RECE~VED

CLEF?K’S

OFF,C~

BEFORE THE ILLiNOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

OCT 20

2004

STATE OF ILLINOIS

Pollution Control

iN THE MATTER OF:

)

&~Oar

)

iNTERIM PHOSPHORUS

EFFLUENT

)

R4-26

STANDARD, PROPOSED

35

ILL. ADM.

)

(Rulemaking

-

Water)

304.123

(G-K)

)

)

)

TO:

See Attached Certificate of Service

PLEASE

TAKE

NOTICE that on Wednesday, October 20, 2004, we filed the

attached

Written Testimony of James Daugherty on behalf of the Illinois Association ofWastewater

Agencies with the Clerk ofthe Illinois Pollution Control Board,

a copy of

which is herewith

served

upon you.

Respectfully submitted,

ILLINOIS ASSOCIATION OF WASTEWATER

AGENCIES

BY:

~

One ofIts Attorneys

Roy M. Harsch

Sheila H. Deely

GARDNER CARTON &

DOUGLAS LLP

191

N. Wacker Drive

-

Suite 3700

Chicago, Illinois

606Q6-1698

(312) 569-1440

---

RECE~V

~S OFFICE

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

OCT

202004

STATE OF ILLINOIS

POllut~on

Control Board

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

)

INTERIM PHOSPHORUS EFFLUENT

)

R4-26

STANDARD, PROPOSED

35 ILL. ADM.

)

(Rulemaking

—

Water)

304.123 (G-K)

)

)

)

WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF JAMES DAUGHERTY ON BEHALF OF THE

ILLINOIS ASSOCIATION OF WASTEWATERAGENCIES

Background

My name is

James Daugherty. I am currently employed by the Thorn

Creek Basin

Sanitary

District

as its

general manager.

The sanitary district

operates a wastewater treatment

facility

in southern Cook and northern Will counties, Illinois, with a design flow of 16 million gallons

per day.

The facility currently serves a population of 100,000. I have been employed by Thorn

Creek Basin Sanitary District

since

1973. I have held the position of District Manager since

November 1976.

I have received both

a bachelors and masters degree in

civil

engineering from the University

of

Illinois

at

Urbana/Champaign.

I

hold

an

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(Agency)

Class

1

and

Class

K

operator’s

license

for wastewater treatment

and

an

Illinois

Environmental Protection

Agency

Class

A

license for potable

water.

I

have been

active in

many

technical

organizations,

including

the

Water

Environment

Federation

and

the

Association ofMetropolitan Sewage Agencies.

My testimony

is

provided

on

behalf of the

Illinois

Association

of Wastewater

Agencies

(IAWA). I am a past president ofthe IAWA and currently

serve as chairman of the Technical

Committee

on the

Proposed Interim

Phosphorus

Limit.

IAWA

is

a professional association

representing the major wastewater treatment plants in the State ofillinois. We have about

100

members and affiliate members, which includes approximately

55

districts

and municipalities

throughout

the

state.

These

agencies

operate

approximately

75

publicly-owned

treatment

works

(POTWs),

including

almost

all

of the

state’s

major

facilities.

In

addition

to

these

sanitary districts,

water reclamation districts

and

municipalities,

the

largest

Illinois

private

wastewater

utility

that

operates

12

plants

is

also

a

member.

Representatives

of

these

organizations

are public

officials

and include both elected and

appointed trustees of districts

and appointed officials at municipalities throughout the state. Our constituents are the citizens

and taxpayers ofIllinois, who are the same constituents as any other state or public agency.

IAWA Goals

Ourmembers are responsible both for the operation of existing wastewater treatment facilities

and the construction of new facilities. New facilities are constructed either to meet additional

---

environmental

protection

needs

or to

provide

more

capacity

for

expanding

service

areas.

IAWAmembers are committed to both ensuring that the aquatic environment is maintained in

a

healthy

state and

to

providing

wastewater treatment

services

at

a

reasonable

cost

to

our

constituents. IAWA is proud ofits

long commitment to the application ofsound science to the

development of water quality

and

effluent

standards.

When

standards

are

developed

from

sound science, IAWA members have a high level ofconfidence that those standards will be

in

place

for many years.

This

allows

us to

do

our job,

which is

to

provide needed wastewater

treatment

at a minimum

long-term

cost

to

our constituents.

In contrast, when standards

are

developed

without

the

use of sound

science,

IAWA

members

are

forced

to

use

interim

solutions

to treatment

needs

to

avoid building facilities that might not be

needed once more

appropriate limits are developed.

I would like

to thank the Board for this opportunity

to participate in an important rulemaking.

Nutrient Limits

IAWA supports the Agency’s work plan, as approved by USEPA,

to

develop nutrient water

quality standards for Illinois.

That plan calls for the

application of sound science to

develop

nutrient limits by the year 2008.

The development of such limits is

consistent with IAWA’s

long standing support of science-based water quality standards.

IAWA has and will continue

to participate in the Agency’s Illinois Nutrient Work Group.

Proposed Interim Phosphorus Limit

IAWA is opposed to the proposed interim effluent phosphorus

limits.

We urge

the Board to

reject the

Agency’s

proposal

in

its

entirety.

As

proponent

of the

proposal,

the

Agency

is

required to

provide an

environmental, technical,

and

economicjustification for the proposed

rule.

See

35

Ii.

Adm.

Code

102.202.

The

Agency

has

not

provided

an

adequate

environmental,

technical

or economic justification

for a

new statewide

effluent

limitation.

With

respect

to

the

environmental

justification

for

the

proposed

rule,

the

Agency

has

repeatedly stated that it cannot determine what, if any, would

be the environmental benefit of

the proposed effluent

limitation, or whether there will be

any benefit on a state-wide basis to

receiving streams where dischargers will be subject to

the proposed limitations.

The

Agency

has

stated

that

the

proposed

interim

phosphorus

limits

are

based

on

the

application of certain

technology in

the

wastewater

treatment

process

for the

reduction

in

phosphorus. For streams where phosphorus can be shown to be

impairing a recognized stream

use, there

are already regulations

which

would

allow the Agency

to

give those

dischargers

effluent limitations

that will address such impairments.

For receiving streams where it cannot

be determined that there will be a benefit from reductions in phosphorus levels, the proposed

interim

limit would result in

the installation and

operation of treatment

technology with no

known benefit.

With respect to the technical justification and economic cost ofthe proposed rule, the Agency

has stated that it expects

facilities to use chemical phosphorus

removal processes to

meet an

interim

limit.

The Agency

readily

acknowledges that the application of this

technology will

increase

the

cost of wastewater treatment,

but

it has failed to

provide

a sound and

accurate

estimate

of

the

cost

and

omits

important

components of the

cost.

The

most

significant

omission

from

the Agency’s cost

figures

is

the

cost of handling and

disposal of additional

2

---

sludge (August 30, 2004 Tr.

75-8).

The Agency has estimated sludge volumes would increase

by

15 to 30

(August 30, 2004 Tr. 24-11) or 20 to

40

(May 14, 2004 Statement ofReasons,

page

14).

For a proposed limitation where the Agency is

on

record as admitting that it does

not

know

what,

if

any,

benefit

to the receiving streams will

be

realized if the

standard

is

adopted

(August

30,

2004

Tr.

47-24,

48-3

and

65-11

to

65-18),

the

prospective

costs

are

unsupportable.

IAWA believes there is no need for the proposed interim phosphorus

limitation.

Given that

nutrient

limits based

on

sound science

are “on the

way”

and

that

the Agency currently has

means

to

deal

with

streams

that

have

known

nutrient

problems,

adoption

of

an

interim

technology-based

phosphorus

limit

is

not

wise

public

policy.

The

Agency

has

at

times

represented this

interim limit as the

first

step

in a nutrient control program. The Agency has

also

admitted

that

at this point in

time

it does not understand the role of elevated levels of

nutrients

in

the wide

range

of stream

conditions

found

in Illinois.

The Agency is

saying

it

does

not

know

what

the

nutrient

control

program

in

Illinois

will

look

like

when

it

has

completed the

scientific

studies

(August

30,

2004

Tr.

44-22

to

45-15).

We

question

how

anyone

can know that

the proposed

interim limit

is

the

first

step

in

that

process when the

scientific studies have not been completed on the appropriate nutrient limitations for this state.

The Agency has also

argued that

there wàuld be

savings

to the public when POTWs

install

phosphorus removal technology

as they undergo expansion or new construction.

The Agency

has stated its

expectation that treatment facilities will install chemical

phosphorus removal in

lieu ofbiological phosphorus removal given the fact that this is an interim limit, as biological

phosphorus removal has a much higher capital cost. P01W

managers are unlikely to

spend

significant capital

dollars on

a

process

their facilities

may not

need

when real phosphorus

water quality

standards

are

adopted.

POTW managers

are more

likely

to

install

chemical

phosphorus removal which has a lower capital cost, but higher operating costs

The facilities

needed

for

chemical

phosphorus

removal

are not

in-line

facilities.

They

are

not

facilities

where

an

additional

unit

needs

to

be

inserted

within the treatment train of unit processes.

Chemical

removal

facilities

are

sideline

facilities.

They

include

chemical

storage

and

pumping facilities that inject chemicals into existing treatment units.

For this reason, they are

fairly

easy

to

add

to

the

treatment

facility

at

any

time,

not

just

during

construction

or

expansion. IAWA does not believe there will be long-term cost savings by requiring facilities

to

add

chemical

phosphorus

removal

as they currently

undergo

expansion

or construction,

except possibly for the increase in the

solids production due to

chemical removal.

Again, we

would point out that the increase in solids production (between

15

and 40

as mentioned by

the Agency)

would

have

significant capital

and

operating

cost

implications

to

any

facility.

These costs have not been documentedby the Agency.

3

---

Specific Technical Issues

Written

testimony has

been

provided by

the

Metropolitan

Water

Reclamation District

of

Greater Chicago on September 28, 2004.

IAWA has reviewed that testimony.

It raised many

important specific technical issues.

IAWA urges the Board to

give them careful consideration

to the issues they raise.

IAWA requests the Board to rejectthe Agency’s proposed interim phosphorus effluent limits.

The

Agency

has

failed

to

demonstrate

that

the

proposed

limits

are

justified

from

an

environmental, technical or economic basis.

For streams where phosphorus can be

shown to

be

impairing a recognized stream use,

there are already regulations which

would

allow the

Agency to give those dischargers effluent limitations that will address such impairments

Thank you for your consideration to our comments.

CHO2/ 22346129.1

4

---

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

SanjayK. Sofat

Assistant Counsel

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box

19276

Springfield, IL

62794-9276

Matthew J. Dunn, Chief

Office ofthe Attorney General

Environmental Bureau

100 West Randolph Street

11th

Floor

Chicago, IL

60601

Robert A. Messina

General Counsel

Environmental Law &

Policy Center

3150 Roland Avenue

Springfield,

IL

62703

Albert F. Ettinger

Environmental Law &

Policy Center

35

East Wacker Drive

Suite 1330

Chicago, IL

60601

John McMahon

Wilkie & McMahon

8 East Main Street

Champaign, IL

61820

Jonathan Furr

Department ofNatural

Resources

One Natural Resources Way

Springfield,

IL

62702-127 1

Richard Lanyon

Director ofResearch

& Development

Michael G. Rosenberg

Metropolitan Water Reclamation

ofGreater Chicago

100 E.Erie

Chicago, IL

60611

David Horn

Asst. Prof., Biology

Aurora University

347 Gladstone Avenue

Aurora, IL

60506

Darin Boyer

City ofPlano

17 E. Main

Street

Plano,IL

60545-1521

Sheila H. Deely

The undersigned certifies that a copy ofthe foregoing

Written Testimony of James

Daugherty on behalf of the Illinois Association of Wastewater Agencies

were filedby hand

delivery with the Clerk ofthe Illinois Pollution Control Board and served upon the parties to whom said

Notice is directed by first class mail, postage prepaid, by depositing in the U.S. Mail at

191 North Wacker

Drive, Chicago, Illinois on Wednesday, October 20, 2004.

CHO2/ 22346158.1