CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
DEC
119
2004
IN THE MATTER OF:
INTERIM PHOSPHOROUS EFFLUENT
STANDARD, PROPOSED 35 ILL. ADM.
CODE 304.123
(G-K)
STATE OF ILLINOI3
PoJI~tg~~Control
Board
)
)
)
R04-26
)
(Rulemaking-Water)
)
)
NOTICE OF FILING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 9
,
2004 the undersigned filed the Post
Hearing Comments Of The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago with the
Illinois Pollution Control Board. A copy ofthe filing accompanies this notice.
Michael G. Rosenberg
Ronald M. Hill
Metropolitan Water Reclamation
District ofGreater Chicago
100 East Erie Street
Chicago, Illinois 60611
(312)
751-6583
RMH:jp
METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION
DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
~t4¼~
Michael G. Rose’~?g~tt~orney
TO:
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
STATB OF ILLINOIS
COUNTY OF COOK
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Judith A. Pappalardo, being duly sworn on oath, certify that I caused a copy of the
attached Post Hearing Comments Of The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater
Chicago to be served by First Class U. S. Mail to all parties shown on the attached Service List,
at their addresses shown on said Service List, with proper postage prepaid, from 100 E. Erie
Street, Chicago, Illinois, at or near the hour of4:00 p.m., on December 9
,
2004:
TO:
SEE
ATTACHED SHERVICE LIST
SUBSCRiBED and SWORN to Before
me this
_____
day ofDecember, 2004.
N7y Public
RMH:jp
“OFFICIAL SEAL” ~
~
Rosalie Bottari
~
~ Notary hiblic, State of III~nois ~
~My Corn mission Exp. 04/10/2006 ~
THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
)
)
SS.
)
/
2
/
/
Printing Service List....
Page 1 of 1
Party Name
Role
City & State
Phone!
Fax
IEPA
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Springfield
217/782-5544
Petitioner
P.O. Box 19276
IL 62794-9276 217/782-9807
Sanjay K. Sofat, Assistant Counsel
Gardner Carton & Douglas
191 N. Wacker Drive
Chicago
312/569/1000
Interested Party
Suite 3700
IL 60606-1698 312/569-3000
Roy M. Harsch
Office of the Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
Chicago
312/814-2550
Interested Party
100 West Randolph Street, 11th Floor
IL 60601
312/814-2347
Matthew 3. Dunn, Chief
Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group
3150 Roland Avenue
Springfield
217/523-4942
Interested Party
.
IL 62703
217/523-4948
Robert A. Messina, General Counsel
Environmental Law and Policy Center
35 East Wacker Drive
Chicago
312/673-6500
Interested Party
Suite 1300
IL 60601
312/795-3730
Albert F. Ettinger
Wilkie & McMahon
8 East Main Street
Champaign
217/359-2115
Interested Party
IL 61820
217/359-2754
John McMahon
Department of Natural Resources
One Natural Resources Way
Springfield
217/782-1809
Interested Party
IL 62702-1271 217/524-9640
Jonathan Furr
MWRDGC
100 E. Erie
Chicago
Interested Party
IL 60611
Richard Lanyon, Director of Research & Development
Aurora University
347 Gladstone Avenue
Aurora
Interested Party
IL 60506
David Horn, Asst. Prof., Biology
City of Piano
17 E. Main Street
PIano
Interested Party
II 60545-1521
Darin Boyer
Total number of participants: 10
http://www.ipcb.state.iLus/cooVexternallcasenotifyNew.asp?caseid=6418¬ifytype=Service
10/8/2004
CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
DEC 1192004
STATE OF ILLINOIS
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
Pollution Control Board
)
INTERIM PHOSPHORUS EFFLUENT
)
STANDARD, PROPOSED 35 ILL.
ADM.
)
R04-26
CODE 304.123
(G-K~
)
(Rulemaking-Water)
)
)
POST HEARING COMMENTS OF THE METROPOLITAN
WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
On September 28, 2004, Richard Lanyon, the Director ofResearch and Development for
the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (“MWRD”), filed with the
Illinois Pollution Control Board (“Board”) the “Written Testimony of Richard Lanyon and the
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago.” On October 12, 2004, Lanyon
filed “Rebuttal to Previously Filed Comments ofProfessor Walter K. Dodds by Richard Lanyon
and the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago.” Lanyon subsequently
testified at the October
25,
2004, hearing on this matter. The purpose of these post hearing
comments is to clarify several issues that arose during Lanyon’s testimony, and to reiterate the
MWRD’s opposition to the proposed rule. As evidenced by the record, not only are there more
economical and efficient ways to reduce phosphorus in the waterways, but as admitted by the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“IEPA”), no science exists supporting the proposed
phosphorus limit.
In his testimony, Lanyon suggested a ban on products containing phosphorus or
phosphorus compounds would be a more effective approach to achieving immediate phosphorus
reductions in publicly owned treatment work (“POTW”) effluents than enacting the limit in the
proposed rule.
(See
Tr. of hearing dated October
25,
2004; p. 68, lines
5-16
and p. 80, line 8).’
‘Specifically, Lanyon testified that a ban on the use ofautomatic dishwasher detergent (“ADW’D”)
products containing phosphorus or phosphorus compounds would result in an estimated
reduction of 1,800 tons per year of phosphorus in Illinois streams. (Tr. at p.
85,
lines 6-13). Tn
addition, a similar ban on the use of turf grass fertilizer containing phosphorus or phosphorus
compounds would result in an estimated reduction of 1,800 tons per year. (Tr. at p. 86, lines
5-9).
The Board is encouraged to consider these bans in their deliberations and determine if the Board
possesses the necessary statutory authority to adopt such bans. Implementation of these bans
would eliminate more than 10 times the phosphorus in Illinois waters than would the proposed
interim effluent standard.
While Lanyon was being questioned by Albert Ettinger at the October 25th hearing, there
may have been some confusion as to what Mr. Ettinger was asking and Lanyon’s response. In
response to Ettinger’s questions, Lanyon and the MWRD were attempting to make it clear that
any reduction in influent phosphorus loads due to a ban on ADWD products would result in a
reduction in the effluent load of phosphorus discharged to the receiving stream, although not
necessarily on a pound-per-pound basis. (Tr. at p. 92, lines 2-8). Lanyon was attempting to
explain that it may be difficult to demonstrate a statistically significant reduction for an effluent
load reduction ofless than ten percent ofthe total load. Such demonstrations are often attempted
by an analysis of effluent concentrations and loads, but conclusive results may not be reached
1
All references in these comments to the transcript refer to the transcript ofthe hearing dated
October
25,
2004.
2
because of the inherent variability in flow and constituent concentrations in process streams at a
wastewater treatment plant.
The MWRD wishes to reiterate its suggestion that the Board allow for the use of water
quality trading and wetlands to remove nutrients, including phosphorus, as suggested by Lanyon.
(Tr. at p. 78, line 8, and p. 82, line 19). The Board is encouraged to give this matter careful
consideration so that use of trading and wetland technology can be demonstrated through pilot
projects while the TEPA develops their proposal for nutrient standards. Strictly speaking, water
quality trading for nutrients is not necessary at this time because there are no nutrient standards.
However, water quality trading for nutrients will be necessary when nutrient standards are
adopted. Thus, it is necessary for IEPA to give water quality trading consideration during the
standards development process. Failure to create an incentive for the use of wetlands will
discourage their use. Once nutrient standards are promulgated, it may be too late to consider
water quality trading or will require separate regulatory relief. When standards are adopted and
point sources are required to remove nutrients, Illinois streams may not achieve the standards
because ofthe non-regulated nonpoint sources. However, a point source mayinvest in a wetland
site that is removed from their outfall and remove more nutrients at less cost through the use of
wetlands, thereby providing a greater benefit to a watershed than if they only removed nutrients
prior to their outfall. The Board is encouraged to give this matter careful consideration.
The IEPA’s testimony validates testimony by the MWRD regarding the proposal’s lack of
a basis in science, as well as the JEPA’s true motivation in this rulemaking. (Tr. at 108, lines 2
through 12). Testifying on behalf of the IEPA, Mr. Toby Frevert stated that “Based on the
testimony nobody has that sound science and knows exactly what to do with nutrients.” (Tr. at p.
3
107, lines 22-23). Frevert’s admission of a lack of science or knowledge about the role of
phosphorus in Illinois streams underscores the argument of the MW.RD and IAWA that this
proposal lacks a scientific foundation. (Tr. at p. 108, lines 7-10).
As for the IEPA’s true motivation, the Agency’s testimony indicates that the proposal is
designed to eliminate its permit backlog, not to improve Illinoi.s streams. Frevert refers to the
reality of “...putting it on day after day a program to operate.” (Tr. at p. 108, line 2). He is
undoubtedly referencing the permit backlog that Lanyon mentioned at page 64, line
5,
and that
was identified in the IEPA Statement ofReasons as the impetus for the proposed rule.
In an attempt to minimize the scope ofthe proposal, Frevert identifies an estimated 20
sources that will be subject to the proposed interim standard. (Tr. at p. 109, line 7). However,
minimizing the impact of an imperfect proposal is not justification for adoption. If the proposal
unjustly impacts only one permitted discharger, it is unjust.
In response to a question from Board member Girard, Frevert asserts that an initiative
brought up by Lanyon regarding the use ofwetlands has
“. .
.wound down to a back burner.” (Tr.
at p. 111, line 20). With all due respect, this matter has not wound down, but has progressed.
Since the presentation of testimony by Lanyon on October
25,
2004, a draft report has been
received indicating that the use of wetlands for nutrient removal could save at least 50 percent
over the cost of conventional biological nutrient removal technology. Both the District and
Illinois Association ofWastewater Agencies maintain a high level of interest in pursuing wetland
technology, despite the apparent reluctance of the IEPA to address water quality trading and to
create an incentive orregulatory mechanism for wetland technology.
4
In conclusion, the record is devoid of sound scientific evidence that would support the
proposal. Furthermore, the IEPA has ignored viable alternatives to reduce nutrients that are more
economical and would have a greater impact. Consequently, the MWRD respectfully requests
that the Board reject the proposed rule.
Respectfully submitted,
Metropolitan Water Reclamation
District ofGreater Chicago,
By:
~e
Richard Lan~o)h,Director of
Research & ID’evelopment
Dated: December 9, 2004
Metropolitan Water Reclamation
District ofGreater Chicago
100 East Erie
Chicago, Illinois 60611
312.751.5190
This filing is submitted on recycled paper.
5
