IN THE MATTER OF:
RECE~V~O
CLERK’S OF~!CE
BEFORE
THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOAR~U626
2004
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
PROPOSED
35
Iii.
Adm. Code 304.123(g),
304.123(h), 304.123(i), 304.123(j), and 304.123(k)
)
R04-26
)
(Rulemaking
-
Water)
NOTICE
OF FILING
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
Suite
11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Mathew Dunn
Illinois Attorney General’s Office
Environmental Control Division
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street
Chicago, Illinois 60601
See Attached Service List
Legal
Service
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
One Natural Resources Way
Springfield, Illinois 62702-1271
John Knittel
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
2125 South First Street
Champaign, Illinois 61820
PLEASE
TAKE NOTICE
that
I
have today filed
with
the
Office
of the
Clerk of the
Pollution
Control
Board
the MOTION
FOR
LEAVE
TO.
FILE
INSTANTER
AND
THE
WRITTEN
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT MOSHER
AND
PAUL
J.
TERRIO ofthe Illinois
Environmental
Protection Agency, a
copy of which is herewith served upon you.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
By:____________________________
SanjayK. Sofat
Assistant Counsel
Division ofLegal Counsel
Dated:
August 25, 2004
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021
North Grand Avenue East
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
(217) 782-5544
THIS FILING PRINTED
ON
RECYCLED PAPER
RECEfl/ED
CLERK’S OFFICE
AUG 26
2004
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARI~TATE
OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
IN THE MATTER OF:
PROPOSED 35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 304.123(g),
)
R04-26
304.123(h), 304.123(i),
304.123(j), and
304.123(k)
)
(Rulemaking
-
Water)
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE INSTANTER
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“Illinois EPA”), through its
attorney,
Sanjay K. Sofat,
moves the Illinois Pollution Control Board
(“Illinois PCB”) to
allow the
filing of the written testimony ofRobert Mosher and Paul J. Terrio in the above matter
instanter.
In support thereof, the Illinois EPA states as follows:
1.
On May 14, 2004, Petitioner, the Illinois EPA, filed a proposal to establish
an
interim phosphorus effluent standard at 35
Ill. Adm.
Code 304.123.
2.
On June 3, 2004, the Illinois PCB directed that a hearing be scheduled on the
Illinois EPA’s proposal.
The Hearing Officer scheduled the
first hearing on
August 30-31, 2004 in Chicago.
3.
The Hearing Officer directed the parties interested in testifying at the hearing to
prefile the testimony with the Illinois PCB and the Hearing Officer by August 16,
2004.
4.
The undersigned attorney was unable to help prepare the written testimony of
Robert Mosher and Paul J. Terrio by the due date due to the conflict with other
time sensitive obligations.
5.
However, no harm will result to
the interested parties as the delay is minimal and
the Illinois EPA will be at the hearing to answer any questions the interested
parties may have.
Therefore, the Illinois EPA moves to allow the filing ofthe written testimony ofRobert
Mosher and Paul J. Terrio instanter.
Respectfully Submitted
Sanjay K. Sofat
Assistant Counsel
Division ofLegal Counsel
Dated:
August
25,
2004
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021
N. Grand Ave. East
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
(217) 782-5544
THIS FILING PRINTED ON
RECYCLED PAPER
RECE~vED
CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE
THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
AUG 262004
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
IN THE MATTER OF:
PROPOSED
35 Ill. Adm.
Code 304.123(g),
)
R04-26
304.123(h), 304.123(i),304.123(j), and 304.123(k)
)
(Rulemaking
-
Water)
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT MOSHER
My name is Robert Mosher and I have been employed by Illinois EPA for almost
19 years.
I
have been assigned to the Water Quality Standards Unit for 18 ofthose years and have participated
in the development and adoption ofnumerous water quality and effluent standards.
Prior to my
employment by the Agency I worked for Monsanto
Company in
the development oflaboratory
toxicity tests using aquatic
organisms and the determination ofthe aquatic toxicity values for
individual chemicals and industrial wastewater effluents.
I hold
a M.S. degree in zoology from
Eastern Illinois University where I specialized
in the effects ofwastewater discharges on stream
ecology.
-
-
My testimony today will describe the proposed changes to the phosphorus effluent standard.
Underlying principles behind the rule, brought forth in
subsection (g), are that certain wastewater
discharges are significant sources ofphosphorus and that facilities that are new or undergoing
expansion are opportune venues for building in phosphorus removal capabilities.
Costs for the
addition ofphosphorus removal equipment will be most reasonable when they can be designed into
the original construction.
Therefore,
only new or expanding municipal wastewater treatment
facilities with a design average flow ofone million gallons per day (MGD) are subject to the
proposed phosphorus effluent limit of 1.0 mg/L total phosphorus on a monthly average basis.
Likewise, othertypes of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities are subject to the limit if
1
they would discharge phosphorus at the same pound loading as a one MGD municipal
sewage
treatment plant.
The value of25 pounds per day was determined from the pound loading ofa
typical municipal wastewater effluent that contains, with
no special phosphorus removal equipment
in place,
on average
about 3.0 mg/L total phosphorus.
Both the size offacilities covered and the
concentration ofphosphorus to be met in subject effluents have precedent in the existing phosphorus
effluent standard.
Subsection (h) recognizes the fact that sometimes the generally prescribed phosphorus
effluent
limit will be either unnecessarily stringent or not protective enough depending on the nature
ofthe receiving water body.
Phosphorus
is generally believed to be the nutrient in shortest supply in
freshwater ecosystems, i.e., the limiting nutrient factor, and therefore its concentration may often
limit plant growth.
Ifit can be demonstrated
that a water body receiving an efflUent has algae or
noxious aquatic plant growth that is not limited by phosphorus, but rather another nutrient or water
quality factor, then no phosphorus effluent limit must be imposed.
On the other hand, if it is
demonstrated that
1
mg/L total phosphorus will be inadequate to
control noxious plant
growth in the
receiving water and furtherphosphorus control below a monthly avelage of 1.0 mg/L is feasible at a
facility, the Agency may impose a lower phosphorus limit to protect that water body.
-
Subsection
(i) is intended to clarif~’
which wastewater treatment facilities are not subject to
the phosphorus effluent limitation.
Subsection
(j)
stipulates that compliance with the effluent phosphorus standard fulfills the
obligation ofthe dischargerto meet water quality standards, specifically, the narrative standard
prohibiting offensive conditions that includes a statement on unnatural plant or algal growth.
Subsection (K) recognizes that thephosphorus effluent standardwill likely someday be
supplemented by water quality standards forphosphorus that may dictate the removal ofthese
proposed effluent limits, other effluent phosphorus limits or water quality based effluent limits.
At
-
2
such time the phosphorus standard will probably be reworked to compliment the new water quality
standards.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCY
By:________________________
Sanjay K Sofat
Assistant Counsel
Division ofLegal
Counsel
DATED:
August 25, 2004
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O.
Box
19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
(217)782-5544
-
THIS
FILING PRINTED
ON
RECYCLED PAPER
3
RECEUVED
CLERK’S OFFICE
AUG
262004
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARL~TATEOF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
IN THE MATTER OF:
PROPOSED 35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 304.123(g),
)
R04-.26
304.123(h), 304.l23(i),304.123(j), and 304.123(k)
)
(Rulemaking
-
Water)
TESTIMONY OF PAUL J. TERRIO
My name is Paul Terrio and I am a Hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in
Urbana, Illinois.
I have worked with the USGS forjust over 20 years and the majority of that time
has been in Illinois.
For the past
12 years, I have served as the Water Quality Specialist for the
Illinois District ofthe USGS. I hold a degree in Hydrology from the University ofArizona.
My testimony today will consist ofbriefstatements regarding the rationale for the proposed
interim phosphorus standard; including the role ofphosphorus in the aquatic environment, the
reasoning behind proposing a standard fortotal phosphorus, and the basis for the proposed effluent
standard of 1
mg/L (milligram per liter).
-
Nitrogen and phosphorus are the primary nutrients required for virtually all plant life on
earth, both terrestrial and aquatic
(Hem
1982, American Public Health Association
1998,
Terrio1995).
These nutrients are each available to water bodies naturally, as well as through
anthropogenic inputs to watersheds such as commercial fertilizer and wastewater effluent.
Other
elements, such as carbon and potassium, are also required for biological organisms, but generally are
present in natural waters in amounts sufficient to support biological growth and seldom are
-
“limiting” nutrients.
A limiting nutrient is the nutrient present in shortest supply and that which will
be exhausted first, limiting further growth potential (O’Shaughnessyand McDonnell 1973).
Nitrogen is also typically present in concentrations sufficient to support aquatic algal and
4
plant growth, but might be the limiting nutrient in some locations or at some times, such as during
low-flow periods when the supply ofsoluble nitrogen is exhausted from the water column
(American
Public Health Association 1998,
Dodds and Welch 2000, Francoeur et al
1999).
Because
of its’
soluble nature and plentiful sources, nitrogen concentrations in Illinois waterbodies are
virtually always sufficient for aquatic plant growth (Terrio
1995).
Concurrent non-limiting levels
ofnitrogen and phosphorus can result in excessive and problematic plant and
algal growth, a
condition known as eutrophication.
In most fresh water environments, phosphorus is considered to
be the limiting nutrient or the nutrient in shortest supply (American Public Health Association 1998,
Hem
1982, U.S.
Geological Survey 1999).
Because the available supply ofphosphorus in water
bodies is typically less than that ofnitrogen, furtherreductions in the sources ofphosphorus might
prevent the occurrence ofproblematic or eutrophic
conditions in waterbodies reáeiving wastewater
treatment effluents.
The presence and behavior ofphosphorus in the aquatic environment is complex (Hem
1985,
U.S.
Geological Survey 1999).
Phosphorus can be present in organic and inorganic form, in plant
and animal matter, absorbed to particulate material, sequestered in benthic sediments, or in the water
colunm in particulate or dissolved form.
Phosphorus
is transformed and cycled betweenorganically
bound forms and oxidized inorganic forms and occurs in natural waters and wastewater primarily as
phosphate (American Public Health Association 1998
and Hem
1982).
Orthophosphate, often
referred to as soluble reactive phosphorus, is the form most readily available for incorporation by
organic life forms.
However, because ofthe continual cycling ofphosphorus and the presence of
inorganic, organic, soluble, and absorbed phosphorus forms in water bodies, the orthophosphate
form alone does not provide an accurate and complete assessment ofphosphorus in an aquatic
environment.
Total phosphorus analysis provides a more comprehensive quantification because it
incorporates phosphorus present in dissolved, particulate, and biological forms.
5
Several investigations regarding the practicality, feasibility,
and economics oftreating
municipal wastewaters to
low levels ofphosphorus
have been or are being conducted,
including
studies
by the Illinois Association ofWastewater Agencies (IAWA) and the Water Environment
Research Foundation.
A report, commissioned by the IAWA,
“Technical
Feasibility and Cost to
MeetNutrient Standards in the State ofIllinois
“,
states that most
existing treatment facilities in
Illinois
could be retrofitted or augmented with biological or biological and chemical processesto
achieve monthly average effluent total phosphorus concentrations of0.5
mg/L on a reliable and
consistent basis.
Most existing wastewater treatment facilities would need additional tankage to
incorporate anaerobic and anoxic systems into the treatment process
to increase phosphorus
removal.
Many Midwestern states (Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio) have some form
ofa 1.0 mg/L total phosphorus effluent standard in place, while other states (Minnesota) have
pending revisions to incorporate such a standard
(USEPA website:
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/wqs/).
The costs of achieving an
average of 1.0 mg/L total phosphorus in
affected sewage treatment
plant effluents may be estimated from recent
examples.
Two principal methods forphosphorus
removal, biological removal and chemical precipitation, are available.
While biological phosphorus
removal maybe a superior method
in terms of lower final effluent concentrations and minimal
operations and maintenances costs, this method would probably entail higher capital costs, would
not be compatible with all
existing plant configurations and will not be necessary to meet the
proposed phosphorus effluent standard.
Biological phosphorus removal maybecome the metho4 of
choice for new or extensively updated plants looking to
future nutrient removal requirements.
beyond the proposed effluent standard.
These facilities would be designed with additional tankage
and related needs.
Many existing plants would have to add tankage to achieve biological
6
phosphorus removal, thus accounting for the higher cost.
An estimate ofthe costs ofthis method of
phosphorus removal combined with nitrogen removal is available (Zenz, 2003) but this estimate is
not
specifically relevant to the instant proposed phosphorus effluent standard.
The chemical precipitationmethod will therefore usually be chosen for expanded treatment
plants.
The capital impr6vements for chemical precipitation equipment at recently designed
treatment plants in the
1 to
5
million gallon per day (MGD) design average flow range would cost
$50,000 to $60,000 if an existing building
is available for chemical storage tank and equipment
housing and $200,000 to $300,000 if a new building must be added. Additional \vastewater
treatment tankage is usuallynot required to install this equipment, which consists ofa chemical
storage tank for the precipitation chemical,
secondary tank containment and a chemical feed pump.
Yearly chemical costs will vary based on plant flow and phosphorus concentration in
the pre-
phosphorus removal final effluent.
For an existing
5.9
MGD plant required to meet the
1.0 mg/L
effluent standard, with average operating flows
at the design capacity and using fen-ic chloride as the
precipitation chemical, the chemical cost is approximately $50,000 per year. Approximately
15
to
30
more sludge by weight is generated when chemical precipitation phosphorus removal is
applied.
The increased amount and physical characteristics ofthe sludge following phosphorus
removal may require an upgrade ofsludge handling facilities as well as slightly increased sludge
handling operations and maintenance costs.
.
References
1.
American Public Health Association,
1998,
Standard Methodsfor the Examination of Water
and
Wastewater, 2rt Edition,
Washington, D.C., variously paged.
2.
Dodds, W.K. and Welch, E.B., 2000, Establishing Nutrient Criteria in Streams, Journal of
the North American Benthological Society, Volume 19, pages 186-196.
7
3.
Francoeur, S.N., Biggs, B.J.F., Smith, R.A., and Lowe, R.L.,
1999,
Nutrient Limitation of
Algal Biomass Accrual
in Streams: Seasonal Patterns and a Comparison ofMethods,
Journal ofthe North American Benthological
Society, Volume 18,
pages 242-260.
4.
Hem, J.D.,
1985,
Study and Interpretation ofthe chemical characteristics ofNatural
Water,
U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2254, 263
p.
5.
McNeely, R.N., Neimanis, V.P., and Dwyer, L.,
1979,
Water
Quality Sourcebook,
A Guide
to
Water Quality Parameters,
Environment Canada, Ottawa,
88 p.
6.
O’Shaugh.nessy, J.C. and
McDonnell, A.J.,
1973,
Criteriafor Estimating Limiting Nutrients
in
Natural Streams,
The Pennsylvania State University, Research Publication Number 75,
91
p.
7.
Terrio, P.J.,
1995,
Water-Quality Assessment ofthe Upper Illinois RiverBasin in Illinois,
Indiana,
and Wisconsin: Nutrients, Dissolved Oxygen, and Fecal-IndicatorBacteria in
Surface
Water, April 1987 Through August 1990,
U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources
Investigations Report
95-4005,
79p.
8.
U.S.
Geological Survey,
1999,
The Quality ofourNation ‘s
Waters, Nutrients and Pesticides,
U.S.
Geological Survey Circular 1225,
82
p.
9.
Zenz, David R.,
Technical Feasibility and Cost to Meet Nutrient Standards in the State of
Illinois,
2003, Report commissioned by the
Illinois
Association ofWastewater Agencies.
ILLiNOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
By:_________________________
SanjayKSofat
Assistant Counsel
Division ofLegal Counsel
DATED:
August
25,
2004
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O.
Box
19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
(217)782-5544
THIS FILING
PRINTED ON
RECYCLED PAPER
8
)
STATE
OF ILLINOIS
COUNTY OF SANGAMON
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, on oath state that I have served the attached
MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE
INSTANTER
AND
THE
WRITTEN TESTIMONY
OF ROBERT MOSHER AND.
PAUL J. TERRIO
upon the person to
whom it is directed, by placing a copy in an envelop
addressed to:
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(Overnight)
Mathew Dunn
Illinois Attorney General’s Office
Environmental Control Division
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(Overnight)
Legal Service
Illinois Department ofNatural Resources
One Natural Resources Way
Springfield, Illinois 62702-1271
(Overnight)
John Knittle
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
2125 South First Street
Champaign, Illinois 61820
(Overnight)
See Attached Service List
and mailing it from Springfield, Illinois on August 25, 2004, with sufficient postage affixed as
indicated above.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME
this dayofAugust 25, 2004.
~
Notary Public
x
OFFICIAL
8EAL
BRENDA
BOEHNER
NOTARY
PUBLIC,
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
~:
:~MY
COMMISSION
EXPIRES
~
THIS FILING PRINTED
ON
RECYCLED PAPER
9
)
Ss
)
)
Service List
Albert Ettinger
Environmental Law and Policy Center
35 East Wacker Drive, Suite
1300
Chicago, Illinois
60601
Roy Harsch
Garden, Carton and Douglas
191 North Wacker Drive, Suite 3700
Chicago, Illinois
60601
David Horn
Assistant
Professor ofBiology
Aurora University
347 Gladstone Avenue
Aurora,
Illinois
60506
JohnMcMahon
Wilkie and McMahon
8 East Main Street
Champaign, Illinois 61820
