BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLIJTION CONTROL BOARD
~
E
C
~
~V ~
CLERKS OFFICE
SEP28
2004
IN TIlE
MATFER
OF:
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution
Control Board
INTERIM
PHOSPHORUS
EFFLUENT
)
STAJNDARD, PROPOSED 35 ILL. ADM.
)
R04-26
CODE 304.123 (G-K)
)
(Rulemaking-Water)
)
)
)
NOTICE
OF
FILING
TO:
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST.
PLEASE
TAKE
NOTICE
that on
~
September~,2004, we filed
the
attached
Written
Testimony
of
Richard
Lanyon
and
the
1V~efropolitanWater
Reclamation
Disfrict of
Greater Chicago
with the Clerk of the Pollution Control Board, a copy of which is herewith served upon
you.
METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION
DISTRICT OF GREATERCHICAGO
BY’ ________________________
Michael
G. Rosenberg, its Attorney
Michael G. Rosenberg/RonaldM. Hill
Metropolitan Water Reclamation
District of Greater Chicago
100 East Erie Street
Chicago, IL
60611
(3 12)
751-6583
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I,
:j~~k
C-
~J’,,
e~
.5
,~
; i’-
I-~
,
being
duly sworn
on
oath,
certify
that
I
caused a
copy
of
the
attached
Written
Testimony
of
Richard
Lanyon
and
the
Metropoiltan
Water
Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
to be sentvia first class U.S. Mail to the individuals identified
on the attached service list their addresses
as shown, with proper postage prepaid, from 100 E. Erie Street,
Chicago, illinois, at or nearthe hour of 4:00 p.m., this~ day of September, 2004.
f&~crJ~
~
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before
me this2~dayof September, 2004.
/9
-
IIOFFICIALS~U1
~
Rosalie Bottari
Not~ry
Public
~
Notary
Public, State of Illinois
5
IUi:me
/
~My Commission Eap. 04/10/2006
J
THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED
ON
Printable Notice List
Page
1 of
Pi~ofthe~ttorne
General
Interested Party
Illinois
Environmental
~
interested Party
Environmental
Law
~n~olicC~nter
Interested
Party
Wilkie & McMaho~
Interested
Party
Prnaolof
N~raLR~urc~s
Interested
Party
MWRDGC
Interested
Party
AsirQraUnjMerit
Interested
Party
City of Piano
Interested Party
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Springfield
P.O.
Box 19276
IL
62794-9276
Sanjay K.~Sofat,Assistant Counsel
191
N. Wacker Drive
Chicago
Suite 3700
IL
60606-1698
Roy M. Harsch
Environmental Bureau
100 West Randolph Street,
Chicago
IL
60601
11th Floor
Matthew J. Dunn, Chief
3150 Roland Avenue
Springfield
IL
62703
RobertA. Messina, General
Counsel
35 East Wacker Drive
Chicago
Suite 1300
IL 60601
AlbertF. Ettinger
8 East Main Street
Champaign
IL 61820
John McMahon
Springfield
One Natural Resources Way
IL
62702-1271
Jonathan Furr
100 E. Erie
Richard
Lanyon,
Director of
347 Gladstone Avenue
David Horn, Asat. Prof.,
Biology
17 E. Main
Street
Darin
Boyer
Phone/Fax
217/782-5544
217/782-9807
312/814-2550
312/814-2347
217/523-4942
217/523-4948
312/673-6500
312/795-3730
217/359-2115
217/359-2754
217/782-1 809
217/524-9640
LH
Role
Party Name
IEPA
Petitioner
Gardner Carton &
Douglas
Interested Party
City
& State
312/569/1000
312/569-3000
Chicago
IL
60611
Research & Development
Aurora
IL
60506
PIano
II 60545-1521
Total number of participants:
10
http
:fiwww.ipcb
.State.il.us/coollexternaJcasenotify.asp?caseid=641
8¬if~itype=Service
9/10/200’
RECE~VED
CLERK’S
OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARLSEP 28
2004
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control 8oard
IN
THE MATTER OF:
)
)
INTERIM PHOSPHORUS EFFLUENT
)
R04-26
STANDARD, PROPOSED
35
ILL. ADM.
)
(Rulemaking-Water)
304.123(G-K)
)
)
)
L
WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF RICHARD
LANYON AND
THE METROPOLITAN
WATERRECLAMATION DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
My name
is
Richard Lanyon.
I
am currently
employed
by
the Metropolitan Water
L
Reclamation
District
of
Greater
Chicago
(“District”)
as
its
Director
of
Research
&
Development.
The District
is
a unit of local
government
created by the state legislature for
L
-
the purpose of collecting and disposing ofsewerage, reducing pollution ofthe waterways and
preventing
flooding.
70
ILCS
2605/1,
et
seq.
The District’s
service
area
is
most of Cook
County.
In its
capacity as a water reclamation district,
the District
operates seven treatment
facilities in its
service
area,
serves
five million residents
and treats
an average of 1.4
billion
gallons ofsewage daily.
I have been the
District’s Director of R&D
since
1999.
As
Director of Research
&
Development, I supervise
the District’s Research
&
Development Department,
which has a
L
staff of 340.
Prior to
becoming
Director of Research
&
Development,
I
was the Assistant
r
Director ofResearch & Development.
I held this position from
1975 until
1999.
I have been
employed by the District since
1963.
L
I
received
both
Bachelors
and
Masters
of
Civil
Engineering
degrees
from
the
University ofIllinois
at Urbana-Champaign (“UJUC”).
I received the American Society of
Civil
Engineer’s
National
Government
Civil
Engineer
of the
Year
Award
in
1999
and
L
1
Distinguished
Alumnus
of the Department of Civil
and
Environmental
Engineering
at the
UIIJC
in 2003.
I am also a past President of the Illinois
Section of the American
Society of
Civil
Engineers
(“ASCE”)
and have been
involved
in
a
variety
of technical
activities
for
ASCE, the
Water
Environment
Federation
and the
Association of Metropolitan
Sewerage
Agencies.
My responsibilities
as the District’s Director of Research
& Development include, but
are not limited to, to the following:
•
Control of commercial and industrial waste
discharges to the District’s sewers
and the waterways via the Sewage and Waste Control Ordinance;
•
Recovery of certain District operating, maintenance and replacement costs via
administration ofthe User Charge Ordinance;
•
Providing
analytical
laboratory
support
for
the
control
of commercial
and
-
industrial wastes and for control oftreatment and other operations;
•
Monitoring the environmental quality of Lake Michigan and area waterways;
and
•
Conducting
basic
and
applied
research
on
new
wastewater
and
sludge
treatment processes.
TEPA Proposal
The
IEPA
has
proposed
that
the
IPCB
adopt
an
interim
phosphorus
standard
for
General Use waters and requirements for compliance with the interim standard.
I submit this
statement on behalfofthe District in opposition to
the JEPA’s May 14, 2004, Notice ofFiling
and
Statement
of
Reasons
(“Statement”).
Our
opposition
is
based
on
the
following
comments:
!
On
the
bottom
of Page
7
of the
Statement
and
continuing
on
Page
8,
the
IEPA
discusses
the
“shortage of
sound
scientific
information available
to
examine
relationships
I
-
between nutrient concentrations,
biological
parameters, and
dissolved oxygen in the receiving
L
waters.”
IEPA
also
discusses
the
document
(labeled
Exhibit
A)
that
presents
IEPA’s
approach for developing numeric nutrient standards.
On Page 4 ofExhibit A at the top ofthe
page, IEPA states that
“The Illinois Plan
for Adoption of Nutrient Water
Quality
Standards
L
~lan)
was
submitted to
USEPA
on
August
14,
2003
and was
one
of the
first plans
in the
nation
to
have
received
“mutually
agreed upon”
status
from
USEPA.”
This
plan,
which
USEPA
agreed to,
does
not
call
for the promulgation of any
interim
effluent
phosphorus
standards
in
Illinois.
It
clearly states that
more
scientific study
is
needed before
numeric
L
standards can be recommônded.
Therefore there is no pressing need for the JEPA to rush into
promulgating
interim
effluent
phosphorus
standards,
and
to
do
so
actually
contradicts
the
L
IEPA submittal to USEPA.
1’
On page
9
of the
Statement,
the paragraph beginning
at the bottom
and
continuing
through page
10
cites a wide
variety
ofphosphorus
inputs to the environment,
demonstrating
how complex
the control
of this
nutrient
can
be.
IEPA’s
proposal
ultimately
places the
responsibility for control solely
on
certain point source
dischargers of phosphorus,
thereby
discriminating against these dischargers
by ignoring the
significant phosphorus
contributions
L
ofnonpoint
dischargers.
L
In the paragraph that begins
on the bottom ofpage
10,
JEPA
discusses eutrophication
and the adverse environmental impact of these phenomena.
The paragraph closes on page
11,
with the
following statement:
“Some research has indicated that
phosphorus
concentrations
L
above 0.1
mg/l can result in excessive algal growth affecting municipal, industrial recreational
r
uses in North American fresh water environments.”
JEPA bases this claim upon a 25 year old
Canadian
sourcebook
and
guide
for water
quality
m North Amencan
waters.
This
is
not
3
H
•1
research, but simply guidance
that is over 25 years
old, and
IEPA has waited until now to
act
on it.
Further, the IEPA fails
to
cite
any
specific
algal
growth problems
in Illinois
lakes or
rivers that affects uses and that can be attributed to excess phosphorus.
In the
second
sentence of the
second
paragraph on
page
11,
IEPA indicates
that
a
certain level ofphosphorus in lakes and streams is
“.
.
.necessary to ensure desirable biological
H
activity...” but higher levels are detrimental.
IEPA goes on to define the classic approach of
phosphorus
management
as
one
that
determines
the
upper
limit
of
beneficial
nutrient
concentration.
However, JEPA fails to
determine the phosphorus
concentration at which the
1
change occurs from desirable to detrimental.
1
The last paragraph beginning on page
11
and continuing on page
12
discusses current
phosphorus
numeric
and
narrative
standards
and
cites
the
current
General
Use
dissolved
oxygen
standard.
IEPA
fails
to
cite
any
evidence
that
deficiencies
in
dissolved
oxygen
H
concentrations in Illinois
lakes or rivers are the result of excessive phosphorus concentrations.
On,
page
12,
second
paragraph,
second
sentence,
JEPA
states
“The
scientific
relationships
between
algal
concentrations,
phosphorus
concentrations,
and
other
variables
H
that influence and
control plant growth rates, species composition,
and chemical
dynamics in
an
aquatic
environment
are
complex
and
currently
insufficiently
understood.”
IEPA
continues
to
explain
their
current
effort
to
conduct
a
comprehensive
multi-year
nutrient
1
standards development program.
This program is fully explained in Exhibit A attached to the
IEPA Statement ofReasons.
Thus, IEPA not only admits to a lack of adequate science upon
which to base the proposed interim standard, but also
is unwilling to even wait for the results
:1
of the
scientific
studies
which
they
are
sponsoring.
There
is
no
scientific
basis
for the
proposed phosphorus standard of 1.0 mgIL.
IEPA’s proposal is arbitrary
and capricious.
!
1
4
IEPA states
in
the
second
paragraph on
page
12
that the current narrative standard
L
provides no
practical guidance in establishing preventative or protective limits.
IEPA claims
that the interim
standard will provide needed guidance while it awaits the completion of the
multi-year program.
With
the
potential
scientific
basis
for
a
justifiable
and
defensible
L
phosphorus
standard but
a few years
away, there
is
no justification
for an interim limit that
JEPA carmot demonstrate is needed and has no scientific basis.
On page
13,
IEPA reveals
its
actual motive
in
seeking adoption of an
interim limit
L
now rather than waiting until data exists to
adopt a scientific based limit.
IEPA claims that
L
the
interim limit is
needed to
forestall further delay and
litigation
over pending permits
that
may be, in part, related to the need for a phosphorus limit.
IEPA is
asking the IPCB to
adopt
unscientific
and
unsound
standards
in
an
effort to
rectify the
IEPA’s
permit
backlog.
-
A
L
pennit backlog can be remedied by other means, but not by implementation of a standard that
has no ba~is
in science.
In Section IV on page
13,
JEPA cites the increasing usage ofphosphorus compounds
L
for corrosion control in potable water supply systems.
Thus at the same time that the IEPA is
seeking to place a burden upon POTWs for removal ofphosphorus, it is
also requiring the use
of a
corrosion inhibitor
by
potable
water suppliers
with high
metal
concentrations in their
L
distribution
network.
A
phosphorus
compound
is
the
most
popular
corrosion
inhibitor.
Phosphorus
used
for corrosion
control
eventually flows
into
the
POTW.
IEPA
does
not
indicate any relief for this burden that ultimately falls upon the ratepayer andlor taxpayer, that
Li
is,
to
pay for both the addition of and removal of phosphorus.
A more practical
and
direct
solution would be forthe IEPA
to initiate
a program to replace the offending metal plumbing
5
systems
that
are
susceptible
to
corrosion,
thereby eventually removing
this
double
burden
from the ratepayer and/or taxpayer.
IEPA
explains
the
available
technology
for
removal
of
phosphorus
at
POTWs
beginning at the top ofpage
14
and ending on the top ofpage
15.
JEPA does not
explain the
economic impact on Illinois POTWs to which this proposed rule would apply, or explain what
environmental
benefits
will
results
from
the
proposed
interim phosphorus
controls.
The
reference cited
by IEPA, Exhibit
G, estimates a
significant capital and
operating
cost for the
removal
of nitrogen and
phosphorus
by
Illinois
POTWs,
but
does not
identify
the
cost
of
phosphorus removal alone.
In this day and age of scarce public resources, POTWs should not
be required to
expend significant amounts
of public
money to meet
a
standard that
has no
scientific basis, and has no proven benefit to the environment.
Phosphorus Contributions to POTWs
As
explained by
IEPA, there are a number of sources of phosphorus,
in
addition
to
human
waste,
which
are
discharged
into
the
influent
sewage
to
POTWs.
Among
these
sources are residential
and
commercial
automatic
dishwasher detergents
(ADWDs),
which
still
contain
appreciable
amounts of phosphorus.
The Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency
commissioned
a
detailed
study
of the
sources
of phosphorus
to
Minnesota
POTWs
and
watersheds.
The
results
of the
Minnesota study
have
been
useful
for
the
estimation
of
phosphorus sources, especially ADWDs, to the District’s water reclamation plants (WRPs).
The
Minnesota
Pollution
Control
Agency
had
a
legislative
mandate
requiring
a
comprehensive study of phosphorus
contributions
to
POTWs and Minnesota surface waters.
A report
entitled,
“Detailed
Assessment of Phosphorus
Sources to
Minnesota Watersheds,”
prepared
by
Barr
Engineering
Company,
was
completed
in
February
2004.
(See
Ex.
1)
6
Volume 2
of the report,
entitled
Point Sources Technical Memorandum,
February
16,
2004,
L
includes an estimate ofvarious phosphorus
sources discharged to POTWs in Minnesota.
The
sources
included
residential
ADWDs,
commercial/institutional
ADWDs,
water
treatment
chemicals,
food
soils/garbage
disposal
waste,
dentifrices,
as
well
as
commercial/industrial
L
process wastewater.
The estimated
contributions
to
the
Minnesota
POTWs from
the
various
sources
in
terms ofpercent total phosphorus load to
the POTWs statewide are as follows:
Residential ADWD
7.3
Commercial/Institutional ADWD
3.4
Dentifrices
.
1.0
Food Soils/
16.2
Garbage Disposals
Commercialllndustrial
.
26.5
Process Wastewater
Water Treatment Chemicals
3.1
Li
Inflow and Infiltration
0.1
These sources
accounted for
57.6
of the
total phosphorus load to the Minnesota POTWs.
The remaining 42.4
ofthe phosphorus load was attributedto human waste.
L
,
The contribution ofADWDs was based upon the 2000 reported amount of phosphorus
used for ADWD formulation in the United States, from the Stanford Research Institute (SRI)
L
publication Chemical Economics Handbook
-
Industrial Phosphates,
and the
estimated U.
S.
L!
population for the year 2000
(approximately 281,422,000).
This data was used to calculate a
Li
per capita per year ADWD phosphorus usage in Minnesota.
Then the per capita values were
applied to the population served by the POTWs.
The following are the per capita phosphorus
Li
values estimated in the Minnesota study, for ADWDs:
7
Residential ADWDs
0.085 Kg/person/year
Commercial/Industrial ADWDs
0.04 Kg/person/year
Using the
per capita values from the Minnesota report (0.085 kg/person/yr
or
0.187
lbs/person/yr), an overall estimate of the phosphorus load from ADWDs in
Cook County has
been made.
The
2002
population for Cook
County was reported by
the Census Bureau as
5,283,888.
This value
does not
include
persons living
in
institutions
such
as
hospitals or
college dormitories.
The following estimates were made.
Residential ADWD is 449,131
Kg phosphorus/yr (494 tons/yr)
Commercial/Institutional ADWD is
211,355
Kg phosphorus/yr (232 tons/yr)
The combined total phosphorus load to the District’s WRPs, based upon 2003
average
influent
phosphorus
concentrations
and
average
daily
flows,
is
63,748
lbs/day,
or
11,634
tons/yr
as shown
in the
following Table.
Thus,
the phosphorus
contribution to
the
District
WRPs influent
phosphorus
load
is
4.24
for residential ADWD
and 2.0
for commercial/
institutional
ADWD.
These
are
broad-based
estimates
since we
do
not
have
data
as
to
ADWD usage specifically for Cook County.
However, it is clear from the above information
that
a
ban
on
phosphorus
in
ADWDs
in
Illinois
could be
a more
effective
approach to
achieving
immediate phosphorus
reductions
in
POTW
effluents
than
enacting
the
limited
scope ofPOTW effluent limits proposed by the IEPA.
1-
AVERAGE DAILY PHOSPHORUS LOADINGS TO DISTRICT WRPs
-
2003
WRP
Influent
Phosphorus
mg/L
Flow
MGD
Total
Phosphorus
Loading
lbs/day
North Side
3.39
238
6,733
Calumet
6.64
246
13,631
Kirie
4.57
31.64
1,207
Egan
6.91
21.8
1,257
Hanover Park
6.16
7.49
385
Lemont
5.01
2.12
89
West Side
3.54
335
9,896
Southwest
10.43
351
30,550
Total
63,748
Note:
63,748 lbs/day =11,634 tons/yr.
L
Agricultural Sources ofPhosphorus are Significant
L!!
While focusing on POTWs as significant sources of phosphorus, EPA
ignores the fact
that agricultural
drainage and runoffare also
a significant source.
The lack of control ofthis
L
source
will
result in
continued
water
quality
problems.
This
source
is
not
due
to
entirely
L
natural
causes,
but results
from the excess use of fertilizer containing phosphorus
and other
Li
nutrients.
In the year 2000,
a study reported in the Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
found that farmers in
Wisconsin over-apply nutrients.
(See
Ex.
2)
As
reported,
on
average,
farmers
applied
an
excess
of
83
Kg/ha
(74
lb/ac)
of phosphorus
beyond
University
of
Wisconsin recommendations
for growing
corn.
In addition,
it was
found
that
the
simple
L
promotion of best
management practices will not
guarantee water
quality
protection and/or
L
improvement.
This
study
is
reported in the Journal
of Soil
and
Water
Conservation, First
Quarter 2000,
pages
63
through
68,
Nitrogen and phosphorus
management
on
Wisconsin
9
farms: Lessons
learnedfor agricultural water quality programs,
by R. Shepard.
Undoubtedly,
farming practices
in
Illinois
are similar
to
those
in
Wisconsin.
Even
modest reductions in
overuse
of agricultural
fertilizers
would have a far larger effect
on reducing the phosphorus
levels in Illinois streams, than adoption ofthe current EPA
proposal.
Large concentrated
animal feeding operations (CAFOs) have been long
identified as
major sources of excess
agricultural
phosphorus
that
is
discharged into surface waters in the
United
States.
The
contribution
of
CAFOs
to
excess
agricultural
phosphorus
in
the
environment is
discussed on pages
36
and 37
in a bulletin titled
Plant Nutrient
Use
in North
American Agriculture,
published
in
2002 by the Potash
and Phosphate
Institute.
(See
Ex.
3)
In Appendix
6.3
of this
bulletin,
on
pages
112
and
113,
it is
reported that
in
the state
of
Illinois,
CAFOs
generate
about
27
million pounds
of excess
phosphorus pentoxide
~P2O5)
annually, which is
equivalent to
12
million pounds ofphosphorus.
This excess phosphorus is
prone
to
over
application
on
the farms
where
it
is
generated
and
potentially
lost
through
runoff
and
drainage.
Appendix
6.3
of
the
report
also
shows
that
besides
the
excess
phosphorus
generated by
CAFOs,
unconfmed
animals
on
Illinois
farms
excrete
about
67
million pounds of P2O5
annually,
which
is
equivalent to
29
million pounds of phosphorus.
This
is calculated by the difference between the total amount ofmanure phosphorus excreted
by
all
farm
animals
(162
million
pounds of P2O5)
and the total
excreted
by
CAFOs
(95
million pounds
of P2O5).
This
excess phosphorus
can contribute to
agricultural
phosphorus
runoffif it is not accounted for in farm nutrient management plans.
The EPA
has apparently embraced these findings, but
does not
inform the IPCB
of
this matter in their proposal.
On July 14, 2004, EPA
issued a news release titled “ILLINOIS
EPA WILL
IMPLEMENT ADVISORY
GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS
Pilot Projects in
10
Rock River Basin
will
demonstrate
comprehensive watershed
planning.”
(See
Ex.
4)
The
L
press release states” ‘Governor Rod Blagojevich asked the Illinois EPA to work with a broad
range
of interests
and
to
rethink
how
we can protect
our
vital
water resources,
which
are
essential to both our quality oflife and economic well-being,
and I want to thank the B-MAG
L
‘
members for their vital work,’
said Illinois EPA Director Renee Cipriano.” The B-MAG is
a
stakeholder
group
from
a
broad
range
of
interests
that
assisted
the
EPA
in
reaching
consensus
on the Facility Planning Issue.
One
of
the
B-MAG
recommendations
(VII.C.l)
reads
as
follows:
“EPA
should
Li
embark
on
a
process
that
utilizes
existing
resources
to
develop
a
statewide
watershed
management
approach to
protecting
and
preserving water quality
in the seven major basins
L
across Illinois.”
(See Ex.
5)
The news release
indicated that
pilot projects would occur for
Li
the Green and .Kishwaukee
River watersheds in the Rock River Basin.
Agricultural nonpoint
sources of nutrients are dominant in these two watersheds.
The IEPA should inform the IPCB
and others
how this new initiative will solve
water quality problems
caused by
phosphorus
and other nutrients
and use this initiative as the basis
for a statewide plan for the control of
nutrient discharges.
Phosphorus Not the Only Nutrient OfConcern
IEPA correctly points out in their Statement ofReasons that nitrogen is also a nutrient
ofconcern and that federal water quality criteria has also been published for nitrogen.
Dodds,
Smith and
Lohman (Canadian
Journal of Fisheries
and
Aquatic Sciences, Vol.
59, pp.
865-
874,
2002)
note
that
“Although
the
occurrence
of Nitrogen
(N)
limitation
in
streams
is
inconsistent with the early view that Phosphorus (P) is generally the primary limiting factor in
inland
freshwaters,
experimental nutrient
enrichment bioassays have confirmed N limitation
11
in
a variety of different
stream ecosystems.
The data reveal
a significant N-P
interaction
in
streams
and
suggest
that
it
is
necessary
to
consider both
N
and
P
as
potentially
limiting
nutrients
for periphyton biomass
accrual in
lotic systems.”
Statistical techniques
established
-
significant breakpoints ofabout 30 jig total P per liter and 40 jig total N per liter,
above which
mean benthic chlorophyll
values were
substantially higher.
Thus
it is
questionable whether
an interim effluent phosphorus limit of 1.0 mg/L ,by itself, would have any noticeable
impact
on Illinois streams.
However,
IEPA
does
not
explain
that
there
has
also
been
a
significant
amount
of
federal study ofthe problem ofhypoxia in the Gulf ofMexico.
In January 2001, the report of
the Mississippi
River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force
identified nitrogen as
the cause ofhypoxia in the Gulf.
(See
Ex.
6)
This report also
stated the need to reduce the
contribution
of nitrogen
to
the
Gulf by
30
percent
to
reduce the
areal
extent
of hypoxia.
Illinois
is
identified as a
significant contributor of nitrogen to the
Gulf because of the point
and nonpoint sources ofnitrogen in the state.
In another news release
dated June
30,
2004,
Governor
Blagojevich identified farm
nutrient runoff as a
cause of hypoxia
in
the
Gulf.
(See
Ex.
7)
This
release,
titled
Gov.
Blagojevich
joins
Mississippi
River
Water
Quality
Initiative,
expressed
the
Governor’s
disappointment
at not being able to join the Governors of Minnesota and Wisconsin on June
30
in
LaCrosse,
Wisconsin, to
pledge continuing
commitment to
protect
and
improve the
Mississippi River.
In the news release,
Governor Blagojevich states:
“While I will not be able to be there
in person, in spirit I join my fellow Upper Mississippi Valley Governors in our commitment
to continuing to protect and improve the great river that first brought settlers and
commerce to
12
L
our region. Recently, at my request, the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency proposed
Li
new
limits
on
phosphorus
discharges
for most
new
and
expanding
wastewater
treatment
plants
and
last
fall
I
nominated
the
Mississippi
River
segment
that
borders
Illinois
and
Missouri
for the federal
Watershed
Initiative
Program to
help reduce farm
.
chemical runoff
Li
into the Mississippi River.”
ç
The news release continues
“Governor Blagojevich said he has requested nearly $1.3
million
in
federal
funding
for
innovative
programs
to
help
address
‘Gulf
Hypoxia’
-
a
L
condition caused by farm
fertilizer
runoff
that has been blamed for killing off aquatic life in
a large and growing area in the GulfofMexico.”
Because
Governor
Blagojevich
has joined
with
the
Governors
of Minnesota
and
L
Wisconsin
in
this
commitment,
it
is
helpful
to
know
what
these
two
Governors
have
committed to
do.
A
news release
issued jointly
by
both
Governors
dated
June
30,
2004,
includes the following:
•
Focus on meeting the two states’
shared responsibility ofnutrient and sediment reduction,
including
making progress
on the multi-state
plan to
reduce nitrogen discharges into the
GulfofMexico by 30 percent by 2015;
Expand the partnership beyond
Minnesota and
Wisconsin to
also
include the other three
states in the Upper Mississippi River basin: IOwa, Illinois, and Missouri;
(SeeEx. 8)
L!
We bring this matter to the attention of the Board because there have been significant
Li
discussions with
EPA,
USEPA
Office of Water,
and USEPA
Region V Division of Water
regarding the use ofconstructed and restored wetlands in Illinois
to reduce the concentrations
ofnitrogen and phosphorus in
the Illinois River Basin.
These discussions were
initiated by
Li.
several members ofthe Illinois Association of Wastewater Agencies (JAWA),
including the
ç
.
District,
and
The
Wetlands
Initiative
(TWI), a
not-for-profit corporation
in
Chicago.
The
L
13
discussions
have
also
included
other not-for-profit
environmental
advocacy
organizations.
The
TWT
and
the
several
members
of
JAWA,
including
the
District,
have
proposed
a
comprehensive
research
program
involving
several
Midwestern
universities,
including
the
University of Illinois,
and the Argonne National
Laboratory to
demonstrate the effectiveness
of large-scale constructed or restored wetlands in removing nutrients.
The use ofwetland technology to control the contribution of nitrogen and phosphorus
was not mentioned by IEPA, but it should be included as a viable control technology.
The use
ofthis technology would
serve to control the discharge ofnitrogen and phosphorus in Illinois
waters as well
as to
reduce the contribution of nitrogen to
the
Gulf by the
State of Illinois.
The use of this
technology
brings
other benefits
as well, such as, reduced demand
on non-
renewable
energy, reduced demand on treatment process chemicals, increased wildlife habitat,
reduced flood damages and biodiversity.
(See Ex. 9)
The use ofwetland technology for point
and
nonpoint sources can be
integrated with
the use ofconventional treatment technology by
POTWs in a watershed.
To
create
a
useful
planning tool for the use ofthese two technologies, the District recently submitted
a project
preproposal
to
the
Water
Environment
Research
Foundation,
IAWA
and
Illinois
Water
Resource Center.
(See Ex.
10)
The project will involve the University ofIllinois
to develop
the planning tool under contract to the District and
under the
oversight of a project
steering
committee
including
the
JAWA,
JEPA,
Region
V,
other departments of federal
and
state
government and other interested parties.
Effective
control of nutrients
in
watersheds
will
also
require
some
form
of water
quality
trading to
create incentives
for trading between point
and
nonpoint sources of these
nutrients. Recognizing this need, EPA adopted a Water Quality Trading Policy on January
13,
-
!fl
H
14
in..
2003.
(See
Ex.
11)
Water
quality
trading
programs
have
been
successfully
tested
and
denionstrated
in
other
states. Already, trading
is
an
effective tool
in
attaining
air
emission
reductions
in
Illinois.
Water
quality
trading
will
be
an
effective
component
in
the
development of nutrient
standards
in
Illinois
where
it
can be
shown
that
trading
within
upstream watershed
areas will not contravene water quality standards and will be effective in
controlling
nutrients
from
point
and
nonpoint
sources
impacting
downstream
areas.
This
policy has received much support nationwide. Recently, the National Association of Counties
adopted a resolution on July
18, 2004,
in
support of the EPA Water
Quality
Trading Policy.
(See Ex.
12)
The use ofwetland technology for nutrient management
on a watershed scale would
provide a cost-effective technology to control nutrients
from both point and nonpoint sources
in a watershed.
It would not place the entire burden for nutrient control solely on the POTWs.
Several IAWA members, including the
District,
are willing to
proceed with this
technology
only if the IEPA creates a mechanism for it to be recognized with the current body ofrules.
It
is
extremely important for the POTWs that the burden for control of nitrogen and phosphorus
be
equitable, therefore
a
means must
be found to reduce the
contribution of these nutrients
from nonpoint, as well as point sources.
There are significant efforts
underway
in neighboring states to
address the discharge
of nitrogen in the Mississippi River Basin.
As mentioned above, the Governors ofMinnesota
and Wisconsin have agreed on
mutual efforts
to
control the discharge of nitrogen.
Iowa has
been funding the construction of wetlands in agricultural
areas in watersheds tributary to the
Mississippi River to
reduce the
discharge of nitrogen.
The
states in the
Ohio
River Basin
have begun a voluntary effort to address the discharge of nitrogen.
However, only about
15
15
I___________________ 1111
-—-—~~_Ii
-—
percent of the area ofIllinois
is
in the
Ohio River Basin.
It appears that Illinois
is behind its
neighboring states in controlling the discharge ofnitrogen.
Illinois
representation
in
the
Ohio
River
Basin
initiative
includes
the
IEPA
and
Department of Agriculture.
Region V
is
also
represented.
With
this
Illinois participation in
the
Ohio
River
Basin,
the
commitment
to join
Minnesota
and
Wisconsin
in
the
nitrogen
reduction initiative
and
the work underway in Iowa, it is remarkable that the IEPA, faced with
the mountain of evidence regarding Gulf hypoxia, has not
shown
any
inclination to
address
the
reduction
of
nitrogen
from
point
and
nonpoint
sources.
Instead,
EPA
proposes
a
rulemaking for phosphorus
that
is
lacking
scientific
foundation and
is
discriminatory in
its
application to certain
POTWs.
The District recommends that until the EPA
develops (1) a plan for statewide control
of nitrogen discharges to
meet the desired 30
percent
reduction target for nitrogen
and
(2)
a
watershed water quality
trading program, an allowance be granted for those dischargers who
wish
to
voluntarily
participate
in
nitrogen
reduction
efforts
through
participation
in
the
creation
or
restoration
of treatment
wetlands
in the
watershed in
which
the
discharger,
is
located.
The District proposes such an allowance.
District’s Findings Related to Phosphorus
The
District
has
three
plants
that
discharge to
General
Use
waters.
The
effluent
monthly average
total phosphorus
(TP) concentrations range from 0.17
to
4.45
mg/L
for the
2000 through 2003 period.
Individual plant data is as follows:
PlantName
2000
through
2003
Range in Average Effluent Concentrations
-
mg/L
Monthly
Maximum
Monthly Average
Monthly Minimum
-
Egan
3.51 to 4.45
2.82to 3.71
2.l9to2.85
Hanover Park
3.33 to 3.86
2.66 to 3.20
2.04 to 2.40
-
Kirie
1.13 to
1.75
0.65
to 0.95
0.17 to 0.42
16
P
The
2003
annual
average
and
monthly
grab
sample
maximum
and
minimum
TP
concentrations
in the
receiving
streams
downstream of the
outfalls
for
these plants are
as
follows:
Plant
Receiving Stream
TP stream concentration in mg/L
Average annual
Maximum
Minimum
Egan
Salt Creek
-
2.02
5.30
0.23
Hanover Park
West Branch DuPage River
2.37
4.14
0.60
Kirie
Willow-Higgins Creek
0.43
1.38
0.12
As
can
be
seen
above,
there
is
considerable
variability
in
effluent
and
stream
TP
concentrations.
However,
at
this point
neither
the
District
nor
the
IEPA has
been able
to
correlate the
varying
stream
TP
concentrations
with
differences
in
attainable
uses
or
the
general
biological
health of these
waterways.
Therefore,
if
this
proposed
interim
effluent
standard were
to
be
applied
to
one
of these
WRPs
some
day,
there
is
no
certainty of any
environmental
gain
being
achieved,
or
of even
knowing
how
to
assess
if
the
change
in
effluent phosphorus levels even significantly effected in-stream phosphorus levels.
MWRDGC attempted to
determine if industrial contributors were a
significant source
of phosphorus.
Based
on
our review
of plant
influent
loadings
and
regulated
industrial
contributor loadings for 2002, we determined that the industrial phosphorus loading that
could
be
controlled
through
local
pretreatment
limits
varied
from
zero
to
three
percent
of the
influent loading
at six of the District’s seven plants.
The variation is detailed as follows:
17
Plant
Flow
mgd
Raw Influent Sewage Phosphorus
Industrial
Loading
pounds/day
Industrial
Contribution
percent
Concentration
Loading
mg/L
pounds/day
Plants discharging to
GeneralUse waters
Egan
24
7.3
1,440
5.8
0.4
Hanover Park
8
5.7
390
0.2
0.0
Kirie
33
4.6
1,290
38.8
3.0
Plants discharging to
Secondary Contact waters
Calumet
237
7.7
J
15,300
149.0
1.0
North Side
250
3.5
L
7,380
66.6
0.9
Stickney
691
-
6.6
38,200
971.0
2.5
There is no significant industrial phosphorus loading at the Lemont WRP.
Most ofthe phosphorus in raw sewage results from human waste
and residential uses
ofproducts
containing phosphorus.
As
explained earlier, although
phosphorus is
no
longer
used
in
residential
laundry
detergents,
it
is
used
in
ADWD,
dentifrice
products
and
commercial and industrial cleaning products.
IEPA should consider controlling phosphorus at
its
source by banning some of these products that contain phosphorus.
Such controls would
remove far more pounds ofphosphorus from Illinois waters than the current IEPA proposal.
For example, EPA
should
consider a ban
on the use of phosphorus in
fertilizers for
residential use. It is noted that Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty signed on May 10, 2004
a
law (Minnesota House File No. 2005, 83r~~
Legislative
Session) that bans the use of fertilizer
containing phosphorus on turf. The ban will become effective on January
1, 2005 and
applies
to
fertilizer
to
be
used
on
turf that
is
purchased
at
retail
after August
1,
2004.
The
ban
prohibits the
application
to turf of phosphorus-containing fertilizer
on
property
unless
(i)
a
soil
test indicates that phosphorus
is needed,
(ii) the
application is
for the first turf growing
season and
(iii)
the property
is
a golf
course.
(See
Ex.
13)
It .would
appear that
such
a
statewide
ban would
eliminate more phosphorus
in Illinois
waters than the limited
approach
taken by the IEPA.
-i
1
I
I
I
1
fl
n
n
n
-n
--I-
18
District’s Suggestions for Measures to Control Phosphorus
The District has proposed to the
TEPA, transmitted
by letter dated April 27,
2004,
to
conduct a
demonstration project at its
Egan Water Reclamation Plant (WRP) in
Schaumburg
to
determine if phosphorus
removal
would
show any
impact or improvement in
Salt Creek
downstream ofthe plant outfall.
(See Ex.
14)
The proposed project includes comprehensive
monitoring
of
Salt
Creek
upstream
and
downstream
-
of
the
Egan
WRP
outfall.
The
monitoring
program
will
be
coordinated
with
downstream
dischargers
to
Salt
Creek
in
DuPage County and must be
approved by the EPA.
•The EPA
has indicated an interest
in
proceeding with this and other similar initiatives at other POTWs to develop a scientific basis
to demonstrate
whether or not justification for a phosphorus
standard exists.
The Region V
Division ofWater has also
shown
support for the District’s proposed demonstration
project.
The
District’s
monitoring
results
and
conclusions
will
be
prepared
in
a
scientific
report
available to the public.
Should the report demonstrate that phosphorus
causes
impairment,
it
will support the need for a water quality based effluent limit.
If the results of this
demonstration project
show that the removal of phosphorus will
have a beneficial effect on Salt Creek, then the EPA
will modify the District’s NPDES permit
forthe Egan \VRP by incorporating a water quality based effluent limit for phosphorus.
District’s Recommendation on the EPA
Interim Phosphorus Proposal
The District requests that the IPCB deny the
entire proposed interim limit as described in
the
EPA
petition
for
Section
304.123
(g)
through
(j).
In
the
event the
IPCB
deems
it
advisable
tO
adopt
regulations
at
this
time,
it
is
recommended
that
the
TPCB
adopt the
following requirements:
-
19
1.
The
IEPA
shall,
upon
a
demonstration
by
a
scientifically
sound
receiving
stream
monitoring
program
that
existing
phosphorus
loadings
are
causing
or
increased
phosphorus
loadings
will
cause
impairments,
petition
the
Board
for
a
site-specific
phosphorus standard for the waterway segment impacted by a proposed new or increased
phosphorus discharger prior to issuing a new permit for said discharger.
2.
Any applicant
for a
permit
to
discharge additional
phosphorus
loadings to
a
receiving
stream that
is identified as phosphorus impaired, shall include controls to limit phosphorus
discharges to
a- water quality based
effluent limit
based
on
an
appropriate water quality
phosphorus standard.
3.
A point source discharger that participates
in a
dedicated wetland creation or restoration
project in
the
same watershed
as the
discharger is
located,
shall
receive
credit for the
nutrients
removed
by
the project
as if the
nutrients
were
removed
at the outfall
of the
discharger,
provided that
the amount
of credit
received
is
proportional
to
the monetary
participation ofthe discharger in the nutrient removal portion ofthe total project cost.
Respectfully submitted,
Metropolitan Water ReclamationDistrict
ofGreater Chicago,
-
B~
Richard Lanyon, D~~tor
ofR&D
September
~,
2004
Metropolitan Water Reclamation
District of Greater Chicago
lO0EastErie
.
~.
Chicago, Illinois
60611
312-751-5190
.
THIS FILING
IS
SUBMITTED
ON RECYCLED
PAPER
20
