ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
January 11,
1995
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
PETITION OF GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
)
R93-l3
TO AMEND 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 303.322
)
(Site-Specific
(Site-Specific Regulation for Fluoride)
)
Rulemaking)
Adopted Rule.
Final Order.
OPINION
AND ORDER
OF THE BOARD
(by E. Dunham):
This matter comes before the Board on the June 23,
1993
proposal of General Motors Corporation
(GM) for site-specific
relief from Section 303.322
(35 Ill.
Adiu. Code 303.322).
On
November 11,
1993, GM filed a motion for stay in this matter.
The Board granted the motion for stay on November 18,
1993.
The
stay was lifted on February 3,
1994.
The Board sent this
proposed rule to first notice on September 1,
1994.
The proposed
amendments were published in the Illinois Register on September
16,
1994,
at 18
Ill.
Reg.
14219.
The Board received a public
comment from GM on October 20,
1994.
The Board issued a second
notice opinion and order on November 3,
1994.
On December 13,
1994,
the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
(JCAR)
issued a
Letter of No Objection to the proposed rule.
The Board’s responsibility in this matter arises from the
Environmental Protection Act (Act).
(415 ILCS 5/1 et
seq.
(1992).)
The Board is charged therein to “determine, define, and
implement the environmental control standards applicable in the
state of Illinois.”
(415 ILCS 5/5(b)
(1992).)
More generally,
the Board’s rulemaking charge is based on the system of checks
and balances integral to the Illinois environmental governance:
the Board bears responsibility for the rulemaking and principal
adjudicatory functions; while the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (Agency) has primary responsibility for
administration of the Act and the Board’s regulations.
The
latter includes administering today’s proposed regulation.
GM is seeking to modify 35 Ill. Adm. Code 303.322, which was
adopted in R78-7 on September 24,
1981, and established a site-
specific water quality standard for fluoride in the unnamed
tributary of the Vermilion River and the Vermilion River from the
juncture of the unnamed tributary to the Indiana border.
(Pet. at
1.)
GM seeks to increase the fluoride water quality standard for
the unnamed tributary and the Vermilion River from the juncture
of the unnamed tributary to a point 0.9 miles downstream of that
juncture from
5 mg/l to 10 mg/l.
(Pet.
at 2.)
A hearing in this matter was held on April 26,
1994,
in
Danville, Illinois before hearing officer Musette Vogel.
At the
hearing, GM presented three witnesses.
Mr. Jim Schifo,
2
Environmental Manager of GM, described GM’s operations,
the
wastewater treatment system and efforts by GM to control the
fluoride discharge.
Mr. Schifo also presented testimony on the
costs for non—treatment options for compliance and presented
statistical support for the 10 mg/l standard.
Mr. James Etzel,
testified on the prior rulemaking in R78—7 and the costs of
various treatment options.
Mr. Greg Bright testified on the
studies he performed on the environmental impact of fluoride in
the unnamed tributary.
No members of the public attended the
hearing.
GM filed a post-hearing brief on May 25,
1994.
The Agency
filed a post-hearing brief on June 8,
1994.
The Agency has no
objection to GM’s petition.
BACKGROUND
GM’s foundry is located in a rural industrial area between
Danville and the Village of Tilton.
(Pet.
at 3.)
The facility
covers approximately 323 acres.
(Tr. at 11.)
The foundry
manufactures ductile and grey iron castings for the automotive
industries.
(Pet. at 3.)
The Danville Plant produces 800 tons
(or 187,000 castings) of grey—iron, nodular iron and hi—carbon
iron castings each day.
(Tr. at 13.)
The unit processes include
cupola melting, sand molding, rough finishing and annealing of
castings that are used in the production of intake manifolds,
transmission parts and brake parts.
(Pet.
at 3.)
The foundry
employs more than 1,000 persons and contributes $80 million to
the Danville area economy.
(Pet.
at 2.)
GM plans to idle the
plant during the 1996 calendar year.
(Tr. at 13.)
GM intends to
continue operating the foundry at reduced volumes in the
meantime.
(Tr. at 13.)
The facility draws its make—up water for cooling purposes
from the Vermilion River.
(Pet. at 3.)
Approximately 10.4
million gallons of water are used for plant processes at the
plant each day.
(Tr.
at 19.)
The two major sources of wastewater
are the cupolas and the dust collectors.
(Tr. at 19.)
Secondary
sources of wastewater include noncontact cooling water and storm
runoff water.
(Tr. at 19.)
Wastewater is treated and recycled
through the system.
(Tr. at 23.)
The facility discharges 400,000
to 750,000 gpd wastewater including process wastewater and non—
contact cooling water.
(Pet.
at 3.)
The facility discharges to
an unnamed ditch which flows into the Vermilion River.
(Pet. at
7.)
The primary source of fluoride in the discharge is from the
cupola emission control system due to the limestone flux.
(Tr. at
31.)
Increased recycling rates impact the levels of fluoride in
the discharge.
(Tr. at 28.)
Fluoride discharge decreased after
1978 but increased after 1990.
(Tr. at 31.)
The increased
wastewater recycle rate has increased the mass of fluoride
3
discharged by 78.37 percent as compared to 1978 levels.
(Tr.
at
31.)
The limestone is considered to be the major contributor to
the fluoride levels in the plant water system.
(Pr. at 39.)
In 1977,
GM was issued an NPDES permit.
(Tr. at 24.)
GM’s
current NPDES permit, issued on June 23,
1991,
is currently under
appeal before the Board.
(See PCB 91-219.)
The Board has granted
a stay in the permit appeal until July 1,
1995 while the parties
pursue negotiation of a settlement.
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
The
stream’s small water shed includes industrial,
residential and forested areas.
(Tr. at 70.)
The total slope of
the stream is quite steep resulting in several short waterfalls
over bedrock in some areas.
(Pr. at 71.)
Streams of this type
have a limited habitat for supporting diverse fish and benthic
invertebrate communities.
(Pr. at 71.)
A study of the stream performed by Greg Bright of
Commonwealth Biomonitoring demonstrates that fluoride is not a
limiting factor on the aquatic life and the habitat structure is
the principal limit to achieving a more balanced aquatic
community.
(Pet.
at 7.)
The study shows that there is no
indication that fluoride or other “toxic substances” in the
wastewater discharge contribute to the impaired condition of the
stream.
(Pr. at
75..)
In addition, Mr. Bright also reports that a
review of literature showed that increasing the fluoride limits
to 10 mg/l would have no adverse impact on the fish or
macroinvertebrates in the ditch.
(Pet.
at 8.)
A 1992 bioassessment study of the stream performed by Greg
Bright of Commonwealth Biomonitoring shows that the aquatic
community of the receiving stream has improved since studies done
in the 1970s.
(Pr.
at 75.)
Density and diversity of the aquatic
life has increased and relatively pollution—intolerant forms now
predominate.
(Pr. at 75.)
The warm water community present in
the unnamed tributary and the Vermilion River are somewhat less
sensitive to elevated fluoride levels than cold water
communities.
(Pr. at 77.)
GM contends that the increase in the fluoride limit will not
adversely effect humans.
Fluoride is not a living pathogen;
therefore,
it should have no effect on the use of the water body
for human recreation.
(Pr. at 78.)
The receiving stream is too
small to be used as a source of potable water.
(Pr. at 78.)
The
Vermilion River is not presently used for potable water nor is
any such use planned.
(Pr. at 78.)
However, the proposed
concentration would not preclude the use of the Vermilion River
as a source of potable water.
(Pr. at 78.)
4
PECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
AND
ECONOMIC REASONABLENESS
Alternatives for compliance include additional treatment for
fluoride, discharging directly to the Vermilion River or using
alternate sources of limestone.
Many of the options considered
were the same options reviewed in the R78—7 rulemaking which
granted GM a site—specific fluoride level of 5 mg/l.
One option for compliance reviewed by GM for compliance was
to discharge wastewater directly to the Vermilion River and
obtain a mixing zone effluent limit.
(Pr. at 45.)
Due to the
distance and the topography of the area installation of the
drainage tile would be extremely expensive and difficult.
(Pr. at
45.)
This option would not decrease the quantity of fluoride
discharged.
(Pr. at 46.)
Fluoride would be discharged directly
to the Vermilion River rather than the unnamed tributary.
(Pr. at
46.)
Another option is to obtain an alternate source of limestone
with a lower fluoride content.
GM currently uses 23,040 tons of
limestone a year at a cost of $120,960.
(Pr. at 46.)
Limestone
is currently obtained from a source six miles from the Danville
facility.
(Pr. at 46.)
It is difficult to determine the exact
amount of fluoride content in limestone because it is not
distributed evenly throughout the material.
(Pr. at 47.)
Fluoride levels are not considered critical to most uses of
limestone and therefore are not usually monitored.
(Pr. at 47.)
GM is aware of one quarry in Michigan that routinely monitors the
fluoride levels in its limestone.
(Pr. at 47.)
Obtaining
limestone from this source would increase GM’s cost for limestone
by $541,440 per year.
(Pr. at 47.)
Another potential source for
low fluoride limestone is in Bloomington, Indiana.
(Pr. at 47.)
However, since the fluoride level is not routinely monitored at
this quarry, it is not certain that the fluoride level will be
consistently low and result in compliance.
(Pr. at 47.)
Treatment of the wastewater using absorption on bone char,
ion exchange with activated alumina or precipitation with high
magnesium lime was also considered to reduce the fluoride level.
(Tr. at 60.)
However, none of these technologies could guarantee
consistent compliance and the cost of each technology is
extremely high with capital costs ranging from $2,966,000 to
$11,440,000.
(Pr. at 60.)
In addition,
each technology would
produce large volumes of sludge which would require disposal at
additional costs and also result in an adverse effect on the
environment.
(Pr. at 60.)
Based on analysis of historical data, GM contends that a
fluoride limit of 10 mg/l will allow for long-term process and
production variables.
(Pr. at 52.)
5
SITE SPECIFICITY
At first notice the Board proposed additional language to
the rule to grant relief to the petitioner without granting
relief to other potential discharges in the same stream segment.
The Board proposed language naming General Motors and limiting
excess fluoride sources to GM’s discharge alone.
GM objected to the language proposed by the Board at first
notice and suggested that it be deleted or modified.
(PC
#
1.)
GM argues that if GM were to sell the foundry to another company,
the site-specific relief would not be available to the new
company.
(PC #1.)
GM contends that the same costs, environmental
factors and
discharge standards would apply to another operator
and there is no reason that the relief should be limited to GM as
the operator of the facility.
(PC #1.)
GM recommends that the
relief be tied to a specific location rather than the operator.
(PC
#
1.)
The Board agreed with the concerns raised by GM concerning
the applicability of the proposed site-specific relief to
subsequent purchasers of the facility.
In the Board’s second
notice opinion and order, the Board modified the language of the
proposed amendment to specify the location of the facility
instead of the operator.
During the second notice comment period, JCAR recommended
nonsubstantive changes to the language in the proposed rule.
JCAR recommended changing “owned by General Motors Corporation on
the effective date of this regulation” to include January 31,
1995 as the date certain.
The Board accepts the changes
recommended by JCAR and adopts those changes into the adopted
rule.
CONCLUSION
The Board agrees that site-specific relief is appropriate,
based on the record of this proceeding.
Alternatives for
compliance with the current site—specific standard of
5 mg/l are
technically infeasible and economically unreasonable.
The
proposed standard of 10 mg/l will not have an adverse effect on
the environment.
ORDER
The Board hereby adopts the following amendments to 35
Ill.
Adin. Code 303.322.
The Clerk of the Board is hereby
directed to cause the filing of these amendments with the
Administrative Code Unit of the Secretary of State’s Office.
6
TITLE 35:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE C:
WATER POLLUTION
CHAPTER I:
POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
PART
303
WATER USE DESIGNATIONS
AND
SITE SPECIFIC
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
SUBPART A:
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section
303.100
303.101
303.102
Section
303.200
303.201
303.202
303 .203
303.204
Scope and Applicability
Multiple Designations
Rulemaking Required
SUBPART B:
NONSPECIFIC WATER USE DESIGNATIONS
Scope and Applicability
General Use Waters
Public and Food Processing Water Supplies
Underground Waters
Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Waters
SUBPART
C:
SPECIFIC USE DESIGNATIONS AND SITE SPECIFIC
WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS
Section
303.300
303.301
303.311
303.312
303.321
303.322
303.323
303.331
303.341
303.351
303
•
352
303.353
303.361
303.430
303.431
303.441
303.442
303.443
Section
303.500
303.502
Scope and Applicability
Organization
Ohio River Temperature
Waters Receiving Fluorspar Mine Drainage
Wabash River Temperature
Unnamed Tributary of the Vermilion River
Sugar Creek and Its Unnamed Tributary
Mississippi River North Temperature
Mississippi River North Central Temperature
Mississippi River South Central Temperature
Unnamed Tributary of Wood River Creek
Shoenberger Creek; Unnamed Tributary of Cahokia Canal
Mississippi River South Temperature
Unnamed Tributary to Dutch Creek
Long Point Slough and Its Unnamed Tributary
Secondary Contact Waters
Waters Not Designated for Public Water Supply
Lake Michigan
SUBPART
D:
THERMAL
DISCHARGES
Scope and Applicability
Lake Sangchris Thermal Discharges
7
303.Appendix A References to Previous Rules
303.Appendix B Sources of Codified Sections
AUTHORITY:
Implementing Section 13 and authorized by Section 27
of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/13 and 27).
SOURCE:
Filed with the Secretary of State January
1,
1978;
amended at
2 Ill. Reg.
27,
p.
221, effective July 5,
1978;
amended at
3 Ill. Reg.
20,
p.
95, effective May 17,
1979; amended
at 5 Ill. Reg.
11592, effective October 19,
1981; codified at 6
Ill. Reg. 7818; amended at 6 Ill.
Reg.
11161, effective September
7,
1982; amended at 7 Ill. Reg. 8111, effective June 23,
1983;
amended in R87—27 at 12 Ill. Reg. 9917, effective May 27, 1988;
amended in R87-2 at 13 Ill. Reg.
15649, effective September 22,
1989; amended in R87-36 at 14
Ill. Reg.
9460, effective May 31,
1990;
amended in R86—14 at 14 Ill. Reg. 20724, effective December
18,
1990; amended in R89—14(C) at 16 Ill. Reg.
14684, effective
September 10,
1992; amended in R92-17 at 18 Ill. Reg. at 2981
effective February 14,
1994; amended in R91—23 at 18
Ill. Reg.
13457, effective August 19,
1994; amended in R93—13 at
____
Ill.
Reg. _______________________ effective___________________________
Section 303.322
Unnamed Tributary of the Vermilion River
The fluoride standard of Section 302.208 shall not apply to
waters of the State which are located from the point of a
discharge from the foundry facility located at the
intersection of Interstate 74 and G Street in Danville.
Illinois. owned by General Motors Corporation on January 31.
1995 to an unnamed tributary of the Vermilion River, said
point being located 3900 feet south of the Vermilion River,
1900 feet north of 1-74,
at 40
6’35” north latitude and 87
69’52” west longitude,
to the confluence of said unnamed
tributary with the Vermilion River; and from there
downstream to it3 juncture with thc Indiana Gtate border
~,
point 0.9 river miles downstream of the juncture at the
crossinc~of a Norfolk and Western Railroad Bridge.
Fluoride
levels in such waters as caused by the discharge from the
foundry facility shall meet a water quality standard for
fluoride
(Storet Number 00950)
of
Sj,Q mg/l.
(Source:
Amended at
____
Ill. Reg.
________,
effective
IT
IS
SO
ORDERED.
8
I, Dorothy N. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the
ak~ov~e
opinion and order was
adopted on the
//~Z day of
\~J
~
,
1995,
byavoteof
~-c~
Control Board