BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND
)
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR THE
)
R08-9
CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM )
(Rulemaking – Water)
AND THE LOWER DES PLAINES RIVER: )
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 Ill.
)
Adm. Code Parts 301, 302, 303 and 304
)
NOTICE OF FILING
TO:
Mr. John T. Therriault,
Ms. Marie E. Tipsord
Assistant Clerk of the Board
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11-500
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL)
(VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL)
(SEE PERSONS ON ATTACHED SERVICE LIST)
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office of the Clerk
of the Illinois Pollution Control Board the
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE OF
KATHERINE D. HODGE, ENTRY OF APPEARANCE OF N. LADONNA
DRIVER, ENTRY OF APPEARANCE OF THOMAS G. SAFLEY, ENTRY OF
APPEARANCE OF MONICA T. RIOS and PRE-FILED QUESTIONS FOR
THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
, copies of
which are herewith served upon you.
Respectfully submitted,
CORN PRODUCTS
INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Dated: January 18, 2008
By:
/s/ Katherine D. Hodge
One of Its Attorneys
Katherine D. Hodge
N. LaDonna Driver
Thomas G. Safley
Monica T. Rios
HODGE DWYER ZEMAN
3150 Roland Avenue
Post Office Box 5776
Springfield, Illinois 62705-5776
(217) 523-4900
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Katherine D. Hodge, the undersigned, hereby certify that I have served the
attached ENTRY OF APPEARANCE OF KATHERINE D. HODGE, ENTRY OF
APPEARANCE OF N. LADONNA DRIVER, ENTRY OF APPEARANCE OF
THOMAS G. SAFLEY, ENTRY OF APPEARANCE OF MONICA T. RIOS, and
PRE-FILED QUESTIONS FOR THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY upon:
Mr. John T. Therriault
Assistant Clerk of the Board
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
via electronic mail on January 18, 2008; and upon:
Ms. Marie E. Tipsord
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Matthew J. Dunn, Esq.
Chief
Environmental Enforcement Division
Office of the Attorney General
69 West Washington, 18
th
Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Deborah J. Williams, Esq.
Stefanie N. Diers, Esq.
Illinois EPA
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Post Office Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
Frederick M. Feldman, Esq.
Ronald M. Hill, Esq.
Mr. Louis Kollias
Margaret T. Conway
Metropolitan Water
Reclamation District
100 East Erie Street
Chicago, Illinois 60611
Richard J. Kissel, Esq.
Roy M. Harsch, Esq.
Drinker, Biddle, Gardner, Carton
191 North Wacker Drive
Suite 3700
Chicago, Illinois 60606-1698
Claire A. Manning, Esq.
Brown, Hay & Stephens, LLP
700 First Mercantile Bank Building
205 South Fifth Street
Post Office Box 2459
Springfield, Illinois 62705-2459
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
Kevin G. Desharnais, Esq.
Thomas W. Dimond, Esq.
Thomas V. Skinner, Esq.
Mayer, Brown LLP
71 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606-4637
Charles W. Wesselhoft, Esq.
James T. Harrington, Esq.
Ross & Hardies
150 North Michigan Avenue
Suite 2500
Chicago, Illinois 60601-7567
Mr. Robert VanGyseghem
City of Geneva
1800 South Street
Geneva, Illinois 60134-2203
Jerry Paulsen, Esq.
Cindy Skrukrud, Esq.
McHenry County Defenders
132 Cass Street
Woodstock, Illinois 60098
Albert Ettinger, Esq.
Freeman, Freeman & Salzman
401 North Michigan Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60611
Mr. Bernard Sawyer
Mr. Thomas Granto
Metropolitan Water
Reclamation District
6001 West Pershing Road
Cicero, Illinois 60650
Ms. Lisa Frede
Chemical Industry Council of Illinois
2250 East Devon Avenue
Suite 239
Des Plaines, Illinois 60018-4509
Fredric P. Andes, Esq.
Erika K. Powers, Esq.
1 North Wacker Drive
Suite 4400
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Mr. James L. Daugherty
Thorn Creek Basin Sanitary District
700 West End Avenue
Chicago Heights, Illinois 60411
Ms. Sharon Neal
Commonwealth Edison Company
125 South Clark Street
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Tracy Elzemeyer, Esq.
American Water Company
727 Craig Road
St. Louis, Missouri 63141
Margaret P. Howard, Esq.
Hedinger Law Office
2601 South Fifth Street
Springfield, Illinois 62703
Mr. Keith I. Harley
Ms. Elizabeth Schenkler
Chicago Legal Clinic, Inc.
205 West Monroe Street
4
th
Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Frederick D. Keady, P.E.
Vermillion Coal Company
1979 Johns Drive
Glenview, Illinois 60025
Mr. Fred L. Hubbard
16 West Madison
Post Office Box 12
Danville, Illinois 61834
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
Ms. Georgia Vlahos
Naval Training Center
2601A Paul Jones Street
Great Lakes, Illinois 60088-2845
W.C. Blanton, Esq.
Blackwell Sanders LLP
4801 Main Street
Suite 1000
Kansas City, Missouri 64112
Mr. Dennis L. Duffield
City of Joliet, Department of Public
Work and Utilities
921 East Washington Street
Joliet, Illinois 60431
Ms. Kay Anderson
American Bottoms RWTF
One American Bottoms Road
Sauget, Illinois 62201
Mr. Jack Darin
Sierra Club
70 East Lake Street
Suite 1500
Chicago, Illinois 60601-7447
Mr. Bob Carter
Bloomington Normal Water
Reclamation District
Post Office Box 3307
Bloomington, Illinois 61702-3307
Mr. Tom Muth
Fox Metro Water Reclamation District
682 State Route 31
Oswego, Illinois 60543
Mr. Kenneth W. Liss
Andrews Environmental Engineering
3300 Ginger Creek Drive
Springfield, Illinois 62711
Albert Ettinger, Esq.
Jessica Dexter, Esq.
Environmental Law & Policy Center
35 East Wacker
Suite 1300
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Ms. Vicky McKinley
Evanston Environment Board
223 Grey Avenue
Evanston, Illinois 60202
Mr. Marc Miller
Mr. Jamie S. Caston
Office of Lt. Governor Pat Quinn
Room 414 State House
Springfield, Illinois 62706
Susan M. Franzetti, Esq.
Franzetti Law Firm P.C.
10 South LaSalle Street
Suite 3600
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Mr. Irwin Polls
Ecological Monitoring and Assessment
3206 Maple Leaf Drive
Glenview, Illinois 60025
Dr. Thomas J. Murphy
2325 North Clifton Street
Chicago, Illinois 60614
Ms. Cathy Hudzik
City of Chicago – Mayor’s Office
of Intergovernmental Affairs
121 North LaSalle Street
City Hall – Room 406
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Ms. Beth Steinhorn
2021 Timberbrook
Springfield, Illinois 62702
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
Mr. James Huff
Huff & Huff, Inc.
915 Harger Road
Suite 330
Oak Brook, Illinois 60523
Ann Alexander, Esq.
Natural Resources Defense Council
101 North Wacker Drive
Suite 609
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Ms. Traci Barkley
Prairie Rivers Network
1902 Fox Drive
Suite 6
Champaign, Illinois 61820
by depositing said documents in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in
Springfield, Illinois on January 18, 2008.
/s/ Katherine D. Hodge
Katherine D. Hodge
CORN:006/Fil/NOF-COS – EOAs, Pre-filed Questions
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND
)
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR THE
)
R08-9
CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM )
(Rulemaking – Water)
AND THE LOWER DES PLAINES RIVER: )
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 Ill.
)
Adm. Code Parts 301, 302, 303 and 304
)
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE OF KATHERINE D. HODGE
NOW COMES Katherine D. Hodge, of the law firm HODGE DWYER
ZEMAN, and hereby enters her appearance in this matter on behalf of Corn Products
International, Inc.
Respectfully submitted,
By:
/s/ Katherine D. Hodge
Katherine D. Hodge
Dated: January 18, 2008
Katherine D. Hodge
HODGE DWYER ZEMAN
3150 Roland Avenue
Post Office Box 5776
Springfield, Illinois 62705-5776
(217) 523-4900
CORN:006/Fil/EOA – KDH
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND
)
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR THE
)
R08-9
CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM )
(Rulemaking – Water)
AND THE LOWER DES PLAINES RIVER: )
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 Ill.
)
Adm. Code Parts 301, 302, 303 and 304
)
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE OF N. LADONNA DRIVER
NOW COMES N. LaDonna Driver, of the law firm HODGE DWYER
ZEMAN, and hereby enters her appearance in this matter on behalf of Corn Products
International, Inc.
Respectfully submitted,
By:
/s/N. LaDonna Driver
N. LaDonna Driver
Dated: January 18, 2008
N. LaDonna Driver
HODGE DWYER ZEMAN
3150 Roland Avenue
Post Office Box 5776
Springfield, Illinois 62705-5776
(217) 523-4900
CORN:006/Fil/EOA – NLD
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND
)
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR THE
)
R08-9
CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM )
(Rulemaking – Water)
AND THE LOWER DES PLAINES RIVER: )
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 Ill.
)
Adm. Code Parts 301, 302, 303 and 304
)
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE OF THOMAS G. SAFLEY
NOW COMES Thomas G. Safley, of the law firm HODGE DWYER
ZEMAN, and hereby enters his appearance in this matter on behalf of Corn Products
International, Inc.
Respectfully submitted,
By:
/s/Thomas G. Safley
Thomas G. Safley
Dated: January 18, 2008
Thomas G. Safley
HODGE DWYER ZEMAN
3150 Roland Avenue
Post Office Box 5776
Springfield, Illinois 62705-5776
(217) 523-4900
CORN:006/Fil/EOA – TGS
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND
)
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR THE
)
R08-9
CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM )
(Rulemaking – Water)
AND THE LOWER DES PLAINES RIVER: )
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 Ill.
)
Adm. Code Parts 301, 302, 303 and 304
)
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE OF MONICA T. RIOS
NOW COMES Monica T. Rios, of the law firm HODGE DWYER
ZEMAN, and hereby enters her appearance in this matter on behalf of Corn Products
International, Inc.
Respectfully submitted,
By:
/s/Monica T. Rios
Monica T. Rios
Dated: January 18, 2008
Monica T. Rios
HODGE DWYER ZEMAN
3150 Roland Avenue
Post Office Box 5776
Springfield, Illinois 62705-5776
(217) 523-4900
CORN:006/Fil/EOA – MTR
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND
)
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR THE
)
R08-9
CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM )
(Rulemaking – Water)
AND THE LOWER DES PLAINES RIVER: )
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 Ill.
)
Adm. Code Parts 301, 302, 303 and 304
)
PRE-FILED QUESTIONS FOR
THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NOW COMES CORN PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, INC. (“Corn
Products”), by and through its attorneys, HODGE DWYER ZEMAN, and submits the
following Pre-Filed Questions for the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(“Agency”) for presentation at the January 28, 2008 hearing scheduled in the above-
referenced matter:
I.
GENERAL QUESTIONS REGARDING THE PROPOSED RULEMAKING
1.
As noted in the Agency’s Statement of Reasons (“SOR”), “[i]n evaluating
proposed rules the Board is required to 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.’” Statement of Reasons,
In the
Matter of
:
Water Quality Standards and Effluent Limitations for the Chicago Area
Waterway System and the Lower Des Plaines River: Proposed Amendments to 35 Ill.
Adm. Code Parts 301, 302, 303, and 304,
R-08-9 at 2 (Ill.Pol.Control.Bd. Oct. 26, 2007)
(hereinafter cited as “
SOR
”) (quoting 415 ILCS 5/27(a) (2006)). Has the Agency
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
2
provided the Board with any information regarding the proposed rule’s impact on
existing air quality? If so, what considerations did the Agency take into account to
determine the impact of the proposed rule on existing air quality? What were the
Agency’s conclusions regarding the proposed rule’s impact on air quality? Did the
Agency consider that the installation and operation of certain control technologies which
may be necessary in order to comply with the proposed rule will affect the air quality in
the region?
2.
While developing the proposed water quality standards, what steps did the
Agency take to evaluate the characteristics of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal
(“CSSC”), such as flow, temperature, discharges into the water body, etc.? At times, the
CSSC has low flow and/or flows backwards. Does the Agency know how such
conditions will impact Corn Products’ ability to comply with the proposed standards?
3.
The SOR lists the Use Attainability Analysis (“UAA”) factors.
SOR
at
5-6. Did the Agency address factors five and six in the SOR? If so, were the Agency’s
conclusions included in the SOR or released to interested parties as part of the Agency’s
outreach efforts? On page 32 of the SOR, the Agency states that in regards to UAA
factors three and four, “[t]he factual justification for invoking these two factors is
explained in the next two sections.”
Id.
at 32. Further, the Agency explains that factor
five “applies only to aquatic life uses.”
Id.
Where in the SOR has the Agency considered
UAA factor six regarding economic and social impact and provided “factual
justification” for invoking factor six? Has the Agency determined the economic and
social impact of the proposed standards on affected facilities and on the region?
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
3
4.
The Agency cites to the United Sates Environmental Protection Agency’s
(“USEPA”) Interim Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards, Workbook,
Appendix M as guidance on which States rely when evaluating UAA factor six.
SOR
at
6;
see also
SOR Attachment C. Did the Agency rely on Appendix M to evaluate the
social and economic impact of the proposed rule? If so, please explain the extent of the
Agency’s reliance on Appendix M. If the Agency relied on Appendix M, how did such
reliance impact the development of the proposed regulations? Did the Agency draft any
report, summary, etc. documenting its conclusions regarding the social and economic
impact of the proposed rule?
5.
In the Agency’s description of the regulatory history of prior rulemakings
establishing water quality standards for the Chicago Area Waterway System (“CAWS”)
and Lower Des Plaines River (“LDPR”), the Agency discusses arguments that “while an
increased temperature standard had perceived benefits such as maintaining the river for
year-round navigation and speeding up the degradation of ammonia, there would be no
advantage in adopting a General Use designation because the waterway would be
incapable of supporting aquatic life anyway and use of the river for recreation up to the
Interstate-55 bridge was nonexistent due to industrialization.”
SOR
at 10. If an increased
temperature standard increases the degradation of ammonia, a lower temperature standard
as the Agency proposes will decrease the speed of the degradation of ammonia, thus
increasing the amount of ammonia in the CAWS and LDPR. Has the Agency considered
the impact that increased ammonia concentrations will have on the environment? What
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
4
is the cost to dischargers to account and control for the ammonia increases that will result
from the proposed lower temperature standard for the waterways?
6.
The Agency explains the history of the thermal demonstrations and
adjusted standards for the CAWS and LDPR.
Id.
at 11. According to the Agency, which
cites Board orders from prior rulemakings, the Board required Commonwealth Edison to
make a thermal demonstration, and subsequently, the Board approved the demonstration
and issued a variance from the General Use standard applicable at the I-55 bridge for
Commonwealth Edison’s facilities.
Id.
at 13. Based on that demonstration, the Board
granted an adjusted standard to all five of Commonwealth Edison’s facilities on the
CAWS and LDPR.
Id.
What factors or circumstances have changed between the time
the Board granted an adjusted standard for the CAWS and LDPR to Commonwealth
Edison and now? Can dischargers rely on the same scientific basis and demonstration as
Commonwealth Edison to obtain an adjusted standard from these rules from the Board?
Has the Agency recently considered or evaluated the thermal demonstration submitted by
Commonwealth Edison and determined that the scientific basis for the adjusted standard
provided to the Agency and Board is no longer applicable? If so, what is the Agency’s
basis for such a determination?
7.
The Agency states that when the CAWS and LDPR were designated as
secondary contact, the waters had certain characteristics including flow reversal projects,
low velocity, and stagnant flow condition.
Id.
at 19-20. Does the Agency believe that
such conditions have changed, particularly the conditions of the CSSC? Further, how can
dischargers comply with the proposed standards if such conditions are characteristic of
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
5
the CSSC and hinder the CSSC’s ability to attain the water quality standards?
8.
In regards to the CAWS UAA study, the Agency reiterates several of the
UAA’s management options that would need to be implemented before all of the CAWS
could achieve the recommended attainable uses, which options consider activities at the
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (“District”) and Midwest
Generation’s facilities.
SOR
at 95-96. Did the Agency consider any management options
that may be available to other dischargers along the CAWS? If so, did such consideration
include the costs to dischargers to implement the management options? What were the
Agency’s conclusions regarding management options for dischargers other than the
District and Midwest Generation?
9.
The Agency provides a short section in its SOR on the technical feasibility
of the proposed rulemaking.
Id.
at 97-99. The Agency concludes its brief technical
justification by explaining that Midwest Generation is conducting a study regarding how
to provide cooling for its facilities where there is limited land to install cooling capacity.
Id
. at 99. The Agency states that if Midwest Generation concludes that it “is technically
infeasible (or economically unreasonable) to install additional cooling capacity at these
facilities, Section 316 of the CWA allows Midwest Generation to petition for relief from
these requirements.”
Id.
Is the Agency supporting a possible future petition by Midwest
Generation in advance of such a petition being filed? How would Midwest Generation
receiving regulatory relief from the proposed new thermal requirements affect
dischargers downstream from Midwest Generation? What technology is considered
technically feasible by the Agency to meet the proposed new thermal requirements? Did
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
6
the Agency evaluate the types of technology and costs of installation, operation, and
maintenance of such technologies that may be necessary for dischargers to install in order
to comply with the proposed regulations?
10.
The Agency discusses the cost of the proposed rulemaking to Midwest
Generation and the District.
Id.
at 99-101. Did the Agency consider any data regarding
the cost of the proposed rulemaking to the dozens of other facilities that discharge to
these waterways and are affected by the rulemaking?
11.
The Agency states that other than the standards for dissolved oxygen and
temperature, it is not aware of any other water quality standards that would require
dischargers to upgrade technologies to comply with the proposed standards.
Id.
at 101.
As stated in the SOR, the Agency knows that the chloride standard will be violated in the
receiving waters.
SOR
at 76. Did the Agency consider whether dischargers will have to
alter their discharges in order to comply with the proposed chloride standard, which may
entail installing technology to lower the chloride levels in their discharges?
12.
The Agency also states that it “is not aware of any facilities other than
those discussed above [Midwest Generation and the District] that will be required to
install upgrades to achieve compliance with this proposal . . . .”
Id.
at 101. The
Agency’s list of potentially affected facilities includes several major dischargers in
addition to the District and Midwest Generation.
See SOR
Attachment TT. Did the
Agency review any information that considers whether other facilities along the CAWS
and LDPR will need to install cooling towers, where none currently exist, or install other
technology in order to comply with the proposed rule?
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
7
II.
QUESTIONS RELATED TO CHLORIDES
13.
If the proposed rule were adopted as currently drafted, with current
discharges, would the CSSC attain the chloride standard at all locations and at all times?
On what do you base your conclusion? If no, please list all areas of the CSSC that would
not attain the proposed chloride standard.
14.
How much time is provided for companies to comply with the proposed
chloride standard once the rules are adopted and become effective?
15.
How will the CSSC’s attainment with the chloride standard be
determined?
16.
How many tests must be conducted to determine noncompliance of the
CSSC with the chloride standard?
17.
If a party other than a government entity or discharger conducts chloride
testing on the CSSC and submits data to the Agency that demonstrates that the CSSC
does not meet the chloride standard, what actions, if any, would the Agency take in
response to such a demonstration?
18.
If testing determines that the CSSC is not in compliance with the chloride
standard, will segments of the CSSC be designated as noncompliant? How will the
Agency determine the boundary of such segments? What does a designation of
noncompliance mean in terms of the chloride standard that a discharger must meet?
19.
Under what circumstances will mixing zones be allowed if the CSSC does
not attain the chloride standard?
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
8
20.
If the CSSC does not attain the chloride standard, how is the intake and
subsequent discharge of non-contact cooling water that contains chlorides in excess of the
standard regulated?
21.
If the CSSC does not attain the chloride standard, and if chlorides drawn
in with non-contact cooling water are concentrated due to the use of a cooling tower, how
is the increase in chlorides in the discharge regulated?
•
Is a mixing zone allowed in this circumstance?
•
Does the Agency know how many users of cooling water would be
affected in this circumstance?
•
Does the Agency have an understanding of the technologies
available to comply with the chloride standard under this
circumstance? If so, what are those technologies?
•
Is the Agency aware of the successful implementation of such
technologies to solve this problem? If so, where have these
technologies been successfully applied?
•
At what cost to construct, install, operate, and maintain such
technologies?
•
Has the Agency considered how much energy these technologies
consume? If so, how much energy will be used to operate these
technologies?
•
How much CO2 is emitted due to the increased energy
consumption?
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
9
22. If the CSSC does attain the chloride criteria, and if chlorides drawn in with
non-contact cooling water are concentrated due to the use of a cooling tower, and the
discharge does not comply at the edge of the mixing zone at all times, how is the
discharge regulated?
•
Does the Agency know how many users of cooling water would be
affected in this circumstance?
•
Does the Agency have an understanding of the technologies
available to comply with the chloride standard in this
circumstance? If so, what are those technologies?
•
Is the Agency aware of the successful implementation of such
technologies to solve this problem? If so, where have these
technologies been successfully applied?
•
At what cost to construct, install, operate, and maintain such
technologies?
•
Has the Agency considered how much energy these technologies
consume? If so, how much energy will be used to operate these
technologies?
•
How much CO2 is emitted due to the increased energy
consumption?
23.
How is the critical use of chlorine compounds, which are used for cooling
system disinfection and zebra mussel control, regulated under the proposed chloride
limits? Does the rule consider these compounds to be chlorides? Has the Agency studied
the chemistry of these compounds to determine if a conversion to chlorides occurs in
connection with the use of these compounds in cooling water? Does the test method for
chlorides correctly distinguish between these compounds?
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
10
24.
Many NPDES permits require dehalogenation prior to discharge. Has the
Agency studied the chemistry of dehalogenation?
•
Does dehalogenation create chloride compounds?
•
Does the test method required when dehalogenation is used
correctly detect these compounds?
•
If the CSSC does not attain the chloride standard will the use of
dehalogenation that leads to the formation of chloride compounds
be restricted? If not, how will the discharge of any chloride
compounds generated by this process be affected or regulated?
•
Does the Agency know how many users of cooling water would be
affected in this circumstance?
•
Does the Agency have an understanding of the technologies
available to comply with the chloride standard in this
circumstance? If so, what are those technologies?
•
Is the Agency aware of the successful implementation of such
technologies to solve this problem? If so, where have these
technologies been successfully applied?
•
What is the cost to construct, install, operate, and maintain such
technologies to address chloride that might result from
dehalogenation?
•
Has the Agency considered how much energy technologies to
address chloride that might result from dehalogenation consume?
If so, how much energy will be used to operate these technologies?
•
How much CO2 is emitted due to the increased energy
consumption of these technologies?
25.
Illinois EPA admits that “there will be violations of the chloride standard
during winter months when road salting takes place to address winter weather events
and safety to motorists.”
SOR
at 76. In addition, the Agency states that it will continue
to work with “state and local government entities to mitigate the potential harm to
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
11
aquatic life from these practices.”
Id.
at 77. How does the Agency intend to work with
dischargers to address this problem? Will the Agency allow for mixing zones to comply
with the chloride standard even where the receiving water may not meet the standard
due to the road salt runoff?
26.
Has the Agency considered how dischargers will comply with the sulfate
standard where the receiving water is in violation of the chloride standard? If so, what
were the Agency’s conclusions?
III.
QUESTIONS RELATED TO DISSOLVED OXYGEN
27.
If the proposed rule were adopted as currently drafted, with current
discharges, would the CSSC attain the dissolved oxygen (“DO”) standard at all locations
and at all times? On what do you base your conclusion? If no, please list all areas of the
CSSC that would not attain the proposed DO standard.
28.
How much time is provided for companies to comply with the proposed
DO standard?
29.
How will the CSSC’s attainment with the DO standard be determined?
30.
How many tests must be conducted to determine noncompliance of the
CSSC with the DO standard?
31.
If a party other than a government entity or discharger conducts DO
testing on the CSSC and submits data to the Agency that demonstrates that the CSSC
does not meet the DO standard, what actions, if any, would the Agency take in response
to such a demonstration?
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
12
32.
If testing determines that the CSSC is not in compliance with the DO
standard, will segments of the CSSC be designated as noncompliant? How will the
Agency determine the boundary of such segments? What does a designation of
noncompliance mean in terms of the DO standard that a discharger must meet?
33.
Did the Agency consider the influence of natural weather events on the
CSSC in developing the proposed DO standard? If so, how were such considerations
taken into account?
34.
As the Agency notes in its SOR, to manage flood events, human
manipulation of the CSSC results in periods of little flow as the level of the CSSC is
unnaturally manipulated to reduce volume in anticipation of a storm event.
SOR
at 18.
This may lead to depletion of DO due to low flow and stagnation. How does the
proposed rule address this potential noncomplying condition?
35.
If a combined sewer overflow or other weather event causes or contributes
to a condition of noncompliance with the DO standard, what steps does the Agency plan
to take to remedy this situation?
36.
Under what circumstances will mixing zones be allowed if the CSSC does
not attain
the DO standard?
37.
If the CSSC does not attain the DO standard, how is the intake and
subsequent discharge of non-contact cooling water that contains DO below the standard
regulated?
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
13
38.
If the CSSC does not attain the DO standard, and if the DO in cooling
water is reduced due to the operation of the cooling system, how is the decreased DO in
the discharge regulated?
•
Is a mixing zone allowed in this circumstance?
•
Does the Agency know how many users of cooling water would be
affected in this circumstance?
•
Does the Agency have an understanding of the technologies
available to comply with the DO standard? If so, what are those
technologies?
•
Is the Agency aware of the successful implementation such
technologies to solve this problem? If so, where have these
technologies been successfully applied?
•
At what cost to construct, install, operate, and maintain such
technologies?
•
Has the Agency considered how much energy these technologies
consume? If so, how much energy will be used to operate these
technologies?
•
How much CO2 is emitted due to the increased energy
consumption?
39.
If the water body does
attain the dissolved oxygen criteria and if waters
drawn in have reduced DO due to the use of cooling systems, and the discharge does not
comply at the edge of the mixing zone at all times, how is the discharge regulated?
•
Does the Agency know how many users of cooling water would be
affected in this circumstance?
•
Does the Agency have an understanding of the technologies
available to comply with the DO standard? If so, what are those
technologies?
•
Is the Agency aware of the successful implementation of such
technologies to solve this problem? If so, where have these
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
14
technologies been successfully applied?
•
At what cost to construct, install, operate, and maintain such
technologies?
•
Has the Agency considered how much energy these technologies
consume? If so, how much energy will be used to operate these
technologies?
•
How much CO2 is emitted due to the increased energy
consumption?
40.
Can critical water treatment compounds, which are used for cooling
system disinfection and zebra mussel control, and dehalogenation systems, reduce the
oxygen content of the water?
•
Has the Agency studied this water chemistry?
•
Does the Agency know how many users of cooling water would be
affected in this circumstance?
•
Does the Agency have an understanding of the technologies
available to comply with the DO standard in this circumstance? If
so, what are those technologies?
•
Is the Agency aware of the successful implementation of such
technologies to solve this problem? If so, where have these
technologies been successfully applied?
•
What is the cost to construct, install, operate, and maintain such
technologies to address the decreased DO concentrations resulting
from the use of water treatment compounds and dehalogenation?
•
Has the Agency considered how much energy technologies to
address decreased DO concentrations resulting from the use of
water treatment compounds and dehalogenation consume? If so,
how much energy will be used to operate these technologies?
•
How much CO2 is emitted due to the increased energy
consumption of these technologies?
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
15
41.
Is it permissible under the proposed rule to aerate water as it is discharged
in order to increase the DO concentration in the receiving water?
IV.
QUESTIONS RELATED TO TEMPERATURE
42.
If the proposed rule were adopted as currently drafted, with current
discharges, would the CSSC attain the thermal standard at all locations and at all times?
If no, please list all areas of the CSSC that would not attain the proposed thermal
standard.
43.
How much time is provided for companies to comply with the proposed
thermal standard once the rules are adopted and become effective?
44.
How will the CSSC’s attainment with the thermal standard be determined?
45.
How many tests must be conducted to determine noncompliance of the
CSSC with the thermal standard?
46.
If a party other than a government entity or discharger conducts thermal
testing on the CSSC and submits data to the Agency that demonstrates that the CSSC
does not meet the thermal standard, what actions, if any, would the Agency take in
response to such a demonstration?
47.
If testing determines that the CSSC is not in compliance with the thermal
standard, will segments of the CSSC be designated as noncompliant? How will the
Agency determine the boundary of such segments? What does a designation of
noncompliance mean in terms of the thermal standard that the discharger must meet?
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
16
48.
Did the Agency consider the influence of the weather in developing the
proposed thermal standard? If so, how were such considerations taken into account?
49.
Under what circumstances will mixing zones be allowed if the CSSC does
not attain the thermal standard?
50.
If the water body does not attain the thermal standard, how is the intake of
water that is above the standard and subsequently discharged above the thermal standard
regulated?
51.
If the water body does not attain the thermal criteria and if water is drawn
in below the standard limit but is then raised above the standard at the point of discharge,
how is the increase in temperature of the discharge regulated?
•
Is a mixing zone allowed in this circumstance?
•
Does the Agency know how many users of cooling water would be
affected in this circumstance?
•
Does the Agency have an understanding of the technologies
available to comply with the thermal standard in this
circumstance? If so, what are those technologies?
•
Is the Agency aware of the successful implementation of such
technologies to solve this problem? If so, where have these
technologies been successfully applied?
•
At what cost to construct, install, operate, and maintain such
technologies?
•
Has the Agency considered how much energy these technologies
consume? If so, how much energy will be used to operate these
technologies?
•
How much CO2 is emitted due to the increased energy
consumption?
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
17
52.
If the water body does attain the thermal criteria and if the discharge does
not comply at the end of the mixing zone at all times, how is the discharge regulated?
•
Does the Agency know how many users of cooling water would be
affected in this circumstance?
•
Does the Agency have an understanding of the technologies
available to comply with the thermal standard in this
circumstance? If so, what are those technologies?
•
Is that Agency aware of the successful implementation of such
technologies to solve this problem? If so, where have these
technologies been successfully applied?
•
At what cost to construct, install, operate, and maintain such
technologies?
•
Has the Agency considered how much energy these technologies
consume? If so, how much energy will be used to operate these
technologies?
•
How much CO2 is emitted due to the increased energy
consumption?
53.
In regards to the proposed thermal standard, the Agency states that it used
the “75th percentile as the monthly average to ensure seasonal norms are preserved in the
system.”
SOR
at 83. It is our understanding that using the 75th percentile as the average
means that during the other 25% of the time, the water downstream of the District’s
discharge is noncompliant with the proposed standard. Is the Agency approving a
standard that allows for water downstream of the District’s discharge to be out of
compliance with the proposed thermal standard 25% of the time? How are dischargers
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
18
downstream of the District supposed to account for a receiving water that violates the
water quality standard 25% of the time? Why would the Agency permit noncompliance
at such a high rate?
54.
The Agency states that the “proposed thermal quality standards are more
stringent than the current Adjusted Water Quality Standards at Interstate-55 for all of the
months, especially considering the period average.”
Id.
at 86. What is the Agency’s
justification for proposing a standard more stringent than the adjusted standard that the
Board granted based, presumably, on good science and a reliable thermal demonstration?
V.
QUESTIONS RELATED TO COOLING TOWERS
Cooling towers are commonly used to reduce temperature of water and would
likely be the primary technology used to achieve compliance with the proposed
standards. The following questions relate to the anticipated need to construct and operate
cooling towers to met the proposed thermal standard.
55.
The CAWS UAA notes that the water in the CSSC is composed mainly of
effluent from the District’s Stickney plant and upstream flow from the Chicago River
System.
SOR
Attachment B at 4-70. This portion of the CSSC is also subject to human
manipulation that impacts flow, CSO events and other artificial effects that can impart
odorous properties to the water. Corn Products is concerned that use of water from the
CSSC in a cooling tower may release odors. If the use of CSSC water in a cooling tower
releases odors, how will the Agency address any odor complaints that might result?
•
If such complaints were to occur, will the discharger be able to
continue to use its cooling tower?
•
What remedies are available to address the sources, i.e. the CSSC
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
19
water, of these odors?
•
What is the estimated cost of such remedies?
56.
Since odors may result from VOCs or HAPs, how will emissions from a
cooling tower be handled? Since the presence of VOCs and/or HAPs is variable
depending on their presence in the intake water, how can emissions be quantified for air
permitting purposes? What is the penalty for failure to quantify, permit, and report such
emissions?
57.
Since the region is nonattainment for PM2.5, will the Agency permit the
construction of cooling towers which increase emissions of PM2.5?
•
How long will this permitting take the Agency if it requires a state
construction permit?
•
If a cooling tower is subject to PSD, how long will permitting
take?
•
How long will construction take?
•
If the permit is appealed, how will the Agency address the
permitee’s inability to comply with the thermal standard during the
pendency of the appeal process?
•
What is the total PM2.5 that would be emitted from cooling towers
used to comply with the proposed rule?
•
How will this affect the region’s current nonattainment status?
•
If offsets are not available, what means are available to obtain
permits?
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
20
58.
The operation of cooling towers consumes large amounts of energy. Has
the Agency considered the total energy that will be used by dischargers to operate cooling
towers? If so, what is the Agency’s estimate of the amount of energy to be consumed by
the operation of cooling towers?
59.
What quantity of CO2 emissions and emissions of other pollutants will
result from the use of cooling towers?
60.
Cooling towers must be cleaned from time to time. What is the nature of
the sediment that will be present in a cooling tower? Will the sediment be considered
hazardous waste? Special waste? What is the cost to a discharger in terms of complying
with the hazardous waste or special waste regulations in order to manage the cooling
tower sediment? Did the Agency consider the impact of the proposed rules in terms of
the creation of additional hazardous waste or special waste due to the construction and
operation of cooling towers?
61.
How will new and additional chemicals which must be added to the intake
water for the proper operation of the cooling tower be addressed? Understanding that
these are regulated by the discharger’s NPDES permit, how long will it take to obtain a
revised NPDES permit from the Agency? If such permit is appealed, will the discharger
be able to operate the cooling tower during the pendency of the appeal?
62.
How will the increased concentration of existing pollutants in the
discharge (as a result of the cooling tower process) be governed under the NPDES
permit? How long will it take to obtain a revised NPDES permit from the Agency for the
increased concentrations of existing pollutants in the discharge? If such permit is
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
21
appealed, will the discharger be able to operate the cooling tower during the pendency of
the appeal?
63.
Will the District accept cooling tower blow down?
64.
New sewer connections require engineering and District and Agency
approval prior to and upon completion. Has the timing of such a process been considered
by the Agency? At what cost to construct, operate, and maintain the sewer connections?
What is the impact on the District of receiving this additional flow returned from the
CSSC?
65.
Has the Agency evaluated unintended consequences of this proposal? For
example, has the Agency considered the increased use of Lake Michigan water to dilute
and cool the water bodies as a measure of compliance? Has the Agency considered the
use of groundwater for cooling purposes? If so, what were the Agency’s conclusions?
66.
On page 5 of the SOR, the Agency lists the six minimum requirements for
state water quality standards as described by 40 C.F.R. § 131.6.
SOR
at 5. The fourth
requirement is an “antidegradation policy consistent with § 131.12.”
Id.
If the
construction of cooling towers does become necessary to comply with the proposed
regulations, did the Agency consider that the water discharged from the cooling towers
will contain concentrations of the constituents present in the intake water in higher
concentrations as a result of running the water through the cooling tower? Would higher
concentrations of constituents in discharge water degrade the receiving body and trigger
an anti-degradation analysis? Did the Agency evaluate the possibility that the proposed
rules would lead to anti-degradation analyses due to the construction of cooling towers?
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
22
Further, there may be new chemicals added to the discharge by the nature of running the
water through the cooling tower. Did the Agency consider whether such activities would
trigger anti-degradation analysis? Has the Agency evaluated the cost associated with
such analyses in terms of resources expended by the discharger and the resources that the
Agency will utilize to review anti-degradation submissions?
67.
The Agency recognizes that the “existing history of sediment pollution in
the CAWS and LDPR will make this [Section 302.403 – Unnatural Sludge] standard
nearly impossible to attain.”
SOR
at 55. Has the Agency considered whether the
construction of cooling towers, which may be necessary to comply with the proposed
standards, will aggravate the unnatural sludge problem in the CAWS and LDPR?
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
23
V.
CONCLUSION
This concludes Corn Products’ questions for the Agency. Corn Products thanks
the Board for the opportunity to present these questions today.
*
*
*
Corn Products reserves the right to supplement or modify these pre-filed
questions.
Respectfully submitted,
CORN PRODUCTS
INTERNATIONAL, INC.
By: /s/ Katherine D. Hodge
One of Its Attorneys
Dated: January 18, 2008
Katherine D. Hodge
N. LaDonna Driver
Thomas G. Safley
Monica T. Rios
HODGE DWYER ZEMAN
3150 Roland Avenue
Post Office Box 5776
Springfield, Illinois 62705-5776
(217) 523-4900
CORN:006/Filing/CPs Pre-Filed Questions – IEPA
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
Back to top