BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
)
IN THE
MATTER OF:
)
)
)
ASO1-09
)
(Adjusted Standard
—
Water)
)
)
)
NOTICE
OF FILING
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R.
Thompson Center
100 West RandolphStreet, Suite.
11-500
Chicago, Illinois
60601
Charles Wehiand
Boyd J. Springer
Jones, Day, Reavis
and Pogue
77 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois
60601-1692
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
524
South Second Street
Springfield, Illinois
62701-1787
Roy Harsch
Shiela Deely
Gardner, Carton and Douglas
321 North Clark Street
Chicago, Illinois
60610
Mike Kloot~yk
Environmental/Safety Training Manager
Takasago International Corp.
University Park Plan
2600 Bond Street
University Park, Illinois
60466
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE
that I have today filed with the Office ofthe Clerk ofthe
Pollution Control Board the RECOMMENDATION ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency, a copy ofwhich is herewith
served
upon you.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OF THE STATE
OF ILLiNOIS
C~&~Li~
~aL~~2
Deborah J. Willid~s
AssistantCounsel
Division
ofLegal Counsel
DATED: November
~,
2001
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021
North GrandAvenue East
Post Office Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
(217) 782-5544
THIS
FILING
IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
RECJjjV~~
CL~R~cs
OFF1CI~
NOV 30
2001
STATE OF ILLINOIS
PoJlutj0,, Control Bcczrd
PETITION OF RHODIA, INC. and THORN
CREEK BASIN SANITARY DISTRICT
FOR AN ADJUSTED
STANDARD
FROM
35
ILL.
ADM. CODE 302.208 and 304.105
RECEIVED
CLERWS OFFICE
NOV3
02001
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
iN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
AS
01-09
PETITION OF
RHODIA, INC.
and
THORN
)
(Adjusted Standard
-
Water)
CREEK BASIN SANITARY DISTRICT
)
FOR AN ADJUSTED STANARD FROM
)
35
ILL. ADM. CODE 302.208 and
304.105
)
RECOMMENDATION OF THE ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
NOW COMES the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“Illinois EPA”) by one of
its attorneys, Deborah J. Williams, in response to the Petition for Adjusted
Standard (“Petition”)
ofRhodia, Inc. (“Rhodia”) arid Thom Creek Basin Sanitary District (“TCBSD”)
(collectively
referred to herein as “Petitioners”) from 35 Ill.
Adm.
Code 302.208 and 304.105
and pursuant to
35
Iii. Adm.
Code
104.4 16, hereby recommends that the Pollution Control Board (“Board”)
GRANT Rhodia and TCBSD’s request for an Adjusted Standard from 35
Ill. Adm. Code
302.208 as specified in this Recommendation.
The Illinois EPA concludes that an Adjusted
Standard from the first provision makes an Adjusted Standard from 35 Iii. Adm.
Code 304.105
unnecessary.
In support ofits recommendation, the Illinois EPA states as follows:
I.
INTRODUCTION
1.
On April 30, 2001, Rhodia and TCBSD filed a Petition with the Board for an
Adjusted Standard from 35
Ill. Adm.
Code 302.208 and 304.105.
Petitioners caused publication
ofthe required newspaper notice on May 3, 2001
and filed their Certificate ofPublication with
the Board on May 2, 2001.
2.
On June 7, 2001, the Board determined that Petitioners’
notice made an inaccurate
reference to the administrative code citations from which relief was being sought and ordered
Yetitioners to publish an amended notice and file a new certificate ofpublication by June 21,
2001.
See, 415 ILCS
5/28.1(d)(2000), 35 Ill.Adm.Code
104.408 and
104.410.
Newnotice was
published on June 14, 2001
and another Certificate ofPublication was filed with the Board on
June 20, 2001.
3.
The
Illinois
EPA is required to file its Recommendation with the Board within 45
days ofthe filing ofa Petition for Adjusted Standard or within 30 days before a scheduled
hearing date, whichever occurs
earlier.
35
Ill. Adm.
Code
104.416.
On June 21,
2001, the Board
granted the Illinois EPA’s motion for extension oftime to file its Recommendation until July 30,
2001.
4.
On July 26,
2001, the Board found that Rhodiaand TCBSD’s Petition for
Adjusted Standard did not sufficiently address certain informational requirements of35
Ill. Adm.
Code
104.406 and required the Petitioner to file an amended petition addressing these
informational requirements by
September
14, 2001.
In this order, the Board also extended the
deadline for the Agency’s RecOmmendation until
October 29, 2001.
5.
Petitioners filed their Amended Petition for Adjusted Standard on August 27,
2001
along with a request fortrade secret protection for certain financial information submitted
in response to the Board’s request for additional information.
6.
On September 20, 2001, the Board joined two additional parties to this proceeding
-
Takasago Corporation (U.S.A.) and Consumers Illinois Water Company (CIWC)
-
and
granted the Illinois EPA until November 30, 2001
to file a Recommendation in this matter.
The
Board also
granted Petitioners’
request fortrade secret protection on September 20, 2001.
2
II.
BACKGROUND
7.
Rhodia (formerly Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co.) and TCBSD have
requested adjusted standard relief from the sulfate and total dissolved
solids (TDS) water quality
standards in Thom Creek and the Little Calumet River.
8.
Rhodia operates a manufacturingplant located at 1101
Arnold Street, in Chicago
Heights, Cook County, Illinois that produces inorganic phosphate chemicals and precipitated
silica.
Amended Petition at p.
2.
9.
TCBSD is located in Chicago Heights, Cook County, Illinois and its discharge is
permitted pursuant to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NDPES”) permit No.
IL
0027723, issued on September 29,
1995, and modified on September 4,
1996.
That permit
expired on September 30, 2000 and is in the process of being renewed.
TCBSD is an approved
pretreatment community and controls industrial contributors as required in its NPDES permit.
10.
In 1991, the Board granted an adjusted standard applicable to a portion ofThom
Creek.
See, In the Matter of:
Petition ofNutrasweet Company and Consumers Illinois
Water
Company for an Adjusted Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.105 and 302.208, AS
89-3
(February 28,
1991).’
On June 23,
1994,
the Board granted an adjusted standard from 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 304.105 to TCSBD and Rhone-Poulenc in AS 94-7.
The Board’s Order was
amended pursuant to a joint motion for reconsideration on August 11,
1994.
11.
Petitioners claim that based upon the need for Rhodiato expand silica production,
the relief granted in AS 94-7 is no longer sufficient.
Rhodia retained Huff & Huff to prepare an
Environmental Assessment (dated November 2000) to support request for a revised adjusted
standard.
Nutrasweet Company is now owned by Takasago Corporation (USA).
3
III.
RELIEF REQUESTED
12.
Petitionershave requested a revision to the adjusted
standard reliefgranted by the
Board inAS 94-7 inwhich the Board
granted adjusted water quality standards for TDS and
sulfates. Petitionersdivided therequested reach ofreceiving stream to obtain adjusted water
quality standard relief into four distinct segments, each with different values for TDS and
sulfates.
If an adjusted standard is
grantedby the Board, the Illinois EPA would submit the
adjusted standard to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”) for
approval and incorporate the limits established by the approved adjusted standard into TCBSD’s
NPDES permit.
13.
Reach #1 of
the Adjusted Standard relief requested by Rhodia and TCBSD is
Thom Creek from TCBSD’s outfall to the confluence with Deer Creek.
The existing adjusted
water quality standard for TDS is currently 2,100 milligrams per liter (“mg/L”) at this stretch of
the water body and Petitioners have requested the adjusted standard be set at 2,650 mg/L ofTDS.
The current adjusted standard for sulfate is
1,000 mg/L.
Rhodia and TCBSD have requested the
adjusted standard ofthis stretch be set at
1,350 mg/L ofsulfate.
14.
Reach #2
is defined by Petitioners as Thom Creek from the confluence ofDeer
Creekto the United States Geological Survey gauge 05536275 in Thornton.
The requested
adjusted standard for TDS is
2,620 mgIL (the current adjusted water quality standard for this
segment ofthe receiving stream
is 2,100 mg/L)
and sulfate is
1,340 mg/L
(currently set at
1,000
mg/L).
These values represent the influence ofthe new allowance in the District’s effluent and
the influence ofthe dilution with Deer Creek, which has an adjusted standard of2,100 mg/L
TDS (no changes have beenproposed to this limit).
15.
Reach #3
is Thorn Creek from the USGS gauge and the confluence with the Little
Calumet River.
Petitioners
have requested that TDS be adjusted to a standard of2,360 mg/L
4
(currently
set at
1,900 mg!L in this segment) and sulfate to
1,160 mg/L (currently 850 mg/L).
Slight reductions in the standards occur here due to small amounts of dilution from tributaries of
Thorn Creek; Butterfield Creek and North Creek.
16.
Reach #4 is the Little Calumet River from the confluence with Thom Creek to the
confluence with the Calumet River.
An adjusted standard for TDS has been requested at 2,020
mg/L (currently 1,700 mg/L in this segment) and sulfate at
1,000 mgIL (currently set at 750
mg/L).
Further dilution received from the Little Calumet allows the concentrations to be
lowered again.
The adjusted standard ends with the confluence ofthe Little
Calumet with the
Calumet River, which provides additional dilution and is a secondary contact water with a
different standard for TDS (1,500 mg/L) and no standard for sulfate.
IV.
LEVEL
OF JUSTIFICATION
REQUIRED
17.
The Illinois EPA agrees with the Petitioner that the regulations ofgeneral
applicability at 35 Ill. Adm. Code
302.208 and 304.105
do not specify a level ofjustification or
other requirements necessary for this type ofadjusted standard.
Since there is no specific level
ofjustification for adjusted standards from the regulations at issue in this Petition, the general
level ofjustification provided in Section
28.1 ofthe Environmental Protection Act (“Act”), 415
ILCS
5/28.1, is the standard ofreview by which the Board is to judge the instant adjusted
standard petition.
Section 28.1(c)
of
the Act, 415 ILCS 5/28.1(c), provides the general level of
justification the Board must find a petitioner to have met when granting an adjusted standard
petition.
That subsection provides:
The
Board may grant individual adjusted standards whenever the
Board determines, upon adequate proofby petitioner, that:
1) factors
relating to that petitioner are substantially and significantly different
from the factors relied upon by the Board in adopting the general
regulation applicable to that petitioner; 2) the existence ofthose factors
justifies an adjusted standard; 3) the requested standard will not result in
environmental or health effects substantially and significantly more
5
adverse than the effects considered by the Board in adopting the rule of
general applicability;
and 4) the adjusted standard is consistent with any
applicable federal law.
V.
FACTS PRESENTED
IN
THE PETITION
18.
Thom Creek is a tributary ofthe Little
Calumet River in Northern Will
and
Southern Cook Counties.
Deer Creek is a tributary ofThom Creek.
Both creeks receive
municipal sewage treatment plant effluents.
19.
The principal discharger to Thom Creek is
TCBSD.
Consumers Illinois Water
Company is the primary dischargerto Deer Creek.
Both wastewater treatment plants have
industrial users that contribute high TDS to the plants that passes through the treatment process
unaltered, creating high TDS conditions in the effluents.
Takasago (formerly Nutrasweet) is the
primary industrial user of the CIWC
Plant, while Rhodia (formerly Rhône-Poulenc) is the
primary industrial user ofTCBSD’s plant.
Takasago petitioned for regulatory relief with CIWC
as Rhodia has done with TCBSD.
20.
Thorn Creek and Deer Creek are both low flow streams.
Thorn Creek has a seven
day, ten year low flow value (“7Q10”) of0.3
cubic feet per second (“cfs”) upstream ofthe
TCBSD discharge.
Deer
Creek had a zero 7Q10 flow value upstream ofCIWC’s discharge.
The
high effluent concentrations result in stream concentrations that violate water quality standards.
21.
By granting the relief ofboth sets of Petitioners, a complex series of adjusted
water quality standards has been created for TDS and sulfate in Deer and Thorn Creeks and the
Little Calumet River.
22.
Rhodia wants to
increase production ofsilica which creates
sodium sulfate in the
industrial waste stream.
This would increase
already high levels ofTDS and sodium sulfate in
the District’s effluent.
6
23.
The Illinois EPA believes that based on proposed production levels by Rhodia,
the rise in effluent concentrations and receiving water body concentrations is well established
and documented.
VI.
EFFORTS NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE AND ALTERNATIVES
24.
The Petitioners examined several alternatives to achieve compliance with th~
TDS
and sulfate limitations in TCBSD’s permit following an expansion of silica production.
Sodium
sulfate, the material causing the compliance problem, is a basic salt.
It is difficult to remove this
material from a facility’s effluent because the water must be removed from the substance, rather
than precipitating the substance out ofthe water.
Since sodium sulfate is not amenable to the
biological treatment provided by the District, only options for pretreatment at Rhodia were
investigated.
These options included:
falling film evaporation, reverse osmosis and calcium
chloride treatment with falling film evaporation.
After evaluating the annualized and capital
costs of each alternative and considering the adverse cross-mediaenvironmental impacts
resulting from the various alternative methods of compliance, the Illinois
EPA agrees that none
ofthese are viable options.
(See table summarizing costs ofcompliance alternatives at Amended
Petition pages
12-13.)
25.
Petitioners presented the following capital costs for each alternative:
$6 million
for falling film evaporation, $4 million for reverse osmosis, and $4.2 million for calcium
chloride treatment with falling film evaporation.
Annualized costs of$915,000 for falling film
evaporation; $600,000 for reverse osmosis; and $670,000 for calcium chloride treatment with
falling film evaporation were also presented in the Petition.
See Amended Petition at p.
12.
The
Illinois EPA agrees that these costs appear representative ofthe actual costs of each ofthese
technologies.
All are expensive and have the negative drawback ofa concentrated salt waste that
7
must still be disposed ofoff-site.
In addition, the cost ofcompliance presented by the Petitioners
exceeds the typical cost of secondary treatment for these pollutants, which is taken into account
in establishing the best achievable technology that is economically available for industrial
sources.
As determined by the initial adjusted standard review for the AS 94-7, the Illinois EPA
believes that all conceivable
options were investigated and none are technically feasible or
economically reasonable.
This conclusion is also consistent with past findings by the Board for
other dischargers dealing with basic salts.2
Since no technically feasible and economically
reasonable treatment is available to
remove TDS and sodium sulfate from the Rhodia’s industrial
or TCBSD’s municipal
effluent; therefore, the Illinois EPA supports the adjusted standard
petition.
VII.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
26.
The environmental harm
addressed
by Petitioners and investigated by the Illinois
EPA involves the toxicity ofTDS and sulfates to
aquatic life.
The Petitioners conducted chronic
toxicity tests with fathead minnow and
Ceriodaphnia
using the projected stream concentrations
ofTDS and sulfate.
Thorn Creek water collected below the discharge spiked with extra sodium
sulfate was used in these tests.
No acute or chronic toxicity was observed at projected stream
concentrations that would result from the increase in production.
This includes the growth and
reproductive evaluations inherent in these bioassays.
The Illinois EPA agrees that this was an
appropriate experiment to prove that no adverse impacts to aquatic life in the receiving streams
would be expected at the highestpredicted stream concentrations of TDS and sodium sulfate.
27.
The Petitioners also commissioned Huff& Huff, Inc. to
perform biological
monitoring ofThorn Creek both upstream and downstream ofthe TCBSD’s outfall.
The overall
2See
Adjusted
Standards granted to the following dischargers:
Consumers Illinois Water Companyand Nutrasweet
(Takasago)(AS 89-3), Borden Chemical
(AS 93-2), Akso Nobel (AS 93-8),
and
Abbot Laboratories (AS
99-5).
8
conclusion ofthese surveys was that no differences exist in the fish and macroinvertebrate
populations ofthe receiving stream above
and below the existing TCBSD discharge.
Therefore,
this demonstrates that the increase in TDS and sulfate concentration from the first adjusted
standard has had no
impact on the aquatic life community.
The results ofthe predictive
bioassays mentioned above indicate that this condition ofno impact should remain after
concentrations are increased.
In addition, there is no cumulative impact from the increased
concentration ofthe discharge since the sodium sulfate is dissolved.
28.
The Illinois EPA also
agrees with the Huff& Huffstudy that predicts in-stream
concentrations of TDS and sodium sulfate.
Studying base stream flows, background TDS and
sodium sulfate concentrations and the contributions ofother effluents resulted in these
conclusions that form the basis for the magnitude ofrelief requested.
These predictions are
believed to be accurate.
VIII.
PETITIONER’S JUSTIFICATION OF PROPOSED ADJUSTED STANDARD
29.
The Board must review the justification for a proposed adjusted standard pursuant
to
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
104.426.
This
rule provides
that the
Petitioner must justify
its
adjusted
standard consistent
with
Section 27(a)
of the Act, 415 ILCS
5/27(a)(2000).
Section
27(a) ofthe
Act requires the Board to take into account five specified factors when promulgating regulations,
including
adjusted standards:
the existing physical conditions; the character ofthe area involved
including
surrounding land
use;
zoning classifications; nature of the receiving water body;
and
the technical
feasibility
and
economic reasonableness of measuring or reducing the particular
type ofpollution.
The preceding sections ofthe Illinois EPA’s
Recommendation have addressed
each of these factors, and it is the Illinois
EPA’s conclusion that these factors point in favor of
the grant ofan Adjusted Standard to the Petitioners.
9
30.
Additionally,
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
104.426(a)
restates the
four additional
factors
specified in Section
28.1
of the Act, 415
ILCS 5/28.1(2000), to be proven by the Petitioners: the
Petitioners~relevant factors
are
substantially and
significantly
different
from
the
factors relied
upon
by the
Board
in
adopting
the
general
regulation applicable
to
the
Petitioners; that
these
factors
justify
an
adjusted
standard;
the
requested
adjusted
standard
will
not
result
in
environmental
or health
effects
substantially
or
significantly
more
adverse
than
the
effects
considered by the Board in adopting the rule ofgeneral
applicability;
and the requested adjusted
standard is consistent with any applicable federal law.
31.
The
Board
has
previously
found
that
these
factors
were
met
in
AS
94-7
and
nothing has taken place
since the grant
ofthis
adjusted standard to
change that
conclusion.
In
making
its
Recommendation to
the Board,
the most
important of these for the
Illinois
EPA
to
revisit
was
whether
any
chance
of
additional
environmental
harm
would
result
from
the
requested adjusted standard and whether these effects were “substantially or significantly” more
adverse
than
the
effects
considered
by
the
Illinois
EPA
in
adopting
the
rule
of
general
applicability.
The Illinois EPA has concluded (see
above section on environmental impact) that
no additional
environmental harm will result from the grant ofthe requested relief
IX.
CONSISTENCY WITH FEDERAL LAW
32.
The existing general use Illinois water quality standards have been approved by
U.S. EPA.
The Illinois EPA has been unable to determine whether AS 94-7 was formerly
approved by U.S.
EPA following its submittal by Illinois EPA.
The proposed adjusted standards
for water quality, if adopted by the Board,
will be submitted for approval to U.S.
EPA.
10
-
X.
HEARING
33.
Petitioners, Rhodia and TCBSD, have waived their rightto a hearing in this
matter.
The Illinois EPA agrees that no hearing is necessary for the Board to make a
determination on this request for a revisionto an existing Adjusted Standard.
XI.
RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION
34.
The Illinois EPA recommends that Petitioners, Rhodia, Inc. and Thorn Creek
Basin Sanitary District, be granted the requested adjusted standard, pursuant to 415 ILCS 5/28.1
and consistent with 415 ILCS 5/27(a), from the
Total Dissolved Solids and Sulfate requirements
contained in 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 302.208, at the Petitioners’
Chicago Heights, Cook County,
Illinois facilities.
The Illinois EPA does not believe the requested adjusted standard from 35 Ill.
Adm. Code
304.105
is necessary in
this case, as
an adjusted TDS and sulfate water quality
standard would allow Rhodia and TCBSD to expand silica production and still maintain full
compliance with its NPDES
permit as the Illinois EPA will amend TCBSD’s NPDES permit to
conform with any adjusted standard granted by the Board in this case.
11
WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated herein, the Illinois EPA recommends that the
Pollution Control Board GRANT the Adjusted Standard Petition ofRhodia, Inc. and Thom
Creek Basin Sanitary District.
Respectfully Submitted,
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
BYJh~w&f1
td~
Deborah J. V~(lliams
AssistantCounsel
DivisionofLegal Counsel
DATED:
November~I
,
2001
1021 N. Grand Ave. East
P.O.
Box
19276
Springfield,
Illinois 62794-9276
(217) 782-5544
12
STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
COUNTY OF SANGAMON
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, on oath state that I have served the attached
RECOMMENDATION upon the
person towhom it is directed,by placing acopy in an envelope addressed to:
Dorothy M. Gunn,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James
R. Thompson Center
100 WestRandolph Street, Suite. 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(Overnight Mail)
Charles Wehland
Boyd J.
Springer
Jones,
Day,
Reavis
and
Pogue
77
West Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60601-1692
(FirstClass Mail)
Illinois Department ofNatural Resources
524 South Second Street
Springfield, Illinois
62701-1787
(First Class Mail)
Roy Harsch
Shiela Deely
Gardner,
Carton and Douglas
321
North Clark Street
Chicago, Illinois 60610
(Overnight Mail)
Mike
Klootwyk
Environmental/Safety
TrainingManager
Takasago International Corp.
University Park Plan
2600 Bond Street
University Park, Illinois 60466
(First Class Mail)
andmailing itfrom Springfield, Illinois onNovember~~,
200lwith sufficient
postage
affixed as
indicated above.
OFFICIAL
SEAL
RICHARD C. WARRINGTON
Notary Public, State of Illinois
My Commission
Expires 02-18~OO4
SS
)
)
)
)
SUBSCRJBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME
this~~dayof November21
THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
