used
to
implement
the
17
broader
regulatory
language
in
today's
proposed
rule.
18
In
addition,
EPA
is
also
requesting
19
comment
on
the
issue
of
the
level
of
detail
contained
20
in
the
proposed
rule
language.
Specifically,
EPA
21
requests
comment
on
whether
the
proposed
rule,
as
22
written,
provides
a
sufficient
level
of
detail
and
23
adequate
regulatory
basis
for
the
Commonwealth
to
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
18
implement
a
final
federal
rule,
given
the
statutory
1
authority
constraints
in
the
Commonwealth,
or
whether
2
some
of
the
guidance
set
forth
in
the
notice
to
the
3
proposal
should
instead
be
codified
as
part
of
a
final
4
rule.
5
After
March
14,
2003,
which
is
the
end
6
of
the
comment
period,
EPA
will
review
all
comments
on
7
these
and
all
other
issues
raised,
as
well
as
other
8
information
available
to
the
Agency
on
the
proposed
9
rule.
Based
on
the
information
available
at
that
time,
10
EPA
will
determine
if
revisions
to
the
proposed
rule
11
are
warranted.
12
I
would
now
like
to
introduce
the
13
hearing
panel.
On
my
right
is
Jennifer
Wigal,
EPA's
14
Office
of
Water
in
EPA's
Headquarters.
Also
on
my
15
right
is
Mr.
Craig
Higgason,
Associate
Regional
Counsel
16
of
EPA
Region
4
Office
of
Regional
Counsel.
And
on
my
17
far
right,
also
on
the
panel,
is
Mr.
Fritz
Wagener,
who
18
is
the
Water
Quality
Standards
Coordinator
for
EPA's
19
Region
4
Atlanta
Office.
20
Given
that
as
a
general
description
of
21
the
need
and
purposes
for
this
hearing,
I
will
now
call
22
the
first
speaker.
As
we
proceed
with
the
hearing,
I
23
would
like
to
ask
each
person
making
a
statement,
to
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
19
step
up
to
the
microphone
in
the
center
of
the
room,
1
state
his
or
her
name,
spelling
it
if
necessary,
and
2
state
your
interest
or
organization
represented.
3
We
have
numbered
the
registration
cards
4
in
the
order
that
they
were
turned
in.
So
after
the
5
elected
officials,
and
which
there
are
no
elected
6
officials
so
far
that
have
registered,
I
will
call
7
others
who
have
expressed
an
interest
to
speak.
8
I
would
like
to
please
limit
your
9
presentations
to
ten
minutes
in
the
interest
of
hearing
10
from
everyone
who
has
come
to
speak
here
today.
11
I
hope
I
am
saying
this
right.
The
12
first
speaker
is
Lloyd
West?
13
MR.
CRESS:
Cress.
14
MR.
McGILL:
Cress­­
sorry
15
about
that.
16
MR.
CRESS:
That
was
close.
I
17
think
my
comments
can
be
completed
within
ten
minutes.
18
If
they
run
slightly
over,
another
speaker,
Mr.
Sholar,
19
will
yield
sufficient
part
of
his
time
to
cover
my
20
remarks.
Thank
you.
21
My
name
is
Lloyd
Cress
and
I
am
counsel
22
for
the
Kentucky
Water
Quality
Group
on
whose
behalf
23
this
statement
is
presented.
The
Kentucky
Water
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
20
Quality
Group
consists
of
the
Kentucky
Chamber
of
1
Commerce,
Associated
Industries
of
Kentucky
and
the
2
Kentucky
Chemical
Industry
Council.
Each
of
these
3
organizations
has
a
strong
interest
in
Kentucky's
water
4
resources
and
has
been
deeply
involved
in
formulation
5
of
the
state's
water
quality
management
policies
for
6
many
years.
Each
of
the
organizations
participating
in
7
the
Kentucky
Water
Quality
Group
will
present
a
8
separate
statement
addressing
the
issues
raised
by
9
USEPA's
proposed
rule
that
are
of
most
significance
to
10
that
organization.
11
The
Kentucky
Water
Quality
Group
is
of
12
the
opinion
that
USEPA's
proposed
rule
is
flawed
both
13
from
a
legal
and
technical
perspective
and
does
not
14
constitute
a
valid
basis
for
development
of
an
15
antidegradation
implementation
program
for
Kentucky.
16
Additionally,
the
Kentucky
Water
Quality
Group
does
not
17
believe
that
the
deficiencies
in
the
federal
proposal
18
can
be
remedied
in
the
context
of
the
present
rule­
19
making.
The
Group
believes
that
these
issues
can
be
20
addressed
most
expeditiously
by
affording
the
Kentucky
21
Natural
Resources
and
Environmental
Protection
Cabinet
22
the
opportunity
to
address
them
in
its
triennial
review
23
of
water
quality
standards
which
is
commencing.
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
21
Clearly,
the
public
interest
will
not
be
served
if
1
these
issues
are
addressed
simultaneously
in
separate
2
federal
and
state
proceedings.
3
As
we
address
the
policy
issues
raised
4
by
this
rule­
making,
it
is
critical
to
focus
on
certain
5
essential
aspects
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
6
antidegradation
program.
First,
it
is
important
to
7
bear
in
mind
that
the
issue
is
not
one
of
clean
water
8
v.
dirty
water
since
other
Clean
Water
Act
regulatory
9
programs
are
designed
to
ensure
that
water
is
of
a
10
quality
that
satisfies
all
legitimate
uses.
Instead
11
the
issue
is
one
of
clean
water
v.
cleaner
water
12
involving
the
management
of
the
margin
of
safety
that
13
exists
above
clean
water
quality
levels.
The
14
management
of
this
margin
of
safety
is
as
much
a
social
15
and
economic
issue
as
it
is
an
environmental
issue
and
16
such
issues
are
more
appropriately
addressed
by
state
17
rather
than
federal
government
agencies.
18
Another
aspect
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
19
antidegradation
program
that
must
be
borne
in
mind
is
20
that
USEPA
has
been
unable
to
develop
administrative
21
regulations
at
the
national
level
establishing
22
procedures
for
implementation
of
the
program.
In
the
23
absence
of
a
federal
regulation
establishing
ground
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
22
rules
for
the
antidegradation
program,
the
review
and
1
approval
or
disapproval
of
each
state's
antidegradation
2
implementation
program
has
reflected
the
subjective
3
consideration
of
the
issues
by
individual
USEPA
4
officials.
This
subjective
consideration
has
5
manifested
itself
in
the
agency's
previous
review
of
6
Kentucky's
antidegradation
implementation
regulations.
7
For
example,
USEPA
disapproved
Kentucky's
1997
8
submission
on
the
basis
that
it
would
not
afford
Tier
9
II
antidegradation
protection
to
a
sufficient
number
of
10
streams
but
failed
to
provide
guidance
as
to
the
number
11
of
streams
that
should
be
afforded
such
protection.
In
12
view
of
the
subjectivity
of
the
decision
and
the
13
absence
of
federal
regulatory
guidance
it
is
not
14
surprising
that
Kentucky's
submission
in
year
2000
also
15
failed
to
secure
federal
approval.
16
As
stated
previously,
the
Kentucky
Water
17
Quality
Group
is
of
the
opinion
that
the
present
USEPA
18
proposal
is
deficient
for
legal
and
technical
reasons
19
and
does
not
constitute
a
sufficient
basis
for
20
formulation
of
an
antidegradation
implementation
21
program
in
Kentucky.
USEPA
disapproved
Kentucky's
22
antidegradation
implementation
program
in
1997
and
in
23
2000
in
only
a
very
limited
aspect
and
approved
all
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
23
other
provisions
of
the
program.
USEPA
approved
all
1
aspects
of
the
Kentucky
program
relating
to
Tier
I
use­
2
protected
waters
and
all
provisions
relating
to
Tier
3
III
outstanding
national
resource
waters.
USEPA
also
4
approved
all
aspects
of
Kentucky's
program
for
Tier
II
5
high
quality
or
exceptional
waters
except
for
the
6
provision
of
401
KAR
5:
030
Section
1(
3)
(
now
Section
7
1(
1)(
b))
that
specifies
the
selection
criteria
to
be
8
used
for
the
reclassification
of
Tier
1
use­
protected
9
waters
to
Tier
2
high
quality
water
status.
By
letter
10
of
August
30,
2000
USEPA
advised
Kentucky
that
the
11
disapproval
could
be
remedied
by
modification
of
this
12
subsection
to
"
include
additional
selection
criteria."
13
In
contrast
to
this
very
limited
basis
14
for
disapproval,
it
is
significant
to
note
the
many
15
basic
aspects
of
Kentucky's
antidegradation
16
implementation
program
that
were
approved
by
USEPA
in
17
1997
and
again
in
2000.
These
include
the
following:
18
Use
of
a
designational
approach
for
a
19
determination
of
antidegradation
classification
in
lieu
20
of
a
parameter­
by­
parameter
approach;
21
Use
of
a
three­
tier
antidegradation
22
classification
system
in
lieu
of
a
four­
tier
system
23
that
would
include
a
Tier
2.5
classification;
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
24
An
initial
classification
of
stream
1
segments
into
antidegradation
tiers
by
reference
to
a
2
list
promulgated
as
a
part
of
the
regulation;
3
A
provision
under
which
streams
not
4
otherwise
classified
would
be
considered
Tier
I
use­
5
protected
waters;
and
6
A
procedure
for
reclassification
of
Tier
7
I
use­
protected
waters
to
a
higher
classification
8
utilizing
a
petition
process
available
to
the
general
9
public.
10
USEPA's
proposed
regulation
40
CFR
11
131.39
would
revise
401
KAR
5:
029
(
a
regulation
fully
12
approved
by
USEPA
in
both
1997
and
2000)
in
a
manner
13
that
would
render
inapplicable
to
newly­
identified
high
14
quality
waters
all
provisions
of
401
KAR
5:
030
15
including
those
provisions
identified
above
that
were
16
fully
approved
in
1997
and
2000.
Thus
EPA's
proposed
17
rule
far
exceeds
the
modification
of
401
KAR
5:
030
18
Section
1
to
add
additional
Tier
II
selection
criteria
19
which
USEPA
asserted
in
2000
to
be
the
only
change
20
necessary
to
secure
federal
approval.
The
effect
of
21
USEPA's
current
proposal
would
be
to
substitute
the
22
USEPA's
discretion
as
to
antidegradation
implementation
23
procedures
for
the
validly­
exercised
discretion
of
the
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
25
Kentucky
Natural
Resources
and
Environmental
Protection
1
Cabinet.
Under
the
Clean
Water
Act,
states
are
vested
2
with
primary
responsibility
on
this
matter
and
the
3
federal
proposal
is
inconsistent
with
the
state­
federal
4
relationship
established
by
the
Clean
Water
Act.
5
USEPA's
proposal
solicited
comments
on
a
6
variety
of
issues
relating
to
implementation
of
the
7
antidegradation
program
in
Kentucky
but
did
not
expose
8
for
public
comment
any
specific
course
of
action.
Many
9
of
these
issues
were
addressed
by
the
state
agency
in
10
the
provisions
of
401
KAR
5:
030
that
were
approved
by
11
USEPA
in
1997
and
2000
and
should
not
legitimately
be
12
subject
to
this
rule­
making.
The
Kentucky
Water
13
Quality
Group
will
address
each
of
these
issues
in
a
14
written
submission
prior
to
the
close
of
the
public
15
comment
period;
however,
two
of
the
issues
are
16
fundamental
to
the
basic
structure
of
the
17
antidegradation
implementation
program
and
will
be
18
addressed
at
this
time.
19
The
federal
proposal
opens
for
public
20
comment
the
potential
for
implementation
of
the
21
antidegradation
program
in
Kentucky
on
a
parameter­
by­
22
parameter
basis
which
has
been
repeatedly
rejected
by
23
the
state
agency.
The
position
of
the
state
agency
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
26
should
be
conclusive
on
this
issue
under
any
1
appropriate
concept
of
federalism.
Additionally,
the
2
parameter­
by­
parameter
approach
could
lead
to
the
3
ludicrous
spectacle
of
a
stream
devoid
of
all
aquatic
4
life
because
of
the
presence
of
toxic
pollutants
being
5
managed
as
a
high
quality
water
under
the
6
antidegradation
program
because
it
meets
water
quality
7
standards
for
a
single
pollutant.
USEPA
should
give
no
8
further
consideration
to
use
of
the
parameter­
by­
9
parameter
approach
in
Kentucky.
10
USEPA's
proposal
also
raises
basic
11
issues
as
to
the
procedures
for
integration
of
any
12
federally­
promulgated
rule
with
the
remainder
of
13
Kentucky's
water
quality
standards
and
KPDES
permit
14
issuance
regulations.
As
noted
in
the
federal
15
proposal,
KRS
Chapter
13A
prohibits
state
agencies
16
including
the
Natural
Resources
and
Environmental
17
Protection
Cabinet
from
utilizing
in
a
regulatory
18
manner
any
document
or
other
form
of
action
that
has
19
not
been
promulgated
as
a
state
regulation
in
20
accordance
with
the
procedures
prescribed
in
KRS
21
Chapter
13A.
Accordingly,
if
USEPA
intends
for
a
22
federally­
promulgated
regulation
to
be
carried
out
by
23
the
state
agency,
USEPA
will
necessarily
have
to
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
27
provide
the
state
agency
with
sufficient
time
and
a
1
reasonable
opportunity
to
amend
the
state
regulations
2
to
incorporate
the
federal
promulgation.
On
the
other
3
hand,
if
USEPA
intends
to
carry
out
the
proposed
40
CFR
4
131.39
through
federal
action,
it
will
be
necessary
for
5
USEPA
to
supplement
that
regulation
with
detailed
6
implementation
procedures
which
address
and
resolve
all
7
of
the
issues
on
which
USEPA
solicited
comments
8
including
criteria
for
determination
of
high
quality
9
waters,
determination
of
significant
lowering
of
water
10
quality,
determination
of
types
of
activities
giving
11
rise
to
antidegradation
review,
determination
of
cost­
12
effective
alternatives
and
determination
of
socio­
13
economic
benefit.
Promulgation
of
40
CFR
131.39
14
without
specifying
implementation
procedures
would
15
conflict
with
other
provisions
of
40
CFR
Part
131
and
16
would
lead
to
unnecessary
conflict
and
litigation
of
17
permit
decisions.
Unfortunately
the
present
federal
18
proposal
lacks
detail
sufficient
to
incorporate
such
19
provisions
in
40
CFR
131.39.
20
A
final
and
very
important
issue
that
21
USEPA
must
address
in
its
development
of
an
22
antidegradation
implementation
regulation
for
Kentucky
23
is
the
manner
in
which
the
newly­
issued
federal
Water
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
28
Quality
Trading
Policy
can
be
used
to
satisfy
the
1
regulatory
requirements.
The
Policy
issued
on
January
2
13,
2003
specifically
provides
for
its
use
by
3
dischargers
subject
to
the
Clean
Water
Act
4
antidegradation
program
and
USEPA
should
include
the
5
procedures
for
its
use
in
any
final
antidegradation
6
regulation
for
Kentucky.
7
In
conclusion,
the
Kentucky
Water
8
Quality
Group
urges
USEPA
to
afford
the
state
agency
a
9
reasonable
opportunity
to
address
the
antidegradation
10
implementation
issue
in
its
current
triennial
review
of
11
water
quality
standards.
Alternatively,
the
Group
12
urges
USEPA
to
adhere
to
the
limitations
of
the
Clean
13
Water
Act
and
address
in
its
rule­
making
only
the
14
selection
criteria
for
Tier
II
waters
that
were
15
disapproved
by
USEPA
in
August
2000.
Thank
you.
16
MR.
McGILL:
The
next
speaker
17
is
Tony
Sholar.
18
MR.
SHOLAR:
Thank
you
very
19
much.
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
have
this
chance
20
to
participate
in
the
public
rule­
making.
My
name
is
21
Tony
Sholar,
and
I
am
the
senior
vice­
president
for
22
public
affairs
for
the
Kentucky
Chamber
of
Commerce.
23
My
organization
is
a
statewide
organization
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
29
representing
business
and
industry
with
more
than
3,000
1
members
statewide.
2
We
have
been
actively
involved
in
the
3
formulation
of
the
state
water
quality
management
4
policy
for
several
years
and
have
worked
diligently
for
5
the
development
of
state
water
quality
standards
that
6
can
receive
full
federal
approval.
The
state
chamber
7
is
a
participating
member
of
the
Kentucky
Water
Quality
8
Group
and
we
endorse
the
comments
just
previously
9
received.
10
Our
primary
concern
regarding
proposed
11
antidegradation
implementation
regulation
for
Kentucky
12
involves
its
potential
impact
on
the
KPDES
permit
13
program
and
the
resultant
adverse
effect
on
social
and
14
economic
development
in
the
state.
The
current
KPDES
15
permit
program
has
been
one
of
the
relatively
few
16
bright
spots
in
the
governmental
regulation
arena.
The
17
KPDES
permit
program
is
currently
based
on
objective
18
technological
and
water
quality­
based
standards
that
19
provide
certainty
to
permit
applicants,
the
general
20
public
and
to
the
administering
agency
allowing
permits
21
to
be
issued
in
a
prompt
and
efficient
manner.
As
a
22
result,
final
permit
action
on
proposed
new
and
23
expanded
discharges
has
taken
place
in
a
timely
manner
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
30
accommodating
the
reasonable
expectations
of
economic
1
development
projects.
One
of
the
key
elements
of
the
2
Kentucky
water
quality
program
that
has
contributed
to
3
this
positive
result
is
the
identification
in
401
KAR
4
5:
030
of
the
antidegradation
classification
of
each
5
body
of
water
in
advance
of
the
submission
of
the
KPDES
6
permit
applications.
7
Under
40
CFR
131.39,
USEPA's
proposed
8
antidegradation
implementation
regulation
for
Kentucky,
9
the
antidegradation
classification
of
receiving
streams
10
could
be
determined
during
the
KPDES
permit
issuance
11
process
itself.
Under
such
a
procedure,
neither
the
12
permit
applicant
nor
the
general
public
nor
the
13
permitting
agency
could
proceed
with
confidence
as
to
14
the
requirements
that
would
be
applicable
to
a
proposed
15
new
or
expanded
discharge.
The
necessary
result
of
16
such
a
procedure
would
be
delay
and
uncertainty
in
the
17
processing
of
KPDES
permit
applications.
18
Perhaps
the
most
undesirable
effect
of
19
the
federal
proposal
would
be
to
transform
the
issuance
20
of
KPDES
permits
for
new
and
expanded
discharges
from
a
21
process
based
upon
objective
criteria
and
standards
to
22
a
process
based
upon
subjective
factors
such
as
23
evaluation
of
alternatives
and
socioeconomic
benefit
of
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
31
the
proposed
activity.
Use
of
this
subjective
approach
1
will
clearly
give
rise
to
controversy
and
litigation
of
2
KPDES
permit
actions.
3
Unfortunately,
the
likely
effect
of
the
4
federal
proposal
would
be
to
create
an
atmosphere
of
5
uncertainty
in
the
issuance
of
KPDES
permits
for
new
6
and
expanded
discharges
that
would
serve
as
a
damper
on
7
Kentucky's
social
and
economic
development.
Although
8
such
a
result
might
be
acceptable
where
necessary
to
9
achieve
established
environmental
goals,
it
is
clearly
10
unacceptable
in
the
case
of
Tier
II
high
quality
waters
11
that
already
comply
with
applicable
water
quality
12
standards.
13
For
the
foregoing
reasons,
the
Kentucky
14
Chamber
urges
USEPA
to
limit
its
rule­
making
to
the
15
identification
of
Tier
II
selection
criteria
and
to
16
allow
the
state
of
Kentucky
Natural
Resources
and
17
Environmental
Protection
Cabinet
to
formulate,
through
18
its
triennial
review
of
water
quality
standards,
19
antidegradation
implementation
procedures
consistent
20
with
the
efficient
administration
of
the
KPDES
permit
21
program
in
Kentucky.
Thank
you
very
much.
22
MR.
McGILL:
The
next
speaker
23
is
Rusty
Cress.
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
32
MR.
CRESS:
Good
afternoon.
1
My
name
is
Rusty
Cress
and
I
am
the
executive
director
2
of
Associated
Industries
of
Kentucky's
Chemical
3
Industry
Council.
AIK
is
a
trade
group
made
up
4
primarily
of
manufacturers
throughout
the
state
and
we
5
are
a
member
of
the
Kentucky
Water
Quality
Group.
We
6
endorse
those
comments
and
we
want
to
focus
our
7
comments
this
afternoon
on
one
primary
area.
We
will
8
address
EPA's
specific
request
in
writing
prior
to
the
9
deadline.
10
AIK
does
not
believe
that
USEPA's
11
disapproval
of
401
KAR
5:
030
in
1997
and
in
2000
was
12
consistent
with
the
Clean
Water
Act.
The
Clean
Water
13
Act
clearly
vests
state
water
pollution
control
14
agencies
with
the
primary
responsibility
for
15
establishing
state
water
quality
standards
including
16
antidegradation
implementation
procedures.
Although
17
USEPA
has
the
authority
to
review
and
to
disapprove
18
state­
established
water
quality
standards
where
they
19
are
inconsistent
with
the
Clean
Water
Act
and
20
implementing
regulations,
USEPA's
rejection
of
the
21
Kentucky
antidegradation
implementation
regulation
was
22
not
based
on
any
failure
to
comply
with
federal
law
or
23
regulations.
Instead
the
federal
disapproval
was
based
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
33
on
an
alleged
failure
to
comply
with
the
intent
of
the
1
federal
antidegradation
program
as
perceived
by
the
2
reviewing
parties.
In
the
absence
of
a
federal
3
regulation
establishing
procedures
for
state
4
implementation
of
Clean
Water
Act
antidegradation
5
programs,
such
decisions
are
reserved
to
the
state
6
water
pollution
control
agencies
rather
than
to
USEPA.
7
If
it
is
conceded
for
the
purposes
of
8
discussion
only
that
USEPA's
disapproval
of
the
9
regulation
was
a
legitimate
exercise
of
federal
10
authority,
AIK
remains
firmly
of
the
opinion
that
the
11
present
USEPA
proposal
is
not
a
valid
or
appropriate
12
regulatory
response
to
the
disapproval.
EPA's
13
disapproval
involved
only
the
selection
criteria
for
14
reclassification
of
Tier
I
use­
protected
waters
to
a
15
higher
antidegradation
classification.
EPA's
present
16
proposal
would
affect
not
only
the
selection
criteria
17
but
also
the
other
procedural
and
substantive
18
provisions
of
401
KAR
5:
030
that
were
previously
19
approved
by
EPA.
These
include:
20
Default
classification
to
Tier
1
water,
21
rather
than
a
default
to
a
"
traditional"
Tier
2;
22
Twenty
percent
increase
over
permitted
23
discharge
as
a
definition
of
"
significant"
for
purposes
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
34
of
new
or
expanded
discharge;
and,
1
Use
of
the
designational
approach
rather
2
than
consideration
of
a
parameter­
by­
parameter
3
approach.
4
Since
EPA
has
not
found
those
procedural
5
and
substantive
provisions
to
be
inconsistent
with
the
6
Clean
Water
Act
and,
in
fact,
has
previously
approved
7
them,
EPA
has
no
authority
to
change
those
provisions
8
incident
to
its
promulgation
of
Tier
II
selection
9
criteria
and
any
effort
to
do
so
would
conflict
with
10
the
relationship
between
the
states
and
EPA
established
11
under
the
Clean
Water
Act.
12
As
the
previous
two
speakers
have
said,
13
AIK
firmly
believes
that
this
is
a
matter
that
should
14
be
address
within
the
context
of
the
state's
triennial
15
review
which
is
upcoming
and
urges
EPA
to
consider
what
16
the
state
ends
up
doing
in
that
manner.
Thank
you.
17
MR.
McGILL:
The
next
speaker,
18
I
am
going
to
have
to
spell
the
last
name.
I
don't
19
want
to
mispronounce
another
name.
First
name
is
Lee;
20
last
name,
I
think
it
is
D­
e­
w.
21
MR.
DEW:
That
is
correct.
I
22
realize
that
it
is
a
very
complicated
and
difficult
23
name.
It
is
the
one
I
was
stuck
with
at
birth
and
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
35
consequently,
I
have
to
claim
it,
yes.
1
MR.
McGILL:
I
just
wanted
to
2
make
sure.
3
MR.
DEW:
If
I
seem
just
a
4
little
bit
disoriented
because
I
have
traveled
here
5
from
obviously
a
quite
different
planet
than
the
6
previous
speakers
live
on,
my
name
is
Lee
A.
Dew,
7
D­
e­
w,
2015
Griffith
Place
East,
Owensboro,
Kentucky
8
42301.
I
am
Director
of
the
Sierra
Club
Water
Sentinel
9
program
for
Western
Kentucky
and
am
Secretary­
Treasurer
10
of
the
Tradewater/
Lower
Green
River
Watershed
Watch,
a
11
volunteer
citizen
water
monitoring
program.
12
The
Clean
Water
Act
was
designed
to
13
"
restore
and
maintain
the
chemical,
physical
and
14
biological
integrity
of
the
nation's
waters."
15
Unfortunately,
the
integrity
of
the
waterways
of
the
16
Tradewater/
Lower
Green
River
watershed
have
been
17
compromised.
18
The
Tradewater/
Lower
Green
River
19
Watershed
Watch
and
Western
Kentucky
Water
Sentinels
20
program
have
sampled
nearly
100
sites
since
the
year
21
2000
on
approximately
50
specific
waterways
in
Western
22
Kentucky
which
I
list
here
in
my
written
statement.
23
Pollutants
include
fecal
coliform,
acid
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
36
mine
drainage,
agricultural
chemicals
and
dissolved
1
metals.
In
2002,
Sierra
Club
Water
Sentinels
tested
50
2
sites
of
which
only
three,
or
6%
were
at
or
below
KDOW
3
maximums
for
those
parameters.
We
have
streams
in
4
Western
Kentucky
that
are
so
acidic
that
not
even
fecal
5
coliform
can
survive.
6
We
have
major
conductivity
problems
on
7
some
of
our
streams,
and
next
year
we
hope
to
begin
8
measuring
turbidity­­
a
major
problem
in
Western
9
Kentucky,
the
center
of
grain
production
in
the
10
Commonwealth.
11
If
we
are
to
have
an
antidegradation
12
program
that
will
work
in
the
Lower
Green
River
13
watershed,
we
must
have
an
enforceable
nonpoint
source
14
program,
with
enforcement
and
oversight
of
Agricultural
15
Water
Quality
Plans.
There
must
be
mandatory
16
oversight,
not
only
on
antidegradation
standards,
but
17
oversight
of
enforcement
of
these
standards.
18
We
have
in
our
state
no
Outstanding
19
Natural
Resource
Waters
but
we
do
have
some
segments
of
20
High
Quality
or
Tier
II
water
which
qualify
to
certain
21
standards.
We
desperately
need
tailored
permitting
to
22
fit
individual
water­
quality
standards,
and
enforcement
23
statutes
and
agricultural
BMP's
to
protect
against
non­
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
37
point
source
impairment.
1
We
need
implementation
of
the
EPA
2
training
model
standard
for
parameter­
by­
parameter
3
evaluation
of
permits.
There
should
be
no
exemptions,
4
including
agriculture,
from
these
standards.
This
5
should
include
both
categorical
and
"
de
minimis"
6
exemptions­­
20%
is
much
too
high
a
threshold
in
our
7
opinion.
8
An
antidegradation
policy
for
Kentucky
9
should
be
practical
and
specific
enough
to
permit
KDOW
10
to
write
an
acceptable
regulation.
Public
11
participation
and
review
is
an
absolute
essential,
and
12
dramatically
increased
monitoring
should
be
required.
13
In
this
time
of
budgetary
constraints,
there
are
14
hundreds
of
citizen
volunteer
water
monitors,
trained
15
to
KDOW
protocols,
whose
work
should
be
given
increased
16
attention.
17
Any
antidegradation
policy
should
also
18
contain
a
standard
for
turbidity,
and
greater
attention
19
to
conductivity
standards,
as
well
as
bacteriological,
20
organic,
and
specific
metal
standards.
21
These
things
we
owe
to
our
children
and
22
to
our
grandchildren's
generation.
Thank
you
very
23
much.
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
38
MR.
McGILL:
The
next
speaker
1
is
Aloma
Dew.
(
No
response)
2
MR.
DEW:
She
has
been
called
3
away
to
meet
with
the
Cabinet
Secretary
and
asked
that
4
she
be
put
at
the
end
of
the
list,
please.
5
MR.
McGILL:
The
next
speaker
6
is
Betsy
Bennett.
7
MS.
BENNETT:
My
name
is
Betsy
8
Bennett
and
I
am
here
with
Sierra
Club
but
my
comments
9
today
are
presented
on
behalf
of
the
chair
of
the
10
committee
that
coordinates
Kentucky
Watershed
Watch
11
Program,
Inter­
Basin
Coordinating
Committee
and
his
12
name
is
Bruce
Scott,
not
to
be
confused
with
the
other
13
Bruce
Scott,
Division
of
Water.
14
Bruce
Scott
asked
me
to
tell
you
that
15
Watershed
Watch,
a
statewide
monitoring
network
of
1000
16
citizen
volunteers
who
are
trained
to
evaluate
and
17
sample
streams
have
looked
at
this
rule
and
are
18
concerned.
In
cooperation
with
many
of
the
state's
19
universities,
we
have
produced
sound
scientific
data
on
20
about
600
Kentucky
stream
sites
every
year.
Watershed
21
Watch
has
trained
over
3000
Kentuckians
in
stream
22
science
and
watershed
planning
over
its
five
years
of
23
existence.
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
39
Mr.
Scott's
personal
involvement
with
1
Kentucky
streams
began
with
the
Middle
Fork
of
2
Beargrass
Creek
in
Louisville,
where
he
leads
a
group
3
of
volunteers
who
sample
weekly
for
fecal
coliform
at
a
4
picnic
area
where
children
wade
in
the
summertime.
The
5
Middle
Fork
passes
through
many
parks
and
recreation
6
facilities
in
Louisville,
including
Cherokee
Park,
the
7
flagship
of
our
Olmsted
park
system.
The
Middle
Fork,
8
is
303(
d)
listed
for
fecal
coliform
and,
therefore,
9
exempted
under
current
Kentucky
rules
from
10
antidegradation
policies.
Remarkably,
aquatic
life
in
11
the
Middle
Fork
is
good,
but
under
current
rules,
the
12
stream's
aquatic
health
is
not
protected
from
further
13
degradation.
14
Mr.
Scott
has
found
that
it
is
15
remarkable
that
EPA
twice
found
Kentucky's
standards
16
deficient
on
this
important
component
of
the
Clean
17
Water
Act
over
the
last
seven­
year
period;
acted
only
18
after
the
threat
of
a
lawsuit
to
step
up
to
their
19
statutory
mandate;
and
yet,
proposes
a
solution
so
20
vague
that
it
invites
Kentucky's
rule­
makers
to
21
continue
to
dither
while
industrial
forms
of
22
development
and
resource
extraction
change
our
23
landscape,
pollute
our
streams,
and
destroy
them
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
40
forever.
1
The
proposed
rule
needs
more
specificity
2
if
it
is
to
impact
Kentucky's
antidegradation
process
3
during
his
lifetime.
Certain
processes
clearly
4
required
by
the
Clean
Water
Act
need
to
be
carefully
5
delineated
in
the
federal
rule,
and
their
6
implementation
required.
7
Streams
that
receive
Tier
II
8
protections,
and
how
they
receive
those
protections,
9
should
be
defined
by
the
rule.
10
Criteria
for
aquatic
habitat
or
human
11
recreation
currently
exist
in
Kentucky
regulation.
12
Permittees
should
be
required
to
provide
scientifically
13
sound
data
with
their
applications
to
help
Kentucky
14
determine
whether
criteria
for
either
use
are
exceeded,
15
thus
qualifying
them
for
Tier
II
protections.
If
any
16
criteria
are
exceeded,
then
the
anti­
degradation
17
processes
as
specified
by
the
Clean
Water
Act
for
Tier
18
II
streams
must
be
applied.
19
The
category
of
"
Excellent"
and
the
use
20
designation
of
"
Outstanding
State
Resource
Water"
are
21
bogus
categories
currently
used
by
Kentucky
that
22
actually
work
to
limit
the
number
of
streams
that
23
receive
protection.
They
should
be
eliminated
by
the
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
41
federal
rule.
1
Kentucky's
practice
of
excluding
all
2
303(
d)
listed
stream
from
Tier
II
is
unconscionable,
3
because
the
listing
may
be
based
on
non­
attainment
of
4
just
one
or
two
covered
uses­­
recreation
and
habitat­­
5
or
non­
attainment
of
just
one
parameter
of
a
covered
6
use.
7
In
addition,
EPA
must
define
in
more
8
detail:
9
The
extent
to
which
an
applicant
must
10
document
social
and
economic
benefits.
11
The
circumstances
under
which
an
12
applicant
must
explore
feasible
technology
and
best
13
management
practices;
and
14
Procedures
for
evaluating
the
proposed
15
technology
and
best
management
practices,
and
for
16
evaluating
assertions
of
social
and
economic
benefit.
17
Above
all,
the
anti­
degradation
process
18
must
be
transparent
to
the
public:
19
Freedom
of
Information
requests
should
20
be
unnecessary
when
an
applicant
proposes
to
degrade
a
21
Tier
II
stream,
and
unnecessary
for
examining
the
track
22
record
of
an
application
to
renew
a
discharge
permit
to
23
a
Tier
II
stream.
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
42
Ideally,
the
rule
will
require
that
1
permit
applications
(
MDMRs
for
renewal
applications)
2
for
Tier
II
streams
be
posted
on
the
website
and
that
3
the
decision­
making
on
the
anti­
degradation
process
be
4
documented
in
full
public
view.
5
Thank
you
for
this
opportunity
to
6
comment.
7
MR.
McGILL:
The
next
speaker
8
is
Doug
and
I
apologize
again.
It
is
recognizing
the
9
handwritten
letters
that
I
am
having
a
problem
with.
10
MR.
DOERRFELD:
Does
it
begin
11
with
a
"
D"?
12
MR.
McGILL:
Yes
sir.
13
MR.
DOERRFELD:
Doerrfeld.
My
14
name
is
Doug
Doerrfeld.
I
am
vice­
chairman
of
15
Kentuckians
For
The
Commonwealth,
a
statewide
citizens'
16
social
justice
organization
that
has
worked
to
protect
17
Kentucky's
quality
of
life
through
the
proper
use
and
18
protection
of
our
natural
resources
since
1981.
19
What
can
be
more
important
to
a
20
community
than
clean
water?
What
can
be
more
damaging
21
to
a
community
than
waterways
that
carry
disease
and
22
harmful
chemicals?
23
Thirty
years
ago,
Congress
determined
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
43
that
a
healthy
future
for
the
United
States
and
its
1
citizens
meant
a
healthy
environment.
The
Clean
Water
2
Act
was
a
pledge
to
the
American
people
that
our
3
waterways
would
not
be
sacrificed
for
short­
term
4
economic
gains.
Further,
polluted
waterways
would
be
5
cleaned
up.
EPA
and
the
state
of
Kentucky
have
largely
6
ignored
that
pledge.
With
the
proposal
we
are
7
addressing
today,
another
chance
was
given
to
make
good
8
on
that
pledge
with
an
anti­
degradation
policy
to
9
protect
Kentuckians
and
to
serve
as
a
model
for
the
10
nation.
Unfortunately,
this
proposed
policy
fails,
11
once
again,
to
uphold
that
promise.
12
KFTC
does
appreciate
the
fact
that
EPA
13
has
finally
issued
a
proposed
anti­
degradation
policy
14
for
Kentucky.
It
is
long
overdue.
However,
given
the
15
weak
and
vague
nature
of
this
current
proposal,
it
is
16
still
overdue.
KFTC
supports
the
comments
of
the
17
Kentucky
Waterways
Alliance,
Kentucky
Resource
Council,
18
Sierra
Club,
and
other
environmental
groups
as
to
the
19
technical
deficiencies
and
weaknesses
of
the
current
20
proposal.
KFTC
also
wishes
to
point
out
that
while
21
many
arguments
will
be
made
about
technical
aspects
of
22
this
program
and
specific
wording
of
the
rules,
what
23
this
is
about
is
the
health
of
every
man,
woman
and
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
44
child
in
Kentucky.
In
that
regard,
we
cannot
be
weak.
1
We
cannot
be
vague.
We
cannot
keep
caving
in
to
2
polluter's
demands.
We
need
a
strong
anti­
degradation
3
policy
that
mandates
the
protection
of
all
our
4
waterways
without
compromise
and
without
exception.
5
That
is
what
the
promise
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
was
and
6
that
is
what
we
expect
from
our
state
and
federal
of
7
officials.
8
The
fact
that
30
years
after
the
Clean
9
Water
Act
the
state
is
still
issuing
warnings
against
10
eating
of
fish
from
almost
all
Kentucky's
streams
is
11
appalling.
The
fact
that
it
is
unsafe
for
our
children
12
to
swim
in
many
of
Kentucky's
rivers
and
streams
is
13
unacceptable.
The
fact
that
farmers
bear
extra
expense
14
when
polluted
waters
cause
sickness
to
their
livestock
15
or
they
have
to
find
an
alternative
water
supply
is
16
absurd.
The
fact
that
pristine
streams
in
eastern
and
17
western
Kentucky
could
soon
be
buried
under
coal
18
company's
mine
wastes,
as
hundreds
of
miles
already
has
19
been,
is
just
plain
wrong.
The
fact
that
a
community
20
could
lose
the
ability
to
add
good
jobs
because
a
21
stream's
quality
has
gotten
so
bad
that
no
more
22
discharges
can
be
permitted
is
outrageous.
23
The
people
of
Kentucky
should
not
be
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
45
denied
the
full
use
and
enjoyment
of
our
natural
1
resources
and
natural
beauty.
The
people
of
Kentucky
2
should
not
have
to
bear
the
brunt
of
the
continued
3
degradation
of
our
waterways
through
added
costs,
4
higher
taxes
and
poorer
health.
But,
we
do
not
need
an
5
anti­
degradation
policy
that
merely
slows
the
rate
of
6
stream
impairment.
We
do
not
even
need
a
policy
that
7
just
halts
any
further
impairment
of
our
streams.
We
8
need
a
policy
that
reverses
the
years
of
neglect
that
9
our
waterways
have
suffered,
a
policy
that
places
the
10
highest
possible
protections
on
the
maximum
number
of
11
our
streams.
Such
a
policy
would
help
us
refocus
on
12
the
true
goals
of
the
Clean
Water
Act.
Again,
EPA's
13
proposal
falls
far
short
of
those
goals.
14
Two
specific
areas
where
EPA's
proposal
15
falls
short
relate
to
public
information
and
citizen
16
involvement,
areas
that
should
be
given
the
highest
17
regard.
Kentucky
has
a
number
of
neighborhood,
county,
18
watershed
and
statewide
citizens
groups
dedicated
to
19
preserving
and
protecting
our
waterways.
Kentucky
20
citizens
want
clean
water
and
we
are
willing
to
get
21
involved
to
help
bring
this
about.
KFTC
specifically
22
calls
for
a
strengthening
of
the
public
information
and
23
citizen
involvement
sections
of
this
policy.
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
46
To
adopt
a
weak
anti­
degradation
program
1
is
to
tell
the
people
of
Kentucky
that
our
health
does
2
not
matter.
It
is
to
say
that
profit,
greed,
or
3
political
cowardice
carry
more
weight
than
the
well­
4
being
of
Kentuckians.
KFTC
urges
an
across­
the­
board
5
strengthening
of
this
proposal
so
that
we
can
begin
to
6
realize
the
goals
of
the
Clean
Water
Act.
7
MR.
McGILL:
The
next
speaker
8
is
Teena
Halbig.
9
MS.
HALBIG:
I'm
Teena
Halbig.
10
I
am
co­
chair
of
Floyds
Fork
Environmental
Association.
11
We
are
in
Louisville,
Kentucky
in
Jefferson
County.
12
Our
mission,
FFEA,
our
mission
is
to
protect,
preserve,
13
and
conserve
Floyds
Fork
Creek
and
its
tributaries.
In
14
Jefferson
County,
we
have
167
miles
that
also
includes
15
the
tributaries.
Floyds
Fork
flows
through
five
16
counties.
I
actually
have
the
brochures
that
you
can
17
see
within
and
into
the
Salt
River
and
on
to
the
Ohio
18
River.
Our
members
include
residents
that
live
in
the
19
Floyds
Fork
Corridor
and
on
tributaries
as
well
as
20
those
who
recreate
in,
around,
and
on
the
water.
And
21
I've
got
the
brochures
here
for
you.
22
For
over
a
decade,
we
have
worked
with
23
local
government
to
have
annual
creek
cleanups.
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
47
Initially,
we
removed
10
tons
and
we
have
done
that
1
more
than
once,
and
seven
tons
and
five
tons
and
the
2
tonnage
continues
to
decrease.
3
We
were
successful
in
gaining
the
4
state's
attention
in
1991
and
this
resulted
in
the
5
"
1992
Floyds
Fork
Water
Quality
Study"
and
a
moratorium
6
still
in
effect
today
for
no
more
package
plants
on
the
7
main
stem
of
Floyds
Fork
Creek.
8
Due
to
our
leadership,
an
additional
9
layer
of
planning
and
zoning
guidelines
were
enacted
in
10
Jefferson
County
in
1993.
Some
of
us
were
on
a
task
11
force
for
a
year
and
a
half
because
of
our
concerns
12
about
water
quality.
Our
County
Judge/
Executive
said,
13
"
If
we
lose
the
ecology,
we
could
never
replace
it"
and
14
he
called
Floyds
Fork
"
a
natural
treasure".
15
Some
years
ago,
we
were
part
of
a
16
coalition
that
met
with
the
Federal
Government
over
the
17
Superfund
site
of
"
Red
Penn"
Landfill.
18
We've
been
successful
in
having
several
19
package
plants
taken
off
line.
20
We
also
initiated
action
to
keep
a
21
diffuser
out
of
the
Ohio
River.
22
While
we
have
numerous
accomplishments,
23
one
of
the
most
disappointing
and
unsuccessful
attempt
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
48
took
place
some
years
ago:
while
trying
to
get
1
information
from
the
state's
David
Yancey
to
get
Floyds
2
Fork
Creek
listed
as
an
"
outstanding
resource
water".
3
So
Floyds
Fork
could
have
been
years
ago
where
it
would
4
have
more
protection
for
its
outstanding
scenic
beauty.
5
Yes,
it
has
aesthetic
value,
ecological
value,
flora
6
and
fauna,
geology,
and
all.
Now
it
is
listed
on
the
7
303(
d)
list
­
along
with
several
of
its
tributaries.
8
This
stream
still
deserves
protection
­
9
much
like
many
of
our
streams
in
Kentucky.
We
would
10
like
to
see
the
Tier
I
"
impaired"
waters
designation
11
just
removed.
Instead,
only
use
"
High
Quality
Water"
12
an
drop
the
Tier
II
designation.
In
other
words,
only
13
say
Use
Protected
Waters
are
High
Quality
Waters.
14
While
it
is
best
(
in
our
opinion
and
in
15
keeping
with
the
Clean
Water
Act)
to
use
both
16
biological
and
chemical
testing
to
assess
High
Quality
17
Waters,
the
caveat
of
the
state
looking
at
ways
to
18
lower
any
excessive
value
is
imperative.
For
example:
19
If
you
have
a
high
fecal
coliform,
the
state
should
20
look
at
ways
to
decrease
the
count.
This
was
actually
21
done
by
the
state
and
reported
by
the
state
in
their
22
"
Land,
Air
&
Water"
publication
a
few
years
ago.
In
23
other
words,
streams
can
show
improvement
in
the
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
49
values.
This
is
truly
the
only
way
to
meet
the
intent
1
and
spirit
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
of
1972.
Use
both
2
methods:
biological
and
chemical
­
then
look
for
ways
3
to
lower
the
values.
Please
don't
just
identify
a
4
problem.
An
attempt
to
resolve
the
problem
should
be
5
made
to
restore.
We
should
be
looking
for
ways
to
6
restore.
This
is
restoration
and
results
in
cleaner
7
water.
8
You
can't
really
maintain
something
9
unless
you
can
restore
it.
10
In
Louisville,
we
have
the
Kentucky
11
Pollution
Prevention
Center
at
the
University
of
12
Louisville.
When
it
does
an
assessment
of
a
business,
13
it
is
kept
confidential.
Sometimes
these
businesses
14
want
to
confirm
because
they
have
literally
been
able
15
to
save
millions
of
dollars,
sometimes
as
much
as
five
16
million
dollars.
Many
millions
of
these
dollars
have
17
been
made
by
these
businesses
when
the
KPPC
identified
18
the
way
the
businesses
could
recycle,
reuse
or
sell
19
materials
to
another
company
or
substitute
a
less
toxic
20
chemical
or
bioaccumulative
material
or
even
a
21
different
chemical
for
their
process
or
even
a
22
different
process.
Perhaps
the
KPPC
could
evaluate
23
more
or
the
state
could
set
up
its
own
system
and
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
50
receive
a
percentage
of
the
company's
savings
to
pay
1
for
any
state
costs.
Additionally
there
could
be
2
outreach
to
more
experts
whether
they
be
at
3
universities
or
businesses
or
at
the
state
or
experts
4
in
other
states.
Just
take
a
moment
to
wonder
what
the
5
payoff
could
be
for
our
Commonwealth.
6
Years
ago,
I
said
if
a
person
or
7
business
has
something
toxic
to
get
rid
of,
they
should
8
be
able
to
go
to
their
government
to
get
disposal.
9
Some
years
later,
a
Junk
Pickup
was
initiated.
This
10
has
turned
into
an
ongoing
annual
event
and
operation­
11
businesses
have
been
created.
Today,
we
have
recycling
12
centers
that
have
been
built
to
lessen
the
burden
on
13
our
landfill
in
Jefferson
County.
Has
there
been
a
14
payoff?
Definitely|
15
The
state
could
recommend
such
a
16
pollution
prevention
assessment
be
done
as
a
17
prerequisite
for
permitting.
Allowing
removal
of
18
pollutants
before
discharge
will
result
in
cleaner
19
water
and
safer
drinking
water.
State
toxicologists
20
should
also
be
allowed
comment
and
MODS
sheets
should
21
be
given
to
the
state.
The
state
can
also
request
22
the
permit
applicant
to
collect
data
or
do
surveys.
23
EPA
suggests
identifying
High
Quality
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
51
Waters
be
done
as
follows:
1
(
1)
On
a
parameter­
by­
parameter
or
2
pollutant­
by­
pollutant;
3
(
2)
Designational
­
may
meet
one
use
and
4
not
the
other.
5
Again,
we
urge
that
if
any
parameter
or
6
use
is
not
met,
the
source
should
be
determined
and
7
steps
taken
to
remedy
this
so
the
intent
of
the
Clean
8
Water
Act
is
met.
Restoration
is
the
answer.
9
FFEA
is
100%
supportive
of
10
Antidegradation
Water
Quality
standards
that
are:
11
(
1)
Protective
of
public
health
and
12
welfare;
13
(
2)
Enhance
quality
of
water;
14
(
3)
Meet
the
objective
of
the
Clean
15
Water
Act
to
restore,
emphasis
on
restore,
and
maintain
16
the
chemical,
physical,
and
biological
integrity
of
the
17
nation's
waters.
18
If
you
will
continue
to
look
at
these
19
three
points
and
can
apply
them
to
antidegradation
rags
20
written,
the
rags
will
be
right.
Please
don't
forget
21
restoration
and
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
22
comment.
23
MR.
McGILL:
The
next
speaker
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
52
is
Heather
Mayfield.
1
MS.
MAYFIELD:
I
am
Heather
2
Mayfield,
and
I
am
a
project
director
of
the
Sierra
3
Club
Water
Sentinels
Program
in
Northern
Kentucky.
We
4
are
a
volunteer
water
quality
monitoring
program
and
5
our
program
also
works
with
students
at
Northern
6
Kentucky
University
to
develop
research
projects
around
7
some
of
the
streams
that
we
are
currently
monitoring.
8
I
appreciate
this
opportunity
to
comment
9
not
only
on
behalf
of
my
volunteers
in
the
Sierra
Club
10
and
the
Sierra
Club,
but
on
behalf
of
many
Kentuckians
11
who
couldn't
attend
this
hearing
because
they
are
12
working
and
taking
care
of
their
families.
When
13
congress
implemented
the
Clean
Water
Act
in
1972,
it
14
was
so
these
citizens
could
take
care
of
their
families
15
and
raise
their
children
without
having
to
worry
about
16
irreparable
damage
that
was
being
done
to
their
rivers,
17
lakes
and
streams.
Today,
30
years
later,
Kentucky
18
families
are
far
away
from
having
this
luxury.
This
is
19
because
our
Division
of
Water
is
incapable
of
20
implementing
an
Antidegradation
rule
that
upholds
21
standards
mandated
by
the
Clear
Water
Act.
22
Even
though
the
EPA
is
required
by
23
federal
law
to
do
something
about
this
problem,
it
took
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
53
the
threat
of
litigation
for
EPA
to
finally
step
in
and
1
propose
an
antidegradation
rule
that
would
correct
the
2
shortcomings
in
Kentucky's
regulations.
However,
the
3
rule
that
EPA
proposed
in
2002
does
little
to
account
4
for
many
of
the
flaws
that
had
driven
the
agency
to
5
reject
the
Cabinet's
antidegradation
regulations
twice
6
before.
7
For
instance,
the
EPA
ignores
the
8
guidance
given
in
its
own
training
modules
and
its
9
Water
Quality
Handbook,
and
allows
the
Cabinet
to
10
continue
using
the
designational
approach
for
11
determining
which
waters
in
the
Commonwealth
are
12
deserving
of
Tier
II
protection.
This
oversight
single
13
handedly
leaves
over
98%
of
Kentucky's
waters
open
to
14
degradation
because
they
are
not
considered
"
high
15
quality"
waters.
And
waters
that
have
uses
that
are
16
already
impaired
are
excluded
from
protection
from
17
further
degradation
even
though
these
impairments
may
18
only
be
limited
to
one
or
two.
Now
how
backward
is
19
that?
Why
shouldn't
a
stream
that
is
already
impaired
20
with
fecal
coliform
be
protected
from
new
discharges
of
21
heavy
metals?
Why
shouldn't
that
same
stream,
which
22
may
have
an
impaired
primary
contact
recreation
use,
23
receive
any
less
protection
than
a
stream
that
is
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
54
meeting
its
designated
secondary
contact
recreation
1
use?
Likewise,
it
makes
no
sense
for
the
Cabinet
to
2
allow
already
good
water
quality
in
any
stream
to
3
dwindle
to
the
point
where
the
stream
is
just
meeting
4
its
uses.
That
is
a
one­
way
ticket
to
impairment.
5
The
EPA
rule
must
require
the
Cabinet
to
6
take
a
parameter
by
parameter
approach
in
assessing
7
waters
that
deserve
Tier
II
protection.
This
approach
8
would
afford
almost
all
of
Kentucky's
waters,
including
9
Exceptional
and
impaired
waters,
protection
from
10
degradation.
Enforcing
the
parameter
by
parameter
11
approach
is
the
only
way
that
Kentucky's
polluted
12
waters
will
ever
be
restored,
and
that
its
good
quality
13
waters
will
be
maintained.
14
Isn't
that
the
main
goal
of
the
Clean
15
Water
Act
to
"
restore
and
maintain
the
physical,
16
chemical,
and
biological
integrity
of
the
nation's
17
waters?"
18
However,
in
order
for
the
parameter
by
19
parameter
approach
to
provide
effective
protection
of
20
Tier
II
streams,
EPA's
proposed
rule
must
account
for
21
loopholes
in
Tier
II
antidegradation
processes.
22
Currently,
the
few
Exceptional
waters
that
the
Cabinet
23
affords
Tier
II
protection
are
not
subject
to
proper
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
55
antidegradation
process
requirements.
And
under
the
1
new
EPA
rule,
these
streams
are
still
subject
to
2
discharges
of
carbonaceous
oxygen
demand,
ammonia,
3
total
residual
chloride,
total
suspended
solids,
4
phosphorus,
oxygen,
whole
effluent
toxicity,
and
fecal
5
coliform,
without
the
discharger
proving
any
socio­
6
economic
need
for
these
pollutants,
as
long
as
they
are
7
less
than
what's
allowed
in
a
Tier
I
protected
stream.
8
Additionally,
the
EPA
rule
does
not
set
a
numerical
9
limit
for
the
amount
of
pollution
that
can
be
added
to
10
a
Tier
II
stream
without
any
antidegradation
analysis.
11
This
number
should
logically
be
very
small.
However,
12
because
EPA
does
not
set
a
numerical
"
de
minimis"
limit
13
in
its
proposed
rule,
the
Cabinet
will
likely
continue
14
to
set
"
de
minimis"
pollution
limits
at
an
astounding
15
20%.
And
I
really
do
think
that
this
affords
16
Kentucky's
streams
certain
death
by
what
I
call
a
17
falcon
cut.
As
Doug
pointed
out,
that
is
unfair
that
a
18
business
that
may
provide
a
legitimate
social
and
19
economic
benefit
to
the
community
can't
have
the
right
20
to
discharge
in
a
stream
because
some
other
company
has
21
already
taken
that
right
away.
22
In
addition
to
correcting
these
23
oversights
in
Kentucky's
antidegradation
process,
the
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
56
EPA
rule
must
clearly
define
criteria
used
to
conduct
1
antidegradation
analyses.
Permit
writers
need
these
2
criteria
defined
in
order
to
develop
permits
that
are
3
considered
legal
under
the
Clean
Water
Act.|
The
new
4
EPA
rule
must
clearly
define
when
Tier
II
5
antidegradation
analysis
should
be
conducted,
it
should
6
specify
what
type
of
information
is
required
of
an
7
applicant,
it
should
make
a
written
analysis
of
8
discharge
alternatives
available
to
the
public,
and
it
9
should
provide
a
written
analysis
of
what
social
and
10
economic
benefits
the
applicant
will
bring
to
a
11
community.
Furthermore,
if
there
is
any
indication
12
that
water
quality
will
be
lowered,
this
information
13
must
be
included
with
any
published
notice
of
the
14
permit,
and
made
easily
available
to
the
public.
15
Finally,
the
EPA
must
apply
these
criteria
to
all
16
permitting
actions,
including
404
permits
and
401
17
certifications,
as
well
as
KPDES
permits
that
were
18
granted
under
the
Cabinet's
deficient
regulations.
19
Although
many
of
us
here
today
are
20
pleased
that
the
EPA
has
proposed
an
antidegradation
21
rule
for
Kentucky,
we
are
frustrated
that
we
have
to
22
spell
out
blatant
flaws
that
would
have
been
avoided
23
had
the
EPA
simply
applied
their
own
standards
to
this
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
57
process.
We're
frustrated
that
this
rule
is
setting
a
1
national
precedent,
yet
over
1,000
of
Kentucky's
2
rivers,
lakes,
and
streams
are
in
jeopardy
because
of
3
it.|
Kentucky's
families,
as
well
as
our
nation,
4
deserve
better
than
this.|
5
And
I
wanted
to
take
a
moment
to
go
back
6
to
the
public
comment
thing
I
was
talking
about.
I
7
mentioned
earlier
in
our
press
conference
that
one
of
8
my
jobs
as
a
volunteer
water
quality
monitor
and
9
coordinator
is
to
give
my
volunteers
a
sense
of
10
ownership
of
their
stream.
Well,
unfortunately,
many
11
people
who
aren't
involved
in
these
types
of
groups,
12
your
average
Kentuckians,
they
don't
even
know
what
13
these
rules
of
ownership
are.
So
I
honestly
believe
if
14
this
process
was
made
clear
and
accessible
to
the
15
public,
the
public
would
definitely
be
willing
to
take
16
an
active
part
in
it
and
you
will
find
that
most
of
17
them
will
agree
that
they
do
not
like
their
rivers,
18
lakes
and
streams
subject
to
this
sort
of
degradation.
19
So
I
think
all
the
environmental
groups
20
here,
we
are
here
to
say
if
you
do
your
job
and
make
21
that
available
to
the
public,
we
will
do
our
best
to
22
educate
the
public
and
get
them
out
into
these
streams
23
so
that
they
can
be
active
members
in
this
decision­
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
58
making
process.
1
Another
example
locally
that
I'll
add
2
to
my
written
comment
is
right
now,
we
are
monitoring
3
two
streams
that
are
impaired
by
jet
fluids
from
the
4
Greater
Cincinnati
Northern
Kentucky
Airport.
Five
5
years
ago,
a
TMDL
was
written
to
get
these
two
streams
6
off
the
impaired
list.
As
recently
as
this
last
year,
7
three
miles
of
one
of
these
streams
was
essentially
8
killed
because
we
didn't
have
a
rain
that
flushed
out
9
the
de­
icing
fluid.
Now
that
is
four
years
after
the
10
cleanup
policy
was
implemented.
11
So
now
in
addition
to
worrying
about
12
getting
these
streams
cleaned
up
in
terms
of
de­
icing
13
fluids
and
biochemical
oxygen
demand,
we
also
have
to
14
worry
about
other
companies
or
industries
discharging
15
other
pollutants
into
these
streams.
This
is
just
16
unacceptable.
17
I
really
do
believe
that
maintaining
our
18
present
water
quality
is
cost
effect
and
that's
how
19
I'll
end
my
comments.
Thanks.
20
MR.
McGILL:
The
next
speaker
21
is
Albert
Ettinger.
22
MR.
ETTINGER:
Hello.
I
am
23
Albert
Ettinger.
I
am
Senior
Staff
Attorney
for
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
59
Environmental
Law
and
Policy
Center.
I
came
down
here
1
from
Chicago.
So
I
guess
we
have
all
had
fun
at
2
airports
lately,
or
some
of
us
have.
3
I
am
here
on
behalf
of
the
Environmental
4
Law
and
Policy
Center
and
I
also
chair
of
the
Water
5
Quality
Committee
of
the
Sierra
Club
and
work
with
6
Clean
Water
Network
on
issues,
particularly
7
antidegradation
nationally.
8
I
am
here
for
a
number
of
reasons.
One,
9
of
course,
we
are
all
very
concerned
about
Kentucky
10
waters.
We
are
also
concerned
about
the
waters
11
downstream
from
Kentucky.
But
finally,
we
are
very
12
concerned
about
what
USEPA
is
doing
here
in
terms
of
13
setting
a
very
bad
policy
which
we
are
going
to
hear
14
across
the
country
or
failing
to
set
a
good
policy.
15
Basically,
although
a
lot
of
the
16
speakers
here
have
come
from
different
directions,
we
17
have
all
agreed
on
one
thing
which
is
that
the
EPA
18
proposal
is
a
total
botch.
What
we
have
seen
here
is
19
the
law
is
quite
clear
when
EPA
refuses
to
accept
the
20
state
rule,
they
are
suppose
to
propose
their
own
rule.
21
The
gentleman
from
the
Chemical
22
Industry
and
Council
and
others
has
pointed
out,
there
23
is
not
enough
detail
in
this
rule
to
be
enforceable.
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
60
Frankly,
if
I
were
a
permit
writer
in
Kentucky
I
would
1
have
no
idea
what
to
do
with
this.
So
you
have
not
2
promulgated
a
good
rule
and
this
is
not
an
enforceable
3
rule.
You
have
not
even
begun
to
formulate
the
form
of
4
compliance
with
the
Clean
Water
Act.
5
Let's
look
at
the
other
problems
with
6
the
proposal
and
where
we
are
here.
First
of
all,
7
stating
this
as
High
Quality
Water
is
a
mistake
to
8
begin
with.
We
should
not
be
thinking
about
how
to
9
define
water,
High
Quality
Water
is
Tier
2.
10
If
you
will
look,
in
fact,
at
the
11
section
that
defines
Tier
2
protection,
the
words
High
12
Quality
do
not
appear.
High
Quality
Waters
appear
13
under
Tier
3
which
they
talk
about
High
Quality
Waters
14
may
be
designated
as
RNOWs.
15
What
we
have
here
is
a
fundamentally
16
mistaken
concept
that
we
are
starting
off
with.
17
Basically,
all
water
should
be
treated
as
High
Quality
18
Waters
for
Tier
2
purposes
because
remember,
Tier
2
19
unlike
Tier
3
is
not
an
absolute
ban
on
pollution.
It
20
says
we'll
only
allow
necessary
pollution.
It
must
be
21
reasonably
necessary
to
accommodate
important
social
or
22
economic
development.
23
If
we
find
that
that
is
the
case,
that
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
61
it
is
reasonably
necessary
for
this,
then
we
will
allow
1
the
new
pollution
under
Tier
2.
What
Tier
2
does
is
2
give
a
procedural
protection
to
protect
clean
water
3
because
obviously,
we
do
not
meet
the
goals
of
the
4
Clean
Water
Act
if
we
allow
unnecessary
pollution
of
5
clean
water.
6
What
we
are
now
looking
at
in
terms
of
7
Tier
2
is
to
what
degree
we
will
allow
going
away
from
8
the
goals
of
the
Clean
Water
Act?
Under
what
9
circumstances?
Let's
go
back
here,
go
way
back
to
10
1972.
I
suppose
you
have
all
looked
at
it.
We
were
11
suppose
to
eliminate
discharges
under
the
goals
of
the
12
Clean
Water
Act
in
1985.
We
were
talking
of
the
NPDES
13
system
or
the
KPDES
system,
that
stands
for
National
14
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System.
15
The
theory
was
that
these
discharges
16
were
to
be
eliminated.
Because
of
that,
obviously
the
17
circumstances
in
which
you
would
allow
or
increase
this
18
discharges
should
be
fairly
infrequent.
They
certainly
19
should
only
take
place
when
they
are
truly
necessary
to
20
accommodate
important
social
or
economic
development.
21
When
you
give
a
pass
to
large
numbers
22
and
say
we
are
not
even
going
to
require
that,
what
you
23
are
in
effect
saying
is
we
are
going
to
allow
the
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
62
systematic
violation
of
the
rules
of
the
Clean
Water
1
Act.
2
Now
let's
look
at
the
ludicrous
example,
3
this
bad
stream
that
is
meeting
virtually
no
standards
4
but
we
would
still
apply
Tier
2
protections
to
it.
Is
5
that
so
bad?
Are
we
ever
going
to
meet
our
Water
6
Quality
Standards
if
we
say
that
because
the
water
has
7
problems
we
are
going
to
let
every
other
parameter
for
8
which
it
doesn't
have
problems
go
downhill.
9
Look
at
say
the
Cuyahoga
River,
the
10
famous
Cuyahoga
River
that
caught
fire.
Well,
it
was
11
probably
meeting
a
lot
of
standards
when
it
caught
fire
12
that
day.
If
we
had
said
as
a
nation,
it
is
okay
to
13
put
as
much
mercury
as
you
want
in
the
Cuyahoga
or
as
14
much
cyanide
as
you
want
in
the
Cuyahoga
or
get
it
just
15
to
where
it
is
just
barely
meeting
standards,
we
would
16
never
meet
our
goals
as
a
country.
17
I
want
to
point
out
something
else
and
18
frankly,
I
was
confused
by
it.
Coming
from
the
19
outside,
I
work
very
closely
on
the
Illinois
standards.
20
I've
looked
at
a
lot
of
other
antidegradation
standards
21
around
the
state.
I
looked
at
the
Exceptional
waters
22
category
for
Kentucky.
23
This
was
suppose
to
be
the
Tier
2.5
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
63
protections.
When
I
looked
at
it
with
any
basic
1
knowledge
of
the
way
standards
are
done
in
the
rest
of
2
the
country
or
what
an
affluent
limit
is,
I
saw
that
3
this
is
not
a
Tier
2.5
standard.
This
is
at
best
a
1.1
4
standard
or
perhaps
more
of
a
Tier
.5
standard
is
5
because
all
it
does
is
specify,
when
you
read
the
6
standard,
particular
affluent
limits
for
a
small
list
7
of
chemicals.
It
doesn't
say
that
you
have
to
meet
any
8
other
standards
and
furthermore,
those
affluent
limits
9
for
phosphorous­­
I
don't
have
the
numbers
in
front
of
10
me
but
I
think
the
prosperous
limit
is
one
milligram
11
per
liter
for
phosphorous
for
an
affluent
limit.
That
12
is
what
you
have
to
meet.
13
One
milligram
per
liter,
that
is
the
14
entire
Great
Lakes
Basin.
Every
discharger
in
the
15
Great
Lakes
have
to
meet
that
standard.
This
is
not
an
16
exceptional
standard.
These
are
not
even
protective.
17
In
fact,
if
we
look
at
your
own
criteria
for
18
phosphorous
you
will
find
that
somebody
meeting
the
19
limits
for
an
Exceptional
water,
discharging
into
a
20
Kentucky
water
will
be
violating
the
proposed
USEPA
21
criteria
document
for
phosphorous
if
there
is
not
22
sufficient
pollution.
23
The
final
thing
I
would
say,
and
I
hope
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
64
there
are
some
Kentucky
officials
here
or
with
us
who
1
will
convey
to
Kentucky,
it
doesn't
have
to
be
this
2
way.
There
are
other
states­­
there
is
a
false
3
dichotomy
that
has
been
set
up
here.
4
The
mind
set
apparently
is
that
either
5
you
are
going
to
have
no
protection
at
all
or
you
have
6
to
have
a
Perry
Mason­
type
trial
before
you
allow
any
7
new
discharge.
That
is
not
the
concept
here.
We
said
8
at
a
lot
of
different
contexts,
you
have
to
look
at
9
each
situation
and
give
the
level
of
analysis
necessary
10
to
it.
11
If
you
have
a
new
trailer
park
12
discharging
into
the
Mississippi
River,
it
is
pretty
13
clear
that
you
are
not
going
to
have
a
massive
effect.
14
The
way
you
look
at
that
is
you
look
at
the
trailer
15
park,
decide
whether
it
is
doing
a
reasonably
good
job.
16
That
could
be
a
one­
page
analysis.
That
could
be
your
17
one­
page
Tier
2
analysis.
18
On
the
other
hand,
if
you
had
a
chemical
19
factory
going
into
a
High
Quality
stream
with
20
endangered
species,
yes,
maybe
you'll
have
an
in
depth
21
analysis
and
you'll
look
carefully
at
the
social
and
22
economic
impact
there.
23
But
most
importantly,
you
will
always
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
65
look
at
alternatives.
The
essence
of
environmental
1
law,
if
I
say
anything,
is
look
at
alternatives.
If
2
you
look
at
the
guideline,
when
they
talk
about
a
3
de
minimis
and
they
say
that
a
five
percent
de
minimis
4
might
be
acceptable
in
a
parameter
by
parameter
basis,
5
a
five
percent
de
minimis
would
be
acceptable.
But
6
even
then
they
say
you
should
look
at
alternatives.
7
And
why
shouldn't
you?
Why
should
they
let
a
trailer
8
park
discharge
into
the
Mississippi
for
no
good
reason?
9
A
little
pollution
adds
up.
10
What
we
come
up
with,
at
least
everybody
11
says
oh,
it
doesn't
matter.
Every
discharger,
every
12
polluter
I've
ever
looked
at
always
says
well,
if
I
13
stop
what
I
am
doing
and
everybody
else
continues
what
14
they
are
doing,
we
won't
have
achieved
anything.
That
15
is
absolutely
true.
16
However,
the
answer
to
that
is
that
17
everybody
has
got
to
clean
up,
not
nobody
or
else
we
18
will
never
restore
and
maintain
the
chemical,
physical
19
and
biological
integrity
of
the
nation's
waters.
20
Thank
you.
I
hope,
however,
that
we
21
don't
have
to
have
a
series
of
hearings
like
this
22
across
the
country
as
we
have
serious
similar
23
situations
in
which
USEPA
has
failed
to
give
directions
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
66
to
the
states
and
failed
to
design
ways
to
give
1
guidance
to
the
states
so
that
we
can
have
workable
2
programs
because
I
can
tell
you,
we
are
going
to
Iowa
3
next.
There
are
a
lot
of
other
states
with
similar
4
programs,
similar
problems
facing
them,
the
same
sorts
5
of
issues
and
I
don't
want
to
travel
that
much
in
the
6
cold,
not
with
the
current
airport
security
certainly.
7
And
I
want
to
say
also
that
there
are
8
states
that
have
done
it
right
and
we
look
to
those.
9
These
states­­
they
may
not
be
perfect
in
other
respects
10
but
there
are
states
that
have
done
it
right,
have
11
looked
at
practical
ways
to
face
some
of
these
12
problems.
I
hope
we
can
work
with
Kentucky
to
come
up
13
with
a
solution
that
gives
perfections
to
all
14
Kentucky's
waters
without
imposing
unnecessary
costs
on
15
anyone.
Thank
you.
16
MR.
McGILL:
The
next
speaker
17
is
Winnie
Hefler.
18
MS.
HEFLER:
Winnie
Hefler,
19
Louisville,
Kentucky.
Forgive
me
if
I
stumble.
I
20
can't
see
with
my
glasses
and
I
can't
see
without
them
21
so
I
am
going
to
have
trouble.
22
Antidegradation
and
restoration
of
all
23
the
nation's
waters
are
basic
elements
of
the
Clean
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
67
Water
Act.
How
can
a
Clean
Water
advocate
take
1
seriously
the
EPA
proposed
antidegradation
standard?
2
EPA
has
rejected,
and
rightly
so,
previous
State
of
3
Kentucky
antidegradation
definitions.
I
do
not
4
remember
what
the
state
proposed
but
the
federal
EPA's
5
rule
can
scarcely
be
any
better.
6
Originally,
I
had
planned
to
offer
7
suggestions
to
strengthen
the
EPA
plan,
but
upon
more
8
reflection
and
considering
recent
environmental
news
9
items,
I
can
only
reject
completely
EPA's
meager
10
offering
and
ask
my
fellow
conservationists
to
await
a
11
better
opportunity
to
press
for
the
long­
needed
anti­
12
degradation
parameters.
13
EPA
does
not
take
its'
clean
water
14
responsibilities
seriously
and
neither
does
Kentucky.
15
In
1972,
the
nation's
waterways
and
aquatic
life
were
16
befriended
by
the
U.
S.
Congress,
thus
rescuing
17
Kentucky's
waters
from
complete
abandonment
by
the
18
state
power
overseeing
water
quality
at
the
time.
19
Many
were
so­
called
sanitarians
whose
20
concern
was
getting
the
waste
water
through
the
21
plumbing
with
scant
concern
about
the
receiving
22
streams'
welfare.
I
well
remember
conservationists'
23
dismay
over
the
Craven
official
plan
to
write
off
a
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
68
Clean
Water
effort
at
that
time
led
by
Bernie
Carter
of
1
the
Fish
and
Wildlife
Department,
David
Short
of
the
2
Attorney
General's
Office
and
Lexington
and
Louisville
3
Sierra
Club
activists
and
others.
4
From
my
point
of
observation,
Clean
5
Water
has
no
government
friends
or
advocates
today.
6
The
polluters
are
in
control,
and
I
recommend
that
we
7
regroup,
while
we
work
very
hard
to
create
a
Clean
8
Water
9
advocacy
among
elected
and
appointed
officials.
10
In
Washington,
the
Bush
Administration
11
is
dismantling
the
Environmental
Movement,
the
Women's
12
Movement
and
the
Civil
Rights
Movement.
We
are
13
presently
in
the
grip
of
an
extremely
reactionary
14
period
and
our
timing
unfortunately,
proves
to
be
off
15
the
mark
and
we
continue
to
be
stalled
with
a
16
vengeance.
17
The
EPA
anti­
degradation
proposal
is
an
18
affront
and
an
insult
to
our
intelligence
and
19
sensibilities.
20
I
think
it
is
prudent
and
wise
to
reject
21
outright
the
rule
rather
than
try
to
improve
it.
There
22
is
no
way
this
can
happen­­
look
at
the
recent
23
environmental
record.
President
Bush's
push
to
undo
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
69
environmental
laws
over
a
wide
spectrum
of
deeply
and
1
passionately
held
American
concerns
from
drilling
in
2
the
Artic
National
Wildlife
Refuge
to
increasing
3
arsenic
in
drinking
water,
from
loosening
coal
power
4
plant
air
pollution
requirements,
to
allowing
and
5
encouraging
snow
mobiles
in
our
great
western
national
6
parks,
from
sacrificing
our
precious
remaining
wetlands
7
to
development
in
agriculture,
to
siccing
the
military
8
on
pristine
areas
on
our
vast
training
reservations
9
that
now
provide
sanctuary
to
threatened
and
endangered
10
species
of
plants
and
animals;
from
approval
of
11
mountaintop
valley
stream
fill
strip
mining
to
a
white
12
wash
of
the
Massey
Coal
in
Martin
County
coal
slurry
13
spell
environmental
disaster.
14
Our
timing
is
off
due
to
the
political
15
climate
in
Washington
and
the
federal
EPA.
KWA's
16
intention
is
not
at
fault.
This
noble
effort
has
been
17
building
for
a
long,
long
time.
For
thirty
years,
18
citizens
have
pleaded
for
an
anti­
degradation
in
state
19
regulations,
but
we
continue
to
be
usurped
by
terrible,
20
blind
business/
government
interests.
I
urge
that
we
21
tell
EPA
to
make
a
much
improved
offer
based
on
the
22
Clean
Water
Act's
statements
addressing
valid
anti­
23
degradation
and
restoration
or
forget
it.
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
70
A
new
reform
climate
is
brewing
in
the
1
country.
In
two
years,
we
need
to
try
again,
beyond
2
this
unhappy
period,
where
we
will
be
dealing
with
a
3
wiser
and
more
logical
official
champion
of
Clean
4
Water.
5
MR.
McGILL:
The
next
speaker
6
is
Judith
Petersen.
7
MS.
PETERSEN:
My
name
is
8
Judith
Petersen.
I
am
the
Executive
Director
of
9
Kentucky
Waterways
Alliance.
Kentucky
Waterways
10
Alliance
is
a
statewide
organization
that
is
dedicated
11
to
protecting
and
restoring
Kentucky's
waterways
and
12
their
watersheds
by
building
effective
alliances
for
13
their
stewardship.
I
will
not
be
the
only
speaker
for
14
KWA
today
and
these
comments
are
meant
to
supplement
15
our
preliminary
written
comments
that
were
submitted
to
16
the
USEPA
on
Wednesday,
January
22.
KWA
will
also
be
17
submitting
additional
written
comments
before
the
end
18
of
the
comment
period.
19
To
say
that
KWA
and
the
coalition
of
20
groups
most
of
which
are
represented
here
today
who
21
filed
the
Notice
of
Intent
to
sue
EPA
are
disappointed
22
in
the
draft
rule,
I
think
is
a
pretty
significant
23
understatement.
We
continue
to
investigate
our
legal
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
71
options
in
this
matter
and
remain
unconvinced
that
EPA
1
has
even
completed
their
oversight
duty
to
propose
an
2
implementation
procedure
and
create
meaningful
3
provisions
to
maintain
levels
of
water
quality
in
4
Kentucky.
After
waiting
over
five
years
while
EPA
and
5
the
state
of
Kentucky
continued
to
issue
discharge
6
permits
without
a
meaningful
and
protective
7
implementation
policy,
the
citizens
in
this
state
8
waited
an
additional
year
and
a
half
for
EPA
to
propose
9
this
rule,
which
again
in
kind
terms
can
only
be
called
10
guidance.
11
Actually,
Lloyd,
if
you
are
still
here.
12
I
agree
with
you
that
the
legal
and
technical
13
deficiencies
in
this
rule
are
significant
and
that
the
14
rule
lacks
sufficient
detail
to
actually
implement
in
15
terms
of
writing
KPDES
permits.
16
Now
in
violation
of
the
Clean
Water
Act,
17
EPA
has
attempted
to
basically
toss
this
mess
back
to
18
the
state
that
has
been
unable
to
propose
a
policy
that
19
meets
federal
regulations,
with
only
vague
guidance
20
coming
in
the
form
of
"
Supplementary
Information"
to
21
the
rule.
When
we
agreed
in
the
summer
of
2001
not
to
22
file
a
legal
action
in
court
and
to
allow
EPA
time
to
23
propose
a
draft
rule,
we
actually
believed
that
EPA
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
72
would
propose
a
rule
that
would
protect
Kentucky's
1
waters
in
at
least
as
stringent
a
fashion
as
is
2
dictated
in
the
Water
Quality
Standards
Handbook,
the
3
EPA
Watershed
Academy
Web
site
training
module
on
the
4
Clean
Water
Act
and
in
EPA
regional
guidance
that
has
5
been
published
in
most
of
our
regions.
6
Instead
I
stand
here
today
and
tell
you
7
that
this
proposed
rule
would
leave
open
to
continued
8
pollution
all
or
portions
of
every
major
river,
stream
9
and
lake
in
this
state
and
that
the
rule
fails
to
10
provide
even
the
legal
protection
to
the
few
11
"
Exceptional
Waters"
that
are
currently
designated
by
12
the
state
of
Kentucky.
That
we
will
be
years
in
legal
13
wrangling
like
our
neighbors
in
West
Virginia
are
right
14
now
in
trying
to
even
create
real
implementation
15
procedures
for
this
proposal
as
weak
and
deficient
as
16
it
is.
I
do
not
understand
an
environmental
agency
17
that
so
disregards
the
resources
of
our
own
state
and
18
it's
own
guidance,
history
and
regulatory
mandate.
19
Again,
I
have
to
say
that
I
agree
with
20
Tony
Sholar
in
that
right
now,
there
is
a
certainty
in
21
KPDES
permits
in
this
state
and
that
is
one
of
the
main
22
things
that
is
wrong
with
our
anti­
degradation
23
implementation
policy
is
that
right
now,
you
basically
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
73
have
a
right
to
get
a
KPDES
permit
and
you
have
the
1
right
to
have
that
permit
be
the
maximum
limits
under
2
our
Water
Quality
Standards.
That
is
why
every
year,
3
the
number
of
KPDES
permits
in
our
state
continue
to
go
4
up
and
right
now,
Kentucky
has
over
12,800
KPDES
5
permits
that
are
issued,
virtually
every
one
of
which
6
has
limits
that
equal
the
water
quality
standards'
7
maximum
limits.
8
The
goal
of
the
Clean
Water
Act,
I
think
9
we
need
to
remember,
was
to
eliminate
the
discharge
of
10
pollutants
into
our
waters.
With
over
12,800
permits
11
and
counting,
you
tell
me
how
we
are
eliminating
the
12
discharge.
13
The
goal
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
is
to
14
restore
and
maintain
the
chemical,
physical
and
15
biological
integrity
of
the
Nation's
waters.
At
40
CFR
16
131.12(
A)(
2)
federal
regulations
to
maintain
water
17
quality
require
that
each
state
establish
a
policy
and
18
implementation
rules
to
prohibit
degradation
of
good
19
water
quality
unless
it
is
necessary
to
allow
such
20
degradation
to
accommodate
important
social
or
economic
21
development.
These
protections
against
unnecessary
22
lowering
of
water
quality,
typically
known
as
"
Tier
II"
23
protections,
do
not
now
exist
in
Kentucky
and
EPA
did
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
74
rightfully
disapprove
them
in
1997
and
again
in
2000.
1
While
the
Clean
Water
Act
does
not
2
precisely
spell
out
the
standards
EPA
must
use
in
3
proposing
regulations
following
its'
disapproval
of
a
4
state
water
quality
standard
proposal,
it
seems
to
be
5
clear
that
the
standards
must
be
consistent
with
the
6
goals
of
the
Act,
must
be
something
that
the
state
can
7
implement.
8
However,
the
EPA
proposal,
I
think,
is
9
unprotective,
illegal
and
impractical.
Rather
than
set
10
forth
the
required
implementation
procedures
to
11
identify
and
protect
high
quality
waters,
this
rule
is
12
so
vague
and
lacking
in
content
that
it
provides
13
basically
nothing
new
to
the
state.
14
Even
important
and
sensitive
waters
will
15
be
denied
protection
under
this
rule,
contradict
16
obligations
to
promptly
propose.
We
did
hear
the
90­
17
day
standard
and
here
we
are
six
and
a
half
years
and
18
counting.
To
promptly
propose
and
implement
a
water
19
quality
standard
program
after
disapproving
a
state
20
regulation,
the
proposed
rule
does
not
begin
to
specify
21
which
waters
will
be
covered
in
the
Tier
II
22
protections.
Instead
EPA
basically
rephrases
the
23
regulatory
language
at
40
CFR
131(
a)(
2)
and
then
tells
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
75
Kentucky
to
try
to
interpret
that
language
again.
I
am
1
sorry,
Kentucky
has
had
over
five
years
to
try
to
2
interpret
that
language
sufficient
to
meet
the
3
regulations
and
the
regulatory
requirements
of
the
4
Clean
Water
Act.
They
have
been
unable
to
do
so.
That
5
is
why
we
are
here
today.
That
is
why
EPA
has
proposed
6
this
rule.
7
Therefore,
it
is
now
EPA's
duty
to
write
8
this
rule,
write
with
enough
specificity
that
we
can
9
implement
it
here
in
the
State
of
Kentucky.
10
Contrary
to
EPA
published
guidance,
11
which
states,
"
All
parameters
do
not
need
to
be
better
12
quality
than
a
state's
ambient
water
quality
criteria
13
to
trigger
a
Tier
II
analysis.
The
policy
is
clearly
14
intended
to
apply
to
lowering
of
water
quality
in
water
15
bodies
even
where
occasional
exceedances
of
criteria
16
values
occur.
Otherwise,
there
is
the
potential
for
a
17
large
number
of
waters
not
to
receive
antidegradation
18
protection."
EPA
clearly
understands
this,
or
at
least
19
has
understood
this
in
the
past
in
its
own
regulation
20
and
guidance
and
yet
for
whatever
reason
seems
to
be
21
unwilling
or
unable
to
put
that
in
a
rule
for
the
State
22
of
Kentucky.
It
seems
to
me
that
Kentucky
waters
23
deserve
as
much
protection
as
any
waters
in
this
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
76
country.
1
In
the
Supplementary
Information
to
the
2
proposed
rule,
it
also
strongly
suggests
that
Kentucky
3
does
not
need
to
protect
against
new
pollution
to
any
4
water
that
is
currently
failing
to
meet
any
applicable
5
water
quality
standard.
In
Kentucky,
by
far,
our
two
6
most
common
impairments
are
sediments
and
pathogens.
7
So
even
a
water
body
that
is
otherwise
in
generally
8
good
health
and
is
serving
critical
needs
to
Kentucky
9
citizens
and
wildlife
would
be
denied
protection
that
10
are
applicable
to
this
set
of
water
bodies
because
we
11
have
too
much
sediment
or
too
much
pathogens
in
the
12
water.
Indeed,
the
Supplementary
Information
even
13
suggests
that
the
Cabinet
could
deny
Tier
II
14
protections
against
unnecessary
pollution
to
some
15
waters
that
are
meeting
all
water
quality
standards
if
16
they
do
not
score
high
enough
on
the
Cabinet's
17
biological
grading
scale.
18
Now
don't
get
me
wrong.
Kentucky
19
Waterways
Alliance
agrees
that
the
biological
rating
20
scale
that
Kentucky
uses
is
probably
the
best
overall
21
indication
of
the
health
of
the
aquatic
ecosystems
but
22
we
would
disagree
very
strongly
with
any
proposal
that
23
would
allow
Kentucky
to
exclude
waters
that
are
not
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
77
meeting
or
exceeding
a
rating
scale
of
"
good"
or
1
better.
Again,
using
sediment
as
an
example,
sediment
2
is
one
of
the
most
common
impairments
of
Kentucky's
3
waters.
Streams
often
have
too
much
sediment
and/
or
4
have
lost
some
part
of
their
riparian
buffer
which
5
would
significantly
lower
their
biological
index
rating
6
score.
The
stream
may
well
meet
or
exceed
every
other
7
water
quality
criteria
for
aquatic
life
support
and
it
8
seems
like
it
would
certainly
be
contrary
to
the
goals
9
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
and
the
public's
interest
and
10
EPA's
guidance
and
its
own
regulations
to
allow
11
Kentucky
to
exclude
that
same
stream
from
Tier
II
12
protections.
In
addition,
it
is
our
understanding
that
13
the
biological
indices
that
are
developed
by
Kentucky
14
may
not
be
applicable
to
all
waterways,
for
instance,
15
some
of
our
largest
rivers
and
streams,
rivers
that
you
16
can't
easily
wade
into
to
use
some
of
the
criteria
in
17
the
biological
rating
scale
or
some
streams
that
may
18
have
a
very
rocky
substrate.
I
don't
believe
that
our
19
biological
indices
are
applicable
for
those
streams.
20
So
again,
while
we
can
use
the
biological
index
to
21
influent
streams
that
are
clearly
meeting
or
exceeding
22
water
quality
standards
for
aquatic
life,
they
cannot
23
be
used
in
the
converse
manner
to
exclude
streams.
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
78
As
proposed,
this
rule
would
deny
high
1
quality
protection
to
hundreds
of
miles
of
Kentucky
2
waterways
that
are
currently
designated
as
Outstanding
3
State
Resource
Water
because
of
the
presence
of
4
federally
listed
threatened
or
endangered
species,
but
5
that
may
have
a
pathogen
exceedance
or
another
problem
6
at
various
times
of
the
year.
It
certainly
seems
to
me
7
that
Outstanding
State
Resource
Waters
with
documented
8
presence
of
federally
listed
species
must
be
protected
9
as
high
quality
for
aquatic
life.
10
For
instance,
I
live
in
the
Upper
Green
11
River
Water
Shed
here
in
the
State
of
Kentucky.
We
12
have
125
miles
of
the
Upper
Green
that
is
listed
as
13
Outstanding
State
Resource
Water
that
is
recognized
by
14
the
Nature
Conservancy
and
the
Bioheritage
Council
of
15
the
country
as
probably
the
most
important
stream
in
16
the
entire
Ohio
River
Basin
to
protect
because
of
the
17
aquatic
biodiversity.
We
have
over
150
fish
species,
18
over
70
species
of
muscles
that
live
in
that
river
and
19
yet
70
miles
of
it
has
a
pathogen
problem.
So
we
are
20
to
exclude
this
portion
of
the
Upper
Green
as
a
high
21
quality
water
because
one
particular
level
of
water
22
quality
criteria
does
not
meet
or
exceed
the
standards?
23
That
seems
to
me
like
that
turns
the
entire
Clean
Water
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
79
Act
on
its
head.
1
Again,
as
detailed
in
our
comments,
our
2
written
comments
submitted
to
EPA
on
January
22,
2003,
3
we
believe
the
EPA
proposed
rule
would
deny
protection
4
to
all
or
portions
of
over
one
thousand
Kentucky
5
rivers,
streams
and
lakes,
including
significant
6
sections
of
basically
every
major
river
stream
and
lake
7
in
our
state.
8
Even
waters
that
the
Cabinet
now
9
recognizes
are
"
Exceptional"
do
not
receive
real
10
protection
under
the
EPA
proposed
rule.
11
We
asked
if
it
wanted
consideration
of
12
the
"
Exceptional
Waters"
to
be
included
for
Tier
II
13
protections
under
this
rule
and
certainly,
it­­
assuming
14
that
we'd
get
meaningful
protections
under
this
rule.
15
We
would
like
that
to
happen.
We
would
like
those
to
16
be
included.
17
The
proposed
rule
leaves
even
these
18
waters
that
the
Cabinet
currently
recognizes
as
19
"
Exceptional"
under­
protected
because
it
does
nothing
20
to
correct
the
loopholes
in
401
KAR
5:
030
Section
1(
3).
21
While
Kentucky
supports
recognition
of
"
Exceptional
22
Waters",
it
seems
to
us
that
they
should
receive
at
23
least
at
a
minimum
the
water
quality
protections
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
80
provided
under
federal
law
for
high
quality
waters
and
1
not
an
arbitrary
pre­
determined
set
of
effluent
limits
2
and
exemptions
that
is
basically
designed
to
preclude
3
the
consideration
of
the
necessity
of
lowering
water
4
quality,
designed
to
preclude
the
consideration
of
5
alternatives
in
a
social
and
economic
benefit.
This
6
was
discussed
in
detail
again
in
our
comments
submitted
7
in
writing
on
January
22.
8
Even
as
to
what
waters
would
receive
9
"
high
Quality"
or
"
Exceptional"
consideration
under
the
10
proposed
rule,
EPA's
Supplementary
Information
to
the
11
rule
encourages
the
Cabinet
to
adopt
an
exception
for
12
"
minor"
or
"
insignificant"
discharges
and
we
believe
13
that
this
will
lead
to
a
progressive
degradation
of
14
water
quality
in
our
state.
15
EPA
in
its
proposed
rule
does
nothing
16
about
the
current
de
minimis
exemption
in
Kentucky's
17
regulations
that
is
applicable
to
the
only
Tier
II
18
waters
that
we
have
which
are
"
Exceptional
Waters".
19
The
Supplementary
Information
gives
only
vague
guidance
20
on
how
small
a
proposed
discharge
must
be
for
Kentucky
21
to
allow
it
to
basically
sneak
in
under
the
22
antidegradation
net.
It
states
that
the
de
minimis
23
exemptions
to
Tier
II
protections
can
be
acceptable
but
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
81
then
again,
if
they
are
too
large
or
the
increase
is
1
too
big,
then
maybe
they
are
not
acceptable.
So
what
2
does
that
tell
our
permit
writer?
It
seems
to
me
like
3
it
tells
them
basically
nothing.
4
Kentucky
currently
considers
anything
5
less
than
a
twenty
percent
increase
in
pollutant
6
loading
as
de
minimis
for
our
"
Exceptional
Waters".
7
This
language,
I
believe,
is
ambiguous
because
it
talks
8
about
additional
pollutant
loading
without
caveat
of
is
9
this
related
to
just
this
permit?
Is
this
related
to
10
the
in­
stream
water
quality?
Is
this
related
to
all
11
the
pollutant
loadings
in
the
stream?
I
don't
know.
12
Maybe
some
of
the
gentlemen
sitting
here
in
this
room
13
knows
but
it
is
certainly
not
clear
in
regulation
and
I
14
think
any
reasonable
person
would
consider
20
percent
15
not
to
be
de
minimis.
It
is
not
really
a
thousand
16
cuts.
It
seems
to
me
like
you
take
20
percent
of
the
17
pie­­
you
take
five
pieces,
and
you
are
basically
gone.
18
Finally,
even
EPA
Region
IV
in
their
own
19
published
guidance
on
antidegradation
state
that
20
antidegradation
basically,
"
These
approaches
usually
21
require
an
analysis
conducted
on
a
parameter­
by­
22
parameter
basis."
It
is
therefore
entirely
unclear
how
23
this
process
will
work
in
Kentucky
with
the
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
82
designational
approach
that
Kentucky
clearly
favors
and
1
that
EPA
seems
willing
to
accept.
2
It
seems
like
all
Kentucky
waters
should
3
be
protected
against
unnecessary
degradation.
Isn't
4
that
the
promise
of
the
Clean
Water
Act,
that
we
will
5
maintain
the
chemical,
physical
and
biological
6
integrity?
7
A
proper
rule
should:
require
the
8
application
of
antidegradation
on
a
parameter­
by­
9
parameter
basis,
requiring
the
application
of
the
10
parameter­
based
review
even
to
those
waters
that
are
11
currently
on
the
303(
d)
list
for
any
parameters
that
12
are
not
currently
violating
standards.
It
should
allow
13
no
de
minimis
exemption
to
the
antidegradation
review
14
and
should
provide
an
actual
and
practical
direction
15
for
implementing
antidegradation
in
Kentucky.
16
I
am
going
to
finish
these
comments
17
later
this
afternoon
or
actually
this
evening
but
I
18
would
like
to
skip
through
to
near
my
conclusions
there
19
and
we
will
still
be
following
the
written
outline
that
20
I
handed
in
to
the
court
reporter
there.
21
In
conclusion,
I
would
like
to
say
that
22
the
continued
approval
of
new
and
expanded
discharge
23
permits
in
the
state
of
Kentucky
should
stop
until
such
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
83
time
as
the
state
is
sufficiently
prepared
to
implement
1
an
approved
antidegradation
procedure.
Every
month
new
2
permits
are
granted
that
continue
to
lower
the
water
3
quality
in
our
rivers,
lakes
and
streams.
Citizens
4
have
waited
more
than
five
long
years.
Now,
it
appears
5
that
we
are
still
far
from
achieving
the
goal
of
a
6
state
water
quality
standards
program
that
fully
7
implements
the
Clean
Water
Act
in
Kentucky.
It
is
time
8
to
stop
playing
fast
and
lose
with
our
good
water
9
quality.
It
is
also
clear
that
there
have
been
10
hundreds
perhaps
thousands
of
discharge
permits
granted
11
in
our
state
over
the
past
few
years
with
no
12
antidegradation
analysis,
no
consideration
of
13
alternatives
and
no
demonstration
of
need.
Every
one
14
of
these
permits
must
be
reevaluated,
an
15
antidegradation
analysis
must
be
conducted
and
a
16
compliance
schedule
must
be
imposed.
17
While
KWA
submitted
written
comments
18
that
in
many
instances
paralleled
these
comments
today,
19
again,
we
plan
to
submit
further
comments
prior
to
20
March
14th.
However,
I
have
to
say
that
I
am
really
21
disappointed
here.
We
are
fully
intending
to
continue
22
to
participate
in
this
process
and
we
do
appreciate
you
23
all
coming
here;
however,
at
this
point
in
time,
I
have
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
84
to
say
that
we
really
doubt
that
these
proceedings
are
1
going
to
lead
to
anything
but
litigation
and
additional
2
rounds
of
rule­
making
proceedings.
In
the
meantime,
3
Kentucky's
waters
and
the
people
and
the
wildlife
that
4
depend
on
them
will
suffer
irreparable
damage
from
new
5
pollution
that
should
not
have
been
permitted.
6
We
urge
EPA
and
the
Cabinet
to
work
7
together
to
develop
a
proposal
that
will
protect
8
Kentucky's
rivers,
lakes
and
streams.
We
pledge
to
9
work
with
you.
We
should
share
the
same
vision
and
the
10
same
goal,
the
protection
of
Kentucky's
most
valuable
11
resource­­
it's
clean
water.
Thank
you.
12
MR.
McGILL:
The
next
speaker
13
is
Hank
Graddy.
14
MR.
GRADDY:
Good
afternoon.
15
Like
the
other
speakers,
I
appreciate
EPA's
coming
to
16
Kentucky
to
take
these
comments
and
like
the
other
17
speakers,
I
regret
to
say
that
I
have
to
be
very
18
critical
that
what
you
have
given
us
to
comment
on
is
19
woefully
inadequate.
By
any
measure,
the
EPA
proposal
20
is
a
failure.
21
Speaking
on
behalf
of
the
Cumberland
22
Chapter
of
the
Sierra
Club,
we
believe
that
the
23
proposal
fails
to
meet
the
requirements
of
the
Clean
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
85
Water
Act
and
the
proposal
fails
to
maintain
1
consistency
with
the
prior
EPA
actions
and
guidance.
2
This
proposed
rule
fails
to
provide
guidance
to
3
Kentucky,
to
the
nation.
It
fails
to
offer
a
practical
4
benefit
to
anyone
other
than
those
few
who
prefer
that
5
the
promises
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
be
postponed
6
indefinitely.
7
At
the
risk
of
over­
simplification,
the
8
Cabinet's
approach
to
antidegradation
has
a
fundamental
9
flaw
that
EPA
must
recognize
and
correct.
The
Cabinet
10
seeks
to
retain
a
large
category
of
waters,
streams
and
11
lakes
that
are
not
designated
"
impaired"
and
not
12
designated
"
high
quality"­­
because
each
of
these
13
categories
requires
the
Cabinet
to
follow
a
specified
14
procedure
to
protect
water
quality.
For
waters
that
15
are
designated
"
impaired",
the
Cabinet
must
follow
the
16
Clean
Water
Act,
Total
Maximum
Daily
Load
procedures
to
17
list,
perform
an
analysis,
and
implement
a
plan
to
18
correct
the
impairment.
For
waters
that
are
designated
19
"
high
quality"
the
Cabinet
must
follow
the
Clean
Water
20
Act
Antidegradation
Tier
II
or,
in
some
cases,
the
Tier
21
III
procedures,
designed
to
protect
and
maintain,
as
22
much
as
possible,
existing
high
quality
conditions
23
wherever
they
exist.
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
86
What
has
happened?
On
the
one
hand,
the
1
Cabinet
has
developed
a
list
of
impaired
streams
that
2
is
much
less
comprehensive
than
it
should
be
because
3
the
Cabinet
will
only
consider
its
own
data
for
4
purposes
of
identifying
areas
with
water
quality
5
impairment.
On
the
other
hand,
for
the
past
decade,
6
the
Cabinet
has
consistently
found
ways
to
narrow
the
7
definition
of
"
high
quality"
to
a
small
number
of
8
stream
segments,
seeking
to
avoid
performing
the
Tier
9
II
analysis,
including
the
"
necessity"
determination.
10
The
Cabinet's
current
method
is
to
classify
most
11
streams
and
rivers
in
Kentucky
as
"
use
protected"
­­
a
12
classification
that
has
the
practical
effect
of
13
removing
virtually
all
limits
on
pollution
discharge
14
except
for
the
actual
water
quality
standards
in
those
15
streams
with
zero
low
flow.
16
Let
me
give
you
a
specific
example.
17
Last
month,
the
Cabinet
issued
a
proposed
KPDES
permit
18
for
the
City
of
Versailles
for
discharge
into
Glenns
19
Creek,
a
stream
that
has
a
zero
cubic
feet
per
second
20
low
flow
designation.
Without
considering
what
that
21
plant
actually
needed,
the
Cabinet
automatically
issued
22
permit
limits
on
fecal
coliform
of
200
col/
100
ml
23
monthly
average,
400
daily
max.
The
Cabinet's
2000
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
87
Report
to
Congress
designates
Glenns
Creek
as
fully
1
supporting
designated
uses,
including
primary
and
2
secondary
contact
recreation.
Yet
the
Cabinet's
fact
3
sheet
states
that
an
Antidegradation
Tier
II
analysis
4
was
not
needed.
5
By
allowing
Versailles
to
discharge
6
fecal
coliform
up
to
the
level
that
defines
water
7
quality
impairment,
the
Cabinet
dooms
Glenns
Creek
to
8
be
permanently
at
the
risk
of
impairment.
9
Unfortunately,
the
Cabinet's
current
10
method
has
even
more
serious
consequences
for
our
11
rivers
and
lakes,
with
permanent
flow
conditions.
12
Here,
the
Cabinet
grants
a
"
mixing
zone"
and
allows
13
pollutants
to
be
discharged
at
concentrations
that
14
exceed
water
quality
standards
and
permits
effluent
to
15
be
discharged
as
toxic
to
aquatic
life
at
end
of
pipe.
16
Another
example,
in
1995,
the
Cabinet
17
proposed
to
issue
a
KPDES
permit
for
the
Louisville
18
Morris
Forman
Treatment
Plant
to
discharge
into
the
19
Ohio
River
through
a
47­
port
diffuser,
which
the
20
Cabinet
translated
into
a
toxicity
unit
of
5.7
TUa.
21
This
meant
that
Morris
Forman
that
permitted
and
22
finalized
it
would
be
allowed
to
measure
the
toxicity
23
of
its
discharge
into
the
Ohio
by
first
diluting
the
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
88
effluent
to
17.5
percent
effluent,
the
balance
1
distilled
water.
Yet
the
Ohio
River
was
designated,
2
has
at
one
of
its
designated
uses
at
this
location
3
warmwater
aquatic
life.
4
EPA
must
clearly
instruct
the
Cabinet
5
that
the
Clean
Water
Act
requires
that
the
"
impaired
6
water"
requirement
and
the
"
high
quality
waters"
7
requirements
must
fit
together,
so
that
all
waters
8
receive
one
or
the
other
protection
procedures.
This
9
is
the
clear
intent
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
and
it
is
10
the
only
practical
way
to
implement
the
Clean
Water
Act
11
TMDL
and
antidegradation
requirements
in
a
way
that
12
will
make
progress
toward
the
Congressional
instruction
13
to
eliminate
the
discharge
of
pollutants
into
the
14
Nation's
waters.
15
I
will
note
that
Mr.
McGill
at
the
16
beginning
of
the
presentation
cited
one
of
the
goals
of
17
the
Clean
Water
Act­­
the
interim
goal
of
fishable
and
18
swimmable
but
he
did
not
cite
the
other
goal
of
the
19
Clean
Water
Act
which
is
the
elimination
of
the
20
discharge
of
pollutants
to
the
Nation's
waters.
21
My
suggestion
to
you,
and
I
believe
the
22
suggestion
of
others
that
EPA
has
an
obligation
to
make
23
sure
that
states
make
their
impaired
program
fit
and
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
89
dovetail
into
their
high
quality
program.
I
think
it
1
is
compelled
by
the
Clean
Water
Act
language
itself,
2
specifically
Section
303(
d)(
4)(
B)
which
was
added
to
3
the
Clean
Water
Act
in
1987
by
Congress
where­­
this
is
4
the
303(
d)
section
but
it
is
a
subheading
dealing
with
5
Standard
attained:
It
says:
"
For
waters
identified
6
under
Section
(
1)(
A)
where
the
quality
of
such
waters
7
equals
or
exceeds
levels
necessary
to
protect
the
8
designated
use
for
such
waters
or
otherwise
required
by
9
applicable
water
quality
standards,
any
effluent
10
limitation
based
on
a
total
maximum
daily
load
or
other
11
waste
load
allocations
established
under
this
section,
12
or
any
water
quality
standard
established
under
this
13
section
or
any
other
permitting
standard
may
be
revised
14
only
if
such
revision
is
subject
to
and
consistent
with
15
the
antidegradation
policy
established
under
this
16
section."
17
That
language,
I
think,
makes
it
clear
18
that
these
aspects
of
Clean
Water
Act
implementation
19
are
intended
to
fit
without
this
huge
middle
ground,
20
that
this
be
the
category
of
protection.
21
Also
cited
in
my
written
comments,
22
Section
304(
c)
which
discusses
the
elimination
and
the
23
reduction
of
pollutants.
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
90
Section
306
defining
"
standard
of
1
performance".
I
would
remind
EPA
that
its
goal
is
to
2
implement
not
only
fishable
and
swimmable,
but
where
3
practicable,
a
standard
permitting
no
discharge
of
4
pollutants
at
all.
5
Let
me
make
some
specific
comments
about
6
certain
aspects
of
the
proposed
rule.
7
This
section
begins
with
a
statement
8
that
this
proposal,
if
made
final,
"
will
establish
an
9
antidegradation
policy
for
high
quality
waters
in
the
10
Commonwealth
of
Kentucky....".
11
The
policy
for
high
quality
waters
12
already
exists
and
should
not
change.
EPA
is
now
13
required
to
adopt
"
methods
of
implementation"
for
14
Kentucky
because
Kentucky
has
failed
to
do
so,
as
15
evidenced
by
prior
correspondence.
16
That
paragraph
then
states
that
it
is
17
exempting
waters
currently
regulated
under
the
18
Cabinet's
"
Exceptional
Waters"
and
"
Outstanding
19
National
Resource
Waters"
because
these
are
already
20
protected.
However,
the
Kentucky
regulation
does
not
21
provide
the
proper
antidegradation
protection
for
22
"
Exceptional
Waters".
That
exemption
has
no
place
in
23
the
Kentucky
regulation.
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
91
This
result
is
compelled
when
EPA
1
continues
its
review
of
Kentucky's
implementation
2
process
which
involves
"...
involves
the
application
of
3
specified
effluent
limitations
for
new
or
expanded
4
discharges.
For
example,
domestic
discharges
are
5
limited
to
discharge
at
levels
of
10
mg/
l
for
five­
day
6
carbonaceous
biochemical
oxygen
demand,
2
mg/
l
of
7
ammonia
nitrogen....,
among
others.
Also,
certain
8
discharges
are
restricted
to
no
more
than
one­
half
of
9
the
limitation
that
would
have
been
permitted
for
use
10
protected
waters
for
other
parameters."
Kentucky's
11
proposal
to
insert
effluent
limits
that
are
completely
12
arbitrary
in
place
of
the
Tier
II
necessity
13
determination
required
by
40
CFR
131.12
reveals
that
14
the
Kentucky
Division
of
Water
either
fails
to
15
understand
the
Clean
Water
Act
concept
of
16
antidegradation
or
stubbornly
refuses
to
comply
with
17
the
letter
and
meaning
of
the
requirement.
In
either
18
case,
the
EPA
is
derelict
to
simply
reassessing
this
19
matter
of
implementation
back
to
that
agency.
20
This
result
the
verbatim
of
what
21
Kentucky
has
done
in
writing
regulations
that
22
implements
antidegradation
correctly
is
further
23
compelled
when
EPA
notes
that
Kentucky
proposes
to
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
92
exempt
from
antidegradation
requirements
those
permit
1
renewals
that
result
in
less
than
a
20%
in
pollutant
2
loading.
We
can
find
nothing
in
EPA
guidance
ore
3
regulation
that
supports
this
irresponsible
attempt
to
4
nullify
the
Clean
Water
Act
antidegradation
5
requirement.
With
this
proposal,
EPA
would
be
derelict
6
to
"
delegate"
back
to
Kentucky
DOW
that
matter
of
7
deciding
how
to
implement
the
requirement.
This
8
appears
to
be
Kentucky's
poorly
thought­
out
attempt
to
9
insert
a
de
minimis
exemption
from
Tier
II
analysis.
10
EPA
proposed­­
has
proposals
that
have
considered
"
less
11
than
10%
of
the
assimilative
capacity".
However,
12
Kentucky's
proposal
is
not
logical
where
Kentucky
seeks
13
to
continue
to
rely
on
the
"
designational"
approach
­­
14
the
de
minimis
exemption,
if
it
is
logical
at
all
is
15
only
logical
where
the
antidegradation
analysis
is
done
16
on
a
parameter
by
parameter
approach.
17
The
Kentucky
definition
of
"
use
18
protected
water"
shows
a
similar
misunderstanding
of
19
basic
antidegradation
requirements.
EPA's
quote
from
20
former
Division
of
Water
Director
Jack
Wilson
reveals
21
how
clearly
Kentucky
has
misapplied
the
regulation.
22
EPA
correctly
observes
that
the
Kentucky
proposal
"(
1)
23
Waters
with
quality
that
is
better
than
the
levels
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
93
necessary
to
support
propagation
of
fish,
shellfish,
1
wildlife,
and
recreation
in
and
on
the
water..."
those
2
are
included
within
the
definition
of
use
protection
3
and
EPA
correctly
knows
that
according
to
Kentucky,
it
4
would
only
give
them
Tier
I
protection.
5
The
Sierra
Club
agrees
with
the
EPA's
6
reason
for
disapproving
the
Kentucky
program,
that
"
The
7
Commonwealth's
provisions
only
applied
to
the
limited
8
subset
of
high
quality
waters"
rather
than
to
all
9
waters
that
are
entitled
to
receive
Tier
II
protection.
10
According
to
the
EPA's
analysis,
the
Kentucky
rule
11
provides
Tier
III
protection
to
0.06%
of
Kentucky's
12
stream
miles
and
would
provide
Tier
II
protection
to
13
1.35%
of
Kentucky's
stream
miles.
We
are
concerned
14
when
EPA
says­­
those
in
the
Division
of
Water
promises
15
to
make
progress
toward
implementing
the
EPA's
16
instructions
to
be
more
comprehensive
when
in
earlier
17
submissions
the
EPA,
according
to
EPA,
those
applied
to
18
3%
of
Kentucky's
waters.
It
appears
that
Kentucky
is
19
going
in
the
wrong
direction.
20
Having
recognized
that
Kentucky
purports
21
to
extend
a
Tier
II
protection
for
some
of
its
waters,
22
EPA
then
proposes
a
policy
for
high
quality
waters
23
except
for
ONRWs
and
"
Exceptional
waters".
We
would
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
94
ask
that
you
delete
those
exceptions
and
replace
the
1
Kentucky
Tier
II
with
a
clear
Tier
II
protection
2
yourself.
The
approach
that
you
have
proposed
makes
3
antidegradation
policy
unnecessarily
difficult
to
4
implement.
More
importantly,
by
proposing
to
leave
in
5
place
the
Kentucky
"
default"
effluent
limits
for
6
certain
pollutants,
without
any
demonstration
of
need,
7
you
would
continue
in
effect
a
regulation
that
fails
8
"
to
evaluate
the
necessity
of
lowering
water
quality"
9
and
you
made
this
approach
completely
useless
for
the
10
rest
of
the
Nation.
11
EPA
in
its
preamble
repeats
language
12
that
is
used
in
past
guidance
suggesting
that
there
are
13
in
fact
actual
examples
of
states
that
are
far
more
14
implemented
the
antidegradation
requirement
using
the
15
"
designational
approach"
as
opposed
to
the
parameter
by
16
parameter.
In
past
communications
that
I've
had
with
17
Region
IV
in
Atlanta,
I
have
requested
the
identity
of
18
states
that
have
properly
implemented
antidegradation
19
using
the
"
designational"
and
to
date,
I
have
not
20
received
the
identity
of
any
state
that
appears
to
be
21
correctly
implementing
antidegradation
into
this
22
approach.
23
We
have
waited
long
enough.
It
is
time
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
95
for
EPA
to
be
specific
and
to
require
that
in
Kentucky,
1
high
quality
waters
are
to
be
analyzed
on
parameter
by
2
parameter
basis.
3
Let
me
give
you
a
specific
example
of
4
why
this
is
so
prevalent.
Last
year,
in
a
particular
5
section
of
the
Kentucky
River,
samples
were
taken
for
6
biomonitoring
purposes
providing
the
effluent
from
a
7
particular
small
town.
In
that
sample,
30%
survived
in
8
a
mixture
of
60%
of
wastewater
and
20%
distilled
water
9
and
those
species
were
exposed
to
100%
treated
10
wastewater.
In
sample
A,
they
all
died.
In
sample
B,
11
they
survived.
12
The
test
was
repeated
in
the
second
13
quarter.
In
this
example,
75%
survived
in
100%
14
wastewater
and
100%
survived
in
the
other
sample.
15
In
the
third
test,
all
the
species
died
16
when
they
were
exposed
to
100%
wastewater.
17
In
the
fourth
quarter,
all
the
species
18
died
when
they
were
exposed
to
100%
wastewater
in
both
19
samples
and
in
the
fifth
quarter,
they
survived.
20
For
those
of
us
who
want
the
Clean
Water
21
Act
to
work
to
provide
good
habitat
for
aquatic
life
22
not
just
for
part
of
the
year
in
part
of
our
waters,
23
there
are
two
questions­­
three
questions
that
come
to
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
96
mind:
First
is
how
long
has
this
been
going
on?
The
1
second
is
what
is
being
done
about
it?
2
In
this
particular
case,
this
site
was
3
identified
on
the
304(
l)
list
as
a
result
of
the
1987
4
amendments
to
the
Clean
Water
Act.
This
particular
5
facility
was
a
toxic
hotspot
and
so
for
ten
years,
we
6
have
known
about
the
problems
of
this
facility.
7
This
facility
was
suppose
to
control
a
8
copper
discharge
of
about
a
half
a
pound
a
day
9
according
to
the
1989
publication
of
the
Individual
10
Control
Strategy
for
this
facility.
We
have
known
11
about
this
problem
for
ten
years.
12
Next
question,
what
is
being
done?
And
13
the
answer
is
nothing.
Nothing
is
being
done.
Why
is
14
nothing
being
done?
Because
the
Division
of
Water
has
15
given
this
facility
a
mixing
zone
where
they
relocated
16
their
outfall
into
the
Kentucky
River
and
because
the
17
Division
of
Water
has
no
effective
antidegradation
18
procedure
in
place
to
temper
the
impacts
of
the
mixing
19
zone.
20
Once
the
"
mixing
zone"
is
awarded
into
21
the
Kentucky
River
or
the
Ohio
River
or
the
Green
22
River,
the
only
question
the
Division
of
Water
asks
is
23
how
big
is
the
river?
How
wide
is
the
river?
That
is
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
97
the
end
of
the
analysis
and
that
controls
how
much
1
pollutants
they
discharge.
It
has
nothing
to
do
with
2
how
much
it
is
needed
and
what
can
be
done
to
prevent
3
pollution.
4
This
is
the
community
of
Eminence.
In
5
Eminence,
in
1993
Eminence
applied
for
a
new
permit
and
6
they
were
allowed
to
relocate
into
the
Kentucky
River
7
near
Lockport.
What
was
a
permit
limit
that
limited
8
the
discharge
to
20
mg/
l
of
copper
was
revised
to
give
9
them
200
mg/
l
of
copper.
It
also
gave
them
a
dilution
10
credit
for
measuring
toxicity
and
it
increased
the
mass
11
of
copper
discharge
into
the
Kentucky
River
from
not
12
half
a
pound,
what
was
a
toxic
hotspot
earlier
but
to
13
.8
pounds
per
day
of
copper.
14
In
other
words,
the
mass
went
up
instead
15
of
being
reduced.
How
did
this
happen?
It
happened
16
because
there
was
no
antidegradation
analysis
for
this
17
facility
in
discharging
into
the
Kentucky
River.
18
Background
limits
of
copper
in
this
19
location
were
free.
Water
quality
standard
was
14
and
20
23
and
yet
this
facility
was
given
200
mg/
l
because
21
there
was
no
antidegradation
analysis
at
this
location.
22
We
litigated
that
facility
and
the
23
Franklin
Circuit
Judge
found
that
the
copper
was
too
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
98
high:
"
This
Court
finds
that
there
was
not
substantial
1
evidence
in
the
record
for
the
Cabinet's
granting
a
2
tenfold
increase
to
allow
the
proper
discharge.
There
3
is
nothing
in
the
record
to
indicate
that
a
tenfold
4
increase
is
necessary
in
this
case.
It
appears
to
this
5
Court
that
the
Cabinet
has
allowed
this
increase
6
without
proper
evidentiary
support."
7
So
where
are
we?
Why
do
I
say
nothing
8
is
happening?
Because
the
toxic
discharges
that
I
9
reported
over
the
past
year.
Last
month,
the
Cabinet
10
issued
a
new
KPDES
permit
guidelines.
Instead
of
11
lowering
the
copper
limit
as
the
Franklin
Circuit
12
instructed
the
Cabinet
simply
removed
any
copper
limit
13
from
the
permit.
The
permit
does
nothing
to
address
14
toxicity
found
in
last
year's
biomonitoring,
simply
15
continuing
to
award
of
a
mixing
zone.
16
MR.
McGILL:
Excuse
me,
Mr.
17
Graddy.
18
MR.
GRADDY:
Just
two
minutes.
19
MR.
McGILL:
Okay.
20
MR.
GRADDY:
In
addition,
the
21
new
permit
increased
the
mass
and
concentration
of
22
Total
Suspended
Solids
from
125
pounds
per
day
monthly
23
average,
188
pounds
per
day
daily
max,
30
mg/
l
monthly
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
99
average,
45
daily
max
to
271
pounds
per
day
monthly
1
average,
409
pounds
per
day
daily
max,
65
mg/
l
monthly
2
average,
98
mg/
l
daily
max
and
reduced
the
required
3
removal
efficiency
from
85%
to
67%.
All
of
this
was
4
done
because
there
was
no
necessity
analysis.
This
5
facility
has
demonstrated
over
the
past
year
that
they
6
can
meet
Total
Suspended
limits
much
lower
than
this
7
and
yet
was
given
these
limits
because
it
asked
for
it
8
and
because
we
have
nothing
in
place
that
protects.
9
I
will
turn
in
written
comments
that
10
give
back
to
EPA
your
comments
to
Kentucky
and
your
11
Water
Quality
Standards
Handbook
and
a
number
of
other
12
EPA
guidance
concerning
how
to
properly
limit
13
antidegradation
because
I
think
that
you
need
to
look
14
back
at
what
you
have
said
in
the
past
to
help
write
a
15
regulation
for
Kentucky.
16
What
Mr.
Cress
says,
this
is
a
matter
17
about
clean
and
cleaner,
he
misses
the
point.
This
is
18
a
question
of
how
we
protect
those
places
in
Kentucky
19
that
are
good.
20
When
Mr.
Sholar
says
this
is
an
issue
of
21
subjectivity,
looking
at
alternatives
as
a
matter
of
22
subjectivity,
I
think
he
discredits
engineers.
23
Engineers
are
not
in
the
business
of
making
subjective
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
100
calls.
We
know
how
to
treat
and
remove
pollutants.
1
That
is
what
this
is
about
and
that
is
the
kind
of
2
regulation
that
we
need.
I
hope
EPA
will
begin
the
3
process
of
writing
a
regulation
that
meets
Kentucky
4
standards.
Thank
you
very
much.
5
MR.
McGILL:
Our
next
speaker
6
is
Perrin
de
Jang.
7
MR.
deJANG:
My
name
is
Perrin
8
de
Jang
and
I
am
still
bundled
up
here
because
I
9
haven't
been
able
to
shake
off
the
cold
for
some
10
reason.
I
don't
know
if
the
air
conditioner
is
on
in
11
here
or
what.
12
I
am
the
Coordinator
for
Kentucky
13
Hardwood
and
as
Kentucky's
preeminent
public
lands
14
advocacy
group,
Kentucky
is
greatly
concerned
about
the
15
waterways
that
flow
through
and
from
the
Daniel
Boone
16
National
Forest,
the
Mammoth
Cave
National
Park
and
17
other
public
lands
throughout
the
state.
18
Because
of
the
fragmented
federal
19
ownership
of
the
Daniel
Boone
in
Kentucky
which
is
our
20
primary
focus
in
public
lands
in
Kentucky,
protection
21
of
the
entire
watershed
by
the
Forest
Service
alone
is
22
often
difficult
to
impossible.
23
That
is
why
I
am
here
today
to
ask
for
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
101
EPA's
help
in
insuring
that
water
quality
coming
from
1
private
lands
that
is
interspersed
with
public
lands
is
2
also
protected
so
in
the
integrated
watershed
3
protection
effort
on
the
part
of
these
two
federal
4
agencies.
5
For
the
wildlife,
municipalities
and
6
recreationists
that
depend
on
clean
waters
coming
from
7
our
public
lands,
we
insist
that
EPA
propose
a
final
8
rule
that
will
give
maximum
protection
to
waterways
in
9
Kentucky
that
can
still
be
saved
and
to
the
impaired
10
waterways
that
we
must
restore.
11
Clean
water
is
the
preeminent
American
12
environmental
issue.
I
had
a
job
at
the
University
of
13
Tennessee
not
too
long
ago
doing
phone
surveys
of
14
people
who
live
in
and
around
the
Daniel
Boone
National
15
Forrest
regarding
their
preferences
for
management
of
16
our
public
lands
and
the
priorities
that
should
be
17
placed
on
them.
18
There
is
an
incredibly
wide
array
of
19
opinions
as
you
can
imagine
on
what
public
lands
should
20
be
managed
for.
One
issue
on
which
there
was
21
overwhelming
consensus
is
protection
of
clean
22
watersheds.
It
was
upwards
of
90
percent.
It
was
just
23
incredible;
almost
everybody
says
clean
water
is
number
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
102
one.
1
So
when
I
hear
from
the
industry
group
2
that
we
heard
from
first,
the
wise
use
coalition
that
3
spoke
in
three
parts
at
the
beginning
of
this
hearing
4
that
they
are
representing
public
interests
in
5
protesting
federal
ruling
for
Kentucky's
6
antidegradation
rule,
I
have
to
say
please,
I
don't
7
pretend
to
care
about
the
health
and
well­
being
of
the
8
chemical
industry
in
Kentucky
and
I'd
ask
that
they
not
9
pretend
to
care
about
mine.
10
So
what
does
that
mean
for
EPA
to
insure
11
maximum
protection
of
our
waterways
here
in
Kentucky?
12
Number
one,
the
EPA
should
require
the
entire
13
antidegradation
policy
be
implemented
on
a
parameter­
14
by­
parameter
basis
by
which
I
mean
that
even
if
some
15
pollution
levels
are
high
in
water
volume
such
as
fecal
16
coliform
or
sediment
which
is
often
the
case
in
17
Kentucky,
that
those
are
the
only
preeminent
pollutants
18
that
other
monitored
parameters
be
protected
by
the
19
antidegradation
rule
from
further
decline.
20
So
if
water
volume
is
free
from
lead
21
contamination
but
high
in
fecal
coliform,
it
should
be
22
protected
from
any
new
lead
pollution,
even
if
other
23
indicators
show
pollution
of
other
types.
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
103
Many
of
Kentucky's
water
volumes
are
1
impaired
by
one
and
two
pollutants
and
free
from
other
2
forms
of
pollution.
The
antidegradation
rule
is
3
applied
to
these
water
bodies.
The
job
of
cleaning
up
4
these
water
bodies
by
removal
of
straight
pipes
or
5
stream
land
stabilization
would
remain
much
easier
6
without
the
addition
of
new
forms
of
pollution.
So
I
7
ask
that
there
is
an
eye
to
address
the
restoration
of
8
these
waterways,
not
just
prevention
of
further
9
decline.
10
Number
two,
the
EPA
should
require
that
11
application
of
parameter­
based
review
even
to
those
12
waters
on
the
303(
d)
list
for
parameters
not
violating
13
the
standards.
14
Three,
the
EPA
should
refuse
de
minimis
15
exemptions
to
antidegradation
review
which
allows
the
16
progressive
cumulative
degradation
of
otherwise
healthy
17
waters;
and
18
Four,
the
EPA
should
rework
the
proposed
19
rule
to
provide
actual
direction
for
implementing
20
antidegradation
in
Kentucky.
21
I
have
already
submitted
this
letter
on
22
January
13th
to
the
docket
manager
so
I
am
not
going
to
23
give
this
copy
because
it
is
not
on
letterhead
but
you
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
104
already
have
my
comments.
So
thank
you.
1
MR.
McGILL:
The
next
speaker
2
is
Ed
Council.
I
hope
I
am
pronouncing
his
name
3
correctly.
4
AUDIENCE:
He
just
stepped
5
out.
6
MR.
McGILL:
I'll
come
back
to
7
him
just
in
case.
The
next
speaker
is
Kori
Jones.
8
MS.
JONES:
Hi,
my
name
is
9
Kori
Jones
and
I
am
the
Director
of
Natural
Resources
10
at
Kentucky
Farm
Bureau.
Kentucky
Farm
Bureau
11
represents
over
400,000
members
in
the
State
of
12
Kentucky.
Kentucky
Farm
Bureau
believes
like
Kentucky
13
Water
Quality
Group
that
the
state,
not
the
EPA,
has
14
the
authority
and
responsibility
to
promulgate
15
antidegradation
rules.
16
Nevertheless,
Kentucky
Farm
Bureau
would
17
like
to
emphasize
the
following
points:
18
(
1)
We
believe
that
sound
environmental
19
programs,
including
programs
to
maintain
clean
water,
20
are
important
to
Kentucky.
In
fact,
farmers
depend
on
21
clean
water
for
their
livelihood.
However,
we
are
22
fearful
that
agriculture
operations
and
farmers
may
be
23
economically
harmed
if
the
programs
are
put
into
place
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
105
without
considering
agriculture's
prospective.
1
First,
Farm
Bureau
believes
that
current
2
agricultural
programs
may
be
jeopardized
by
3
antidegradation
rules
as
proposed.
4
Farm
Bureau
urges
the
rulemakers
to
5
review
the
Ag
Water
Quality
Act
located
at
KRS
224.71
6
to
insure
that
this
beneficial
program
is
not
7
undermined.
This
point
will
be
addressed
further
in
my
8
written
comments.
9
Second,
Kentucky
Farm
Bureau
urges
EPA
10
to
consider
the
agricultural
prospective
in
writing
11
regulations.
Kentucky
is
a
rural
state
that
relies
12
heavily
on
farming
and
we
wish
the
rulemaker
to
13
consider
this.
14
My
second
point
is
that
Kentucky
15
supports
designational
approach
to
identify
high
16
quality
waters.
First,
Kentucky
currently
abides
by
17
the
designational
approach.
18
Second,
the
approach
must
be
based
on
19
scientific
research
data.
20
Third,
the
individual
parameter
approach
21
is
not
indicative
of
holistic
water
quality
and
the
22
maintenance
of
integrity
of
water.
A
parameter­
by­
23
parameter
approach
is
not
required
by
the
Clean
Water
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
106
Act.
It
is
more
difficult
to
enforce
and
monitor
and
1
does
not
necessarily
improve
holistic
water
quality.
2
The
third
point
that
Kentucky
Farm
3
Bureau
would
like
to
assert
is
that
Kentucky
Farm
4
Bureau
is
fearful
that
new
antidegradation
policies
may
5
require
farmers
to
implement
costly
pollution
6
prevention
strategies.
7
The
costs
should
be
considered
with
8
respect
to
the
burden
it
would
cost
to
the
individual
9
farmer
who
is
beginning
a
new
farming
operation
or
10
expanding
an
existing
operation.
Further,
it
should
11
be
emphasized
that
substantial
economic
impacts
does
12
not
mean
driving
profits
to
zero.
13
Kentucky
Farm
Bureau
will
detail
its
14
concerns
in
a
written
proposal
submitted
to
EPA.
We
15
thank
you
for
this
opportunity
to
comment.
16
MR.
McGILL:
The
next
speaker
17
is
Aloma
Dew.
18
MS.
DEW:
Thank
you
all
for
19
sitting
so
patiently.
I
know
this
has
been
a
long
20
afternoon
for
you
and
I
will
not
take
much
of
your
21
time.
My
name
is
Aloma,
A­
l­
o­
m­
a
Dew,
D­
e­
w,
and
I
22
am
the
Associate
Midwest
Representative
for
the
Sierra
23
Club.
I
work
here
in
Kentucky
with
citizens
working
on
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
107
issues
dealing
with
water
quality
around
animal,
1
agricultural
and
processing
plants
related
to
that
2
issue.
3
I
am
here
basically
to
represent
4
ordinary
citizens
who
drink
the
water
of
the
5
Commonwealth,
who
swim
or
would
like
to
swim,
fish
and
6
boat
in
those
waters.
I
am
not
a
scientist
nor
a
7
hydrologist.
I
am
a
historian
and
I
am
an
8
environmentalist.
So
that
is
where
I
am
coming
from.
9
In
1972
when
Clean
Water
Act
was
passed,
10
the
promise
was
to
restore
and
maintain
the
chemical,
11
physical
and
biological
integrity
of
the
Nation's
12
waters­­
not
just
one
but
all
three
of
those
categories.
13
And
it
also
said
that
discharge
of
pollutants
into
14
navigable
waters
be
eliminated
by
1985.
It
is
promise
15
one
deferred.
16
Kentucky's
greatest
resource
is
its
17
water.
We
have
more
than
89,000
miles
of
waterways
and
18
the
citizens
of
this
Commonwealth
want
them
protected
19
and
cleaned
up
and
we
think
that
that
is
your
job.
20
Since
1997,
the
EPA
has
recognized
that
21
Kentucky's
antidegradation
plan
was
deficient
and
yet
22
only
after
the
threat
of
lawsuit
by
the
Sierra
Club,
23
Kentucky
Waterways
Alliance,
Kentucky
Resource
Council
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
108
and
other
environmental
groups
did
you
begin
to
1
formulate
a
plan
that
would
put
us
toward
realizing
the
2
Clean
Water
Act.
3
Now
we
have
seen
the
plan
and
it
seems
4
to
be
much
too
vague,
too
nonspecific
and
it
is
5
basically
a
guidance
but
not
to
give
the
kind
of
clear
6
cut
direction
and
plan
that
the
Kentucky
Division
of
7
Water
needs
in
order
to
write
good
plans
and
to
carry
8
those
out.
9
We
need
a
strong
plan.
That
is
what
10
Kentuckians
want,
not
something
that
is
weak.
As
it
11
stands
now,
many
of
the
harmful
practices
that
are
12
carried
out
are
perfectly
legal
and
they
are
allowed
to
13
go
on.
This
should
not
have
been
allowed
for
so
long.
14
We
would
like
to
see
a
total
watershed
15
approach,
not
just
a
plan
by
streams
or
segments.
It
16
has
always
amazed
me
how
the
declared
segments
to
these
17
outstanding
waters
or
excellent
resource
waters
when
18
above
stream
we
have
waters
that
may
be
impaired.
It
19
doesn't
quite
make
sense.
20
So
we
would
like
to
see
a
watershed
21
approach.
Most
of
Kentucky's
waters,
98
percent,
22
qualify
as
Tier
I
and
most
permits
allow
the
maximum
23
limit
of
all
discharge
parameters
into
these
waters.
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
109
Because
of
this,
we
are
losing
much
of
1
our
water
quality
in
Kentucky.
The
Kentucky
Division
2
of
Water
often,
and
I
have
seen
this
in
permits
for
the
3
Tyson
Wastewater
Plant,
the
Henderson
Plant
#
2,
and
4
there
are
others
around
the
state
that
they
refer
to
5
where
they
are
actually
allowed
to
discharge
more
than
6
the
plant
has
even
said
they
need.
This
does
not
make
7
good
sense
to
me.
8
Permits
should
be
given
despite
what
9
we've
heard
from
some
speakers
today
on
a
parameter­
by­
10
parameter
basis.
If
a
pollutant
is
not
in
the
water,
11
it
should
be
kept
out,
period.
This
is
something
that
12
we
do
not
see
included
in
the
draft
plan.
There
seems
13
to
be
no
consideration
of
watershed
protection
approach
14
in
the
plan.
We
also
would
like
to
see
waters
on
the
15
303(
d)
list
included
in
the
antidegradation
plan.
Just
16
because
they
are
impaired
perhaps
in
one
area
or
17
several
does
not
mean
that
they
should
continue
in
that
18
condition.
19
When
I
turn
in
my
written
comments,
I
20
will
be
attaching
KPDES
permit
for
the
Henderson
21
Wastewater
Plant
#
2.
This
discharges
into
the
Green
22
River
which
is
a
water
protected
by
the
Clean
Water
23
Act.
It
was
determined
by
the
Kentucky
Division
of
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
110
Water
not
to
be
an
outstanding
resource
water
nor
1
excellent
resource
water
but
it
is
designated
as
warm
2
water
aquatic
and
suitable
for
contact
use
and
it
is
3
being
used
for
those
things.
People
are
eating
fish
4
out
of
that
water.
They
are
boating
and
they
are
5
swimming
in
that
water
even
though
it
is
not
being
6
particularly
considered
or
protected
under
7
antidegradation
for
that
approach.
8
There
was
no
alternative
analysis
or
9
socio­
economic
analysis
done
for
this
permit.
There
10
has
not
yet
been
a
complete
full
study
of
that
river.
11
Much
of
the
water
testing
that
is
done
on
the
Green
12
River
is
by
volunteers
who
are
trained
by
Kentucky
13
Division
of
Water
parameters
but
they
are
not
accepted.
14
We
feel
that
this
does
not
meet
the
15
antidegradation
intentions
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
and
16
we
don't
understand
why
it
is
taking
so
long
to
have
17
something
done.
There
should
be
no
exceptions.
If
the
18
permittee
is
adding
less
than
20
percent
of
a
pollutant
19
to
a
stream,
they
are
exempt
from
regulations.
Twenty
20
percent
as
has
been
said
repeatedly
today,
is
too
high.
21
That
is
much
too
high
to
let
go.
22
The
draft
rule
is
silent
on
this.
The
23
Clean
Water
Act
says
it
is
a
national
policy
to
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
111
discharge
a
toxic
pollutant
in
toxic
amounts
be
lifted.
1
All
permits
should
be
reviewed
to
be
sure
that
they
2
comply
with
the
Clean
Water
Act.
They
should
apply
to
3
new
permits,
expanded
permits
and
also
to
renew
4
permits.
Unless
the
renewed
permits
are
included,
5
Kentucky
waters
will
continue
to
be
degraded
and
there
6
is
no
incentive
for
these
permittees
to
increase
their
7
diligence.
8
The
new
rule
needs
to
be
much
more
9
practical
and
specific
so
that
the
state
can
begin
to
10
implement
a
plan
soon.
Permit
writers
need
clear
11
direction
and
these
plans
also
need
to
be
very
clear
to
12
the
public.
Much
of
the
public
does
not
understand
13
their
role
and
their
rights
in
protecting
clean
water.
14
The
need
to
be
able
to
read
these
plans
and
permits
and
15
understand
them.
16
The
new
rule
basically
just
governs
and
17
that
is
not
enough.
Now
I
work
particularly
with
18
issues,
as
I
said,
surrounding
animal,
agricultural
and
19
industrial
plants.
There
should
be
no
exemptions
on
20
the
antidegradation
of
our
waters
and
this
includes
21
agriculture
from
the
standards.
22
The
people
who
live
near
these
23
facilities
are
fearful
that
the
groundwater
will
be
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
112
polluted,
that
their
wells
are
polluted.
Many
are
1
concerned
about
eating
fish
from
waters,
where
there
is
2
discharge
and
runoff.
We
need
enforcement
of
the
3
agriculture
water
quality
plans.
Kentucky
Division
of
4
Water
has
said
they
do
not
enforce
them
nor
do
they
5
intend
to.
But
under
the
Clean
Water
Act,
concentrated
6
animal
operations
are
point
sources
and
they
should
be
7
enforced
as
such.
Animal
wastes,
because
of
the
8
intense
concentration
is
a
serious
threat
to
service
in
9
groundwater
quality
in
this
state.
10
Antidegradation
consideration
from
these
11
sources
is
missing
from
this
plan.
It
is
not
the
12
obligation
of
the
Kentucky
Division
of
Water
or
the
EPA
13
to
protect
industry
and
agriculture
at
a
cost
to
water
14
quality
for
Kentuckians.
Several
people
today
has
15
indicated
that
it
is
too
expensive
to
have
clean
water.
16
I
would
say
to
you
that
cost
could
not
be
used
as
a
17
criteria
of
clean
water.
Water
is
necessary
for
life.
18
Unprotected
waters
will
hurt
our
state
when
tourists
19
decide
that
they
would
rather
go
elsewhere
where
the
20
water
is
cleaner
for
canoeing
or
fishing
or
swimming.
21
Unclean
water
will
hurt
our
state
when
22
plants
would
like
to
locate
here
but
their
workers
and
23
their
management
want
a
place
where
the
waters
are
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
113
clean
and
they
go
elsewhere.
Unprotected
waters
will
1
affect
the
public's
health
through
impaired
drinking
2
sources,
through
contaminated
fish.
3
We
either
protect
and
clean
up
our
water
4
now
or
we
will
pay
much
more
dearly
when
we
finally
get
5
around
to
it,
not
only
in
dollars
but
in
the
health
of
6
our
citizens.
There
is
no
cost
too
high
for
clean
7
water.
8
We
need
a
strong,
specific,
enforceable,
9
serious
antidegradation
rule.
Anything
less
is
a
10
threat
to
our
future
and
it
is
unacceptable.
It
is
way
11
past
time
for
the
EPA
to
see
that
the
Clean
Water
Act
12
is
enforced
and
that
the
promise
of
clean
water
is
13
finally
realized.
14
We've
waited
for
30
years.
The
promise
15
is
long
deferred
and
we
want
you
to
take
this
draft
16
plan
back,
look
at
it
again,
come
back
to
us
with
17
something
that
protects
the
water
of
the
Commonwealth
18
of
Kentucky.
Thank
you.
19
MR.
McGILL:
I
called
Ed
20
Council's
name
earlier
and
he
wasn't
in
the
room.
21
MR.
COUNCIL:
Here.
My
name
22
is
Ed
Council.
I
am
the
Secretary
of
the
Kentucky
23
Riverkeeper
and
also
the
owner
of
Canoe
Kentucky,
a
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
114
network
of
adventure
water­
based
canoe
liveries
1
throughout
the
state
that
uses
most
of­­
some
of
2
Kentucky's
canoeable
waters.
3
I
am
here
today
to
speak
on
behalf
of
4
Kentucky
Riverkeeper.
It
is
a
nonprofit
citizens
5
action
group
focused
on
the
Kentucky
River
Basin.
It
6
has
41
counties
and
all
the
tributaries
to
it.
7
Our
visions
are
like
your's
for
fishable
8
and
swimmable
river
at
least
in
my
lifetime.
I'll
tell
9
you
right
now,
I
don't
have
another
30
years
to
wait.
10
The
Kentucky
River
in
its
entirety
does
11
not
meet
the
standards
for
fishable
or
swimmable.
What
12
a
shock
that
must
be
to
a
lot
of
citizens
that
we
get
13
to
talk
to.
14
We
are
concerned
that
the
rule
that
you
15
all
present
today
for
us
to
comment
on
does
not
address
16
this
issue.
In
fact,
although
some
of
the
tributaries
17
of
the
Kentucky
River
classify
themselves
under
Tier
18
II,
we
think
that
protection
is
going
to
have
a
major
19
impact
on
our
vision,
that
is
our
fishable
and
20
swimmable
Kentucky
River
in
our
lifetime.
21
We
need
better
protection,
not
worse.
22
We
need
stronger
protections,
not
less.
We
do
believe
23
that
much
of
the
work
that
we
have
been
able
to
do
has
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
115
been
based
on
looking
at
the
different
parameters
that
1
are
making
up
the
thousands
of
violations
of
existing
2
permits
and
that
this
rule
will
probably
just
compound
3
that
situation.
4
Part
of
the
material
that
we
will
submit
5
to
you
will
contain
each
of
the
41
counties
in
the
6
basin
and
the
number
of
permit
violations
over
the
past
7
three
years,
as
well
as
an
analysis
of
each
of
those
8
top
ten
polluters
in
each
one
of
the
pools,
14
of
which
9
are
delineated
by
the
Corps
of
Engineer
locks
and
dams
10
in
the
Kentucky
River
plus
the
upper
three
branches
11
unaffected
by
those
locks
and
dams.
12
I
haven't
heard
in
all­­
now
two
and
a
13
half
plus
hours
of
sitting
here
anyone
speak
in
favor
14
of
what
you
all
have
proposed.
That
seems
to
me
a
15
pretty
strong
message.
16
I
operate
a
business
and
your
definition
17
of
de
minimis
is
something
that
would
lead
me
to
18
bankruptcy
in
a
second.
19
Nobody
likes
this
reg.
I
need
you
to
go
20
back
and
fix
it.
We
have
comments
that
will
be
coming
21
to
you
by
your
March
14
deadline
but
I
think
you
get
my
22
message.
Thank
you.
23
MR.
McGILL:
Excuse
me
for
one
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
116
moment,
please.
I
appreciate
everyone's
cooperation
1
when
I
had
asked
to
limit
your
speaking
to
ten
minutes.
2
I
really
do
appreciate
everyone's
cooperation.
The
3
time
is
4:
40
and
everyone
who
has
filled
out
a
4
registration
form
to
speak
has
spoken.
I
guess
I
would
5
like
to
know
is
there
anyone
who
spoke
that
felt
like
6
they
had
something
more
to
say
but
was
limited,
given
7
them
trying
to
cooperate
because
what
I
suggest,
if
I
8
can
get
a
show
of
hands
of
folks
who
would
like
to
9
continue
to
speak,
I
mean
if
there
is
anyone
who
would
10
like
to
do
so,
then
we
could
just
divide
the
remaining
11
20
minutes
amongst
those
folks.
12
MR.
GRADDY:
That
is
an
13
awfully
dangerous
request.
14
MR.
McGILL:
I
understand
that
15
but
given
that
we
have
20
minutes
left­­
16
MS.
PETERSEN:
I'd
like
to
17
wait
until
this
evening
to
finish
my
comments,
if
that
18
is
all
right.
19
MR.
McGILL:
Is
there
anyone
20
in
this
room
who
would
like
to
say
anything
more
than
21
what
has
already
been
said.
(
No
response)
I
would
22
like
to
thank
each
of
you
for
your
participation
in
23
this
public
hearing.
The
comments
which
we
have
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
117
received
today,
both
oral
and
written,
will
be
1
carefully
considered
and
evaluated
as
we
make
our
2
determination
regarding
these
proposed
water
quality
3
standards.
We
will
close
the
official
public
comment
4
period
on
March
14th,
2003.
Again,
thank
you
for
your
5
participation
and
the
afternoon
session
of
this
hearing
6
is
adjourned.
We
will
begin
the
evening
session
of
7
this
hearing
promptly
at
7:
00
o'clock
p.
m.
8
OFF
THE
RECORD
4:
42
p.
m.
9
10
11
12
13
14
(
Evening
Session:)
15
MR.
McGILL:
Let's
go
ahead
16
and
get
started,
please.
Good
evening,
ladies
and
17
gentlemen.
I
am
Thomas
McGill
and
I
am
Chief
of
the
18
West
Standards
Monitoring
and
TMDL
Section
of
the
Water
19
Management
Division
of
the
EPA
Region
4
Office
in
20
Atlanta,
Georgia.
21
This
hearing
is
being
held
to
receive
22
public
comments
on
proposed
water
quality
standards
for
23
the
Commonwealth
of
Kentucky.
EPA
proposed
the
water
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
118
quality
standards
for
the
Commonwealth
in
the
Federal
1
Register
on
November
14,
2002.
The
information
from
2
this
hearing
will
be
used
by
EPA
to
review
the
proposed
3
water
quality
standards
and
the
methodologies
to
be
4
used
by
the
Commonwealth
in
the
implementation
of
the
5
standards.
6
This
is
the
second
of
two
sessions
being
7
held
today
to
receive
comments
on
EPA's
proposed
water
8
quality
standards
for
Kentucky.
This
evening
session
9
will
be
held
open
until
10:
00
o'clock
p.
m.
This
first
10
session
was
held
earlier
today
from
2:
00
o'clock
to
11
5:
00
o'clock.
12
It
is
not
necessary
for
you
to
speak
13
this
evening
if
you
made
a
presentation
at
the
earlier
14
session
this
afternoon.
We
request
that
you
speak
this
15
evening
if
you
were
not
present
at
the
earlier
session,
16
or
if
you
wish
to
make
comments
in
addition
to
those
17
that
you
made
during
the
afternoon
session,
or
if
you
18
wish
to
respond
to
the
comment
or
content
of
other
19
presenters.
20
Background
information
on
EPA's
proposed
21
action
is
included
in
a
Fact
Sheet
that
is
available
at
22
the
registration
table.
Also,
a
copy
of
the
November
23
14,
2003
Federal
Register,
which
contains
the
text
of
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
119
EPA's
proposed
rule
and
the
supporting
preamble
to
the
1
proposal,
is
available
at
the
registration
table.
2
If
you
have
not
filled
out
a
3
registration
form,
please
do
so
as
that
is
how
I
will
4
know
if
you
would
like
to
speak.
After
I
have
5
explained
the
ground
rules
for
the
hearing
and
a
few
6
details
about
how
EPA
will
use
the
information
gathered
7
today,
I
will
begin
to
call
the
names
of
those
people
8
who
have
expressed
an
interest
in
making
comments
9
during
the
hearing.
10
This
public
hearing
was
announced
on
11
November
18,
2002
in
the
Louisville
Courier­
Journal,
12
and
on
November
20,
2002,
in
the
Lexington
Herald­
13
Leader.
A
notice
of
this
hearing
was
also
announced
in
14
the
Federal
Register,
Volume
67,
Number
220,
on
15
November
14,
2002.
These
notices
stated
that
EPA
is
16
requesting
that
written
information
and
other
data
be
17
submitted
to
EPA
by
March
14,
2003.
These
written
18
comments
should
be
directed
to
Mr.
Fritz
Wagener
at
EPA
19
Region
4,
Atlanta
Federal
Center,
Water
Management
20
Division,
61
Forsyth
Street,
SW,
Atlanta,
Georgia
21
30303.
This
address
is
also
listed
on
the
Fact
Sheet
22
available
at
the
registration
desk.
The
Federal
23
Register
Notice
also
describes
other
ways
that
comments
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
120
may
be
submitted
to
EPA,
including
comments
submitted
1
by
E­
Mail,
by
hand
delivery
or
courier,
and
by
2
commenting
through
EPA's
Internet
site
at
3
222.
epa.
gov/
edocket.
The
Federal
Register
Notice
also
4
contains
instructions
on
how
to
review
EPA's
official
5
public
docket
for
this
proposal.
The
docket
can
be
6
reviewed
either
at
EPA's
Region
4
Office
in
Atlanta,
or
7
on
EPA's
Internet
site.
I
encourage
you
to
read
the
8
Federal
Register
notice
for
a
full
explanation
of
how
9
to
view
the
docket
online.
10
Although
the
proceedings
of
this
hearing
11
are
being
recorded
and
a
transcript
will
be
included
in
12
the
administrative
record,
I
also
ask
that
you
leave
a
13
copy
of
your
comments
if
you
have
prepared
a
printed
14
version.
15
I
also
ask
you
to
keep
your
16
presentations
on
the
topic,
that
is
the
subject
of
this
17
hearing
which
is
information
that
relates
to
the
18
proposed
antidegradation
policy
and
implementation
19
methods
for
the
policy
for
the
Commonwealth
of
20
Kentucky.
I
may
interrupt
and
cut
short,
if
necessary,
21
any
oral
presentation
exceeding
this
limit
or
outside
22
the
scope
of
this
hearing.
There
may
be
times
that
I,
23
or
other
EPA
representatives
with
me
today,
may
ask
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
121
questions
of
those
of
you
making
comments
to
EPA
where
1
it
is
necessary
to
clarify
the
nature
or
substance
of
2
the
comments.
3
Section
303(
c)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
4
directs
states,
with
oversight
by
EPA,
to
adopt
water
5
quality
standards
to
protect
public
health
and
welfare,
6
enhance
the
quality
of
water
and
serve
the
purposes
of
7
the
Act.
Under
Section
303,
States
have
the
primary
8
responsibility
to
establish
water
quality
standards,
9
which
are
defined
as
designated
uses,
or
use
goals,
of
10
a
water
segment,
the
water
quality
criteria
to
support
11
those
uses,
and
an
antidegradation
policy
applicable
to
12
all
state
waters.
The
Act
specifies
the
minimum
13
beneficial
uses
to
be
considered
by
states
in
14
establishing
water
quality
standards
as
public
water
15
supplies,
propagation
of
fish
and
wildlife,
recreation,
16
agricultural
uses,
industrial
uses
and
navigation.
17
Also,
Section
101(
a)(
2)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
states,
18
"...
it
is
the
national
goal
that
wherever
attainable,
19
an
interim
goal
of
water
quality
which
provides
for
the
20
protection
and
propagation
of
fish,
shellfish,
and
21
wildlife
and
provides
for
recreation
in
and
on
the
22
water."
23
Section
303
of
the
Act
also
includes
a
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
122
requirement
that
states
review
their
standards
at
least
1
once
every
three
years
using
a
process
that
includes
2
public
participation
and
EPA
review
of
the
state­
3
adopted
standards.
Under
Section
303(
c),
EPA
is
4
required
to
either
approve
new
or
revised
state
5
standards
that
meet
the
requirements
of
the
Act,
or
6
disapprove
standards
that
fail
to
meet
those
7
requirements.
Where
EPA
takes
an
action
to
disapprove
8
a
state
standard,
section
303(
c)(
4)(
A)
of
the
Act
9
states
that
EPA
is
to
promptly
propose
substitute
10
federal
standards
and
promulgate
federal
standards
11
within
90
days
thereafter.
12
EPA's
regulation
at
40
CFR
131.12
13
requires
that
States
and
authorized
Tribes
adopt
14
antidegradation
policies
and
identify
implementation
15
methods
to
provide
three
levels
of
water
quality
16
protection.
The
first
level
of
protection
at
40
CFR
17
131.12(
a)(
1)
requires
the
maintenance
and
protection
of
18
existing
instream
water
uses
and
the
level
of
water
19
quality
necessary
to
protect
those
existing
uses.
20
Protection
of
existing
uses
is
the
floor
of
water
21
quality
protection
afforded
to
all
waters
of
the
United
22
States.
Existing
uses
are
"...
those
uses
actually
23
attained
in
the
water
body
on
or
after
November
28,
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
123
1975,
whether
or
not
they
are
included
in
the
water
1
quality
standards."
2
The
second
level
of
protection
is
for
3
high
quality
waters.
High
quality
waters
are
defined
4
in
40
CFR
131.12(
a)(
2)
as
waters
where
the
quality
of
5
the
waters
is
better
than
the
levels
necessary
to
6
support
propagation
of
fish,
shellfish,
and
wildlife
7
and
recreation
in
and
on
the
water,
in
other
words,
the
8
Section
101(
a)(
2)
goal
uses
of
the
Clean
Water
Act.
9
This
water
quality
is
to
be
maintained
and
protected
10
unless
the
State
or
authorized
Tribe
finds,
after
11
public
participation
and
intergovernmental
review,
that
12
allowing
lower
water
quality
is
necessary
to
13
accommodate
important
economic
or
social
development
in
14
the
area
in
which
the
waters
are
located.
In
allowing
15
lower
water
quality,
the
State
or
authorized
Tribe
must
16
assure
water
quality
adequate
to
protect
existing
uses.
17
Further,
the
State
or
authorized
Tribe
must
ensure
that
18
all
applicable
statutory
and
regulatory
requirements
19
are
achieved
for
all
new
and
existing
point
sources
and
20
all
cost­
effective
and
reasonable
best
management
21
practices
are
achieved
for
nonpoint
source
control.
22
Finally,
the
third
and
highest
level
of
23
antidegradation
protection
is
for
outstanding
national
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
124
resource
waters
or
ONRW's.
If
a
State
or
authorized
1
Tribe
determines
that
the
characteristics
of
a
water
2
body
constitute
an
outstanding
national
resource,
such
3
as
waters
of
National
and
State
parks
and
wildlife
4
refuges
and
waters
of
exceptional
recreational
or
5
ecological
significance,
and
designates
a
water
body
as
6
such,
then
those
characteristics
must
be
maintained
and
7
protected.
8
The
focus
of
EPA's
November
14,
2002
9
proposed
rule
is
the
second
level
of
antidegradation:
10
high
quality
waters.
Paragraph
(
2)
of
401
KAR
5:
029
11
section
1
of
Kentucky's
current
water
quality
standards
12
contains
the
provisions
of
Kentucky's
antidegradation
13
policy
which
address
the
requirements
for
waters
with
14
quality
that
is
better
than
the
levels
necessary
to
15
support
propagation
of
fish,
shellfish,
and
wildlife
16
and
recreation
in
and
on
the
water.
Currently,
17
Kentucky
limits
the
application
of
the
high
quality
18
waters
provisions
to
waters
designated
by
the
19
Commonwealth
as
"
Exceptional
Waters."
Exceptional
20
Waters
are
defined
in
401
KAR
5:
030,
section
1.(
1)(
b),
21
as
all
surface
waters
designated
as
a
Kentucky
Wild
22
River;
waters
designated
as
an
Outstanding
State
23
Resource
Water
that
do
not
support
a
federally
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
125
threatened
or
endangered
aquatic
species;
waters
that
1
contain
a
fish
community
that
is
rated
"
excellent"
by
2
the
use
of
Kentucky's
Index
of
Biotic
Integrity;
waters
3
that
contain
a
macroinvertebrate
community
that
is
4
rated
"
excellent"
by
Kentucky's
Macroinvertebrate
5
Bioassessment
Index;
and
any
water
in
Kentucky's
6
Natural
Resources
and
Environmental
Protection
7
Cabinet's
reference
reach
network.
8
In
an
August
7,
1997,
letter,
EPA
Region
9
4
disapproved
the
Commonwealth's
eligibility
criteria
10
in
401
KAR
5:
030
section
1.(
3)
for
designating
waters
11
to
be
given
high
quality
water
protection,
and
12
specified
the
changes
needed
for
EPA
to
approve
a
13
revised
water
quality
standard.
In
an
October
9,
1997,
14
letter
from
the
Kentucky
Natural
Resources
and
15
Environmental
Protection
Cabinet
to
EPA
Region
4,
16
Kentucky
stated
its
intention
to
expand
the
universe
of
17
high
quality
waters
receiving
added
protection
from
the
18
effects
of
point
source
discharges
regulated
under
the
19
KPDES
program.
Kentucky
also
indicated
that
the
20
revisions
would
be
part
of
its
next
triennial
review
of
21
water
quality
standards.
22
Kentucky
began
its
water
quality
23
standards
triennial
review
in
October
of
1998
with
a
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
126
public
notice
of
intent
to
update
uses,
revise
numeric
1
criteria,
strengthen
mixing
zone
language,
and
to
2
respond
to
EPA's
1997
antidegradation
disapproval.
3
After
adoption
of
revisions
to
Kentucky
water
quality
4
standards
on
December
8,
1999,
Kentucky
submitted
the
5
results
of
its
triennial
review
to
EPA
on
December
15,
6
1999.
However,
the
revisions
did
not
sufficiently
7
broaden
the
criteria
to
increase
the
number
of
eligible
8
waters
for
the
exceptional
waters
category,
consistent
9
with
EPA's
regulation
at
40
CFR
131.12(
a)(
2).
10
Therefore
on
August
30,
2000,
EPA
Region
4
notified
the
11
Commonwealth
that
the
high
quality
waters
provisions
of
12
Kentucky's
water
quality
standards
remained
13
disapproved.
14
In
a
letter
dated
May
24,
2001,
the
15
Kentucky
Division
of
Water
clarified
that
the
16
Exceptional
Waters
category
is
intended
to
provide
a
17
higher
level
of
protection
than
the
level
for
other
18
high
quality
waters.
Several
States
and
authorized
19
Tribes
have
created
an
additional
category
of
water
20
between
high
quality
waters
and
ONRWs
in
their
21
antidegradation
policy.
Kentucky's
exception
waters
22
category
generally
includes
more
stringent
controls
23
than
those
required
for
high
quality
waters,
but
allows
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
127
more
flexibility
to
make
adjustments
in
criteria
and
in
1
permitting
decisions
than
would
normally
be
allowed
if
2
the
water
body
were
designated
as
an
ONRW.
EPA
3
believes
such
a
category
is
consistent
with
the
intent
4
and
spirit
of
the
antidegradation
policy
when
5
supplementing
the
high
quality
water
and
the
ONRW
6
categories.
7
The
Commonwealth
has
an
active
program
8
to
identify
candidates
for
the
Exceptional
Waters
9
category.
The
Kentucky
Division
of
Water
has
10
identified
133
segments,
which
cover
approximately
567
11
stream
miles,
meeting
the
criteria
for
inclusion
in
the
12
exceptional
waters
category
since
the
previous
13
triennial
review
completed
in
1999.
These
waters
have
14
been
found
to
meet
the
exceptional
waters
criteria
15
based
on
ambient
sampling
in
the
Salt,
Licking,
Upper
16
and
Lower
Cumberland,
Tennessee,
and
Mississippi
river
17
basins.
Many
of
these
segments
have
been
included
in
18
Kentucky's
Reference
Reach
Network,
and
others
have
19
been
found
to
contain
either
fish
or
macroinvertebrate
20
communities
rated
as
excellent
using
the
Commonwealth's
21
assessment
methodologies
for
evaluation
of
biological
22
integrity.
However,
as
I
outlined
before,
Kentucky
has
23
no
separate,
readily
identified
high
quality
waters
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
128
category
commensurate
with
the
federal
requirement
at
1
40
CFR
131.12(
a)(
2),
which
is
the
high
quality
waters
2
provision
of
the
federal
water
quality
standards
3
regulation.
4
As
I
stated
previously,
Section
303(
c)
5
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
authorizes
the
EPA
Administrator
6
to
promulgate
water
quality
standards
to
supersede
7
State
standards
that
have
been
disapproved,
or
in
any
8
case
where
the
Administrator
determines
that
a
new
or
9
revised
standard
is
necessary
to
meet
the
requirements
10
of
the
Act.
It
is
these
Section
303(
c)
authorities
11
that
EPA
used
in
releasing
the
proposed
standards
that
12
are
the
subject
of
today's
hearing.
13
The
citation
for
the
proposed
standards
14
is
40
CFR
Section
131.39.
Subsection
(
a)
is
entitled
15
"
What
antidegradation
policy
applies
to
high
quality
16
waters
in
the
Commonwealth
of
Kentucky?"
Subsection
17
(
b)
is
entitled,
"
What
are
high
quality
waters?"
18
Subsection
(
c)
is
entitled,
"
How
will
the
Commonwealth
19
evaluate
requests
to
lower
water
quality?"
20
In
the
November
14,
2002
notice
of
the
21
proposed
rule,
EPA
asked
for
comment
on
several
aspects
22
of
the
proposed
rule.
23
Regarding
the
definition
of
high
quality
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
129
waters,
the
proposal
would
allow
Kentucky
to
use
1
several
types
of
data
for
the
purpose
of
identifying
2
high
quality
waters,
including
both
chemical
and
3
biological
data.
EPA
is
soliciting
comments
on
this
4
approach,
which
provides
Kentucky
broad
latitude
in
5
identifying
high
quality
waters.
EPA
is
also
6
soliciting
comments
on
whether
a
final
regulation
7
should
limit
the
Commonwealth
to
a
particular
approach
8
in
lieu
of
any
others
in
identifying
high
quality
9
waters.
10
Regarding
the
implementation
methodology
11
for
evaluating
proposed
lowering
of
water
quality,
the
12
preamble
to
the
proposed
rule
requests
public
comment
13
on
two
issues.
14
The
preamble
requests
comment
on
whether
15
EPA
should
use
Kentucky's
current
provisions
for
16
Exceptional
Waters
as
the
implementing
provisions
to
17
evaluate
proposed
lowering
of
water
quality
to
the
high
18
quality
waters
addressed
by
EPA's
proposal.
19
The
preamble
also
requests
comment
on
20
whether
Kentucky's
detailed
October
1,
1999,
proposal
21
should
be
part
of
a
final
Federal
regulation,
or
22
whether
this
proposal
should
be
used
to
implement
the
23
broader
regulatory
language
in
today's
proposed
rule.
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
130
In
addition,
EPA
is
also
requesting
1
comment
on
the
issue
of
the
level
of
detail
contained
2
in
the
proposed
rule
language.
Specifically,
EPA
3
requests
comment
on
whether
the
proposed
rule,
as
4
written,
provides
a
sufficient
level
of
detail
and
5
adequate
regulatory
basis
for
the
Commonwealth
to
6
implement
a
final
federal
rule,
given
the
statutory
7
constraints
in
the
Commonwealth,
or
whether
some
of
the
8
guidance
set
forth
in
the
notice
to
the
proposal
should
9
instead
be
codified
as
a
part
of
a
final
rule.
10
After
March
14,
2003,
which
is
the
end
11
of
the
comment
period,
EPA
will
review
all
comments
on
12
these
and
all
other
issues
raised,
as
well
as
other
13
information
available
to
the
Agency
on
the
proposed
14
rule.
Based
on
the
information
available
at
that
time,
15
EPA
will
determine
if
revisions
to
the
proposed
rule
16
are
warranted.
17
I
would
now
like
to
introduce
the
18
hearing
panel.
On
my
right
is
Jennifer
Wigal
of
EPA's
19
Office
of
Water
in
EPA's
Headquarters
Office
in
20
Washington,
D.
C.
On
my
far
right
is
Mr.
Craig
21
Higgason,
Associate
Regional
Counsel
of
EPA
Region
4
22
Office
of
Regional
Counsel.
23
Given
that
as
a
general
description
of
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
131
the
need
and
purposes
for
this
hearing,
I
will
now
call
1
the
first
speaker.
But
before
doing
so,
I
would
like
2
to
introduce
another
member
of
the
panel
who
I
did
not
3
mention
just
a
moment
ago
and
that
is
Fritz
Wagener
at
4
the
end
of
the
table.
I
didn't
realize
you
came
in,
5
Fritz;
I
am
sorry
about
that.
6
Given
that
as
a
general
description
of
7
the
need
and
purposes
for
this
hearing,
I
will
now
call
8
the
first
speaker.
As
we
proceed
with
the
hearing,
I
9
would
like
to
ask
each
person
making
a
statement
to
10
step
up
to
the
microphone
in
the
center
of
the
room,
11
state
his
or
her
name,
spelling
it
if
necessary,
and
12
state
your
interest
or
organization
represented.
13
Our
first
speaker
is
Tom
Vierheller.
14
MR.
VIERHELLER:
That
is
15
really
good.
My
name
is
Tom
Vierheller.
I
am
16
President
of
the
Kentucky
Waterways
Alliance
and
17
Professor
of
Biology
at
Prestonsburg
Community
College
18
here
in
Kentucky.
19
Our
mission
at
Kentucky
Waterways
20
Alliance
includes
"
to
protect
and
restore
Kentucky's
21
waterways."
Our
current
challenge
right
here
this
22
evening
is
to
have
a
strong,
clear
antidegradation
23
policy
for
Kentucky.
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
132
As
you
know,
Kentucky
has
a
system
of
1
permitting
discharge
of
pollutants
into
our
waterways
2
referred
to
as
KPDES
(
Kentucky
Pollutant
Discharge
3
Elimination
System).
This
system
allows
for
legal
4
discharge
of
pollutants.
Kentucky
also
has
tens
of
5
thousands
of
illegal
discharges
across
the
state.
Now,
6
the
goal
of
the
Clean
Water
Act,
passed
in
1972,
was
to
7
eliminate
the
discharge
of
pollutants
into
streams
by
8
1985.
So,
we
in
Kentucky,
along
with
other
states,
do
9
not
have
a
plan
to
reach
a
goal
that
was
to
be
met
10
almost
20
years
ago.
We,
instead,
have
a
system
that
11
legalizes
the
discharge
of
pollutants
into
our
streams
12
with
a
permit
and
we
have
no
serious
strategy
here
in
13
Kentucky
to
deal
with
illegal
discharges.
14
Is
this
a
problem?
Here
are
some
15
numbers
I
recently
looked
up
that
were
reported
by
the
16
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
The
17
total
toxic
pollution
discharged
into
Kentucky
streams
18
in
1997
was
over
one
million
pounds|
This
included
19
total
carcinogens
of
near
78,000
pounds
and
persistent
20
toxic
metals
was
over
97,000
pounds.
The
Big
Sandy
21
River
in
the
watershed
where
I
live,
which
is
also
22
noted
for
the
illegal
degradation
of
a
coal
slurry
in
23
the
year
2000,
ranked
second
only
to
the
Ohio
River
in
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
133
the
greatest
amount
of
reproductive
toxins
being
1
discharged
into
the
river.
Based
on
the
increased
2
numbers
of
degraded
streams
reported
in
Kentucky
by
the
3
Kentucky
Division
of
Water,
we
can
only
fear
that
the
4
levels
of
these
toxins
into
our
waters
is
rising
and
5
the
numbers
are
even
higher
than
these
1997
numbers.
6
As
a
biology
professor
at
Prestonsburg
7
Community
College
and
a
participant
in
the
Kentucky
8
Watershed
Watch
program,
I
have
been
monitoring
the
9
streams
of
the
Big
Sandy
for
over
five
years.
Our
data
10
shows
pollution
from
a
number
of
illegal
sources,
11
straight
pipes
of
untreated
sewage
and
sedimentation
12
from
poor
forestry,
mining
and
construction
practices.
13
We
also
have
serious
damage
from
acid
mine
drainage
14
that
is
well­
documented
but
it
never
gets
corrected.
15
Even
with
these
problems,
I
continue
to
believe
that
16
our
streams
do
have
high
qualities
that
are
going
17
unrecognized.
We
must
plan
for
a
future
where
the
18
illegal
pollutants
are
controlled
and
the
release
of
19
these
acids
and
metals
from
the
coal
mining
in
Eastern
20
Kentucky
is
finally
restricted.
But
to
have
hope
for
21
clean
water,
we
must
give
recognition
of
the
stream
22
quality
we
still
have
based
on
a
parameter
by
parameter
23
approach.
I
come
to
this
parameter
by
parameter
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
134
approach
consensus
from
the
data
that
we
collected
from
1
the
Watershed
Watch.
The
data
we
have
clearly
shows
in
2
many
parameters
qualities
higher
than
what
are
3
necessary
for
a
Tier
2
level.
The
vision
of
healthy
4
streams
then
must
include
offering
this
Tier
2
5
protection
to
more
streams
in
the
proposed
6
antidegradation
policy.
The
policy
you
have
presented
7
would
most
likely
not
offer
any
Tier
2
levels
of
8
protection
to
the
streams
in
my
watershed.
Finally,
we
9
must
have
a
policy
that
refuses
de
minimis
exemptions
10
of
the
KPDES
process.
How
are
we
to
have
clean
water
11
when
we
continue
to
permit
continuing
higher
levels
of
12
discharge?
13
This
is
why
KWA
and
its
partners
are
14
insisting
on
more
rigid
permit
standards
for
more
15
streams
in
our
campaign
to
see
that
the
Clean
Water
Act
16
is
properly
implemented
in
Kentucky.
We
have
a
special
17
responsibility
in
Kentucky.
We
are
blessed
with
water
18
and
streams
as
few
other
states.
Diverse
cultures
and
19
religions
throughout
the
ages
have
professed
the
evils
20
of
pollution
and
the
sacred
value
of
clean
water.
At
21
the
Kentucky
Waterways
Alliance,
we
believe
that
a
22
strong
EPA
antidegradation
ruling,
following
the
23
principles
outlined
in
the
Clean
Water
Act,
is
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
135
essential
to
the
future
health
and
opportunities
of
the
1
Commonwealth.
Thank
you.
2
MR.
McGILL:
The
next
speaker
3
is
Ron
Colwell.
4
MR.
COLWELL:
Hello,
my
name
5
is
Ron
Colwell.
I
live
in
Northern
Kentucky
in
the
6
City
of
Erlanger
which
is
located
in
Kenton
County
and
7
I
work
in
Boone
County
in
the
City
of
Hebron.
8
Because
of
my
love
of
the
outdoors,
my
9
hobbies
of
canoeing,
hiking,
cycling,
camping,
of
20
10
plus
years
involvement
in
the
Boy
Scouts
of
America,
my
11
membership
in
the
Sierra
Club
Water
Sentinnels,
12
Kentucky
Waterways
Alliance,
Nature
Conservatists,
13
Bluegrass
Cycle
Club
and
Kentucky
Rails
to
Trail
14
Association,
I
have
a
keen
interest
in
the
quality
of
15
and
protection
of
our
Commonwealth's
streams,
rivers,
16
ponds,
lakes
and
wetlands.
17
I
am
very
disappointed
by
the
rule
18
proposed
by
the
EPA
to
protect
our
Commonwealth's
water
19
quality.
I
expected
a
rule
that
would
set
standards
20
that
were
consistent
with
the
goals
of
the
Clean
Water
21
Act
that
was
passed
into
law
by
Congress
over
30
years
22
ago.
23
It
only
takes
common
sense
to
realize
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
136
that
at
a
minimum
the
EPA
rule
should
propose
standards
1
that
are
protective
of
water
quality.
The
Clean
Water
2
Act
requires
that
our
Commonwealth's
standards
should
3
protect
the
public
health
and
has
quality
of
water
and
4
serve
the
purpose
of
restoring
or
maintaining
the
5
chemical,
physical
and
biological
integrity
of
the
6
affected
waterways.
7
The
proposed
standard
must
be
legal.
8
Certainly,
the
EPA
cannot
propose
or
properly
propose
9
standards
that
it
would
be
required
to
disapprove
if
10
they
were
proposed
by
the
state
and
be
practical.
The
11
EPA
rules
must
be
able
to
be
applied
by
state
officials
12
responsible
for
decisions
on
Kentucky
Pollutant
13
Discharge
Elimination
System
permits
(
KPDESs)
in
14
section
401
certifications
in
a
timely
manner
within
15
30­
90
days.
16
The
proposed
rule
fails
on
all
three
17
counts.
The
problems
with
the
proposed
rule
are
the
18
EPA
proposal
is
unprotective,
illegal
and
impractical.
19
The
proposed
standard
does
not
protect
Kentucky
20
waterways
from
degradation
and
it
is
impossible
to
21
actually
implement
in
a
timely
manner.
22
The
proposed
rule
is
so
vague
and
23
lacking
in
content
that
it
is
impossible
to
say
that
it
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
137
will
be
a
good
thing
for
Kentucky
waters.
However,
the
1
Supplementary
Information,
considered
together
with
2
Kentucky's
consideration
of
antidegradation
3
regulations,
enables
anyone
to
predict
ongoing­­
that
4
the
adoption
of
this
proposed
rule
will
leave
all
5
Kentucky
waters
open
to
unrestrained,
new
and
increased
6
pollutions.
7
Important
and
sensitive
waters
will
be
8
denied
protection.
Even
hundreds
of
miles
of
Kentucky
9
streams
and
lakes
where
there
are
federally
listed
10
threatened
and
endangered
species
will
be
denied
11
protection.
12
Waters
that
the
Cabinet
now
recognizes
13
as
Exceptional,
will
not
receive
real
protection
under
14
the
proposed
EPA
rules.
Even
as
to
whatever
waters
15
would
be
protected
in
its
high
quality
or
exceptional
16
under
the
proposed
rule,
EPA's
Supplementary
17
Information
to
the
rule
encourages
the
Cabinet
to
adopt
18
an
exception
for
minor
or
insignificant
discharges
that
19
will
lead
to
a
progressive
degradation
of
high
quality.
20
We
need
solutions.
All
Kentucky
water
21
should
be
protected
against
unnecessary
degradation.
22
Common
sense
recommendations
to
strengthen
the
proposed
23
rule
include
require
the
application
of
antidegradation
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
138
on
a
parameter
by
parameter
basis.
Require
application
1
of
a
parameter­
based
review,
even
to
those
waters
on
2
the
303(
d)
list
for
parameters
not
violating
the
3
standards.
4
Refusing
de
minimis
exceptions
to
5
antidegradation
review
and
reworking
the
proposed
rule
6
to
provide
actual
direction
for
implementing
7
antidegradation
in
Kentucky.
8
Protecting
the
good
water
quality
in
9
Kentucky's
rivers,
streams
and
lakes
matters
to
me
and
10
my
family
and
my
friends.
I
expect
EPA
to
keep
the
11
promise
of
clean
water
for
Kentucky.
This
rule
should
12
be
meant
to
control
the
addition
of
pollution
to
13
Kentucky's
waters.
As
it
is
now
written,
this
rule
14
does
not
offer
Kentucky's
waters
the
same
reasonable
15
level
of
protection
EPA
recommends
in
its
own
16
guidelines
in
regulations.
17
In
closing,
I
reserve
the
right
to
18
submit
additional
comments
on
this
proposed
rule.
I
19
urge
you
to
propose
a
stronger
rule
consistent
with
the
20
EPA's
own
guidelines
on
a
parameter
by
parameter
basis
21
that
is
detailed
and
clear
enough
that
it
can
be
22
implemented
to
protect
our
waters
in
a
timely
manner.
23
The
citizens
of
the
Great
Commonwealth
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
139
of
Kentucky
have
waited
long
enough.
1
Finally,
I
wish
to
express
my
support
2
for
the
detailed
comments
made
by
the
Kentucky
3
Waterways
Alliance
and
the
Kentucky
Resources
Council.
4
Thank
you.
5
MR.
McGILL:
William
E.
6
Flaherty.
7
MR.
FLAHERTY:
Thank
you,
my
8
name
is
Bill
Flaherty.
I
am
a
member
of
the
Kentucky
9
Waterways
Alliance.
My
reasons
for
attending
tonight
10
are
probably
best
illustrated
by
the
horrific
memories
11
of
Love
Canal
and
the
fires
that
plagued
the
Cuyahoga
12
River.
Therefore,
I
would
like
to
discuss
the
13
environmental
and
ecological
reasons
for
protecting
the
14
waters
of
Kentucky;
however,
taking
into
consideration
15
the
focus
of
the
current
administration,
I
will
discuss
16
the
monetary
aspects.
17
Without
a
sound
and
practical
water
18
quality
program,
human
health,
agriculture
and
industry
19
costs
increase
tremendously.
If
we
leave
the
proposed
20
Water
Quality
Standards
as
they
are
currently
written,
21
we
will
do
exactly
the
opposite
of
what
President
Bush
22
has
proposed
to
do
in
his
education
reform.
We
will
23
leave
children
behind|
Personal
health
care
costs
will
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
140
go
up
and
those
families
already
choosing
between
food
1
and
medical
care
will
exponentially
increase.
2
Let's
talk
about
food.
With
poor
3
quality
water
to
irrigate,
the
product
taken
to
market
4
deteriorates
and
results
in
lower
profits
or
even
a
5
loss
for
the
farmer
unless
the
federal
government
bails
6
them
out.
7
Industry
would
essentially
have
the
same
8
problem.
With
poor
quality
water
to
cool
the
9
equipment,
or
the
manufacturing
plastics,
chemicals,
10
pharmaceuticals
or
any
number
of
products.
The
product
11
manufactured
is
of
lower
quality
and
results
in
lower
12
profits.
The
other
alternative
is
a
higher
wholesale
13
price,
due
to
the
cost
of
an
on­
site
water
treatment
14
plant
for
cleaning
the
water
prior
to
using
it.
This
15
reduces
the
number
of
units
sold,
which
could
lead
to
16
bankruptcy,
loss
of
jobs
or
federal
government
loans.
17
The
costs
for
public
and/
or
private
18
water
treatment
plants
could
increase
also.
This
is
19
due
to
the
extra
chemicals
needed
for
removal
of
20
contaminants,
as
well
as
extra
manpower
and
additional
21
downtime
for
cleaning
of
filters.
22
As
you
can
see,
reduced
standards
for
23
our
water
supply
affects
our
health
and
fiscal
costs.
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
141
MR.
McGILL:
The
next
speaker
1
is
Beverly
Juett.
2
MS.
JUETT:
My
name
is
Beverly
3
Juett.
I
am
a
professor
of
biology
at
Midway
College
4
and
I
am
here
tonight
representing
Kentucky
River
5
Watershed
Watch.
6
Kentucky
River
Watershed
Watch
is
a
7
citizens
group
that
conducts
monitoring
over
180
sites
8
of
the
Kentucky
River
Basin.
We
also
serve
as
an
9
advocacy
group
for
clean
water
in
the
Kentucky
River
10
Basin.
Kentucky
River
Watershed
Watch
wishes
to
go
on
11
record
as
fully
endorsing
the
earlier
comments
of
12
Kentucky
Waterways
Alliance
requesting
more
stringent
13
water
quality
regulations
than
in
the
proposed
rule.
14
Kentucky
River
Watershed
Watch
is
15
especially
interested
in
a
final
rule
requiring
16
application
of
antidegradation
on
a
parameter­
by­
17
parameter
basis,
especially
and
even
for
those
waters
18
of
the
303(
d)
list
for
parameters
not
violating
the
19
standards.
We
are
very
concerned
about
the
20%
de
20
minimis
and
believe
that
this
will
not
support
clean
21
water
in
the
future.
22
We
agree
with
Kentucky
Waterways
23
Alliance
and
are
especially
concerned
that
this
rule
as
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
142
written
will
not
provide
the
minimum
rules
needed
to
1
implement
the
standards
and
implementation
is
needed
2
and
this
rule
needs
to
have
sufficient
detail
so
that
3
it
can
at
least
support
KPDES
permits
401
decisions
4
without
taking
more
time
from
future
rule
making
to
get
5
it
working.
6
MR.
McGILL:
The
next
speaker
7
is
Jerry
Junker.
8
MR.
JUNKER:
My
name
is
Jerry
9
Junker.
I
live
in
the
Northern
part
of
the
state
in
10
Edgewood,
Kentucky
real
close
to
Cincinnati.
The
first
11
thing
I
need
to
say
is
I
am
not
an
expert.
I
am
a
12
citizen.
I
am
a
hiker,
a
camper,
a
lover
of
the
13
outdoors,
and
recently,
I've
become
passionate
about
14
concern
about
water.
15
I
am
also
the
father
of
a
five­
year
old
16
and
a
one­
year
old
and
I
want
them
to
grow
up
in
a
17
state
with
clean,
healthy
water.
18
I
am
glad
there
are
experts;
I
am
glad
19
you
are
here.
I
am
glad
there
are
other
experts
here.
20
I
don't
claim
to
be
an
expert
on
this
but
I
claim
to
be
21
passionate
about
my
concern
and
I
believe
I
represent
22
many
of
the
citizens
of
Kentucky
and
their
concern
23
about
this
rule.
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
143
I
drove
100
miles
one
way
in
the
very
1
cold
as
you
know
for
one
reason
and
that
is
to
say
to
2
you
that
I
believe
that
this
isn't
just
only
a
3
technical,
legal
or
administrative
issue,
as
important
4
as
those
prospectives
are.
But
I
believe
there
5
actually
is
a
moral
dimension
to
this.
6
With
that
said,
let
me
just
make
a
few
7
comments.
I
am
sure
many
of
them
you
have
heard
8
already.
I
would
ask
that
you
reconsider
your
role
9
because
of
its
failure
in
several
areas.
10
First,
I'd
ask
that
there
be
a
less
11
exclusive
criteria
that
the
State
of
Kentucky
use
in
12
designating
T­
II
streams.
I
think
it
is
inadequate
and
13
almost
incomprehensible
that
less
than
1.5
percent
of
14
our
streams
are
designated
as
T­
II
when
in
fact
your
15
own
analysis,
about
two­
thirds
would
deserve
16
protection.
17
As
part
of
the
Sierra
Club
of
Northern
18
Kentucky
and
of
this
state,
I
would
like
to
see
the
19
permits
go
through
check
points
so
that
the
public
has
20
a
chance
to
comment,
exactly
as
I
am
now.
I
appreciate
21
your
being
here
for
this
privilege.
22
I
would
like
to
see
a
parameter
by
23
parameter
analysis
and
protection.
I
believe
that
is
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
144
the
best
way
to
protect
our
streams.
It
is
the
best
1
way
to
get
a
clear
prospective
on
the
status
of
our
2
streams
and
I
ask
that
streams
that
in
fact
are
listed
3
on
the
303(
d)
list
as
impaired,
they
can
understand
4
that
they
still
could
be
high
quality.
If
we
used
a
5
parameter
by
parameter
approach
many
more
of
them
will
6
be
able
to
be
protected
in
a
better
way.
7
I
ask
that
your
role
also
require
that
8
Kentucky
begin
a
process
of
reviewing
all
existing
9
permits
and
not
just
new
or
proposed
permits
and
I
ask
10
that
you
push
our
state
for
prompt
implementation.
11
After
having
rejected
our
state's
proposal
in
1987
and
12
2001,
I
think
it
is
time
that
you
push
our
state
to
do
13
that
which
the
Clean
Water
Act
demands
that
they
do.
14
I
think
that
the
level
of
de
minimis
15
should
be
very
low
so
that
we
do
not
allow
a
number
of
16
polluters
to
degrade
our
streams
significantly.
17
What
I
ask
simply
is
that
you
follow
18
your
own
guidelines,
your
own
criteria
and
your
own
19
training
manual
in
order
to
help
protect
the
streams
of
20
our
state
so
that
there
is
not
a
crash,
a
free
fall,
a
21
significant
degradation
of
the
quality
of
water
of
our
22
streams.
23
I
don't
want
your
role
to
sacrifice
our
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
145
heritage.
We
have
more
streams
than
any
other
state
1
except
Alaska.
It
is
a
great
heritage;
we
are
proud
of
2
it.
I
was
born
in
this
state;
I
intend
to
die
in
this
3
state.
Please,
I
ask
you,
to
force
on
the
4
Commonwealth,
to
obey
the
Clean
Water
Act.
Thank
you.
5
MR.
McGILL:
The
next
speaker
6
is
with
KWA,
William
Montgomery.
7
MR.
MONTGOMERY:
Is
this
8
adjustable?
I
support
KWA's
effort
to
secure
effective
9
protection
for
Kentucky's
waters.
It
is
not
only
10
aquatic
life
that
would
be
preserved
in
its
variety.
11
It
also
involves
protection
of
public
drinking
water
12
supplies.
People
should
have
confidence
that
they
have
13
got
safe
well
water
too.
14
These
assurances
should
be
projected
15
well
into
the
future.
I
see
no
room
for
compromise.
16
EPA
should
not
weasel
out
of
this
responsibility
with
17
the
use
of
equivocal
language
in
this
rule.
18
There
should
be
no
de
minimis
exemptions
19
to
antidegradation
review.
Antidegradation
standards
20
should
be
applied
on
a
parameter
by
parameter
basis.
21
Companies
should
be
required
to
consider
22
alternatives
for
practices
of
discharging
pollutants
23
down
the
drain
because
that
is
the
easiest
way
to
do
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
146
it.
1
These
alternatives
should
include
a
no­
2
discharge
option
or
use
of
an
anti­
pollution
3
technologies
as
they
evolve.
4
Here
is
something.
If
these
businesses
5
are
unable
to
control
their
pollution,
they
should
not
6
be
permitted
to
open.
7
The
Final
rule
should
also
provide
8
specific
guidance
for
putting
improved
antidegradation
9
policies
to
work­­
no
weasel
words.
10
MR.
McGILL:
The
next
speaker
11
is
Heather
Mayfield.
12
MS.
MAYFIELD:
I
am
sorry,
I
13
went
earlier.
14
MR.
McGILL:
The
next
speaker
15
is
Judith
Petersen.
16
MS.
PETERSEN:
My
name
is
17
Judith
Petersen
and
I
am
going
to
continue
my
comments
18
from
earlier.
So
I
have
provided
you
with
a
written
19
copy.
Just
real
briefly
to
summarize
a
little
bit
of
20
what
I
said
earlier,
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
21
the
folks
in
this
room
know
that
KWA­­
the
rest
of
the
22
groups
who
filed
a
Notice
of
Intent
are
pretty
23
disappointed
in
the
draft
rule.
We
feel
like
we
have
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
147
waited
over
five
years
for
the
Cabinet
to
come
up
with
1
an
antidegradation
policy
that
would
meet
minimum
2
standards
under
the
Clean
Water
Act.
They
have
been
3
unable
or
unwilling
to
do
so.
We
have
now
waited
4
another
year
and
a
half
for
EPA
to
propose
this
rule
5
and
it
seems
like
EPA
has
forgotten
or
is
disregarding
6
its
own
guidance
and
its
own
regulations.
7
So
to
continue
in
terms
of
all
waters
8
should
be
protected
against
unnecessary
degradation,
9
that
is
what
we
are
talking
about
here.
We
are
not
10
talking
about
no
discharge
permits
ever.
We
are
11
talking
about
looking
at
what
is
necessary
in
terms
of
12
adding
pollution
to
our
streams.
We
are
talking
about
13
looking
at
alternatives.
We
are
talking
about
socio­
14
economic
benefit
analysis.
15
It
doesn't
seem
like
we
are
asking
for
16
the
moon
30
years
after
the
Clean
Water
Act.
17
So
I
would
just
like
to
remind
EPA
a
18
little
bit
about
what
the
Water
Quality
Standards
19
Handbook
does
say
about
antidegradation
and
it
states
20
very
clearly,
"
EPA
believes
that
it
is
best
to
apply
21
antidegradation
on
a
parameter­
by­
parameter
basis."
22
It
does
go
on
to
say
that
"
EPA
has
23
accepted
approaches
that
do
not
use
a
strict
pollutant­
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
148
by­
pollutant
basis."
In
discussing
these
other
1
alternative
bases
that
EPA
has
approved,
it
does
go
on
2
to
say
that
a
"
designational
water
body
approach"
could
3
be
approved;
however
even
EPA
Region
IV
guidance
on
4
antidegradation
says
that
"
It
is
very
unlikely
that
a
5
state's
aquatic
database
will
be
sufficient
to
allow
a
6
valid
assessment
of
all
of
a
state's
water
bodies
to
7
determine
which
of
these
water
bodies
should
be
8
subjected
to
the
Tier
II
process.
Therefore,
if
a
9
state
wishes
to
use
the
designational
Tier
II
process,
10
it
should
also
include
in
the
antidegradation
11
procedures
that
the
process
that
will
be
used
to
add
to
12
that
listing
of
Tier
II
water
bodies.
Due
to
the
13
expected
large
percentage
of
waters
that
will
probably
14
not
be
initially
designated
as
Tier
II
waters,
15
substantial
EPA
review
of
a
State
implementation
will
16
be
required
to
ensure
appropriate
application
of
the
17
policy
for
these
cases".
18
I
would
like
to
remind
EPA
that
even
19
though
it
is
very
apparent
in
this
rule
that
you
are
20
bending
over
backwards
to
try
to
please
Kentucky
21
regulators
in
trying
to
find
a
way
to
approve
this
22
designational
approach
that
our
state
so
obviously
23
wants
that
you
are
disregarding
your
own
guidance
and
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
149
your
own
regulations
that
you
know
that
it
is
best
to
1
apply
antidegradation
on
a
parameter
by
parameter
2
basis.
Remember,
it
is
not
the
state
that
is
writing
3
this
rule.
I
realize
that
this
rule
has
to
work
with
4
the
state's
standards
but
this
is
EPA
writing
the
rule.
5
It
doesn't
seem
like
this
is
rocket
science.
6
It
seems
like
if
you
are
writing
the
7
rule,
you
should
write
the
rule
the
way
you
know
it
8
works
best
which
is
on
a
parameter
by
parameter
basis.
9
As
discussed
earlier
again,
the
two
most
10
common
impairments
in
Kentucky
waters
are
pathogens
and
11
sediment
and
those
two
impairments
have
indeed
12
correctly
caused
our
state
to
list
many
water
bodies
on
13
our
303(
d)
list.
Again,
I
am
reminded
that
the
basic
14
goal
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
is
to
restore
and
maintain
15
the
integrity
of
the
nation's
waters
and
this
goal
is
16
certainly
not
advanced
by
allowing
unnecessary
17
pollution
to
be
added
to
a
water
body
just
because
the
18
water
body
may
already
need
some
restoration
for
some
19
other
problem.
Indeed,
given
the
13­
year
plus
time
20
frame
that
Kentucky
acknowledges
that
it
will
take
to
21
develop
most
TMDLs
in
our
state,
the
adoption
of
a
22
waterbody­
by­
waterbody
or
designational
approach
23
basically
virtually
assures
that
almost
all
of
our
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
150
lakes
and
streams
and
rivers
will
be
allowed
to
get
1
much
worse
and
stay
that
way
for
decades
before
they
2
get
any
better.
At
best
the
future
that
these
3
waterways
holds
will
that
they
will
just
barely
meet
4
water
quality
standards
once
they
are
cleaned
up
5
because
no
attempt
was
made
to
maintain
the
good
levels
6
of
water
quality
that
they
already
enjoy.
7
Contrary
to
what
proponents
of
the
8
designational
approach
imply,
40
CFR
131.12(
a)(
2)
does
9
not
read
"
waters
that
fully
support
propagation
of
10
fish,
shellfish,
and
wildlife
and
recreation
in
and
on
11
the
water,
should
be
protected."
What
it
actually
says
12
is
that
where
there
are
levels
of
quality
that
quality
13
shall
be
protected.
Thus,
if
there
is
a
"
level"
of
14
arsenic
in
that
water
that
is
low
enough
"
to
support
15
the
propagation
of
fish,
shellfish,
and
wildlife
and
16
recreation
in
and
on
the
water"
that
"
quality"
shall
be
17
protected.
18
It
seems
to
me
like
if
you
read
this
19
part
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
properly,
if
20
you
read
levels
of
water
quality
to
protect,
that
it
is
21
virtually
impossible
to
read
it
as
a
national
water
22
body
approach.
It
is
obvious
that
EPA
believes
that
the
23
only
way
to
protect
water
is
on
a
parameter
by
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
151
parameter
basis.
1
The
only
principal
argument
that
we
have
2
really
heard
for
the
designational
approach
is
that
it
3
allows
states
to
focus
resources
on
waters
that
they
4
think
are
most
important.
I
would
have
to
say
that
5
Kentucky
Waterways
Alliance
is
entirely
in
agreement
6
with
that
philosophy.
Obviously,
we
need
to
focus
7
resources
on
waterways
that
are
important
but
there
are
8
other,
better
ways
to
do
that
than
to
write
up
the
9
majority
of
our
rivers
and
streams
from
Tier
II
10
protections
just
because
we
think
that
it
is
going
to
11
be
too
hard
to
implement.
12
What
we
can
do
is
things
that
a
number
13
of
other
states
have
done
through
antidegradation
14
policies
and
rules,
that
we
can
use
to
tailor
the
15
extent
of
resources
that
we've
got
here
in
our
state.
16
We
can
look
at
different
types
of
antidegradation
17
review.
Some
things
are
obviously
going
to
be
18
insignificant
but
we
don't
need
a
de
minimis
exemption
19
to
prove
that
that
is
insignificant.
If
it
is
20
insignificant,
it
should
be
pretty
easy
to
document.
21
If
it
is
a
public
good,
if
it
is
a
new
22
wastewater
treatment
plant
that
is
going
to
take
100
23
straight
pipes
off
line
in
our
state,
it
should
be
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
152
pretty
easy
to
demonstrate
that
there
is
a
social
and
1
economic
benefit
to
the
community
for
that.
The
2
antidegradation
review
doesn't
always
need
to
be
3
extremely
cumbersome
and
burdensome
but
all
that
we
are
4
asking
is
that
we
think
about
it
and
we
document
it
and
5
we
make
it
available
for
the
public.
6
Thirty
years
after
the
clean
Water
Act
7
was
enacted,
that
doesn't
seem
like
that
is
too
much
to
8
ask.
9
The
other
thing
I
would
just
like
to
say
10
is
that
it
really
concerns
me
here
that
the
way
I
read
11
this
proposal
is
that
EPA
is
going
to
allow
our
water
12
quality
in
almost
all
of
our
stream
to
be
degraded
13
progressively
a
little
bit
at
a
time.
A
little
bite
14
out
of
the
apple
doesn't
seem
to
hurt.
And
before
too
15
long,
you've
taken
a
few
bites
and
the
apple
is
gone.
16
That
is
the
same
thing
with
our
Clean
17
Water.
All
KPDES
permits
and
all
401
certifications
18
allowing
for
new
increased
loadings
should
be
subject
19
to
some
level
of
antidegradation
review.
Again,
like
I
20
said,
I
think
that
we
can
work
on
the
level
and
the
21
type
of
review,
the
type
of
documentation
that
is
22
necessary.
If
things
are
really
de
minimis,
if
they
23
are
really
insignificant
loading,
if
it
is
a
really
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
153
public
benefit,
these
things
should
not
be
that
1
difficult
to
document.
2
All
that
we
are
asking
is
that
our
3
regulators
think
about
it
and
that
the
public
has
a
4
chance
to
review
it.
5
In
closing,
I
would
just
like
to
say
6
that
I
really
think
that
a
proper
analysis
of
whether
7
something
is
significant
or
de
minimis
involves
gauging
8
a
number
of
different
factors:
9
The
assimilative
capacity
of
the
stream
10
that
will
be
removed
by
the
proposed
new
pollution.
11
The
assimilative
capacity
of
the
stream
12
that
will
remain
if
the
new
pollution
is
allowed.
13
The
total
amount
of
the
discharge.
14
The
sensitivity
or
rarity
of
the
species
15
that
might
be
affected.
16
The
toxicity
and
the
scientific
17
uncertainly
that
is
associated
with
the
pollutants
that
18
are
involved
that
may
lower
water
quality.
19
The
likelihood
that
others
will
need
to
20
use
the
requested
assimilative
capacity
and
the
ease
21
with
which
potential
alternatives
might
be
identified.
22
Surely
the
thinking
regulator
in
writing
23
a
KPDES
permit
or
401
certification
must
consider
most
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
154
of
these
factors
now.
How
else
can
they
be
writing
1
permits
to
pollute
our
waters?
2
It
seems
like
considering
those
and
if
3
EPA
would
put
those
sorts
of
specificity
in
the
rule
4
that
it
gives
our
permit
writers
and
our
regulators
5
something
that
they
know
that
they
can
base
their
6
decision
on.
As
it
is
now,
the
rule
is
so
vague
and
so
7
insignificant
that
if
I
were
a
permit
writer,
I
would
8
frankly
be
scared
to
death
to
try
to
make
any
kind
of
9
ruling
or
any
kind
of
permit
or
any
kind
of
10
insignificance
or
de
minimis
tests
under
the
rule
as
it
11
is
now
because
I
don't
know
how
they
could
do
it.
12
So
I
would
just
like
to
say,
and
you
13
have
heard
over
and
over
again
here,
I
really
think
14
that
you
all
need
to
go
back,
need
to
take
these
public
15
comments
here
seriously.
I
think
you
need
to
rewrite
16
this
rule
and
hopefully
in
final
form,
the
rule
is
17
going
to
provide
the
minimum
kind
of
rules
and
18
specificity
that
we
need
in
order
to
implement
this
19
standard.
20
As
it
is
written,
this
proposal
really
21
doesn't
resolve
anything.
It
provides
some
guidance
22
and
even
that
seems
to
be
rather
unworkable.
Remember
23
that
we
are
putting
in
place
here
a
water
quality
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
155
standard
that
will
have
to
be
applied
every
day
by
1
permit
writers
and
decision
makers
in
our
Division
of
2
Water.
Thank
you.
3
MR.
McGILL:
The
next
speaker
4
is
Becky
Raff.
5
MS.
RAFF:
Good
evening.
My
6
name
is
Becky
Raff.
I
am
here
on
behalf
of
the
7
Kentucky
Resources
Council,
a
non­
profit
environmental
8
advocacy
organization
providing
legal
and
technical
9
assistance
to
low­
income
individuals
and
organizations
10
in
the
Commonwealth
concerning
environmental
issues.
11
I
appreciate
this
opportunity
to
present
12
verbal
comments,
and
we
will
supplement
our
verbal
13
comments
in
writing
before
the
end
of
the
comment
14
period.
We
endorse
and
adopt
by
reference
the
comments
15
submitted
by
Albert
Ettinger
and
by
the
four
16
organizations
who
with
KRC
sent
the
Notice
of
Intent
To
17
Sue
that
triggered
this
federal
proposed
rule:
the
18
Kentucky
Waterways
Alliance,
Sierra
Club
Cumberland
19
Chapter,
Kentuckians
for
the
Commonwealth
and
Floyd's
20
Fork
Environmental
Association.
21
While
KRS
appreciates
the
constraints
22
under
which
line
employees
of
EPA
Region
IV
have
23
developed
this
rule,
we
must
be
candid
in
expressing
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
156
our
profound
disappointment
with
the
resulting
1
proposal.
We
hoped,
but
did
not
expect,
much
more
from
2
an
Administration
that
has
shown
a
marked
hostility
to
3
clean
water
since
taking
office
and
particularly
since
4
the
mid­
term
elections.
5
At
every
significant
juncture
where
your
6
agency
should
have
made
a
decision
concerning
7
implementation
of
the
antidegradation
protections
for
8
high
quality
waters,
the
proposed
rule
ducks
the
9
decision
and
defers
the
choice
of
methodology
to
the
10
state
Division
of
Water.
The
rejection
of
the
state's
11
antidegradation
implementation
policy
as
being
too
12
restrictive
and
underprotective
of
waters
that
are
in
13
fact
of
high
quality
obligated
EPA
to
define
the
14
methodology
that
would
be
consistent
with
the
15
antidegradation
rule,
yet
EPA
has
delegated
the
16
decision
on
how
to
define
high
quality
waters
and
17
whether
to
collect
data
to
support
the
delineation,
to
18
the
individual
permit
review
process.
19
Parroting
the
existing
state
20
antidegradation
policy
while
removing
the
reference
to
21
exceptional
waters
does
not
satisfy
EPA's
legal
22
obligations
to
implement
a
water
quality
standard
where
23
the
state
standard
has
been
rejected
and
to
develop
a
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
157
methodology
by
which
stream
reaches
can
be
classified
1
and
proposed
discharges
analyzed.
The
failure
to
2
require
the
collection
by
permit
applicants
of
the
3
biological
and
chemical
data
necessary
to
determine
4
baseline
water
quality
makes
it
impossible
to
assure
5
that
the
baseline
quality
will
be
maintained,
6
regardless
of
whether
a
biological
or
chemical
7
criterion
is
used
to
define
high
quality.
Yet
on
this
8
critical
issue
EPA
has
punted
to
the
state
to
decide
9
whether
and
how
to
collect
that
data.
10
In
the
final
rule,
in
order
to
properly
11
fulfill
the
obligations
imposed
under
the
Clean
Water
12
Act,
KRC
believes
that
the
EPA
has
an
obligation
to:
13
1.
Define
the
acceptable
methodology
14
for
determining
which
waters
are
"
high
quality",
a
15
methodology
which
KRC
believes
should
require
the
16
permit
applicant
to
justify
any
proposed
lowering
of
17
water
quality
for
any
parameter
where
baseline
quality
18
exceeds
that
necessary
to
support
the
designated
uses.
19
2.
Require
that
the
permit
applicant
20
provide,
either
from
existing
current
and
quality­
21
assured
watershed­
specific
data
or
through
an
approved
22
plan
of
biological
and
chemical
sampling,
data
23
concerning
the
proposed
receiving
stream
sufficient
to
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
158
determine
baseline
conditions
and
to
support
a
decision
1
on
whether
the
stream
is
impaired
or
of
high
quality;
2
or
alternatively,
to
impose
a
presumption
that
all
3
unclassified
streams
are
high
quality
absent
4
documentation;
and
5
3.
Define
and
be
prepared
to
justify
in
6
law
and
in
science
any
threshold
proposed
be
allowed
to
7
exclude
certain
new
or
expanded
discharges
from
the
8
antidegradation
review.
9
The
premise
of
the
Tier
II
10
antidegradation
policy­­
the
public
waters
whose
water
11
quality
exceeds
minimum
standards
should
not
suffer
a
12
lowering
of
water
quality
absent
a
demonstration
by
the
13
applicant
that
all
alternatives
have
been
evaluated
and
14
the
necessity
for
the
discharge
has
been
documented,
15
will
remain
unfulfilled
under
the
proposed
rule.
The
16
citizens
of
this
state
deserve
a
rule
that
will
deliver
17
on
the
promise
of
arresting
and
avoiding
degradation
of
18
our
streams
and
rivers
­­
Kentucky
has
tried
twice
and
19
failed
to
deliver
­­
and
it
is
incumbent
on
your
agency
20
to
do
the
job
well
and
in
a
timely
manner.
Thank
you.
21
MR.
McGILL:
Everyone
that
has
22
filled
out
a
registration
form
requesting
to
speak
has
23
spoken
according
to
the
information
I
have.
We
want
to
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
159
continue
to
give
folks
an
opportunity
in
case
they
1
arrive
at
this
public
hearing
after
now.
2
The
time
is
now
8:
07.
I
suggest
we
have
3
a
recess,
reconvene
at
8:
30.
So
that
is
about
23
4
minutes
from
now.
5
(
OFF
THE
RECORD
8:
07
p.
m.
to
8:
30
p.
m.)
6
MR.
McGILL:
No
one
else
has
7
showed
up
requesting
to
speak
so
we'll
continue
to
8
recess
until
9:
00
o'clock
and
we'll
take
it
from
there.
9
(
OFF
THE
RECORD
­
8:
30
to
8:
40)
10
MR.
McGILL:
Considering
that
11
someone
has
requested
to
speak,
instead
of
continuing
12
the
recess
until
nine.
13
MR.
FITCH:
I
am
Dwight
Fitch
14
and
I
did
sign
in
but
I
didn't
indicate
that
I
was
15
going
to
speak
because
I
didn't
really
think
I
was
16
going
to.
Since
we
have
some
time
here,
I
thought
we
17
might
as
well
do
it.
18
I
am
a
member
of
the
friends
of
19
Jessamine
Creek.
This
is
a
local
citizens
grassroots
20
type
organization
formed
in
1991
and
we
are
in
21
Jessamine
County,
Kentucky.
Our
water
body
of
choice
22
is
Jessamine
Creek
which
is
a
wonderful
little
creek.
23
It
is
only
about
13
miles
long
and
it
comes
up
out
of
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
160
the
ground
in
the
spring
just
north
of
a
standardbred
1
horse
farm
called
Amberst
Farm
and
meanders
about
13
2
miles
south
into
the
Kentucky
River.
3
It
is
located
entirely
within
Jessamine
4
County
and
Jessamine
County
is
the
county
just
5
immediately
south
of
Fayette
County
where
Lexington
is
6
located.
So
we
are
in
an
area
that
is
subject
to
7
considerable
growth
pressures
and
our
population
is
8
growing
by
leaps
and
bounds,
even
though
we
still
are
9
pretty
much
a
small­
town
type
community.
10
I
just
say
that
by
way
of
explanations.
11
The
Friends
of
Jessamine
Creek
are
delighted
to
submit
12
a
more
formal
written
comments
that
will
be
a
little
13
bit
more
in
depth
and
a
little
bit
more
detailed
than
14
anything
I
am
going
to
say
here
this
evening.
Those
15
will
be
submitted
in
a
timely
fashion
for
your
review.
16
But
I
just
wanted
to
say
this.
We
have
17
been
studying
water
quality
in
Jessamine
Creek
now
for
18
about
11
years
and
Jessamine
Creek
is
a
use
protected.
19
It
is
Tier
I
type
stream.
We
have
not
noticed
any
20
substantive
improvement
in
water
quality
in
11
years
21
and
it
seems
to
me
that
the
scheme
by
which
water
22
quality
standards
are
being
administered
presently
is
23
not
going
to
change
very
much,
not
very
much
with
the
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
161
rule
that
you
are
proposing
and
what
that
leads
me
to
1
believe
is
that
the
odds
are
pretty
substantial,
that
2
in
the
next
five
or
ten
years,
Jessamine
Creek
is
not
3
going
to
experience
any
substantial
improvement
in
4
water
quality.
5
So
we
are
not
going
to
be
moving
up
to
6
an
exceptional
water
classification
or
anything
of
that
7
sort.
In
fact,
we
will
be
lucky
if
we
don't
start
8
slipping
down.
We
have
substantially
high
counts
of
9
fecal
coliform
that
are
found
in
the
stream
in
the
warm
10
weather
months
and
it
seems
to
me
that
alone
will
keep
11
us
from
being
classified
as
a
high
water
under
the
12
standards,
the
antidegradation
procedure
and
policy
13
that
we
have
now
and
I
think
also
under
what
you
are
14
proposing.
So
what
this
tells
me
is
that
unless
you
15
all
help
us
and
I
am
asking
you
to
do
that,
unless
you
16
all
help
us,
Jessamine
Creek
is
not
going
to
improve
in
17
its
water
quality
in
the
next
five
or
ten
years
unless
18
maybe
something
else
will
happen
that
will
help.
But
19
it
is
not
likely.
20
As
a
result,
you
may
be
our
best
hope
21
for
improvements
in
water
quality.
We
would
like
to
22
see
Jessamine
Creek
live
up
to
the
goals
of
the
Clean
23
Water
Act.
I
suspect
that
you
would
have
a
lot
of
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
162
personal
attachment
that
probably
the
reason
you
came
1
into
this
line
of
work
is
because
you
care
about
clean
2
water
and
you
would
like
to
see
water
quality
improve
3
throughout
the
nation
and
would
like
to
see
streams
all
4
across
the
nation
come
up
to
higher
levels
of
water
5
quality.
It
is
just
not
happening.
6
We
in
Jessamine
County
don't
see
that
it
7
is
going
to
happen
under
the
rule
that
you
propose.
So
8
I
am
really
asking
that
you
do
something
here
and
what
9
I
am
asking
you
to
do
is
to
give
really,
really
real
10
strong
consideration
to
adopting
the
parameter
by
11
parameter
approach.
12
Our
water
in
Jessamine
Creek
is
really
13
good
water
by
certain
measurements
but
because
of
some
14
of
the
problems
that
we
have
such
as
fecal
coliform,
it
15
is
not
going
to
be
considered
as
a
high
quality
water.
16
It
is
not
going
to
be
a
Tier
II
protection
ever
if
we
17
don't
change
the
way
things
are
happening.
18
I've
got
in
my
pocket
a
dollar
bill
and
19
I
would
like
to
enter
this
into
the
record
if
I
may.
20
(
Mr.
Fitch
hands
reporter
$
1­
bill.)
21
The
reason
that
I
am
doing
that
is
I
am
22
betting
you,
okay,
I
am
betting
you
a
dollar
that
in
23
five
years
or
even
ten
years,
if
you
adopt
what
you
are
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
163
proposing
and
you
come
back
here
to
discuss
this
with
1
us
that
you
will
find
water
quality
in
Jessamine
Creek
2
has
not
improved.
It
is
a
bet
I
hope
that
I
lose
but
I
3
fear
I
will
not.
Thank
you.
4
MS.
PETERSEN:
I
would
just
5
like
to
state
for
the
record
that
I
think
a
dollar
is
a
6
de
minimis
amount
of
money
and
should
be
considered
7
insignificant
to
this
rule.
8
MR.
McGILL:
What
I
propose
is
9
that
we­­
we
understand
the
spirit
of
what
you
did
but
10
we
really
would
not
feel
comfortable
taking
cash
of
any
11
amount
but
we
appreciate
or
we
understand.
12
MR.
FITCH:
My
request
is
that
13
it
be
made
part
of
the
record.
14
MR.
McGILL:
Again,
I
don't
15
think
we
are
in
a
position
to
take
cash
of
any
amount.
16
So
I
would
like
to
give
it
back
to
you.
17
(
Mr.
McGill
returns
dollar
bill
to
18
Mr.
Fitch.)
19
MR.
FITCH:
If
I
send
it
in
20
with
my
letter,
you'll
have
to
accept
it
as
part
of
the
21
record.
22
MR.
McGILL:
I
don't
think
we
23
can
accept
this.
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
164
MR.
JUNKER:
Is
there
a
legal
1
basis
for
not
accepting
this?
Can
you
tell
me
what
it
2
is.
3
MR.
McGILL:
Craig,
do
you
4
have
any
thoughts
on
the
legal
basis
of
accepting
cash
5
as
part
of
the
record.
6
MR.
HIGGASON:
I
don't
think
7
we
are
in
a
position
to
accept
cash.
8
MS.
PETERSON:
I
would
really
9
like
to
speak
again
if
I
could
real
briefly.
Judy
10
Petersen,
Kentucky
Waterways
Alliance.
11
You
may
have
noticed
that
KWA
had
a
12
number
of
speakers
up
here
today
and
a
number
of
them
13
have
asked
me
what
happens
after
the
end
of
the
comment
14
period,
after
March
14th.
I
realize
that
you
all
15
aren't
really
here
to
take
questions
but
I
would
like
16
to
give
our
folks
some
sort
of
answer.
17
I
know
that
at
the
end
of
the
comment
18
period
you
all
need
some
period
of
time
to
consider
19
those
and
Craig,
maybe
this
is
for
you.
I
don't
know.
20
Maybe
this
is
for
Fritz.
Is
that
a
month
to
two
21
months?
Is
that
another
year
and
a
half?
Is
that
22
three
years?
And
this
is
not
a
firm
decision
but
is
23
there
any
kind
of
approximate
time
frame
for
issuing
a
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
165
final
rule
at
the
end
of
the
public
comment
period?
1
MR.
McGILL:
I
would
like
to
2
discuss
this
with
the
panel.
3
OFF
THE
RECORD.
4
MR.
McGILL:
The
best
answer
I
5
can
give
you
is
that
all
the
comments
that
we
receive,
6
both
oral
and
written,
will
be
carefully
considered
and
7
evaluated
as
we
make
our
determination
regarding
the
8
proposed
water
quality
standards
for
Kentucky.
I
can't
9
be
more
specific
regarding
time
frames.
10
MS.
PETERSEN:
There
is
11
nothing
in
the
regulation
or
anything
in
terms
of
a
12
final
rule
at
the
end
of
the
comment
period?
13
MR.
McGILL:
Are
you
asking
14
the
timing
between­­
the
answer
is
there
is
no
rules
15
regarding
the
timing
from
the
end
of
the
public
comment
16
period
to
the
time
the
rule
is
promulgated.
17
In
303(
c)
of
the
statute,
there
are
some
18
time
line
requirements
but
beyond
that,
there
aren't
19
any.
20
We
are
going
to
take
another
recess
and
21
reconvene
at
nine
o'clock
and
at
that
point,
if
there
22
aren't
any
speakers,
we
may
go
ahead
and
adjourn
but
we
23
will
recess
until
nine.
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
166
(
Off
the
record
8:
45
to
9:
00)
1
MR.
McGILL:
I
want
to
thank
2
each
of
you
for
your
participation
in
this
public
3
hearing.
The
comments
which
we
have
received
today
4
both
oral
and
written
will
be
carefully
considered
and
5
evaluated
as
we
make
our
determinations
regarding
the
6
proposed
water
quality
standards
for
Kentucky.
7
We
will
close
the
official
public
8
comment
period
on
March
14,
2003.
Again,
thank
you
for
9
your
participation
and
this
hearing
is
adjourned.
10
OFF
THE
RECORD
­
9:
00
p.
m.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
­
JANUARY
23,
2003
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FOR
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
SANDY
HARDING,
COURT
REPORTER
(
502)
223­
0475
(
502)
696­
1008
167
1
2
3
COMMONWEALTH
OF
KENTUCKY
)
4
COUNTY
OF
FRANKLIN
)
5
6
7
CERTIFICATE
8
The
undersigned
Court
Reporter
hereby
certifies
that
9
the
foregoing
pages
represent
an
accurate
and
complete
10
transcription
of
the
entire
record
of
the
proceedings
11
before
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
I
certify
12
the
foregoing
was
first
taken
by
me
in
shorthand
and
13
subsequently
transcribed.
14
Subscribed
to
and
sworn
by
me
this
30th
day
15
of
January,
2003.
16
17
Sandy
H.
Harding
18
My
commission
expires:
9­
22­
04.