OCT
BEFORE
THE ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROLBO~~°~
~~OIS
~
~0fltroI
Board
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
PROPOSED
SITE-SPECIFIC
)
WATER POLLUTION
)
REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO
)
THE CITY OF EFFINGHAM,
)
BLUE BEACON
)
INTERNATIONAL,
INC.,
and
)
TRUCKOMAT CORPORATION
)
NOTICE OF FILING
TO:
Ms.
Dorothy M.
Gunñ
Clerk ofthe Board
Illinois Pollution
Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
Suite
11-500
Chicago, Illinois
60601
(VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL)
(SEE PERSONS
ON ATTACHED LIST)
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office ofthe Illinois
Pollution
Control Board an original
and nine copies each of the
ENTRY OF
APPEARANCE OF N. LADONNA DRIVER;
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE OF
DAVID
M. WALTER;
CITY OF EFFINGHAM, BLUE BEACON
INTERNATIONAL, INC., and TRUCKOMAT CORPORATION’S PETITION
FOR SITE-SPECIFIC REGULATION;
and MOTION TO WAIVE
THIS FILING
SUBMITTED
ON RECYCLED PAPER
RQUIR.3MENT TO SUBMIT
200
SIGNATURES, attached herewith, copies of
which are herewith served upon you.
Respectftilly submitted,
CITY OF EFFINGHAM,
BLUE BEACON INTERNATIONAL,
INC.,
and TRUCKOMAT CORPORATION,
Petitioners,
By:________________________
One of their Attorneys
Dated:
October
16,
2002
N. LaDonna Driver
David M. Walter
HODGE DWYER ZEMAN
3150 Roland Avenue
Post Office Box
5776
Springfield, Illinois
62705-5776
(217)
523-4900
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, David M.
Walter, the undersigned, hereby certify that I have served
the attached
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
OF N. LADONNA DRIVER;
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
OF DAVID M. WALTER; CITY OF EFFINGHAM, BLUE BEACON
INTERNATIONAL,
INC. and TRUCKOMAT CORPORATION’S
PETITION FOR
SITE-SPECIFIC REGULATION; and MOTION TO WAIVE REQUIREMENT TO
SUBMIT
200 SIGNATURES upon:
Ms.
Dorothy M.
Gunn
Clerk of the Board
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 WestRandolph Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois
60601
Deborah
3.
Williams, Esq.
Division ofLegal Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Post Office Box
19276
Springfield,
Illinois
62794-9276
James E.
Ryan, Esq.
Attorney General
500 South
Second Street
Springfield, Illinois 62706
Robert T. Lawley, Esq.
Chief~
Legal
Division
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
524 South
Second Street
Springfield,
Illinois
62701
by
depositing said documents in the United States
Mail in
Springfield,
Illinois
on
October
16, 2002.
David M. Walter
BLUE:OO 1/NOF-COS/Petition for Site-Specific Regulation
REcVf~~
CLERw~C
r~r—~-.~
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OCT
222002
STATE
OF
ILUNOIS
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
Pollution Control Board
)
PROPOSED SITE-SPECIFIC
WATER POLLUTION
)
REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO
)
THE CITY OF
EFFINGHAM,
)
BLUE BEACON
)
INTERNATIONAL, INC., and
)
TRUCKOMAT CORPORATION
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE OF N. LADONNA
DRIVER
NOW
COMES N. LaDonna Driver, ofthe law firm of HODGE DWYER
ZEMAN, and hereby enters her appearance on behalfof Petitioners, CITY OF
EFFINGHAM, BLUE BEACON INTERNATIONAL, INC., and TRUCKOMAT
CORPORATION.
Respectfully submitted,
CITY OF EFFINGHAM,
BLUE BEACON INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
and TRUCKOMAT CORPORATION,
Petitioners,
Dated:
October 16, 2002
N. LaDonna Driver
David M. Walter
HODGE DWYER ZEMAN
3150 Roland Avenue
Post Office Box 5776
Springfield, Illinois
62705-5776
(217) 523-4900
BLtJE:OOI/FiI/EOA-NLD
REC~IV~~
CLERK’S OPNCE
OCT
2
2
2002
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
STATE
OF
ILLINOiS
Pollution Control
Board
•INTHE MATTER OF:
PROPOSED SITE-SPECIFIC
)
Ro~-j~
WATER POLLUTION
)
REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO
)
THE CITY OF EFFINGHAM,
)
BLUE BEACON
)
INTERNATIONAL,
INC., and
)
TRUCKOMAT CORPORATION
)
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE OF DAVIDM. WALTER
NOW COMES David M. Walter, of the law
firm of HODGE DWYERZEMAN,
and hereby enters
his appearance on behalfofPetitioners,
CITY OF EFFINGHAM,
BLUE BEACON INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
and TRUCKOMAT CORPORATION.
Respeôtftilly submitted,
CITY OF EFFINGHAM,
BLUE BEACON INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
and TRUCKOMAT CORPORATION,
Petitioners,
By:
David M. Walter
Dated:
October
16,
2002
N. LaDonna Driver
David M.
Walter
HODGE DWYER ZEMAN
3150
Roland.Avenue
Post Office Box 5776
Springfield,
Illinois
62705-5776
•
(217) 523-4900
BLUE:OO1IFiIIEOA-DMW
RECEIVED
CLERIC’S
OFFJCE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
•
0CT222002
IN THE.MATTER OF:
STATE OF iLLiNOIS
PROPOSED
SITE-SPECIFIC
)
R03-JJ
POIIUt1Ofl
Control
Board
WATER POLLUTION
)
REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO
)
THE CITY
OF EFFINGHAM,
)
•
BLUE BEACON
•
)
INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
and
)
TRUCKOMAT CORPORATION
)
MOTION TO
WAIVE REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT 200 SIGNATURES
NOW
COMES
the CITY
OF
EFFINGHAM (“City”),
BLUE BEACON
INTERNATIONAL, INC.
(“BBI”),
and
TRUCKOMAT CORPORATION
(“Truckomat”) (collectively “Petitioners”), by
and through their attorneys, HODGE
DWYER ZEMAN and request the Illinois Po1lution Control Board (“Board”) to waive
the requirement, under 35
Ill.
Admin.
Code
§
102.202(f), to
submit 200
signatures with
their Petition for Site-Specific Regulation stating as follows:
1.
BBI and
Truckomat both
operate truck washes
in Effingham, Illinois,,.
which discharge wastewater into the City’s Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(“POTW”).
The wastewater from the truck washes contains fluoride resulting from the
use ofbrighteners
in washing the trucks.
BBI and Truckomat operate three ofthe four
industries that are the primary sources offluoride
in the City’s wastewater.
The fourth
fluoride source, Fedders, Inc.,
plans to discontinue operation of the source of fluOride at
its
plant.
In addition, the City adds fluoride to
its water supply for dental health purposes.
2.
The City
is located at the intersection oftwo major interstates and is a
prime location for over-the-road truck traffic,
which has resulted
in the construction and
operation of three successful truck wash facilities.
Currently, there are no
effective
alternative replacements for the brighteners used by
BBI and
Truckornat.
The
negative
economic impact that would
occur, if the truck washes in the Citywere
forced to
discontinue use ofthese brighteners, would be severe.
Moreover, the loss in car wash
revenue due to the elimination of the brighteners would be compounded by the lost
revenue for other associated businesses as well as loss ofemployment.
3.
Attached to
this Motion is a Petition for Site-Specific Regulation
seeking
relief from the general fluoride water quality standard and effluent
standard of 1.4
mg/L
and requesting a site-specific fluoride effluent standard of 4.5 mg/L.
4.
The Board
has waived signature requirements for site-specific rulemaking
petitions in the past,
including recently In the Matter of:
Petition ofCentral Illinois Light
Company for a Site Specific Air Rule:
35
Ill. Adm.
Code 214.141, R02-21
(May 2,
2002).
5.
Granting this
Motion is in the public interest
in light ofthe importance of
the truck washes to the economy ofthe City.
WHEREFORE, Petitioners,
CITY OF EFFINGHAM, BLUE BEACON
INTERNATIONAL,
INC. and TRUCKOMAT CORPORATION respectfully request the
2
Illinois Pollution Control Board to waive the requirement to
submit 200 signatures
in
support of its Petition for Site-Specific Regulation.
Respectfully submitted:
CITY OF
EFFINGHAM,
BLUE BEACON INTERNATIONAL,
INC.,
and TRUCKOMAT CORPORATION,
Petitioners,
By:
~
~44~=—
One oftheir Attorneys
Dated:
October16, 2002
N. LaDonna Driver
David M.
Walter
HODGE
DWYER ZEMAN
3150 Roland Avenue
Post Office Box 5776
Springfield, Illinois
62705-5 776
(217) 523-4900
BIue:OO 1/Pu/Motion to Waive
Requirement
3
Cl ~RK’S
OF~ICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BQ~~E
OF ILLINOIS
J~’OJJuflo~
Control Boar~J
IN THE MATTER
OF:
)
PROPOSED
SITE-SPECIFIC
)
RO3-(~
WATERPOLLUTION
)
REGULATIONS APPLiCABLE TO
)
~
BLUEBEACON
•)
INTERNATIONAL,
INC.,
and
)
TRUCKOMAT CORPORATION
)
•
CITY OF EFFINGRAIVI,
BLUE BEACON INTERNAIIONAL, INC.,
AND TRUCKOMAT CORPORATION’S
PETITION FOR SITE-SPECIFICREGULATION
N. LaDonna Driver
David M. Waiter
•
•
HEDGE DWYER ZEMAN
3150
Roland Avenue
Post OFfice Box 5776
Springfield, Illinois
62705-5776
•~l7)
523-4900
Dated:
October
16, 2002
•
RECEIVED
cL~RlcS
OFI~ICE
• 0CT222002
BEFORE TUE ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
•
•
•
$TAT~
L*
ILLINOIS
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
Pollution Control
Board
)
PROPOSED
SITE-SPECIFIC
)
RO3-U
WATER POLLUTION
)
REGULATION APPLICABLE
TO
)
THE CITY
OF
EFF1NGHAM,
)
BLUE
BEACON
INTERNATIONAL, INC., M’U)
)
TRUCKOMAT CORPORATION
)
CITY 01?
EFFINGR,
BLUE BEACON INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
AND TRUCKOMAT CORPORATION’S
•
PETITION FOR SITE-SPECIFIC REGULATION
NOW
COME
the
City
ofEfflngham (“City”), Blue Beacon International, Inc.
•
(“BBr’),
and Truckomat Corporation (“Truckomat”) (collectively “Petitione(s”), by and
•
through their attorneys,
HODGE DWYERZEMAN,
and
pursuant to 415 ILCS
5/27(a),
35
Ill.
Admin.
Code
§~
102.202 and
102.210,
hereby petition the flhinois Pollution Control
Board (“Board”) for a site-specific effluent regulation,
stating
as follows:
L
PROPOSED
SITE-SPECIFIC RULE
Petitioners are seeking
a site-specific effluent limit for fluoride for discharges from
the City’s Publicly Owned Treatment Works (“POTW”), including wastewater from BBI
and Truckomat’ s Effingham facilities.
TheBoard’s effluent regulations require, at Section
304.105, that effluent from the
City not cause an applicable water quality standard to be
•
exceeded.
35111.
Admin’.
dOde §304.105.
The’generalnumericwater quality
standard
•for fluoride, which i~
set forth
iii
Section 302208(g), is
1.4 mg/L.
35
III. Adrnin. Code
§
302.208(g).
This petition will demonstrate that treatment to a general fluonde water quality
standard of 1.4 mg/L is neither technically feasible nor economically reasonable for the
unnamed tributary ofSalt Creek from the point ofthe City’s
discharge to a point
approximately 44 miles downstream.
It will also demonstrate that the elimination of
fluoride-based chemicals from BBI and Truckomat’s facilities would have a severe
negative economic impact on the industries,
as well
as the City.
Finally, the petitionwill
demonstrate that the fluoride effluent standard requested will not harm the aquatic life in
the waters dOwnstream ofthe City’s discharge or have a negative impact on the current
use of surface waters as a public water supply.
As proposed, the site-specific effluent standard requested by Petij~oners
would
provide as follows:
Section 304.2xx
City ofEfflngham Treatment Plant Discharge
This
section
applies to
the
discharge from ~he POTW
located at
903
E.
Eichie Avenue
in Efflngham,
Illinois,
owned by the
City. of Efflngham,
to
an
unnamed tributary of Salt
Creek,
said point being located in
Efflngham
County,
T8N,
R6E,
Sec.
~S,
Lat:
39°06’24”, Long:
8803
1’55”.
Such
discharge shall not
be
subject to
Section 304,105
as It
applies to the water
quality
standard for fluoride at
35
Ill.
Admin.
Code
§
3 02.208(g).
Such
discharge must meet a fluoride effluent standard of4.5 mg/L,
subject to
the
•
averaging rule ofSection 304.104.
As explained more fully herein, these fluoride levels, to the receiving waters of the
State, will be protective ofaquatic:life, human health,
and the environment as a whole.
Moreover, adoption ofthe proposed site-specificeffluent standard will allow socially and
economically valuable services located in Efflngham,
Illinois, to continue.
2
II.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
A.
Existing Physical Conditions
As a result of its location at the intersection oftwo
major interstates, the City
derives much ofits income from services provided to persons traveling along the nation’s
highways.
BBI and Truckomat both operate truck washes in the
City,
and discharge
wastewater produced from their operations to the City’s POTW.
The wastewater from
the truck washes contains fluoride, which is sourced from the brightener used in washing
the trucks.
The City adds fluoride to its water supply for dental health purposes.
Wastewater discharge from Fedders, Inc.
(“Fedders”) is an additional source offluoride to’
the City’s POTW.
The City’s wastewater treatment plant (“WWTP”) was
originally constructed in
1912.
The plant was upgraded around
1935
and again in 1957.
In 1980,
a new plant was
constructed at its current location.
The WWTP was upgraded again in 2001
The WWTP
employs approximately five full-time personnel and serves approximately 4,600 residential
and 250 industrial/commercial
customers.
Flow to the WWTP is split between residential
and industrial/commercial users at
52 percent and 48
percent,
respectively, based on water
use.
The City’s WWTP has a design average flow of3.75 million gallons per day and a
maximum hydraulic flow of9.375
million gallons per day.
The WWTP utilizes an
oxidation ditch treatment system with tertiary rapid sand filtration.
This treatment system
is designed to address biological oxygen demand,
and to remove suspended solids and
3
carbonaceous biological oxygen demand.
Like most POTWs, however, it is not designed
to remove soluble inorganic
anions such as fluoride.
The City’s WWTP discharges its wastewater to
an unnamed tributary of Salt
Creek, pursuant to
a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit
issuedby the Illinois Environmental Proteôtion Agency (“TEPA” or “Agency”);
A
modified
NPDES
permit (No.
1L0028622) (“Permit”) was issued to the
City
on March 30,
2000.
The original issue
and
effective dates for this permit were October 6,
1998, and
November 1,
1998, respectively.
The permit
expiration date is
October31, 2003.
The 2000 Permit established a daily maximumfluoride discharge
limit
for the
City’s POTW of 8.6 mg/L “from the effective date ofthe modified p~ermiti.e.,
‘November
1,
1998
until the
attainment of operational level ofthe new sewage treatment
plant.”
Once ~theCity’s new sewage treatment plant became
operational, the permit
specified that the daily maximum fluoride.discharge
limit
would become
1.4 mg/L.
This
1.4 mg/L daily maximumfluoride dischar~e
limit in the Permit is based on the water
quality standards set forth in
§
302.208(g) ofthe Board’s regulations.
35 Ill.
Admiui.
Code
§
3 02.208(g).
This limit was apparently established based on a 7-day,• 10-year
(“7Q 10”) low flow value ofzero for the unnamed tributary ofSalt Creek.
In other words,
forthe case ofno flow in the receiving water (i.e., 7Q10 ofzero), the discharge itself
wOuld be required to meet the water
quality
standard for fluoride.
TiiJune 2001, the
City’s new sewage treatment plant beca’
e operational, and the
1.4
mg/L daily
maximum
fluoride discharge limit wentinto effect.
‘~•
4
B.
Affected Sources and Facilities and Character of the Area Involved
Following the issuance ofthe NPDES permit, with the fluoride discharge limit of
1.4 mg/L,
the City attempted to determine the sources ofthe fluoride in its wastewater
and
to develop local limits for fluoride for those sources.
Industry sampling was
conducted in both 2000
and
2001:
This sampling effort identified four Efflngham
industries as the primary sources offluoride in the City’s POTW.
These four industries
consist of
two
BBI truckwashes, a Truckomat truck wash,
and another industry named
Fedders,
The background concentration of fluorid~
in the City’s wastewater is
1.0
mg/IL,
since fluoride is added to the
City water supply for dental health purposes.
As
a result,
only a small amount offluoride for industrial loading can be allowed, and the industrial
discharge limit must be extremely stringent,
in order forthe City to
comply with the
general water quality standard of 1.4
mg/L.
Indeed, in order to meet its new NPDES
discharge
limit
of 1.4
mg/L,
the
City developed a preliminary local discharge
limit
of
2.54
mg/IL for each ofthe four industrial sources offluoride in the City.
This discharge
limit has not yet been approved by the IEPA; however,
it is anticipated that the final local
limit would be very close to this value.
1.
Affected Industries
As stated earlier, four industries have been identified as the
primary
sources of
•
•
fluoride in the City’s wastewater discharge.
Each source is discussed in greater detail
below.
5
a.
:~BBFTi~uckWash
BBI operates truck washes at
two
separate 1ocati~nS
in the City.
One ofthe
facilities ope~iedas
a double’bay wash in 198I~
‘the other openedas a single bay in 1993
and
added a second bay in:1997.
Both ofthese facilities b~erate
24 hours per day,
seven
days per week.
At its
facilities, BBI washes the e~tei~iOrs
‘of
over-the-road trucks, using
chemicals (soap atid brightener) applied~’th
high~pressute
wands.
The brightener used to
wash the
trtxcks cO~itain~
hydrofluoricaOid(~’HF”),
which i~
the source ofthefluoride in
•the wastewater from BBI’s Effingham facilities.
Each truck wash generates approximately
•24,000’gallons perday of~~astewa.ter-with
a fluoride concentration in the range of40 to
130
mg/L.
•
A sampling program was conduCted by the
City ofEffirigham in June through
Augi~st
Of2001.
‘Fifteen samples were collected
during this sampling event.
The average
and
maximum fluoride cor~centrations
were 44
mg/IL and
120
mg/IL,
respectively, at one
BBI truckwash and 87 mg/IL
and
130 mg/L, respeotivel~ç’at
the othëi~
BBI’truck wash.
Wastewater pretreatment at the BBI truck wash facilities is accomplished by
providing retention ma three~stage
settling pit located
lii~ide
each’truek wash ~ay.
The
settling pit is designed to remove heavy solids by
gravity
settling.
In addition,
free-
floating oil
and grease
is captured withinthe pit.
Soluble parameters such as fluoride are
•
not removed in the settling pit
and are,
therefore,
discharged to the
City’s municipal sewer
system.
•
6
b.
Truckomat Truck Wash
•
Truckomat has been in operation in Effingham since the
1 970s
and
HF-based
brightener has been used since 1996.
Truckomat operations resemble BBI’s, with the
exception that Truckomat operates only one double-bay facility in the
City.
The chemicals
used, wastewater flows,
and fluoride concentrations at Truckomat’ s facility are otherwise
similar to BBI’s.
Fourteen wastewater effluent samples from Truckomat were collected
by the City ofEfflngham from June through August 2001
for fluoride analysis.
The
average
and
maximumfluoride concentrations for this sampling event at Truckomat were
39
mg/L
and
100
mg/IL, respectively.
c.
Fedders, Inc.
Fedders manufactures air conditioning equipment.
Fluoride is soürced from a
process, which prepares metal parts for painting.
Fedders discharges in the range of
38,000 gallons per’day ofwastewater.
The City completed a sampling program at the
Fedders facility during the period from June through August 2001.
Fourteen effluent
wastewater samples were collected from Fedders for fluoride analysis.
The average
and
maximum fluoride concentrations at Fedders were 9 mg/L and 20
mg/IL,
respectively.
Fedders plans to discontinue the process, which is the source of fluoride at the
plant, in
2002.
•
•
•
2.
Users ofAffected Water Segments
Waters from the POTW are discharged to an unnamed tributary of Salt Creek.
The potentially affected waters include the unnamed tributary,
Salt Creek itself~,
and
the
Little WabashRiver,
into which Salt Creek flows.
The City ofFlora, Illinois,
receives its
7
water from the Little Wabash River
th±ough
a
w&ter supply intake, which is
located
approximately 37
miles ‘downstream from Efflngham
on the Little Wabash River.
There
are no other public or private entities laiown to Petitioners, which use the ~ubjectstream
segment for a water supply.
•
‘
‘C.’
Nature of the Receiving Body of Water
Aspreviously explained, the City’s POTW discharges to an
unnamed
tributary
of
•Salt Creek.
The 7Q10 for this uhnamed
tributary is zero.
This means that,’from a
statistical perspective, there can be periods where the stream flow in Salt Cfeek is
comprised entirely ofthe discharge flow from the
City.
Furthermore, ‘this
meansthat the
POTW discharge does not undergo any mixing with the receiving water.
Therefore, the
Agency set the General Use Water Quality Standard of 1 A mg/IL for fluoride as the
NPDES permit limit for the City’s discharge.
Historical
effluônt fluoride data, as well as
general facility informaiion for the City’s POTW,
are summarized in Attachment A.
As
these data show, there have been only two occasions in the last three
years
where the
city’s effluent has achieved the
1.4
mg/IL
standard for fluoride.
Indeed, the effluent
fluoride conçentrátion in the City’s wastewater discharge ratiged from
1.4 mg/L to
4.8 mgJL from’January 1999 through December 2001.
The average discharge fluoride
concentration during that time
period was 2.73
mg/L for 45
sampling events.
Nevertheless, the fluoride levels
in the City’s
discharge
are not having an adverse impact
on the fluoride levels dow’ stream, as
explained’fiirther below.
8
1.
Historical Flow and FluorideData for Receiving Streams
The first location downstream ofthe City’s discharge where fluoride data are
available is at sampling
Station C- 19,
which, is located on the Little Wabash River at
Louisville, Illinois.
This sampling station is located approximately 34 miles downstream
from the City’s discharge.
Fluoride concentration data and stream flow data at this
sampling station are found in Table B-i.
These data were generated from the STORET
database.
The average and maximum fluoride concentrations over the sampling period in
Table B-i
(July 1970 through September
1992) were 0.30
mg/IL and
0.90 mg/IL,
respectively.
The City ofFlora’s water supply intake is located approximately threemiles
downstream from the City ofLouisville on the Little WabashRiver.
Fluoride data are
available from the City ofFlora’s water supply intake.
These data from the City ofFlora
are summarized in Table B-2.’
The data presented in Table B-2 indicate that the average
and maximum fluoride concentrations at the Flora intake were 0.26
mg/IL and 0.77
mg/L,
respectively, for the period from June 1994 through September 2001.
A map has also been included with Attachment B, which shows the 7QlO stream
flows for the Little Wabash Region.
These data were recently updated (March 2002) by
the Illinois State Water
Survey.
1
The fluoride concentration
data in Table
B-2
were calculated using the
“MOnthly
Operation and’
Chemical Feeding Reports” for the City ofFlora.
The following daily operational datawere provided
in those reports:
finished water fluoride concentration; mass of
sodium fluoride added tothe
water
and
volume offinished water produced.
9
•
•
2.
Dischargersto~ectedWaterSegments
•
Several municipalities
and businesses discharge ~astewater
to
Salt Creek and the
Little Wabash River stream segmentsthat are the subject ofthis petition.
The Village of
Edgewood
and
Village ofLouisville both discharge
to
the Little Wabash RivOr.
The
Town ofMason discharges to
Second Creek, a tributary ofthe Little Wabash River.
The
Village of Teutopolis discharges to
Salt Creek at a location upstream ofthe Effingham
outfall.
Harper Oil Company discharges to an unnamed tributary of Salt Creek.
The
Village ofWatson discharges to Little Salt Creek.
The following table shows,
in million
gallons per day
(“MGD”), the design average flow (“DAF”)
and
design maximum flow
(“DMF”) foreach of the above-listed discharges.
Discharger
DAF (MGD)
DMF (MGD)
Village ofEdgewood
0.0615
0.123
Harper Oil Company
NA
NA
Village ofLouisville
0.15
0.375
TownofMason
0.052
0.131
Village of Teutopolis*
0.372
1.5
Village ofWatson
0.035
0.070
*
-
discharges upstream ofthe Effingham outfall.
With the exception ofthe Harper Oil Company discharge,
all ofthe dischargers to
Salt Creek and the Little WabashRiver stream segments, that are the subject ofthis
petition, are municipalities.
While there are
no fluoride data available for these
dischargers, based on
a review ofthe regulated parameters, it
can
be concluded that the
10
dischargers are primarily treating and discharging conventional pollutants (i.e., Biological
Oxygen Demand
(“BOD”)
and Total
Suspended Solids
(“TSS”)).
Accordingly, there do
not
appearto be any sources offluoride in the subject streams, other than the City, BBI,
Truckomat and,
presently, Fedders.
3.
Fluoride Impacts from City Discharge
The 7Q10 flow data show that the City’s POTW discharge contributes a
significant amount ofthe flow to Salt
Creek during low flow.periods.
However,
downstream fluoride data generated at sampling station C-19 documented that the fluoride
contributed by the City’s POTW discharge has little impact on the downstream fluoride
concentrations.
For example, as discussed earlier, the average and maximum fluoride
concentrations in the Little Wabash River at Louisville (monitoring Station C- 19) were
0.3
mg/IL and 0.9
mg/IL,
respectively.
During the years
1999 and 2001, the effluent
discharged from the City’s POTW
exhibited a fluoride concentration ranging between 1.5
mg/L
to 4.8
mgIL.
Nevertheless,
0.51
mg/L was the highest concentration of fluoride detected downstream on the Little
Wabash River in the
City ofFlora’s raw water supply intake
during those same years.2
Thus,
the historic levels of fluoride discharged in the effluent from the
City’s POTW have
clearly not affected downstream use ofthe water by the City ofFlora.
As explained more fully herein, the JEPA requested that the Petitioners more fully
evaluate the impact ofevaporation on the expected fluoride levels in the affected stream
2
Louisville did not use the
Little
Wabash River as a water supply between
1999
and
2001.
The
Louisville water supply datafrom prior years also did not
allow calculation
ofthe fluoride
concentration.
11
segments during low flow periods.
On behalf ofthe PetitiOners,
and at the request ofthe
EPA,
Shepard Engineering, Incorporated conducted waterbalance and fluoride balance
calculations on the stream segments in question.
These calculations, which are set forth in
Attachment F, demonstrate that using the standards proposed herein, the City ofFlora’s
water supply will not
exceed 2.0 mg/L fluoride, even under 7Q10 low flow conditions and
taking evaporation into consideration.
D.
Available Treatment
or Control Options
1.
Background
The Board’s opinion setting forth the fluoride water quality
standard of 1.4 mg/IL
was
published on March 7,
1972,
and
provided the following rationale for the standard:
Fluoride.
Fluoride
can
delay
the
batching
of
fish
eggs
and
has
been
reported by McKee
and
Wolf to kill
trout at concentrations ranging
from
2.3
to 7.2
mg/IL.
They recommend
a standard of
1.5
mg/IL.
The figure of
1.4,
here
repeated
from
the
May
12
draft,
is
in
line
with
that
recommendation and should also assure a potable supply.
In the Matter ofWater Quality Standards Revisions,
Nos. 70-8, 71-14, 71-20, 1972 WL
8156 at
*5
(III. PCB March 7,
1972).
In its
earlier, January 6,
1972,
opinion, the Board provides additional information
regarding the treatment offluoride, stating as follows:
Our
initial
proposal
for
a fluoride
effluent~standard ~as
1.0
ingfL~.
This
was
somewhat tighter than the water
quality
standards we later
proposed
(1.4) for both aquatic
life and public water supply;
and
it posed problems
for municipal
treatment
plants
whose influent
has been deliberately dosed
with
as
much
as
1.0
mg/L
of
fluoride
for
dental
puijoses.
Patterson
reported that
1.0
mg/IL was
achievable only
through
relatively
exotic
and
costly
methods,
such
as
ion
exchange,
and
that
10.0
mg/IL
was a
more
appropriate standard to be achieved by ordinary precipitation.
Weston and
12
Dodge both. said,
however,
that
1.0
mg/L was
readily
achievable,
Weston
specif~jing
the use ofalum at costs less
than those for achieving most ofthe
metals
concentrations here proposed.
The most
specific information in the
record
came
from
Olin,
which
reports
that
its
fertilizer
works
at
Joliet
consistently
reduces fluoride concentrations by standard treatment from
an
influent
of
15
mgIL
to
an
effluent
of
2.5,
but
that
other
ions
present
reduction as low as
1.0.
In the Matter ofWater Quality
Standards Revisions,
Nos.
70-8, 71-14,
71-20, 1972 WL
8149 at
*12
(Ill.
PCB
January 6,
1972).
2.
FluOride Removal Technologies
Fluoride is a component ofbrighteners used in truck wash operations.
Specifically, the active ingredient in truck wash brighteners is HF.
The HF chemically
removes the aluminum oxide coating, which forms on the exposed aluminum surfaceof
over-the-road trucks.
In addition, HF removes film from a truck’s paint by the simple
process of spraying on and washing off.
This allows trucks to be cleaned without the use
of a brush, which virtually
eliminates the possibility of scratching a vehicle and decreases
the waiting time for drivers.
Despite significant efforts by the truck wash industry, no
alternative, which produces
the wash quality ofthe HF-based brightener,
has been
discovered.
The fluoride anion is present in the truck wash wastewater effluent by virtue of its
presence in the
chemical that is used to brighten aluminum
—
logically referenced as
“brightener.”
The brightener chemical constitutes a significant portion ofthe truck wash
operational cost.
Therefore,
the truck wash facilities are driven by operational costs to
use no more brightener than necessary to achieve the desired finished product.
All truck
wash operators are
given extensive training with respect to
chemical application
13
procedures and rates.
Also, management personnel track chemical use on a weekly basis.
Specifically,
chemical use is compared to total revenue (which is directly related to truck
volume).
Therefore, if excessive use ofbrightener were occurring, it would be quickly
identified and corrected.
Obviously,
elimination ofthe HF-based brightener would allow the truck wash
wastewater to
meet a 2.54
mg/IL discharge limit.
However,
as stated earlier, there are no
effective alternative replacements for HF.
Moreover, economic incentives already preyent
excess use of the brightener chemical.
A literature review summary and the results from bench test treatabiity
studies are
included as Attachment C.
As discussed more fully in Attachment C, fluoride removal
from
industrial wastewater has typically focused on precipitation
as calcium fluoride using
calcium-based chemicals (i.e.,
calcium hydroxide or calcium chloride) or removal by
sorption onto aluminum chemicals.
The latter treatment methods have included sorption
onto
aluminum-based chemicals that are added to the wastewater solution (typically alum)
or sorption onto a fixed bed such as alumina.
Since fluoride in wastewater is a soluble ion,
other potential removal processes
include ion exchange or reverse osmosis (“RO”).
However, ion exchange
and RO require
that the wastewater be pretreated to a level where essentially all oil, grease and suspended
solids are removed prior to the process.
It has been reported that the chemical processes
most widely used for fluoride removal are alum coagulation and lime treatment, with an
insoluble fluoride complex that may be removed from the water as sludge.
(~
Treatment
and Disposal
ofRegeneration Wastewater From Activated Alumina Columns
14
For Fluoride Removal From Groundwater At Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS, Environmental Lab, January,
1980.)
The literature also indicates, however,
that achievable fluoride removal levels are
highly dependent
on the type ofwastewater stream being treated.
~...
Therefore,
BBI and
its
consultants, Shepard Engineering, Incorporated,
completed bench tests using untreated
truck wash wastewater samples.
The results of these tests are found in Attachment C and
are discussed below, along with the costs for this technology.
E.
Technical Feasibility and Economic Reasonableness ofReducing
Fluoride
During the bench tests,
27 jar tests were completed using varying dosages and
combinations ofcalcium hydroxide,
calcium chloride, and alum.
These jar tests revealed
that the lowest practicable fluoride removal level for the truck wash facilities was in the
range of10 mg/L.
Thus,
the lowest practicable fluoride removal level fo~
the truck
washes is significantly greater than the discharge limit of 2.54
mg/IL proposed by the
City.
Accordingly, it is not technically feasible for BBI or Truckomat to achieve the fluoride
limit proposed by the City.
Though the bench tests did not
achieve fluoride reduction that would be required
to comply with the discharge limits at issue, cost
estimates were developed for wastewater
treatment systems for the three truck wash operations in the City; the results ofthe cost
analysis are as follows.
Treatment system components would include an equalization tank,
a rapid-mix tank, a slow-mix tank, a flash mixer, a flocculation (slow) mixer, an inclined
plate clarifier and sludge thickener,
a filter press, a wastewater transfer pump, chemical
15
•
feed pumps,
a~id
chemical storage s~sterns~
The estimated total capital
~Ost
forthis
equipment (i.e~,for separate systenls at each ofthe three locations) is $1.5 million, based
on a design wasteWäter flow rate of30,000 gallons per d~y
at e~ch
location.
Moreover, it
•
is estimated that the chemicals, operating labor, sludg~di~po~âl;
thaimé~iance
and
depreciation associated with such a ~astewat~r treatment system wOuld cost
$600,000
annually.
Ifan attempt were made to reboup this annual operating cost by increasing
prices, the price ofa washwould increase
approximately
13
percent, i.e.,
an additional
•
$~
.00
everytime atruck:i~.
washed.
~uchd~astic incteãses
i14 cripple the truck wash
operations in the City,
particularly since there are a number oftruck wash competitors
within driving range ofthe trucks utilizing these services.
Thus,
even if it was technically
feasible using the available technology to
achievethe fluoride standard currently imposed,
which it is not, the costs of such technology would be prohibitively expensive.
In turn, it will not be possible forthe City to comply with the water quality
standard for fluoride.
Pretreatment by the City is also not technically practicable,
due to
the same limitations as were found with treatment at the truck washes.
Despite the
addition ofwastewater from other sources, at the City’s WWTP,
the lowest practicable
fluoride removal level that could be achieved by the
City still greatly exceeds the current
fluoride effluent level.
Prior to its formal submittal, Petitioners provided a draft ofthis Petition to the
EPA,
and participated in a telephone conference with the EPA
regarding that draft.
The
EPA
requested additional information regarding the possibility ofcombining the fluoride
with calcium to form calcium fluoride.
As set forth in Attachment D, Review ofFluoride
16
ToxicityData, the literature indicates that fluoride combines easily with calcium in high-
hardness water to form the relatively insoluble compound calcium fluoride.
Nevertheless,
the initial fluoride concentrations discussed in Attachment D were in the range of181
mg/IL as F (400 mg/IL as sodium fluoride).
Based
on literature solubility values for
calcium fluoride, as well as empirical data (e.g., BBI laboratory bench tests),
it is certainly
expected that some calcium fluoride would precipitate with an initial fluoride
concentration of 180
mg/IL.
However, the literature
referenced in Attachment D did not
indicate a final fluoride concentration.
Most certainly there would be a residual fluoride
concentration in solution
—
probably in the range of20 to 30
mg/IL.
Therefore, the
information set forth in Attachment D does not conflict with the conclusion set
forth in
this petition; that removal offluoride to levels below
10 to 20
mg/L is neither technically
nor economically feasible.
At the EPA’
s request, the Petitioners also reviewed the potential for discharging
only partially treated wastewater to the
City’s POTW, thereby reducing the capital cost of
a fluoride-removal treatment system.
Specifically, the EPA
requested that the Petitioners
evaluate the possibility of discharging wastewater directly to the City’s WWTP
following
the addition ofthe
calcium-based precipitation chemicals only, eliminating the need for an
inclined plate clarifier, sludge thickener,
and filter press and thereby reducing the system
capital cost.
Nevertheless, upon review, it was determined that it would not be possible to
only partially treat the wastewater at the respective truck washes.
This determination was
•
based on the fact that
all ofthe fluoride discharged to the City’s WWTP as insoluble
calcium fluoride would re-dissolve once it was mixed with all ofthe other wastewater in
17
the
WSATTP.
Thus,
as explainedin Attachment E hereto, solids removal and de-watering
would be required as part ofthe pretreatment system at each location.
Presently, BBI is conducting extensive research in the area ofwastewater recycle
and re-use.
Unfortunately, recycle systems do not reduce the total mass
loading ofsoluble
parameters such as fluoride.
That is, ifthe truck washes were able to recycle 50 percent
oftheir wastewater effluent; the fluoride concentration in the discharge would double and
the total mass loading in the
effluent would remain the same.
To
summarize, there is no technically feasible or economically reasonable system
available to reduce fluoride to the desired
concentrations.
Indeed, as discussed earlier, the
systems would only reduce the effluent fluoride concentration tO the
10 mg/L range, a
level significantly higher than the level desired.
F.
Other Similar Persons’ or
Sites’
Ability
to Comply With the General
Rule
The City’s inability to meet the current water quality standard for fluoride is a
result of several factors.
As discussed below, the City is a prime location for over-the-
road truck traffic, which has resulted in the construction and operation ofthree successful
truck wash facilities.
These truck washes
all utilize the industry standard for brighteners,
which contain a significant concentration ofhydrofluoric acid.
Fluoride is an extremely
soluble ion, and,
as a result, its removal is extremely costly at the source.
Also, due to its
solubility, fluoride is not removed at the City wastewater treatment plant.
At many locations across the country, fluoride that is sourced from truck wash
operations is simply mixed with the wastewater generated by other industrial, commercial,
•
18
and residential users, as weiJ as, th
flow in the receiving stream.
However, Effingham is a
relatively small community (pc)pulation 12,022), which discharges to an
extremely low
flow stream
—
specifically, Little Salt Creek, which has a 7Q10 value of zero.
Therefore,
no mixing
is available with respect to the City’s POTW discharge and the receiving
stream.
Conversely, most municipalities
in Illinois and across the country do not have
significant sources offluoride from their industrial dischargers,
and/or have significant
volumes ofwastewater from non-fluoride sources, and/ordischarge to a receiving stream
with significant flows.
Chemical costs (i.e., for brightener) are a significant portion ofthe operating
cost
for a truckwash.
Consequently, both BBI and Truckomat carefully monitor and
control
the amount ofbrightener used in the truck washing process.
In other words, the minimum
amount ofbrightener is used at all times, which results in the minimum
amount of fluoride
being released to the City sewer.
Other Illinois disehargers have found it technically infeasible and economically
unreasonable to comply with the general water quality standard for fluoride.
In cases
where technical infeasibility and economical unreasonableness’ ofcompliance was
demonstrated by such disohargers, the Board has adopted site-specific rules or adjusted
standards raising the fluoride standard.
For
example, the Modine Manufacturing
Company and General Motors Corporation have been granted site-specific water quality
standards for fluoride of~5;6
mg/IL and
10 mg/L,
respectively.
~,
In the Matter of
Modine Manufacturing Company Facility. Rin~wood,
Illinois, R87-36,
1990 WL 323076
(Ill. PCB, March 22,
1990); In the Matter ofGeneralMotors Corporation, R93-13,.
1995
19
‘WL 26039 (Ill. PCB, January 11,
1995).
These cases have discussed the same dilemma
faced by Petitioners in evaluating treatment for fluoride:
Treatment ofthe wastewater using absorption on bone char,
ion exchange
with activated alumina orprecipitation with high magnesium lime was also
considered to reduce the fluoride level.
Citation
to transcript.
However,
none ofthese technologies could guarantee consistent compliance
and the
cost ofeach technology is extremelyhigh....
In the Matter ofGeneral Motors Corporation, R93-13,
1995 WL 26039
at *3
(Ill.
PCB,
January 11,
1995).
$~,
~
In the Matter ofGranite City Steel Division ofNational
Steel, AS9O-4,
1993
WL
130486 at
*2
(Ill. PCB, April
8,
1993) (discussing the high costs
to treat fluoride in wastewater using activated alumina absorption, as well as low flow
conditions in the receiving stream).
G.
Economic Impact ofthe Proposed Rule
As previously discussed, the
City’s POTW discharges to an unnamed tributary of
Salt Creek, which has a 7Q10 low water flow of zero.
The general water quality standard
for fluoride in Salt Creek is
1.4 mgIL,
and since the City’s POTW discharge receives no
dilution from mixing, the Agency established anNPDES permit limit for fluoride from the
City’s
discharge of 1.4
mg/IL,
as well.
Thus, the City developed a preliminary industrial wastewater discharge limit of
2.54
mg/IL, in
order to begin the process ofmeeting the
1.4
mg/IL NPDES permit limit for
fluoride.
Nevertheless, as explained above, and documented in the bench study summary
ofresults (Attachment C), it is not technically feasible and/or economically reasonable for
the industries that are the sources ofthe fluoride to meet the 2.54
mg/IL limit proposed by
the City by employing
standard wastewater treatment technologies.
The source industries
20
can continue the current amount of fluoride discharge if the
City’s fluoride discharge limit
is raised to 4.5
mg/IL.
Ifthe City’s fluoride discharge limit is not raised to
4.5
mg/L, the
truck washes will be forced to either shut down operations or discontinue use ofthe
brightener.
•
The negative economic impact that would occur, if the truck washes in the City
were forced to
abandon the HF brightener and use an inferior product, would be
severe.
Specifically,
BBI projects that the loss ofHF brightener would result in annual revenue
loss of $300,000 per double bay location,
This
correlates to
a total economic loss of
$900,000 in the City, based on the decrease oftruck wash revenue alone.
These economic
losses would be compounded by the lost
revenue for other associated businesses (e.g.,
restaurants, truck stops, motels,
etc.), as well as loss of employment.
It is also projected
that the
loss ofHF brightener would result in the loss ofseven to eight
employees per
truck wash location
—
a total of 21 to 24 lost jobs in the City.
The City is a transportation hub located at the intersection of Interstate
57,
connecting Chicago to New Orleans,
and Interstate 70,
stretching from the nation’s capital
to Los Angeles.
The
City has access to three interstate exchanges, as well as U.S.
Highway 40, U.S.
Highway 45, IL Highway 32, IL Highway 33,
and IL Highway 37.
The
Cityhas
18 motels and/or hotels to offer those traveling the nation’s highways, and more
than 60 restaurants.
According to the
1997 Special Census, the City has a population of 12,022 and
180,873
persons reside within a 35-mile radius of the City.
Industries in the City include
Fedders; Quebecor World; Quebecor/PettyPrinting;
Sherwin-Williams Company; McLeod
21
U.S.A.
Publishing; Mid America Direct; Efflngham Equity; Peerless ofAmerica;
TSI
Graphics, Inc.;
Kingery Printing Company;
Southeastern Container, Inc.; Efflngham-Clay
Service Company;
John Boos and
Company; Eagle Soft, APatterson Company; Nukabe,
Inc., U.S.A.; Effingham Daily News; Mid-Illinois Concrete, Inc.; J&J Ventures; Midco
International;
and Pepsi Cola Bottling Company.
Given the industrial and transportation
presence in the Effingham area, truckwashes are an important industry in,
and source of
income for, the
City.
Indeed, the Average Daily Traffic Report for 2001
indicates that 47 percent ofthe
approximately 33,100 vehicles travelling on Interstate
57
and Interstate 70 are semi-
trucks.
The drivers ofthese
15,557 trucks make a substantial contributionto the
Effingham community each day.
It is estimated that, on
a daily basis,
an average of 1,000
truck drivers purchase fuel in the City.
The drivers ofthese trucks spend an average of
$71.00 per person in the
City,
i.e., $71,000
contributed to the local economy on a daily
basis.
Statistical research has shown that truck drivers generally stop for a truck wash,
fuel,
and food at the same time.
An average of26 percent ofthe 1,000
truck drivers
stopping daily for fuel in the City will also obtain a truck wash, at an average cost of
$37.50.
This
does not even take into
consideration the dollars spent by these truck drivers
at local restaurants or hotels.
Ifthese truck drivers travel through or around the ‘City to
obtain a truck wash elsewhere, these restaurants and hotels will be impacted, as well as the
truck washes and filling stations.
22
H.
Detailed Assessment ofthe Environmental Impact of the Proposed
Chan2e
The site-specific fluoride effluent standard will be protective ofthe waters of the
State located downstream.
Waters from the POTW are discharged to an unnamed
tributary ofSalt Creek.
The potentially affected waters flow from this discharge point to
the confluence ofthe unnamed tributary with
Salt Creek, from there downstream to the
juncture of Salt Creek with the Little Wabash River, and from there downstream to a point
approximately 9.8 river miles downstream from the City ofLouisville, Illinois,
on the
Little Wabash River atthe
confluence ofBuck Creek and the Little Wabash River.
Petitioners
studied and calculated fluoride levels at these locations.
Ifthe
proposed site-specific
effluent standard is adopted, fluoride levels as a result ofthe
discharge from the POTW to the above-listed potentially affected waters would be as
follows.
From the point ofdischarge ofthe City’s POTW to the
confluence of Salt Creek
with the Little Wabash River, the‘fluoride levels would be less
than or equal to 5.0
mg/IL.
From the confluence ofSalt Creekwith the Little Wabash River to
a point on the Little
Wabash River located 2.8 miles downstream ofLouisville,
Illinois, the fluoride levels
would be less than or equal to
3.2 mg/IL.
From a point on the Little Wabash River located
2.8
miles downstream ofLouisville,
Illinois to the confluence ofBuck Creek and the Little
Wabash River, a point on the Little Wabash River located approximately 9.8 miles
downstream ofLouisville,
Illinois, the fluoride levels would be less than or equal to 2.0
mgit.
Furthermore, Petitioners are working with the EPA
on permit
conditions that will
23
require monitoring offlow conditions downstream, including the impacts, if any, ofthe
discharge on downstream water supplies.
At Petitioners’
request,
Commonwealth Biomonitoring,
Inc.
(“CBr’), Indianapolis,
Indiana, conducted a detailed scientific assessment ofthe effects of fluoride on the water
downstreamfrom the City’s WWTP.
A detailed report ofthat assessment is included as
Attachment D.
To determine a site-specific effluent limit for fluoride that would be
protective of aquatic life downstream from Effingham,
Illinois, fluoride toxicity data, as
well as water quality and bioassessment data from the receiving stream, were collected and
analyzed.
1.
Fluoride ToxicityData
First, the available data concerning the toxicity offluoride to aquatic life were
examined.
The lowest fluoride concentration at which a short-term (acute) toxic effect of
exposure to a freshwater animal species was observed
is
17 mg/L for the caddisfly
Cercitopsyche
bronta.
Attachment D at
5.
Based on the
available information, the lowest
concentration of fluoride determined in laboratory tests to have a long-term (chronic)
effect
on freshwater animals present in Illinois was
3
mg/IL.
Attachment D at 2.
Nevertheless, this determination ofchronic effect of fluoride exposure was made in a test
conducted on rainbow trout in very soft water.
Attachment D at 2.
2.
The Effect ofHardness on Fluoride Toxicity
The fact that the above-referenced test ofthe lowest concentration of fluoride with
a long-term effect
occurred in very soft water is significant, because the scientific literature
demonstrates that there is
a relationship between the hardness values for water and the
24
concentration at which fluoride is toxic to
aquatic life.
Attachment D at
5.
Indeed,
additional tests have
demonstrated that concentrations offluoride significantly higher than
3
mg/IL are not toxic to
aquatic life in thecharacteristically much harder water of Central
Illinois.
Attachment D at 2.
Multiple species have been used in aquatic toxicity tests involving varying hardness
values oftest water.
Attachment D at 6.
For each species tested, the test results
demonstrate that,
as water hardness values increase,
fluoride toxicity levels decrease.
Attachment D at 6.
In other words, the harder the water, the higher the concentration
of
fluoride that
can be maintained without causing any harmto
aquatic life.
Here, too, because ofthe hardness ofthe water for which site-specific relief is
sought, higher concentrations offluoride are acceptable and will not be detrimental to
aquatic life.
Indeed, the water in the Little Wabash River downstream from Efflngham,
Illinois, is very hard, with hardness values ofmore than 300
mg/IL during low flow
conditions.
Attachment D at
10.
Using a method developed by the United States
•
Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”), the effects ofhardness on fluoride toxicity
were evaluated.
Those data demonstrate that fluoride in the water downstreamfrom
Efiingham would not be
detrimental to aquatic life at concentrations at or below 10
mg/IL.
Attachment D at 2.
Further support for this finding
exists in field studies published
in the scientific
literature.
Indeed, each study published in the scientific literature, including one
conducted in Illinois, demonstrates that sensitive aquatic species can exist in waters where
25
fluoride concentrations exceed 5-10 mg/IL.
Attachment D at 2.
Moreover, bio assessments
show no harm to aquatic life from fluoride downstream from the City.
3.
Bioassessments ofthe Site Show No Harm to Aquatic Life from
Fluoride
Recent studies conducted at Effingham,
Illinois, illustrate that fluoride from the
City’s WWTP
discharge is not, in fact, causing any environmental harm.
Attachment D at
2.
The first study,
a 1999 bioassessment by the EPA,
showed that net-spinning
caddisflies
are the dominant group ofanimals in the receiving stream one mile below the
City’s
WWTP.
Attachment D at 2.
Net-spinning caddisflies are known to be very
sensitive to fluoride, yet they flourish in the receiving stream downstream from the City’s
WWTP.
Their presence is further evidence that the concentration offluoride from the
City’s WWTP
discharge is not causing any environmental harmto
aquatic life in the
receiving water.
Similarly, toxicity tests conducted by an independent laboratory in
1998
showed that effluent from the City’s WWTP had no adverse effects on
Ceriodaphnia
dubia
and fathead minnows in the receiving stream.
Attachment D at 2.
Thus, the
available bioassessments demonstrate that fluoride from the
City’s WWTP discharge is not
causing any environmental harm.
At the IEPA’s request,
an additional bioassessment was completed on June 20,
2002, by CBI in order to obtain additional information with respect to the environmental
impact on the subject receiving stream.
The benthic samples obtained during the June 20,
2002,
assessment were
compared to the sample results
from 1999.
The study methods
and results ofthis
assessment and comparison are summarized in Attachment F.
Based
26
upon this
additional assessment,
and its comparison with the
1999 data, CBI concluded
that there is no evidence that the fluoride in the
City WWTP effluent is harming the
aquatic community immediately
downstream from the discharge.
Attachment F at
3.
Indeed, more taxa are
present in 2002 than were observed in
1999,
and net-spinning
caddisflies are relatively abundant in an area immediately downstream from the City’s
WWTP discharge.
Attachment F at 3.
Bioassessments from the EPA
and CBI demonstrate that fluoride from the
City’s
WWTP discharge is not causing any harm to aquatic life.
In addition,
studies published in
the scientific literature demonstrate that sensitive aquatic species can exist in waters with
higher fluoride concentrations than those proposed by Petitioners for the site-specific
water quality
and effluent standards.
Finally, because of the hardness of the water for
which site-specific relief is sought, such higher concentrations offluoride are acceptable
and will not be
detrimental to the environment.
The site-specific relief can therefore be
granted without any harm to either aquatic life or the environment.
IlL
SYNOPSIS
OF
TESTIMONY
Petitioners will call several individuals to testify in support
ofthe facts set forth in
this Petition and
requested relief
including the following:
A.
Mr. Max Shepard
Mr. Max Shepard, P.E., of Shepard Engineering, Incorporated, willtestify
regarding, among other things, the derivation ofthe proposed site-specific effluent
standard; the condition ofthe receiving streams; the historical flow and fluoride data for
the receiving
streams; the entities presently discharging to the affected water segments, as
27
well as the entities using water downstream; fluoride impacts from the City’s discharge;
the available treatment or control options; fluoride removal technologies;
and the technical
feasibility of reducing fluoride levels from the truck washes.
B.
Mr.
Greg Bright
Mr.
Greg Bright, of CBI, will also testify regarding the conditions of the receiving
tributary to Salt Creek,
Salt Creek,
and the Little Wabash River.
In addition, Mr. Bright
will testify regarding the effects offluoride on the water downstream from the City’s
WWTP.
Mr. Bright’s testimony will include
a description ofthe
available data concerning
the toxicity offluoride to aquatic life;
the effect ofwater hardness on fluoride toxicity; and
bioassessments ofthe receiving
stream., Mr. Bright will testify that the site-specific
effluent standard for fluoride proposed by Petitioners can be
granted without any harm to
either aquatic life or the environment.
C.
Mr. Mike Rose
Mr. Mike Rose, Environmental Research and Development Director for BBI, will
testify regarding BBI’s
operation, including the use offluoride by BBI’s and Truckomat’s
truck wash facilities; the ability of other persons to
comply with the general water quality
standard for fluoride; the beneficial economic impact ofBBI’s and Truckomat’s
operations to the City and surrounding area; the economic impact ofthe proposed rule;
and the economic reasonableness ofreducing fluoride levels from the truckwashes.
D.
Mr.
Steve Miller
Mr.
Steve Miller, P.E.,
Engineer for the City, will testify regarding the City in
general,
and more specifically, the City’s WWTP; the NPDES permit issued to the City
28
and the limits therein; the sources of fluoride at the City’s
WWTP; the efforts taken by the
City to
comply with the general water quality fluoride standard; and the economic impact
of the proposed rule.
IV.
MOTION FOR WAIVER OF SIGNATURE
REQUIREMENT
In a separate Motion filed simultaneous with this Petition, Petitioners respectfully
request that the Board waive the requirement, set forth at 35
Ill. Admin,
Code
§
102.202(f), that a petition for rulemaking be signed by at least 200 persons.
V.
STATEMENT OF RECENCY
The rules proposed in this Petition do not amend any existing
Board rules but,
instead, re~ts
that the Board amend its effluent standards set forth in Part 304, by
establisl1~g
the new site-specific rule proposed.
The new site-specific regulation
proposedto be added to Part 304 would amend the most recent version ofPart 304
published on theBoard’s Web site, which was last amended in R98-14 at 22 III. Reg.
687,
effective December 31,
1998.
VI.
ATTACHMENTS
The following attachments’ are included by Petitioners in support of the site-
specific effluent standard proposed, and are hereby made a part ofthis Petition:
A.
‘
City ofEffingham Sewage Treatment Plant Data Summary
(“Attachment A”);
B.
Receiving Stream Flow And Fluoride Concentration Data
(“Attachment B”);
•
C.
Bench-Scale Treatability Study Report (“Attachment C”);
29
D.
Review ofFluoride Toxicity Data and Development ofFluoride
Aquatic Toxicity Criteria for the Efflngham, Illinois Waste Water
Treatment Plant (“Attachment D”);
E.
Letter from Shepard Engineering, Inc.
to EPA,,
dated July 3, 2002
(“Attachment F’); and
F.
Rapid Bioassessment of a Tributary of Salt Creek, Efflngham
Illinois (“Attachment F”).
VII.
CONSISTENCY WITH FEDERAL
LAW
The Board has previously recognized that it has the authority and broad discretion,
consistent with federal
law, to adopt water quality and effluent standards that do not
adversely affect
the designated uses of a water body.
Generally,
states
must
adopt
water
quality
standards
which
protect
the
designated
use
of interstate and
intrastate waters.
33
U. S. C.
§
1313(c)
(1998).
The Board has adopted the water quality standards at
35 Ill.
Adm.
Code
§
3 02.203
in
compliance
with
federal
law.
States
may
also
revise
water quality
standards.
40
C.F.R.
§
131.4 (1998).
The
Board
has
stated
previously
that
federal
directives
give
it
“broad
discretion
in
determining the
appropriate
standard of control to
apply to
discharges from water treatment
plants”.
In re
Site
Specific Exception to
Effluent
Standards
for
the
Illinois
American
Water
Company,
East
St.
•
Louis Treatment Plant (February 2,
1989), R85-11, slip op.
at
10.
In
the
Matter
of Petition
of
Illinois
American
Water
Company’s
Alton
Public
Water
Supply Replacement Facility,
AS
99-66, 2000 WL
141967 at
*25
(Ill. PCB
September 7, 2000.
Thus, the Board has the authority, pursuant to the broad
discretion provided it
pursuant to federal directives, to determine that the site-specific effluent
standard
•
requested by Petitioners is the appropriate standard ofcontrol to be applied, and will be
protective ofthe portions ofthe water bodies identified above.
30
Vifi.
CONCLUSION
•
Petitioners respectfully request that the Board grant the site-specific relief
requestedherein.
As demonstrated
above, treatment to a general fluoride water quality
standard and effluent
standard of 1.4
mg/IL is neither technically feasible nor economically
reasonable for this site.
Moreover, the elimination offluoride-based chemicals from BBI’s
and Truckomat’ s, facilities would
have a severe negative economic impact on theses
industries, as well as the City, and potentially the State.
Finally,
a site-specific effluent
standard of4.5 mg/L fluoride will not harm the aquatic life in the receiving stream to
which the City discharges.
Further,
the relief requested by Petitioners is consistent with the Board’s recent
decision in Rhodia.
Inc..
et al., which determined that relief from Part 304 ofthe Board’s
regulations
was more appropriate thanrelief from Part 302.
~,
In the Matter ofRhodia,
Inc.,
et al., AS
0 1-9,
slip op. at
10
(ill. PCB, January
10,
2002),
The reliefrequested in
this Petition would not do away with the Part 302 water quality standard for fluoride in
the receiving stream, but would rather obviate the need for the City’s. effluent to comply
with the
specific fluoridelimitations ofthat water quality standard.
In the alternative,
however, ifit is determined that a specific water quality standardmust be designated,
Petitioners request that the Board utilize a standard of5.0 mg/L fluoride, which as this
Petition demonstrates,
is the highest fluoride level that may potentially occur in the
receiving streamif an effluent limit for the City’s discharge of
4.5
mg/IL
is utilized.
WHEREFORE, for the
above and foregoing reasons, the Petitioners, CITY OF
EFFINGHAM, BLUE BEACON INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
and TRUCKOMAT
31
CORPORATION,
respectfully request that the Illinois Pollution Control Board
promulgate the site-specific effluent standard for fluoride requested, and/or grant such
other relief as is appropriate and just;
RespectfUlly submitted:
CITY OF EFFINGHAM,
BLUE BEACON INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
and TRUCKOMAT CORPORATION,
•
Petitioners,
•
By:______________________
One oftheir Attorneys
Dated:
October
16, 2002
N. LaDonna Driver
David M. Walter
HOD GE
DWYER ZEMAN
3150 Roland Avenue
Post Office Box 5776
Springfield, Illinois
62705-5776
(217) 523-4900
BLUE:OO1/FiLPetition
—
Site Specific Reg
•
32
