CL~RR~

~NCE

MAR

~4

2003

IWNOIS

R03-11

(Site-Specific Rulemaking-Water)

Dorothy Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500

100

West Randolph Street

Chicago, IL 60601

David M. Walter

N. LaDonna Driver

Hodge, Dwyer & Zeman

3150 Roland Avenue

Post Office Box

5776

Springfield, Illinois

62705-5776

John Knittle, Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

1717 Philo

Road, Suite

25

Urbana, Illinois 61802

Matthew Hortenstine

122 B. Washington

P.O. Box 668

Effingham, Illinois 62401

Please takenotice that I have today filedwith the Office ofthe Clerk ofthe Illinois Pollution

Control Board the original and nine (9) copies ofthe PREFILED

TESTIMONY OF THE

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

a copyofwhich is served

upon you.

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

B~~D4Q~

~

Deborah J. W

hams

Assistant Counsel

Division of Legal Counsel

Date:

March 20, 2003

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box

19276

Springfield, IL

62794-9276

217/782-5544

Pollution Control 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

THIS FILING IS

SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

---

BEFORE

THE

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN

THE

MATTER OF:

)

)

R03-11

PROPOSED SITE-SPECIFIC WATER

)

(Site Specific Rulemaking-Water)

POLLUTION

REGULATIONS APPLICABLE

)

TO

THE CITY OF

EFFINGHAM, BLUE

)

BEACON INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND

)

TRUCKOMAT CORPORATION

)

PREFILED TESTIMONY OF THE ILLINOIS ENVIORNMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

INTRODUCTION

On

October 22,

2002, the City of Effingham (“City”),

Blue

Beacon International,

Inc. (“BBI”),

and Truckomat Corporation (“Truckomat”)(referred to collectively as

“Effingham” or “Petitioners”) filed a site-specific rulemaking proposal with

the

Illinois

Pollution Control Board

(“Board”)

pursuant to Section 27 of the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection Act (“Act”). 415

ILCS 5/27.

Effingham’s proposal would change the fluoride

standard applicable to the discharge from the City’s wastewater treatment plant from

1.4

milligrams per liter

(“mg/L”)

to 4.5

mg/L.

Specifically, Petitioners

have requested relief

from

35

III. Adm.

Code

304.105 as it applies to the water quality standard for fluoride at

35

Ill.

Adm. Code 302.208(g).

Prior to filing its proposal with the

Board,

Petitioners submitted draft

proposals to

the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection Agency (“Agency” or “Illinois EPA”) for review and

comment.

The Petitioners revised their draft proposal

in response to Agency comments

and held at least two telephone

conferences with

Illinois EPA staff members to address

the Agency’s concerns with the draft proposal.

As

a

result, the Agency is

in substantial

agreement that the

rulemaking change proposed

by the

Petitioners

is necessary,

---

contains sufficient conditions to safeguard the environment now and

in

the future and

meets the requirements of Section 27(a) of the Act.

The Illinois

EPA’s testimony will

address

the basis for our concurrence with

this proposal, some specific comments on

the

language of the

proposal, and

a recommendation that the

Board make changes to

the language of the

relief requested.

BACKGROUND

AND COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL

The City of Effingham

is located at the confluence of two major interstate

highways (Interstates 57 and 70).

Petitioners

BBI and Truckomat are in

the business of

providing truck washing services to the interstate traffic that passes through the area.

The truck washing process utilizes hydrofluoric acid as a

brightener.

The resulting

high

fluoride wastewater from

these industrial facilities

is discharged into the

City’s sewer

system.

Like most wastewater treatment plants, the City does

not treat for fluoride.

In

addition, the City adds fluoride to

its water supply for dental health purposes.

As

a

result of these factors, the effluent from

Effingham’s publicly owned treatment works

(“P01W”) contains levels offluoride that may cause exceedances of the general use

water quality standard

in

the

receiving

streams.

The impacted waterbodies are the

unnamed tributary of Salt Creek into which the POTW discharges,

Salt Creek itself,

and

the

Little Wabash River into which the Salt Creek flows.

Petitioners have estimated that

the

impact of

its

fluoride discharge may reach as far as 44 miles downstream from

the

point of discharge.

The public water supply intake for the City of Flora is located 37

miles downstream from

Effingham’s discharge.

The tributary of the Salt Creek that receives Effingham’s effluent is defined as a

zero flow stream during

7 day,

10 year low flow conditions (“7Q10”).

As a result, no

mixing zone

is allowed

in establishing an effluent limit for the City in

its

National

2

---

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit and

a water quality based

effluent limit

(“WQBEL”) has been imposed which

is equivalent to the general use water

quality standard of 1.4 mg/L which took effect in

June 2001.

The City will not be able to

comply with this

limit and has requested an alternative effluent limit of 4.5

mg/L.

An

effluent limit of 4.5

mg/L would ensure that with taking evaporation into account, the

water quality in the Salt Creek and its

unnamed tributary would not exceed 5.0

mg/L.

The Petitioners have stated that the brightener used by BBI and Truckomat

containing hydrofluoric acid

is necessary to remain competitive in the truck

washing

industry and that it

is not technically feasible or economically reasonable to change

brighteners

or provide treatment at the truck wash locations or the City’s POTW.

Additionally,

Petitioners have

been able to demonstrate that fluoride at the

levels

discharged

by the City is not toxic to aquatic life likely to occur in streams similar to the

Little Wabash River, Salt Creek or its

unnamed tributary that receives the

Effingham

effluent.

Toxicity test results

on fluoride indicate that even the

most sensitive species

tested can tolerate the

levels likely to be found

in

the receiving

waters.

The Petitioners

investigated the

existing quality of the

receiving stream because of the Agency’s

concern that during the September 1999 facility related stream survey, net-spinning

caddisflies (which are particularly sensitive to fluoride) were present approximately 3.7

miles downstream of the discharge and they were

not found at the sampling

locations

closer to the discharge.

At that time,

low dissolved oxygen concentrations were also

observed

in

the tributary stream segment immediately downstream from the

Effingham

discharge.

Based on the June

20, 2002

rapid bioassessment, the macroinvertebrate

community has improved and net-spinning caddisflies are relatively abundant.

There is

3

---

no evidence that fluoride in the Effingham POTW effluent is harming the aquatic

community immediately downstream from the discharge.

Petitioners were also able to

demonstrate that the current levels of fluoride being discharged do not have

an adverse

impact on the City of Flora’s water supply intake.

In the

petition for site-specific rulemaking,

the petitioners discussed compliance

alternatives that were all

rejected due to cost and/or technical infeasibility.

The Illinois

EPA agrees that petitioners have shown that there are no cost-effective compliance

alternatives available at this time.

CLARIFICATIONS

OF EFFINGINGHAM’S PROPOSAL

Despite being in substantial agreement with Petitioners’ proposal, the

Illinois EPA

would like to point out two minor misstatements contained

in the document to the

Board.

On

Page

11

of its proposal,

Effingham states “there do not appear to be any

sources of fluoride

in the subject streams,

other than the

City,

BBI, Truckomat and,

presently, Fedders.”

The Illinois

EPA believes that the municipal sources discharging to

Salt Creek and the

Little Wabash River most

likely add fluoride to their drinking water

supply as does

Effingham.

However,

the fluoride levels of these municipalities

are

below the water quality standard, therefore are

not regulated

in

an NPDES permit.

The

Illinois

EPA

does not believe this fact changes any of the conclusions in the

Petition.

On page 25,

Petitioners state “the water in the

Little Wabash River downstream

from

Effingham,

Illinois,

is very hard, with

hardness values of more than 300 mg/L

during

low flow conditions.”

The Illinois

EPA has calculated the critical hardness during

low flow conditions as 130 to

143 mg/L for the

Little Wabash River.

This value is

calculated

by taking the

10th

percentile hardness values during the

10th

percentile

low

4

---

flows.

The Illinois

EPA does

not disagree with

Effingham’s general conclusion that the

water downstream from

Effingham’s discharge

is

hard.

RELIEF REQUESTED AND CONSISTENCY WITH

FEDERAL LAW

The Illinois

EPA was able to thoroughly evaluate Effingham’s technical

justification for its proposal and found

itself in substantial

agreement with

the information

presented.

The only remaining

concern

the Agency has with the proposal is the format

in

which the relief has been requested.

Effingham

is asking the

Board to grant site-

specific relief from 35

III. Adm. Code

304.105 as it applies to the water quality standard

for fluoride at 302.208(g) of 1.4 mg/L and to allow an alternative effluent limit of 4.5

mg/L.

Pursuant to the

Board’s recent opinions

in several Adjusted Standard cases,

Petitioners have refrained

from asking the

Board to change the water quality standard

applicable in the

receiving

stream even though as a result of its discharge, the current

standard will

be violated.

See,

In the Matter of:

Material Service Corporation Petition

for an Adjusted Standard from

35

III. Adm. Code

302.208, 406.202 and 304.105, AS 02-

1

(June

6, 2002); In the Matter of:

Petition of Rhodia,

Inc., Thorn Creek Basin Sanitary

District, Takasago

Corporation (U.S.A.)

and Consumers

Illinois Water Company for an

Adiusted

Standard from

35

III. Adm. Code

302.208 and

304.105, AS 01-9

(January

10,

2002); In the Matter of:

Petition of the City of Springfield,

Office of Public Utilities for an

Adiusted Standard from 35

III. Adm. Code

302.208(e), AS 94-9

(December 1, 1994)

and

In the Matter of:

Petition of Rhone-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Company and Thorn

Creek Basin Sanitary District for an Adiusted Standard from

35

III. Adm. Code

302.208

and

304.105, AS 94-7 (June 23,

1994).

Although the Board

has recently expressed a

great deal of reluctance to grant site-specific regulatory relief from water quality

5

---

standards, there are many more examples in which the

Board has done so

in the

past.1

The Illinois

EPA would like to take the opportunity to explain for the

Board,

in some

detail, why it has recommended

in the

past,

and again recommends here today, that

regulatory relief in cases like Effingham’s must be granted from the water quality

standard, rather than simply as an alternative effluent standard.

The Board has

responded to petitions for

adjusted standards and site-specific rulemakings

involving

water quality standards in waters of the State in various ways including granting relief

applicable to the entire waterbody where there

is only one discharger or where there are

multiple or unknown

numbers of dischargers, granting relief applicable to the waterbody

that only can be taken advantage of by the petitioner and granting relief (as

requested

in

this case) from the requirement that a discharger’s effluent can not cause a violation of

a water quality standard.

Recently the

Board has shied

away from granting relief from

1

See,

In the Matter of:

Petition of Borden Chemicals and Plastics Operating

Limited Partnership foran

Adjusted Standard from

35111. Adm. Code 302.211(b) through (e), AS

01-6 (February

7, 2002)(applies to

waterbody);

In the Matter

of: Petition

of Illinois-American Water Company’s Alton Public Water Supply

Replacement Facility Discharge to the Mississippi

River for Adjusted Standard From 35

III. Adm.

Code

304.124,

304.106, and

302.203, AS 99-06 (September 7, 2000)(adjusted Standard from 302.203 only

applicable to Petitioner);

In the Matter

of: Petition

of Abbott

Laboratories forAdjusted Standard

From 35

Ill. Adm.

Code 302.208 and 304.105, AS 99-5

(July 8,

1999)(Abbott was the only discharger);

In the

Matter

of: Petition

of Illinois Department of Transportation,

District

8 for an Adiusted

Standard from

35

III.

Adm. Code 302.208,

304.124 and 302.203,

AS 96-12

(October 3,

1996)(applies to waterbody);

In the

Matter

of:

Petition

of Central Illinois Light Company (Duck Creek Station) foran Adiusted Standard from

35

III. Adm. Code 302.208 and 35

Ill. Adm.

Code 304.105, AS 96-8 (June 20,

1996)(applies only to

petitioner);

In the Matter

of:

Petition of Illinois Power Company (Baldwin Power Plant) for Adjusted

Standard from

35

III. Adm. Code 302.208 and 35

III. Adm.

Code 304.105, AS

96-01 (May 2,

1996)(applies

only to petitioner);

In the

Matter of:

Petition of Acme

Steel Company and LW Steel Company for an

Adiusted Standard

From 35

III. Adm. Code 302.211, AS 94-08 (July 7,

1 995)(general use changed to

secondary contact for petitioners);

In the

Matter of:

Petition of Akzo Chemicals foran Adjusted Standard

from

35

III. Adm.

Code 304.105 and

302.208, AS

93-8 (September 1,

1994)(relief limited to petitioner); In

the Matter

of:

Petition of Borden Chemicals & Plastics Operating

Limited Partnership for an Adjusted

Standard from

35

III. Adm. Code 302.208, AS 93-2 (November

18,

1993)(applies to

receiving stream that

receives other agricultural and wastewater discharges); In the Matter of:

Petition

of Southern

Illinois

Power Cooperative (Marion Power) forAdjusted Standards from

35

III. Adm.

Code 302.208(e) AS 92-10

(July

1,

1993)(applies to waterbody);

In

the Matter of Granite City

Division of National Steel Petition for

Adjusted Standard from 35

III. Adm. Code 302.208:

Numeric Standard for Fluoride, AS 90-4

(April 8,

1993)(Granite City was the only discharger to Horseshoe Lake);

In the Matter

of:

Petition of Nutrasweet

Company and

Consumers Illinois Water Company for an Adjusted Standard from

35

III. Adm.

Code

304.105 or 302.208, AS 89-3 (February 28,

1991)(applies to waterbody)(See slip.

op. at

5 and

10).

6

---

water quality standards in cases where there may be other dischargers to the same

water body.

From the perspective of the

Illinois

EPA, there are important technical and

legal reasons that the

Board should

not grant relief solely from 304.105 in cases where

the

relief granted will

cause the general use standard to be violated.

Legal obiections to granting relief from

304.105

Petitioners have requested a site-specific rulemaking that would be codified

within

Part 304 of the

Board’s regulations,

a Part generally reserved for site-specific

technology limits, rather than Part 303 (Water Use Designations and Site-Specific Water

Quality Standards).

The technology based effluent limit for fluoride is 15.0 mg/L and the

City has no difficulties achieving this

level of reduction.

In a case like this one, where

the discharge from

Effingham’s POT\N is causing a violation of the existing water quality

standard, granting the

relief requested to Effingham protects the discharger from

enforcement, but does

nothing to prevent the violation

of the water quality standard.

Technically, the receiving

stream in

this case could

be classified as impaired for the

general use standard for fluoride as a result the relief requested,

even though

Effingham’s petition has demonstrated that there is

no impairment to the aquatic life or

public water supply uses of the stream.

The

legal basis for the

Illinois

EPA’s

recommendation that the Board to grant relief from the water quality standard

rather

than

35

III. Adm. Code 304.105

is because of the Agency’s belief that failure to do so is

inconsistent with federal law.

The Section 303 of the Clean Water Act requires the State to establish water

quality standards that protect existing

and potential

uses.

33 U.S.C. §1313.

Anytime

the

State sets or changes

a water quality standard,

it is required to submit that water

7

---

quality standard to the

United States Environmental

Protection Agency (“U.S.

EPA”) for

review and approval.

Historically,

U.S.

EPA

indicated to the

Illinois EPA that by granting

relief solely from

35

III. Adm. Code

304.105, the Agency was attempting to make an end

run around

its

requirement to gain U.S. EPA approval to changes

in water quality

standards.

See,

Exhibit A (August 26,

1985 letter form

U.S.

EPA

Region V to Illinois

EPA) and

Nutrasweet and

Consumers Illinois Water Company, AS 89-3, Slip op.

at

5

(February 28,

1991).

In effect, when the

Board grants a petitioner relief from

304.105

only, it has found

a discharger to be exempt from the requirement not to violate the

water quality standard.

The Illinois

EPA believes

it is

inconsistent with federal law for

the

Board to grant a discharger indefinite or permanent

permission to violate a water

quality standard.

In addition,

Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (as

well as Section 39

ofthe Act)

prohibits the Agency from

issuing NPDES permits that will violate water

quality standards.

33 U.S.C. §~1

342.

The Illinois

EPA believes

it lacks authority to

issue an NPDES permit to Effingham that would cause a violation of the existing water

quality standard for fluoride.

In order to

remedy the Agency’s perceived deficiency in the relief granted

in the

past by the

Board, the Agency has always submitted adjusted standards or site-specific

regulations granting relief either from water quality standards or the requirement that

one’s effluent not cause a violation of water quality standards to

U.S. EPA for review

and approval.

Prior to 1997, the

States acted under a federal regulation

and policy

interpretation that held that changes to water quality standards became effective for

purposes of the Clean Water Act when they became effective under State law.

Under

this system,

Illinois EPA sent adjusted

standards and site-specific regulations to U.S.

8

---

EPA for approval and assumed they were approved

by default

unless the U.S.

EPA

objected to them.

This regulation

and interpretation was

invalidated by the Court in

Alaska

Clean Water Alliance v.

Clark, 45 ERC 1664, 27 Envtl.

L.

Rep. 21,330 (W.D.

Wash

1997).

In settlement of that litigation,

U.S. EPA

promulgated

new regulations that

provide that State changes to water quality standards

are only effective after they have

been formally approved by U.S.

EPA.

The new regulations require

U.S. EPA to

approve (within 60 days) or reject (within 90 days) changes to water quality standards

promulgated after May 3, 2000.

40 C.F.R.

131.21(c).

The Illinois

EPA has submitted

the recent adjusted standards granted by the Board solely from

35

III. Adm. Code

304.105 to U.S. EPA for approval and

no approvals have been received thus far in

cases where relief has not been granted from a water quality standard.

The Illinois

EPA

can

not speak on behalf of U.S.

EPA,

but it is the Agency’s view that it is preferable to

set site specific water quality standards

rather than to grant license to violate those

standards

and that to do otherwise

is

inconsistent with

the Clean Water Act.

Technical Obiections to Relief from

304.105

The Illinois

EPA also argues that the relief

in this matter needs to be granted for

the water body itself from

35

Ill. Adm. Code

302.208(g) for technical reasons.

When

adjusted standards or site-specific regulations allow a discharger to exceed what would

ordinarily be water quality based effluent limits,

it is important that the standards justify

that process of establishing limits.

A discharger receiving WQBELs

is generally one

who

is discharging into a water body with

no mixing zone.

To accomplish

the setting of

a new WQBEL for that discharger, the water quality standard for the affected water

bodies must be changed.

When the

Board grants permanent

relief solely from 35

III.

9

---

Adm.

Code 304.105, saying that the effluent need not comply with

the existing water

quality standard,

no new standard

is legally created for the

receiving waters.

As a

practical matter, however,

this type of relief

results in two completely different water

quality standards being applicable to the same stream segment and both supposedly

protecting the general use designation

in that segment.

This is inadequate for the

following reasons.

When the

Board grants one discharger relief from

meeting

a WQBEL without

changing the water quality standard applicable to the receiving

stream, the status of

WQBELs for other dischargers to affected water bodies is confused.

If the

Board clearly

designates a new water quality standard for the water body, the Agency will be able to

apply it and all other standards to any other dischargers if need

be.

These other

standards would include federal technology based limits, state effluent standards, the

antidegradation standard and mixing zones.

Any other discharger would be subject to

meeting appropriate limits based on all

standards

including the site-specific standard.

The Illinois

EPA recognizes the

Board’s concern that relief will be unfairly granted to

other dischargers who have

not presented the Board with sufficient evidence of the

need for such relief.

The Illinois

EPA feels this concern

is somewhat misplaced since

the

Illinois

EPA

only recommends that the Board grant relief

in site-specific rulemakings

or adjusted standards when

a thorough technical evaluation has revealed that the

requested relief is adequate to protect all

existing and potential uses of the water body

in

question.

If an adjusted standard or site-specific rule

is indeed

protective of the appropriate

uses (generally, aquatic life), the Agency must ensure that the other dischargers receive

10

---

limits that protect that use.

If, for example,

a discharger seeks an adjusted standard for

Total Dissolved Solids at 1,500 mg/L to a zero 7Q10 flow stream, the

Board should

designate the new standard for that stream (if protective of uses) at 1,500 mg/L,

and

in

any subsequent streams in the downstream continuum at a concentration

in accordance

with

natural dilution

until the generally applicable standard

is met.

This designation may

allow

a downstream discharger to discharge above the normally allowable limit

provided

he complies

with the other standards and regulations

and does nothing to cause the

new standard to be exceeded.

The Illinois EPA believes

it would be a rare

instance

when

another discharger would gain relief

in

this manner,

probably only in cases where

the

last water body in the continuum offered substantial

mixing potential.

A second

reason to firmly designate a

new numeric standard for the water body

is to make it known to all that a certain value has been found appropriate for the

specified

receiving

stream.

This comes to play in the Agency’s efforts in assessing use

support conditions through the Clean Water Act Sections 305(b) and 303(d) programs.

It is important that the assessment made in the regulatory relief process be made

known to all concerned with the water body.

The site-specific rulemaking

and adjusted

standard processes are an in-depth assessment of the

interplay between

a discharger

and the receiving

stream.

This process determines whether an increase above the

general standard will

harm the water body.

It would be

an absurd

result to the Board’s

regulatory relief process

if, following a favorable

recommendation by the

Illinois

EPA in

a site specific proceeding, the Agency would subsequently be legally required to list a

given water body as impaired for

a

given substance because

it does not meet the

standard of general applicability for that substance.

If the

Illinois

EPA was forced to

11

---

undertake a total maximum daily loading (“TDML”) setting process for the waterbodies

impacted

by Effingham’s discharge,

it is

not clear how the site specific relief would be

viewed by that process or what impact that would have on other dischargers who might

later be required to offset the relief granted to Effingham in this case.

If the Board does

not set a new numeric standard for the

receiving stream, the status of the applicable

standard

in that water body is clouded and may result in

the Agency designating a

stream segment as impaired for the same parameter from which the

Board

has granted

site specific relief.

For example,

imagine that relief from

304.105 as it applies to the

water quality standard for sulfate

is granted to three out of four dischargers to a given

water body to a

level of 800 mg/L.

At a later time, that waterbody placed the State’s

listing of impaired waters and

a TMDL is conducted.

The fourth discharger may be

obligated to receive a

load limit that requires it to reduce

its

discharge to make

up for

the

relief granted to the first three.

If the

Board

is still concerned about the

impact of granting regulatory relief to

Petitioners who have

not come before the

Board to request or justify such relief, the

alternative available

could

be to place as a condition to establishing the

site specific

water quality standard that any party wishing to take advantage of the new water quality

standard must also come to the

Board to request such relief.

It is preferable to the

Illinois

EPA that a new water quality standard

is established that is applicable only to the

Petitioners,

rather than granting the

Petitioners a license to violate the water quality

standard.

Additionally,

the Illinois

EPA can find no basis in

the Clean Water Act for

giving

permanent relief from compliance with a water quality standard.

12

---

The petitioners are proposing to eliminate the water quality standard by setting

an effluent standard.

The water quality standard, for this

receiving

stream, should

be

changed to more accurately reflect the

impact of the

relief afforded by the site-specific

rulemaking.

In other words,

the fluoride water quality standard of the receiving

waters

should

be adjusted to reflect the concentrations

present.

In addition,

Petitioner’s requested

relief includes the phrase “subject to the

averaging rule of Section 304.104.” This

language should

be removed since any

regulatory relief granted

by the

Board

in this matter will establish

an alternative effluent

limit or water quality standard, while the

averaging rule

in Part 304 merely addresses

how compliance with

the effluent ultimately placed

in NPDES permit is determined.

It is

the Agency’s intention to use 4.5 mg/L fluoride as a daily maximum permit limit should

this site-specific rulemaking

be adopted and

304.104(b)(2) may be available to the

Petitioners to determine compliance with that effluent limit.

As an alternative to the relief requested

by Petitioners

in the

case, the

Illinois

EPA proposes, the following language for a site-specific rulemaking:

Section 303.XXX.

Unnamed Tributary of Salt Creek,

Salt Creek,

and

Little

Wabash River.

The fluoride general use water quality standard of Section

302.208(g) shall not apply to the waters of the State which are located from the

point of discharge of the

POTW located at 903

E. Eiche Avenue

in

Effingham,

Illinois, owned by the City of Effingham, to an unnamed tributary of Salt Creek,

said point

being

located in

Effingham County, T8N,

R6E, Sec.

28,

Lat: 39°06’24”,

Long:

88°31’55”,to the confluence of said

unnamed tributary with Salt Creek;

to

the confluence of Salt Creek with the

Little Wabash River; to the confluence of

Buck Creek and the

Little Wabash River.

Fluoride levels

in such waters shall

meet a water quality standard for fluoride (STORET Number 00951) as set forth

below:

a)

From the point of discharge of the City of Effing ham POTW to the

unnamed tributary to the confluence of the unnamed tributary with Salt

Creek and from the

confluence of the

unnamed tributary with

Salt Creek to

13

---

the confluence of Salt Creek with the

Little Wabash River, the fluoride

water quality standard shall be 5.0

mg/L.

b)

From the confluence of Salt Creek with the

Little Wabash River to a

point

on the Little Wabash River located 2.8 miles downstream of Louisville,

Illinois, the fluoride water quality standard shall be

3.2

mg/L.

c)

From

a point on the

Little Wabash River located 2.8 miles downstream of

Louisville,

Illinois to the confluence of Buck Creek and the Little Wabash

River,

a

point on the

Little Wabash

River located approximately 9.8

miles

downstream of Louisville,

Illinois, the fluoride water quality standard shall

be 2.0 mg/L.

CONCLUSION

The Petitioner was unable to find any adverse environmental impacts of the

relief

requested including to the public water supply intake at the City of Flora located 37

miles downstream.

In order to guarantee that the Flora public water supply will

not be

adversely impacted by the relief requested, the City has agreed to the placement of

language in

its

NPDES permit that requires the POTW to monitor fluoride concentration

at the

Flora water supply intake when the

Little Wabash River nears seven day,

10 year

low flow (“7Q10”) conditions.

Discussions with the

Petitioners and additional modeling

performed also led to the

conclusion that it will

be necessary to place

an effluent limit of

4.5

mg/L in the

City’s NPDES permit to guarantee that the water quality standard will

not violate 5.0 mg/L taking evaporation into account.

Through the permit

renewal

process, the

Illinois

EPA has the authority to require the petitioners to review, over the

coming years, any new information on brighteners that may allow for replacement or

reduction of fluoride to the wastewater reaching Effingham’s POTW.

With

the inclusion

of these additional safeguards, the Illinois

EPA

is confident that granting site specific

regulatory relief to the

receiving stream impacted by the effluent from the City of

14

---

Effingham’s POTV\/

is technologically feasible, economically reasonable and will cause

no adverse environmental impacts because it is protective of the

existing

and potential

uses of the

Little Wabash

River,

Salt Creek and

its

unnamed tributary.

However, the

Illinois

EPA strongly believes that the granting of relief solely from

35

III. Adm. Code

304.105 to these Petitioners would result

in

a license to violate the existing water quality

standard for fluoride and would be inconsistent with

the Clean Water Act.

Scott Twait of the Water Quality Standards Unit of the

Division of Water Pollution

Control at the

Illinois EPA will be available at the hearing

in this matter to answer any

questions the

Board may have about the technical justifications provided in Effingham’s

site-specific rulemaking proposal and Deborah J. Williams of the

Division of Legal

Counsel will

be available for cross-examination on this testimony and to answer any of

the Board’s questions regarding

legal issues.

Respectfully submitted,

Deborah J.

illiams

Assistant Counsel

Division of Legal Counsel

March

20,

2003

Illinois

Environmental

Protection Agency

1021

North Grand Avenue East

P.O.

Box

19276

Springfield,

Illinois 62794-9276

15

---

Exhibit A

,~.ççO

ST~47.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION5

______

230 SOUTH

DEARBORN ST.

~

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604

~(

PRO1

RECEiVED

AuG

26

1985

AUU2~J

1985

Mr.

Roger

Kanerva

IEPA

Manager, Envi ronmental Programs

:ENV!RONMENTAL

PROGRAMS

Illinois Environmental. Protection Agency

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield,

Illinois

62706

Dear Mr. Kanerva:

As a result of

a

recent NPDES permitreview for 3oht~DeereFoundry

(Rock

Island County),

I became aware of a 1981 site-specific rule change

(Section 304.205) to the State’s effluent limitation rules, which exempts

the discharger from meeting water quality standards (Section 305.105) for

total

dissolved solids, iron, and temperature.

Although this rule was a

revision

to

the

State’s

effluent

standards,

it is my opinion that this

change clearly constitutes

a

de facto water quality standards change which

was never

submitted to the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

for review

and approval.

In

addition, if the perinittee were to discharge these parameters at the

permitted levels, the resultant in—stream concentrations at critical

low

flow (7Q10) would not be protective

of the designated general

use

for the

unnamed tributary to Sugar Creek.

Further, the available Illinois

Pollution Control Board records do not provide sufficient information to

justify such a water quality standards revision.

We would

like to avoid disapproval

of the water quality standards exemption

for John.Deere Foundryas currently adopted.

In order to do this,

Illinois

must either modify the usedesignation forthe affected receiving streams

based upon use attainability analyses or it must rescind or revise the rule

in order to adopt criteria which are protective of the designated general

use.

We would like to receive your proposal. for resolving this issue within the

next 30days.

This would enable us to carry out our statutory responsibili-

ties for water quality standards review and approval.

In the interim, we

will continue to object to the John Deere Foundry

permit on the basis that

the proposed effluent limits are not protective of the designated general

use.

---

—2—

As with the Lockport issue, this is

a serious matter which

requires your

personal attention.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this

matter, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely yours,

Charles H. Sutfin

Director, Water Division

cc:

Jacob Dumelle

---

STATE OF ILLINOIS

)

COUNTY OF SANGAMON

)

)

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned,

on oath state that I have served the attached PREFILED

TESTIMONY OF THE ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

upon the persons to whom it is directed, by placing a copy in an envelope addressed to:

John Knittle, Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

1717 Philo Road, Suite 25

Urbana, Illinois 61802

Matthew Hortenstine

122 B.

Washington

P.O.

Box 668

Effingham,

Illinois 62401

and mailing it from Springfield, Illinois on March 18

2003

sufficient postage affixed.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN

TO BEFORE

ME

this(~Q~ay

ofMarch,

2003

~

Notary Public

OFFICIAL

SEAL

BRENDA BOEHNER

NOTARY

PUBLIC,

STATE

OF

ILLINOIS

s;MV

COMMISSION

EXPIRES

11 .14-2Q95~

by First Class U.S. Mail with

Dorothy Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500

100 West Randolph Street

Chicago, IL 60601

David M. Walter

N. LaDonna Driver

Hodge, Dwyer & Zeman

3150 Roland Avenue

Post Office Box 5776

Springfield, Illinois 62705-5776

THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER