BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

)

PROPOSED SITE SPECIFIC RULE

)

APPLICABLE TO THE CITY OF

GALVA)

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS

)

DISCHARGE TO EDWARDS RIVER

)

AND MUD RUN CREEK

)

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 302.208(g)

)

R08-

(Site Specific Rulemaking - Water)

NOTICE OF

Fn,lNG .

TO:

Ms. Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Board

, Illinois Pollution Control Board

100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL)

(SEE PERSONS ON ATTACHED LIST)

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

that I have today filed with the Office of Clerk of the Illinois

Pollution Control Board the

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE OF CLAIRE A. MANNING;

ENTRY

OF APPEARANCE OF ALISON K. HAYDEN; CITY OF GALVA'S PETITION

FOR SITE SPECIFIC RULE; MOTION TO WAIVE REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT 200

SIGNATURES; PRE-FILED TESTIMONY

OF BRIAN D. ANDERSON; and MOTION

FOR EXPEDITED REVIEW,

copies of which are herewith served upon,you.

Respectfully submitted,

CITY OF GALVA, Petitioner,

By:

lsi

Claire A. Manning

One

of Its Attorneys

Dated: October 17,2008

BROWN, HAY

&

STEPHENS, LLP

Claire A. Manning

Registration No. 3124724

Alison

K.

Hayden

Registration No. 6291618

20s S. Fifth Street, Suite 700

P.O. Box 2459

Springfield, IL 62705

(217) 544-8491

Fax: (217) 241-3111

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I have served the attached ENTRY OF

APPEARANCE OF CLAIRE A. MANNING; ENTRY OF APPEARANCE OF

ALISON

K.

HAYDEN; CITY OF GALVA'S PETITION FOR SITE SPECIFIC RULE; MOTION TO

WAIVE REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT 200 SIGNATURES; PRE-FILED TESTIMONY OF

BRIAN D. ANDERSON; and MOTION FOR EXPEDITED REVIEW upon the following:

Mr. John Therriault

Assistant Clerk

of the Board

Illinois Pollution Control Board

100 West Randolph Street

Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

via electronic mail on October 17 ,2008; and upon: .

Division of Legal Counsel

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O.

Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

Division

Chief of Environmental Enforcement

Office

of the Attorney General

188 W. Randolph Street

20

th

Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Office of Legal Services

Illinois Department

ofNatural Resources

524 South Second Street

Springfield, Illinois 62701-1787

by depositing said documents in the United State Mail in Springfield, Illinois on October 17,

2008.

lsi

Claire A. Manning

Claire A. Manning

BROWN, HAY

&

STEPHENS, LLP

Claire A. Manning

Registration No. 3124724

Alison K. Hayden

Registration No. 6291618

205

S. Fifth Street, Suite 700

P.O.

Box 2459

Springfield, IL 62705

(217) 544-8491

Fax: (217) 241-3111

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

)

PROPOSED SITE SPECIFIC RULE

)

APPLICABLE TO THE CITY OF GALVA)

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS

)

DISCHARGE TO EDWARDS RIVER

)

AND MUD RUN CREEK

)

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 302.208(g)

)

R08-

--

(Site Specific Rulemaking - Water)

CITY OF GALVA'SPETITION FOR SITE SPECIFIC RULE

NOW COMES the City of Galva ("Galva"), by and tlrrough its attorneys BROWN, HAY

&

STEPHENS, LLP, and pursuant to 415 ILCS 5/27(a) and 5/28, and 35 Ill. Admin. Code

§§102.202, 102.208 and 102.210, hereby petitions the Illinois Pollution Control Board ("Board")

for a Site Specific Rule concerning boron or, alternatively, whatever relief the Board deems

necessary or appropriate. With this Petition, Galva requests relief from the Board's boron

standard in order to ensure that the effluent from its two sewage treatment plants ("STPs") does

not violate any relevant regulation or permit condition. In support of this Petition, Galva has

attached Exhibit A, a Technical Support Document ("TSD") which was prepared by the

engineering firm of Bruner, Cooper

&

Zuck, Inc. Additionally, Galva offers the following.

I.

PROPOSED SITE SPECIFIC RULE

The specific relief requested in this Petition is sought as a result of discussions with the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("Agency") and is necessitated by the Agency's

position that the Board's General Use water quality standard "for boron (1.0 mg/L) ("WQS"),

found at 35 Ill. Adm. Code §302.208(g), is appropriately and directly applied as an effluent

standard to the effluent from Galva's sewage treatment plant. The source of the boron is the

groundwater from aquifers that supply Galva's drinking water. As further explained below, the

1.0 mg/L boron standard has been incorporated into Galva's National Pollutant Discharge

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

Elimination System (''NPDES'')Permit as an effluent standard. Accordingly, unless the Board

determines otherwise, the requested relief is necessary to ensure that Galva does not violate any

relevant regulation or appropriate permit condition.

As discussed with the Agency, the Site Specific Rule would read as follows:

Section 303.34X.

Unnamed Tributary

of the South Branch Edwards

River and South Branch Edwards River

The boron general use water quality standard

of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.208(g)

does not apply

to the waters of the State that are located from the point of

discharge of the POTW located at 523 NE 9

th

Street in Galva, known as the Galva

Northeast Sewage Treatment Plant, to an unnamed tributary

of the South Branch

of the Edwards River, said point being located in Henry County, Township 14

North, Range 4 East, occupying portions

of Sections 21, 26, 27, 28,33,34, and 35

in the Fourth Principal Meridian, Latitude N 41.175°, Longitude: W 90.035°, to

the confluence of said unnamed tributary with the South Branch Edwards River;

to the confluence with the Edwards River. Boron levels in such waters must meet

a water quality standard for boron of3.0 mg/L.

Section 303.40X.

Mud Run Creek

The boron general use water quality standard

of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.208(g)

does not apply

to the waters of the State that are located from the point of

discharge of the POTW located

~

mile South of BNSF RR and SW 4

th

Street in

Galva, known

as the Galva Southwest Sewage Treatment Plant, to Mud Run

Creek, said point being located

in Henry County, Township 14 North, Range 4

East

of the Fourth Principal Meridian occupying portions of Sections 21, 26, 27,

28, 33, 34, and 35, Latitude 41.154°, Longitude 90.053°, to the confluence

of

Mud Run Creek with Walnut Creek. Boron levels in such waters must meet a

water quality standard for boron

of3.0 mg/L.

n.

BACKGROUND

Galva is seeking a Site Specific Rule for discharges from Galva's two STPs: the

Northeast STP and the Southwest STP. The Northeast STP is an activated sludge plant that

ultimately discharges into an unnamed tributary of the South Branch of the Edwards River. The

Southwest STP is an aerated lagoon system, discharging into Mud Run Creek, a tributary of

Walnut Creek, which is a tributary of the Spoon River.

2

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

As a result of an amendment to the NPDES Permit that covers the Southwest STP

(Permit No. IL0023647), Galva is required to sample for boron and meet a boron concentration

limit of 1.0 mg/L in its effluent. Although the Board has never developed an effluent standard

for boron, the Agency required such condition based upori its interpretation of §304.105 of the

Board'srules, which prohibits discharges that would violate applicable water quality standards.

The Board established a WQS for boron of 1.0 mg/L in 1972. The history of the Board's

boron regulation is discussed in more detail below, at pages 9-10 and 28-29. While this standard

has been the subject of numerous Petitions for Adjusted Standards and Site Specific Rules filed

with the Board, outside of these cases the Board has not directly reviewed the technical

appropriateness of 1.0 mg/L boron WQS since it was originally promulgated in the Board's

initial water quality rulemaking, which preceded the Clean Water Act. Even then, upon its

promulgation, the Board

specifically declined to promulgate an effluent standard

for boron,

noting the innocuous effect of boron, and citing concerns relative to the practicality and costs of

treatment.

Through the Board's site specific rulemaking procedure, Galva seeks a Site Specific Rule

applicable to its boron effluent discharge in the context of these circumstances. This Petition

establishes that it is neither technically feasible nor economically reasonable to require Galva to

comply with a boron WQS of 1.0 mg/L for waters being discharged from either the Northeast

STP or the Southwest STP. The substance of this petition will demonstrate that the costs of any

alternatives far exceed any benefit to the environment, and establish that compliance with the

boron standard in this context is both unnecessary for the protection of the environment and

inherently impractical.

As further demonstrated in this Petition, the boron levels in the proposed Site Specific

Rule will not harm aquatic life, human health, or the environment generally. In addition, the

3

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

Board's adoption of the rule will produce an economically beneficial solution rather than passing

on the high and unnecessary costs

of treatment or obtaining a new water source to the citizens of

Galva.

III.

STATEMENT

OF

REASONS

A.

Existing

Conditions

Galva is a rural community, with a population of 2,758, located in south central Henry

County. Galva occupies portions

of Sections 21, 26, 27, 28, 33, 34 and 35 in Township 14

North, Range 4 East of the Fourth Principal Meridian, Henry County,Illinois. See TSD, Exhibit

A,. Figure 1. Galva owns and operates both a sewage treatment system and a potable water

distribution system.

Galva's water supply system draws from.a deep aquifer system, obtaining its potable

water from two wells, Well

No.4 and Well No.5. A map of Galva, indicating the locations of

Well No.4 and Well No.5, is attached in the TSD, at Exhibit A, Figure 2. Well No.4 is located

near the southwest comer

of North East 2

nd

Street and Center Avenue in Galva. Well No.5 is

located on the south side ofD.S. Route 34, near Galva'sMaintenance Building, in Galva.

Well

No.4 was drilled in 1933 to a depth of 1,686 feet, stopping in the Shakopee

Dolomite Formation

.. Well No. 4's pump sits 450 feet below ground level, is driven by a 100

horsepower motor, and has a nominal pumping capacity

of 550 gallons per rriinute (gpm). The

well was successfully lined a few years

ago to exclude water with excessive radium

concentrations. This changed the effective depth

of the well to 834 feet and reduced the

pumping capacity

to approximately 420 gpm. Well No.4 discharges water into a 600 gpm

forced draft aerator, sitting 20 feet above ground level, mounted on top

of a 43,000 gallon steel

storage

tank:.

4

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

Well No.5 was drilled in 1988 to a depth of 1,770 feet, stopping in the Shakopee

Dolomite Formation. Well No. 5's pump is 540 feet below ground level, driven by a 125

horsepower motor, and has a rated pumping capacity of 600 gpm. Well No.5 was also lined a

few years ago to exclude radium bearing waters, which left the effective depth at 794 feet and

reduced the pumping capacity of this well to approximately. 420 gpm. Well No.5 discharges.

water into a forced draft aerator, which is mounted on top of a 20,000 gallon above ground

storage tank.

Together, Well No.4 and Well No.5 pump an average of 400,000 gallons of water per

day for the residents of Galva. The two wells are located approximately % of a mile from each

other, but work in tandem through a series of interconnecting 6" and 8" water mains.

in

Galva's Water Supply

Boron is an element inherent in Galva's Municipal Water Supply, because it is naturally

occurring in the groundwater which surrounds Galva. Boron is an inorganic element derived

naturally from compounds called borates. Borates are found in oceans, sedimentary rocks, coal,

shale, and some soils. Borates are released into the environment from oceans, volcanic activity

and other natural releases

~

such as geothermal steam and weathering of clay-rich sedimentary

rocks. Boron is among many.of the trace elements present in Illinois coal that remain in the ash

following combustion. While boron can also be released as a result of human activity, the boron

in Galva's water is not caused by any human or external environmental influence, but occurs

naturally in Galva'swater supply.

Although the State WQS relevant to boron in surface water is 1.0 mg/L, the state potable

groundwater standard for boron is twice that: 2.0

mg/L.

See 35 Ill. Adm. Code §620.410(a).

There are no federal water regulations concerning boron.

In fact,. the United States

Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA") has frequently made the determination that boron

5

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

does not warrant a national primary drinking water regulation (NPDWR). In June of 2008, the

USEPA issued its "Regulatory Determinations Support Document for Selected Contaminants

from the Second Drinking Water

Contaminant Candidate List" ("USEPA CCL 2 Report"). See

http://wyvw.epa.gov/OGWDW/ccl/pd{S/reg determine2/report cel2-

reg2 supportdocument ch03 boron.

pdf

This report specifically discusses groundwater

samples which were collected between 1984 and 1991 from the lower Illinois River Basin, which

includes the Spoon River watershed relevant in this Petition. The samples ranged from boron

concentrations of 0.05

mg/L

to 2.1 mglL, with the higher concentrations being found in the

deeper and more ancient aquifers.

See

USEPA CCL 2 Report, p.3-17.

Considering that Galva obtains its water supply from aquifers in this region, it follows

that higher concentration levels

of boron are a result of naturally occurring boron contained in

Galva's water supply. Groundwater sample results from the wells that supply Galva's potable

water confirm this.

See

TSD, Exhibit A, Appendix C. This explains the fact that boron occurs in

Galva's discharge at a concentration level greater than the Board'sWQS.

Humans are primarily exposed to boron through food and drinking water. Neither the

federal Safe Drinking Water Act, 40 C.F.R. §141

(1~96),

nor Board regulations which adopt the

federal drinking water parameters as identical-in-substance rules at 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 611,

contain a numeric potable water sta,ndard for boron. It has been reported that concentrations of

boron of up to 30

mg/L

are not harmful in drinking water, and toxic effects on livestock and fish

are reported only at significantly higher levels.

See

McKee, lE.

&

Wolf, H.W., Water Qmi.lity

Criteria, State Water Resources Control Board, State of California, 2d ed. 1973 (1963). The

National Research Council has declined to establish any recommended dietary allowance for

humans as a result.

See

Dietary Reference Intakes for Boron, 2000,

available online at

6

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

www.nap.edu.

Canadian guidelines, developed by Health Canada in 1990, have set the Interim

Maximum Acceptable Concentration (IMAC) for boron in drinking water at 5.0

mg/L.

1

In

May, 2008, the USEPA published a Drinking Water Health Advisory for Boron.

See

http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/cel/pdfs/reg_determine2/healthadvisOlY

_

cel2-reg2

_

boron.pdf

The report, herein referred to as the "USEPA Health Advisory Report" is part of the USEPA's

Health Advisory (HA) Program, which establishes non-regulatory concentrations

of drinking

water contaminants at which adverse health effects are not anticipated to occur over specific

exposure durations. HAs serve

as "informal technical guidance to assist Federal, State and local

officials, and managers of public or community water systems in protecting public health when

emergency spills or contamination situations occur" but are "not to be construed as legally

enforceable Federal standards." USEPA HA Report, at p. 1. The

Lifetime

HA for boron was

calculated at 5.4 mglL.

Id.

at p. 34. The No Observable Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL)

calculated from this study was 17.5 rrig of boron per kilogram of body weight per day.

Id.

at

p.30.

Thus, boron in concentrations significantly higher than the Board's 1.0

mg/L

WQS does

not pose a risk to human health and safety, as a drinking water source or otherwise.

C.

The Discharge

and

Permit Terms

Galva's Municipal Water Supply ultimately feeds directly into Galva's two STPs. As a

result, the excess boron levels discovered in the treatment plant effluent is attributed to the

naturally occurring boron in-Galva's water supply. While Galva's water supply does not exceed

any relevant potable drinking water standard and is considered safe for consumption, it is

nonetheless the source

of the boron concentration in Galva's STP discharge.

I

Health Canada develops and enforces regulations under Government of Canada legislation_ The Department consults

with the Canadian public, industry and other interested parties in the development

of laws that protect health and safety.

See http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/water-eauiboron-bore/index-eng.php#Exposure.

Last visited October

17,2008.

7

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

The Southwest STP is an aerated lagoon system sewage treatment plant, discharging into

Mud Run Creek, a tributary of Walnut Creek, which is a tributary of the Spoon River. The

Southwest STP treats a design average flow of 0.3 million gallons per day ("MGD") and is

designed for a maximum flow of 1.0 MGD. A schematic of the Southwest STP is contained in

the TSD, Exhibit A, Figure 6. Effluent from the

Southwe~t

STP travels approximately 7.0 miles

to Walnut Creek, then discharges into the Spoon River approximately 31.7 miles downstream.

The Northeast STP is an activated sludge plant that discharges into an unnamed tributary

of the South Branch of the Edwards River, located in the Mississippi Central River Watershed.

The Northeast STP can treat an average flow of 0.385 MGD and is designed for a maximum

flow of 0.867 MGD. A schematic of the Northeast STP is contained in the TSD, Exhibit A,

Figure 4. Effluent from the Northeast.STP travels approximately 1.1 miles downstream in the

tributary to the South Branch of the Edwards River. At this point, any effluent flow would travel

approximately another 15.0 miles downstream to meet with the Edwards River. A chart

reflecting the average monthly discharge flow rates at the Northeast and Southwest STPs is

contained in the TSD, Exhibit A, Figure 5.

Discharges eniitted from the Southwest STP are covered by NPDES Permit

No.IL0023647. NPDES Permit No.IL0023647 requires sampling and reporting for boron with a

limit of 1.0

mg/L.

NPDES Permit No.IL0023647 was amended, effective August 4, 2004, to

include the compliance schedule for the boron effluent limitation. The boron permit condition

.became effective September 1, 200?

The boron concentration in the Galva discharge which led to the permit condition was.

fIrst discovered when monthly sampling was conducted at Mud Run Creek, as part of the

Southwest STP effluent sampling requirement.

During this time period the maximum

concentration of boron detected was 3.0

mg/L.

A chart depicting the sampling results at the

8

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

Southwest STP is contained in the TSD, Exhibit A, Figure 7. The lower concentrations of boron

are correlated

to increased amounts of rain, which increases the amount of flow through the STPs

and results in a dilution effect. The higher concentrations of boron are attributed to drought

conditions in Illinois and the corresponding low flows going through the STPs, which results in

higher concentrations.

The Agency established the Galva Sanitary System NPDES permit condition requiring

compliance with an effluent standard of 1.0

mg/L

for boron. That permit condition applies to the

Southwest STP and is contained in NPDES Permit No. IL0023647. Discharges from the

Northeast STP are covered by a different permit, NPDES Permit No.IL0026344. The terms of

NPDES Permit No.IL0026344 do not at this time require Galva to comply with sampling or

effluent limits for boron. Nonetheless, boron levels similar to those traced to the discharge from

the Southwest STP were also discovered from the Northeast STP. Moreover, testing conducted

July 2005 reveals a correlation between discharges from the Northeast STP and the Southeast

STP. Accordingly, and after consultation with the Agency, Galva seeks

the same Site Specific

Rule for both treatment plants, should the Board agree with the Agency that the permit

conditions are appropriate and the relief is necessary.

D.

Boron Regulations

The 1.0

mg/L

boron effluent limitation in the NPDES Permit is based upon and

equivalent to the numeric limitation in the Board's water quality standards set forth at 35 Ill.

Admin. Code 302.208(g).

This standard was promulgated in 1972 to implement the

requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, the precursor to

the Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. The WQS was codified

in

its present location in

9

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

Title 35 of the Illinois Administrative Code, Section 302.208(g).2 In its March 7, 1972 Order

promulgating the WQS

of 1.0

mg/L

for boron, the Board stated:

Boron. The May

12 and today adopted level of 1.0

mg/l

is based on evidence that

higher levels can harm irrigated crops. While 100% irrigation is unlikely in

Illinois, the uncontrolled discharge

of large quantities of boron is clearly

undesirable. We have proposed no effluent standard because of the lack of

evidence as to treatment methods.

In the Matter of Effluent Criteria,

R70-8;

In the Matter of Water Quality Standards

Revisions,

R71-14;

In the Matter of Water Quality Standards Revisions for Intrastate Waters

(SWB-14),

R71-20, (consolidated), Board Opinion, March 7, 1972. As to the refusal to

promulgate an effluent standard for boron, in an earlier decision on January

6, 1972 the Board

stated its rationale for not setting effluent criteria for boron:

Boron. There is very little information

as to the technology for controlling boron,

for it has seldom presented problems. Patterson says small scale data indicate it

can

be distilled, but distillation is costly. The sole basis for boron water quality

limits in the low parts-per-million range is to protect irrigated plants. We omit

boron from today's regulation because any instances

of interference with

agriculture may be handled individually on the basis of water quality standards, in

the absence

of information as to available and inexpensive treatment methods.

In the Matter of Effluent Criteria,

R70-8;

In the Matter of Water Quality Standards

Revisions,

R71-14;

In the Matter of Water Quality Standards Revisions for Intrastate Waters

(SWB-14),

R71-20, (consolidated), Board Opinion, January 6, 1972. Thus, although the Board

spedfically declined to adopt the 1.0

mg/L

boron standard as an effluent standard, the Agency

applies it as such via a permit condition. The Board's 1.0

mg/L

value for the boron WQS has not

been changed, nor has it been directly and technically examined in

a General Use WQS

regulatory proceeding, since the Board's adoption

of that value in 1972.

3

None of Illinois'

neighboring states (Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, and Missouri) have established a WQS for boron.

2 Section 302.208(g) was originally Section 302.208(e) but the subsections were re-lettered when additional

subsections were added in an amendment published at 20 Ill. Reg. 7682, effective May 24, 1996.

3 The Board has, however, granted Adjusted Standards with respect to boron. See pages 24 - 25.

10

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

E.

Nature of Receiving Water

As stated previously, the Southwest STP discharges into Mud Run Creek, a tributary of

Walnut Creek, which is a tributary of the Spoon River. Neither Mud Run Creek nor Walnut

Creek are large enough

to produce enough potable water to sustain any of the surrounding

community's drinking water needs. Further, neither Mud Run Creek nor Walnut Creek was.

assessed

as part of the Agency's

Integrated Water Quality Report and Section 303(d) List

(2006).

11

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

Utilizing the minimum average monthly discharge data from Galva's sewage treatment

plants from 2006, and assuming that the maximum recorded boron concentration was to occur

during a low flow period, the extent

of necessary relief from the boron standard was calculated

using the equation below for each

of the sewage treatment plants. After applying the appropriate

data in the equation, the results reflect the total distance necessary in the streams for boron to be

diluted

to the present standard of 1.0 mg/L.

CBORON ADDED = [QSTP X C

STP

] / [QSTP

+

QSTREAM]

Where:

CBORON ADDED

=

QSTP

=

QSTP

=

QSTREAM

=

Final boron concentration in receiving stream (mg/L)

Discharge from sewage treatment plant (cfs)

Boron concentration in STP discharge (mg/L)

Water flow in stream during

Q7l0 conditions (cfs)

At the Northeast STP, the lowest average monthly discharge for 2006 was 0.37 cfs,

occurring in the month

of July 2006 (TSD, Exhibit A, Figure 5). During low flow periods

(represented by the theoretical 7Q10 numbers), the discharge from the Northeast

STP would

receive adequate dilution at the point where the South Branch

of the Edwards River discharges

and mixes with the Edwards River. At this point, the boron concentration

in the stream would

theoretically drop below 1.0 mg/L during

7Q10

conditions.

CBORON ADDED

=

CBORON ADDED

=

CBORON ADDED

=

[QSTP

X C

STP] / [QSTP

+

QSTREAM]

[037 cfs

X

3.0 mg/L / [0.93 cfs]

0.94mg/L

As a result

of the above calculation, dilution would occur approximately 16.1 miles

downstream from the outfall of the Northeast STP. Despite the foregoing, it should be noted that

this

is considering a worst case scenario; during normal stream flow conditions, dilution would

occur much closer

to the discharge of the Northeast STP. A map depicting the point of dilution

for the Northeast

STP is attached in the TSD, Exhibit A, Figure 12.

12

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

At the Southwest STP, the lowest average monthly discharge for 2006 was 0.015 cfs,

occurring in the month

of November 2006 (see the TSD, Exhibit A, Figure 7 and Appendix E).

During low flow periods (7Q10), the effluent from the Southwest STP would receive adequate

dilution at the point just past where Mud Run discharges into Walnut Creek. Again, it should be

noted that this is a worst case scenario, and that during normal conditions dilution would occur

much closer

to the discharge point of the Southwest STP.

CBORON ADDED

=

CBORON ADDED =

CBORON ADDED =

[QSTP

X C

STP] / [QSTP

+

QSTREAM]

[0.015 cfs

X

3.0 mg/L / [0.20 cfs]

0.225 mg/L

As a result

of the above calculation, dilution would occur approximately 7 miles from the

outfall

of the Southwest STP. A map depicting the point of dilution for both STPs is included in

the TSD. Detailed mass balance calculations for each of the STPs is contained in Exhibit A,

Appendix D of the TSD.

It

should be noted that these calculations assume a worst case scenario,

with the 7Q10 flow and a maximum concentration of 3.0 mg/L. In practicality, these conditions

would not

be found on a day to day basis and the dilution point would occur much closer to the

STP outfalls..

E.

Affected Sources and Facilities

Landowners neighboring the receiving waters typically use these waterways for drainage

purposes only. Therefore, the irrigation concerns which led

to the Board's establishment of the

boron WQS are not applicable here. Research conducted by Galva's engineers, Bruner, Cooper

&

Zuck, Inc., indicate that not one of the 22 nurseries located in Henry and Knox counties utilize

the receiving waters at issue for irrigation purposes, and that there are no

golf courses located

directly along the waterways. Katie Boruff and Josh Gibb, the Henry and Knox County Farm

Bureau Directors, respectively, have confirmed that they are unaware

of any specialty crops

13

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

.being grown along the waterways requiring constant irrigation. In addition, Gary Clark, Director

of the Office of Natural Resources at the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, has indicated

that no authorized permits to allow for water withdrawals from these streams exist.

As stated previously, the affected waterways are generally used for drainage purposes

only. The fact that these waterways are rarely used and maintain a generally low flow

contributes to the conclusion that the granting

of this petition will not adversely affect the use of

the affected waterways or the environment.

F.

Available Treatment and/or Control Options

If

the Board finds that the Agency is correct to require a 1.0 mg/L boron effluent standard

via a permit condition relevant to Galva's discharge, regulatory relief is necessary. It is sought in

the form

of a Site Specific Rule, at the urging of the Agency.4 To further justify such relief,

Galva has explored numerous options for controlling the boron concentration

in its effluent,

including boron removal techniques and obtaining alternative sources

of water. This section

identifies those options. The next section evaluates them.

Galva has considered utilizing ion exchange and potable water reverse

osmOSIS for

removing boron from the water. In addition, Galva has considered obtaining alternative sources

of water by (1) drilling a new well, (2) obtaining water from the City of Kewanee, and (3)

obtaining water from the City

of Galesburg, which would thereby eliminate the boron

concentrated water from flowing into Galva's STPs.

i.

Ion Exchange

Galva has explored the option of removing excess boron from its discharge water at the

two STPs

by utilizing an ion exchange process. Ion exchange is the process of selectively

4

The Agency believes that a Petition for Site Specific Rule relief is more appropriate than Adjusted Standard relief,

in the context

of the reliefhere sought. Additionally, the amendment proposed is to Part 304, as prior Board cases

have appeared to determine that relief from Part 304

of the Board'sregulations was more appropriate than relief

from Part 302. See

In the Matter ofRhodia, Inc., et. at.,

AS 01-9, slip op. at 10 (IPeB, January 10, 2002).

14

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

removing charged inorganic species from water by using an ion-specific resin. In this situation,

boron ions would

be replaced by charged ions on the resin surface as it passes through an

exchange media.

"When the supply of resin becomes saturated with water, the exchange media is

backwashed, regenerated with a solution

of acid, and rinsed. A properly operated ion exchange

process will reduce boron levels in the water

by approximately 90%.

ii.

Potable Water Ion Exchange Process

As Galva's municipal water supply contains boron (see TSD, Exhibit A, Appendix C),

and directly feeds into the two sewage treatment plants, Galva has also considered the option

of

removing excess boron from its potable water supply, prior to the water being sent to the

distribution system and

to the sewage treatment plants. The ion exchange process for the potable

water supply would be the same

as is discussed in the previous section.

iii.

Potable Water Reverse Osmosis Process

Galva has explored the option of removing excess boron from its potable water supply by

using reverse osmosis ("RO"). Again, this method would be used to eliminate excess boron

prior to the water entering the sewage treatment plants. Although RO has been successfully used

to remove boron from water, it is not as common of an application as ion exchange. RO utilizes

a semi-permeable membrane which allows some water permeation, but acts

as a highly selective

barrier. This highly selective barrier separates inorganic and microbial species in the water.

In

RO, the application of external pressure differentials to the solution causes water to flow against

the natural direction in the membrane, producing water more pure than the original solution. The

USEPA reported that the potential for RO use in boron treatment is limited, however, based on

their findings. USEPA CCL 2 Report,

p. 3-24. The largest reported concentration of boron

removed using RO was 15%.

Id.

15

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

iv.

Drill a New Well

It

is clear that if Galva could find a sustainable alternate source of water, free of boron,

the boron

p.ischarge problem could be avoided. Like Galva, most of Galva's neighboring

communities supply water to their residents with water obtained from deep wells. Further, the

water supplied in neighboring communities is obtained from the same or similar geological

formations

as Well No.4 and Well No.5 in Galva. If Galva were to commence drilling for new

water, boron free water would most likely

be located in more shallow wells located in sand and

gravel deposits below the Earth's surface.

v.

City of Kewanee

Another alternative source of boron free water is from the City of Kewanee, located

approximately

12 miles northeast of Galva.

vi.

City of Galesburg

A final possible alternative source for boron-free water exists in the City of Galesburg,

located approximately 22 miles southwest

of Galva.

G.

Technical Feasibility and Economic Reasonableness

i.

Ion Exchange

In a typical ion exchange scenario, after the exchange media is backwashed, regenerated

with a solution

of acid, and rinsed, the wastewater is discharged to drain after the pH is adjusted.

However, in this situation, the resulting boron concentration

of the wastewater would not make

this option possible.

After the regeneration cycle, the wastewater would have a boron

concentration

of approximately 3100 mg/L. In the event the wastewater from the backwash and

rinse cycles is diluted, the wastewater would still have a boron concentration

of 375 mg/L.

Considering the above-mentioned discussion on high boron concentration,

if an ion

exchange unit were placed at each

of the two sewage treatment plants and treated 50% of the

16

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

effluent, approximately 5,000 gallons of wastewater would be produced at each STP every 8-9

days. In effect, 5,000 gallons

of wastewater containing high concentrations of boron would have

to be disposed

of every 4-5 days.

'When disposing of the highly boron concentrated wastewater, two methods of disposal

are available. First, the wastewater could be pumped or trucked

to a large sewage treatment

plant which discharges into a major river. Geographically, in this scenario, the only available

options would be large sewage treatment plants located in either the Quad Cities or Peoria.

However, both

ofthese locations are roughly 50 miles away from Galva.

A second option is for an evaporation

pond to be used for the wastewater. Although this

method

is potentially feasible in Galva's situation, more site specific details would need to be

known and cost estimates developed before making a proper judgment on whether evaporation

ponds would be effective. Moreover, evaporation ponds typically are not very effective in the

central Illinois climate, with the exception

ofrelatively small amounts of wastewater.

Galva has evaluated the estimated costs associated with constructing ion exchange

facilities

at the two STPs. The following chart lists these estimated costs but does not include

ongoing operation and maintenance costs.

'"

Construction

Items

Cost

Ion Exchange Equipment

$420,000

Backwash Storage Tank

$78,750

Building

$105,000

Plant Piping

$52,500

Electrical

$78,750

HVAC

$21,000

Site Work

$10,500

Miscellaneous

$15,750

Subtotal

$782,250

10% Contingency

$78,225

Subtotal Construction

$860,475

x

2 Plants

$1,720,950

N

on-Construction

Items

17

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

Design Engineering

$177,450

Construction Engineering

$100,800

Legal Fees

$17,210

Subtotal Non-Construction Items

$295,460

(Engineering Fees based on Rural Development Fee Schedule and

Legal Fees based on 1%

of Construction)

Total Estimated Cost:

$2,016,410

Although utilizing an ion exchange process is effective in removing excess boron from

water, the process creates

an inordinate amount of wastewater with highly concentrated boron.

In

addition to being responsible for over $2,000,000 in initial construction costs, Galva would be

responsible for disposing

of 5,000 gallons of wastewater at an offsite location every 4-5 days.

Regardless

of whether this wastewater is piped or trucked to a location 50 miles away, or

transported

to an evaporation pond, high maintenance and day-to-day operation costs would

drive

up the financial burden on the citizens of Galva. "When considering the technical and

economic burdens associated with utilizing ion exchange, and the absence

of a negative impact

from adopting the proposed site specific rule, it is clear that ion exchange is neither technically

feasible nor economically reasonable.

ii.

Potable Water Ion Exchange Process

Unlike treatment of the wastewater at the STPs by ion exchange, in this scenario, the ion

exchange process would need to be applied to the potable water supply on a daily basis.

Assuming 50%

of the potable water supply would be treated, boron levels could potentially be

reduced by 55%-60%. However, it is important

to note that every 7-8 days, approximately 5,000

gallons

of boron-concentrated wastewater would need to be disposed of. Therefore, this

potential treatment option for removal

of boron, as well as the one previously discussed, would

create a larger problem (disposal) than it would attempt to solve (achieving compliance with the

WQS for boron). The following chart is an estimate of the construction costs for constructing an

18

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

ion exchange facility near Well No.5 for treating the potable water supply by ion exchange. The

chart does not include ongoing operation and maintenance costs.

Construction Items

Cost

Ion Exchange Equipment

$525,000

Backwash Storage Tank

$105,000

Finish Water Reservoir

$210,000

Building

$136,500

Plant Piping

$63,000

Electrical

$105,000

HVAC

$31,500

Site Work

$21,000

Raw/Finish Water Mains

(+ 4000' each)

$420,000

Miscellaneous

$31,500

Subtotal

$1,648,500

10% Contingency

$164,850

Subtotal Construction

$1,813,350

Non-Construction Items

Design Engineering

$163,800

Construction Engineering

$94,500

Legal Fees

$18,134

Permit Fees (B.N.S.F.)

$10,000

Subtotal Non-Construction Items

$286,434

(Engineering Fees based on Rural Development Fee Schedule and

Legal Fees based on 1%

of Construction)

Total Estimated Cost:

$2,099,784

As stated in the previous section, although utilizing an ion exchange process is effective

in removing excess boron from water, the process creates an inordinate amount

of highly boron

concentrated wastewater. Galva would be responsible for disposing

of 5,000 gallons of

wastewater at an offsite location every 4-5 days and over 2,000,000 in initial construction costs.

Regardless

of whether this wastewater is piped or trucked to a location 50 miles away,. or

transported to an evaporation pond, high maintenance and day-to-day operation costs would

drive up the fmancial burden on the citizens

of Galva. When considering the technical and

economic burdens associated with utilizing ion exchange, and the absence

of a negative impact

from adopting the proposed Site Specific Rule, it is clear that ion exchange is not technically nor

19

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

economically reasonable. Moreover, this process would not solve the problem at issue as it

would produce water with concentrations

of boron exorbitantly higher than the existing levels

with nowhere

to dispose of it. While ion exchange has been cited as a theoretical removal

process, in reality, it

is not an option in this case.

iii.

Potable Water Reverse Osmosis (RO) Process

A typical RO procedure results in 75% of the water permeated being recovered, and 25%

of the concentrate being sent to waste. However, after the necessary pre and post-cycle flushes

are used to rinse the membranes, about

1/3 of the water would actually have to be sent to waste.

As a result, assuming 50% of water is treated to reduce the concentration of boron,

approximately 100,000 gallons

of wastewater would be produced each day.

The production

of 100,000 gallons of wastewater per day creates too large of a burden to

consider off-site disposal at a larger facility or evaporation ponds. As a result, the only other

available option

for the disposal of the wastewater would be to drill a deep well injection. A

deep well injection's typical application is for the disposal

ofRO waste resulting from seawater

treatment plants. Deep well injection construction costs

are extremely high, and are typically

only used in seawater treatment plants because the options

for treating water are so limited that

the cost can be justified in these cases.

The following chart is an estimate

of the construction costs for constructing a RO

treatment facility near Well No.5. The chart does not include operation and maintenance costs.

Construction Items

Cost

Reverse Osmosis Equipment

$1,050,000

Concentrate Storage Tank

$420,000

Deep Well

&

Injection System

$3,150,000

Replace Well Pumps

$78,750

Building

$157,500

Plant Piping

$78,750

Electrical

$105,000

20

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

HVAC

$31,500

Site Work

$26,250

Raw/Finish Water Mains

(+ 4000' each)

$420,000

Miscellaneous

$105,000

Subtotal

$5,622,750

10% Contingency

$562,275

Subtotal Construction

6,185,025

Non-Construction Items

Design Engineering

$467,250

Construction.Engineering

$266,700

Legal Fees

$61,005

Permit Fees (B.N.S.F.)

$10,500

Subtotal Non,;.Construction Items

$805,455

(Engineering Fees based on Rural Development Fee Schedule and

Legal Fees based on 1%

of Construction)

Total Estimated Cost:

$6,905,955

RO is neither a technically feasible nor financially reasonable (nor responsible) option for

addressing boron levels in Galva's discharge. As the above discussion demonstrates, utilizing

RO would only eliminate 2/3

of boron from processed water. Moreover, approximately 100,000

gallons

of highly-concentrated boron wastewater would be produced each day requiring disposal.

As offsite disposal

of this large amount of wastewater would not be technically feasible, Galva

citizens would be forced to incur the substantial costs associated with drilling a deep well for

injection

of the highly-concentrated wastewater. This process would cost citizens of the City of

Galva nearly $7,000,000. When considering the negligible effect this proposed Site Specific

Rule would have on the environment, it is clear that RO is not a reasonable option.

v.

Drill a New Well

A search of the Illinois State Water Survey's Private Well Database indicates that there

are very few private shallow wells near Galva. The nearest location for a new well, which would

not have the boron issues associated with the deep wells surrounding Galva, would be in the far

northeastern portion

of Henry County near the Green River, approximately 20 to 25 miles from

21

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

Galva.

s

A map detailing the location of this alternative water source is included in the TSD,

Exhibit

A, Figure 11.

If Galva were to pursue a drilling project for water, a test drilling program would be

required to establish whether an adequate supply

of potable water is actually present. After the

test drilling, Galva would have

to address issues regarding pumping facilities, pipelines, etc.

Although it is difficult to determine the up-front costs on drilling for water, as it depends

on the

extent, cost, and success

ofthe drilling project, Galva has received an estimate from a well driller

that it would cost at least $100,000 for the initial drilling project. The uncertainties inherent in

such a project, the cost associated with constructing a 20-25 mile pipeline, and the negligible

benefit that would result from a new well render this option also not reasonable.

v.

City

of Kewanee

After inquiry was made by Galva to the City of Kewanee regarding the possibility of

obtaining water, the City of Kewanee responded that it would not be feasible, as the amount of

water needed by Galva in the future may be too great for its capacity. A map detailing the

location

of this alternative water source is included in the TSD, Exhibit A, Figure 11.

vi.

City of Galesburg

Galva has had discussions with officials from the City of Galesburg regarding obtaining

water service from Galesburg; which have been positive, but entirely too expensive. A map

detailing the location

of this alternative water source is included in the TSD, Exhibit A, Figure

11. Although the estimated cost of a pipeline from the City of Galesburg to Galva is difficult to

estimate, considering the potential participation

of other municipalities along the route, the City

of Galesburg presented a report to Galva discussing technical issues and estimated costs.

According

to the report, the City of Galva would be responsible for approximately $13.6 million

5 "Groundwater Geology in Western Illinois, North Part", Illinois State Geological Survey, Circ. 222 (1956).

22

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

of the total estimated project cost of $16.1 million; however, this estimate does not include

operation and maintenance costs.

H.

Economic Impact of Proposed Rule

If Galva is required to comply with WQS for boron of 1.0 mg/L, as applied by the

Agency

to its effluent, Galva would be required to take costly measures to eliminate excess

boron from its effluent. The options available to Galva, and their associated upfront costs, can

be summarized

as follows:

a.

Ion Exchange - $2,016,410

b.

Potable Water Ion Exchange - $2,099,784

c.

Potable Water Reverse Osmosis - $6,905,955

d.

Drill New Well- Initial search $100,000, not including actually drilling.

e.

City of Kewanee - Not possible.

f.

City of Galesburg - $13,600,000.

In addition to these staggering upfront costs, Galva would be responsible for significant

maintenance and operational costs. As many

of these options include complex offsite disposal

issues, additional day-to-day costs will be incurred,

as well. These costs combined with the

upfront construction, design, and legal costs make these options impractical without significant

fmancial assistance. Officials from Galva have visited both Springfield and Washington, D.C. in

search

of grant funds to address the boron issue, but were advised that funds were tight or

previously earmarked for other purposes.

The options available

for building large-scale pipeline systems for an alternative potable

water supply are expensive, and the water supply sources are a considerable distance from Galva.

The City

of Kewanee option is not available and the City of Galesburg option has numerous

issues which still need

to be resolved. Finally, the drilling option involves an expensive operation

to develop wells and to construct an adequate pipeline.

Galva

is a small rural community in Henry County, without the resources necessary to

deal with the costs associated with compliance with the Agency's application

of a 1.0 mg/L

23

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

effluent standard for boron discharges from its sewage treatment plants. As the Site Specific

Rule proposed in this petition would produce no foreseeable negative implications on the

environment, application

of a 1.0

mg/L

standard for boron is neither environmentally nor

economically reasonable.

If Galva were forced to pursue one of the above options without any

assistance, the user rates for the citizens

of Galva would likely rise to a record level in Illinois.

Given the lack

of environmental necessity for the application of this standard to these treatment

plants (see below), government assistance is itselfunlikely.

I.

Environmental Impact of Proposed Rule

Compliance with the Board's WQS for boron is not necessary here since the basis for the

establishment

of the WQS (potential impact on select irrigated crops) is not an issue. Clearly it is

neither reasonable nor necessary

to apply the boron WQS as an effluent standard in this instance.

The proposed rule would simply establish a reasonable effluent standard for boron,

applicable

to Galva's discharge, should the Board agree such standard is necessary. The

standard reflects the naturally occurring boron relevant

to the Galva environs, which both

sustains the Galva citizens

as their source of drinking water and is ultimately disposed of in the

Galva sewage treatment plants. Quite simply, there is

no foreseeable environmental impact

incurred by the adoption

of this Site Specific Rule.

Dr. Brian D. Anderson, Ph.D. in biology, Director of the Illinois Natural History Survey

and former Director

of the Office of Scientific Research and Analysis of the Illinois Department

of Natural Resources, was retained as a scientific expert to give a slimmary and his opinion as to

the potential effects

of boron on aquatic life. He will testify at the hearing

in

this matter and his

testimony can be summarized

as follows: the Board's WQS of 1.0 mg/L is "over-protective of

aquatic life."

See Pre-Filed Testimony ofDr. Brian D. Anderson,

filed simultaneously with this

Petition, p.8.

24

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

The Site Specific Rule proposed by this petition is well within the relief standards for

boron that the Board has allowed in other contexts. In a 1995 Adjusted Standard proceeding, the

Board allowed Illinois Power Company ("Illinois Power")

to discharge water with a boron

effluent concentration

of 9.9

mg/L.

See

In the Matter of Petition ofIllinois Power Company

(Baldwin Power Plant) for Adjusted Standardfrom

35

Ill. Adm. Code 302.208 and

35

Ill. Adm.

Code 304.105,

AS 96-1 (1995).

In that case, the Board fully examined the environmental

impact

of boron, and concluded that the higher boron concentration would not adversely affect

the Kaskaskia River ecosystem.

Similarly, the Board allowed Illinois Power

to discharge water with a boron effluent

concentration

of 4.5

mg/L

at its Duck Creek Station. See

In the Matter of Petition ofIllinois

Power Company (Duck Creek Station)

for Adjusted Standard from

35

Ill. Adm. Code 302.208

and

35

Ill. Adm. Code 304.105,

AS 96-8 (1995). Again, Illinois Power provided great technical

detail concerning the environmental effect

of high boron concentrations in water and, as a

consequence, the Board granted an adjusted standard which allowed Illinois Power

to discharge

boron with a concentration

of 4.5

mg/L.

As a final example, in 1994 the Board granted an adjusted standard for the City of

Springfield to discharge boron at a concentration of 11.°

mg/L.

See

In the Matter of Petition of

the City ofSpringfield, Office ofPublic Utilities for an Adjusted Standardfrom

35

Ill. Adm. Code

302.208(e),

AS 94-9 (1994). Galva is aware that a new Petition for Site Specific Rule was

recently filed by the City

of Springfield, relevant to its boron discharge, and is currently pending

Board hearing. The Board caused that proposed rule to be published for First Notice, and it

appeared in the October

10, 2008 edition of the

Illinois Register,

32 Ill. Reg. 41, Oct. 10,2008.

See

In the Matter of Proposed Site Specific Rule for City ofSpringfield, Illinois, Office ofPublic

25

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

Utilities, City Water, Light and Power and Springfield Metro Sanitmy District from

35

Ill. Adm.

Code Section 302.208(g),

R09-08, Board Order, September 16,2008.

As is evident from the above discussion, relief previously granted by the Board for

discharges with concentrations of 11.0

mg/L,

9.9

mg/L,

and 4.5

mg/L

demonstrates that the

boron water quality adjustment sought in this Petition is, on the basis of prior Board precedent

and environmental protection, inherently reasonable.

J.

Compliance with the Proposed Adjusted Water Quality Standard

Granting the proposed Site Specific Rule for boron will not result in any change from the

present operating conditions of the Northeast STP or the Southwest STP. Since past and present

discharges have had no adverse impact on the receiving waters at issue, allowing discharges to

meet the proposed Site Specific Rule should likewise have no adverse impact. Further,

compliance with the proposed Site Specific Rule should not pose any problems for the City of

Galva.

The boron concentration proposed for Galva in this Petition will have no effect on

navigational or industrial uses, and will affect neither aquatic life nor wildlife. Even if the

receiving waters were to be used for crop irrigation in the future, adverse impacts are highly

unlikely and would be negligible, as well as speculative.

IV. SYNOPSIS OF TESTIMONY

Petitioners will call several individuals to testify in support of the facts set forth in this

Petition and requested relief. As stated previously, Dr. Brian Anderson will testify as to the

nature of boron and its toxicity, as well as his opinion as to the impact a Site Specific Rule for

boron would have, if any, on the receiving streams. For the convenience of the Board, his Pre-

Filed Testimony is being filed simultaneously with the filing ofthis Petition.

26

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

Galva will also call engineers Shawn Maurer and Stephen Bruner, P.E., P.L.S., from

Bruner, Cooper

&

Zuck, Inc. One or both will testify as to the background data they gathered in

preparing the TSD enclosed with this Petition. Larry Lawson, plant engineer for Galva's STPs,

may be called to testify regarding the process and conditions at the STPs. David Dyer, City

Manager for the City

of Galva, is prepared to testify regarding Galva's review of alternative

options. Petitioners reserve the right to call additional individuals to testify.

V.

MOTION FOR WAIVER OF SIGNATURE REQUIREMENT

In a separate Motion filed simultaneous with this Petition, Galva respectfully requests

that the Board waive the requirement, set forth at 35 Ill. Admin. Code 102.202(f), that a petition

for rulemaking be signed

by at least 200 persons.

VI.

STATEMENT OF RECENCY

The rules proposed in this Petition do not amend any existing rules. Instead, this

rulemaking would establish a new rule, a specific boron effluent standard applicable to Galva's

discharge STP discharge. This Site Specific Rule is proposed to

be added to Part 304 of the

Board's Rules for General Effluent Standards.

It

would amend the most recent version of Part

304 published on the Board's Web Site, last amended in R04-26 at 30 Ill. Reg. 2365, effective

February 2, 2006.

It

would be applicable only to the Galva circumstances relayed in this

Petition.

VII.

ATTACHMENT

Galva includes the following Attachment in support of its proposed Site Specific Rule,

and hereby makes it a part

ofthis Petition: Technical Support Document ("Exhibit A").

Additionally, Galva submits, simultaneously with this filing, the Pre-Filed Testimony

of Dr.

Brian Anderson.

27

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

VIII. CONSISTENCY WITH FEDERAL LAW

The Board has great latitude and authority to establish appropriate General Use water

quality standards

and effluent standards relevant to the State of Illinois. 415 ILCS 5/13(a). The

Board has discussed its state authority in a case involving fluoride discharges relative to the City

of Effingham:

Generally, states must adopt water quality standards which protect the designated use

of

interstate and intrastate waters. 33 U.S.C. §1313(c)(1998). The Board has adopted the

water quality standards at

35 Ill. Adm. Code §302.203 in compliance with federal law.

States may also revise water quality standards. 40 C.F.R.

§131.4 (1998).

The Board has stated previously that federal directives give it "broad discretion in

determining the appropriate standard

of control to apply to discharges from water

treatment plants."

In re Site Specific Exception to Effluent Standards for the Illinois

American Water Company, East

St. Louis Treatment Plant

(February 2, 1989), R85-11,

slip.

Op. at 10.

See

In the Matter of Site Specific Rule for City of Effingham Treatment Plant Fluoride

Discharge,

35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.233, R03-11 (July 24,2003).

The Board has exercised its statutory authority in its 1972 promulgation

of a WQS for

boron, and in its simultaneous determination

not

to promulgate a boron effluent standard.

It

has

also exercised its authority in its various Opinions and Orders, cited herein, which have granted

relief from the boron standard.

Pursuant to Section 303 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1313) states are granted the

authority and flexibility to promulgate appropriate water quality standards applicable to both

interstate and intrastate waters, subject

to USEPA approval. The WQS at issue in this Petition,

the WQS for boron,

is found in Board rules developed pursuant to the Board's statutory authority

to develop rules of general applicability.

The Board's promulgation

of the boron standard has preceded the federal Clean Water

Act

as we know it today, and the myriad of case law that has transpired since its enactment.

While the Board has revisited the boron standard many times in its history, it has done

so only in

28

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

the context of site specific relief from the standard; since its promulgation, the Board has never

directly evaluated, in the context

of the Agency's triennial rulemaking responsibility or

otherwise, the continued appropriateness

of the State General Use WQS for boron from a

technical, economic or environmental perspective. Furthennore, over the course

of the years

since the Board's promulgation

of the boron standard as a WQS, none of its neighboring states

have determined

to do so. Neither has any federal standard for boron ever been developed.

Under Illinois law, the Board'swater quality standards are subject

to site specific revision

pursuant

to the Board's site specific rulemaking authority or its authority to grant adjusted

standard relief. 415 ILCS 5/27; 5/28; 5/28.1. Accordingly, the requested Petition for Site

Specific Rule is well within the State's authority and consistent with federal law, authority and

guidance concerning boron.

IX.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Galva respectfully requests that the Board grant the site specific reliefrequested herein or

whatever other relief the Board deems appropriate. Such other reliefmay include a Board order,

issued after a full consideration

of the issues, stating that this relief is not necessary as the

Agency application

of the General Use boron standard as an effluent standard applicable in

Galva'sNPDES permit is neither appropriate nor required.

As demonstrated above, treatment

of Galva's STP effluent to come into compliance with

a boron WQS and effluent standard

of 1.0 mg/L is neither technically feasible nor economically

reasonable

for this site. Moreover, compliance with the 1.0 mg/L standard would require Galva

to incur great expense to either treat excess boron or obtain an alternative water source. This

increased expense would have a severe negative economic impact on Galva, and potentially the

State

of Illinois,as well. Such expense is not reasonable, because there is no environmental

benefit to be gained from compliance. A site specific standard

of 3.0 mg/L of boron will neither

29

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

harm aquatic life in the receiving streams to which Galva discharges, nor will it have an adverse

impact on the environment generally.

Rather, the circumstances before the Board in this matter suggest that an application of

the boron WQS, developed in 1972, as an effluent standard for boron discharged from a water

treatment plant owned by a small town whose water supply itself safely contains a boron

concentration higher than what the Agency will allow for discharge is sim.ply untenable. An

application of the boron WQS as an effluent standard for Galva's NPDES permits is neither

reasonable nor necessary.

The Board has great authority to protect the environment, and is called upon to do so in a

manner which takes into consideration a variety of factors. These factors include the existing

physical conditions, the character of the area involved, including the character of surrounding

land uses, zoning classifications, the nature of the existing air quality or receiving body ofwater,

as the case may be, and the technical feasibility and economic reasonableness of measuring or

reducing the particular type

of pollution.

See

415 ILCS 5127(a). Galva urges that an application

of those factors will justify the relief requested herein, or any other relief the Board deems

appropriate.

WHEREFORE,

for the above and foregoing reasons, the Petitioners, CITY OF

GALVA, respectfully requests that the Illinois Pollution Control Board promulgate the site

specific standard requested, or grant such other relief as is just and appropriate.

Respectfully submitted:

CITY OF GALVA

Petitioner,

By: /s/ Claire

A.

Manning

One

of their Attorneys

30

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

Dated: October 17,2008

BROWN, HAY

&

STEPHENS, LLP

Claire

A.

Manning

Registration No. 3124724

Alison K. Hayden

Registration No. 6291618

205 S. Fifth Street, Suite 700

P.O. Box 2459

Springfield, IL 62705-2459

(217) 544-8491

31

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

)

PROPOSED SITE SPECIFIC RULE

)

APPLICABLE TO THE CITY OF

GALVA)

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS

)

DISCHARGE TO EDWARDS RIVER

)

AND MUD RUN CREEK

)

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 302.208(g)

)

R08-

(Site Specific Rulemaking - Water)

ENTRY OF

ApPEARANCE

OF CLAIRE

A.

MANNING

NOW COMES

Claire A. Manning of the law

finn

of Brown, Hay

&

Stephens,

LLP, and hereby enters her appearance on behalf of Petitioner, CITY OF GALVA.

Respectfully submitted,

CITY

OF GALVA, Petitioner,

By:

lsi

Claire A. Manning

Claire A. Manning

Dated: October 17, 2008

BROWN, HAY

&

STEPHENS, LLP

Claire

A. Manning

Registration No. 3124724

Alison K. Hayden

Registration No. 6291618

205 S. Fifth Street, Suite 700

P.O. Box 2459

Springfield,IL 62705

(217) 544-8491

Fax: (217) 241-3111

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

)

PROPOSED SITE SPECIFIC RULE

)

APPLICABLE TO THE CITY OF GALVA )

'SEWAGETREATMENT PLANTS

)

DISCHARGE TO EDWARDS RIVER

)

AND MUD RUN CREEK

)

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 302.208(g)

)

R08-

(Site Specific Rulemaking - Water)

ENTRY OF ApPEARANCE OF ALISON K HAYDEN

NOW COMES

Alison

K.

Hayden of the law finn of Brown, Hay

&

Stephens,

LLP, and hereby enters her appearance on behalf of Petitioner, CITY OF GALVA.

Respectfully submitted,

CITY OF GALVA, Petitioner,

By: /s/ Alison

K.

Hayden

Alison

K.

Hayden

Dated: October

17, 2008

BROWN, HAY

&

STEPHENS, LLP

Claire A.

Manning

Registration No. 3124724

Alison

K.

Hayden

Registration No. 6291618

205 S. Fifth Street, Suite 700

P.O. Box 2459

Springfield, IL 62705

(217) 544-8491

Fax: (217) 241-3111

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

)

PROPOSED SITE SPECIFIC RULE

)

APPLICABLE TO THE CITY OF

GALVA)

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS

)

DISCHARGE TO EDWARDS RIVER

)

AND MUD RUN CREEK

)

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 302.208(g)

)

R08-

(Site Specific Rulemaking - Water)

MOTION TO WAIVE REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT

200

SIGNATURES

NOW COMES the CITY OF GALVA ("Galva"), by and through its attorneys,

Brown, Hay

&

Stephens, LLP and request the Illinois Pollution Control Board ("Board")

to waive the requirement, under 415 ILCS 5/28(a) and 35 Ill. Admin. Code § 102.202(g),

to submit 200 signatures with their Petition for Site Specific Rule stating

as follows:

1.

Attached to this Motion is a Petition for Site Specific Rule seeking relief

from the General Use numerical water quality standard of 1.0 mg/L and requesting a site

specific boron effluent standard

of3.0 mg/L.

2.

The attached Petition for Site Specific Rule demonstrates that the

requested standard is necessary

as complying with the current standard of 1.0 mg/L is not

technically feasible nor economically reasonable.

3.

The Board has waived signature requirements for site specific rulemaking

petitions in the past, including recently.

See In the Matter of Proposed Site Specific Rule

for City of Springfield,

R09-08, Board Order, September 16, 2008 (a similar petition

regarding boron currently pending before the Board and scheduled for hearing

on

November 3, 2008);

In the Matter of Site-Specific Rule for City of Joliet Wastewater

Treatment Plant Fluoride and Copper Discharges,

35

Ill. Adm. Code 303.432,

R07-2I,

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

Board Order, June 21,2007; and

In the Matter of Site Specific Rule/or City a/Effingham

Treatment Plant Fluoride Discharge,

35

Ill. Adm. Code 304.233,

R03-11 (2003).

4.

Granting this Motion would be in the public interest in light of the burden

complying with the 1.0

mglL

standard places on the citizens of Galva.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner, CITY

OF GALVA, respectfully requests the Illinois

Pollution Control Board

to waive the requirement to submit 200 signatures in support of

its Petition for Site Specific Rule.

Respectfully submitted:

CITY OF GALVA

Petitioner,

By: IslClaire

A. Manning

One

of its Attorneys

Dated: October

17, 2008

BROWN, HAY

&

STEPHENS, LLP

Claire

A.

Manning

Registration No. 3124724

Alison

K.

Hayden

Registration No. 6291618

205

S. Fifth Street, Suite 700

P.O. Box 2459

Springfield, IL 62705-2459

(217) 544-8491

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

)

PROPOSED SITE SPECIFIC RULE

)

APPLICABLE TO THE CITY

OF GALVA)

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS

)

DISCHARGE

TO EDWARDS RIVER

)

AND MUD RUN CREEK

)

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 302.208(g)

)

R08-

(Site Specific Rulemaking - Water)

PRE-FILED TESTIMONY OF DR. BRIAN

D.

ANDERSON

My name is Brian Anderson and I am the Director of the Illinois Natural History

Survey, where I oversee an annual budget

of $12.5 million, over 300 staff, and 450

research projects per year. Prior

to working for the Illinois Natural History Survey I was

the Assistant to the President for Planning and Institutional Development at Lincoln Land

Community College. I also spent two years

as the Chairperson for the Department of

.Biology and the Physical Sciences where I oversaw 14 full-time and over 20 adjunct

faculty, and taught a class in geology, among others. Prior

to my time.at Lincoln Land

Community College I was the Director

of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources,

Office

of Resource Conservation and of the Office of Scientific Research and Analysis. I

hold a Ph.D. in biology from the University

of Louisville, a Masters degree in Zoology

from DePauw University and a biology degree from Kalamazoo College.

I was retained by the City

of Galva to evaluate this Petition for Site Specific Rule

and give

my opinion regarding the environmental consequences of an alternative boron

water quality standard

of 3.0 mg/L relative to the City of Galva's discharge from its

Sewage Treatment Plants. The following is

my opinion testimony concerning this

Petition.

1

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

The Nature

of Boron

The element boron (atomic symbol

= B) has an atomic number of 5 and an atomic weight

of 10.81. The atomic weight reflects the relative occurrence of two natural isotopes lOB

(19.9%) and lIB (80.1 %). Boron is a group 13 element with 3 electrons in its outer shell.

It displays chemical properties intennediate between metals and non-metals. However,

it

shares more similarities to silicon (a group 14 element) than to aluminum or gallium

(other group

13 elements), for example, it is a semiconductor rather than a metallic

conductor. (WebElements Periodic Table, available at www.webelements.com).

Boron does not occur naturally in its elemental fonn.

It

usually occurs naturally as

sodium or calcium borate minerals (borates contain boron bonded to 3 oxygen atoms), as

borosilicate minerals, and in some hot springs as boric acid. Borax (hydrous sodium

borate

= Na

2

B

4

0

7

. 10H20) is one of the most common borate minerals and is mined

extensively from evaporative deposits

in

the southwestern United States.

Boron in soil and

in

surface water usually results from weathering of rocks containing

borate and borosilicate minerals. Boron can also

be released from volcanic or geothennal

sources, and evaporation

of seawater.

Boron occurs naturally in ocean water at

concentrations around 4.5 mg/L, and in ,the surface waters

of North America at

concentrations from 0.02 mg/L to

as much as 360 mg/L in areas with borate deposits.

However, typical boron surface water concentrations in North America are less than

0.1

mg/L, with 90% below 0.4 mg/L. Average boron concentrations in groundwater can be

much higher as a result of leeching from borate and borosilicate minerals that are part of

the local geology.

(United Nations Environment Programme, International Labour

Organisation, and World Health Programme on Chemical Safety, Environmental Health

2

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

Criteria 204: Boron

available at http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc204.htm.

hereafter Environmental Health Criteria 204).

Boron Toxicity

Terrestrial Species

Boron has been recognized as an essential trace element for plant growth for decades, and

while it is suspected that it may also be an essential trace element for mammals, this has

not been proven. The National Research Council has, therefore, established no

recommended dietary allowance for humans (National Research Council, Recommended

Dietary Allowances, 10th ed. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1989). Boron

has toxic effects in humans only at very high doses and sustained exposures. The U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency has established an oral reference dose (RID) of 0.2

mg/kg-day. The RID is an estimated daily exposure that is unlikely to result in a

significant risk of deleterious effects during a person's lifetime. The critical effect on

which this RID was calculated was decreased fetal body weight in rats (USEPA,

Integrated Risk Information System, Boron and Compounds, CASRN 7440-42-8

(08/05/2004), available at http://www.epa.gov/iriswebp/iris/subst/0410.htm).

The

USEPA has recently release a drinking water health advisory for boron (Drinking Water

Health Advisory for Boron, USEPA, Document Number: 822-R-08-013, May 2008).

Health advisories describe concentrations of drinking water contaminants at which

adverse health effects are not anticipated to occur over specific periods of exposure,

commonly one day, ten day, long-term (depending on study duration), or lifetime. As

described in the publication cited above, "HAs [Health Advisories] serve as informal

3

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

technical guidance to assist Federal, State and local officials, and managers of public or

community water systems in protecting public health when emergency spills

or

contamination situations occur. They are not to be construed as legally enforceable

Federal standards." The shorter-exposure health advisories are routinely also developed

separately for children and adults. The Lifetime Health Advisory uses the RID and was

calculated

as 5.4 mg/L (rounded to 5.0 mg/L). The Long-term Health Advisory for

Children was the lowest advisory calculated at

1.8 mg/L (rounded to 2mg/L).

It

was

based on a two-year study documenting testicular atrophy in rats.

It

should be noted that

the No Observable Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) calculated from this study was 17;5

mg of boron per kilogram of body weight per day. The much lower Health Advisory

limits include an "uncertainty factor" for both interspecies and intraspecies variability, a

factor

of 100 in this case.

As previously mentioned, boron is an essential trace element for plant growth, but there is

a relatively narrow range between essential effects and toxic effects in some sensitive

specIes.

Reduced yields

of some boron sensitive crops have been observed at

concentrations

as low as 0.5-0.75 mg/L., while some show tolerances as high as 6.0

mg/L. (T.A. Bauder, R.M. Waskom and

J. G. Davis; Irrigation Water Quality Criteria;

Colorado

State University Extension; Revised March 2007;

available at

http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/crops/00506.html). Citrus crops and fruit trees are the

some

of the most susceptible species.

Aquatic Species

Environmental Health Criteria 204; cited above, provides a comprehensive review of the

toxicological literature related

to the effects ofboron on a wide range of aquatic species.

4

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

A summary oftabular data provided therein follows:

Microorganisms

Aquatic microorganisms including bacteria, protozoa, and algae showed no significant

growth inhibition

(EClO or above, i.e., 10% or more individuals exhibiting growth

inhibition) below boron concentrations

of7.6

mg/L.

Aquatic Macrophytes

A study conducted by Nobel (1981, The effect

of boron on submerged soft-water

macrophytes. Angew Bot,

55: 501-514 (in German with English summary)) on several

submerged macrophytes yielded an

LCso for a couple species at concentrations of boron

as low as 5

mg/L.

However, the authors of the study concluded that since they used an

"oligotrophic calcium deficient nutritive medium" for their assays, this overestimated the

toxicity

of boron in harder waters. Of course submerged macrophytes are uncommon in

the turbid waters found in most

of Illinois.

Freshwater Invertebrates

Environmental Health Criteria 204 reports on studies covenng a wide range

of

invertebrate groups including daphnia, tubificid worms, chironomids, mosquitos, and

snails. All are relatively tolerant

of high boron concentrations; the snail and crustacean

species displayed the lowest LCso's at boron concentrations

of 28.35

mg/L

after 24-hour

exposures.

Freshwater Vertebrates

Enviromnental Health Criteria 204 reviews studies on a wide range

of fish species.

Embryonic and larval fish are more susceptible

to the chronic effects of boron.

Environmental Health Criteria 204 summarizes the observed chronic effects on fish this

5

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

way, "On the basis of median lethal concentrations (LCso), no species was found to be

especially sensitive. The range ofLCsos for all species was 12.2-235 mg boron/litre."

The rainbow trout is routinely cited

as a fish species uncharacteristically vulnerable to

boron, particularly their egg and larval stages. Environmental Health Criteria 204 cites a

NOEC (No Observable Effect Concentration) reported by Birge and Black (1981,

Toxicity of boron to embryonic and larval stages of largemouth bass

(Micropterus

salmoides)

and rainbow trout

(Salmo gairdneri

)-- Completion report, Cincinnati, Ohio,

Procter

&

Gamble Company) for boron of .009 to .103 mg/L for rainbow trout.

However, this report is not consistent with another paper cited (Bingham, 1982, The

boron concentration of wild trout streams in California, Riverside, California, University

of California, Department of Soil Science (Unpublished document)) which identifies

California surface waters supporting viable populations of wild rainbow trout with boron

concentrations ranging from <0.01 to

13.1 mg/L. They also cite a follow-up study to the

Bingham report (EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, 1994, Boron concentrations

and rainbow trout populations in seven states in the western United States. Corvallis,

Oregon (Unpublished report prepared for the Procter

&

Gamble Company, Cincinnati))

that surveyed 37 western fisheries biologists who reported no instances where rainbow

trout populations were limited by boron, and identified several locations supporting

reproducing populations of trout with boron concentrations near or above 1 mg/L,

including the East and Paulina lakes in Oregon (>0.9 mg/L), Firehole River in Wyoming

(>0.9 mg /L), Napa River in California (>1.2 mg/L), and Little Warm Springs in

California (>3.2 mg/L).

6

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

This apparent contradiction may be explained by another study discussed

In

Environmental Health Criteria 204, which used natural source dilution waters

In

experiments on embryonic fish as opposed to reconstituted water. The referenced study

suggests that laboratory toxicity testing may overestimate the toxicity

of boron in natural

waters, (perhaps providing an added margin

of safety in water quality guidelines). Of

course there are no trout populations

in

the Illinois waters for which the adjusted standard

is being requested.

Finally, boron toxicity studies on the eggs and larvae ofleopard frogs and Fowler's toads

are reviewed. The larvae

of the leopard frog is most susceptible to boron with chronic

LCso's for boron

of 47

mg/L

reported for 7.5 day exposures in relatively soft water

(hardness

of 50

mg/L

CaC03).

Water Quality Standards for Boron

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency does not recommend the establishment of

any water quality standards for boron, not even a drinking water standard (See National

Recommended Water Quality Criteria, USEPA Office

of Water, Office of Science and

Technology 2006 (4304T)). In guidelines they

do recommend a standard of .75

mg/L

for

long-term irrigation

of sensitive crops and USEAP has issued a Drinking Water Health

Advisory for Boron

as discussed

in

detail above. Of all the states surrounding Illinois,

only Missouri has water quality standards for boron. Missouri has established a Drinking

Water Standard

of 2.0

mg/L

and an Irrigation Standard of 2.0

mg/L.

They have adopted

no standard

to protect aquatic flora or fauna. Illinois apparently adopted a General Water

Quality Standard for boron

of 1.0

mg/L

in 1978 and has never updated it.

7

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

Potential Effects on Aquatic Life

Since little mixing is available in the streams receiving effluent from the Galva sewage

treatment facilities, it is probably reasonable in this case to apply the General Water

Quality Standard for boron

as an Effluent Standard. However, the current scientific

literature suggests that the Illinois General Water Quality Standard for boron

of 1.0

mg/L

is over-protective of aquatic life.

Respectfully submitted:

CITY OF GALVA

Petitioner,

By:

lsi

Claire

A.

Manning

One of its Attorneys

Dated: October 17, 2008

BROWN, HAY

&

STEPHENS, LLP

Claire A. Manning

Registration No. 3124724

Alison

K.

Hayden

Registration No. 6291618

205

S. Fifth Street, Suite 700

P.O. Box 2459

Springfield, IL 62705-2459

(217) 544-8491

8

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

)

PROPOSED SITE SPECIFIC RULE

)

APPLICABLE TO THE CITY OF GALVA)

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS

)

DISCHARGE TO EDWARDS RIVER

)

AND MUD RUN CREEK

)

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 302.208(g)

)

R08-(Site

--

Specific Rulemaking - Water)

MOTION FOR EXPEDITED REVIEW

NOW COMES the City of Galva ("Galva"), by and through its attorneys Brown, Hay

&

Stephens, LLP, and pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.512, hereby request the Illinois Pollution

Control Board ("Board") to expedite review of Galva's Petition for Site Specific Rule

("Petition"). In support of this Motion for Expedited Review ("Motion"), Petitioner state as

follows:

1.

As set forth more fully in the Petition, filed simultaneously with this Motion,

Galva seeks a Site Specific Rule to apply to Galva's effluent discharge with respect to boron

distinct from the 1.0 mg/L water quality standard for boron found at 35 Ill. Adm. Code

302.208(g). The proposed Site Specific Rule would constitute an alternative water quality

standard applicable to the effluent discharge of boron from Galva's two Sewage Treatment

Plants ("STPs").

2.

Boron is an element found naturally in Galva's Municipal Water Supply, supplied

by two wells.

3. .

Galva's Municipal Water Supply ultimately feeds into Galva's two STPs, the

Northeast and Southwest STPs, which discharge into an unnamed tributary of the South Branch

ofthe Edwards River and Walnut Creek, respectively.

1

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

4. .

The Southwest STP NPDES Permit No. IL0023647 was amended, effective

August 4,2004,

to require sampling for boron, effective September 1, 2007, and that its effluent

meet a boron limitation

of 1.0 mg/L.

5.

Galva has been consulting with staff of the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency ("IEPA") throughout the development

of this Petition and seeks to have the proposed

Site Specific Rule adopted

as soon as possible because it is necessary to enable Galva to achieve

compliance with its NPDES Permit.

6.

Galva requests that the Board send the proposed Site Specific Rule to First

Notice, at its earliest opportunity, without a decision being reached on the merits

ofthe proposal.

Such Board action

is appropriate in this context and is consistent with Board action in similar site

specific requests.

See In

the Matter of Proposed Site Specific Rule for City ofSpringfield,

R09-

08, Board Order, September 16, 2008 (a similar petition regarding boron currently pending

before the Board and scheduled for hearing on November

3, 2008) and

In the Matter of

Revisions to Water Quality Standards for Total Dissolved Solids in the Lower Des Plaines River

ExxonMobil Oil Corporation,

R06-24 (2006).

7.

Galva also requests that the Board schedule this matter for hearing as soon as

practicable pursuant to Section 28(a) of the Environmental Protection Act, 415 ILCS 5/28(a),

and Section 5-40(b)

of the Illinois Administrative Procedures Act, 5 ILCS 100/5-40(b).

8.

Galva believes that this Petition presents all information necessary for the Board

to make an informed decision

to publish the proposed rule pursuant to the First Notice provisions

of the Illinois Administrative Procedures Act, 5 ILCS 100/5-40(b), and is fully prepared to

expeditiously respond

to any requests or questions from the Board.

2

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

9.

As the City of Springfield currently has a similar Petition pending before the

Board, which the Board recently accepted for expedited review and sent to First Notice, it would

alleviate the burden on the Board to review both Petitions at the same time, and would promote

the interests

of judicial economy.

See In the Matter of Proposed Site Specific Rule for City of

Springfield,

R09-08, Board Order, September 16, 2008.

10.

Galva will be prejudiced if this Motion is denied because it continues to be

subject to enforcement for failure to meet its NPDES effluent standard for boron despite any

realistic environmental rationale for such standard.

11.

This Motion is accompanied by an Affidavit attesting that the facts herein are

true.

See

35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.512(a).

WHEREFORE, for the above-cited reasons, Petitioner, CITY. OF GALVA, respectfully

requests that the Illinois Pollution Control Board grant this Motion for Expedited Review, accept

this matter for publication as First Notice and schedule a hearing

as soon as practicable.

Respectfully submitted,

CITY

OF GALVA

Petitioner,

By: /s/ Claire A. Manning

One

of its Attorneys

Dated: October 17,2008

BROWN, HAY

&

STEPHENS, LLP

Claire A. Manning

Registration No. 3124724

Alison

K. Hayden

Registration No. 6291618

205 S. Fifth Street, Suite 700

P.O.

Box2459

Springfield, IL 62705-2459

(217) 544-8491

3

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *

---

State of Illinois

)

) SS.

County

of Henry

)

Subscribed and sworn to before me

this.L day of October, 2008.

AFFIDAVIT

OFFICIAL SEAL

TERESA R. BYERS

NOTARY PUBlIC • STATE OF IWNOIS

MY COMMISSION EXPIRES

8-17.2009

4

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 17, 2008

* * * * * R2009-011 * * * * *