NOTICE OF FILING
EPA RULE MAKING PROPOSAL
The proposed effluent rule should be adopted because it will significantly
III. The Board should adopt the ELPC/Prairie Rivers/Sierra proposed language
CONCLUSION

Post-Hearing Comments
of Beth Wentzel

~ECE~VED

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

F~KS

OFFICE

DEC 212004

INTERIM PHOSPHORUS

EFFLUENT

STANDARD, PROPOSED 35111. Adm.

Code 304.123 (g-k)

)

R2004-026

)

Rulemaking

—

Water

)

STATE OF ILLINOIS

Pollution Control Board

NOTICE OF FILING

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Environmental Law & Policy Center, Prairie Rivers

Network and Sierra Club have filed the attached POST-HEARING COMMENTS OF

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW & POLICY CENTER, PRAIRIE RIVERS NETWORK AND

SIERRA CLUB and POST-HEARING COMMENTS OF BETH WENTZEL IN SUPPORT OF

THE ILLINOIS EPA RULE MAKING PROPOSAL.

DATED: December 21, 2004

Environmental Law & Policy Center

35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1300

Chicago, IL 60601

312-795-3707

Albert F. Ettinger (Reg. No. 3125045)

Counsel for Environmental Law & Policy

Center, Prairie Rivers Network, and Sierra

Club

R~cVEOERK

S OFFICE

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

STATE

DEC

212004

ILLINOIS

IN THE

MATTER OF:

)

POII~ti~~Control Board

)

INTERIM PHOSPHORUS EFFLUENT

)

R2004-026

STANDARD, PROPOSED 35 Ill. Adm.

)

Rulemaking

—

Water

Code 304.123(g-k)

)

POST-HEARING COMMENTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW & POLICY CENTER,

PRAIRIE RIVERS NETWORK

AND

SIERRA CLUB IN SUPPORT OF THE ILLINOIS

EPA RULE MAKING PROPOSAL

The testimony and comments in the record demonstrate that that the Board should adopt

an interim rule that will generally require monthly average permit limits of 1 mg/L total

phosphorus for new or expanded discharges by major dischargers. No one has seriously

attempted to dispute the showing made in the record by the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency (“IEPA”) and clean water advocates that:

phosphorus discharges are injuring Illinois rivers, lakes and streams, and

establishing a rule that generally requires a lmg/L phosphorus limit on new and

increased discharges is a reasonable-and affordable step that would serve to reduce the extent to

which the problem gets worse during the next four years during which numeric nutrient water

quality standards are developed and adopted.

There have been basically two objections that have been made to the proposal. First, it

has been said that there are a lot of other things we should be doing to control phosphorus. This

is absolutely true and completely irrelevant. The fact that we should also do other things does not

show that we should not begin to control new or increased discharges ofphosphorus now.

The other objections are based on the idea that the IEPA proposal is not based on “sound

science” and that no limit should be placed on any dischargers until a “scientifically sound”

demonstration has been made that new or increased phosphorus loadings will cause impairments.

(See Written Testimony ofJames Daugherty p. 3 and Testimony ofRichard Lanyonp. 20.) In

fact, the IEPA phosphorus effluent standard proposal is very “scientifically sound” in the

relevant sense and these objections are based on a fundamental misunderstanding ofthe purpose

and goal ofthe Part 304 Subpart A: General Effluent Standards and the basic theory ofthe 1972

Clean Water Act.

What follows is a brief discussion ofthe facts and law relating to the two basic objections

that have been made to the proposal and a few comments on the wording ofthe Agency proposal

and the substitute language proposed by Prairie Rivers, Sierra Club and ELPC. Also filedwith

these comments are post-hearing comments ofBeth Wentzel, which elaborate on her hearing

testimony and make certain corrections to the hearing record.

The proposed effluent rule should be adopted because it will significantly

reduce the extent to which Illinois waters are degraded while numeric

phosphorus standards are developed.

No one involved

in this proceeding claims that the proposed effluent limit will solve the

problem caused by phosphorus pollution in illinois

waters and downstream waters. Certainly,

Governor Blagojevich in his June 30, 2004 statement (see Exhibit 7

to the Testimony ofRichard

Lanyon) makes clear that “new limits on phosphorus discharges for most new and expanding

wastewater treatment plants” is just one ofa number ofsteps that should be taken immediately to

control nutrient pollution, including making efforts to reduce farm runoff.

Further, it is generally expected that in the future effluent limits will be needed on

existing point source discharges ofphosphorus and that, in many cases, those limits will

probably be well below the modest 1 mg/L restriction to be established for neW and existing

discharges under the Agency proposal. See Comment ofProfessor Walter K. Dodds. In fact,

many dischargers already have to meet effluent limits far lower than those proposed for new or

increased discharges by the proposed rule. See Pre-filed Testimony ofBeth Wentzel; Additional

Comments ofBeth Wentzel (attached); Water Environment & Technology, “Las Vegas Wins

with Team Approach,” Vol. 16 No. 12 (December 2004) pp.64-68 (Ex. 1)

However, the fact that more needs to be done to control phosphorus pollution-both now

and in the future is not a basis for failing to do something that clearly should be done.

Moreover, while we agree that phosphorus loadings from agriculture need to be reduced,

it should be noted that as to phosphorus, point sources may be the biggest the part ofthe problem

formany waters. In David, M.B and Gentry L.E.,

Anthropogenic Inputs ofNitrogen and

Phosphorus and Riverine Exportfor Illinois, USA,

J. Environ. Qual. 29:494-508(2000) (a

hearing exhibit identified at Tr.

95),

University ofIllinois scholars estimate that “47 ofthe total

P loads in Illinois rivers were from sewerage for 1980 through 1997” and that “estimates of the

sewerage effluent contribution to river export were 70 for the Illinois River.”p.501. Still

further, there is reason to believe that point source discharges ofphosphorus are actually more

harmful to. the environment than other loadings. As stated in the Minnesota Pollution Control

Agency,

Detailed Assessmentof Phosphorus Sources to Minnesota Watersheds,

“Phosphorus

from point sources maybe more bio-available, impacting surface water quality more than a

similar amount ofnonpoint source phosphorus that enters the same surface water.” (Exhibit 1 to

the Testimony ofRichard Lanyon at p. ii)

II.

The proposed effluent

limit

on new and increased discharges is sound as a

matter of science, law and policy.

The argument that the proposal should not be adopted because it is not scientifically

sound is based on a fundamental confusion between the role ofeffluent rules and water quality

standards. Water quality standards must be based on a “sound scientific rationale” and must

protect the “most sensitive use” ofthe waterbody (40 CFR 131.11). For this reason, testimony

regarding treatment costs, administrative convenience and other economic factors is not relevant

to setting water quality standards.

Effluent standards are a very different animal from waterquality standards and are based

on practical considerations ofenvironmental prudence, permit writing and wastewater treatment.

Over 30 years ago, in In the Matter ofEffluent Criteria Nos. R70-8 1972, Ill. Env. LEXIS 154

(January 6, 1972), the proceeding-that established many ofthe current effluent limits in Part 304,

the Board explained:

Determining discharge requirements on a case-by-case basis so as to tailor

discharges to stream quality requirements is a very time consuming procedure that

creates a great deal ofuncertainty. Recognizing the desirability ofenforceable

numerical standards applicable directly to effluents discharged, the Board in one

ofits first official actions, in October 1970, published for public

hearing purposes

a proposed set ofeffluent standards for possible adoption as a regulation, (p. 1)

The Board added:

The numerical effluent standards adopted today are intended as basic

requirements that should be met everywhere as representing ordinary good

practice in keeping potentially harmful materials out ofthe waters. In some cases,

• because ofthe low volume ofthe receiving stream orthe large quantities of

treated waste water discharged, meeting these standards maynot suffice to assure

that the stream complies with water quality standards set on the basis ofwhat is

necessary to support various uses. In such cases the very nature ofwater quality

standards requires that additional measures be taken beyond those required by

ordinary good practice to reduce further the discharge of contaminants to the

stream. (pp.10-il)

For these reasons and subject to the requirement that permits must not cause a violation

ofwater quality standards (see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.105), Illinois has adopted numerous

effluent limits in part• 304. These limits are not “scientific” in the sense that they have been

tailored through precise scientific studies to prevent all possible impairments and to only prohibit

pollution that will cause impairments, but that is not their purpose. Likerules prohibiting

smoking while operating gasoline pumps, the effluent rules require ordinary good practice to

lessen the chance ofa known evil occurring. These effluent rules are scientific insofar as science

is not opposed to common sense.

Illinois currently has effluent limits for discharges ofphosphorus to lakes and to all

waters in the Lake Michigan Basin. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 304.123(a), (b). Illinois

would have such limits for discharges to rivers and streams but for the bygone belief that

phosphorus discharged to rivers and streams did not affect the environment, a view that is

thoroughly refuted by the testimony ofProfessor Lemke and as well as the current literature.

Phosphorus discharges to rivers and streams injure the receiving waters as well as waters miles

downstream including side channel lakes to the Illinois River. (R04-26 Transcript p. 23)

Further, it is contrary to the most basic principles of the Clean Water Act and the Illinois

Environmental Protection Act to argue that the state should only limit pollution to the extent that

it can be scientifically proven that allowing more pollution will cause environmental damage.

Congress in passing the 1972 Clean Water Act rejected the earlier federal approach of“focusing

on the tolerable effects rather than the preventable causes ofpollution.” Environmental

Protection Agency v. California ex rd. State Water Resources Control Board, 426 U.S. 200, 202

(1976). Under-the Clean Water Act all discharges are suspect. Indeed, they were to be

eliminated many years ago. 33 U.S.C. 125 l(a)(l).

•

It is also clear under Illinois law that there is no “right to pollute.” Peabody Coal Co. v.

Pollution Control Board, 36 Ill. App. 3d

344 N.E. 2d 279, 288-89 (5th Dist. 1976). Under the

Environmental Protection Act the burden is on the one who would discharge pollutants to prove

that the discharge will comply with the Act. 415 ILCS5/39(a). Moreover, persons wishing a

permit for a new or increased discharge, the parties to which the IEPA’s proposed phosphorus

effluent rule applies, must submit an application showing that the new pollution will not harm

• the environment and is necessary in light ofthe available treatment alternatives. 35 Ill. Adm.

Code

302.105(f).

The notion that there can only be limits on pollution to the extent that it has

been scientifically demonstrated that more pollution to the receiving water will cause

impairments is at odds with the law and sound public policy.

III.

The Board should adopt the ELPC/Prairie Rivers/Sierra proposed language

•

or other clear language consistent with the law.

In the Memorandum and Testimony

ofEnvironmental Law and Policy Center, Prairie

Rivers Network and- Sierra Club, filed October

15,

2004, language was proposed to correct

• certain drafting, legal and technical problems that were present in the original language offered

by the JEPA to the Board. We believe that that language offered in October is sound and should

be adopted by the Board for the reasons given

in October.

It is ourunderstanding, however, that the IEPA may itself offer revised language for its

effluent proposal. Naturally, the Board should consider the proposed new Agency language and

adopt that language to the extent that the Board finds that it is superior to the language we

submitted. Any remaining drafting issues can be addressed on First Notice.

CONCLUSION

The Board should approve an interim phosphorus effluent rule generally requiring a limit

of 1 mg/L total phosphorus for all new or increased discharges.

Albert F. Ettinger

•

Counsel for Environmental Law & Policy

Center, Prairie Rivers Network, and Sierra

Club

DATED: December 21, 2004

Environmental Law & Policy Center

35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1300

Chicago, IL 60601

312-795-3707

Exhibit 1

efore bringing

on-line the new biological nutrient

removal (BNR) facilities

atits wastewater treat-

ment plant (WWTP),

the City of Las Vegas

decided to form a spe-

cial team of employees

to coordinate startup

actMties, oversee the

initial operation of the

complex treatment

process, monitor per-

formance, and meet

startup goals. After

quickly bringing the

plant up to speed, the

team began collecting

crucial data that was

used soon thereafter to

optimize the facility’s

~igure

City of

Las

Vegas Wastewater Treatment

Plant

Liquid Treatment

showing Parallel Treatment Trains

Units

Ammonia

Total phosphorus

Summer (March — October)

Mass limit

lb/d (kg/d)

366 (166)

126 (57)

Concentration

mg/L

0.48

0.17 -

Winter (November-March)

Mass limit

Ib/d (kg/d)

427 (194)

126 (57)

Concentration

mg/L

0.56

0.17

BNR goal

mg/L

0.2

0.5

BNR

= biological nutrient removal.

performance. Much of the credit for thesuccessful

effort can be attributed to the city’s vision. The

startup process followed the plant’s business plan

and involved employees in decision-making. The

payoffcame in the formof employee support for the

project and only minor problems as processes

came on-line. Qverall,-the project has been a huge

success, creating a sense of pride for all members

involved.

By pursuing the team approach, the city want-

ed to avoid the kinds of problems it encountered

when it began operating its nitrification facility in

1994. At that time, the city’s WWTP experienced dis-

infection upsets caused by incomplete nitrifica-

tion. With the team in place, the city hoped to pre-

vent major problems from occurring during the

startup of the BNR facility and ensure that opti-

mized processes would run efficientlywith minimal

chemical costs.

The startup team consisted of plant employ-

ees from the operations, maintenance, laboratory,

management, and electrical groups. The plant

designer and an operations specialist also helped

the startup team by providingtrainingand phone

consultation before startup. The team met weekly

to discuss problems, review progress, evaluate

performance data, and determineprocess adjust-

ments. Once the treatment process met permit

requirements, the team’s focus shifted to optimiz-

ing plant performance.

Existing

Plant, New Process

The 30-mgd (1 14,000-m3/d) BNR

facility began operatingin May2003,

accountingfor roughly one-third of

the treatment capacity of the city’s

91-mgd (344,000-m3/d) advanced

WWTP. The older portion of the

treatment plantconsists of trickling

filters, nitrifying activated sludge,

and effluent filtration. Effluent from

the BNR process is combined with

effluent from the older portion of

the plant before filtration (see Figure

1, p. 64). Because the plant discharges into the Las

VegasWash, which ultimatelyflows into LakeMead

and the Colorado River, its effluent must meet strict

permit mass limits for ammonia- and total phos-

phorus (see Table 1, above). As flows to the plant

increase over time, the allowable concentration of

ammonia andphosphorus in the effluent decreases.

The BNR facility consists of four 7.5-mgd (28,400-

m3/d) trains, each of which comprises threeanaer-

obic zones, three anoxic zones, and a complete

mixed aerobic zone.Designed with fine-bubble aer-

ation, theaerobic zone is configured much like a race-

track, with mixers moving liquid-around the basin.

Primary clarification includes the option to add fer-

n chloride in low doses to control odors as need-

ed. Since startup, the BNR process has been oper-

ated in the so-called A20 mode

—

that is, BNR

occurs as the wastewaterflows through anaerobic,

anoxic, and oxic zones (see Figure 2, below).

However, the process can be modified to include

other process options if desired.

From May 2003 through March 2004, influent

entering the BNR process had an average ammonia

concentration of 24 mg/L. Nitrification was com-

plete, as ammonia levels in the effluent were on

average below 0.1 mg/L during the entire period.

Total phosphorus concentrations averaged 5.7 mg/L

inthe influent and 0.51 mg/L in the effluent. Although

this performancewas considered acceptable in gen-

eral, the BNR facility posted much lower average

Table 1. Permit Requirements at 91 mgd (344,000.m’/d) for Plant

Effluent After Filtration

(Ferflo)

Figure 2 Process Layout of BNR Train

t~2~?)

Afluerebic

BNR = biological nutrient removal.

DECEMBER 2004

phosphorus concentrations as the process stabilized

and operations were optimized during the first year.

Additionally, conventional effluent quality measures

such as biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and

total suspended solids ~JSS)were well below per-

mitted limits.

Starting

Up,

Setting

Goals

The startup team set out to meet the following

goals:

• Meet permit levels 100 of the time.

• Achieve biological phosphorus removal and

ensure that effluent from the BNR process

has a phosphorus concentration of no more

than 0.5 mg/L.

• Ensure that effluent from the entire plant

has a phosphorus concentration of no more

than 0.2 mg/L after filtration to meet the 126

lb/d (57 kg/d) phosphorus limit.

• Gain a thorough understanding of thefacility’s

performance andthe factors affecting its oper-

ation.

• Optimize the amount of chemicals usedfor fil-

tration.

• Minimize operator anxiety during startup arid

operation.

In preparation for startup, the team visited anoth-

er nearby BNR facilityto learn more aboutkeyoper-

ational criteria and parameters that influence BNR

operation. A detailed plan was developed to describe

how the startup would proceed, beginning with the

seeding from the existing nitrification process and

continuing through the initial process loading, and

then followed by a gradual increase in the process

loading to develop the biomass to initial operating

setpoints.

A key component of the startup plan was a

detailed sampling plan that included a complete

daily characterization of irifluent, effluent, and indi-

vidual zones within

the aeration basin.

Analyses included

measures of organic

materials, such as

BOD, chemical oxygen

demand (COD), floc-

culated and filtered

COD (IfCOD), and

volatile fatty acid

(VFA);TSS andvolatile

suspended solids; and

nutrients, including

ammonia, nitrate, total

Kjeldahl nitrogen, total

phosphorus,

and

orthophosphate. The

intensive sampling

provided clear direction to the startup team, help-

ing its members understand the factors that keep

the treatment process stable and identify potential

approaches for optimizing the process.

Intensive sampling routines were reduced once

the process stabilized. A keyindicator of biological

phosphorus removal activityis the orthophosphate

concentration in the anaerobic zone. Although influ-

ent VFA samples provide keyinformation regarding

enhanced biological phosphorus removal (EBPR),

the analysiswas quite time-consuming. In the end,

the team eliminated VFA sample analysis after estab-

lishing a correlation between ffCOD and VFA and

using ffCOD as a surrogate parameter.

Startup

Perfomiance

Two trainsof the BNR process were seeded with

waste activatedsludge from the plant’s existing nitri-

fication activated sludge process, and EBPR was evi-

dent in samples within 2 weeks. Concentrations of

total phosphorus in the effluent were reduced to

below I mg/L within approximately 20 days follow-

ing startup on May 5, 2003 (see Figure 3, below).

Ferric chloride initially was added to the influent in

the primary clarifier to lower the concentration of

total phosphorus. However, within 2 weeks the team

was able to reduce the amount of ferric chloride it

was adding from 40 to 7 mg/L. Nitrification also

started immediately, and concentrations of total

oxidized nitrogen were reduced to below 10 mg/L

within a week.

The growth and development of phosphorus-

accumulating organisms (PAO5) during the startup

were clearly documented by measuring the con-

centrations of orthophosphate in the BNR facility’s

anaerobic, anoxic, and aerobic basins. After 10 days,

phosphorus release was evident in the anaerobic

zone, and, during the next week, the orthophos-

phate concentration slowly increased in the anox-

Figure 3 Startup Total Phosphorus (TP) in and out of the BNR Process

I..

tI2IO~

5/9/03

.-~...BNRnO, TP —~— BNR if, TP

-~bioIo0koI vu/r~evt,e,nvvol.

5/16/03

5/23/03

5/30103

6/6/03

6/13/03

WE&T

ic zones, reaching its highest level on May 19. At the

same time that the sampling was documenting the

uptake and release of phosphorus, concentrations

of orthophosphate in the effluent began to decrease.

The data indicated that the PAO population needed

weeks to develop sufficiently before it could have

a measurable effect on phosphorus levels in the

effluent. These results demonstrate that monitoring

concentrations of orthophosphate in the anaero-

bic zoneprovides needed information about process

startupand -the development of the PAO population.

Overcoming

an Initial

Upset

Since the BNR facilities began operating, the

process has performed successfullyduring the sum-

mer permit period, meeting requirements 100 of

the time. However, the facility experienceda process

upset during the first summer, and some mechani-

cal failures forced the team to add ferric chloride to

polish the effluentin order to meet the permit limit

for phosphorus.

After startup, the BNR process stabilized and

produced low concentrations of orthophosphate in

the effluent. During June and the beginning of July

2003, the concentration of orthophosphate in the

effluent hovered around 0.5 mg/L. Although EBPRwas

relatively

stable,

the

orthophosphate concentra-

tions would not decrease

belowthis value. Following a

process upset that began

around July 20, however,

phosphorus removal deteri-

orated significantly, and efflu-

ent orthophosphate concen-

trations reached 3 mg/L (see

Figure 4, left). The upset

occurred over the span of

only a few days, but the sys-

tem recovered just as quick-

ly. The process team

reviewed operating data in

search of clues to thecause of

the upset.

During the upset, ortho-

phosphate concentrations

increased sharply and then

declined shortly thereafter

to a new low, stable level.

Concentrations of ammonia

and total oxidized nitrogen

changed little. These results

indicate that the upset likely

was not the result of a toxic

event, becausethe moresen-

sitive nitrifying organisms

also would have been affect-

ed by a toxic compound. Although a PAO-specific

inhibitor in the wastewater could have caused.the

upset, the available data do not support this con-

clusion. An insufficient supply ofsuitable organicsub-

strate in the influent

—

for example, VFA or other sol-

uble BOD

—

might have caused a process

performance change. However, the operating data

showed no change in the available ffCOD during

the upset period. BOD and COD also showed no

change at this time.

The team also investigated the possibilityof a sec-

ondary release of phosphorus and reduced phos-

phorus uptake. The team postulated that the upset

could have resulted from too much phosphorus

release in the anaerobic zone combined with insuf-

ficient time or low uptake rates in the aerobic zone.

Orthophosphate data from the aerobic zone and

effluent samples from the BNR process supported

this theory. The data indicate that orthophosphate

concentrations in effluent from the aeration basin

were consistently below the orthophosphate levels

in effluent from the secondary clarifier. This obser-

vation led to concerns that anaerobic conditions

were developing in the secondaiy clarifier, causing

phosphorus release. Measurements -of return acti-

vated sludge found that nitrate concentrations were

Figure 4. BNR Influent and Effluent Orthophosphate Concentrations

During the First Year

2.0

1.5

‘4

11.0

0.0

May-03

BNR = biological nutrient removal.

DECEMBER 2004

~“~1

typically between 2 and 5 rng/L.

To address the potential phosphorus release in

the secondary clarifier, dissolved oxygen (DO) was

increased in the aeration basin from approximate-

ly 2.0to 2.5mg/L. This change coincidedwith the tim-

ing of the EBPR process recovery. More signifi-

cantly, orthophosphate levels in the effluent dropped

to about 0.2 mg/h after the change. Although it

remains unclear whether the increase in DO

improved the uptake of phosphorus, the authors

speculate that higher levels of DO increased the

rate at which phosphorus was removed and there-

by improved effluent quality.

After this event, process performance improved

andorthophosphate levels in the effluent decreased

to approximately 0.2 mg/L. Since then, levels have

declined even further, In April 2004, the average

orthophosphate concentration for BNR processefflu-

erit was 0.11 mg/L. Inthe firsthalfof May2004, this level

fell to 0.06 mg/L. Since then, the average orthophos-

phate concentration has been below 0.1 mg/L for

extended periods oftime, and it has been as lowas 0.02

mg/L. However, occasional swings in the level of

orthophosphate in the effluent continue to occur.

Phosphorus

Uptake

in the

Anoxic Zone

PAOs can remove phosphorus in anoxic zones.

However, in a WWTP that has fixed basin volumes

but experiences variable flows and loads, main-

tainiiig true anoxic conditions in the anoxic zone

proves nearly impossible. During periods of low

loadings, excessive aeration can return surplus DO

to the anoxic basin via the return of the mixed

liquor. During periods of high organic loadings, den-

itrification can be completed in the first anoxic

zone, creating anaerobic conditions in the second

and third zones.

Data from the Las Vegas BNR process show that

although nitrate concentrations in the first anoxic

zone are still relatively high (2 to 4 mg N/L), deni-

trification is complete by the third anoxic zone with

nitrate concentrations typicallynearzero. However,

most of the phosphorus uptake occurs in the first

anoxic zone. Dilution from the flow of recycled

mixed liquor reduces phosphorus concentrations

by about 40, arid data illustrate an approximate

60 reduction in orthophosphate concentration.

The orthophosphate concentration then remains

essentiallythe sameafter the first anoxic zone, with

only 2 to 4 mg

NIL

nitrate available for uptake.

Generally, onewould expect potentially 4to 8mg PJL

to be removed in the anoxic zone.

Drawing

Conclusions

The following conclusions regarding operating

procedures can be drawn fromthe startup of the Las

Vegas BNR facility:

• Solids retention time and DO control are criti-

cal to maintaining stable operation. DO appears

to be important for phosphorus uptake and for

avoiding secondary release of phosphorus.

• Two important reactions occur in the anoxic

zone. Sufficient nitrate is required to initiate the

uptake of phosphorus. Insufficient nitrate lev-

els cause anaerobic conditions in the anoxic

basin and could leadto the undesirable release

of phosphate.

• Significant effort was required to collect and

analyze samples during the first year of oper-

ation. Samples were collected to generate a full

profile forphosphorus and nitrogen each da5i.

As the year progressed, sampling andanalysis

requirements were reduced, first for nitrogen

samples and then for phosphorus samples

toward the end of the year. These profiles

now are generated once aweek, and this data

proves extremely useful in troubleshooting

process performance.

By communicating results from the laboratory

and sharingfield observations, thestartup team pro-

vided an effective means of managing the plant’s oper-

ation. Duringteam meetings, participantswereableto

provide effective feedback, address changes in plant

performance, and plan and take corrective action.

On the whole, the team approach helped ensure

that many ofthe initial goals were met. The BNR facil-

ity met its effluent mass loading permit require-

ments at all times. Although the plant initially did not

meet its operational objective of0.5 mg/t of effluent

phosphorus, following optimization, the facility is

now achieving this goal. Having set out to gain an

understanding of how the process performs and

what factors affect its operations, the team accom-

plished these tasks by collecting the necessary data.

The team succeeded in optimizing chemical usage

at the facility, greatly decreasing the dose of ferric

chloride used for odor control. And perhaps most

importantly, the team was ableto minimize opera-

tor anxietyduring startup and operation by sharing

responsibilities. Although dealing with new chal-

lenges always causes a certain amount of stress, the

team overall functioned well.

Terry

Hughes

is the plant operations and main-

tenance superintendent,

Brian Oswalt

is a plant

operator IJ~

Jay Chapman

is a plant operator II,

Darin

Swartzkrnder is a plant operator II, Laura

Gialiano

iso chemist, Wendy

Doyle

is a chemist, and

Martin Lipscshultz

is a biologist for the City ofLas

Vegas.

Mario Ben

isch

is a project engineer in the

Portland (Ore.) office ofi-IDRErigineeringlnc. (Omaha,

Neb.). J.B. Neethling, PhD., P.R., is HDR’s technical

director of wastewater and is located in the company’s

Folsom, Calif., office.

REC~VED

CLERK’S OFFICE

DEC 21 2004

STATE OF ILLINOIS

Pollution Control Board

Post-Hearing Comments

of Beth Wentzel

R ~ C~

~rI

V i~

CLERK’S O’~F!C~

DEC 2 1 2004

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

STATE OF ILLINOIS

INTHEMATTEROF:

)

Pollution

ç~c~

Control Board

iNTERIM PHOSPHORUS EFFLUENT

)

R2004-026

STANDARD, PROPOSED

Iii. Adm.

)

Rulemaking

—

Water

Code 304.123(g-k)

)

POST-HEARING COMMENTS OF BETH WENTZEL,

PRAIRIE

RIVERS NETWORK

The following comments correct,

clarify,

and provide additional information regarding

some ofthe discussion during my testimony on October

25.

Costs of achieving 1.0 mgIL TP wifi be less than those estimated for achieving

0.5

mgfL

TP and 3.0

mgfL

TN and less than those estimated for achieving 0.2

mg/L

TP.

P. 40 ofthe hearing transcript includes discussion about costs ofachieving 1.0 mg/L total

phosphorus (TP) and costs ofachieving other standards, specifically achieving a limit of

0.2 mg/L TP or

0.5

mg/L total P and 3.0 mg/i total nitrogen (TN). Mr. Daugherty asked

if the costs would be similar for meeting

0.5

mg/L TP and meeting 1.0 mg/L, after I had

commented that similar technologies might be used. The technologies employed to meet

1.0 mg/L can, and in many cases do, achieve limits as low as

0.5

mg/L. However, upon

further review ofthe Zenz report, it appears likely that the report assumed additional

processes that would not be necessary to meet 1.0 mg/L TP.

Specifically, section 3.7 ofthe Zenz report states that plants will generally include

filtration to remove insoluble P and N, chemical addition to enhance P removal, and

supplemental methanol addition to enhance denitrification. An anoxic zone following the

aerobic zone would also be necessary to achieve denitrification. To achieve 1.0 mg/L

TP, however, neither filtration, nor methanol addition, nordenitrification would be

necessary (Kang, et al., 2001). Chemical addition for phosphorus would be optional, and

if chemical addition is chosen, less ofthe chemical would be necessary and less sludge

would be produced. The Zenz report does not state which processes were assumed

necessary in the development ofthe cost figures, but if they are consistent with the

conclusions in section 3.7, these costs are significantly greater than those necessary to

meet 1.0 mg/L.

As mentioned in my testimony, additional processes are necessary to meet much lower

levels such as those reportedby Hook, et al. The significant difference between the

method tested at the Syracuse WWTP formeeting limits less than 0.2 mg/L TP but

greater than 0.02 mg/L TP, and the technologies necessary meeting a limit of 1.0 mg/L

TP is use ofthe ACTIFLO high rate flocculated settling (HRFS) technology. This

separate, three-tank system with microsand and polymer injection and microsand

recovery process is described on the third page of the Hook paper. Such a system would

not be necessary fOr meeting 1.0 mg/L TP.

New tanks may

not be

necessary

to incorporate phosphorus removal into treatment

plants during

expansions.

P. 32 ofthe transcript includes the discussion regarding additional tanks to accommodate

biological phosphorus removal. In some situations where biological phosphorus removal

will be incorporated into plants as they are expanded, existing tanks can be used to

provide the anaerobic zone necessary to promote growth ofphosphorus-accumulating

organisms. The engineering design for the City ofSalem WWTP expansion is a good

example ofthis type ofefficiency in adding biological phosphorus reduction at the time

ofexpansion. The City needed,to build new, larger secondary clarifiers to treat the

proposed increased flow. It is planning to use one ofthe old tanks previously used as a

clarifier as the anaerobic tank. Therefore, the City will not need to build a new tank to

serve as the anaerobic chamber.

Technologies installed in accordance with

this

rule would not

likely need to be

removed to meet- lower limits in accordance with more stringent nutrient standards.

ofthe transcript includes a question ofwhether or not significant modifications

would~berequired if, following nutriçnt standards development, more stringent limits are

imposed. As mentioned at the hearing and described in the Kang paper, the biological

and/or chemical system employed to meet 1.0 mg/L can still be used as a first step in

meeting much lower limits.

-The decisions and processes described in the Hook paper further support this claim. Note

that the Syracuse plant agreed to meet increasingly stringent limits over a 15-year period.

The study suggests that eachnew limit will be met by adding a process to the system, not

by removing an old process and substituting a new one. The filtration systems being

studiedto achieve the limit of 0.02 are not being studied for their capacity to remove all

of the phosphorus in a single step. They are being considered for the incremental

removal possible following two processes

—

a first step to removeto 0.6 mg/L and the

ACTIFLO system to remove to 0.12 mg/L. Even given a 15-year planning period with

known limits over that time, the study suggests that the engineers envision adding

incremental upgrades over time rather than removing and replacing previoussystems.

Other papers provide examples ofsystems meeting lower TP concentrations by adding

filtration to a biological or chemical system orby optimizing performance ofthe

biological system. In Kalispell, Montana, they have found that with filtration added to a

biological process, they are able to achieve a long term average concentration of0.11

mgIL TP (Water Environment Federation, 2004). At the Clark County Sanitary District,

Las Vegas, they have found that by optimizing a biological process and adding filtration,

plant effluent has averaged 0.16 mg/L (Buhr, et al., 1999). InWisconsin, some

municipalities have achieved effluent concentrations consistently around and below

0.5

mg/L TP through optimized biological processes even without filtration or regular

chemical addition. (Stinson and Larson, 2003). Other experts have stated that

“biological phosphorus removal with chemical polishing is the most cost-effective way

ofachieving effluent phosphorus concentrations of less than 0.1 ‘mg/L.” (Barnard and

Scruggs, 2003) This suggests that optimizing systems designed to meet 1.0 mg/L TP and

adding chemical precipitation and/or filtration where necessary, should be the most

effective way to meet much lower limits.

Additional permittees in Illinois currently have limits of 1.0 mg/L TP.

Prior to developing prefiled testimony, I submitted a request to IEPA for a list ofall

permittees that have phosphorus limits in their permits. I received the list on October 27,

which confirmed that the 14 municipal wastewater treatment plants I identified all have

permit limits of 1.0 mg/L as a monthly average and 2.0 mg/L as a daily maximum.

Additionally, four facilities that are not municipal wastewater treatment plants, were

listed. U.S. Fed Penitentiary-Marion, DOT-Crab Orchard Refuge STP, and Southern IL

Univ-Edwardsville all have permit limits of 1.0 mg/L as a monthly average and 2.0 rng/L

as a daily maximum. Baxter Healthcare-Round Lake has a permit limit of 1.0 ,mg/L as a

daily maximum, according to IEPA’s list

The following are corrections and clarifications to the October 25 hearing transcript

for the portion of the hearing during which I testified.

P. 33, line 4 should state, “engineering plan,” rather than “engineering plant.”

P. 33, line 13 should state, “for the report” rather than “per the report.”

35,

line 17 should state, “consultants and their communities, their clients,” rather than

“consultants in their communities, their clients.”

On P.

35,

line 24, I incorrectly suggested that all ofthese communities are rapidly

growing. The City ofDuQuoin is not experiencing rapid growth.

P. 38, line 14 should state, “there typically is an increase” rather than “there typically

isn’t an increase.”

P. 39, lines 1

—

3 should state,

“...

aeration that is necessary in reducing some other

pollutant parameters, such as BOD, which would reduce costs.”

On P. 39, linel6, we were discussing a report by Dr. Zenz, not Dr. Lemke.

On P. 39, line 24, the correct operational costs as reported in the paper referenced is $90

“per million gallons treated”, not “per liter gallons treated.”

P. 40, line 9 should state “the Zen.z report” rather than “the NPDES report.”

P. 40, line 12 should state “efficiencies” rather than “deficiencies.”

P. 41, line 1 should state “parameters” rather than “perimeters.” The discussion above

further clarifies this section.

References

Barnard, James L. and Caroline E. Scruggs. 2003. Biological Phosphorus Removal.

Water Environment & Technology. February, 2003.

Buhr, Heinrich 0., Mary C. Lee, Eric G. Leveque, Walter S. Johnson, and William

Shepard. 1999. Biological Phosphorus Wins. Water Environment & Technology.

March, 1999.

Hook, G. 2001. The Ultimate Challenge for Technology: 0.02 mg/L Effluent Total

Phosphorus. Paper presented at Water Environment Federation Technical

Exhibition and Conference, 2001.

Kang, S. J., K. Hoversten, and D. E. Lund. 2001. The Highest Level ofPhosphorus

Removal Practicable from Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants. Paper

presented at Water Environment Federation Technical Exhibition and Conference,

2001.

Stinson, Troy W. and Troy A. Larson. 2003. Biological Phosphorus Removal

—

Optimizing System Performance. Water Environment & Technology. July, 2003.

Water Environment Federation. 2004. Kalispell Advanced Wastewater Treatment and

Biological Nutrient Removal Facility. Water Environment & Technology.

August,2004.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Albert F. Ettinger, certify that on December 21, 2O04~I filed the attached POST-HEARING

COMMENTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW & POLICY CENTER, PRAIRIE RIVERS

NETWORK AND SIERRA CLUB and POST-HEARiNG COMMENTS OF BETH WENTZEL

IN SUPPORT OF THE ILLINOIS EPA RULE MAKING PROPOSAL. An original and 9 copies

was filed, on recycled paper, with the illinois Pollution Control Board, James R. Thompson

Center, 100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500, Chicago, IL 60601, and copies were served via

United States Mail to those individuals on the included service list.

___

Albert F. Ettinger (Reg. No. 3125045)

Counsel for Environmental Law & Policy

Center, Prairie Rivers Network, and Sierra

Club

DATED: December 21, 2004

Environmental Law & Policy Center

35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1300

Chicago, IL 60601

312-795-3707

SERVICE LIST

Sanjay K. Sofat, Assistant Counsel

Darin Boyer

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

City ofPlano

1021 N. Grand Avenue East

17 E. Main Street

P0 Box 19276

Plano, IL

60545

Springfield, IL 62794

Roy M. Harsch

Gardner Carton & Douglas

191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 3700

Chicago, IL 60606

Matthew J. Dunn, Chief

Office ofthe Attorney General

10.0 W. Randolph, 11th Floor

Chicago, IL 60601

Robert A. Messina, General Counsel

Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group

3150 Roland Avenue

Springfield, IL 62703

John McMahon

Wilkie & McMahon

8 East Main Street

Champaign, IL 61820

Jonathan Fun

Department ofNatural Resources

One Natural Resources Way

Springfield, IL 62702

Richard Lanyon

MWRDGC

100 E.Erie

Chicago, IL 60611

David Horn, Asst. Prof., Biology

Aurora University

347 Gladstone Avenue

Aurora, IL 60506