ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTPOL BOARD
October
18,
1989
IN
THE
MATTER
OF:
PROPOSED
SITE—SPECIFIC
LIMITATION
FOR
THE
MOD~NE MANUFACTURING
COMPANY
)
R87—36
FACILITY,
RINGWOOD,
ILLINOIS
PROPOSED
RULE.
FIRST NOTICE.
OPINION
AND
ORDER
OF THE BOARD
(by R.
C.
Fiemal):
This matter
comes before
the Eoar~ upon
the October
15,
1987
Petition
and
May
24,
1989 Amended Petition of
Modine
Manufacturing Company
(uModinehi)
for site—specific exemption from
certain effluent standards which currently apply
to Modine’s
Ringwood,
Illinois,
facility.
Modine further
requests
modification
of certain water quality standards as
these
currently apply to
the stream which receives Modine’s effluent
discharges.
Today the Board proposes
for
First Notice an amended version
of Modine’s proposal.
MODINE’S REQUEST
The effluent standards
in question pertain
to five—day
biochemical
oxygen demand
(“BOD”)
and
total
suspended solids
(“TSS”),
as found
at
35
Iii.
Ac3rn.
Code 304.120(c),
to barium and
fluoride,
as found
at
35
Ill.
Adrn.
Code 304.124(a),
and
to the
general
provision against effluents contributing
to
or causing
violations
of water quality standards,
as found
at 35
Iii.
Adm.
Code 304.105 and 304.301.
The water
quality standards
in
question are General Use Water Quality Standards
for barium and
fluoride,
as
found
at
35
Iii..
Adm.
Code 302.208, and ammonia
nitrogen,
as found
at
35
Ill.
Adrn.
Code 302.212.
The current
numerical limitations for
these effluent and water quality
standards
are
as follows:
Effluent Standards:
Monthly
Daily
Grab
Composite
Composite
Sample
(mg/i)
(mg/i)
(mg/i)
BOD
10
20
50
TSS
12
24
60
Barium
2.0
4.0
10
Fluoride
15.0
30
75
Water
Quality Standards:
Barium
5.0 mg/i
Fluoride
1.4 mg/i
Ammonia Nitrogen
15.0 mg/l
1~4--461
—2—
In substitution
for
these standards Modine proposes the
following effiuent limitations1:
Monthly Composite
Daily Composite
(mg/i)
(mg/i)
BOD
25
(summer)
35 (summer)
60
(winter)
70
(winter)
TSS
12
30
Barium
3.0
4.0
Fluoride
4.0
5.6
Ammonia Nitrogen
3.2
(summer)
4.4
(summer)
4.4
(winter)
6.8 (winter)
where
summer
is defined
as the months of May through September
and winter
is defined
as the months
of October through April.
Additionally, Modine proposes that
the existing General Use
Water Quality Standards
for fluoride and ammonia nitrogen not
apply to the unnamed tributary
(see following)
to which Modine
discharges.
In place
of the General Use Standards, Modine
proposes
that
the unnamed
tributary be
subject
to water quality
standards
for fluoride and ammonia nitrogen which
are
identical
to those proposed as Modine’s effluent
limitations.
Modine does
not request modification of the General Use barium standard,
which
is higher than Modine proposes
as its daily composite
effluent limitation.
Both
the existing and proposed site—specific limitations
differ
from
the concentration limits
in the NPDES
Permit, No.
1L0001279
(Modine
Exh.
26), most
recently
issued
to
Modine:
30—Day
Avg
Daily
Max
(mg/i)
(mg/i)
BOD
8.0
16.0
rn~~
9.5
19.0
Barium
1.6
3.2
Fluoride
1.4
Ammonia Nitrogen
1.5
(summer)
4.0
(winter)
The specifics
of Modine’s proposal,
as
here
listed,
were
initially
presented
in
the testimony of Gary
A.
Fahi
(R.
at 108;
Modine Exh.
9
at
16)
and
as
Modine Exh.
40.
They were repeated
in
the Amended
Petition filed May 24,
1989, which was intended to
conform
the pleadings with
the henring
record.
The specifics of
the
Amended
Petition
differ
in
substantial
degree
from
the
specifics
proposed
by Modine
in
its Petition
(P.
at 218—9;
c.f.,
Modirie
Exh.
1
at
2).
1I)L~.4
62
where
summer
is
defined
as
months
of
Apr ii
through
October
and
winter
is
defined
as
the
months November
through March.
The
NPDES
limits
for
BOD,
TSS,
and
barium
are
less
than
the
existing
general
effluent
standards
because the Illinois Environmental
Protection
Agency
(“Agency”),
in
writing
the
permit,
has
adjusted
the
standards
to
reflect
mixing
by
Modine
of
non—contact
cooling
waters
(see
following)
with
its
wastewaters
prior
to
discharge.
This
adjustment
is
made
pursuant
to
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
304.102.
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
The goals
of water pollution control
in
the State of
Illinois are set out
in Title
III
of
the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act
(“Act”;
Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1987,
ch.
lllJ~/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 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
of Illinois, without
being
given
the degree of treatment
or control necessary
to
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
lr)4
L~63~
—4—
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 Sections
10, 13,
17,
22,
22.4
and 25
of
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)
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The
instant proceeding
is the second most—recent
in
a sor ies
of water—related actions brought by nadine
(see Mo’Jine
Exh.
4
at
9—11).
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 whose disposition
is
pending.
In the first of these, Modine
v.
IEPA,
PCB 82—111
(58
PCB 207,
May 29, 198; Modine Exh.
6A)
the Board granted Modine
variance until March
1,
1985
from the same
regulations
at issue
here.
Additionally,
the Board imposed effluent and water quality
limitations
for each
of BOD,
TSS,
and ammonia nitrogen which
in
general are less
stringent
than
is now proposed
by Modine.
In
the
second
of
the
successful
variance
petitions
the
Board
granted
Modine
a new variance,
with similar
limitations
to those
in PCB
82—ill,
to expire
on December
31,
1987
(Modine
v.
IEPA,
PCB 85—
154,
slip op. December
22,
1987; Modine
Exh.
7).
In
the pending action, Modine
v.
IEPA,
PCB 88—25, Modine
seeks
in
the
alternative
a
new
variance,
an extension of
the PCB
82—111 and/or PCB 85—154
variances,
or
a declaration
that
the
regulations at
issue
are without
force or
effect as applied
to
104
464
—5—
Modine.
Various documents
from
the PCB 88—25 proceedin9 have
been
admitted
into
the record
of the
instant proceeding
In addition
to the pending variance proceeding,
PCB 88—25,
there
is also
a pending NPDES permit appeal,
PCB 86—124,
filed
on
August
15, 1986.
In PCB 86—124 Modine petitions
for review of
certain conditions
in NPDES Permit No.
IL000l279,
as
issued July
17, 1986.
Through
an informal agreement between
the Agency and
Modine,
the permit appeal has not
been
actively pursued
by either
party initially pending
the resolution
of PCB 85—154
and later
the resolution
of both PCB 88—25
and
the instant proposal.
On
February 23,
1989 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 presubmitted
testimony of
its prin~ipalwitnesses
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
A.
Fahl,
Manager
of Environmental Engineering
at Modine’s headquarters; Daniel
3.
Bosch, Manager
of Modine’s
Manufacturing Engineering Department
of the Automotive Division;
Dr
.3.
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,
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).
The presubmitted testimony of James Firestone, Gary Fahl, James
Huff,
and Daniel Bosch was initially
filed on January
23, 1989.
On January 26,
1989 Modine
filed
revised testimony
of Messrs.
Firestone,
Fahi,
Bosch,
and Huff,
as well
as the testimony of
Dr.
James W. Patterson.
On February
8,
1989 Modine
filed
a revised
version of Dr. Patterson’s testimony.
Also
on January 26,
1989
Modine prefiled copies of exhibits numbered
1 through
32.
These
were subsequently admitted into
the record as Modine Exhibits and
with Modine’s numbering
scheme unchanged.
1fl4 465
—6—
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
A.
Paulson, Executive Director of the
McHenry County Defenders,
who participated
in
the questioning
of
witnesses.
By Order
of April
27,
1989 the Hearing Officer established
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.
Post—hearing Public Comments
(“PC”) were
filed
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).
FAC ILITY
Manufacturing Operations
Modine opera~esa manufacturing facility located on Ringwood
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.
Mor5ine
utilizes
two
different processes
for
the
manufacture
off
these
products.
On
the
condensor
line,
the
condensor
fin
and
tube
type
heat
exchange
products
are
primarily
fabricated
from
aluminum
parts,
which
are
metalurgically
sic
bonded
together using
zinc and
flouride
sic
salts, under
the influence of heat.
This process
is known
as the Alfuse process.
The raw materials
used
to manufacture the condensors
are aluminum tube and fin stock and a proprietary
“slurry”
composition
used
to metalurgically
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
~ Although
located
in Rinywood,
the facility at
issue
is
also
commonly
known
and referred to as Modine’s
“McHenry Plant”
or
“McHenry facility”.
104
466
—7—
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 pruduct
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
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
(P.
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 proce~s (R.
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”
CR.
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 Ringwood Plant
(P.
at
32).
However,
the oil coolers are characterized
as
“a minor product”
(Id.
)
Nature of Wastewater
The
McHenrv
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
104-467
—8—
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
(R.
at
164).
The organic fraction has
proven
to be particularly recalcitrant
in
its treatability
(P.
at
166),
in part due
to
its slow degradation rate
(R.
at 318—20).
Wastewater Operations
Modine applies various
initial treatments
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
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
naLural
aeration
necessa~:y
for
sustaining
the
proper
plant
and
animal
life.
Petition,
r.
6
The
three lagoons
have
a
retention
time
of
13
to
15
or
16
days
(P.
at
173)
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
the effluent
limitations
established by the Board.
Further,
the receiving stream does not
meet the water
quality standards
for ammonia nitrogen (Petition,
p.
6—7)
and dissolved
oxygen.
The latter condition stems
in part
from the
fact :h~:for sub:tantial ~~rtions
of
the
time
riodine’s
effluent
constirutes
the
sole flow
iii
the unnamed tributary.
The
water quality standards therefore become effective
effluent
standards
CR.
at
215—6).
104
-460
—9—
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
188).
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
effluent
(P.
at
54).
A
third
modification
has
been
the
addition of an air
stripping
system
designed
to dissipate ammonia
into
the air.
This
system
has
lead
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
(P.
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
coliforrn standard without chlorinating
(R.
at 57—8).
Moreover,
evidence from biological
studies
(P.
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).
There are also several additional modifications
to which
Modine “has committed”
(Modine Brief at
14).
Among
these
is
a
recommendation by Mr. Huff that the Modine outfall
be altered
from
its present submerged—pipe structure
to
a spillway
structure.
The purpose of
this modification
would
be
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.
It was the understanding of
the participants
at hearing that the spillway would
be installed
during spring 1989
(R.
at 241),
although
the record does not
affirm that the installation has actually been made.
104 469
—10—
A second change
to which Modine has committed
is the
addition of
a
pH adjustment system to be added
at the point
of
discharge
(Amended Petition at
4;
Modine Brief
at 14).
The
purpose to
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.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Effluent Quality
Modine provides the following summary of
the quality of its
effluent,
based
on annual average concentrations over the past
nine years:
Parameter
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
BUD
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
Airrnonia
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
Zinc
2.5
3.3
4.5
0.4
0.6
0.9
0.3
0.3
0.3
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
1985
to 1988,
respectively,
as 0.053, 0.057,
0.069,
and 0.635 mg/l
(Modine Exh.
9
at
2).
Nadine has also carried
out
two priority pollutant analy~e~
and has undertaken whole—effluent
bioassays
(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
no mortality
to either Daphnia magna
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
Modine 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 Modine outfall
is
typically two
feet
in width
an.~one—foot deep
(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
104--470
—11—
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
(R.
at
114).
Land—use adjacent to the tributary
is
predominately agricultural,
including
row crop and pasture usage
(Id.).
In
addition
to Modine’s discharge,
the unnamed
tributary
also receives the discharge from Morton Thiokol’s manufacturing
plant also located
in Ringwood
(Petition,
p.
9).
The Morton
Thiokol discharge enters the Modine unnamed
tributary,
after
itself following
the course
of another unnamed
tributary,
approximately
1,200
yards
downstream
from
Nadine’s
outfall
(Modine
Exh.
32,
p.
5,
12).
Dutch Creek
is ten
to fifteen
feet wide, with
a depth
ranging
from one
to three
feet.
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 Modine 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
(P.
at
114;
Modine Exh.
32,
p.
3).
Modine
submits
that neither
its current wastewater discharge
nor
the granting
of the proposed rule 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 Modine Exh.
18—il)
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.).
Modine completed another
biological monitoring
study
in
October
1986,
titled “Ecosystem Observations
of the Unnamed Ditch
Receiving Modine
—
McHenry Effluent”
and conducted by M~.Thomas
Meitner,
a Modine environmental engineer
(Petition Exh.
C).
The
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.
104 471
—12—
Meitner
study consists of biological surveys
at two stations
above
the Modine discharge, seven stations on the unnamed
tributary below the Modine 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.).
Modine’s most
recent biological monitoring
study
(Modine
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
Niodine’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 Modine discharge,
as well as on 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
on
the number
of species
collected
(Id.)
Among
fish
species
identified
were small—stream
species
such
or
creek
chub,
brook stickiehack,
and green sunfish
at
the hoadwater sites,
and larger—stream species including
northern pike,
bluegill,
and carp at
the downstream Dutch Creek
sites
(Petition
Exh.
B
at
36).
The
Huff
and
Huff
studies
also
conclude that neither
the unnamed
tributary nor Dutch Creek
appear
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
&
Huff
work
does
note
that
benthic
sampling,
as
opposed
to
fish sampling,
indicates better water quality upstream
of the Modine outfall than at
the Modine discharge point.
However,
it
also finds
that
recovery of
the benthic community
occurs “immediately downstream
of the discharge point”
(Id.
at
36).
Mr. James
E.
Huff,
who participated
in the Huff
and Huff
studies,
attributes
~
apparently anomalous pattern
in part
to
recent changes
in Modine’
;
chlori~tion 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 most
immediately downstream
(50
in!
—13—
yards)
from
the Modine outfall.
Conversely, during fall 1987,
after Modine 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 Nadine 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 both the unnamed
tributary and Dutch Creek,
including limited stream
flow,
agricultural non—point source runoff,
livestock watering,
and
dredging
and channelization
(R.
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 Modine 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
on the order
of
a mile
to
a mile—and—a—half
below the Modine
outfall
(Modine 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/l 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 Modine’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/i 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 not 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 would
“more
than compensate”
for
this
0.1 mg/i depression
(P.
at
241).
104473
—14—
Mr.
Huff further contends that there
is
no adverse effect on
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
(R.
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 Mcflenry
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
Modine’s discharge represents nearly all
of the flow
during low flow conditions.
The lower
flow
translates
into
fewer pounds
of dissolved
oxygen
carried
by the stream
to
satisfy
the sediment oxygen
demand.
Reaeration
from
the atmosphere
is also
retarded
at low stream flows because
of less
turbulence.
Higher stream temperatures will also result,
which
increases sediment oxygen demand and reduces
the reaeration
rate.
As
a result,
should Modine
close down the Alfuse 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 flows would also likely
reduce
the
fish
populations
in
the unnamed
tr ibuta:
because
of
the
lack
of
water.
P.
at
130—1
TECHNICAL
FEASIBILITY
AND
ECONOMIC
REASONABLENESS
The
central
issue
in
the
instant
matter
is
whether
Modine
could achieve compliance
with current
effluent and water quality
standards
by some
technically feasible and economically
reasonable alternative
to
its current
treatment
system.
Modine
contends
that there
is
no alternative which
is
simultaneously
technically feasible and economically reasonable;
the Agency
contends that Modine has not 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
104--474
—15—
principally on the removal
of BOD durini
the winter months.
TSS
is discussed
by the participants only passingly;
moreover,
it
is
to be
noted
that Nadine
is
in general compliance with
the TSS
effluent standard.
Similarly, the participants
agree
that there
is
no additional
technology which would allow Nadine
to comply
with the fluoride effluent standard
(R.
at
334),
and that Modine
is currently employing technology which would ordinarily be
expected
to produce
compliance with the barium effluent standard
(P.
at
334—5).
The
Agency
contests
Nadine’s
contention
that
compliance
with
the existing BOD 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 sludge study was of
too narrow
a scope
to warrant
the
conclusion drawn by Modine.
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
Modine’s
(R.
at 293—6).
The Agency notes
that
an activated sludge system
by itself
may
be expected
to achieve an effluent quality of
20 mg/i BOD and
25 mg/i suspended solids
(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 Modine,
also ~ise some type
of
tertiary treatment,
such as
a sand filter,
in conjunction with
their
activated sludge system.
The Agency therefore concludes
that
it would be
technically feasible
for Nadine
to achieve
compliance with
the BOD 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 contactor
(“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 Modine’s existing
lagoon
system
is
able
to achieve effluent quality better than or at
the
effluent standards during warm weather
(P.
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 BOD
during the winter months”
(P.
at 297—8).
The Agency ventures
that the reason why the existing lagoon system does not
104
475
—16--
adequately
reduce BOD 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).
Modine counters the Agency contentions by agreeing that
there are technologies which are capable of achieving not only
a
20/25 BOD and TSS, but also a 10/12.
However, Modine 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,
Modine contends that pilot
studies
indicate
the contrary.
In particular, Nadine
cites
a
treatability study of the Modine effluent designed
by
Dr.
Patterson
and conducted by Dr. Charles Haas of the Illinois
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
Modine’s
waste”
(Modine Exh.
18—6
at 6).
The principal problem
encountered was
the inability of
the activated sludge organisms
to
reproduce
themselves
at
a
sustaining
level
(R.
at
168;
186;
200),
even under
controlled laboratory conditions and
under both
dilute and concentrated waste conditions
(P.
at 168—70).
In
summarizing
the conclusions
to be reached from
this
study,
as
well
as his own related
studies,
Dr. Patterson observed
that,
while
the
Mod.ine effluent
is neither toxic
nor unamenable
to
biodegradation
(P.
at 170—71,
186—7),
activated sludge
is
not
a
viable,
technical oe~ion for treatmeat of
the Mod inc wastewator
(Id.;
R.
at
352).
He further discounts
the viability of any
fluidized
system
for
the
treatment
of
Modine’s
effluent
(P.
at
183—4)
Dr. Patterson likewise discounts
the contention
that sand
filtration,
or
any filtration, would have
an appreciable effect
on
the quality of Nadine’s discharge.
He observes that
the bulk
of Nadine’s
BOO
is
in
a soluble
form,
so that
it would
not
be
removed
by
a filter
(P.
at 180—1);
similarly,
a filter would
not
address
the problems of barium,
fluoride,
or ammonia,
since these
also are present
in soluble
forms
(P.
at 182—3).
Rather
than being undersized,
Modine contends that
the
existing
lagoons are actually “somewhat oversized”
based on
actual
treatm’~ntcharacteristics
(P.
at
346).
Dr.
Patterson
believes
that
the
Agency
has
reached
the
opposite
conclusion
based upon inappropriate use
of equations and
incorrect data.
Dr. Patterson contends that the equations
in question “were
never
meant
or designed or developed
to apply to
an industrial
type
of
104
476
—17--
waste”
(R.
at
361).
Modine
also notes that
the Agency’s
assumption
of
a
3
to
5
foot
depth
in
the
lagoons
underestimates
the actual
5
to
9 foot depths
(R.
at 3~2), and hence
underestimates
the
size of the lagoons
Dr. Patterson believes that Nadine’s effluent
is amenable to
a
fixed—film treatment system
(R.
at 184).
Among
such systems
are trickling
filters and RBCs.
However,
Dr. Patterson believes
that
a trickling filter would
be susceptible
to the
same extreme
temperature effects
as
is the current lagoon system
(P.
at 185),
and
hence
presumably
would
be
susceptible
to
the
same
limitations
in
winter
performance.
In
Dr. Patterson’s opinion,
the one system,
if
any,
which
would be
an appropriate replacement
for Modine’s current system
is the RBC system
(P.
at
185).
To this
end Modine installed
a
pilot
RBC unit at
the Modine
facility.
This pilot
study showed
that PBC 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 PBC system would
still
not allow Modine
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 RBC treatment based
or-i
a poor record
of
mechanical
reliability of RBC units
at other sites
(P.
at 296),
and that
it would probably
riot grant
a construction permit
to
Modine
for
a RBC system
for this reason
(P.
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
(R.
at
264).
These
costs Nadine contends would
increase
the McHenry Plant’s
total
deptec.iation and overhead
expenses by 13
and l~-/~respectively
(R.
at
265).
At present
the McHenry Plant
has the lowest profitability of Modine’s
thirteen U.S.
plants
(P.
at
267).
Modine contends that the added
expense
of the PBC units would therefore seriously damage
the
viability of
an already
“suspect”
facility
(R.
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.
6 The Board
notes
that
the depth figures given at hearing are
in
apparent conflict with
the “three
to four”
foot depths cited
in
the Petition
(p.
6).
Modine
is
requested
to clarify this matter
during
the
First Notice Comment period.
104 477
—18--
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 BOO 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 BUD and twelve milligram per
liter
suspended solids
for
Nadine’s effluent.
P.
at 354
CONCLUSIONS
The Board
is persuaded,
based upon analysis of
th
rother
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 Nodine’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 will today
propose
for First Notice
a rule which would provide
some of
the
relief requested by Nadine.
There follows
a discussion
of
particular
facets of the proposed
rule.
Point of Measurement and the Dilution Rules
Under
the present configuration
of
its treatment system,
Modine commingles
its Nocolok non—contact
cooling 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.
i04--470
—19—
The
Agency
questions
whether
the
dilution
rules
require
that
the concentrations
of Modine effluent be
recomputed
to exclude
the effect
of any dilution.
The Agency
has,
for example, made
such adjustments
in calculating Nadine’s NPDES limits
in Nadine’s
current 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 cooling water additions
(P.
at
210;
225).
In the later
case,
it would
be necessary to define some point other
than end—
of—pipe
as the compliance point.
The Board agrees with 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 Nadine
(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 Modine has
justified specific end—of—pipe
limitations,
the Board believes
that these should
be the numbers specified
in the proposed
rule.
Similarly,
the Board
sees
no merit
in requiring Modine
to
separately discharge
its non—contact cooling water.
Modine
is
not here attempting
to effectuate
treatment via dilution,
the
practice which
the dilution rules
are intended
to forestall.
TSS Standard
The 12 mg/i monthly composite limitation
for TSS requested
by Nadine
is
in
fact
the
same standard which
is specified
at
35
Ill. Adm. Code 304.120(c).
On
its
face,
therefore, Modine
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.
Adm.
Code 304.102,
Modine’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,
Modine’s proposed
limit
of
30 mg/i daily composite constitutes
a less restrictive
standard.
104—479
—20—
Modine’s current treatment system would seem
to achieve
the
the current NPDES limits with substantial
regularity,
as
is
st3own
by 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
BOD Standard
The ability of the Board
to grant any relief
to Nadine
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
Modine
has
undertaken
over
the pendency of
this and
the precedessor Nadine
wastewater proceedings.
The Board
believes that these
adjustments have gone
a
long way towards
alleviating
the negative
impact of Modine’s effluent.
The Board would wish that Madine
continue
to
fine tune
its treatment system,
and thereby further
soften the impact of
its effluent.
Among
such efforts, one step
which
is recommended but which
the record does not reflect has
been
taken
is
replacement of the submerged pipe outlet by
a
spillway/cascade outlet.
The Board believes that this
modification would significantly enhance
the
DO
of
the
receiving
stream,
thus mitigating
the potential problem associated with
Nadine’s BOO discharges.
In
fact,
the Board believes that
its
continued
support of Nadine requested BOD relief must
be
contingent
upon
assurance
that
the
spillway/cascade
has
been
installed.
Accordingly,
Macline
is
requested during
the
First
Notice
period
to
provide
that
assurance.
Modine opines that
it would
not require relief
for either
BOD
or
TSS
if
it
were
to
receive
a
three—lagoon
exemption
pursuant
to 35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 304.120(c).
Nadine contends that
it
is eligible
for such exemption
(Nadine Brie~ at
6—7).
However,
the Board
takes administrative
notice
of
the denial by
~ Supplemental
Information filed March
16,
1988
by Modine
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.
See
Modin~’s
Unopposrcl
Motion
to Supplement Record, with
attachment,
filed July
17,
1989
in Nadine Manufacturing
co~p~y
v.
IEP~,PCB 88—25.
Also see
the Board’s Order
of July 27
granting that motion.
104--401)
—21—
the Agency
of Nadine’s exemption application.
Among
the reasons
cited
by
the Agency
is that Nadine’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
Nodine
requests
a definition
of
summer and winter months
which differs
from that current
incorporated
in the Board’s
effluent regulations.
Namely, Modine requests
that summer be
defined
as
the months of Nay through September
and winter
as the
months October though April.
Current Board regulations define
“summer”
as
the months April through October
and “winter”
as the
months November
through March
(e.g.,
35
111.
Adm.
Code
304.301).
Thus,
Modirte effectively
requests an expansion of
the
“winter” season by a month on either end
(R.
at
227).
The Board
today accepts Nadine’s definition
for purposes of
First Notice.
However,
the Board believes that the justification
for this expanded definition of
the cold—weather months may nat
be sufficient
to warrant eventual adoption
of this provision.
‘Iodine and the Agency are accordingly requested to expand
on this
issue during
the First Notice comment period.
Fluoride Standards
The numeric effluent limit proposed by Nadine for fluoride
is 4.0 mg/i measured
as
a monthly average
and 5.6 mg/i measured
as
a daily maximum.
These limits are substantially less than the
effluent standards of
15 mg/i monthly average
and 30 mg/l daily
composite
found
at
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 124(a)
.
Nevertheless,
Nadine proposes the more stringent limitation
to allow
for
those
times when
its effluent
is the sole
or dominant source of flow
in
the unnamed
tributary.
Additionally, Nadine proposes
to adjust
the water quality standard for fluoride
to
be equal
to
its
proposed effluent limitation.
Documentation
in the
instant record
of the impact that these
proposed amendments would have
is largely confined
to the Modine
Exhibit
36.
Nadine Exhibit
36
is
an extract of the record
developed
in In The Matter
of: Proposed Amendments
to Rule 203.1
of the Water Pollution Control Regulations,
P78—7,
final
action
taken March
4,
1982.
In
that proceeding
the Board
found
that
fluoride concentrations
up to
5 mg/i would have no adverse
environmental impact on water quality
and would
not injure
aquatic
life,
fish,
or people,
as applied
to
an unnamed ditch and
downstream
segment of the Vermilion—Wabash River
in east—central
Illinois.
The Board based
this
finding
in part upon expert
testimony of two fisheries biologists.
104
—22—
Nodine contends that the situation
in P78—7
is mirrored
in
the instant matter,
in particular
the situation of
a hard—water
ditch
(P.
at 134—5);
fluoride toxicity
is less
in
hard water.
Although the Board accepts
for
the purposesof
First Notice
that the conclusions reached
in P78—7 may well
also apply
in the
instant situation,
the Board specifically
requests that Modine
and the Agency address
this matter during
the First Notice
Comment period.
Barium Effluent Standard
Modine opines 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. Adm.
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.
Nadine 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.
Nodine further contends that
its existing treatment processes do
remove some of
the influent barium,
hut by an amount
insufficient
to meet the barium effluent standard
(P.
at
74).
As evidence
thereof, Nadine 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
concentrations
(Id.;
P.
at
74).
Specifically,
13 well—water
analyses shows
an average
influent concentration of
bar ium of
4.1
mg/i,
whereas
the
15
effluent concentrations
of barium shows
an
average of
2.5
rng/l (versus
the 2.0 mg/l effluent standard).
104—4S2
—23—
The
Poard
finds
that
the
Section
304.103
exception
does
apply
to
Modine’s
barium
circumstance.
Accordingly,
Nadine
is
not
required
to
comply
with
the
2.0
mg/i barium effluent
standard.
Further,
Madine
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 Modine’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
jr-i
Mod
inc’s
wastestream.
Ammonia Effluent Standard
Nadine’s
request
for
a
site—specific
ammonia
nitrogen
effluent
standard
is apparently premised on past exceedences
of
the
General
Use
Water
Quality
Standard
of
0.04
mg/i un—ionized
ammonia
in
the
unnamed
tributary.
At
the
same
time,
however,
Nadine does not now request either
a modification of the un-
ionized ammonia water quality standard
or
a site—specific
effluent standard for un—ionized ammonia.
Initially Modine had requested
a 0.5 mg/i un—ionized ammonia
standard
for
the unnamed
tributary (Petition
at
3), but this
request was subsequently deleted
in the Amended Petition.
‘Iodine’s
revised
position
is evidently based upon
its belief that
it
can
produce
an
effluent which has
an un—ionized ammonia
concentration
of
less
than
0.04
mg/i,
and
that
the
unnamed
tributary
will
have
a
concentration
of
un—ionized
ammonia
no
greater
than
that
which occurs
in Modine effluent.
As Modine
notes:
Modine
has
committed
to
a
program
to
ensure
that
its
effluent will produce
an unionized ammonia value less
than 0.04
mg/i
by adjusting
its
final
pH
to
aproxirnately
7.5.
After
completion
of
this
program,
Modine will
be
in complete compliance with the
unionized
ammonia
water
quality
standard
of 0.04
mg/i.
Nadine Brief at
6
Seeing no need
to propose
an amendment
of the un—ionized
ammonia
standard that applies
to the unnamed tributary,
the Board
declines
to do
so.
Given
this
circumstance,
the
Board
also
fails
to
see
any
pur ~ose for
a special ammonia nitrogen effluent standard
applicable
to Nadine.
The General Use Water Quality Standard for
104 483
—24—
ammonia nitrogen
is 1.5 mg/i,
except that the concentration may
be
as
large as
15 mg/I provided that the un—ionized ammonia
is
below
0.04 mg/i
(see 35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
302.212).
Since un-
ionized concentrations will
be below 0.04 mg/i,
the effective
water
quality standard
for ammonia nitrogen
is
15 mg/i.
Modine
proposes effluent limits well below 15 mg/i.
Thus, Nadine should
not be
in the position of contributing
to any violations
of the
ammonia nitrogen water quality standard,
and does not need relief
on
that basis.
As
a remaining matter regarding ammonia standards,
the Board
notes Nadine’s
request as follows:
Modine respectfully requests that the Board either
find
that Nadine
is substantially meeting the
unionized ammonia standard or will
be
in compliance
after
the installation of the acid feed
system
Nadine Brief at
6
This
the Board cannot do.
As
regards
the past and current record
of un—ionized ammonia concentrations
in the unnamed
tributary,
that record must
stand on
its own.
As regards future compliance,
the Board
is not
in
the position
to make speculative findings of
this nature.
The Board does acknowledge,
however,
that Modine
has promised
to install
an effluent technology,
which Nodine does
not contest as being
infeasible
and economically unreasonable,
and which promises
to mitigate the impact of in—stream ammonia
concentration.
Contributing
to
or Causing Water Quality Violations
In both
its
Petition
and Amended Petition Nadine makes
reference
to
a request
for
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
does
Nadine
propose
actual
language
which
would
effectuate
this exception other than
for fluoride.
Accordingly,
none except
for fluoride
is proposed here.
However,
both Modine
and
the Agency are requested
to address
this matter during the
First Notice Comment period.
Length of Affected Channel
Nadine asks that
the exceptions
requested
for the fluoride
and ammonia nitrogen water quality standards apply
to
the full
length
of
the unnamed tributary,
from Nadine’s outfall
to
the
confluence
of
the unnamed
tributary with Dutch Creek (Amended
Pet.
at
2),
a distance of anproximately
l~/2miles.
However,
it
is
only through
the
first
1200
yards
of
the
unnamed
tributary
that
Nadine’s
discharge
dominates
the
flow
of
the
unnamed
tributary.
AL ap~roxirnately1200 yards downstream
the unnamed
tributary
receives
the discharge from a second tributary.
This second
104
434
—25—
tributary
not only has
its own natural
flow,
but also carries
the
discharge of
a second major manufacturing facility,
Morton
Thiokol’s Ringwood Plant
(Nadine Exh.
32 at 9).
The
Board believes that
Nadine has justified
the exceptions
to
the water quality standards
for
that part of
the unnamed
tributary
for which
it constitutes
the principal source
of
flow,
but not for the
lower portion of the unnamed
tributary where
Nadine does not constitute
the dominant
source of
flow
(P.
at
231).
Accordingly,
the proposed
rule limits the modified water
quality
standards
to
that
portion
of
the
unnamed
tributary
upstream
from
the
tributary
which
carries
Morton
Thiokol’s
discharge.
ORDER
The
Board
hereby
proposes
for
First
Notice
the
following
additions
to
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code,
Subtitle
C:
Water
Pollution.
The
Clerk
of
the
Board
is
directed
to
file these proposed rules with
the
Secretary
of
State.
TITLE
35:
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
SUBTITLE
C:
WATER
POLLUTION
CHAPTER
I:
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
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
302.207
shall
not
apply
to
the
unnamed
tributary
of Dutch
Creek which receives discharges
from the manufacturing facility
located
on Ringwood Drive
in Ringwood
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
4.0 mg/i
as
a monthly average and
5.6 mg/i
as
a daily
maximum.
PART
304
EFFLUENT
STANDARDS
Section 304.221
Ringwood Drive Manufacturing Facility
in
McHenry County
a)
This Section applies
to discharges
from
the
manufacturing facility
located
on
Ringwood Drive in
Ringwood,
McHenry County, which discharges
to the
unnamed
tributary of Dutch Creek.
104- 485
—26—
b)
The general effluent standards
for deoxygenating wastes
contained
in Section 304.120 shall not apply to these
discharges.
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:
TSS
12 mg/l
monthly average
30 mg/i
daily maximum
BOD5
25 mg/i
summer monthly average
35 mg/i
summer daily maximum
60 mg/i
winter monthly average
70 mg/i
winter daily maximum
C)
For the purposes
of
this Section summer
includes the
months
May
through
September
and winter
includes the
months October
through April.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
I,
Dorothy
N.
Gunn,
Clerk of
the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby certi~~thatthe abov
f~jnionand Order was
adopted
on the
~
-
day of
~
,
1989,
by
a
vote of
7--()
I ii
I
no
is
Cootrol
floaLi
104-430
