ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September 1,
1994
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
PETITION OF GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
)
R93-13
TO AMEND 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 303.322
)
(Site-Specific
(Site-Specific Regulation for Fluoride)
)
Rulemaking)
ProPosed Rule.
First Notice.
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. Adm. Code 303.322).
On
November 11,
1993,
GM filed a stay in this matter.
The Board
granted this motion on November
18,
1993.
The stay was lifted on
February
3,
1994.
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 new regulation.
GM is seeking to modify 35
Iii. 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/i.
(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,
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 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
2
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 Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (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 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 approximately 4,250 feet to 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
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.
(Tr. 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.)
3
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.
(Tr.
at 71.)
Streams of this type
have a limited habitat for supporting diverse fish and berithic
invertebrate communities.
(Tr. at 71.)
Studies of the stream demonstrate 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.)
Studies show that there is no indication
that fluoride or other “toxic substances” in the wastewater
discharge contribute to the impaired condition of the stream.
(Tr.
at 75.)
In addition,
a recent review of the literature
showed that increasing the fluoride limits to 10 mg/i would have
no adverse impact on the fish or macroinvertebrates in the ditch.
(Pet.
at 8.)
Studies of the stream show that the aquatic community of the
receiving stream has improved since the studies done in the
1970s.
(Tr. 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.
(Tr. at 77.)
GM contends that the increase in fluoride 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.
(Tr. at 78.)
The receiving stream is too small to be
used as a source of potable water.
(Tr.
at 78.)
The Vermilion
river is not presently used for potable water nor is any such use
planned.
(Tr. at 78.)
Further, the proposed concentration would
not preclude the use of this as a source of potable water.
(Tr.
at 78.)
TECHNICAL 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.
(Tr. at 45.)
Due to the
distance and the topography of the area installation of the
drainage tile would be extremely expensive and difficult.
(Tr.
at
4
45.)
This option would not decrease the quantity of fluoride
discharged.
(Tr. at 46.)
Fluoride would be discharged directly
to the Vermilion River rather than the unnamed tributary.
(Tr. 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.
(Tr. at 46.)
Limestone
is currently obtained from a source six miles from the Danville
facility.
(Tr. at 46.)
It is difficult to determine the exact
amount of fluoride content in limestone since it
is not
distributed evenly throughout the material.
(Tr. at 47.)
Fluoride levels are not considered critical to most uses of
limestone and therefore is not usually monitored.
(Tr. at 47.)
GM is aware of one quarry in Michigan that routinely monitors the
fluoride levels in the limestone.
(Tr. at 47.)
Obtaining
limestone from this source would increase GM’S cost for limestone
by $541,440 per year.
(Tr. at 47.)
Another potential source for
low fluoride limestone is in Bloomington,
Indiana.
(Tr.
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.
(Tr. at 47.)
Treatment of the wastewater using absorption on bone char,
ion exchange with activated alumina and precipitation with high
magnesium lime were 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.
(Tr.
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.
(Tr.
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.
(Tr. at 52.)
SITE SPECIFICITY
Concerns have been voiced that the method of granting site
specific rules in water cases has,
in fact, granted relief from
water quality standards for the stream, and not for the
petitioner alone.
The Board has attempted of late to remedy this
by adding language that
is intended to grant relief to the
petitioner without granting relief to other potential discharges
in the same stream segment.
The Board does so here by naming
General Motors and limiting excess flouride sources to their
discharge alone.
5
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/i are
technically infeasible and economically unreasonable.
The
proposed standard of 10 mg/i will not have an adverse effect on
the environment.
ORDER
The Board hereby directs the Clerk of the Board to cause
publication of the following amendments in the Illinois RecUster
for first notice:
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
Scope and Applicability
303.101
Multiple Designations
303.102
Rulemaking Required
SUBPART B:
NONSPECIFIC WATER USE DESIGNATIONS
Section
303.200
Scope and Applicability
303.201
General Use Waters
303.202
Public and Food Processing Water Supplies
303.203
Underground Waters
303.204
Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Waters
SUBPART
C:
SPECIFIC USE DESIGNATIONS
AND
SITE SPECIFIC
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Section
303.300
Scope and Applicability
303.301
Organization
303.311
Ohio River Temperature
303.312
Waters Receiving Fluorspar Mine Drainage
303.321
Wabash River Temperature
303.322
Unnamed Tributary of the Vermilion River
303.323
Sugar Creek and Its Unnamed Tributary
303.331
Mississippi River North Temperature
6
303.341
Mississippi River North Central Temperature
303.351
Mississippi River South Central Temperature
303.352
Unnamed Tributary of Wood River Creek
303.353
Shoenberger Creek; Unnamed Tributary of Cahokia Canal
303.361
Mississippi River South Temperature
303.430
Unnamed Tributary to Dutch Creek
303.431
Long Point Slough and Its Unnamed Tributary
303.441
Secondary Contact Waters
303.442
Waters Not Designated for Public Water Supply
303.443
Lake Michigan
SUBPART D:
THERMAL DISCHARGES
Section
303.500
Scope and Applicability
303.502
Lake Sangchris Thermal Discharges
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
(Ill. RcV. Ctat.
1991,
ch.
111 1/2, paro.
1013 and 1027415 ILCS 5/13 and 27
(1992)).
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—l4(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
____
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 General Motors Corporation 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 i#s
juncture with the Indiana otate border a point 0.9 river
miles downstream of the luncture at the crossing of a
liorfolk and Western Railroad Bridge.
Fluoride levels in
7
such waters as caused bY the General Motors Corporation
discharge shall meet a water quality standard for fluoride
(Storet Number 00950)
of
~jQ
mg/l.
(Source:
Amended at
____
Ill. Reg.
________,
effective
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby certify that the above opinion and order was
adopted on the /~T
day of
~
,
1994,
by a vote of
~
.
~
~
Dorothy N. ~inn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board