BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
SANITARY DISTRICT OF
DECATUR,
Petitioner,
v.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PCB 09-125
(Variance - Water)
NOTICE OF FILING
TO:
Mr. John T. Therriault
Assistant Clerk
of the Board
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 W. Randolph Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL)
Carol Webb, Esq.
Hearing Officer
Illinois
Pollution Control Board
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Post Office Box 19274
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274
(VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL)
(SEE PERSONS ON ATTACHED SERVICE LIST)
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that [have today filed with the Office of the Clerk of
the Illinois Pollution Control Board PETITIONER'S RESPONSE TO THE
RECOMMENDA TION OF THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
, a copy of which is herewith served upon you.
Dated: September
30, 2009
Katherine D. Hodge
Lauren
C.
Lurkins
HODGE DWYER
&
DRIVER
3150 Roland Avenue
Post Office Box 5776
Springfield, Illinois 62705-5776
(217)
523-4900
Respectfully submitted,
SANITARY DISTRICT OF DECATUR,
Petitioner,
By: IslKatherine D. Hodge
Katherine
D. Hodge
THIS FILING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Electronic filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 30, 2009
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
SANITARY
DISTRICT OF
DECATUR,
Petitioner,
v.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PCB 09-125
(Variance
- Water)
PETITIONER'S RESPONSE TO THE RECOMMENDATION
OF
THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NOW COMES Petitioner,
Sanitary District of Decatur ("Petitioner"), by and
through its attorneys,
HODGE DWYER
&
DRIVER, and, pursuant
to
Ill. Admin.
Code ยง
104.220, hereby states the following for its Response to the Recommendation of
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("Agency"):
I.
BACKGROUND
1.
On June 1 2009, Petitioner filed its Petition for Variance ("Petition")
requesting a variance authorizing continued discharges of Nickel and Zinc, from its
wastewater treatment plant located in Decatur, Macon County, Illinois, into the
Sangamon River, pursuant to the tenns and conditions outlined in the
Petition.
2.
On June 18,2009, the Illinois Pollution Control Board ("Board") accepted
the Petition.
3.
On July 30,2009, the Agency filed its Recommendation and
recommended the Board grant the variance requested
by Petitioner, contingent upon the
Board including four conditions in the variance.
4.
On August 17,2009, Petitioner filed a Motion for Extension of Time to
File a Response to the Agency's Recommendation
("Motion for Extension of Time"),
and asked the Board for an additional thirty (30) days from the original response deadline
of August 17,2009, or until September 16,2009, to file a Response to the
Recommendation
of the Agency.
5.
On August 18,2009, the Hearing Officer granted Petitioner's Motion for
Extension
of Time.
6.
Petitioner and Archer Daniels Midland Company ("ADM"), one of
Petitioner's most significant industrial users (and a significant contributor of Nickel and
Zinc loading), met with the Agency on September
9, 2009, to discuss the status of the
matter and obtain clarification of the conditions recommended by the Agency in its
Recommendation.
7.
On September 16,2009, Petitioner filed an additional Motion for
Extension of Time, and asked the Board for an additional fourteen (14) days from
September 16,2009, or until September
30, 2009, to file a Response to the
Recommendation
of the Agency. Petitioner asked the Board for the additional time in
order to exchange additional information with the Agency with regard to the
recommended conditions and to incorporate such infonnation into its Response to the
Recommendation of the Agency.
8.
On September 17,2009, the Hearing Officer granted Petitioner's Motion
for Extension
of Time.
2
Electronic filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 30, 2009
II.
VARIANCE CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE AGENCY
9.
In its Recommendation, the Agency recommended "that the Board grant
the variance from the current permit limits for Nickel and Zinc for a period
of five years,"
but also stated that its "recommendation to grant the variance is contingent upon the
Board including the following conditions in the variance:
a.
Petitioner must amend its pretreatment ordinance within three
months after the filing
of this Recommendation to include Nickel
and Zinc limits for all Significant Industrial Users, present and
future, that will ensure compliance with
Petitioner's NPDES
permit limits for those parameters.
b.
Petitioner must pursue a sludge wasting technology that eliminates
the sludge produced by ADM from the SDD wastewater treatment
influent. The Illinois
EPA has determined that this technology is
available to Petitioner and is likely to eliminate the permit
compliance problem for the Zinc parameter and reduce the permit
compliance problem for the Nickel parameter.
c.
Petitioner must, in addition to the items listed in Section IV.I 0 on
page 42 of the Petition, include Illinois EPA in meetings to discuss
interim progress at the July
1,2010 and July 1,2011 benchmarks.
Before SDD can dismiss treatment technology
as a solution to the
Zinc and Nickel water quality standards problem, Illinois
EPA
must agree with SDD that all viable technologies have been
adequately explored by
SOD. Only after such agreement with
Illinois
EPA may SDD pursue site-specific relief from the Board.
If SDD identifies an appropriate technology to remedy the Zinc
and Nickel water quality standards problem, SDD must pursue the
technology as soon as possible to achieve compliance with NPDES
Permit
No. IL0028321.
d.
Finally, as mentioned in Section IV of this Recommendation,
above, Illinois
EPA requests that the Board make the Variance
conditional upon
Petitioner's investigation of the additional
technologies
of electro-chemical decomposition and capacitive
deionization
as part of its 'technical and economic feasibility
reviews' discussed in Section VI. 9 .a.i.
of the Petition."
Agency Recommendation at 11-12 (July 30, 2009).
3
Electronic filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 30, 2009
III.
PETITIONER'S RESPONSE TO VARIANCE CONDITIONS
RECOMMENDED BY THE AGENCY
A.
Amendment of Pretreatment Ordinance
lO.
Petitioner has begun the process of amending its pretreatment ordinance to
include Nickel and Zinc limits for all Significant Industrial Users ("SlUs"), present and
future, that will ensure compliance with Petitioner's National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination
System permit limits for those parameters. Petitioner expects that its Board
of Trustees will adopt the amended pretreatment ordinance in advance of the three month
deadline specified
by the Agency, which is October 30,2009. Petitioner's amended
pretreatment ordinance will reflect more stringent Nickel and
Zinc limits for current and
future
SIUs, and will ensure that dischargers meet those limits by a future compliance
date or according to the compliance schedule set forth in the Petition.
11.
Petitioner also intends to file the amended pretreatment ordinance with the
United States Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA") for approval. Petitioner
does not anticipate any problems associated with
USEPA approval of the amended
pretreatment ordinance.
Petitioner has communicated with the Agency regarding the above-
referenced information, and the Agency has
no objection to the same. Overall, Petitioner
has no objection to variance condition a.
B.
Pursuit of Slndge Wasting Technology
13.
As stated above, the Agency recommends that, as a condition of the
variance, Petitioner be required to "pursue a sludge wasting technology that eliminates
4
the sludge produced by ADM from the SDD wastewater treatment influent." Agency
Recommendation at
11
(July 30,2009). The Agency also states that "this technology is
available to Petitioner and is likely to eliminate the permit compliance problem for the
Zinc parameter and reduce the permit compliance problem for the Nickel parameter." Id.
at 12.
14.
Petitioner does not believe it is appropriate to require implementation of
sludge wasting technology prior to completion of the assessment of all potentially viable
technologies that will occur during the first two years
of the variance. Sludge wasting is
one of several alternative compliance strategies, and Petitioner should have the ability to
evaluate the cost-effectiveness of all such strategies before being required to implement
any
of them. Thus, Petitioner disagrees with the Agency's recommended condition b to
the extent it could be construed to require implementation in a manner other than as set
forth in Petitioner's suggested conditions contained in Part VI of the Petition at pages 37
through 42.
Further, as a result
of changes in the characteristics of ADM's effluent
sludge, removal by ADM may be
of limited benefit in reducing Nickel and Zinc in
Petitioner's effluent. ADM's elimination of chemicals containing Zinc from its cooling
water treatment program dramatically lowered the soluble
Zinc component in ADM's
effluent. This, possibly coupled with the maturation
of ADM's recently installed
anaerobic wastewater treatment system, has dramatically changed the characteristics
of
ADM's Zinc discharges from approximately 80% soluble Zinc to approximately 20%
soluble Zinc.
5
Electronic filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 30, 2009
16.
Petitioner already has a sludge removal system in place at its treatment
plant which removes a high level
of the insoluble Zinc from its inf1uent. The sludge
generated from that system is, in tum, being land applied in accordance with applicable
regulations, such that the Zinc it contains
is not discharged in the effluent. As a result,
the value
of adding a solids removal system prior to discharge to Petitioner's plant is
limited in that a high percentage of those solids are already being removed at the plant
and are not being discharged.
Such a system would be largely redundant.
17.
Even so, Petitioner concurs with recommended condition b to the extent
that a sludge wasting technology should be evaluated, and
Petitioner has agreed to do so
as one of the technologies to be considered under paragraph 9(a)( 6) of the compliance
plan set forth in
Part VI ofthe Petition at page 40. Such removal could still playa part in
the final compliance system. However, Petitioner believes its evaluation should be done
concurrently with the other options
as set forth in that compliance plan.
18.
Petitioner has communicated with the Agency regarding the above-
referenced information.
Petitioner and the Agency agree that sludge wasting will be
evaluated as part of the assessment of all potentially viable technologies.
C.
Agency Involvement in Benchmark Meetings
19.
Petitioner and the Agency have discussed the language in the Agency's
recommended condition c above, and have agreed that condition c should be revised to
state as follows:
Petitioner must include Illinois EPA in meetings to discuss interim
progress at the July
1,2010
and July 1,2011 benchmarks. Ifany
technically reasonable technology is identified that does not impose an
arbitrary or unreasonable hardship on
SDD and remedies the Zinc and
6
Electronic filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 30, 2009
Nickel water quality standards problem, in whole or in part, SDD must
pursue that technology either (i) as soon
as possible after identification or
(ii) immediately following the July 1,2011 benchmark meeting with
Illinois
EPA, whichever comes first.
20.
In light of the agreement between the parties, Petitioner and the Agency
have no objection to this revised variance condition c.
D.
Investig;ation of Additional Technologies
21.
As stated above, the Agency recommends that, as a condition of the
variance, Petitioner be required to investigate "the additional technologies of electro-
chemical decomposition and capacitive de ionization as part
of its 'technical and
economic feasibility reviews' discussed in Section VI.9.aj. of the Petition."
22.
Petitioner has no objection to this variance condition. In fact, Petitioner
understands that ADM has already begun researching those technologies. Petitioner also
understands that ADM's preliminary research has indicated that these technologies have
not been developed
to the point they have become commercial and that their application
may be cost prohibitive. However, ADM has not completed its evaluation
of those
technologies and has indicated its commitment to continue that evaluation on a track
parallel to the other technologies
it has committed to evaluate as set forth in Part VI,
Section 9, subpart (a) of the Petition at pages 39-41.
23.
Petitioner has communicated with the Agency regarding the above-
referenced information, and the Agency has no objection to the same. Overall,
Petitioner
has no objection to variance condition d.
7
IV.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Petitioner, SANITARY DISTRICT OF DECATUR, respectfully
requests that the Illinois Pollution Control Board accept for its consideration Petitioner's
Response to the Recommendation of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
Dated: September
30, 2009
Katherine D. Hodge
Lauren
C. Lurkins
HODGE DWYER
&
DRIVER
3150 Roland Avenue
Post Office Box 5776
Springfield, Illinois 62705-5776
(217)
523-4900
Respectfully submitted,
SANITARY DISTRICT
OF DECATUR,
Petitioner,
B y:_-'/..;;:s;....:/K=a=t=h=er=in=e=-=D...:.... -=-H=..=o,-"d:.cg=e __ _
Katherine D. Hodge
SDOD:OO I/Filings/Response to
Recommendation (9.30.09)
8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Katherine D. Hodge, the undersigned, hereby certify that I have served the
attached
PETITIONER'S RESPONSE TO THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY upon:
Mr. John T. Therriault
Assistant Clerk
of the Board
Illinois
Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
via electronic mail on September 30,2009; and upon:
Carol Webb, Esq.
Hearing
Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
lO21 North Grand Avenue East
Post Office Box 19274
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9274
Chad
M. Kruse, Esq.
Assistant Counsel
Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
lO21 North Grand Avenue East
Post Office Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
by depositing said documents in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Springfield,
Illinois, on September
30, 2009.
Is/Katherine D. Hodge
Katherine
D. Hodge
sooo:oo IIFiIINOF-COS Response to Agency Recommendation
