ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 24,
1990
IN THE MATTER OF:
SITE-SPECIFIC LIMITATION FOR THE
MODINE MANUFACTURING COMPANY
FACILITY,
RINGWOOD,
ILLINOIS
P87—36
(Rulemaking)
ADOPTED RULE.
FINAL ORDER.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by
R.
C.
Flemal):
This matter comes before
the Board upon the October
15, 1987
Petition and May 24, 1989 Amended Petition of Modine
Manufacturing Company (‘1Mo~ine”) for site—specific rulemaking
applicable
to
its Ringwood
,
Illinois,
facility.
Today the Board
adopts site—specific effluent standards
for two parameters,
five—
day biochemical oxygen demand
(“gOD”)
and
total
suspended solids
(“TSS”),
and
a site—specific water quality standard
for fluoride,
as these apply
to Modine.
SUMMARY OF ACTION
The effluent standards
at issue are the Board’s BOD and TSS
standards
found
at 35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 304.120(c).
These compare
with
the site—specific rules today adopted
as
follows:
BOD
TSS
Monthly
Composite
(mg/i)
10
12
Monthly Composite
(mg/i)
25
(May—Sept)
60
(Oct—Apr)
Daily
Composite
(mg/i)
20
24
Grab
Sample
(mg/i)
50
60
Daily Composite
(mg/i)
(May—Sept)
(Oct—Apr)
35
70
30
Although located
in Pingwood,
the facility
at
issue i~also
commonly known and referred
to as Modine’s “McHenry Plant”
or
“McHenry facility”.
Section 304.120(c)
Today’s Site—Specific
BOD
TSS
12
111—
!~
(~
1
—2—
Today’s
action regarding
the fluoride water
quality standard
replaces the 1.4
trig/i
Genera.
Use Water Quality Standard of
35
Ill.
Adir.
Code 302.208 with
a value
of 5.6 mg/i.
The site—
specific fluoride standard
is applicable
in the receiving stream
for
a distance
of
1200 yards below Modine’s outfall.
Both the
rules
of genera’
applicability and
the adopted
site—specific rules differ
from the concentration limits
in
Moc9ine’s current NP°ESPermit,
No.
IL000l279
(Modine Exh.
26),
issued July 17,1986:
30—Day J~vq
Daily Max
(mg/i)
(rng/l)
ROD
P.O
16.0
T
9.5
lQ.r)
Fluoride
1.4
The NP~ESlimits for BOD and TSS are less than
the
existing
general
effluent standards because the Illinois Environmental
Protection
Agency (“Agency”),
in writino
the
permit, has ad~ustec9
the standards to reflect mixing by Modine
of non—contact cooling
waters
(see
followina)
with
its wastewater~ prior
to discharge.
This adjustment
is made pursuant
to
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
304.102.
The fluoride limit
is also
less than
the 15.0 ma/I
identified
at
35
Iii.
Adm.
Code
304.124(a)
in recognition
of
bhe fact that
Modine’s discharqe comrrony
constitutes
the
total.
flow
in th~
receiving waterway.
Today’s amendment-s differ
in
specifics from those
initially
proposed
by Modine due to Modine’s amendment
of
its
oriciinal
request
(~r-endedPetition)
and
the determination
by the
Board at
First Notice that
certain
requested
relief related
to barium,
total ammonia,
and un—ionized ammonia
was unnecessary (see
following).
STATUTORY
AUTHORITY
The goals
of water mollution control
in the State
of
Illinois are set out
in Title
III of the Illinois Environmental
Protection
Act
(“Act”;
Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
199.7,
ch.
1111/2).
It
is
there prescribed
that:
It
is
the purpose
of
this Title
to
restore, maintain
and enhance
the purity
of
the waters
of this State
in
order
to protect health,
welfare, property,
and
the
quality
of life,
and
to assure
that
no contaminants
are discharoed
into
the waters
of
the State,
as
defined
herein,
including,
but not limited
to, waters
to any sewage works,
or
into
any
well,
or
from any
source within the State
of Illinois, without
being
given
the degree of
treatment
or control necessary to
111—462
—3—
prevent pollution,
or without being made subject
to
such conditions
as are required
to achieve and
maintain compliance with State
and federal
law.
Id.
at
par.
1011(b)
Section
13(a)
of Title
III
further
specifies
that:
The Board, pursuant
to procedures prescribed
in Title
VII
of this
Act, may adopt regulations
to promote
the
purposes
and provisions
of this Title.
Without
limiting
the generality
of this authority,
such
regulations may among
other things prescribe:
1.
Water quality standards specifying
among
other
things,
the maximum short—term
and long—term
concentrations
of various contaminants
in the
waters,
the maximum permissible concentrations
of
dissolved oxygen and other desirable •matter
in
the waters, and
the temperature of such waters;
2.
Effluent standards
specifying
the maximum amounts
or concentrations,
and
the physical, chemical,
thermal, biological
and radioactive nature of
contaminants
that may be discharged
into the
waters
of the State,
as defined
herein,
including,
but not limited
to, waters
to any
sewage works,
or
into any well,
or
from any
source within
the State.
Id.
at
par.
1013(a)
Title VII of the
Act prescribes
the procedures by which
the
Board
is
to enact
regulations.
In pertinent
part Title VII
specifies
that:
The Board may adopt substantive regulations
as
described
in this
Act.
Any such
regulations may make
different provisions as
required by circumstances for
different contaminant
sources and
for different
geographical areas;..,
and may include regulations
specific
to individual persons
or sites.
In
promulgating regulations
under
this
Act,
the Board
shall
take
into
account
the existing physical
conditions,
the character
of
the area
involved,
including the character
of surrounding
land uses,
zoning classifications,
the nature of
the existing
air quality,
or
receiving body of water,
as
the
case
may
be,
and
the technical feasibility and economic
reasonableness
of measuring
or
reducing the
particular
type
of pollution.
Id.
at
par.
1027(a)
111—463
—4—
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The instant proceeding
is
the second most—recent
in
a series
of water—related actions brought by Modine
(see Modine Fxh.
4
at
9—li).
Among
the pertinent of
these actions are two
in which
Modine
successfully petitioned
for variance
from the same
regulations
at issue
here,
and
a
third variance petition whose
disposition
is pendine.
In
the
first of
these, Modine
v. IFP~,
PCB 82—111
(.59
PCB 207,
May
29,
1984;
Modine Exh.
6A)
the Board
granted Modine variance~until March
1,
199.5
from
the same
regulations
at issue
here.
Additionally,
the Board
imposed
effluent
and
water quality
limitations
for POD and TSS which
in
general
are less
stringent than herein
considered.
In
the second
of the successful variance petitions the Board
oranted
Modine
a
new variance,
with similar
limitations
to
those
in PCB 82—ill,
to
expire
on December
31,
199.7
(Modine
v.
IPPA,
PCP
85—154,
84 PCE
735;
Modine Exh.
7).
In the pending action, Modine
v.
IFPA,
PCP
98—25, Modine
seeks
in the alternative
a new variance,
an
extension of the PCB
82—111 and/or
PCR 85—154 variances,
or
a declaration that
the
regulations
at issue
are without force
or
effect
as applied
to
Modine.
Various documents
from the PCE 88—25 proceedin9
have
been admitted
into
the
record
of the
instant proc~eding.
In addition
to
the pendinq
PCP
29—25 vari~nceproceedina,
there
is also
a pending NPDES
permit appeal,
PCB 86-124,
filed
on
August.
15,
199.6.
In
PCT3 86—124 Modine
~et~tions
for review of
certain conditions
in
its current NPDES Permit.
Through
an
informaJ. agreement between
the Agency and Modine,
the permit
appeal has not been
actively pursued
by either party initially
pending
the resolution
of POP R5—i~4 and later
the resolution
of
both PCB 88—25
and the
instant action.
On February 23,
1959
the Board
issued
an Order pursuant
to
Section
27(a)
of the Act declaring
that
an Economic Impact Study
need not be conducted
in
this matter.
Prior
to hearing,
in
response
to
a Hearing Officer Order
thereto, Modine presuhmitte-~ testimony of
its principal witnesses
and the exhibits
it intended
to
present at
hearing.
Modine
witnesses were Mr. James
H.
Firestone, Director
of Processes
and
Environmental Services at Modine’s headquarters
in Racine,
Wisconsin;
Mr. Gary
P.
Fahi,
Manager
of Environmental Engineering
2 These
include
the Petition
for Variance
(Exh.
2), Second
Amended Petition
for Variance
(Modine Exh.
3), Agency Variance
Recommendation
(Modine Exh.
4), and Modine’s Response
to Variance
Recommendation
(Modine Exh.
5).
111—464
—5—
at Modine’s headquarters;
Daniel
J.
Bosch, Manager
of Modine’s
Manufacturing Engineering Department of
the Automotive Division;
Dr.
J.
W.
Patterson,
Chairman
of
the Pritzker Department
of
Environmental Engineering
at
the Illinois Institute
of Technology
and principal
in the consulting
firm
of Patterson Schafer,
Inc.;
Mr. James
E. Huff, Vice—President of the environmental consulting
firm,
Huff
& Huff;
and Mr. Jim Rulseh, Manager
of the McHenry
Plant.
On February 24,
1989
the Agency •prefiled
the testimony of
its principal witness, Timothy
P. Kluge.
All prefiled
testimony
was entered
into
the
record
of the hearing as
if
read.
The
Agency
and
the Illinois Department
of Natural Resources
(“DENR”)
filed
advance hearing questions
on February
27
and
28,
1989,
respectively.
On March
8,
1989 Modine filed advance
hearing questions.
Hearing
was held
in McHenry,
Illinois on March
10,
1989.
In
addition
to Modine,
the Agency,
and
DENR,
the hearing was
attended by Mr. Gerald
P.
Paulson, Executive Director
of
the
McHenry County Defenders, who participated
in the questioning
of
witnesses.
By Order
of April
27,
1989 the Hearing Officer estabiished
a
post—hearing comment period extending
to May 15,
1989.
This
comment period was extended
to June
2,
1989 by Hearing Officer
Order
of
May 8,
1989.
Public Comments (“PC”)
were filed
in
the
post—hearing comment period by Mr. Paulson on June
1,
1989
(PC
#3),
by Modine on June
2,
1989
(PC #4),
and by the Agency on June
7,
1989
(PC #5).
On October
18,
1989 the Board proposed Modine’s request
for
First Notice.
First Notice publication occurred
at
13
Iii.
Peg.
17633 and 17661.
Five Public Comments were
received subsequent
to First Notice publication:
PC
#6
and #7 filed
by the Illinois
Department
of Commerce
and Community Affairs,
PC
#8
filed
by the
Illinois Office
of the Secretary of State,
PC
*9
(with exhibits)
filed by Modine,
and
PC #10
filed
by the Agency.
Only the last
two comments addressed
the merits
of the proposal.
On February 22,
1990 the Board
adopted an
initial
Second
Notice proposal.
The principal
feature of that proposal was
a
repositioning of
the proposed fluoride site—specific
rule
to
Section 304.221.
However,
prior
to submitting
this proposal
to
the Joint Committee on Administrative
Rules
(“JCAP”),
the Board
invited
the participants
to comment on
this repositioning.
On
March
8,
1990 both the Agency and Modine
filed additional
comments which persuaded
the Board
that
the
eorm of
the fluoride
rule
as proposed
at
First Notice was preferable.
AccordinQly,
on
March
22,
1990
the Board adopted
a Supplemental Second Notice
Opinion
and Order,
in which
the First Notice
form
of
the fluoride
rule was reproposed.
The rule
in this
form was subsequently
filed with JCPR.
11 1—465
—6—
On May
8,
1990 JCAR issued certifications
of
no objection
to
the proposed rules.
FACILITY
Manufactur ing Operations
Modine operates
a manufacturing facility
located on Pingwocd
Drive
in Ringwood,
McHenry County,
Illinois.
The facility
employs approximately
280 people with
an
annual payroll
of ~5.2
million
(R.
at
31).
Modine characterizes
its manufacturing operations
as
follows:
Modine manufactures
air conditioning condensors and
evaporators
at its Ringwood
facility
for
use
in
automobile
air conditioners.
Modine utilizes
two
different processes
for the manufacture
of
these
products.
On the condensor
line,
the conciensor
fin
and tube
type heat exchange products are primarily
fabricated
from aluminum parts, which
are
metalurgically
sic
bonded
together
using
zinc and
flouride
sici
salts, under
the influence
of heat.
This process
is known
as the Aifuse process.
The raw materials used
to manufacture
the condensors
are aluminum tube
and fin stock
and
a proprietary
“slurry” composition used
to metaluraicaily
sic
bond
the tubes
and
fins together.
The slurry
consists of
a saturated,
non—halogenated
hydrocarbon,
plus
zinc and flouride
sic
salts,
and
is applied
to
the tubes
and
fins
in
a “slurry house”.
From the
slurry house,
the tubes
and
fins move
to
a gas—fired
tunnel
oven where all
the hydrocarbons
in
the slurry
are effectively consumed or volatilized,
leaving only
the
zinc and flouride
sic
salts
to react
with the
aluminum.
When bonding
is
complete,
the product
moves
to
a quench where
it
is doused with water.
The
condensors
then
pass through
a dryoff oven,
certain
mechanical operations are performed,
and
the
condensors
go through
a paint process before
leaving
the McHenry Plant
as finished products.
The other process
used by Modine
to manufacture
evaporators
is known as
the Nocolok process.
...
The
Nocolok binding process
includes basically freon
degreasing, slurry application
and high temperature
baking.
The bonding slurry used
in the process
is
a
non—hazardous, water—based mixture which,
upon
11 1—4E~6
—7—
heating,
results
in
a bond
between
the aluminum
tubes,
fins and headers.
...
Non—contact cooling
water
is
required
for temperature control; however,
there
are
no process water discharges
from the
Nocolok process.
Petition,
p.
3—5
The Nocolok process was installed by Modine
in January 1986
(R.
at
36).
Although
the Nocolok process was initially intended
to be used for all products, Modine contends that
it ultimately
discovered
that the Nocolok process
could only partially supplant
the Alfuse process
(P.
at
40).
Accordingly, only the evaporators
are now produced
by the Nocolok process.
One
of Modine’s
stated reasons
for adopting the Nocolok
process
was
“to improve the quality Of effluent from
the Plant’s
treatment system by eliminating
the wastewater loading
from the
evaporator
line”
(P.
at
36).
Because
there
is no process
wastewater produced by the Nocolok process, Modine contends that
the conversion
to
the Nocolok process has decreased
the quantity
of process wastewater
at the McHenry Plant by
15 percent
(P.
at
37)
Testimony at hearing also noted
that Modine manufactures
a
third product, oil coolers,
at
its Pingwood Plant
(P.
at
32).
However,
the oil coolers
are characterized
as
“a minor product”
(Id.).
Nature of Wastewater
The McHenry Plant generates process wastewater from the wet
scrubber, water quenches,
slurry wash,
and
test tanks,
all
of
which are associated with
the Alfuse line;
the major quantity of
process wastewater
is generated by the wet scrubber
(Petition,
p.
5).
Current wastewater
discharges are estimated
to
total
approximately 300,000 gallons
per day;
this
figure includes both
sanitary wastewater
and non—contact cooling water,
in
addition
to
process wastewater
(Id.).
The Modine wastewater
contains
a matrix of both inorganic
and organic constituents
(P.
at
164).
The organic
fraction has
proven
to
be particularly recalcitrant
in
its treatahility
(P.
at
166),
in
part due
to its slow degradation rate
(R.
at
318—20).
Wastewater Operations
Modine
applies various
initial
treatrrient~ to
its different
wastewaters.
For
the process wastewaters,
these consist of
combining
the wastewaters
and thereafter
adjusting
pH via
the
addition of
lime.
The pH adjustment facilitates the
removal of
fluoride,
zinc,
and aluminum
as precipitates.
Sanitary
111—467
—8—
wastewaters
are
initially treated
in an extended aeration
activated
sludge system.
Following
initial
treatment,
the process and sanitary
wastewaters,
plus the non—contact cooling waters,
are passed
through
a series of
three
in—series lagoons.
Modine
characterizes
the operation
of the lagoons
as
follows:
The
first of
the three
lagoons
is
utilized
for
removal
of
both suspended solids and BOD.
The second
and third lagoons,
utilized
in series with the
first,
complete the reduction
of BOD and accomplish
additional
suspended solids removal.
The depth
of
these two lagoons
is kept
at about
three
to four
feet,
thus promoting
the natural
aeration necessary
for sustaining
the proper plant
and animal
life.
Petition,
p.
6
The
three lagoons
have
a retention time
of
13
to
15
or
16
days
(P.
at i7~)and
a removal
efficiency for BOD varying between
52
and 98
per month, with the
lower efficiencies
occurring
in
winter
and the higher efficiencies
in
summer
(P.
at
162;
Modine
Exh.
41).
Despite
this
treatment program, Modine contends that
it
is
unable
to consistently meet
all
of
the effluent limitations
established
by the Board.
Further,
the receiving
stream does not
meet the wa~erquality standards for ammonia nitroaen
(Petition,
p.
6—7)
and dissolved oxygen.
The latter condition stems
in part
from
the
fact
that
for substantial portions of
the
time Modine’s
effluent constitutes
the
sole flow
in the unnamed
tributary.
The
water
quality standards
therefore become effective effluent
standards
(P.
at
215—6).
Compliance Efforts
Modine has undertaken modifications
of
its treatment process
during the time
this matter,
in. its various
forms,
has been
before the Board
(P.
at
189.).
Among
these has been
discontinuance
of phosphorus additions
into
the three ponds.
This action was taken,
at
the advice
of Modine’s engineering
consultants,
to reduce the amount
of algal
growth
in
the ponds,
and hence
the amount
of algal TSS discharge from
the ponds
(P.
at
179—80).
A second modification has been
to
increase the
pH of
the raw
wastewater, which,
in combination with more
stringent operation
and maintenance procedures, has substantially decreased
the
concentration
of
zinc
in Modine’s
final e~f1uent
(P.
at
54).
111—468
—9—
A third modification
has been the addition of
an air
stripping
system designed
to dissipate
ammonia
into the air.
This system has led
to
a decrease
in the amount of ammonia
discharged
in Modine’s effluent
(P.
at
55).
A fourth modification consists of dredging
of
the three
lagoons.
Although this apparently
is done periodically,
it was
accomplished most
recently
in 1988
(P.
at
57).
Modine contends
that
the dredging has substantially increased
the effective size
of the lagoons,
thereby resulting
in greater
retention time and
possibly better biological
activity (P.
at
57,
362).
A
fifth modification has been
the discontinuance
of
chlorination
as
of early September
1988.
Prior
to this date
Modine chlorinated
the discharge
from the third lagoon prior
to
its release
into
the receiving stream
(R.
at 216).
Chlorination
was practiced
to allow compliance with
the
fecal coliform
effluent standard
of 400/100 ml.
However, actual analyses
of
fecal
coliform convinced Modine that
it could meet
the fecal
coliform standard without chlorinating
(P.
at 57—8).
Moreover,
evidence
from biological
studies
(R.
at
58;
see also
following)
indicated
that
residual chlorine was
a limiting factor
in
the
quality of the aquatic
life
in the receiving
stream.
Studies
subsequent
to the ceasing of chlorination appear
to confirm
this
relationship
(see following).
Two additional modifications have been proposed by Modine
during
the course of
this proceeding.
These were replacement
of
the Modine’s submerged—pipe outfall structure by
a
spillway/cascade outfall
and installation of
a final
pH
adjustment system (Modine Brief
at
14).
The purpose
of
the
outfall modification
is
to allow added aeration of the effluent,
increasing
its DO level
by 1
to
3 mg/i
(P.
at
252), and thereby
ameliorating
some of
the consequences
of
the effluent’s BOD.
The
purpose
of pH adjustment
is
to adjust
the
final pH
to
approximately 7.5,
thereby decreasing
the proportion
of Modine’s
ammonia discharge which
is
in the un—ionized
ammonia
form.
Modine
reports
that the modified outfall structure was installed
in October
1989
(PC
#9
at
2) and
that applications
for
construction and operating permits
for
the
PH adjustment system
have been filed with
the Agency
(Id.
at
7).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Effluent Quality
Modine provides
the following summary
of
the quality of
its
effluent,
based on annual average concentrations over
the years
1980
to
1988:
111—469
—10—
Parameter
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
BOC
33.5
29.9
28.6
29.3
37.8
37.2
38.1
27.2
24.9
TSS
5
3
14
9
4
3
5
4
5
An~onia
6.2
8.6
3.6
4.8
4.8
3.5
2.6
1.8
2.8
Fluoride
3.6
3.7
4.3
4.6
3.5
3.9
3.6
3.0
3.5
Modine Exh.
9
at
2;
also graphically
in Modine Exh.
16
Modine has calculated the maximum concentration of un-
ionized
ammonia
in
its discharge
for
the years
199.5
to 1988,
respectively,
as
0.053,
0.057,
0.069,
and 0.635 mg/i
(Modine Exh.
9
at
2).
Modine has also
carried
out two priority pollutant analyses
and
has undertaken whole—effluent hioassays
(P.
at
60—i).
The
priority pollutant
analyses showed
no evidence
of problems with
any priority pollutant
(Id.;
Modine Exh.
21).
Similarly,
the
toxicity analyses showed~o mortality
to either
Daphnia
rnaqna
or
fathead minnows
at
48 hour—exposure to the whole effluent (Modine
Exh.
22).
Receiving Stream Character
Modine discharges
to
an unnamed
tributary of Dutch Creek.
The unnamed
tributary begins as
a defined channel just above
the
Nadine outfall.
(P.
at
112);
thereafter
it
flows approximately
11/2
miles
to its confluence with Dutch
Creek, which thereafter
flow
approximately two miles
to its confluence
with
the
Fox River.
The unnamed
tributary
near
the Nadine outfall
is typically two
feet
in width
and one—foot
deen
(P.
at
113);
it gradually
widens
and deepens downstream,
reaching widths
up
to twelve
feet and
depths
of three
feet
near
its confluence with
Dutch Creek
(Id.).
The substrate
of
the unnamed
tributary
is predominantly
silt
in
the vicinity of the Modine outfall;
just prior
to joining
Dutch
Creek
a sand/gravel
substrate
is present
(Id.
).
Channelization
and stream widening
has occurred along
portions
of
the tributary, most recently
in 1988 when
a reach approximately
1,000 yards below Modine underwent
a “major”
channelization
and
widening
(P.
at
114).
Land—use adjacent
to the tributary
is
predominately agricultural,
including
row crop and pasture usage
(Id.
In addition
to Nadine’s discharge,
the unnamed tributary
also receives the discharge
from Norton Thiokol’s manufacturing
plant also located
in Pingwood
(Petition,
p.
9).
The Morton
Thiokol discharge
enters the Nadine unnamed tributary,
after
itself
following the course
of another
unnamed tributary,
approximately 1200 yards downstream
from Nadine’s outfall
(Nadine
Exh.
32,
p.
5,
12).
111—470
—11—
Dutch Creek
is ten
to fifteen
feet wide,
with
a depth
ranging
from one
to
three feel.
The substrate varies
from
sand/gravel
to areas
of heavy silt.
Streamside land—use .is also
predominantly agricultural.
Dutch Creek receives no
industrial
discharges
other
than those
from Nadine and Morton Thiokol
(Petition,
p.
9).
Dutch Creek
has been heavily channelized
upstream of
its confluence with
the unnamed tributary,
and
to
a
lesser extent downstream
(R.
at
114;
Nadine Exh.
32,
p.
3).
Nadine submits
that neither
its current wastewater discharge
nor
the granting
of
the requested
relief will have an adverse
impact on
the unnamed
tributary,
Dutch Creek,
or
the
Fox River.
Modine bases
this conclusion
on
a series of biological
and
chemical
studies conducted
at
its behest.
The
initial among
these which
is
included
in the instant record
(as Nadine Exh.
18—
11)
is
a
study completed by Camp,
Dresser
and McKee,
Inc.
(“CDM”)
in 1980 titled
“Biological and Chemical Study
of
the Stream
System Above
and Below the Modine McHenry Plant Discharge”.
The
CDM study concludes
that
the unnamed tributary contained
“a
balanced
indigenous population of
fish,
shellfish and aquatic
life”
(Id.
at
44).
The study further concludes
“if
the Modine
discharge were not present,
the small stream would
not support
the abundant life that
is now present”
(Id.).
Nadine completed another biological monitoring
study
in
October
1986,
titled
“Ecosystem Observations
of the Unnamed
Ditch
Receiving Modine
—
McHenry Effluent” and conducted by N5. Thomas
Meitner,
a Nadine environmental engineer
(Petition Exh.
C).
The
Meitner study consists
of biological
surveys at
two stations
above the Nadine discharge,
seven stations on
the unnamed
tributary below
the Nadine discharge,
and
two stations on
Dutch
Creek, one each above and below
its confluence with the unnamed
tributary.
Among other matters,
the Meitner
study concludes that
“the
benthic macroinvertebrate populations observed
at
the
eleven
stations during
this investigation were typical of
what
would
be expected
in
a
stream having similar
types
of habitat”
(Id.
at
3).
The Meitner
study
also compares the 1986 ecological
condition
of
the unnamed tributary with
the earlier CDM data,
and
notes that those organisms
found by CDM were again observed
at
similar
locations
(Id.).
Nadine’s most recent biological monitoring
study (Nadine
Exh.
32)
was
compiled
in
January
1989.
It
was
undertaken
by
Huff
& Huff,
Inc.
and
is
titled “Biological
& Dissolved Oxygen
Monitoring
on the Unnamed Tributary
to Dutch
Creek Receiving
The Petition contains three attached exhibits identified
as
Exhibits
A,
B,
and
C.
These
are cited
as
“Petition Exh.
___
The Petition itself has been admitted
into
the
record
as Modine
Exh.
1.
111—471
—12—
Nadine’s Wastewater Discharge”.
This
study expands on
an earlier
Huff
& Huff study compiled
in
June 1987
titled
“Biological
Monitoring
of Dutch Creek
and
an Unnamed Tributary”,
which
is
Petition Exh.
B
in
the instant
record.
Like
the Meitner study,
the Huff
& Huff studies
sampled
aquatic
life
at stations
on
the unnamed
tributary upstream and
downstream of
the Nadine discharae,
as well as
an Dutch Creek
upstream and downstream
of
its confluence with the unnamed
tributary.
Among conclusions
of the Huff
& Huff
studies
are that
the
fish
community
is typical
of small
streams
in northern
Illinois (Modine
Exh.
32 at
27),
and that while
fish
were
collected
at all
sites,
the small
size
of
the streams at their
upstream sites was
a limiting factor an the number of species
collected
(Id.)
Amona
fish species
identified
were small—stream
species such as creek
chub,
brook
stickieback,
and
green sunfish
at the headwater
sites,
and larger—stream species
including
northern pike,
bluegill,
and carp
at
the downstream Dutch Creek
sites
(Petition
Exh.
P
at
36).
The Huff and Huff studies also
conclude that
neither
the unnamed
tributary nor Dutch
Creek
anpear
to represent
a commercial
or
sport
fishery, although Dutch
Creek may be
a spawning ground for
fish
from the Fox River
(Id.
at
38).
The Huff
& Puff work does note that benthic
sampling,
as
opposed
to
fish sampling,
indicates better water
quality upstream
of the Nadine outfall
than
at the Modine discharge point.
However,
it also
finds
that recovery of
the henthic community
occurs “immediately downstream
of the discharge paint”
(Id.
at
36).
Mr. James
B.
Huff,
who participated
in the Huff and Huff
studies, attributes this apaarently anomalous pattern
in part
to
recent changes
in Madine’s chlorination practice
(P.
at
119,
278—
82).
Huff
notes
that
in
April.
1987,
when Nadine was fully
chlorinating
its discharge,
only
11
fish were
collected
at
the
Huff
and Huff sampling site mast immediately downstream
(50
yards)
from the Nadine outfall.
Conversely, during
fall 1987,
after Nadine had reduced
its chlorine usage
by 72,
a
total
of
31
fish were collected
at
the same site,
and,
in October
1988,
five
weeks after Modine had ceased chlorinating entirely,
104
fish
were collected
at the site
(P.
at
119).
Huff further
notes that
“this dramatic increase
in
fish population” was absent at
sampling
sites further
downstream
(Id.).
Huff thereby concludes
that
the chlorine used
for wastewater
treatment
(rather
than
impact of
the parameters
from which Modine
requests relief)
is
the expected cause
of the adverse
impact
in the vicinity of
the
Nadine discharge
(Id.).
The discrepancy between the
fish and
benthic
invertebrate data
Huff attributes
to the recentness
of
chlorine cessation
and the
inability, particularly under the
drought conditions
of
1988,
of the benthic community
to rapidly
respond.
Finally,
the Huff
&
Huff studies
also note that other
factors adversely
impact the aquatic system of bath the unnamed
tributary and Dutch Creek,
including
limited stream flow,
111—472
—13—
agricultural
non—point source runoff,
livestock watering,
and
dredging
and channelizati.on
(B.
at
129).
A special
facet of
the January
1989 Huff
& Huff study
is an
investigation of dissolved oxygen
(“DO”) relationships
in
the
unnamed tributary and Dutch Creek,
a
feature not extensively
explored
in earlier
studies.
Among
the conclusions of this work
is that the Nadine discharge depresses DO
for
a distance between
1,300
and 2,400 yards downstream of
the outfall
(P.
at
129);
on
two sampling dates
in July 1987,
in
fact,
DO levels were observed
to
be below the 5.0 mg/l dissolved oxygen
standard
for distances
an the order
of
a mile
to
a mile—and—a—half
below
the Nadine
outfall
(Nadine Exh.
32
at 37—39).
However,
Mr.
Huff
is of
the opinion
that even “if
Modine
were
to achieve
an effluent quality of
10 mg/i
BOD,
this would
not prevent dissolved oxygen levels below
5 mg/i
on
this
tributary during the summer months, based
on
the large DO deficit
that presently exists under hot,
dry conditions”
(P.
at
128—9);
the oxygen deficit
is due
to sediment oxygen demand and
respiration
of plants and algae during the evening hours
(P.
at
237).
Mr.
Huff supports
this conclusion with modeling
studies
and observations
on sources of oxygen demand other
than the
demand exerted
by Nadine’s effluent.
Mr. Huff contends
that
in
a
near worst—case
condition,
exemplified by the high temperatures
and low flows
of July
1987
and
an unmodified outfall
structure,
reducing Modine’s BOD levels to
10 mg/l would increase
stream DO
by less than 0.1 mg/i
for the entire length of the unnamed
tributary
(P.
at 176-7;
195—8);
this would
riot be sufficient
to
eradicate
the low DO levels actually observed under
the modeling
conditions
(Id.).
Moreover,
Mr. Huff contends that modifying
the
outfall structure
by introducing
a cascade
spillway,
which
in
fact was accomplished subsequent
to
Nt. Huff’s modeling studies,
will “mare
than compensate”
for this 0.1
mg,’i depression
(P.
at
241)
Mr.
Huff
further contends
that there
is
no adverse effect
an
the aquatic community during the winter months related
to BOD,
even given
the elevated BOD discharges
typical
of that
time of
year, because
the Modine discharge
is
insufficient
to cause an
oxygen depression below standard at cold
temperatures
(P.
at
199).
In total,
Huff considers that “low DO’s would
be expected
to occur
for
less than 30 days each
year”
(P.
at
239).
Mr.
Huff also considers the effect on
DO that would
follow
should Modine discontinue
its Alfuse production
at
the McHenry
facility.
Under
these conditions,
he concludes:
wastewater
discharge will decline
from 285,000
gallons
per day
to approximately 69,000 gallons
per
day,
or by 80 percent.
This
lower
flow will
reduce
the stream’s low flow by a similar
percentage,
as
ii 1—473
—14—
Modine’s discharge represents
nearly all
of the flow
during low flow conditions.
The
lower
flaw
translates
into
fewer
pounds
of
dissolved
oxygen
carried
by
the
stream
to
satisfy
the
sediment
oxygen
demand.
Peaeration
from
the atmosphere
is also
retarded
at low stream flaws because
of
less
turbulence.
Higher
stream temperatures
will also
result,
which
increases
sediment
oxygen
demand
and
reduces
the reaeratjon
rate.
As
a result,
should Nadine
close
dawn
the Aifuse process,
the dissolved oxygen
levels under
low flow conditions
will
likely decline
from
the present levels.
Lower dissolved oxygen
levels would
have
a negative
impact
on
the biological
community.
The lower
stream flaws would also likely
reduce
the fish populations
in
the unnamed
tributary
because
of the lack
of water.
B.
at 130—1
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY AND ECONOMIC REASONABLENESS
The central
issue
in
the instant matter
is whether Modine
could
achieve compliance with the effluent and water
quality
standards
of
general
applicability
by
same
technically
feasible
and economically reasonable
alternative
to
its current treatment
system.
Nadine contends
that there
is
no
alternative which
is
simultaneously technically feasible and economically reasonable;
the Agency contends that Nadine has
riot adequately dismissed all
alternatives
as being technically
infeasible
or economically
unreasonable.
The matter
of treatment technologies
and economics has
focused almost exclusively on the matter
of BOD removal,
and then
principally on
the removal
of BOD during the winter months.
TSS
is discussed by the participants only passingly;
moreover,
it
is
to
be
noted
that
Modine
is
in
general
compliance
with
the
TSS
effluent
standard.
Similarly,
the
participants
agree
that there
is
no
additional
technology
which
would
allow
Nadine
to
produce
an
effluent
which
would
allow
in—stream fluoride concentrations
to
be
consistently
at
or
below
1.4
mg/l
(P.
at
334).
The
Agency
contests
Modine~s
contention
that
compliance
with
the
existing
BOO
and
TSS
effluent
standards
is
not
technically
feasible,
it argues that “the record does not indicate that
Modine has
ever
investigated
a
treatment
system
which,
based
on
commonly accepted design standards and criteria, can reasonably
be expected
to achieve compliance”
(P.
at
293).
In support
of
this conclusion,
the Agency contends
that Nadine’s pilot
activated
sludqe study was of too narrow
a scope
to warrant
the
111—474
_,
~—
conclusion drawn by Nadine.
In particular,
the Agency points out
that
Nadine’s
study
was
conducted
under
conditions
normal
for
municipal wastewater
treatment plants,
and not
under
the
conditions appropriate
to
an industrial wastewater
system,
like
Nadine’s
(P.
at 293—6).
The
Agency
notes
that
an
activated
sludge
system
by
itself
may
be
expected
to
achieve
an
effluent
quality
of
70
mg/l
BOO
and
25 mg/l TSS
(P.
at
295).
The
Agency
additionally
notes
that most
treaters
of
industrial
wastewaters
who
use
an activated
sludge
system
and
are
required
to achieve
a
10/12
standard
for
BOD,’TSS,
as
is
Madine,
also
use
some
type
of
tertiary
treatment,
such
as
a
sand
filter,
in~conjunctionwith
their
activated sludge system.
The Agency therefore concludes that
it would
be
technically
feasible
for
Nadine
to
achieve
compliance
with
the
BOO
and
TSS
standards
by
use of
an activated sludge system
in combination
with
a sand
filter.
Aside
from
the activated sludge/sand
filter combination,
the
Agency
also
concludes
that
a
rotating
biological
cantactar
(“RBC”)
system,
also
used
in
conjunction
with
a
tertiary
treatment system,
is
a
technically
feasible
means
of
compliance
(P.
at
297,
313).
The Agency also points out that
a properly designed lagoon
system
is
a technically feasible method
for attaining
compliance.
The Agency notes
that Nadine’s existing
lagoon
system is able
to achieve effluent quality better
than or
at the
effluent standards during warm weather
(R.
at
297).
From this
observation,
the Agency concludes
that Modine’s lagoon treatment
system “is a technically feasible
means
of
treating
wastewater,
and
is
limited
only
by
its
inability
to
adequately
reduce
BOO
during
the
winter months”
(P.
at
297—8).
The Agency ventures
that
the
reason why the existing lagoon
system
does
not
adequately
reduce
BOO
during
the winter months
is
that
the size
and
retention
time
of
the
existing system “are well below
those
necessary
to
provide
the
degree of
treatment
expected
from
a
properly designed lagoon system”
(P.
at
298).
Nadine counters
the Agency contentions by agreeing
that
there
are technologies which
are capable
of achieving
not only a
20/25 BOD and TSS,
but aiso
a 10/12.
However, Nadine contends
that these
are extraordinary technologies not normally utilized
“except
in very extreme conditions
such
as
to reduce toxicity”
(P.
at
160).
Dr.
Patterson cites evaporation and granular
activated
carbon technology
as examples
of such technologies
(Id.).
In response
to
the Agency’s assertion
that
an activated
sludge system should
be capable of achieving compliance with the
existing BOD and TSS standards,
Nadine contends that pilot
studies
indicate the contrary.
In particular,
Nadine cites
a
Il 1—475
—.~cJ—
treatability study of
the Nadine effluent designed by Dr.
Patterson
and conducted by Dr. Charles Haas of
the I11inoi~
Institute of Technology.
Dr. Haas concludes
in part that
“activated sludge operated
in
the normal ranges
of hydraulic and
sludge ages does not appear capable of being
used
to treat this
Nadine’s
waste”
(Modine Exh.
18—6
at
6).
The principal problem
encountered was the inability of the activated sludge orga~pj~~~
to
reproduce themselves at
a sustaining
level
(P.
at
168; ~86;
200),
even under controlled
laboratory conditions
and unde~rboth
dilute and concentrated waste conditions
(B.
at 168—70).
~n
summarizing
the conclusions
to be
reached
from this study, as
well
as his own related studies,
Dr. Patterson observed
that,
while
the Nadine effluent
is neither
toxic
nor unamenable
tc~
biodegradation
(P.
at
170—71,
186—7),
activated sludge
is rot
a
viable,
technical
option
for
treatment
of
the
Modine
wastewater
(Id.;
B.
at
352).
He
further
discounts
the viability of
an~
fluidized system
for
the
treatment
of
Mod~ne’s
effluent
(R.
at
183—4).
Dr. Patterson likewise discounts
the contention
that ~~nd
filtration,
or
any filtration,
would have
an appreciable effect
on
the quality of Nadine’s discharge.
He observes that
the bulk
of Madin&s
BOD
is
in
a
soluble
form,
so that
it would not ~
removed
by
a
filter
(P.
at
180—1).
Rather than being undersized, Nadine contends that
the
existing lagoons are actually “somewhat oversized”
based
on
actual
treatment characteristics
(P.
at
346).
Dr.
Patterso-r
believes that
the Agency has reached
the opposite conciusi~
based
upon
inappropriate use
of equations
and
incorrect dat~~
Dr.
Patterson contends that
the equations
in question “werenever
meant
or designed or developed
to apply
to
an industrial t~ of
waste”
(B.
at
361).
Nadine also notes
that
the Agency’s
assumption
of
a
3
to 5foot
depth
in
the lagoons underestir~tes
the actual
5
to
9
foot depths
(P.
at 362),
and hence
underestimates
the size of
the lagoons.
Nadine adds that
t3e
critical underestimation
of depth relates
to
the first
of t-~
three
lagoons, within which
the principal
removal
of BOO afl~~sg
occurs
(PC
#9
at 1—2).
Dr.
Patterson believes that Nadine’s effluent
is amena~ to
a fixed—film treatment
system
(P.
at
184).
Among such syst~~
are trickling filters
arid RBCs.
However,
Dr. Patterson bel~es
that
a
trickling
filter
would
be
susceptible
to
the
same
ext.eme
temperature effects
as
is
the current lagoon system
(P. at~~),
and
hence presumably would
be susceptible
to the
same limi~.ions
in winter
performance.
In Dr.
Patterson’s opinion,
the one system,
if
any,
whkh
would
be
an appropriate replacement
for Madine’s current SY~m
is the RBC system
(P.
at
185).
To this end Nadine installei~a
pilot
RBC unit at
the Nadine
facility.
This pilot study
Sh~d
111—476
that RBC treatment would
achieve
a BOD reduction of approximately
50
(P.
at
101).
On
this
basis, Dr. Patterson and
the Agency
both believe
that even
an RBC system would
still nat allow Nadine
to comply with
the
10 mg/i BOD standard on
a year—round basis
(P.
at 297,
312).
Additionally, the Agency points out that
it
is
reluctant
to recommend ?BC treatment based
on
a poor
record
of
mechanical
reliability of RBC units
at other sites
(P.
at 296),
arid
that
it would probably not grant
a
constructioii’ permit to
Modine for
an RBC system
for
this reason
(R.
at 309—312).
An RBC system
is estimated
to have
a capital cost of
approximately
$1 million and operational and maintenance costs
of
$200,000-per
year
(P.
at
264).
These costsModine contends would
increase
the McHenry Plant’s
total depreciation
and overhead
expenses
by 13
and
l3l/~,
respectively
(P.
at
265).
At present
the McHenry Plant
has
the lowest profitability of Nadine’s
thirteen
U.S.
plants
(P.
at
267).
Nadine contends
that
the added
expense of
the RBC units
wotild therefore
seriously damage the
viability of
an already
“suspect”
facility
(P.
at
266).
In overall
summary,
Dr. Patterson concludes
that:
There
is already
a
three-lagoon
technology
in
place, a series of
technologies. that work quite well
in fact,
are somewhat over—sized
in my opinion
for
the facility.
They operate,
as the lagoons are prone
to operate,
in
a
seasonal fashion.
By replacing
that technology, throwing
that
technology out, and putting
in
a different biological
technology,
we could certainly make some reduction
in
the wintertime BOD discharge,
and likely not
to make
any reduction
in
the summertime BOD discharge.
If that expenditure
and that replacement
of one
biological
technology with another
one would have
a
positive,
and significant positive impact on stream
quality,
then
I think
it
is warranted.
If
it does
not
have
a
significant
positive
impact
on
stream
quality
then
I
believe
it
is
not
appropriate,
it
is
not reasonable
to throw out one biological
technology
and put
in another
one that
is really only going
to
extend
by
a few months per
year
the performance
we
have already
seen now
in summer.
P.
at
175—6
and
I
don’t
believe
there
is
any
accepted
technology
that
is
properly
designed
and
properly operated,
with
or
without
filtration,
that
would
meet
ten milligrams
per
liter
BOD
and
twelve milligram per liter
suspended solids
for
Nadine’s
effluent).
P.
at
354
1 1 1—4 77
CONCLU SIONS
The Board
is persuaded,
based
upon analysis of the rather
voluminous
record
in this proceeding,
that there
is
no
alternative treatment method
for Modine which
is simultaneously
technically feasible and economically reasonable.
•The Board
is
also persuaded that Nadine’s effluent,
at least
as regards the
parameters
at
issue,
is
not
a
limiting
factor
in
the quality of
the
receiving
waterway.
Accordingly,
the
Board
today
adopts
appropriate
relief.
There
follows
a discussion
of
particular
facets
of today’s
action.
Point of Measurement and
the Dilution Rules
Under
the present configuration
of
its treatment system,
Nadine commingles
its Nocolok non—contact coaling
water with
its
process wastewater within the first
lagoon.
The question arises
as
to whether
this
configuration brings
into play any provisions
of the Board’s dilution rules
found
at
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 304.102.
The Agency questions whether
the dilution rules
require that
the concentrations
of Nadine effluent be recomputed
to exclude
the effect of any dilution.
The Agency
has,
for example, made
such
adjustments
in
calculating
limits
in
Nadine’s
current
NPDES
permit.
The
adjustment
applied
there
is
a
20
reduction
in
the
allowed
concentration,
to account
for
the approximately 20
of
the total
effluent discharge which
is non—contact cooling water
(P.
at
226).
Nadine contends that
it has proposed effluent limitations
which
the existing technology
is capable
of
achieving,
as
measured
at the point of discharge
(P.
at 210).
These numbers
can be either
accepted unaltered
as limits applicable
at end—of—
pipe,
or
written with
a 20
inflation factor
to account
for non—
contact coaling water
additions
(P.
at
210;
225).
In the later
case,
it
would
be
necessary
to
define
same
paint
other
than
end—
of—pipe
as
the
compliance
point.
The Board agrees with
the Agency
in that
“the Agency’s
determination
as
to what limit was appropriate
in the NPDES
permit
is
largely irrelevant
to this proceeding”
(P.
at 243—4),
a
contention similar
to that of Modine
(P.
at
210).
Furthermore,
the Board
sees
no merit
in specifying
a compliance point at other
than the point of discharge, principally because
in
the
alternative there
is nowhere
in the system where
it
is possible
to measure
the adjusted parameters,
and
hence no place where
compliance can be tested.
Thus,
to the extent that Nadine has
justified
specific
end—of—pipe
limitations,
the
Board
believes
that
these
should
be
the numbers specified
in
the rule.
111—478
Similarly,
the
Board
sees
no
merit
in
requiring
Nadine
to
separately
discharge
its
non—contact
cooling water.
Nadine
is
riot
here
attempting
to
effectuate
treatment
via
dilution,
the
practice
which
the
dilution
rules
are
intended
to
prevent.
TSS
Standard
The
12 mg/i monthly composite limitation
for ~SS requested
by Nadine
is
in
fact the same standard which
is specified
at
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 304.120(c).
On
its
face,
therefore,
Nadine
is not
requesting
a site—specific exemption
from this
rule.
However,
under
the
interpretation
that
the
Nocolok
non—contact
cooling
water
must
be
subtracted
pursuant
to
35
Ill.
Adrn.
Code-304.l02,
Nadine’s current NPDES permit contains
an
adjusted
TSS
limitation
of 9.5 mg/i monthly average
and 19.0 mg/i daily maximum
(P.
at
224).
Thus,
relative
to
the NPDES
permit the
12 mg/i constitutes
a
less
restrictive standard.
Similarly,
today’s limit
of
30 mg/i
daily composite constitutes
a less restrictive standard.
Nadine’s current treatment system would
seem
to achieve
the
current NPDES
limits with substantial
regularity,
as
is sh~wnby
the sampling record covering
the last three complete years
TSS Monthly Average Concentration
(mg/i)
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
1986
7
1
1
4
1
5
2
34
1
5
1
tr
1987
4
tr
tr
1
1
14
1
tr
tr
7
12
3
1988
4
3
2
2
2
6
20
4
3
4
6
5
BOO Standard
The ability of the Board
to grant
any relief
to Modine
is
contingent upon assurance
that Nadine operates
and configures
its
current wastewater
treatment system
in
the most environmentally
sound manner.
In general,
the Board
looks favorably upon
the
many adjustments
of
the treatment system which Nodine has
undertaken
over
the pendency of
this and the predecessor Nadine
wastewater
proceedings.
The Board believes
that
these
adjustments have gone
a
long way towards alleviating
the negative
impact of Nadine’s effluent.
Nadine opines
that
it would not require relief
for either
BOO
or TSS
if
it were
to receive
a
three—lagoon exemption
pursuant
to
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 304.120(c).
Nadine contends that
Supplemental Information
filed March
16,
1989
by Nadine
in
response
to Board
request.
Record
for 1986 and 1987
is based
on
one sample per month;
record
for 1988
is
the average of
3
to
5
samples
per month;
tr
=
less
than
1 mg/i.
111—479
it
is eligible
for such exemption
(Modirie Brie~at 6—7).
However,
the Board takes administrative notice
of
the denial
by
the Agency
of Modine’s exemption application.
Among
the reasons
cited
by the Agency
is that Nodine’s existing facilities
are not
capable of consistently achieving the effluent quality allowable
under
a lagoon exemption.
The Agency further adds that
it
recommends
that Nadine delay any further pursuit
of. an exemption
until
the
instant site—specific proceeding
is resolved.
Definitions of Summer
and Winter
Modine originally requested
that
its two—number BOO effluent
standard
apply
to “summer”
and “winter” months.
Namely,
Modine
requests
that summer
be defined
as the months of May through
September
and winter
as
the months October
though April.
The
Agency questions Nadine’s definition
of these
terms relative
to
the use given
them
in other
Board regulations5
(PC #10
at 1).
Modine responds
that’ northeastern Illinois,
where Nadine’s
facility
is
located,
is the coolest region of the State,
and
that
in the northeastern
region the onset of low mean
temperatures
precedes that
in
the southern portion of
the State by several
weeks
in
the fall
and the onset
of warm mean
temperatures
in
the
northeast
lags
the
south
by more than a month
in
the spring
(PC
#9, exhibit
1).
On
this basis, Nadine contends that
the
requested definitions of “summer”
and “winter”
are consistent
with site—specific climatological
data.
The Board accepts Nadine’s position concerning
these
particulars
of climate.
However,
as observed
at Second Notice
(Opinion,
p~
3), neither
of the terms
“winter” or “summer”
is
an
appropriate
label
for
the times periods
in question.
Accordingly,
the Board
today affirms
its construction of
the BOO
rule
in
a form which simply cites
the months within which the
various standards apply.
See Nadine’s Unopposed Motion
to Supplement Record, with
attachment,
filed July
17,
1989
in Nadine Manufacturing Company
V.
IEPA,
PCB
88—25.
Also
see the Board’s Order of July 27
granting
that motion.
The concept
of
a “winter” season
is
used variously
in different
Board
rules.
For example,
it
is November though March with
respect
to ammonia nitrogen discharges
to the Illinois River
system at
35 Ill.
Adm.
Code
304.122 and
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
304.201(b);
it
is December
through March with respect
to BOO and
February
through May with
respect
to TSS
in
the Galesburg
SD
site—specific
rule at
35 Ill.
Adrn. Code 304.207; and
it
is
November
through March with respect
to violations of
the ammonia
nitrogen water
quality standard
at
35
111.
Adm. Code 304.301.
111—480
fl
1
Fluoride Standard
Justification
for
the fluoride site—specific
rule has been
based
largely
on
the
record
developed
in
P78—7
(In the Matter of:
Proposed
Amendments
to
Rule
203.1
of
the
Water
Pollution
Control
Regulations,
final
action
taken March
4,
1982),
and
introduced
into
the
instant
record
by
Modine
as
Exhibit
36.
In
R78—7
the
Board
found
in
a
site—specific
rulemaking
that
fludride
concentrations
up
to 5.0 mg/i would have no adverse environmental
or health impact as applied
to
a portion
of
the Vermilion—Wabash
River system
in east—central Illinois.
Although
at First Notice
the Board allowed
that
the conclusions reached
in R78—7 might
also
be
applicable
to
the
waterway
into
which
Nadine
discharges,
the
Eoard
requested
that
Nadine
and
the
Agency
address
the
similarities
between
the
waterways
considered
in
P78—7
and
the
instant
waterway
(First
Notice
Opinion
at
22).
Nadine
responds
that
an
important commonality between
Modine’s
receiving
waterway
and
the
waters
considered
in
P78—7
is
that
of
the
hardness
of
the
waters
(PC
#9
at
3—5
and
Exhibit
2).
Nadine
notes,
as does
the Agency
(PC #10
at
3),
that
fluoride toxicity
is
inversely proportional
to hardness.
In
the
Nadine case hardness
is of
the order
of
328 mg/i
(PC #9
at
Exhibit
2);
in the R78—7
case hardness was ca.
350 mg/I
(Id.).
Thus, both streams
are classified
as “very hard” pursuant to
standard hardness classifications.
On
this basis,
Modine
contends that the toxicity conclusions
reached
in P78—i
are
equally applicable
to
the
instant case
(Id.).
The Agency
supports these general contentions
(PC #10
at
3).
Based on
its
own review of the record,
including Exhibit
36
and
the
similarities between
the facts of P78—7
and
this proceeding,
the
Board
concludes
that
the fluoride standard as adopted will
be
protective
of aquatic
life
uses
in
the limited
receiving waters
specified.
As
an associated matter,
the Board
noted
at First Notice
that
it proposed
to limit
the site—specific fluoride water
quality standard
to only that portion
of Nadine’s receiving
waterway extending
1200
feet downstream from Nadine’s outfall
(First Notice Opinion
at 24—5).
This position was based
on the
Board’s determination
that Madine had justified the site—specific
standard only
for
that part of
the unnamed tributary
for which
Nadine constitutes
the principal
source of low—flow discharge
(Id.).
Modine has responded
that
it has
no objection
to
this
limitation
(PC
#9
at 6).
The Board
also retains
today
a change
in
the manner
in which
the fluoride standard
is defined,
as such change was originally
proposed
at
Second
Notice.
The
Agency
had
questioned
whether
the
use
of
a
monthly
average
and daily maximum,
as proposed at First
Notice,
is
workable
as
a water quality standard.
The Agency
points out
that water quality standards
are generally not defined
1.
1i—4S1
—~
L
in
this manner due
to the difficulty of assessing compliance
where grab samples constitute
the sampling norm
(PC *10
at
3).
The Board believes that
the Agency makes
a valid point.
The
First Notice phrasing
of
the fluoride standard was premised
on
sampling programs commonly employed
in effluent monitoring.
However, this perspective neglects the fact that effluents are
monitored by the discharger, whereas
the Agency
is
responsible
for water quality sampling.
Therefore, the water quality
standard has
to
be phrased
in
a manner which is workable
in the
confines of the Agency’s ability to monitor.
Water quality
standards are normally defined
as instantaneous maxima, which
are
not to be equalled
or exceeded
at any time.
The Board believes
that this
is the only appropriate way to phrase the instant
rule.
Barium Effluent Standard
Nadine
had initially proposed
relief with the barium
effluent standard found
at
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 124(a).
However,
Nadine also opined that
it may not need
relief from
the barium
effluent standard
if the Board
finds that
the exception
for
background
concentrations
found at
35
Ill.
Adrn. Code 304.103
applies
to
Nadine’s circumstance.
The exception
for background
concentrations reads
(emphasis added):
Because
the effluent
standards
in
this Part are based
upon
concentrations
achievable
with
conventional
treatment technology which
is largely unaffected by
ordinary levels of contaminants
in
intake water,
they
are absolute standards
that must be met without
subtracting background concentrations.
However,
it
is not the intent of
these
regulations
to require
users
to clean
up contamination caused essentially by
upstream sources or
to require treatment when only
traces
of. contaminants are added
to the background.
Compliance with the numerical effluent
standards
is
therefore not required when effluent concentrations
in excess of
the standards result entirely from
influent contamination,
evaporation,
and/or the
incidental
addition of
traces of materials not
utilized or produced
in
the activity that
is the
source
of
the ‘waste.
Modine points out that barium
is not used
in any of Nadine’s
processes, but
rather
is present
in Nadine’s wastewater
only by
virtue of
being present
in the raw well water
used
by Nadine.
Modine further contends
that
its existing
treatment processes do
remove
some of the
influent. barium,
but by an amount insufficient
to meet the barium effluent standard (R~at
74).
As
evidence
thereof, Modine presents comparative analyses
of source and
effluent waters sampled during August
to November of
1988
(Nadine
Exh.
28).
These
analyses show that source water
concentrations
of barium averaged approximately 60
higher
than the effluent
111—482
—~j—
concentrations
(Id.;
P.
at
74).
Specifically,
13 well—water
analyses shows
an average
influent concentration of barium
of 4.1
mg/i,
whereas
the
15 effluent concentrations of barium shows
an
average of 2.5 mg/l
(versus
the 2.0 mg/i effluent standard).
The Board
finds
that the Section
304.103 exception does
apply
to Modine’s barium circumstance.
Accordingly, .Modine
is
not required
to comply with
the
2.0 mg/i barium eff”luerit
standard.
Further, Modine does not require site—specific relief
from the barium effluent standard,
and Nadine’s request to that
end
is
therefore denied as unnecessary.
The Board emphasizes
that these findings are based upon
circumstances as
the
Board currently
finds
them.
These
circumstances
include demonstrably higher concentrations
of
barium
in Nadine’s well—water source than
in Nadine’s effluent,
concentrations
of barium
in Nadine’s effluent which are less than
the 5.0 mg/i General
Use Standard,
and
no use by Nadine
of barium
in any process which would
cause
the appearance of
process barium
in Nadine’s wastestream.
Ammonia Effluent Standard
In addition
to barium, Nadine had also originally requested
a site—specific ammonia nitrogen effluent standard and
a site—
specific un—ionized
ammonia water quality standard.
These
requests
were
subsequently
withdrawn
by
Nadine and determined
to
be
unnecessary
by
the
Board
(see
First
Notice
Opinion
at
p.
23—
4).
Contributing
to or Causing Water Quality Violations
In both
its Petition and Amended Petition Nadine makes
reference
to
a request
far exception
from 35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
304.105,
which prohibits any effluent from contributing
to or
causing
a violation
of a water quality
standard.
However,
in
neither
instance did Nadine propose language which would
effectuate
this exception other
than
far
fluoride.
Although the
Board
requested
that
this
issue
be addressed during
the First
Notice comment period,
the
issue has not been further
addressed.
The Board
accordingly
takes
no action on
this
issue.
ORDER
The following
site—specific rules
are hereby adapted.
The
Clerk of
the Board
is directed
to submit
these
rules
to
the
Secretary
of State
for
final
notice.
TITLE
35: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE
C:
WATER
POLLUTION
CHAPTER
I:
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
11
1—~S3
—~‘*—
PART 303
WATER
USE
DESIGNATIONS
AND
SITE
SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Section 303.430
Unnamed Tributary
to Dutch Creek
The general
use water quality standard for fluoride contained
in
Section 302.208 shall
not apply
to the unnamed
tributary of Dutch
Creek which receives discharges from the manufacturing facility
located
on Ringwood Drive
in Ringwoad
in McHenry County
from the
outfall
of
that facility for
a distance
of 1200 yards
downstream.
Instead
this water
shall comply with
a fluoride
standard
of 5.6 mg/i not
to
be exceeded at any time.
PART
304
EFFLUENT STANDARDS
Section 304.221
Ringwood Drive Manufacturing Facility
in
McHenry County
The general
effluent standards
for deoxygenating wastes contained
in Section 304.120
shall not apply
to discharges
from the
manufacturing facility located
an Fingwood Drive
in Ringwood,
McHenry County, which discharges
to an unnamed
tributary
of Dutch
Creek.
Instead
these discharges
shall comply with the following
effluent
limitations as measured
at the point of discharge after
the
third
lagoon and prior
to discharge
to the unnamed
tributary:
80D5
25 mg/i
May
to September monthly average
35 mg/l
May to Zeptember daily maximum
60 mg/i
October
to April monthly average
70 mg/i
October
to April daily maximum
TSS
12 mg/i
monthly average
30 mg/i
daily maximum
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
I,
Dorothy
N.
Gunn, Clerk of
the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby certify that
the above Opinion
and Order was
adopted
on
the
~
day of
~
,
1990,
by a vote
of
7—,~’~
.
/7’
-I
/~
(2
~
(~~t
/~?.
~
Dorothy N. ~Cunn, Clerk
Illinois
~b11ution
Control Board
111—484
