ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February
22,
1990
IN THE MATTER OF:
PROPOSED SITE-SPECIFIC LIMITATION
FOR THE MODINE MANUFACTURING COMPANY
)
R87—36
FACILITY,
RINGWOOD,
ILLINOIS
)
(Site—Specific)
PROPOSED RULE.
SECOND NOTICE.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by R.
C.
Flemal):
This matter comes before the Board upon the October
15, 1987
Petition and May 24,
1989 Amended Petition of Modine
Manufacturing Company (~Modine”) for site—specific exemption from
certain effluent standards which currently apply
to Modine’s
Ringwood,
Illinois facility.
Modine further
requests
modification
of
the fluoride General Use water quality standard
as
this standard applies
to the waterway which receives Modine’s
effluent dischargers.
On October
18,
1989 the Board adopted
a proposed rule
in
this matter
for First Notice1
publication occurred at
13
Ill.
Reg. 17633 and 17661, November
17,
1989.
The Board
today adopts
the proposed rule for Second Notice, with modification
as noted
below.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The procedural history leading
to First Notice has been
detailed
in the Board’s First Notice Opinion
(p.
4—6),
and will
not be repeated here.
Five Public Comments have been received since First Notice
publication:
PC ~6 and #7
filed by the Illinois Department of
Commerce and Community Affairs,
PC
#8 filed by the Illinois
Office of the Secretary of State,
PC
#9
(with exhibits)
filed
by
Modine, and PC #10 filed
the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
(“Agency~’). Only the last
two comments address
the merits
of the proposal.
The Agency comment was not timely filed within the comment
period prescribed by the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act;
In the Matter of: Proposed Site—Specific Limitation for
the
Modine Manufacturing Company Facility, Ringwood Illinois,
R87—36,
October
15,
1989,
slip op.,
26
pp.
IOS—279
neither has the Agency moved to file the comment instanter.
The
Board will nevertheless consider the Agency’s comment in the
interest of seeking
full
resolution of this matter.
ISSUES
In its First Notice Opinion
the Board requested
that
interested persons address several issues.
These have been
responded
to generally
by both Modine and the Agency.
In
addition,
the Agency raises several other
issues.
At hearing Modine alleged
that
the Agency had underestimated
the depth of Modine’s existing lagoons, and hence
the size and
treatment capacity of
the lagoons
(R.
at
362).
The Board at
First Notice noted
that Modine had apparently elsewhere cited
depth figures not inconsistent with those
cited by the Agency,
and requested that Modine clarify
this possible discrepancy
(First Notice Opinion,
footnote
6
at
17).
Modine responds
that
the Agency’s underestimation
of depth relates
to the first
of
th.e
three
lagoons,
as attested to at hearing
(R.
at 324—6,
345);
the
second and third lagoons
have depths consistent with those
assumed by
the Agency
(PC #9
at
1—2).
It
is within the first
lagoon where
the principal removal
of TSS and DOD occurs.
The Board at
p.
20
of the First Notice Opinion noted:
The ability of the Board to grant
any relief
to
Modine
is
contingent upon assurance that Modine
operates and configures
its current wastewater
treatment
system in the most environmentally sound
manner.
*
*
*
One step which
is recommended
by
Modine’s consultants
*
*
*
is
replacement of the
submerged pipe outlet by
a spillway/cascade outlet.
The Board believes
that modification would
significantly enhance the DO of
the receiving stream,
thus mitigating the potential problem associated with
Modine’s BOO dicharges.
The Board thereupon requested that Modine provide assurance that
the spiliway/cascade modification
be undertaken.
Modine responds
that
in October 1989 Modine constructed
a concrete and riprap
elevated spillway outfall at the Ringwood Facility
(PC
#9 at
2).
Similarly,
Modine has indicated
that
it could comply with
the General Use standards
for un—ionized ammonia and ammonia
nitrogen after
installing
a pH adjustment
system.
Modine
now
reports that
it has filed with the Agency an application
for a
construction and operating permit for such system
(PC #9
at
7).
The Board at
p.
21 of the First Notice Opinion requested
that Modine provide additional support
for
its proposal
to define
I fl~—2S()
-1B-
“winter” as
the seven months including October through April.
The Agency also questions why the definition
of
“winter” in ~he
instant proposal differs from that found
in some other rulesZ
(PC
ttl0
at
1).
Modine responds
that northeastern Illinois, where
Modine’s facility
is located,
is
the coolest region of
the State,
and that
in the northeastern region the onset
of low mean
temperatures precedes that
in the southern portion
of the State
by several weeks
in the fall and the onset of warm mean
temperatures
in the northeast
lags
the south by more than a month
in the spring
(PC
#9,
exhibit
1).
On
this basis, Modine contends
that the requested definition
of
“winter”
is consistent
with
site—specific climatological data.
The Board accepts Modine’s position concerning
these
particulars
of climate.
The Board believes, however,
that
neither
of the
terms “winter” or “summer”
is an appropriate label
for
the times periods
in question.
Accordingly,
the seasonal
aspect
of
the rule
in question
is
today expressed simply by
citing
the months within which the various standards apply.
The Board proposal of
the modified fluoride standard at
35
Ill. Adm.
Code 303.430
was,
for purposes of First Notice,
based
largely on
the record developed
in R78—7
(In the Matter
of:
Proposed Amendments
to Rule 203.1 of the Water Pollution Control
Regulations,
final action taken March
4,
1982), and introduced
into the instant record
by Modine as Exhibit
36.
In R78—7
the
Board found in
a site—specific rulemaking
that fluoride
concentrations
up
to
5.0 mg/i would have no adverse environmental
or health
impact as applied
to a portion of the Vermilion—Wabash
River system
in east—central Illinois.
Although at First Notice
the Board allowed
that
the conclusions reached
in R78—7 might
also be applicable
to the waterway into which Modine discharges,
the Board requested that Modine and the Agency address the
similarities between the waterways considered
in R78—7 and the
instant waterway (First Notice Opinion at
22).
Modine responds that
an important~commonality between
Modine’s
receiving waterway and the waters considered
in R78—7
is
that of the hardness of
the waters
(PC
#9 at
3—5 and Exhibit
2).
Modine notes,
as does
the Agency
(PC #10
at
3),
that
2 The concept of
a “winter” season
is used variously
in different
Board
rules.
For example,
it
is November though March with
respect
to ammonia nitrogen discharges
to
the Illinois River
system at
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 304.122 and
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
304.201(b);
it
is December
through March with respect
to DOD and
February through May with
respect
to TSS
in the Galesburg SD
site—specific rule
at
35 Ill.
Adm. Code 304.207; and
it
is
November through March with respect
to violations
of
the ammonia
nitrogen water quality standard at
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 304.301.
c~2~
-IC-
fluoride toxicity
is inversely proportional
to hardness.
In the
Modine case hardness
is
of the order of
328 mg/l
(PC
#9 at
Exhibit
2);
in the R78—7
case hardness was ca.
350 mg/l
(Id.).
Thus, both streams are classified as
“very hard” pursuant
to
standard hardness classifications.
On
this basis, Modine
contends that the toxicity conclusions reached
in R78—7 are
equally applicable
to the instant case
(Id.).
Based on its own
review of the record,
including Exhibit
36 and the similarities
between
the facts of R78—7 and this proceeding,
the Board
concludes
that the fluoride standard as proposed would be
protective of aquatic life uses
in the limited receiving waters
specified.
As an associated matter,
the Board noted at First Notice
that
it pr~oposesto limit
the site—specific fluoride water
quality standard to only
that portion of Modine’s receiving
waterway extending approximately
1,200
feet downstream from
Modine’s outfall.
This position was based on the Board’s
determination that Modine had justified the site-specific
standard only for that part of
the unnamed tributary
for which
Modine constitutes
the principal source of
low—flow discharge
(First Notice Opinion at
25).
Modine responds that
it has no
objection
to this limitation
(PC
#9 at
6)
Also as regards
fluoride,
the Agency questions whether
the
use of
a monthly average and daily maximum
is workable as
a water
quality standard.
The Agency points out that water quality
standards are generally
not defined in this manner due to the
difficulty of assessing compliance where grab samples constitute
the sampling norm
(PC #10
at
3).
The Board believes that the
Agency makes a valid point.
The First Notice phrasing the
fluoride standard was premised
on sampling programs commonly
employed
in effluent monitoring.
However,
this perspective
neglects the
fact that effluents are monitored by the discharger,
whereas
the Agency
is responsible
for water quality sampling.
Therefore,
the water quality standard has to be phrased
in
a
manner which
is workable
in the confines of
the Agency’s ability
to monitor.
Water quality standards are normally defined as
instantaneous maxima,
which are not
to be equalled
or exceeded at
any time.
The Board believes that
this
is the only appropriate
way
to phrase the
instant
rule,
and accordingly proposes the
instant
rule
for Second Notice
in
this manner.
As
a final matter regarding fluoride,
the Board today
proposes
for purposes
of Second Notice an alternative method of
effectuating the requested relief.
The alternative method
is
to
cite the exception
within
the Board’s effluent standards
at
Section 304.221,
rather
than
in the water quality standards at
Section 303.430
as proposed at First Notice.
The Board believes
that this alternative constitutes
a more efficient and cleaner
method of
codification.
The Board also believes
that
the
practical effects
of the alternative are identical
to those of
I~S—2S2
-1D-
the language proposed at First Notice.
Nevertheless,
the Board
will
reserve filing of the instant proposal with JCAR for
15 days
from this date, during which
time any interested persons are
requested to provide
the Board with comment
on the matter
of
placement of
the fluoride exception within Section 304.221.
CONCLUSION
The Board remains persuaded
that Modine has demonstrated
that there
is no alternative treatment method which
is
simultaneously technically feasible and economically reasonable
and which would allow Modine
to comply fully with
the Board’s
rules of general applicability at
issue.
The Board also remains
persuaded that Modine’s effluent,
at least as
regards
the
parameters
at issue,
is not
a limiting factor
in the quality of
the receiving waterway.
Finally, other
than
for the matter
of
the fluoride water quality standard as noted above,
the Board
finds nothing
in the post—First Notice record which would cause
it
to modify
its First Notice Proposal.
Accordingly,
the Board
today adopts the proposal
for Second Notice.
ORDER
The Board hereby proposes
for Second Notice the following
additions
to 35
Ill.
Adm.
Code,
Subtitle
C: Water Pollution.
The
Board directs that these additions be submitted
to the Joint
Committee on Administrative Rules.
TITLE
35: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE C:
WATER POLLUTION
CHAPTER
I:
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PART 304
EFFLUENT STANDARDS
Section 304.221
Ringwood Drive Manufacturing Facility
in
McHenry County
a)
This Section applies
to discharges
from the
manufacturing facility located on Ringwood Drive
in
Ringwood, McHenry
County, which discharges
to an unnamed
tributary of Dutch Creek.
b)
The general effluent standards
for decxygenating wastes
contained in Section 304.120 shall not apply to these
discharges.
Instead these discharges shall comply with
the following effluent
limitations as measured
at the
point of discharge after
the third lagoon and prior
to
discharge to the unnamed tributary:
1f)S—2S3
-lE-
TSS
12 mg/l
monthly average
30
mg/l
daily
maximum
BOO5
25 mg/l
May
to September monthly average
35 mg/i
May
to September daily maximum
60 mg/I
October
to April monthly average
70 mg/l
October
to April daily maximum
c)
These
discharges
shall
not
be
subject
to
Section
304.105
as Section
304.105 applies
to the water quality standard
for fluoride contained
in Section
302.207 for those
waters
of the unnamed tributary between the discharge
point of
subsection
(b) and a distance of
1200 yards
downstream from the discharge point,
so long
as
the
concentration of fluoride does
not exceed
5.6 mg/l
in
those waters.
IT
IS
SO ORDERED.
I,
Ocrothy M.
Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby certify
that
the abo~ Opinion and Order was
adopted on
the
~
~
day of
/:~
~‘
,
1990,
by
a
vote of
/
.
/
-
/
;
Dorothy
M.
Gunn,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
I
~)~—
28!~