BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD n„
-ICECIEIVE
LERK'S
OFFICE°
DLT, 2 8 2007
STATE OF
-1 utton Control
IL
LINOIS
Board
IN THE MATTER OF:
R07-9
(Rulemaking-Water)
TRIENNIAL REVIEW OF SULFATE AND
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS: PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE
302.102(b)(6), 302.102(b)(8), 302.102(b)(10),
302.208(g), 309.103(c)(3), 405.109(b)(2)(A),
405.109(b)(2)(B), 406.100(d); REPEALER OF
35 ILL. ADM. CODE 406.203 and PART 407;
and PROPOSED NEW 35 III. ADM. CODE
302.208(h)
NOTICE OF FILING
John Therriault, Assistant Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Mathew Dunn
Illinois Attorney General's Office
Environmental Control Division
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Attached Service List
Marie E. Tipsord
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Jonathan Fun
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
One Natural Resources Way
Springfield, Illinois 62702-1271
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office of the Clerk of the Pollution Control
Board the
Response of Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
to
Illinois Environmental
Regulatory Group's Comments,
copies of which are herewith served upon you.
ILLINOIS ENV
A}M
ENTAL EildrECTION AGENCY
By:
Sanjay
K
Sofat
9
Assistant Counsel
Dated: December 19, 2007
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
(217) 782-5544
* * * * * PC #11* * * * *
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
TRIENNIAL REVIEW OF SULFATE AND
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS: PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE
302.102(b)(6), 302.102(b)(8), 302.102(b)(10),
302.208(g), 309.103(c)(3), 405.109(b)(2)(A),
405.109(b)(2)(B), 406.100(d); REPEALER OF
35 ILL. ADM. CODE 406.203 and PART 407;
and PROPOSED NEW 35 III. ADM. CODE
302.208(h)
R07-9
(Rulemaking-Water)
RECEIVED
CLERK'S OFFICE
DEC 2 8 2007
STATE
dilution
OF
Control
ILLINOIS
Board
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency's Response to
Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group's Comments
Now comes the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (the "Agency" or "Illinois EPA"),
by and through one of its attorney, Sanjay K. Sofat, and hereby respectfully submits to the Illinois
Pollution Control Board ( the "Board") its response to the Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group
("IERG") comments (hereinafter "IERG Comments") filed on December 3, 2007 with the Board. In
support thereof, the Agency states as follows:
COMMENTS
I.?
Best Management Practices
IERG states that the Agency's proposal will require "a significant majority of discharges" to
utilize "ongoing and routine control measures."
IERG Comments
at 7. IERG's selective reading has
confused the record and the Agency's reasoning presented in the Agency's Regulatory Proposal,
Statement of Reasons, PCB 07-9 (hereinafter "Statement of Reasons"). The exact statement in the
Statement of Reasons is that, "[a] significant majority of discharges would meet the applicable
2
* * * * * PC #11* * * * *
permit limits with the help of ongoing and routine control measures."
Id.
at 13. The statement
preceding this sentence is that, "[f]or most dischargers, the new sulfate and total dissolved solids
standards will allow attainment of water quality standards without the implementation of additional
management practices or process alternatives."
Id.
The ongoing and routine control measures that the Agency was referring to, is the practice of
applying best management practices ("BMPs"), as required under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 406.204-
406.208 of the Board regulations. Mines, like all other industries, are expected to keep up with new
developments that reduce pollution. The Agency's reasoning regarding the point sources ability to
meet the proposed sulfate standard can be divided into three categories. The majority of the point
sources would be able to meet the proposed sulfate standard without applying any kind of additional
BMPs or making any process change. The rationale behind this is that the water quality standard is
much higher than the average concentration of sulfate found to be present in the point source's
effluent.
The second category of point sources would be able to meet the proposed sulfate standard by
employing industry based BMPs, and other routine control measures used by the point sources. As
BMPs are a requirement under the Board's regulations, in most cases, if not all cases, mines have
already applied some level of BMPs. As such, this proposed rulemaking will not require additional
costs to purchase, install, operate, repair or monitor such "controls." To meet the proposed sulfate
water quality standard, only a small number of existing mines under the third category, would need
to employ additional controls such as best management practices.
II.?
Impact of the Proposed Rulemaking on Coal Mines
According to IERG, the Illinois EPA conceded in its reply on April 9, 2007 that the
proposed
rulemaking would significantly impact all coal mine related activities in the State.
IERG
Comments
at 6. However, IERG took Dr. Rao's question and then Mr. Mosher's response to mean
3
* * * * * PC #11* * * * *
the proposed standard would impact all coal mines, when in fact Dr. Rao's question and likewise
Mr. Mosher's response, was in reference to the
existing
sulfate and chloride (hence total dissolved
solids ("TDS")) standards. Mr. Mosher was testifying that most of the mine discharges cannot meet
existing
sulfate, chloride, or TDS water quality standard at the end-of-pipe. In some case, where
sufficient dilution is present, these sources can meet the applicable water quality standard by
discharging only during wet weather conditions. In this rulemaking proceeding, the Agency has
neither stated nor implied that all coal mines would have trouble in complying with the proposed
standard or would be adversely affected by the proposed changes. On the contrary, through the
ongoing permitting practices, the Agency is finding that most of the mines are able to comply with
the proposed standard without employing any additional controls. In fact, the Agency has yet to find
a situation where the sulfate limit based on the proposed standard cannot be met by the mine.
IERG's argument that mines will incur increased costs because of the proposed sulfate
standard is misleading. In the absence of the proposed rulemaking, mines would have had to meet
the existing TDS standard and sulfate standard of 500 mg/L. The net impact of the proposed
rulemaking is that it relaxes the existing standards of sulfate and TDS for point sources. Therefore,
mines cannot be said to be in increased jeopardy because of the water quality standards portion of
the rulemaking. It makes little sense to argue that mine dischargers that were struggling to meet the
strict existing sulfate standard would incur additional costs to comply with a less stringent standard.
III.
Site-specific Rulemakings
Additionally, the proposed rulemaking will eliminate a large portion of mine dischargers that
would need to seek site-specific rulemakings to meet the existing standards. While IERG was only
able to identify one such site-specific rulemaking, the Agency has conducted its own review to find
that seven (7) dischargers would not have needed to apply for a site-specific rulemaking because of
the proposed rule. Therefore, the Agency was justified to conclude that the proposed standard will
4
* * * * * PC #11* * * * *
reduce petitions for site-specific water quality standards for TDS and sulfate resulting in a cost
savings for the entities, the Agency, and the Board.
See
Attachment I.
IV.
Conclusion
The Agency's reasoning above is based on the years of experience in dealing with the sulfate
concentrations in a stream as well as in discharge effluents. Though IERG expresses concern that
the proposed sulfate standard would bring hardship to many sources, it does not cite to any specific
evidence to support its statements of economic hardship.
WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, the Agency respectfully requests the Board to
take further action in this proceeding consistent with the Agency's Comments.
Respectfully Submitted
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCY
By:
Th77–>
Sanjay K Sofat
Assistant Counsel
Division of Legal Counsel
DATED: December 19, 2007
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
(217) 782-5544
5
* * * * * PC #11* * * * *
Service List
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal
Elizabeth Leifel
7800 Sears Tower
233 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-6404
Hodge Dwyer Zeman
Katherine D. Hodge
Monica T. Rios
3150 Roland Avenue
P.O. Box 5776
Springfield, IL 62705-5776
(FIRST CLASS MAIL)
Andrews Environmental Engineering
Kenneth W. Liss
3300 Ginger Creek Drive
Springfield, IL 62711
(FIRST CLASS MAIL)
Albert Ettinger
Environmental Law & Policy Center
35 E. Wacker, Suite 1300
Chicago, IL 60601
(FIRST CLASS MAIL)
(FIRST CLASS MAIL)
Beth Steinhorn
2021 Timberbrook
Springfield, IL 62702
(FIRST CLASS MAIL)
* * * * * PC #11* * * * *
OFFICIAL SEAL
BRENDA BOEHNER
•;: NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF ILLINOIS
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
11.3.2009
.........................................
STATE OF ILLINOIS
SS
COUNTY OF SANGAMON
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, on oath state that I have served the attached
Response of Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency to Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group's Comments
upon the person to whom it is directed, by placing a copy in an envelope addressed to:
John Therriault, Assistant Clerk
Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(OVERNIGHT MAIL)
Mathew Dunn
Illinois Attorney General's Office
Environmental Control Division
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(FIRST CLASS MAIL)
Attached Service List
(FIRST CLASS MAIL)
Marie E. Tipsord
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(OVERNIGHT MAIL)
Jonathan Fur
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
One Natural Resources Way
Springfield, Illinois 62702-1271
(FIRST CLASS MAIL)
and mailing it from Springfield, Illinois on December 19, 2007, with sufficient postage affixed as
indicated above.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME
this day of December 19, 2007.
B baa
?
Notary Public
ndf\(\9C
7
* * * * * PC #11* * * * *
ATTACHMENT I
* * * * * PC #11* * * * *
Board Order
Stream or Lake Name Discharger
Parameters
Adjusted WQS now
applied to the water
body (mg/L)
AS 89-03
Deer Creek
Consumers IL
TDS
2,100 mg/L
2/28/91
Water Co.
(Takasago,
formerly
Nutrasweet)
AS 01-09
Thom Creek from
Thom Creek
Sulfate
1,350 mg/L
1/10/02
discharge to confl. Deer
S.D. (Rhodia)
TDS
2,650 mg/L
Creek
AS 01-09
Thom Creek from Deer
Thom Creek
Sulfate
1,340 mg/L
1/10/02
Creek confl. to USGS
S.D. and
TDS
2,620 mg/L
Gauging Station
Consumers IL
05536275
Water Co.
AS 01-09
Thorn Creek from
Thom Creek
Sulfate
1,160 mg/L
1/10/02
USGS 05536275 to
S.D. and
TDS
2,360 mg/L
Little Calumet River
Consumers IL
Water Co.
AS 01-09
Little Calumet River
Thom Creek
Sulfate
1,000 mg/L
1/10/02
from confl. with Thom
S.D. and
TDS
2,020 mg/L
Creek to the confl. with
Consumers IL
Calumet Sag Channel Water Co.
AS 93-2
Long Point Slough and
Borden
Sulfate
1,000 mg/L
11/18/93
its unnamed tributary
Chemical
TDS
3,000 mg/L
AS 93-08
Aux Sable Creek from Akzo Chemicals
Sulfate
1,000 mg/L
9/1/94
the discharge to the
confl. with the Illinois
TDS
3,000 mg/L
River
AS 99-5
Middle Fork of the
Abbott
TDS
1,500 mg/L
7/8/99 and
5/6/99
North Branch Chicago
River from the 001 and
Laboratories,
Abbott Park
002 outfalls of Abbott
Laboratories to the
Route 176 Bridge
AS 02-01
McCook Drainage
Material Service
TDS
1,900 mg/L
6/6/02
Ditch
Corp.
Sulfate
850 mg/L
AS 03-01
Unnamed tributary of
Exelon
TDS
1,900 mg/L
6/19/03
Horse Creek
* * * * * PC #11* * * * *