-
~
~.
D
C.P~R1~S
OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
~
Z4
2003
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
STATE OF
1LLU~OtS
poJIutIOfl Control Board
SITE-SPECIFIC RULE FOR CITY
)
R03-1
1
OF EFFINGHAM TREATMENT
)
PLANT FLUORIDE DISCHARGE,
)
35
ILL. ADM. CODE 304.233
)
NOTICE OF FILING
TO:
Ms. Dorothy M. Gunn
John C. Knittle, Esq.
Clerk ofthe Board
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
Illinois
Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
1717 Phulo Road
Suite 11-500
Suite 25
Chicago, Illinois
60601
Urbana, Illinois
61826
(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
PRE-FILED
TESTIMONY OF
GREG BRIGHT, IN
SUPPORT OF SITE-SPECIFIC
REGULATION; PRE-FILED TESTIMONY OF STEVE MILLER, IN SUPPORT
OF SITE-SPECIFIC REGULATION;
PRE-FILED TESTIMONY OF MIKE
ROSE, IN SUPPORT OF SITE-SPECIFIC REGULATION; PRE-FILED
TESTIMONY OF
MAX
SHEPARD, IN
SUPPORT OF SITE-SPECIFIC
REGULATION; and PRE-FILED EXHIBITS OF PETITIONERS, IN SUPPORT
OF SITE-SPECIFIC REGULATION,
attached herewith, copies ofwhich are hereby
served upon you.
Respectfully submitted,
CITY OF EFFINGHAM,
BLUE BEACON INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
and TRUCKOMAT CORPORATION,
Petitioners,
By:_________________
One oftheir Attorneys
Dated:
March 21, 2003
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 certif~’that I have served the attached
PRE-FILED TESTIMONY OF
GREG BRIGHT, IN SUPPORT OF SITE-SPECIFIC
REGULATION; PRE-FILED
TESTIMONY OF
STEVE MILLER, IN SUPPORT
OF
SITE-SPECIFIC REGULATION; PRE-FILED TESTIMONY OF MIKE ROSE, IN
SUPPORT OF SITE-SPECIFIC REGULATION; PRE-FILED TESTIMONY OF MAX
SHEPARD, iN
SUPPORT OF SITE-SPECIFIC REGULATION; and PRE-FILED
EXHIBITS
OF PETITIONERS, IN SUPPORT OF SITE-SPECIFIC REGULATION
upon:
Ms. Dorothy M. Gunn
Clerk ofthe Board
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois
60601
John C. Knittle, Esq.
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
1717 Philo Road
Suite 25
Urbana, Illinois
61826
Deborah J. 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 ofNatural Resources
524 South Second Street
Springfield,
Illinois
62701
Matthew R. Hortenstine
122 East Washington
Post Office Box 668
Effingham, Illinois
62401
by depositing said documents in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Springfield,
Illinois on March 21, 2003.
David M. Walter
BLUF:OOlfFilingsfNOF-COS
-
Pre-filed Testimonies & Exhibits G-I
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
SITE-SPECIFIC RULE FOR CITY
)
R03-1
1
OF EFFINGHAM TREATMENT
)
PLANT FLUORIDE DISCHARGE,
)
35
ILL. ADM. CODE 304.233
)
PRE-FILED TESTIMONY OF GREG BRIGHT,
IN SUPPORT OF SITE-SPECIFIC REGULATION
NOW COME the CITY
OF EFFINGHAM
(“City”), BLUE BEACON
iNTERNATIONAL, INC., and TRUCKOMAT CORPORATION (collectively
“Petitioners”), by and through their attorneys, HODGE DWYER ZEMAN, and pursuant
to 35
Ill. Admin.
Code
§
102.424, submit the following Pre-Filed Testimony of Greg
Bright for presentation at the April
11, 2003, hearing scheduled in the above-referenced
matter:
TESTIMONY OF GREG BRIGHT
Good morning.
My name is Greg Bright.
I am the Director ofCommonwealth
Biomonitoring, Inc. (“CBI”), ofIndianapolis, Indiana.
I am appearing here today on
behalfofthe Petitioners, in support oftheir proposal for a site specific rule for the
fluoride discharge associated with the City ofEffingham’s treatment plant.
I will testify
regarding the available data on the toxicity of fluoride to aquatic life in general, the effect
ofhardness on fluoride toxicity, and actual bioassessments ofthe site.
Thank you for
allowing me to testify here today.
As previously explained by Mr. Shepard, the City’s Publicly Owned Treatment
Works (“POTW”) discharges to an unnamed tributary ofSalt Creek.
Historical effluent
fluoride data, as well as general facility information for the City’s POTW, are
summarized in Attaôhment A to the Petition.
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/L
standard for fluoride.
Indeed, the effluent fluoride concentration in the City’s wastewater
discharge ranged from
1.4 mg/L to 4.8 mg/L
from January
1999 through December 2001.
Nevertheless, the fluoride levels in the City’s discharge are not having an adverse impact
on the fluoride levels downstream.
At Petitioners’ request, CBI conducted a detailed scientific assessment of the
effects offluoride on the water downstream from the City’s wastewater treatment plant
(“WWTP”).
A detailed report ofthat assessment is included as Attachment D to the
Petition.
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.
First, the available data concerning the toxicity of fluoride 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
Ceratopsyche bronta.
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/L.
Nevertheless, this determination of chronic effect
offluoride exposure was made
in a test conducted on rainbow trout in very soft water.
The fact that the 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
2
concentration at which fluoride is toxic to aquatic life.
Indeed, additional tests have
demonstrated that concentrations offluoride significantly higher than
3
mg/L are not
toxic to aquatic life in the characteristically much harder water ofCentral Illinois.
Multiple species have been used in aquatic toxicity tests involving varying
hardness values oftest water.
For each species tested, the test results demonstrate that, as
water hardness values increase, fluoride toxicity levels decrease.
In other words, the
harder the water, the higher the concentration offluoride that can be maintained without
causing any harm to aquatic life.
Here, too,
because ofthe hardness of the water forwhich 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 Effingham,
Illinois,
is very hard, with hardness values ofmore than 300 mg/L during low flow
conditions.
Using a method developed by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency the effects ofhardness on fluoride toxicity were evaluated.
Those data
demonstrate that fluoride in the waterdownstream from Effingham would not be
detrimental to aquatic life at concentrations at or below
10 mg/L.
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 fluoride concentrations exceed
5-10 mg/L.
Moreover, bioassessments show no
harm to aquatic life from fluoride downstream from the City.
Recent studies conducted at Effingham, Illinois, illustrate that fluoride from the
City’s WWTP discharge is not, in fact, causing any environmental harm.
The first study,
3
a
1999 bioassessment by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“IEPA”),
showed that net-spinning caddisflies are the dominant group ofanimals in the receiving
stream one mile below the City’s WWTP.
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 harm to 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.
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
to the Petition.
Based 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.
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.
4
Bioassessments from the IEPA 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 proposedby Petitioners for the site-
specific water quality and effluent standards.
Finally, because ofthe hardness ofthe
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
requested can therefore be granted without any harm-to either aquatic life or the
environment.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I would be pleased to answer
any questions that the Board may have at this time.
**
*
5
Petitioners, CITY OF EFFINGHAM, BLUE BEACON INTERNATIONAL,
iNC., and TRUCKOMAT CORPORATION reserve the right to
supplement or modify
this pre-filed testimony.
Respectfully submitted,
CITY
OF
EFFINGHAM,
BLUE BEACON INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
and TRUCKOMAT CORPORATION,
Petitioners,
By:__________________
One oftheir Attorneys
Dated:
March 21, 2003
N. LaDonna Driver
David M. Walter
HODGE DWYER ZEMAN
3150 Roland Avenue
Post Office Box 5776
Springfield, Illinois
62705-5776
(217) 523-4900
BLUE:OO1/Fil/Petition
—
Bright
-
prefiledtestimony
6
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
SITE-SPECIFIC RULE FOR CITY
)
R03-1
1
OF EFFINGHAM TREATMENT
)
PLANT FLUORIDE DISCHARGE,
)
35 ILL. ADM. CODE 304.233
)
PRE-FILED TESTIMONY OF STEVE MILLER
IN SUPPORT OF SITE-SPECIFIC REGULATION
NOW COME 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 pursuant to 35 Ill.
Admin. Code
§
102.424, submit the following
Pre-Filed Testimony of Steve Miller for presentation at the April
11, 2003, hearing
scheduled in the above-referenced matter:
TESTIMONY OF STEVE MILLER
Good morning.
My name is Steve Miller.
I am the City Engineer for the City of
Effingham, Illinois.
I am appearing here today on behalfofthe Petitioners, in support of
theirproposal
for a site specific rule for the fluoride discharge associated with the City of
Effingham’s treatment plant.
I will describe the City’s water treatment plant, and its
permitted fluoride limit.
I will also
discuss the City’s attempt to determine the sources
of, and to develop local limits for, fluoride in the City’s discharge.
Finally,
I will
describe how the City has worked with the fluoride dischargers, and the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (“IEPA” or “Agency”), to address the issues raised by
the fluoride in the City’s
effluent.
Thank you for allowing me to testify here today.
Petitioners are seeking a site-specific effluent limit for fluoride for discharges
from the City’s Publicly Owned Treatment Works (“Treatment Plant”), including
wastewater from BBI and Truckomat’s Effingham facilities.
The Illinois Pollution
Control Board’s (“Board”) effluent regulations require, at Section 304.105, that effluent
from the City not cause an applicable water quality standard to be exceeded.
The general
numeric water quality standard for fluoride, which is set forth in Section 302.208(g), is
1.4 mg/L.
For background, 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 City has numerous motels, hotels and restaurants.
The City has a
population of 12,022.
Industries
in the City include Fedders, Inc. (“Fedders”); Quebecor
World; Quebecor/Petty Printing;
Sherwin-Williams Company; McLeod U.S.A.
Publishing; Mid America Direct; Effingham Equity; Peerless of America; TSI Graphics,
Inc.; Kingery Printing Company;
Southeastern Container, Inc.; Effingham-Clay Service
Company; John Boos and Company;
Eagle Soft, A Patterson Company; Nukabe,
Inc.,
U.S.A.; Effingham Daily News; Mid-Illinois Concrete, Inc.; J&J Ventures; Midco
International; and Pepsi
Cola Bottling Company.
The City’s Treatment Plant was originally constructed in
1912.
The plant was
upgraded around 1935 and again in
1957.
In 1980, a newplant was constructed at its
current location.
The Treatment Plant was upgraded again in 2001.
The Treatment Plant
employs approximately five full-time personnel and serves approximately 4,600
2
residential and 250
industrial/commercial customers.
Flow to the Treatment Plant is split
between residential and industrial/commercial users at 52 percent and 48 percent,
respectively, based on wateruse.
The City’s Treatment Plant has a design average flow of3.75 million gallons per
day and a maximum hydraulic flow of9.375 million gallons per day.
The Treatment
Plant 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 carbonaceous biological oxygen demand.
Like most Treatment
Plants,
however, it is not designed to remove soluble inorganic anions such as fluoride.
The City’s Treatment Plant discharges its
wastewater to an unnamed tributary of
Salt Creek, pursuant to a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”)
permit issued by the IEPA.
A modified NPDES permit (No. 1L0028622) 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
October 31, 2003.
The 2000 Permit established a daily maximum fluoride discharge limit for the
City’s Treatment Plant of 8.6 mg/L “from the effective date ofthe modified permit i.e.,
November 1,
1998
until the attainment of operational level ofthe new sewage treatment
plant.”
Once the City’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 maximum fluoride discharge limit in the Permit is based on the water
quality standards set forth in Section 302.208(g) of the Board’s regulations.
This limit
was apparently established based on a 7-day,
10-year (“7Q10”) low flow value ofzero
3
for the unnamed tributary of Salt Creek.
In other words, for the 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.
In June 2001, the City’s new sewage treatment plant
became operational, and the
1.4 mg/L daily maximum fluoride discharge limit went into
effect.
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 Effingham
industries as the primary sources of fluoride in the City’s Treatment Plant.
These four
industries consist oftwo BBI truck washes, a Truckomat truck wash, and another
industry named Fedders.
The background concentration of fluoride in the City’s wastewater is
1.0 mg/L,
since fluoride
is added to the City water supply for dental health purposes.
As a result,
only a small amount of fluoride forindustrial loading can be allowed, and the industrial
discharge limit must be extremely stringent, in order for the City to comply with the
general water quality standard of 1.4 mg/L.
Indeed, in order to meet its newNPDES
discharge limit of 1.4 mg/L, the City calculated a preliminary pretreatment discharge
limit of2.54 mg/L for each ofthe four industrial sources offluoride in the City.
This
preliminary pretreatment discharge limit was approved by USEPA, however, never
adopted by the City, because it did not appear to be obtainable by the industrial sources.
A sampling program was conducted by the City ofEffingham in June through
August of2001.
Fifteen samples were collected during this sampling
event.
The average
4
and maximum fluoride concentrations were 44 mg/L and 120 mg/L, respectively, at one
BBI truck wash and 87
mg/L and
130 mg/L, respectively, at the other BBI truck wash.
Fourteen wastewater effluent samples from Truckomat were collected by the City
ofEffingham from June through August 2001
for fluoride analysis.
The average and
maximum fluoride concentrations for this sampling event at Truckomat were 39 mg/L
and
100 mg/L, respectively.
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/L, respectively.
Fedders discontinued the process,
which is the source offluoride at the plant, in 2002.
After determining the sources of the fluoride in its
discharge, and reviewing the
sampling data against the preliminary discharge limit, the City has worked with BBI,
Truckomat, Shepard Engineering Incorporated and the Agency to determine an
acceptable fluoride discharge level.
As will be described further by other witnesses
today, there is no feasible treatment option for the fluoride in the discharge from BBI
and
Truckomat.
Thus, in order for the City to meet its fluoride limit, these businesses would
be severely hampered, if not eliminated.
The continued operation ofindustries like BBI
and Truckomat is important to the City.
Indeed, the loss ofthese industries could have a
severe negative impact on the City, as well as the surrounding areas.
We believe the site-
specific effluent limit proposed in this proceeding is protective of health and the
environment, while preserving the economic viability ofthese important businesses.
5
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I would be pleased to
answer
any questions
that the Board may have at this time.
**
*
Petitioners, CITY OF EFFINGHAM, BLUE BEACON iNTERNATIONAL,
INC., and TRUCKOMAT CORPORATION reserve the right to
supplement or modify
this pre-filed testimony.
Respectfully submitted,
CITY OF EFFINGHAM,
BLUE BEACON INTERNATIONAL, iNC.,
and
TRUCKOMAT CORPORATION,
Petitioners,
By:
/~7~?
~I_~
One oftheir Attorneys
Dated:
March 21, 2003
N. LaDonna Driver
David M. Walter
HODGE DWYERZEMAN
3150 RolandAvenue
Post Office Box 5776
Springfield, Illinois
62705-5776
(217) 523-4900
BLUB:OOlIFil/Miller
—
prefiled testimony
6
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
SITE-SPECIFIC RULE FOR CITY
)
R03-1
1
OF EFFINGHAM TREATMENT
)
PLANT FLUORIDE DISCHARGE,
)
35
ILL. ADM. CODE 304.233
)
PRE-FILED TESTIMONY OF MIKE ROSE,
IN SUPPORT OF SITE-SPECIFIC REGULATION
NOW COME 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 pursuant to 35
Ill. Admin.
Code
§
102.424, submit the following
Pre-Filed Testimony ofMike Rose for presentation at the April
11, 2003, hearing
scheduled in the above-referenced matter:
TESTIMONY OF MIKE ROSE
Good morning.
My name is Mike Rose.
I am the Director ofEnvironmental
Research and Development for Blue Beacon International, Inc., ofSalina, Kansas.
I am
appearing here today on behalfofthe Petitioners, in support oftheir proposal for a site
specific rule for the fluoride discharge associated with the City of Effingham’s treatment
plant.
I will testify regarding the truck washes in Effingham, their economic significance
to the City, the lack ofavailable
alternatives to these truck washes, and the fact that there
is no economically reasonable way to reduce the fluoride levels.
Thank you for allowing
me to
testify here today.
Adoption ofthe proposed site-specific effluent standard will allow socially and
economically valuable services located in Effingham, Illinois, to continue.
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 Publicly Owned Treatment Works.
The
wastewater from the truck washes contains fluoride, which is sourced from the brightener
used in washing the trucks.
BBI operates truck washes at two separate locations in the
City.
One ofthe
facilities opened as a double bay wash in
1981, the other opened as a single bay in
1993
and added a second bay in
1997.
Both ofthese facilities operate 24 hours per day, seven
days per week.
At its facilities, BBI washes the exteriors ofover-the-road trucks, using
chemicals (soap and brightener) applied with high-pressure wands.
The brightener used
to wash the trucks
contains hydrofluoric acid (“HF”), which is the source of the fluoride
in the wastewater from BBI’s Effingham
facilities.
Each truckwash generates
approximately 24,000 gallons per day of wastewater with a fluoride concentration in the
range of 40 to
130 mg/L.
Wastewater pretreatment at the BBI truck wash facilities is accomplished by
providing retention
in a three-stage settling pit located inside each truck wash bay.
The
settling pit is designed to remove heavy solids by gravity settling.
In addition, free-
floating oil and grease is captured within the pit.
Soluble parameters such as fluoride are
not removed in the settling pit and are, therefore, discharged to the City’s municipal
sewer system.
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
2
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.
It is my understanding that the other former source of
fluoride in the City’s
discharge, Fedders, Inc., is no longer a source offluoride.
As previously explained, 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 surface ofover-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 ofa 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
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 of brightener were occurring, it would be quickly
3
identified and corrected.
Economic incentives already prevent excess use ofthe
brightener chemical.
Moreover, there are no effective alternative replacements for HF.
Furthermore, there are no economically reasonable methods to reduce fluoride.
BBI and its
consultants, Shepard Engineering, Incorporated, completed bench tests using
untreated truck wash wastewater samples.
During the bench tests, 27 jar tests were
completed using varying dosages and combinations ofcalcium hydroxide, calcium
chloride, and alum.
Thesejar 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
for the truck washes is significantly greater than the
pretreatment discharge limit of2.54 mg/L proposed by the City.
Accordingly, as will be
discussed by Mr. Shepard, 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 wouki 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
of the 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 feed pumps, and chemical storage
systems.
The estimated total capital
cost for this equipment (i.e., for separate systems at each ofthe three locations) is $1.5
million, based on a design wastewater flow rate of30,000 gallons per day at each
location.
Moreover, it is estimated that the chemicals, operating labor, sludge disposal,
maintenance
and depreciation associated with such a wastewater treatment
system would
4
cost
$600,000 annually.
If an attempt were made to recoup this
annual operating cost by
increasing prices, the price ofa wash would increase approximately
13 percent, i.e., an
additional $5.00 every time a truck is washed.
Such drastic increases would 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 achieve the fluoride standard
currently imposed, which it is not, the costs ofsuch technology would be prohibitively
expensive.
To summarize, there is no economically reasonable
system available to
reduce
fluoride to the desired concentrations.
Chemical costs (i.e., for brightener) are a
significant portion ofthe operating cost for a truck wash.
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 offluoride being released to
the City sewer.
The negative economic impact that would occur, if the truck washes in the City
were forced to abandon the HF brightener and use an
inferiorproduct, would be severe.
Specifically, BBI projects that the loss of HF 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 ofemployment.
It
is also
projected that the loss ofHF brightener would result in the loss ofseven to eight
employees per truckwash location
—
a total of 21 to 24 lost jobs in the City.
5
Given the industrial and transportation presence in the Effingham area, truck
washes 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 contribution to 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 of 26 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.
If
these 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.
Thus, as previously explained, there would be a significant negative economic
impact, if truck washes in the City were forced to abandon the HF brightener and use an
inferior product.
As a result, Shepard Engineering, Inc. helped the Petitioners derive the
alternate standard for fluoride that
is proposed here today.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I would be pleased to answer
any questions
that the Board may have at this time.
***
6
Petitioners, CITY OF EFFINGHAM, BLUE BEACON INTERNATIONAL,
iNC., and TRUCKOMAT CORPORATION reserve the right to supplement or modify
this pre-filed testimony.
Respectfully submitted,
CITY OF EFF1NGHAM,
BLUE BEACON INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
and TRUCKOMAT CORPORATION,
Petitioners,
By:__________________
One oftheir Attorneys
Dated:
March 21, 2003
N. LaDonna Driver
David M. Walter
HODGE DWYERZEMAN
3150 Roland Avenue
Post Office Box 5776
Springfield, Illinois
62705-5776
(217) 523-4900
BLUE:OO1/FilfPetition
—
Rose
-
prefiled testimony
7
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE
MATTER OF:
)
)
SITE-SPECIFIC RULE FOR CITY
)
R03-1
1
OF EFFINGHAM TREATMENT
)
PLANT FLUORIDE DISCHARGE,
)
35 ILL. ADM. CODE 304.233
)
PRE-FILED
TESTIMONY OF MAX SHEPARD,
IN SUPPORT OF SITE-SPECIFIC REGULATION
NOW
COME
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 pursuant to
35 Ill.
Admin.
Code
§
102.424, submit the following
Pre-Filed Testimony ofMax Shepard for presentation at the April
11, 2003, hearing
scheduled in the above-referenced matter:
TESTIMONY OF
MAX
SHEPARD
Good morning.
My name
is Max Shepard.
I am a chemical engineer, a licensed
professional engineer in four states, and the President ofShepard Engineering
Incorporated, of Salina, Kansas.
I am appearing here today on behalf ofthe Petitioners,
in support oftheirproposal for a site specific rule for the fluoride discharge associated
with the City of Effingham’s treatment plant.
I will testify about how the proposed site-
specific
effluent standard was derived, the condition of the receiving streams for the
City’s discharge, the historical flow and fluoride data for those receiving streams; the
entities presently discharging to
the affected water segments downstream ofthe City’s
discharge, as well as the entities using water downstream ofthe City’s discharge, fluoride
impacts from the City’s discharge, the available treatment or control options for fluoride,
fluoride removal technologies, and the technical feasibility ofreducing fluoride levels.
Thank you for allowing me to testify here today.
Petitioners are seeking a site-specific effluent limit for fluoride for discharges
from the City’s Publicly Owned Treatment Works (“POTW”), which includes
wastewater from BBI and Truckomat’s Effingham facilities.
The Illinois Pollution
Control Board (“Board”) effluent regulations require, at Section 304.105, that effluent
from the City not cause an applicable water quality standard to
be exceeded.
The general
numeric water quality standard for fluoride, which is set forth in Section 302.208(g), is
1.4 mg/L.
Nevertheless, as I will later explain, treatment to a general fluoride water quality
standard of 1.4 mg/L
is not technically feasible.
Thus, a site-specific effluent standard
has been proposed by the Petitioners.
As proposed, the City’s effluent would not be
subject to Section 304.105 as it applies to the water quality standard for fluoride at
Section 302.208(g).
Instead, such discharge would have to
meet a fluoride effluent
standard of4.5 mg/L, subject to the averaging rule ofSection 304.104.
These fluoride levels, to the receiving waters of the State, will be protective of
aquatic life, human health, and the environment as a whole.
Moreover, as explained by
others who are testifying here today, adoption ofthe proposed site-specific effluent
standard will allow socially and economically valuable services located in Effingham,
Illinois,
to continue.
Waters from the POTW are discharged to an unnamed tributary ofSalt Creek.
The potentially affectedwaters include the unnamed tributary, Salt Creek itself, and the
Little Wabash River, into which Salt Creek flows.
The City ofFlora,
Illinois, receives its
2
water from the Little Wabash River through a water supply intake, which is located
approximately 37 miles downstream from Effingham on the Little Wabash River.
There
are no
other public or private entities known to
Petitioners, which use the subject stream
segment for a water supply.
As previously explained, the City’s POTW discharges to an unnamed tributary of
Salt Creek.
The seven-day, 10-year low flow value (“7Q10”) for this unnamedtributary
is zero.
This means that, from a statistical perspective, there can be periods where the
stream flow in Salt Creek is comprised entirely of the discharge flow from the City.
Furthermore, this means that the POTW discharge does not undergo any mixing with the
receiving water.
Therefore, the Agency set the General Use Water Quality Standard of
1.4 mg/L
for fluoride as the NPDES permit limit for the City’s discharge.
Historical effluent fluoride data, as well as general facility information for the
City’s POTW, are summarized in Attachment A to the Petition.
As these data show,
there have been only two occasions in the last three years where the City’s effluent has
achievedthe
1.4 mg/L
standard for fluoride.
Indeed, the effluent fluoride concentration
in the City’s wastewater discharge ranged from
1.4 mg/L to 4.8 mg/L 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, based on empirical
data, the
fluoride levels in the City’s discharge are not having an adverse impact on the City of
Flora water supply fluoride levels downstream.
The first location downstream of the 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
3
from the City’s discharge.
Fluoride concentration data and stream flow data at this
sampling station are found in Table B-i in the Petition.
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/L and
0.90 mg/L, respectively.
The City ofFlora’s water supply intake is located approximately three miles
downstream from the City ofLouisville on the Little Wabash River.
Fluoride data are
available from the City ofFlora’s water supply intake.
These data from the City ofFlora
are summarized in Table B-2
in the Petition.
The data presented in Table B-2
indicate
that the average and maximum fluoride concentrations:at the Flora intake were 0.26
mg/L
and 0.77 mg/L, respectively, forthe period from June 1994
through September
2001.
As we have set forth in detail in the Petition, several municipalities
and
businesses discharge wastewater to Salt Creek and the Little Wabash River stream
segments that are the subject ofthis petition.
With the exception ofthe Harper Oil
Company discharge, all of the dischargers to
Salt Creek and the Little Wabash River
stream segments, that are the subject ofthis Petition, are municipalities.
While there are
no fluoride data available for these dischargers, based on a review of the regulated
parameters, it can be
concluded that the dischargers are primarily treating-and
discharging conventional pollutants (i.e.,
Biological Oxygen Demand (“BOD”) and Total
Suspended Solids (“TSS”)).
Accordingly, there do not appear to be any significant
sources offluoride in the subject streams, other than the City, BBI, Truckomat, and
previously Fedders, Inc.
4
A map has also been included with Attachment B to the Petition, which shows the
7QiO stream flows for the Little Wabash Region.
These data were recently updated
(March 2002) by the Illinois State Water Survey.
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/L and 0.9 mg/L, 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 mg/L.
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.
Thus,
the historic levels of fluoride discharged in the effluent from the City’s POTW
have clearly not affected downstream use of the water by the City ofFlora.
During discussions with technical staff from the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (“IEPA” or “Agency”) prior to the submittal of the Petition, the IEPA requested
a more comprehensive evaluation of the impact ofevaporation on the expected fluoride
levels in the affected stream segments during low flow periods.
On behalfofthe
Petitioners, and at the request of the IEPA, Shepard Engineering, Incorporated conducted
water balance and fluoride balance calculations on the stream segments in question.
These calculations, which are set forth in Attachment F, demonstrate that using the
5
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.
The Board’s opinion setting forth the fluoride water quality standard of 1.4 mg/L
was published on March 7,
1972.
In it, the Board explained that McKee and Wolfhad
recommended a standard of 1.5 mg/L for fluoride, the Board’s standard of 1.4 mg/L was
in
line with that recommendation, and it would assure a potable
supply.
In its
earlier,
January 6,
1972, opinion, the Board provided additional information regarding the
problems associated with the treatment offluoride, and specifically for municipal
treatment plants whose influent has been deliberately dosed with as much as
1.0 mg/L of
fluoride for dental purposes.
A literature review summary and the results from bench test treatability studies
are included as Attachment C to the Petition.
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-based 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 removedprior to the process.
It has been reported that the chemical
processes most widely used for fluoride removal are alum coagulation and lime
6
treatment,
with an insoluble
fluoride complex that may be removed from the water as
sludge.
The literature also indicates, however, that achievable fluoride removal levels are
highly dependent on the type of wastewater stream being treated.
Therefore, BBI and
Shepard Engineering Incorporated,
completed bench tests using untreated truck wash
wastewater samples.
The results of these tests are found in Attachment C to the Petition.
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 truckwash facilities was in the
range of 10 mg/L.
Thus, the lowest practicable fluoride removal level for the truck
washes is significantly greater than the preliminary pretreatment discharge limit of 2.54
mg/L proposed by the City.
Accordingly, it is not technically feasible for BBI or
Truckomat to achieve the fluoride limit proposed by the City.
In turn, it will not be possible for the 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 limit.
Prior to
its formal submittal, Petitioners provided a draft of their Petition to the
IEPA, and participated in a telephone conference with the IEPA regarding that draft.
Among other things, the Petitioners discussed with the IEPA the hardness ofthe water in
the receiving streams, why the removal offluoride to levels below
10
to 20 mg/L
is not
7
technically feasible, why it is not possible to discharge wastewater directly to the City’s
WWTP following the addition of the calcium-based precipitation chemicals only, and
why only partially treating the wastewater at the respective truck washes is not a viable
solution.
BBI
is conducting extensive research in the area ofwastewater recycle and re-use
on an on-going basis.
Unfortunately, recycle systems do not reduce the total mass
loading ofsoluble parameters such as fluoride.
That is, if the 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 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.
The City’s inability to meet the current water quality standard for fluoride is
a
result ofseveral factors.
As has been discussed by others,
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’s WWTP.
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, and residential users, as well as, the flow in
the receiving stream.
However,
8
Effingham is a relatively small community (population 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 of wastewater from non-fluoride sources, and/or discharge to
a
receiving stream with significant flows.
The proposed 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 pointto the confluence ofthe unnamed tributary with Salt Creek, from there
downstream to thejuncture of Salt Creek with the Little Wabash River, and from there
downstream to
a point approximately 9.8
river miles downstream from the City of
Louisville, Illinois,
on the Little Wabash River at the 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 of the
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,ofSalt Creek
with the Little Wabash River, the fluoride levels would be less than or equal to 5.0 mg/L.
From the confluence ofSalt Creek with 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/L.
From a point
on the Little Wabash River
9
located 2.8 miles
downstream ofLouisville, 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 levels would be less than or equal
to
2.0 mg/L.
Furthermore, Petitioners are working with the IEPA on permit conditions
that will require monitoring offlow conditions
downstream, including the impacts, if
any, ofthe discharge on downstream water supplies.
Commonwealth Biomonitoring, Inc.
(“CBI”), Indianapolis,
Indiana, conducted
a
detailed scientific assessment ofthe effects offluoride on the water downstream from the
City’s WWTP.
A detailed report ofthat assessment is included as Attachment D to the
Petition, and will be discussed further by Greg Bright.
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.
Bioassessments from CBI and the IEPA 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 Petitionersfor the site-
specific water quality and effluent standards.
Finally, because ofthe hardness of the
water for which site-specific relief is sought, higher concentrations offluoride are
acceptable and will not be detrimental to the environment.
Thus, site-specific relief
requested can be granted without any harm to
either aquatic life or the environment.
10
Thank you forthe opportunity to testify today, and I would be pleased to answer
any questions that the Board may have at this time.
**
*
Petitioners, CITY OF EFFINGHAM, BLUE BEACON INTERNATIONAL,
iNC., and TRUCKOMAT CORPORATION reserve the right to supplement or modify
this pre-filed testimony.
Respectfully submitted,
CITY OF EFFINGHAM,
BLUE BEACON INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
and TRUCKOMAT CORPORATION,
Petitioners,
By:__________________
One of their Attorneys
Dated:
March 21, 2003
N. LaDonna Driver
David M. Walter
HODGE DWYER ZEMAN
3150 Roland Avenue
Post Office Box 5776
Springfield, Illinois
62705-5776
(217) 523-4900
BLUE:OOlfFil/Petition
—
Shepard
-
pre-filed testimony
ii
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
SITE-SPECIFIC RULE FOR CITY
)
R03-1
1
OF EFFINGHAM TREATMENT
)
PLANT FLUORIDE DISCHARGE,
)
35 ILL. ADM. CODE 304.233
)
PRE-FILED EXHIBITS OF PETITIONERS,
IN SUPPORT OF SITE-SPECIFIC REGULATION
NOW COME the CITY OF EFFINGHAM (“City”), BLUE BEACON
INTERNATIONAL, INC., and TRUCKOMAT CORPORATION (collectively
“Petitioners”), by and through their attorneys, HODGE DWYER ZEMAN, and pursuant
to 35
Ill. Admin. Code
§
102.424, submit their Pre-Filed Exhibits for presentation at the
April ii,
2003, hearing scheduled in the above-referenced matter, as follows:
1.
Petitioner’s Pre-filed Exhibits A through F are Attachments A through F
ofthe Petition.
Thus, copies ofPre-filed Exhibits A through F have already been filed
with the Board and served upon the parties
in this matter.
In order to conserve paper,
additional copies ofExhibits A through F .are not attached hereto, but such additional
copies are available upon request.
2.
Pre-filed Exhibits G through I are attached hereto.
Petitioners, CITY OF EFF1NGHAM, BLUE BEACON iNTERNATIONAL,
iNC., and TRUCKOMAT CORPORATION reserve the right to
supplement or modify
their Pre-filed Exhibits.
Respectfully submitted,
CITY OF EFFINGHAM,
BLUE BEACON INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
and TRUCKOMAT CORPORATION,
Petitioners,
B-y:
~
~ne
oftheir Attorneys
Dated:
March 21,
2003
N. LaDonna Driver
David M. Walter
HODGE DWYERZEMAN
3150 Roland Avenue
Post Office Box
5776
Springfield, Illinois
62705-5776
(217) 523-4900
BLUE:OO1/FiI/Petition
—
Prefiled Exhibits
2
MAX SHEPARD, P.E.
Chemical Engineer/President, Shepard Engineering, Inc.
EDUCATION
•
Bachelor of Science Degree (Summa Cum Laude), Chemical Engineering, Kansas-StateUniversity~
-1979
CONTINUING EDUCATION
•
Fisher Control Valve Seminar, Wichita,
Kansas 1981
•
Hazard Communication Regulation Seminar, Wichita, Kansas,
1985
•
Distillation
inPractice, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Denver, Colorado, 1988
•
On-line Process Measurements, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1989
•
Analysis of Groundwater(Graduate Course), Kansas State University, 1991
•
RCRA
Corrective Action Stabilization Technologies, EPA, Kansas City, Missouri,
1992
•
Groundwater Monitoring and Sampling, NGWA, Denver, Colorado~.
1992
•
Hazardous Materials Management (Graduate Course), Kansas State University,
1992
•
Bioremediation of Organic
Constituents in Soil and Groundwater, NGWA, Denver, Colorado, 1993
•
Treatment Technology for Contaminated Soil and Groundwater, NGWA, Denver, Colorado, 1994
•
Kansas Environmental Law Compliance Course, GovernmentInstitutes,
Kansas City, Missouri,
1994
•
Environmental Risk Assessment, Environmental Education Enterprises, Albuquerque, New Mexico,
1994
•
Negotiating Environmental Agreements, Massachusetts Instituteof Technology, Cambridge,
Massachusetts,
1995
•
UnderstandingMigration, Assessment and Remediation of LNAPLs and DNAPLs, NGWA, Denver,
Colorado,
1995
•
Princeton Groundwater Course, San Francisco, California,
1996
•
Applied Pollutant Fate
and TransportPrinciples in Parameter Estimation and Modeling Risk-Based Soil
Screening, NGWA, Columbus, Ohio,
1997
•
Computer-Aided Cleanup for Risk-Based Soil and Ground Water Cleanup, NGWA, Columbus, Ohio,
1997
•
Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated
Solvents in Groundwater, Kansas City, Missouri,
1998
•
Applications of Groundwater Geochemistry, Dallas, Texas,
1999
•
Abiotic In-Situ Technologies for Groundwater Remediation, Dallas,
Texas,
1999
•
Low-Cost Remediation Strategies for Contaminated Soil
and Groundwater, Denver, Colorado, 2001
•
Application ofWaste Remediation Technologies to Agricultural Contamination of Water Resources, Kansas
City, Missouri,
2002
•
Estimating Times of Remediation Associated with Monitored Natural Attenuation of Contaminant
Source
Removal, Orlando, FL,
2003
PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES
•
Water Environment Federation
•
National Groundwater Association
•
American Electroplaters and Surface Finishers Society
PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
•
Ozone-UV Disinfection of Secondary Sewage
Effluent:
Presented at the American Chemical Society Regional
Meeting, Columbia, Missouri, November,
1981
•
Implementation of City ofWichita Pretreatment Program:
Presented at the Kansas Water Pollution Control
Association Conference, May, 1984
•
Preparation of a Practical and Effective Industrial
Spill Control Plan:
Presented at the Kansas Water
Environment Federation Meeting, Manhattan, Kansas,
1991
•
Industrial
Wastewater Treatment Technologies:
Presented at the Kansas Water Environment Federation
Meeting, Hutchinson, Kansas,
1992
•
Program Presenter at the Electroplater Pollution Prevention Workshop,
Sponsored by Kansas State University,
Manhattan, Kansas,
1993
•
Near Zero Wastewater Discharge:
Presented at the Kansas Pollution Prevention Workshop,
Wichita, Kansas,
1993
•
Successful Wastewater Pretreatment System Implementation for the International Multifoods, Inc. Food
Processing Plant:
Presentedat the Kansas/Missouri Joint Water Environment Federation Meeting, Kansas City,
Missouri,
1994
EXHIBIT
Pageiof3
G
MAX
SHEPARD, P.E.
Chemical Engineer/President, Shepard Engineering, Inc.
PATENTS
•
U.S. Patent No. 4350597
-
“Apparatus and Process for Treatment of Sludge”, deals withthe processing of
sludge from the regeneration of aluminum chemical milling solutions.
The process washes the sludge to
recover usable chemicals and then neutralizes and de-waters the washed solids to render the materialnon-
hazardous.
September,
1982
LICENSES
•
Registered Professional Engineer in Kansas (No. 9648)
•
Registered Professional Engineer in Missouri (No. E-22696)
•
RegisteredProfessional Engineer in Arizona (No. 28948)
•
RegisteredProfessional Engineer in California (No.
5997)
PROFESSIONAL WORK EXPERIENCE
Mr. Shepardworked as a Research Assistant in the Chemical Engineering Department at Kansas State University
prior to graduation.
He joined Wilson & Company Engineers & Architects in 1979
and was involved in a variety of
process and environmental projects.
Project responsibilities at Wilson & Company included preparation of material
and energy balances, benchand pilot plant
scale design and operation, environmentalpollution control
studies, industrial waste surveys,
industrial waste treatmentprocess design, treatmentprocess research and
development, hazardous waste treatment and stabilization,
and
pretreatment program implementation.
From 1984 to
1990, Mr. Shepard was an Associate Professor in the Chemical Engineering Technology Department
at the Kansas College of Technology.
During that time, he continued to be involved in a variety of environmental
consulting projects including development of innovative waste
treatmentprocesses,
industrial wastewater
pretreatment program implementation, preparation ofhazardous waste closureplans, certification of hazardous
waste closures, hazardous waste Part B Permit Applications, SARA Title III reporting, and environmentaLsite
assessments.
Mr. Shepard started Shepard Engineering,
Inc.
in 1990.
He is responsible for all phases ofenvironmental projects
with the
firm, including groundwater and
soil investigation and remediation, development and execution of
wastewater treatability studies, hazardous waste management, industrialwastewater treatmentsystem design,
environmental site assessment, preparation of SpillControl Plans, NPDES Permit applications, SARA Title III
reporting, chromium emissions stack testing, and waste minimization.
REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS
•
Exline, Inc., Salina, Kansas
-
Groundwater and soil investigation and remediation (chromium). Hazardous
waste Part B permit application; SaraTitle III reporting; Industrial wastewatertreatnientAmbientair
monitoring;
Chrome plating ventilation system design
•
Morrison Enterprises, Salina, Kansas
-
Food processing plant wastewater treatment system design
and startup;
Soil and groundwater investigation and remediation (carbon tet and EDB); Environmental site assessments
•
Lowen Corporation, Hutchinson, Kansas
-
Industrial
wastewater treatment system design; Sara Title III
reporting; Hazardous waste management; Air permitting; Groundwater and soil investigation
•
Blue Beacon International, Inc., Salina, Kansas
-
Industrial wastewater treatmentsystem design, startup, and
operation; Developmentand implementation of sludge characerizationplan;NPDESieporting
•
Tony’s Pizza Service, Salina, Kansas
-
Developmentof SPCC Plan; Development of sludge management plan
•
Precision Industries, McPherson, Kansas
-
SaraTitle III reporting;
Soil investigation; Hazardous waste
management
•
Kansas Plating, Wichita,
Kansas
-
Industrial wastewater management; Hazardous waste management;Chrome
plating system air emissions
•
S.S.
Papadopulos
& Associates, Bethesda, Maryland
-
Groundwaterremediation alternatives
•
Turbine Specialties, Inc., Salina, Kansas
-
Industrial wastewater management; Solid waste management
•
Eaton Corporation, Hutchinson, Kansas
-
Preparation of SPCC Plans; Hazardous waste management; Industrial
wastewater management; Chrome plating system air emissions testing
•
Eaton Corporation, Keamey, Nebraska
-
Chrome plating system air emissions testing
Page 2 of3
MAX SHEPARD,
P.E.
Chemical Engineer/President, Shepard
Engineering, Inc.
REPRESENTATIVE
PROJECTS
(continued)
•
Sundstrand Aerospace
Corporation, Denver, Colorado
-
Chrome plating system air emissions testing
•
Century Manufacturing, Lincoln, Kansas
-
Groundwaterand soil investigation; Air Permitting;
Groundwater
remediation (air stripping ofTCE)
•
City ofEnid, Enid, Oklahoma
-
Pretreatment program implementation; Local limits development
•
Valley Fertilizer, Clay Center, Kansas
-
Soil
and groundwater investigation and remediation (nitrate and
pesticides)
•
Plating,
Inc.,
Great Bend, Kansas
-
Soil and groundwater investigation (chromium); Chromium emissions stack
testing
•
Lockheed-Georgia Company, Marietta, Georgia
-
Chem-mill recovery feasibility study; Ozone/UV treatability
studies
•
Great Plains Manufacturing, Salina, Kansas
-
Industrial wastewater treatability studies and system design;
Environmental site assessments;
SaraTitle III reporting
•
City ofSalina, Kansas
-
Pretreatment Program implementation
•
City ofOlathe, Kansas
-
Pretreatment Program implementation
•
City of Wichita,
Kansas
-
Pretreatment Program implementation; Pilot plant study
-
ozone/IJV disinfection of
secondary sewage effluent
•
City of lola, Kansas
-
Pretreatment Program implementation
•
City of Kansas City, Kansas
-
Pretreatment Program implementation
•
Boeing Military Airplane Company, Wichita, Kansas
-
Paint waste treatability study
•
General Electric
Company, Albuquerque,New Mexico
-
Industrial
wastewater survey and treatability studies
•
McDonnell Douglas Corporation, Tulsa, Oklahoma
-
Environmental pollution control
study
•
Grumman Aerospace Corporation, Bethpage, New York
-
Industrial wastewater treatmentplant process design;
Aluminum etch recoveryprocesspilot plant study; Nitric acid recovery process pitotstucly
•
Owens-Brockway, Muskogee, Oklahoma
-
Industrial wastewater survey; Wastewater treatability study
•
KASA Fab,
Inc.
-
Industrial wastewatermanagement
•
Kimble Glass, Chicago Heights, Illinois
-
Environmental Audit, FormR Report, Tier II Report and Air
Emissions Report
•
A- 1 Plank & Scaffold, Inc., Hays,
Kansas
-
Laboratory treatability studies, treatment system design
•
Wichita County Grain Company, Leoti, Kansas
-
Groundwatersampling and reporting
•
Coleman Company, Wichita, Kansas
-
Industrial wastewater management
•
Crestwood, Inc.,
Salina, Kansas
-
Community
right-to-know reporting and air permitting, environmental
consulting
•
Lewis Coop Elevator, Lewis, Kansas
-
VCPRP Site Investigation
•
Logan Nitrate Site,
Logan, Kansas
-
Site Investigation
•
Dillons, Hutchinson, Kansas
-
Wastewater Survey
Page
3 of 3
Greg
R.
Bright.
Director
of
Biological Studies
Education:
B.A.
Biology
-
Hanover College,
Hanover, Indiana (1975)
M.S. Zoology
-
Clemson
University, Clemson, South
Carolina (1977)
Experience:
1989
to Present
Commonwealth Biomonitoring,
Inc.
Indianapolis, Indiana
Director of Biological Studies
Acts as project manager for all water quality studies, including:
Whole effluent toxicity tests
Site-specific water quality criteria
Toxicity identification evaluations
Fisheries and invertebrate
studies to
evaluate water quality
Lake enhancement and wetlands
1980 to
1989
Department of Environmental
Management
Indianapolis, Indiana
Senior Environmental Manager
Worked as
an aquatic biologist in
the water pollution control program.
The work included toxicity testing, fish
and macroinvertebrate studies,
tissue and sediment contamination,
lake trophic status, and water
quality standards review.
1977
to
1979
United States
Peace Corps
Koror,
Palau (Republic of
Belau)
..Limnologist-.-.~
Worked
in the Office of the Chief Conservationist.
Completed an
inventory of freshwater resources.
Collected
and identified
aquatic
biota and
life histories.
Helped develop the island’s first water quality
standards.
I11B1~
Publications:
Bright,
G.R.
1979.
The inland waters of Palau, Caroline Islands.
Office of the Chief Conservationist,
Koror, Palau,
61
pp.
Bright,
G.
1979.
The
life histories of some freshwater decapod
crustaceans from
Palau.
Abstracts of the 14th Pacific Science
Congress,
Khabarovsk,
USSR.
Bright,
G. and
J. June.
1981.
Freshwater fishes of Palau,
Caroline
Islands.
Micronesica
17:
107-111.
Bright, G.R.
1981.
Macroinvertebrate sampling and water quality
monitoring
in
Indiana.
Proc.
md.
Acad. Sci.
91:
320-327.
Bright,
G.R.
1982. Secondary
benthic production
in a tropical
island
stream.
Limnol. Oceanogr. 27: 472-480.
Cook,
D.
and
G. Bright,
1983.
Water mites of the Palu
Islands.
Acarologia
14:
187-201.
Bright,
G.
R.
1986.
Notes
on the caddisflies of the Kankakee
River in
Indiana.
Proc.
Ind. Acad. Sci. 95:
191-1 94.
Simon, T., G.
Bright,
J.
Rud
& J.
Stahl.
1994.
Water quality
characterization of the Grand Calumet River using the Index
of
Biotic Integrity.
Proc.
Ind. Acad.
Sci.
98: 257-265.
Bright,
G.R.
1994.
Recent water quality in the Grand
Calumet
River as measured by benthic invertebrates.
Proc.
Ind. Acad.
Sci. 98: 229-233.
Bright,
G.R.
1995.
Variability of the “water effect ratio” for
copper toxicity - a case study.
Water
Environment Federation
Conference Proceedings: Toxic Substances in Water
Environments, Cincinnati, OH.
5-23
-
5-30.
Bright, G.
and W. Eubanks.
1996.
Tackling
a perceived
mercury
-probIem•~n-a--municipaI-effluent----a-ease-stud-yT---WateF
Environment Federation Conference
Proceedings:
Understanding
the Industrial Pretreatment Program,
Indianapolis,
IN.
217/782-0610
March
30,
2000
City of Effingham
P0.
Box 648
Effingharn, Illinois
62401
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
1021
NORTH GRAND
AVENUE
EAST,
P.O.
Box
19276,
SPRINGFIELD,
ILLINOIS
62794-9276
THOMAS
V.
SKINNER,
DIRECTOR
Re:
City of Effingham
Effingham
Sewage Treatment Plant
NPDES Permit No. 1L0028622
Modification of NPDES Permit (After Public Notice)
Gentlemen:
The Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency has
reviewed the request
for modification of the
above-referenced
NPDES Permit and issued a public
notice based
on that
request.
The final decision of the Agency
is to modify the
Permit
as follows:
Interim and final
fluoride
limits have
been added
to
the
001
STP
outfall.
Several miscellaneous
non-substantive
corrections have been made to the permit language.
Enclosed is a copy
of the modified
Permit.
You have the right to appeal this modification to the Illinois
Pollution
Control Board within a 35
day period following the modification date
shown
on the first page of the permit.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding the above,
please contact Wayne Caughman of my staff.
G. McSwiggin,
P.E.
Manager, Permit Section
Division of Water Pollution Control
TGM:DJS:HWC:9805 1801 .daa
Attachment:
Modified Permit
cc:
Records
Compliance Assurance Section
Champaign Region
USEPA
IFAS
EXHIBIT
I
Very truly yours,
fl..-.-,
fl
0,
,,rn
NPDES Permit No. IL0028622
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Division
of Water
POllution
Control
1021
North Grand Avenue
East
Post
Office Box 19276
Springfield,
Illinois
62794-9276
NATIONAL
POLLUTANT
DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION SYSTEM
Modified
(NPDES)
Permit
Expiration Date:
October31, 2003
Issue Date:
October 6, 1998
Effective Date:
November
1,
1998
Modification
pate:
March
30,
2000
Name and Address of Permittee:
Facility Name and Address:
City
of Effingham
Effingham Sewage Treatment
Plant
P.O.
Box 648
.
Intersection of Eiche
Ave.
and Pembroke St.
Effingham,
Illinois
62401
.
Effingham,
Illinois
(Effingham
County)
Receiving Waters:
Unnamed Tributary of Salt Creek
In compliance with the provisions of the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act, Title 35 of the
III.
Adm. Code, Subtitle C, Chapter I, and the
“lean Water Act (CWA), the above-named Permittee is hereby authorized to discharge atthe above location tothe above-named receiving
eam
in accordance with the standard conditions and attachments herein.
Permittee is not authorized todischarge after the above expiration date.
In order to receive authorization to discharge beyond the expiration
date,
the
Permittee
shall submit the
proper application as
required by
the Illinois
Envir
nmental
Protection Agency
(IEPA) not later than
180
days
prior to the
expiration date.
~
Manager,
Permit Section
Division
of Water Pollution
Control
TGM:HWC:98051801.daa
Page 2
Modification
Date:
March
30,
2000
NPDES Permit No.
IL0028622
Effluent Limitations, Monitoring, and Reporting
FINAL
Discharge Number(s) and Name(s):
001
STP
Outfall
Load
limits computed
based
on a design
average flow
(DAF)
of 2.5
MGD (design maximum flow
(DMF)
of 8.25
MGD).
Excess flow
facilities (if applicable)
shall not be utilized
until the main
treatment facility is receiving
its maximum practical
flow.
From the effective date of this permit until
the attainment of operational level
of the new sewage treatment plant, the
effluent of the above
discharge(s) shall be
monitored and
limited at all
times as follows:
LOAD
LIMITS lbs/day
CONCENTRATION
DAF
(DMF)*
LIMITS
MG/L
Monthly
Weekly
Daily
Monthly
Weekly
Daily
Sample
Sample
Type
Parameter
Average
Average
Maximum
Average
Average
Maximum
Frequency
Flow
(MGD)
.
.
Continuous
RIT
CBOD5**
209
(521)
417 (1043)
10
20
2 days/Week
Composite
Suspended
Solids
250 (6~6)
500
(1251)
12
24
2
daysiWeek
Composite
pH
Shall be
in
the range
of 6 to 9 Standard
Units
2 days/Week
Grab
Ammonia
Nitrogen
April
through October
‘~s
(N)
31(78)
63
(156)
1.5
3.0
2 days/Week
Composite
1
November through
March
69
(172)
138 (344)
3.3
6.6
2 days/Week
Composite
Copper
.31
(.78)
.48 (1.20)
0.015
0.023
2
days/Month
Composite
WAD Cyanide
.11(.27)
.46 (1.15)
0.0052
0.022
2 days/Month
Grab
Silver
.10 (.26)
.
0.005
2
days/Month
Composite
Fluoride***
179 (448)
8.6
2
days/Month
Composite
*Load
limits based on
design maximum flow shall apply only when
flow exceeds design
average flow.
**Carbonaceous
BOD5 (08005) testing
shall be in accordance with
40 CFR
136.
***Minimum
detection level shall be 0,1
mg/L.
Fiow~halt—b~
reported-on-t-he-Discharg~Mc toringRepcstiDMl~,)
.r~9l~th!y
average and
daily
maximum.
pH
shall be reported
on the
DMR as a minimum and a maximum.
Dage 3
ModifIcation Date:
March
30,
2000
NPDES
Permit
No.
1L0028622
Effluent Limitations, Monitoring,
and Reporting
FINAL
Discharge
Number(s) and
Name(s):
001
STP
Outfall
.
Load
limits computed based on
a design
average flow (OAF) of 3.75 MGD
(design maximum flow
(DMF) of 9.00
MGD).
Excess flow facilities
(if applicable)
shall not be
utilized
until the
main
treatment facility is receiving
its maximum practical
flow.
From the attainment of operational level of the new sewage treatment plant until the expiration date ,the effluent of the above discharge(s)
shall
be monitored and
limited at all times as
follows:
LOAD
LIMITS lbs/day
CONCENTRATION
OAF (DMF)*
LIMITS
MG/L
Monthly
Weekly
Daily
Monthly
Weekly
Daily
Sample
Sample Type
Parameter
Average
Average
Maximum
Average
Average
Maximum
Frequency
Flow (MGD)
Continuous
RIT
CBODS**
313
(751)
625
(1501)
10
20
2 days/Week
Composite
Suspended
Solids
375
(901)
751
(1801)
12
24
2 days/Week
Composite
pH
Shall bein the range of 6 to
9
Standard Units
2 days/Week
Grab
Ammonia
Nitrogen
April
through
October
‘s
(N)
47(113)
94(225)
1.5
.
3.0
2 days/Week
Composite
November through March
103
(248)
206
(495)
3.3
6.6
2
days/Week
Composite
Fluoride****
44(105)
l.4~
2
days/Month
Composite
copper***
Composite
WAD Cyanide***
Grab
Silver***
Composite
bLoad
limits based
on
design maximum
flow
shall apply
only when flow exceeds design
average
flow.
~Carbonaceous 8005
(CBOD5)
testing
shall be
in accordance
with
40
CFR 136.
***See Special
Condition
7.
****Minimum detection
level shall
be 0.1
mg/L.
.
Flow shall
be reported on
the b~a~eMdnif6rih~
R~oft(DMR)
as -monthly average and
daii.y maximum~
pH
shall be reported
cn
the
DMR as
a
minimum and a maximum.
~age4
Modification
Date:
March
30,
2000
NPDES
Permit No.
lL0028522
Effluent Limitations,
Monitoring,
and Reporting
FINAL
Discharge Number(s)
and Name(s):002 Treated CSO Outfall
.
These flow facilities
shall
not be
utilized
until the
main
treatment facility is receiving
its
maximum practical
flow.
From the
effective date
of this Permit
until
the
expiration date, the
effluent
of the above discharge(s)
shall be
monitored
and
limited at
all
times
as follows:
CONCENTRATION
LIMITS
mg/L
Monthly
Daily
Sample
Sample
Parameter
.
Average
Maximum
Frequency
Type
Total
Flow (MG)
.
Daily When
Discharging
80D5
Report
Daily
When
Grab
Discharging
Suspended
Solids
Report
Daily When
Grab
Discharging
Fecal Coliform
Daily Maximum Shall
Not Exceed
400
per 100
mL
Daily When
Grab
Discharging
Shall
be
in the
range of 6
to
9
Standard
Units
Daily When
Grab
Discharging
Chlorine
Residual
0.75
Daily
When
Grab
Discharging
Total
flow in million gallons shall
be reported
on the
Discharge Monitoring Report
(DMR)
in the
quantity maximum column.
Report the
number of days
of discharge
in the
comments section of the
DMR.
.
Fecal Coliform shall be reported
on the
DMR as
daily maximum.
.
Chlorine
Residual
shall be reported
on
the DMR as a
monthly average
concentration.
.pftshall
be
reported on
the
DMR as a
minimum and a maximum.
BOD5 and Suspended
Solids
shall be reported on
the
DMR as
a monthly average
concentration.
Page 5
.
.
ModifIcation Date:
March
30,
20Q~
NPDES Permit
No. 1L0028522
Influent Monitoring,
and Reporting
The
influent to the plant
shall be monitored
as
follows:
Parameter
.
Sample
Frequency
Sample
Type
Flow (MGD)
Continuous
RIT
80D5
.
2
Days/Week
Composite
Suspended
Solids
2
Days/Week
Composite
Influentsamples
shall
bO taken at a
point
representative of the
influent.
Flow (MGD)
shall be reported
on
the Discharge
Monitoring Report
(DMR) as
monthly average
and
daily
maximum.
8OD~
and Suspended
Solids
shall be reported
on
the
DMR as a
monthly average
concentration.
~age
6
Modification
Date:
March
30,
2000
NPDES Permit
No. lLO028622
Special Conditions
SPECIAL CONDIT1ON
1.
This Permit may
be
modified to include different final
effluent
limitations or requirements which are consistent
with applicable
laws, regulations, or judicial orders.
The
IEPA will public notice the permit
modification.
SPECIAL
TION 2.
The use
or operation of this
facility
shall be
by
or under the
supervision
of a
Certified Class
1
operator.
SPECIAL
CONDITION
3.
.The
IEPA
may
request in writing
submittal
of operational
information
in
a specified
form and at
a required
frequency at any time during
the
effective period
of this
Permit.
SPECIAL ~jQf~DITION
4.
The
IEPA
may
request more frequent
monitoring by
permitmodification pursuant to 40 CFR
§
122.63
and
Without Public Notice
in the
event of operational, maintenance or other problems
resulting
in possible effluent
deterioration.
SPECIAL CONDITION
5.
The
effluent, alone or
in combination
with
other sources, shall not cause
a
violation of any applicable water
quality standard outlined in 35
III.
Adm. Code
302.
SPECIAL CONDITION
6.
Samples taken in compliance with the
effluent monitoring requirements
shall be taken at
a point representative
of the discharge,
but prior.to entry into the receiving
stream.
SPECIAL CONDITION
7.
The Permittee shall monitor the effluent for the following parameters monthly
for a period of six (6) consecutive
months,
beginning three
(3) months
from the, attainment
of operational level
of the
new sewage treatment plant. This Permit may
be
modified with public notice to establish effluent
limitations
if appropriate,
based on
information obtained through sampling.
The sample
shall be a 24—hour effluent composite except as otherwise specifically provided below and the results
shall be submitted
on
the
DMR’s to
IEPA.
The parameters to be sampled and the
minimum detection limits to be attained are as follows:
STORET
.
0
Minimum
‘ODE
PARAMETER
.
detection limit
042
Copper
0.005
mg/L
00718
Cyanide
(grab) (weak acid dissociable)
10.0 ug/L
01077
Silver(total)
0.003
mg/L
Unless otherwise indicated, concentrations
referto the total
amount of the
constituent present in
all
phases,
whether solid, suspended or
dissolved, elemental or combined, including
all
oxidation
states.
SPECIAL
CONDITION
8.
A.
Publicly
Owned Treatment Works
(POT’I’1) Pretreatment Procram General
Provisions
1.
The Permittee shall implement and enforce its approved Pretreatment Program which was approved
on
September
10, 1985
and
all
approved
subsequent
modifications
thereto.
The
permittee
shall
maintain
legal
authority
adequate
to
fully implement
the
pretreatment program in compliance
with Federal (40 CFR 403), State,
an.d local laws.
The Permittee
shall:
a.
rry
out independent
inspectIO~ãhdThôriTtbrin~
~c~duresat1east--oncee-per--year;
which-w~lldetermine- whether each
significant industrial user (SIU)
is
in compliance ~‘iithapplicable
pretreatment standards:
b.
Perform an
evaluation,
at
least once every two
years, to determine whether
each
SIU
needs a slug control plan.
If needed,
the SIU
slug control
plan
shall include the items
specified
in 40
CFR
§
403.8 (f)(2)(V);
c.
Update its inventory
of
Industrial Users (lUs) at least
annually
and as needed
to ensurethat
all
SlUs are
properly
identified,
characterized, and categorized:
d.
Receive
and
review
self monitoring
and
other
lU
reports
to determine
compliance
with
all
pretreatment standards
and
requirements,
and
obtain
appropriate
remedies
for
noncompliance
by
any
IU
with
any
pretreatment
standard
and/or
requirement;
e.
Investigate instances of noncompliance, collect and analyze samples, and compile other information
with sufficient care as
to produce evidence admissible in enforcement proceedings, including judicial
action;
f.
Require development, as necessary,
of compliance schedules by
each industrial user for the installation of control technologies
to meet applicable
pretreatment standards; and,
g.
Maintain
an adequate revenue structure for continued
operation of the pretreatment program.
ge 7
Modification
Date:
March
30,
2000
NPDES
Permit No.
lL0028622
Special
Conditions
The Permittee shall issue/reissue permits
or equivalent control mechanisms
to all
SlUs
prior to expiration
of existing permits or
prior
to commencement of discharge in the case
of new discharges.
The permits
at
a
minimum shall include
the
elements listed in 40
CFR
§
403.8(f,(1)(iii).
The Permittee
shall develop,
maintain, and enforce, as necessary,
local
limits to implement the
prohibitions
in 40
CFR
§
403.5 which
prohibit the
introduction of specific
pollutants to the waste treatment system
from ~
source
of nondomestic discharge.
In
addition to the general
limitations expressed
in paragraph
3
above,
applicable Pretreatment
Standards must be
met by
all industrial
~
of the
P01W.
These limitations include specific standards
for certain
industrial categories as determined
by
Section
307(b)
and
(c)
of the
Clean Water Act, State
limits,
orlocal limits, whichever are more stringent.
The USEPA and
EPA individually retain the
right to take legal action against any industrial user and/or the
POTW for those cases
where an industrial user has failed
to meet an applicable
pretreatment standard
by the
deadline date regardless of whether or not
such
failure
has resulted
in a
permit violation.
The
Permittee shall establish agreements
with
all contributing jurisdictions, as necessary, to enable
it to fulfill its requirements with
respect to
all
Us discharging to its system.
Unless
already
completed,
the
Permittee shall within six
months of the
effective date
of this
permit submit to USEPA and
IEPA
a
proposal to
modify and update its approved
pretreatment
program to incorporate
Federal revisions to the general
pretreatment
regulations.
The
proposal shall include
all
changes to the approved
program and
the sewer use ordinance which are necessary to
incorporate the
regulations commonly referred to as
PIRT and DSS, which were effective November
16,
1988
and August23, 1990,
respectively.
This includes the development of an Enforcement Response Plan (ERP)
and a technical re-evaluation of the Permit’tee’s
local
limits.
Reporting
and Records
Requirements
1.
The Permittee shall provide an annual report briefly describing
the permittee’s
pretreatment program activities
over the
previous
calendar year.
Permittees who operate
multiple plants may
provide a
single report providing all
plant-specific reporting requirements
are
met.
Such report shall be submitted
no
later than
April
28
of each
year,
and shall be
in the format set forth
in IEPA’s
POTW
Pretreatment
Report Package which contaips
information regarding:
a.
An
updated listing
of the
permittee’s industrial users.
b.
A descriptive summary of the compliance
activities
including numbers
of any
major enforcement actions,
(i.e.,
administrative
orders,
penalties,
civil actions, etc.), and the outcome
of those actions.
This includes an assessment of the
compliance status.
of the
permittee’s industrial
users and the effectiveness
of
the
permittee’s pretreatment program in meeting
its needs
and
objectives.
c.
A
description
of all
substantive
changes
made
to the
permittee’s pretreatment program.
Changes
which are
‘substantial
modificatior~~
~escrtbedii’F40 C~R
§
403
1 8(e)—muct ~cceive-priorappzovalfrom the.Ap..proval Authonty
ci.
Results of sampling and analysis
of P01W influent,
effluent, and sludge.
e.
A summary
of the
findings from the
priority pollutants
sampling.
As
sufficient data becomes available the
IEPA
may modify
this
permit to incorporate additional
requirements
relating
to the
evaluation, establishment, and
enforcement of
local limits for
organic pollutants.
Any
permit modification
is subject
to formal due process
procedures pursuant to State
and Federal law
and
regulation.
Upon
a determination
that
an
organic pollutant
is
present that
causes
interference or
pass
through, the
permittee shall establish local
limits
as required
by
40
CFR §403.5(c).
2.
The Permittee
shall maintain
all
pretreatment data and records
for a minimum
of three years.
This period shall be extended
during
the course
of unresolved litigation
or when requested
by
the
1EPA or the
Regional Administrator
of
USEPA.
Records
shall be
available to USEPA and the IEPA upon
request.
.
The
Permittee
shall establish public
participation requirements
of 40
CFR 25
in implementation
of its pretreatment program.
The
permittee
shall at
least annually, publish the names
of all
lU’s which were in significant
noncompliance (SNC), as
defined by 40
CFR
§
403.8(f)(2)(vii),
in the largest daily paper in the
municipality in which
the
POTW is located or based on
any more restrictive definition
of SNC
that
the POTW may
be using.
Dage
8
Modification
Date:
March
30,
2000
STORET
.
.
,
Minimum
CODE
___________
.
detection limit
01097
.
0.07
mg/L
01002’
0.05
mg/L
01007
0.5 mg/L
01012
0.005
mg/L
01027
0.003
mg/L
01032
.
0.01
mg/L
0103-4
.
0.05
mg/L
01042
0.005
mg/L
1)0718
10.0 ug/L
“~720
10.0 ug/L
..~á951
0
0.1
mg/L
01045
0.5
mg/L
01046
0.5mg/L
01051
0.05
mg/L
01055
0.5
mg!L
71900
0.2 ug/L
01067
0.005’rnglL
00556
1.0 mg/L
32730
0.005
mg/L
01147
0.OO2mg/L
01077
0.OO3mg/L
01059
0.3
mg/L
01092
0.O5Omg/L
---.-~4n~uanLand~efflueflt.QoiyL
Unless otherwise indicated,
concentrations referto the
total pmount
of the
constituent present
in
all phases,
whether
solid, suspended
or
dissolved,
elemental or combined
including
all
oxidation states. ,~‘Thereconstituents are
commonly measured as other than
total, the phase
is so indicated.
2.
The
Permittee
shall conduct
an analysis
for the
110
organic
priority
pollutants
identified
in 40
CFR
122
Appendix
0, Table
II
as
amended.
This
monitoring shall be semi-annually and reported
on
monitoring
report forms
provided
by
the
IEPA
and shall consist of
the
following:
a.
The
influent
and
effluent
shall be sampled
and
analyzed
for the
110
organic priority
pollutants.
The sampling shall be done
during
a day when industrial discharges are expected
to be occurring
at
normal to maximum levels,
Samples for the
analysis
of acid and
base/neutral extractable compounds
shall be 24-hour composites.
Five grab samples
shall be collected
each
monitoring day to be analyzed
for volatile
organic compounds.
A single analysis
for volatile pollutants
(Method
624)
may
be run
for each monitoring
day
by
compositing equal volumes of each grab sample
directly
in the
GC purge and trap apparatus
in the laboratory, with
no
less
than
1
ml
of each grab included
in the composite.
Wastewater samples
must be handled,
prepared, and analyzed
by GC/MS In accordance with USEPA
Methods 624
and 625
of 40 CFR 136
as amended.
NPDES
Permit No. lLO028622
Special Conditions
4.
The Pemlittee shall provide written
notification
to the
Deputy Counsel for the
Division
of Water
Pollution
Control,
EPA,
1021
North
Grand Avenue
East, P.O. Box 19276, Springfield,
Illinois
62794-9276 within
five days of receiving notice
that any Industrial
User of
its sewage
treatment plant
is
appealing to the
Circuit
Court
any condition
imposed
by
the
permittee
in any
permit
issued
to the
Industrial User
by permittee.
A copy of the Industrial User~sappeal
and
all
other pleadings
filed by
all
parties shall be mailed
to the
Deputy
Counsel within
five
(5) days
of the pleadings being
filed
in Circuit Court.
C.
Monitoring
Requirernents
1.
The Perrnittee shall monitor its
influent, effluent
and sludge and report concentrations
of the
following parameters on
monitoring report
forms
provided
by
the
IEPA
and include them
in
its annual
report.
Samples shall be taken
at 6
month intervals at
the
indicated.
detection
limit or better and consist of a 24-hour composite
unless
otherwise specified
below.
Sludge samples
shall be taken of final
sludge and
consist of a grab sample
reported on
a
dry weight basis.
PARAMETER
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
*Chromium (hex
-
grab not to exceed
24
hours)
Chromium
(total)
Copper
Cyanide (grab) (weak acid dissociable)
Cyanide
(grab)
(total)
*Fluoride
Iron
(total)
*lron (Dissolved)
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
*Oil (hexane soluble or equivalent)
(Grab
Sample
only)
Phenols (grab)
Selenium
Silver (total)
Thallium
Zinc
Page
9
Modification
Date:
March
30,
2000
NPDES Permit
No. lL0028622
Special Conditions’
b.
The
sludge
shall
be
sampled
and
analyzed
for
the
110
organic
priority
pollutants.
A
sludge
sample
shall
be
collected
concurrent with a wastewater sample
and taken as
final sludge.
Sampling
and analysis shall conform to USEPA Methods
624
and 625
unless an alternate
method
has been approved
by
IEPA.
c.
Sample
collection, preservation and storage shall conform to approved
USEPAprocedures and
requirements.
3.
In
addition, the
permittee shall monitor any new toxic substances
as defined by
the
Clean WaterAct, as
amended,
following notification
by
the
EPA.
4.
Permittee shall report any noncompliance
with effluent or water
quality standards
in accordance with Standard Condition
12(e).
5.
Analytical
detection
limits
shall
be
in
accordance
with,
40’CFR
136.
Minimum
detection
limits
for
sludge
analyses
shall be
in
accordance
with 40
CFR 503.
SPECIAL CONDITION 9.
During January of each year the Pemiittee shall submit annual
fiscal data regarding sewerage
system operations
to the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection Agency/Division
of Water Pollution Control/Compliance Assurance Section.
The Permittee
may
use any fiscal year period provided the
period ends within twelve (12) months
of the submission
date.
Submission shall be on
forms provided
by
IEPA titled
“Fiscal Report Form
For NPDES Permittees”.
SPECIAL
CONDITION
10.
For Discharge
No.001, any
use of chlorine to control slime growths, odors
or as an operational control,
etc.
shall not exceed the limit of 0.05
mg/L (daily maximum) total residual chlorine
in the
effluent.
Sampling
is required on
a
daily
grab basis
~ringthe
chlorination process.
Reporting
shall be submitted on the
(DMR’s) on
a
monthly basis.
SPECIAL CONDITIQNJt. The
Permittee shall conduct biomonitoring
of the effluent
from’OOl.
The Permittee shall condUct biomonitoring
of the
effluent discharge
no
earlier than
one
(1) year
prior to the
expiration date
of
this
Permit.
The results
shall be submitted
with the
Permit renewal application.
Biomonitoring
1.
Acute Toxicity
-
Standard
definitive acute toxicity tests shall be
run
on
at
least two
trophic levels
of aquatic species (fish, invertebrate)
representative
of
the
aquatic community
of the
receiving
stream.
Except
as
noted
here
and
in
the
IEPA
documen.t
“Effluent
Biomonitoring and
Toxicity Assessment”,
testing
must be consistent with Methods
for Measuring
the
Acute Toxicity of
Effluents and
,.‘Receiving Waters to Freshwater and
Marine Organisms
(Fourth
Ed.) EPA-600/4-90-027.
Unless
substitute tests are
pre—approved:
the
following tests
are
required:
.
,
a.
Fish -96 hour
static LC~
Bioassay
using one to two
week old fathead
minnows (Fimephales promelas).
b.
Invertebrate 48-hour staUc
L050 Bioassày U~ifigCeTO~aphnia.”
.
2.
Testing
Frequency
-
The
above tests
shall
be conducted
on
a onetime
basis
using
24-hour composite
effluent
samples
unless
otherwise authorized
by the
EPA.
Results
shall be reported according to EPA600/4-90/027,
Section 12,
Report Preparation, and shall
be submitted
to
IEPA with the
renewal application.
SPECIAL
CONDITION 12.
For the
duration
of this
Permit, the Permittee shall determine
the quantity of sludge
produced
by
the treatment
facility in dry tons or
gallons with average
percent
total solids
analysis..
The Permittee
shall maintain adequate records
of the quantities
of sludge
produced
and have said
records available for IEPA inspection.
The Permittee
shall submit
to the
IEPA, at a minimum, a semi-
annual summary
report of the
quantities of sludge generated and disposed
of,
in
units of dry tons
or gallons (average
total
percent solids)
by
different disposal methods
including
but not
limited
to application
on
farmland,,
application
on
reclamation
land, landfilling,
public
distribution, dedicated land
disposal,
sod farms, storage lagoons
or any other specified disposal method,
Said reports shall be submitted
to the
IEPAby January
31
and
July 31
of each year reporting the
preceding
January
thru
June and July thru December
interval of sludge
disposal
operations.
...ibuty
to Mitigate.
The Permittee
shall take all
reasonable steps
to minimize any sludge
use or disposal in violation
of this Permit.
Sludge monitoring
mi.ist be conducted
according
to test procedures approved’under 40
CFR 136
unless
otherwise specified
in 40
CFR
503, unless
other test procedures’ have been specified in this Permit.
.
Planned Changes.
The Permittee
shall give
notice to the IEPA
on
the semi-annual report of any changes
in sludge use and disposal.
‘age
10
Modification
Date:
March
30,
2000
NPDES
Permit No.
lL0028622
~pecial Conditions
rhe Permittee
shall
retain records
of all sludge
monitoring, and reports required
by the Sludge
Permit
as referenced
in Standard
Condition
~3for a period
of at least five
(5) years
from the
date of this
Permit.
f the Permittee monitors
any
pollutant more frequently
than required
by the
Sludge Permit,
the
results
of this
monitoring shall be included
n
the reporting of data submitted to the
EPA.
‘vionitoring reports
for sludge
shall be reported
on
the form
titled “Sludge Management
Reports” to the following address:
Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
Bureau of Water
Compliance Assurance Section
Mail Code
#19
1021
North
Grand Avenue East
Post
Office Box 19276
Springfield,
Illinois
62794-9276
SPECIAL CONDITION 13.
AUTHORIZATION
OF
COMBINED SEWER AND TREATMENT
PLANT
DISCHARGES
The IEPA has
determined that at least a portion of the collection system consists of combined sewers.
References to the collection system
and
the sewer system refer only to those parts
of the
system which are owned and operated
by the Permittee.
The Permittee is authorized
“~
discharge
from the overflow(s)/bypass(es) listed below provided the
diversion structure is located
on
a combined sewer and the following
ms and conditions are
met:
Discharge Number
Location
Receiving Water
003
,
,
3rd and Wabash
A
tributary
of Salt Creek
006
Rolling
Hills
Lift
Station
.
A
tributary
of Salt Creek
007
‘
East Temple
Lift
StatIon
‘
A
tributary
of Salt Creek
Treatment
Requirements
.
1.
All combined
sewer overflows and treatment plant bypasses shall be
given
sufficient treatment to prevent pollution
dod
the violation
of applicable
water quality standards.
Sufficient treatment shall consist of the following:
a,
All dry weather flows, and the first
flush of storm flows
shall meet all
applicable
effluent standards and the
effluent limitations
as
required for the
main
STP
outfall;
and,
b.
Additional flows,
but not less
than
ten times the
average ~F~”~e’dherfl~o~
for the desi~n’yeaf
hdll’rE’Cdi’ie
a”
mTh’i-r’num ‘of
primary treatment and
disinfection
with adequate retention
time.
2.
All CS0
discharges
authorized
by
this Permit shall be treated,
in whole
or in part, to the
extent necessary to prever.t accumulations
of sludge
deposits,
floating
debris and solids in accordance with 35
III. Adm.
Code
302.203 and to prevent depression of
oxygen levels.
3.
Overflows
during dry weather are prohibited.
Dry weather overflows,
if discovered, shall be reported to
the
IEFA
pursuant to Standard
Condition
12(e) of this Permit (24
hour notice).
4.
The collection system shall be operated to optimize transport of wastewater flows.
5.
The treatment system shall be operated to maximize treatment of wastewater flows.
.~In~Minimum
Controls
.
.
.
The Permittee
sball comply with the
nine
minimum controls contained in the
National
CSO
Control
Policy published
in the ~,g~e.ral
Recrjst~r
on
April
19, 1994.
The nine
minimum controls’ are:
a.
Proper operation and maintenance programs for the sewer system and the
CSOs;
-
b.
Maximum
use of the
collection system for storage:
Page
11
Modification
Date:
Ma’rch
30,
2000
NPDES Permit No. IL0028622
Special Conditions
c.
Review and modification
of pretreatment requirements
to assure CSO impacts
are
minimized:
d.
Maximization
of flow to the
POT’vV for treatment:
e.
Prohibition
of 050’s during
dry weather;
f.
Control
of solids and floatable
materials
in
CSO’s;
g.
Pollution prevention programs which focus
on
source
control
activities;
h.
Public
notification
to ensure
that citizens receive adequate
information
regarding
CSO occurrences and CSO impacts: ao.t,
i.
Monitoring
to characterize impacts and
efficiency. of OSO
controls.
Compliance
with Item
(a)
shall be
met through
the requirements imposed
by
Paragraph 8
of this Special Condition.
Compliance
v,’ith
Items
(b) and (ci)
shall be
met through the
requirements of Paragraphs 4,
5, and
8
of this Special
Condition.
Compliance
wi’th
Item
(c)
shall be
met through the requirements
imposed
by
Paragraph
9 of
this Special Condition.
Compliance with
Item
(e)
shall be met
through
the
requirements imposed
by
Paragraph
3
of
this
Special
Condition.
Compliance
with
Item
(f)
shall be met
through
the
requirements imposed by
Paragraphs 3
and 8 of this Special Condition.
Compliance with
Item
(h) has been met through
the inclusion
of the
public notice requirements
associated
with
this revision
of this Permit provided Paragraph
7
of this Special Condition
indicates
that
none of the CSOs authorized
in
this
Permit discharge to
sensitive
areas.
Compliance
with
Item
(i) shall be
met through
the
requirements imposed by Paragraphs
10 and
11
of this Special
Condition.
The
Permnittee, within six (6) months of the effective date
of this
Permit,
shall develop and implement a
pollution prevention plan
and
submit two
(2) copies
of the appropriate documentation of such
plan to the
IEPA.
Sensitive Area Considerations
7.
Sensitiveareas are any water in the
immediate area
of the discharge
point designated as an
Outstanding National Resource Water,
found tp contain either shellfish beds or threatened or endangered aquatic species or their habitat, used
for primary contact recrea:;on,
or within the
protection area for a
drinking water intake structure.
The
IEPA has determined that none
of the
outfalls
listed in this Special
Condition discharge to sensitive
areas. However,
this
Permit
may
be
reopened
and
modified, with
Public
Notice,
to include
additional
050
controls
for these
outfalls
if
information beccr-.es
available
that causes the IEPA to reverse this determination and/or to include a schedule for relocating, controlling,
or treating CSO
flows to sensitive areas.
‘Ifnone of these are
possible,
the Permittee shall submit adequate justification at that
time as
to why t’rese
are
not possible.
Such justification shall be
in accordance with Section
11.0.3
of the National CSO
Control
Policy.
Operational
and Maintenance Plans
8.
A CSO operational and maintenance plan
(“CSO
O&M plan”)
shall be developed
within nine
(9) months
of the
effective date
of :his
P..e.4-rnLt.
Two
(2)_co.pies ~f the
plan
and completed copies
of the
OSO
Operational
Plan Checklist
one
with original
signatures
s”al’
be
submitted
to
the
IEPA
for
administrative d’i~~
Ufi”ad~iirictratve~a’cceptance--s’ai’d-’-pien’-sha+l---e~ex-peditic.usIy
implemented, but in no
case
shall complete implementation
exceed one (1) year
from date
of State
acceptance.
Thereafter,
the
Permittee
shall
maintain
a current
operational
plan
updated to reflect system modifications,
on
file at the sewage treatmentwor~sor
other acceptable
location.
The objectives of the
CSO O&M plan
are to reduce
the total booing of pollutants
entering the
receiving
stream.
These plans. tai:ed
to the
local
government’s collection
a’nd waste treatment systen-.s.
will
include mechanisms and specific
procedures where
applicoole
to ensure:
a.
Collection system inspection;
b.
Sewer, catch
basin, and
regulator cleaning and maintenance;
c.
Collection system replacement, where necessary:
d.
Detection and elimination of illegal
connections;
.
.
e.
Detection and elimination of dry weather overflows;
The collection system is to be operated to maximize storage capacity and delay
ston-n water
entry into the
system: and,
g,
The treatment and collection systems are operated to
maximize treatment.
Dage
12
Modification
Date:
March
30,
2000
NPDES Permit
No. 1L0028622
Special Conditions
Sewer Use Ordinances
9.
The Permittee,
within six
(6) months of the
effective date
of this
Permit,
shall review and where necessary,
modify its existing sewer
use ordinance
to ensure
it contains
provisions addressing
the
conditions
below,
If
no
ordinance
exists,
such ordinance
shall
be
developed and
implemented
within
six
(6) months
from the
effective date of this
Permit,
Sewer use ordinances
are to contain specific
provisions to:
a.
prohibit introduction of new
inflow
sources to the
sanitary sewer system:
b.
require
that
new
construction
tributary
to the
combined
sewer system
to
be
designed
to
minimize
and/or
delay
inflow
contribution to the combined sewer system;
c.
require
that inflow sources on the
combined sewer system be connected to a storm sewer, within a reasonable period of
time,
if a
storm
se’,’eer becomes available;
d.
.
provide
that
any new building domestic waste connection
shall be
distinct
from the building
inflow
connection,
to facilitate
disconnection
if a storm sewer becomes available; and,’
e.
assure that 050
impacts
from non-domestic sources are
minimized
by
determining
which non-domestic discharges,
if any,
are
tributary
to OSO’s
and
reviewing,
and, if necessary,
modifying the sewer use ordinance
to control
pollutants
in ‘these
discharges.
Upon completion of the
review of the sewer use ordinance, the
Permittee shall notify the IEPA
in writing that such
review
is complete
and
that the
Permittee’s sewer use ordinance
is
in compliance with
this Special Condition.
,ompliance with Water Quality Standards
10.
Pursuant
to Section
301
of the
federal
Clean Water
Act and 40
CFR
§
122.4,
discharges
from the
outfalls
listed
in
this Special
Condition
shall not cause violations
of applicable water quality standards
or cause
use
impairment in the
receiving waters.
Based
on
available
informatibn,
it appears
that the
outfalls
listed
in this
Special
Condition
do
not have a
high reasonable
potential
to cause
violations
of applicable
water
quality standards
or use
impairment.
However,
should information causing the
IEPA to reverse
this
conclusion
become
available, the Permittee shall develop a plan
for abating such use
impairment and
bringing the flows
from
all
its
CSOs
into compliance with applicable standards.
This plan
shoil be submitted to the
IEPA within three (3) months
of such
notification
and
shall
contain
a
schedule
for
its
implementation
and
pro’.’isions
for re-evaluating
compliance
with
a’pplicable.standards
and
regulations.after
implementation.
Reporting and
Monitoring Requirements
‘Ii.
The
Permittee shall monitor the frequency of discharge (number of discharges per month) and estimate the
duration
(in
hours)
of each
~iscftargairQrn~.chp~tfall
listed
in this Special
Condition
Es
mates of storm duration
and total rainfall
shall be provided for each
stormevent.
,
~“
-..~
-
-
For frequency repcrting,
all
discharges
from the same storm.
or occurring
within
24
hours, shall be reported as one.
The date that
a discharge commences
shall be recorded for each
outfall.
Recoris
shall be
in the
form specified
by the
IEPA
and on
forms provided
by
the
IEPA.
These forms shall be submitted to the IEPA mcrn~y
with the
DMRs and covering the same
reporting’period as the
DMRs.
Parameters
(other than
flow frequency),
if required
in this
Fermi:,
shall be s?mpled and reported
as indicated in the
transmittal better
for such
report forms.
,
-
.
12.
If
any of the CSO
discharge
points listed
in this Special Ccnd:ion
are
eliminated, or
if additional
CSO dischargè
points, not listed
in
this
Special
Condition,
are discovered, the
Permittee
shail nctify
the
EPA
in writing within one
(1) month
of the respective
outfall
elimination
or discovery.
Such
notification shall be
in the
form
of a request for the appropriate modification
of this
NPDES Permit.
Page
13
Modification
Date:
March
30,
2000
NPDES Permit
No. lL0028622
Special Conditions
Summary of Compliance
Dates in this CSO
Special Condition
13.
The following summarizes the dates that
submittals contained
in this Special Condition
are due
at the
IEPA:
Submission
of CSO Monitoring Data (Paragraph
11)
15th of every
month
Elimination
of a CSO or
Discovery of Additional CSO
1
month
from
discovery or elimination
locations
(Paragraph
12)
Pollution Prevention Plan
Documentation
6
months from the
effective date of this Permit
(Paragraph 6)
Revisions to Sewer Use Ordinance (Paragraph 9)
6 months
from the
effective date
of this Permit
CSO
Operational ‘and
Maintenance Plan (Paragraph
8)
9
months
from the
effective date of this Permit
CSO Abatement
Plan (Paragraph 10)
3
months from
EPA notification
All submittals listed
in this paragraph shall be mailed to the
following address:
Illinois
Environmental Protection
Agency
Division
of Water Pollution’ Control
1021
North
GrandAvenue
East
Post Office Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois
62794-9276
Attention:
CSO Coordinator, Compliance Assurance
Section
All submittals
hand carried
shall be delivered
to 1021
North
Grand Avenue
East.
Reopening and
Modifying this Permit
14.
The
EPA may
initiate a
modification
for this
Permit at any time to include requirements
and compliance dates
which have been
submitted
in writing
by the Permittee and approved
by
the
IEPA, or other requirements
and
dates which are necessary to carry the
provisions
of the
Illinois Environmental
Protection
Act, the
Clean
Water Act, or
regulations
promulgated under those
Acts.
Public
Notice
of such
modifications
and
opportunity for public hearing shall be
provided.
SPECIAL CONDITION
14.
The Permittee
shall record monitoring
results
on
Discharge Monitoring Report
Forms using one such
form for
each
outfall
each
month.
In
the event that
an
outfall
does
not discharge
during
amonthiy repor ing
periodtheDM
ormsT~lTbé’sUbrt~iitt~d
viith fi’~’ciischarge
indicated.
The completed Discharge Monitoring Report forms shall be submitted
to
EPA no
later than
the
15th day of the
follo’.’,’ing
month,
unless
otherwise specified
by the
permitting
authority.
Discharge Monitoring Reports
shall be mailed
to the
IEPA
at the
following address:
Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
Division
of Water Pollution
Control
1021
North Grand Avenue East
Post Office
Box 19276
Springfield,
Illinois
62794-9276
Attention:
Compliance Assurance Section
‘
SPECIAL
CONDITION
15.
The Permittee has undergone
a
Monitoring
Reduction
review and
the influent and effluent sample fregueflcy
has been reduced for 80D5,
CBOD5, Suspended
Solids,
pH and Ammonia Nitrogen due to sustained
compliance.
The
IEPA will require
that the
influent and
effluent sample frequency for these parameters be increased to the
monitoring frequency of 3
daysNleek
if effluent
deterioration occurs due to increased wasteload, operational, maintenance or other problems. The increased monitoring will be required
Without Public Notice when a
permit modification
is received by the
Permittee
from the
IEPA.
Page 14
Modification
Date:
March
30,
2000
NPDES Permit No. 1L0028622
Special
Conditions
SPEC1ALCO~IDITION16.
For Discharge No. 001, the
Permittee shall sample
for fecal
coliform a
minimum of four grab samples, ala
minimum of 7 day intervals in order to verify the original assumptions made in the modeling used to grant the disinfection exemption.
The
four results, expressed
in terms
of fecal
coliform per 100
mL of sample
(“too numerous
to count” results
cannot be accepted), shall be
reported to the
IEPA within
7
days
of the final sample being analyzed and submitted
to the following address:
Illinois
Environmental Protection
Agency
Division
of Water Pollution Control,
Water Quality Standards
Unit
1021
North
Grand Avenue
East
-
Post Office
Box 19276
Springfield,
Illinois
62794-9276
SPECIAL CONDJTIPN
17.
The Permittee shall notify the
IEPA in writing once the treatment plant expansion has been completed.
A letter
stating
the date
that
the
expansion was
completed shall be sent
to the following
address
within fourteen
(14) days
of the
expansion
becoming operational:
,
.
‘
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
Bureau of Water
Compliance Assurance Section,
Mail Code #19
1021
North
GrandAvenue
East
Post Office
Box 19276
Springfield,
Illinois
62794-9276
Attachment H
Standard Condtltor,s
-
‘
DefinItions
\ctmeans the
litnols
Environmental
Protection
Act.
415
LOSS as Amended.
.g,ncy means the lUlnols Environmental Protection Agen~.
Board means the
tiijnOls
Pollution Conirol
Board.
Clean Water
Act
(focrTherty relerred to
as
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act) means
Pub.
L 92-500, as
amended.
33
u.s.c.
1251
et seq.
NPDES
(National
Pollutant Discharge
Elimination
System) means
the national pogram br
~
~jty~
~evok.ksg
and reissuiog. terminating. monitoring
and entorcing permits,
and
imposing
and ertIorc.irtg
pretreatment requiremenls. under Sections 307. 402. 318 ond 405
of the clean Water Act.
usEPA means the United
5tales Environmental Prol~ction
Agency
DaIly DIscharge means
lire discharge of a potlutanl
measured dunrig
a calendar day or
any
24-hour
period that reasonably
represents the calendar day’ far
purposes 01 sampling.
For
pollutants with limitations
expressed
in units of mass, the ~dailydischarge’ Is calculated as
the
total
mass of the
poliutaril
discharged
over the
day.
For
pollutants
with limitations
expressed ‘mother units of measurements, the ‘daily discharge’ is
calculated
as
the average
measurement ot the pollutant over the day.
Maxtmum Dalty DIscharge LimitatIon
(daily maximum) means the highest allowable daily
discharge.
Average
Monthly
DIscharge Umlt.atlon (30
day
average) means
the highest
allowable
average
of
daily discharges
over
a calendar
month.
calculated
as
the
sum
of alt
daily
discharges measured
during
a calendar mortth divided
by
the
number of daily discharges
measured
during that month.
Average
Weekly
Discharge
LImItation (7
day
average)
means
tIre
highest
allowable
average of
daity
discharges
over
a
calendar week,
calculated
as
the
sum
of
all
daily
disthwges
measured
during a calendar week divided
by
tx-ic
number 01 daity discharges
measured
during that week.
B-eat Management Pr~ctlces
(BMPs) means schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices.
maintenance
procedures, and other management practices to prevent or reduce the pollution
ci waters of the State.
BMPs also include
treatment requirements, operating procedures, and
practices to control
plant
site n.jnoff,
spillage or leaks,
sludge
or’ waste
disposat, or’ drainage
from
raw material storage.
.liquot means a sample of specified volume used Ia make
up a total composite sample.
Grab Sample means an individual
sample of at least
100 milliliters collecled at a randomly.
selected. tIme over a period
not exceeding 15 minutes.
24 Hour Composite Sample means
a combinational at least 8 sample aliquots
01 at least
100 millIliters,
collected at periodic intervals during
the operating hours of a facility over a 24-
8 Hour composite Sample means
a combination of at leasl 3 sample atiquots of at least
100
miltuliters, colected
at periodic intervals during
Ihe operating hours ol a tacitly over an 8-hour
period.
Flow Proportional ComposIte Sample means
a combination al sample aliquols of at least
100
mIlliliters collected at periodic intervals
such that
either the lime interval between each
al’tquot orthe volume of each’atiquot is proportional to either the
stream flow
al
the time of
sampreig or the total
stream
flow since
the collection ol the previous
aliquot.
(1)
Duty to comply.
The
permittee
must comply
with
all
conditions of this permit.
Any
perrnitrsoncornpliance
constitutes a violation of the Act
arid
is grounds lor enforcement
action, ‘~e~fifiiriitron,revocit1idi~amd”re’isauante:
modificnt4on-oe-for-denial-of--a.
per-mIt
renewal
application.
The
permittee
shall
comply
with
cllluent standards or
prohibitions
established
under
Section
307(a)
ot
the
clean
Water
Act
for toxic
pollutants within thø time
provided
in Ihe
regulations
that establish these
standards or
prohibitions,
eves
if’ the
permit
has
not
yet
been
modified
to
incorporate
the
requirement.
(2)
Duty to reapply.
If the pemmnittee wishes to continue an activity
regulated
by this permit
after
the expiration
date of this permit,
the permillee
rriust apply tom and obl5ln a new
permit,
ft the permittee
submits a proper
application as requited by the Agency no later
than
180 days
prior to Ihe expiration dale,
this permit
shall continue in full force
and
effect UnIt the final Agency decision on lhe
application has
been
made.
(3)
Need
to
halt
or
reduce
activIty
not
a
defense,
II
shall
fbI
be a defense
for’
a
permittee
in
an enforcement action It-tat
it would
have been necessary to halt or reduce
the
permitted
activity itt ordqr
to maintain compliance
with the conditions of this ‘permit.
(4)
Duty to mItigate.
The
permittee
shall lake
all reasonable steps to minimIze
or prevent
any discharge in
violation of this permit which has a reasonable likelihood of adversely
affectIng human health
or the environment.
(5)
Proper operation and maIntenance.
The
pemiittee
shalt at all times property operate
and
maintain
alt
facilities
and
systems
of
treatment
and
control
(and
related
appurtenances) which are
inatatled
or
used by
bite
permittee to achieve compliance
with conditions of thIs permit.
proper operation
and maintenance
Includes
effective
performance, adequate funding, adequate
operator atafling and training. and adequate
labocatory and process controta,
including approprIate quality assurance procedures.
ThIs
provision
requires
the
operaliOn
of
back-up,
or
auxiliary
facilitIes,
or
eli-alter
Systems only when necessary to achieve compliance with
the conditions of the permit.
(6)
PermIt
actions.
ThIs permit may
be
modified,
revoked and reissued, or terminated
for
cause by the
Agency pursuant 1040 OFR 122.62.
The
filing of a request
by the
perrnlttee for a permit modification,
revocation arid reissuanca, or terminatbox
oe-
a
notifIcation
of
planned
changes
or
anticipated
noncompliance
does
riol
slay
any
permit condition.
(71
Property tights. The
permIt does
not convey any
property rights of any
son
or any
exclusive
privilege.
(5)
Duty
to
provIde
Information.
The
per-mIles
shall
furnish
10 the
Agency within
it
ireasonable
lime, any infom’ialion which the Agency may request to determine
wtrelhet
caus.a
exists for
modifying, revoking
and reissuing, or
terminating this perrnil.
ee’
Ic
delermni’se corriplianco with the permit.
The
permnitle’e
shall also furnish
to the
Agency
upon request,
copies
of records requited to be kept by
this permit.
(9)
InspectIon
and entry.
The
permiltee shall allow art
authorized representative
of the
Agency,
upon the presenlal’on of credentials and other documents as may be requiter
by law,
to:
(a)
Enter
upon the
p.em’lrtlee’s
premises
where
a
regulated
facility
or
activily
it
located or
conducted, or
where
records musl be kept
under Ihe conditions
or the
permit;
)bl
Have access
to and copy, at reascoable
times,
arty records thai mlJsl
be
top
under the conditions of this permit.
(ci
Inspect at reasonable limes any
lacilities,
equipment (including monitoring eec
conlrol
equipi’nentl.
practices. ‘Cr operations
regulated
or
required
under tnt-
permit;
arid
Id)
Sample
or monitor
at
reasonable
limes,
for
the
purpose
of
assuring
pen’ni
compliance, or as other,wse
authorized by the Act,
any
substances
or
parametert
at any location.
I tO)
Monitoring and records,
(a)
Samples
and
measurements
taken
for
the
purpose
of
monitoring
shall
bi
representative of the monitored
activity.
(b)
The
perrnittec
shall
retain
records
of
all
monitoring
information,
including
it
calibration and maintenance records,
and
all original
strip
chart
recordings fs
continuous
monitoring
lnstrumnenlation,
copies
of
alt
reports
requited
by
thi:
perisrit, and recordsof
alt data used to complete
the application for this permit,
to
a period of at least 3 years from
the date of this permit, measurement, report o
application.
Th’e period
may be extended by request of the Agency at
any time
(C)
Records
of monitoring ‘a’tformalion shalt include:
11)
The date, exact place, and lime of sampling
or
measurements:
(2)
The individual(s) who performed the sampling
or measuremenls:
(3)
The dale(s) analyses Were performed;
(4)
The
Individual(s) who performed )he
analyses;
(5)
The
analytical
lechniquesor
methods used;
and
(6)
‘The results of such analyses.
(d)
Monitoring must be conducted according to test
procedures
approved
under 4(
CFR Part
136, unless other tesI
procedures
hare been specified iii this permt-
tAhere
rio
lest
procedure
under
40
CFR
Part
136
has
been
approved,
It-I
peernittee rrajst submit to the Agency a test
method
for approval.
The
permitter
shall
calibrate
and
perform
maintenance
procedures
On
alt
monitoring
acm
analytical
irrxlrun’terrl.ation al intervals to ensure accuracy
of measurements.
(11)
Signatory
requirement
Alt
applications,
reports
c-I’.
it’rforrr.ation
submitted
to
hi
Agency
shall be signed and certified,
Is)
Application.
All permit applications shall
be
signed
as
follows:
(1)
For a corporation:
by a pr-r.cipal executrrs officer of
at lessl
the
level
vice
president
or
a
person
or
position
hs’,ing
overall
resportsibiily
Ic
environmental matters for the
cor’poration
(2)
For
a partnership
or sole proprietorship:
by a
general
partner
or
It-i
proprietor, respectively; or
(3)
For a munlcipallly,
State,
Fedenal, or other publIc agency: by
either
principal executive officer
or ranking
elected olf’iclal.
)b)
Reports.
AU repont.s required by permits, or
otter’ information requested
by
Itt
Agency shall
be
signed
by a
person
described
in
paragraph
(a)
Pr
by
a dcl
authorized
representative
of
It-at
person.
A
person
a
a
duly
aulhbrcze
representative only If:
(Il
The authorization
Is m~dc
in v.Tittng by a person
described in paragraphl~
and
(2)
.
‘re,s
a(.lon
specIfies either sn.kidMdual or a position responsible
IC
th~
o’i’al’~,itOpstSfiOfl of ~
f~y,
from v.tilth
the ~iachargC
origIn ales. su
as a plant manager, superintendent or person of equivalent respons
and
(3)
The written authorization
Is
submitted
to
the Ag~rtcy.
(-4)
The
level establl~hed
by the Agency In this permit.
(c)
Chang*~01 AuthOd~tI0fl.If an authorrzation under (b)
Is no longec accurate
because
dtfferent
Individual
or
positron
has
responsibility
for
the
overatl
operatIon of the facIlity,
a neW authorIzation satisfying
the ritqulrernents of (b)
must be vjbmittcdto the AgencY prior to or
bogethery~4l.th~y
reports.
information,
or applications to be signed by an authorized represenlalive.
Reporting requirements.
(al
Planned
changes.
The
permiltee shall give notice
to the
Agency as
soon
as
possible o(eny planned physical aiterations
or
additions
to the permitled IaCIlily
(b)
AntIcIpated
noncomplIance.
Tire
permilleo
shalt
give advance
notice to Ihe
Agency
of any
planned changes
ri the
permitted
lacility
or
aclivily which may
result in
noncompliance with permit reqi.ii(emncitil
(CI
ComplIance schedules.
Reports of compliance or nonconipliance with, or
any
progress reports
art, interim
and final requiremenis contained
in ant-compliance
schedule
of Ihis permit
shall be
submrlled no later than
1-4
days tollowtng each
schedule
dale.
(d)
Monitoring
reports.
MonItoring
results
shall
be
reported
at
the
intervals
specified
elsewhere in
this
permit
iti
Monitoring results
must
be
reported
on a
Discharge
Monitoring
Report
(DMA).
(2)
If tile permillee monitors any pollutant more frequenilythan required by the
permit, using test procedures
approved
under 40 CFR
136
or
as specified
in
the permit,
the results of Ihis rrronilo(ing
st-tall be included
in
the calculation
and reporting
c-I the data submitleil
in
the
DMF1.
(3)
Calculations
for
all
limilalions which
requite
averaging
of
measurements
shall ulilize an arithmetic mean
Unless olherwise specified by
the Agency in
the
permit.
(e)
Twenty’four
hour reporting.
The
permillee
shall
report, any noncompliance
which
may
endanger
health
on
the
environmenl.
Any
inlormalion
shall
be
provided orally within 24 hours from
the lime the permittee
becomes
aware
or’
bite
clrcairrrstances.
A written submission shalt also be provided within 5 days of the
lime the pemmlttee becomes
aware of the circumstances.
The written submission
shall contain
a description of the noncompliance
and
its
cause: the
period
of
noncompliance,
Including
exact dates and time:
and If the noncompliance has not
been corrected, the
anticipitted time it is expected
to continue: and steps taken
or
planned to reduce, el’e’ninate. and prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance.
The
following
shall be included
as information which musl be reported
within 24
hours:
(1)
Any
unanticipated
bypass
which ‘exceeds
ant-
effluent
limitation
In
the
permit;
(2)
Violation of a max’e’num
daily discharge
Iirnilation
for
any of the
pollutants
lisled
by the Agency in
the permit to be reported wilhin
24 hours.
The Agency
may waive the written
report
on
a c.ase.by-case
basis
if the
oral
report
has
been received within 24 hours.
(I’)
Other
noncompliance.
The
permittee
sha(I
report
all
instances
of
noncompliance not reported
under paragraphs
(12)(c).
(d),
or
(e),
at tl’te
time
rnonilortrtg
repcrl.s are
submitted.
The reports shall contain the inforrr’raliofl listed
in paragraph (12)(e).
(g)
Other Informaiton.
A1’tere the permillee
becomes
swore
that
it
tailed to submit
any relevant facts in a permit application,
or
submilted incorrect inlorrnaf ion in
a
permit application,
or
in any report Ia the Agency. t shall
prompily
submit such
facts or Information.
(13)
Transfer of permits.
A permit may be aulomalically Iranslerred
Ia a new pormiflee
(a)
The current
permitlee notifies
Ihe
Agency
ai least
30 days
in advance of the
proposed
transfer date:
(b)
The notice includes a written agr.eemenl between
Sw exislng and new permrtlees
containing
a
specific
date
for
transfer
of permit
responsibility,
coverage
and
liability between
the curreni
arat
new permit’lees; and
(c)
The
Agency
does
not notify
the
existing
permittee
and
the
pntposed
new
permnitiee of
Its inlonl to modify or revoke
and reissue the permit.
If this notice
is
not received,
the transfer is
effective
on the date specified itt it-re
agreement.
(14)
All manufacturing, commercial, mining, and
silvicuitural
dischargers
musl notify tire
Agency as soon
as
they know or-have reason
10 believe:
(a)
That any activity has occurred or
will occur which would
result
in
the discharge of
any toxic pollutant identified
underSedi~307 of the
Clean Waler Act which Is
not limited ‘at
the
permit. if that discharge will exceed the highest of the following
notiflcaiiott levels:
(1)
One
hundred micrograms
per
liter (100 ug/l):
(2)
Two
hundred micrograms
per
liter (200
ug/t)
for
acrolein and acrylonitx’flet
five hundred micrograms per lIter (500
ugh)
for’ 2,4-dinttroplsenol and for 2-
melhyl-4.S
dlnitrophemol: and one milligram per liter
(1
mg/I) for antImony.
(b)
That
theyhave
beguncm
expect to begat to use
or
manufacture as an intevi’~ate
or
final product
or
byproduct any
boxic pollutant which was not
reported
at
the
NPDES permit application.
(15)
All Publicly
Owned Treatment Works )POTW5) must provide adequate
notice
Ia
tie
Agency of Ihe following:
(al
Any
new
introduction
of pollutants into
that
POTW trom
an indirect
discharge
which would
be subject to Sections 301
or
30601 the Clean Waler Ad
‘it
ti were
directly discharging those
pollulanis;
and
Ib)
Any substantial th~’iQe
in the volume
or character of pollutanls being
rrrlri~duced
ella that P01W by a source
inlroducing pollutants into
the P01W at Ire
tlrve
of
issuance of the
permit.
(c)
For purposes of this paragraph. adequale notice
shalt include inforr’nalioa”i on
Ii)
the
qualily
and
quantity of
effluent
introduced
into
the
P01W.
ar-il
(ii)
any
anlicipaled
impact of
the
change
on
the
quartlily
or
quality of
eli’tue,i
t
to
be
discharged
from the P01W.
)t6)
tilt-re permit
is
issued toe
publicly owned
or
publicly
regulated
treatment corks, the
permitlee shall
require any
Industrial
user
c-I such
treatment
works
10
comply w~lh
lederal requirements conceming:
(ci.
User d’rar’ges pursuant to Section
2041b) of the Clean Water Act,
and applicable
regulations
appearing in 40 CFR
35,
(b)
Toxic pollutant
effluent standards and pretreatment slandardu pursuant
in
Section
307 of the Clean Waler Ad; and
(c)
Inspection. mnonitorit’ig and entry pursusnl 10 Section
308 01
lie
Clean Waler
Act.
(17)
If an applicable standard or lirrtilation
is
promulgaled under Section 301(bi(2XCI and
(0), 304(b)(2),
on 307(a)(2) and that effluent
slandard or
timitalion is
more stringent
than
any effluent limitation
in
the
permit,
or
conlrois
a
pollutant
not limte’d
in
the
pen’ritt, the permit shall be promplty modified or
revoked, and reissued 10 contorm to
that effluent standard
or lirnitaliom.
(18)
Any authorization to construct
issued 10 the permittee
pursuant
1035
III. Aim. Code
309.154
is hereby incorporated by
reference as a condition
of this permit,
(19)
The pemmittee s/tall
not make
any
false statement, representation or certification in
arty
application, record, report,
plan
or
other document submnitled lathe
Agency
or
the
USEPA. or
required to be maintained under this permit.
(20)
The
Clean
Water Act
provides
that
any
person
who violates
a
permit condition
irrrplemenling
Sections 301,, 302, 306. 307, 308, 318,
or 405 of the Clean Waler Act
Is
subject
to a civil
penalty not to exceed
$10,000
per day of such violsilon.
Any
person who willfully or negligently violates permit conditions
Implementing
Sections
301,302,
306,307, or
308 of the Clean Water Act
is sub)ect lo a fine of not less than
$2,500 nor more than $25,000
per day of violalion,
or by
imnprisonmenl Icr not more
than one year,
or
both.
(21)
The
Clean
Wafer Act
provides
thaI
any
person
who
falsifies,
tampers
with,
or
knowingly
renders
inaccurate
any
monitoring
device
or
method
requited
to
he
maintained
under permit shall,
upon conviction, be punished bye
fine of not more than
310.600 per
violation, or by Imprisonment
for not more than 6 months
per violation, or
by both.
(22(
The
Clean
Waler
Act
provides
Ihat
any
person
who knowingly
makes
any
Islse
slalement, representation,
or ceriificalion’at
any record or other document submitted
or
required
10 be maintained
under this permit
shalt, including monitoring reports or
reports of compliance or rton-contptionce aliaS, upon conviction,
be punished
by
a line
of riot more than $10,000 per violalion,
or
by Impriscrvnent farnot more than 6 monlhs
per violation, or
by both.
(-23)- .0ollected~screCnin9
un’ics,sludgms.sndottter.solid&$tia.ll he_dipppse’d olin such
a manner
55
10 prevent
enlry of those w~stes
(or runoff (roni
the waslesi nb
waters
of ,Ihe State.
The
pr-op-er authorizalion tar such disposal shalt be obtained
Irom
the
Agency and
Is incorporated as
part hereof by reference.
(24)
In case
of conflict
between
lI’iese
standxr,d
conditions
and any
oilier
coriit:tron(Sl
included
In this permit,
the other condition(s)
shall
govem.
(25)
The
permutes
shall
comply
with,
in addition to
the requirements
of the
permit,
all
applicable provisions of 35 If. Adm.
Code,
Subtitle
C, Subtitle
0. Sublitie
c.
and
all
applicable orders of the
Board.
(25)
The
provisions of ibis permit are
severable, and if any provision
of
11115
2OIrnII. or
the
application of any provision
of this permit is
heid invslid,
the remaining
prOvisions 01
Ibis
permit shall continue
in
full force and effect.
(Rev. 3~1
3-95)
‘
(3)
Frito
(5) lImes the maximum concentration
value reported
for that pollutant
In the
NPDES
permit applicatiort; or
