BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
1
1
PROPOSED EXTENSION OF ADJUSTED STANDARD
)
AS 06-
APPLICABLE TO ILLINOIS-AMERICAN
1
(Adjusted Standard)
WATER COMPANY'S ALTON PUBLIC WATER
1
SUPPLY FACILITY DISCHARGE
)
TO THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER
1
NOTICE
OF
FILING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 3 1,2006, the PETITION FOR EXTENSION OF
ADJUSTED STANDARD and the MOTION TO INCORPORATE BY REFERENCE
THE
PETITION FOR ADJUSTED STANDARD FILED IN DOCKET NUMBER AS 99-6, AND
THE SITE SPECIFIC IMPACT STUDY ACCEPTED INTO EVIDENCE IN
DOCKET
NUMBER AS 99-6, INTO PETITIONER'S PETITION FOR ADJUSTED STANDARD
PURSUANT TO 3 5 ILL. ADM. CODE 10 1.3
06(a) were filed with the Clerk of the Pollution
Control Board. A copy of each is herewith served upon you.
Respectfully submitted,
ILLINOIS-AMERICAN WATER COMPmY
By:
By:
Alison
M. Nelson, #206 1 82
Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin LLP
720 Olive St., 24th Floor
St. Louis,
MO 63 101
Telephone: (3 14) 345-6000
Facsimile: (3 14) 345-6060
Attorneys for Petitioner
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
1
)
PROPOSED EXTENSION OF ADJUSTED STANDARD
)
AS 06-
APPLICABLE TO ILLINOIS-AMERICAN
)
(Adjusted Standard)
WATER COMPANY'S ALTON PUBLIC WATER
)
SUPPLY FACILITY DISCHARGE
TO THE MISSISSIPPI
RIVER
)
)
I hereby file my appearance in this proceeding on behalf of Petitioner, Illinois-American Water
Company.
720 Olive St., 24th Floor
St. Louis, MO 63
101
Telephone: (3 14) 345-6000
Facsimile: (3 14) 345-6060
Email: bhiles@;blackwellsanders.com
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOA1EPT9
IN THE MATTER OF:
1
)
PROPOSED EXTENSION OF ADJUSTED STANDARD
)
AS 06-
APPLICABLE TO ILLINOIS-AMERICAN
)
(Adjusted Standard)
WATER COMPANY'S ALTON PUBLIC WATER
)
SUPPLY FACILITY DISCHARGE
)
TO THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER
)
I hereby file my appearance in this proceeding on behalf of Petitioner, Illinois-American Water
Company.
~liGn
hk
Nelson, #206 182
Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin LLP
'720 Olive St., 24th Floor
St. Louis,
MO 63 101
Telephone: (3 14) 345-6000
Facsimile: (3 14) 345-6060
Email:
anelso1~@,blackwel1sander~.com
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
PROPOSED EXTENSION OF ADJUSTED STANDARD
)
AS 06-
APPLICABLE TO ILLINOIS-AMERICAN
)
(Adjusted Standard)
WATER COMPANY'S ALTON PUBLIC WATER
1
SUPPLY FACILITY DISCHARGE
1
TO THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER
)
PETITION FOR EXTENSIBON OF ADmSTED STMDAm
Petitioner, Illinois-American Water Company ("Illinois-American9'), by its attorneys
Bradley S. Hiles and Alison M. Nelson, pursuant to Section 28.1 of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act ("the
Act9'), 41 5 111. Coinp. Stat. 5128.1 and Part 104 of the Procedural Rules of
the Illinois Pollution Control Board
("Board"), 35 Ill. Adin. Code Part 104, respectfully requests
the Board to adopt an extension of Adjusted Standard 99-6, the adjusted standard now applicable
to
Illinois-American's public water supply treatment facility in Alton, Illinois (the "Alton
facility"). Adjusted Standard 99-6, which is scheduled to expire on October 16,2007, provides
that the effluent standard for offensive discharges at 35
Ill. Adin. Code 304.106, the effluent
standard for total suspended solids (TSS) at 35
Ill. Adin. Code 304.124, and the effluent standard
for total iron at 35
Ill. Adrn. Code 304.124 shall not apply to discharges froin the Alton facility,
and that the general use water quality standard for offensive discharges at 3
5
Ill. Adin. Code
302.203 shall not apply to a one mile stretch of the Mississippi River which receives effluent
fi-oin the Alton facility and is iininediately downstream fi-om the Alton facility's discharge.
SUMMARY
OF
THE CASE AJVD THE ISSUE PmSENTED
Adjusted Standard 99-6 (sometimes referred to as "AS 99-6") was issued by the Board, in
large part, because of a sediment reduction project now known as the Piasa Creek Watershed
Project (sometimes referred to as "PCWP" or "the Project"). Funded by Illinois-American at a
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
rate of $41 5,000lyear for ten years, the Project was expected to reduce soil loading into the
Mississippi River by two tons for every one ton of solids in the Alton facility's effluent. Not
knowing whether the 2 to
1 offset would be attained, the Board inserted two safeguards in AS
99-6. First, the Board obligated Illinois EPA to assess the effectiveness of the Project at the
five-
year mark (roughly October, 2005) to determine if the Project was on pace to reach its 2 to 1
objective by the end of the ten year period. Second, the Board imposed a seven-year sunset
provision into AS 99-6, in case the Project fails to meet expectations.
The issue in the present proceeding is whether the Piasa Creek Watershed Project has
been effective enough
after five years that the 2 to 1 offset will likely be achieved by the end of
the ten year period. The answer is
simple and cannot be disputed. The Proiect has already
achieved its goal
-
a savings of 6,600 tons of soil
-
four years ahead of schedule. In fact, the
Project is a model of success which has been showered with accolades statewide
(i.e.
the
Governor's Pollution Prevention Award) and nationally.
Furthermore, the Project has achieved
an additional result that was not initially
contemplated by AS 99-6 or Illinois-American: total
iron loading
froin the Piasa Creek Watershed has been reduced so significantly that the offset
ratio
from the Alton facility in recent years is no less than 3.8 to 1 (and perhaps as great as 8.8 to
1) for that metal. Further reductions will be achieved as Illinois-American continues to fund the
Project into 2010. The TSS reductions attained by the Project will be sustained through
stewardship activities completed on the lands owned, leased, or under cooperative agreement
with Great Rivers Land Trust ("GRLT"), a local non-profit land trust.
With AS 99-6, the Board set in motion a cooperative effort among a public water
supplier, the state's
environmental protection agency, and a non-profit land trust that has
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
achieved remarkable success and has exceeded the expectations of all stakeholders years ahead
of schedule. Accordingly, AS 99-6 should be extended indefinitely.
I
,
BACKGROUND
1.
Illinois-American Water Company operates a public water supply treatment
facility in Alton, Illinois, in Madison County. This public water supply treatment facility (the
"Alton facility") is located along the Mississippi River near River Mile 204. Illinois-American
constructed the Alton facility in 1999 and 2000 to replace an aged facility previously located at
that site (the "previous
facility"), which was inundated by the Mississippi River in 1993 and
threatened again in 1995. The Alton facility was constructed across a highway
froin the previous
facility, and was constructed on the top of a bluff to minimize the potential for future flooding.
2.
In connection with the
consti-uction of the Alton facility, Illinois-American filed a
petition on March 19, 1999, for an adjusted standard from the generally-applicable effluent
standards for offensive discharges, total suspended solids, and total iron, and
froin the general
use water quality standard for offensive conditions (the "March 1999 Petition"). The March 1999
Petition was offered and received by the Board in a previous proceeding, In the Matter of:
Petition of Illinois-American Water Company's Alton Public Water Supply Replacement Facility
Discharge to the Mississippi River for an Adjusted Standard
froin 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.203,
304.106, and 304.124 (Sept.
7, 2000), AS 99-6.'
3.
As part of the March 1999 Petition, Illinois-American submitted a Site-Specific
Analysis of Impacts of Potential Alternatives for Handling Public Water Supply Residuals at
Proposed Alton, IL Facility (the "Site Specific Impact
Study" or "SSIS9') prepared by ENSR, an
environmental consulting and engineering
finn, dated March 1999. The purpose of the Site
'
By separate w-itten request filed on the date of this Petition, Illinois-Alnerican has moved to incorporate by reference the March
1999 Petition into evidence in the present proceeding pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.106.
-3-
STLDO 1-1265007-5
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
Specific Impact Study was to provide the Board with sufficient infonnation regarding the
environmental impact, technical feasibility, and economic reasonableness of the potential
alternatives to treat discharges
from the Alton facility; to satisfy state and federal requirements
under various substantive and procedural statutes; and to address Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency ("IEPA" or "the Agency") concerns about the new facility. The Site Specific
Impact Study was offered to and received in evidence by the Board in a previous proceeding,
the Matter of: Petition of Illinois-American Water Company's Alton Public Water Supply
Replaceinent Facility Discharge to the Mississippi River for an Adjusted Standard from 35
Ill.
Adin. Code 302.203, 304.106, and 304.124 (Sept. 7,2000), AS 99-6.
4.
On September 7,2000, the Board adopted Adjusted Standard 99-6, which
provided that the effluent standard for offensive discharges at 35
Ill. Adm. Code 304.106 and the
effluent standard for total suspended solids (TSS) at 35
Ill. Adm. Code 304.124 shall not apply to
discharges
froin the Alton facility, and that the general use water quality standard for offensive
conditions at 35
Ill. Adin. Code 302.203 shall not apply to a one mile stretch of the Mississippi
River which receives effluent from the Alton facility and is
immediately downstream froin the
Alton facility's discharge. Opinion
&
Order of the Board, In the Matter of: Petition of Illinois
American Water Coinpany's Alton Public Water Supply Replacement Facility Discharge to the
Mississippi River for an
Adiusted Standard from 35 Ill. Adin. Code 302.203, 304.106. and
304.124 (Sept.
7,2000), AS 99-6 at 21 ("Opinion
&
Order of the Board dated Sept. 7,2000").
On October 19,2000, the Board issued an order modifying AS 99-6 to provide that the effluent
Petitioner believes it is unnecessary to rehash all of the findings and conclusions from the SSIS in the present proceeding, which
has the success of the
PCWP as its prinlary focus. However, Petitioner also recognizes that the Board's procedures do not have a
focused process for Extension Petitions. Therefore, since the SSIS has already been accepted into evidence by the Board,
Petitioner has
inoved by a separate written request filed on the date of this Petition to incorporate by reference the Site Specific
Impact Study into evidence in the present proceeding pursuant to
35 Ill. Adin. Code 304.106. Findings and conclusions froin the
SSIS, to the extent relevant in this proceeding, remain reliable today.
See Affidavit of Alley Ringhausen (attached to this Petition
-
4
-
STLDO 1
-
1265007-5
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
standard for total iron at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.124 also shall not apply to discharges from the
Alton facility. Order of the Board, In the Matter of: Petition of Illinois-American Water
Company's Alton Public Water Supply Replacement Facility Discharge to the Mississippi River
for an Adjusted Standard from 35
Ill. Adm. Code 302.203, 304.106, and 304.124 (Oct. 19,
2000), AS 99-6 at 5 ("Order of the Board dated Oct. 19,2000").
5.
As a condition of AS 99-6, the Board required Illinois-American to enter into a
contract with GRLT for a
sediment loading reduction project to be managed by GRLT.
See
Opinion
&
Order of the Board dated Sept. 7,2000 at 5. This sediment loading reduction project
has come to be known as the Piasa Creek Watershed Project. The Board required the contract to
specify that Illinois-American must provide a
miniinurn of $4,150,000.00 to GRLT for the
Project.
Id.
6.
The goal of
the Piasa Creek Watershed Project is to reduce sedimentation in the
78,000 acre Piasa Creek Watershed, located in portions of Jersey, Madison, and
Macoupin
counties, by approximately 6,600 tons of soil per year by the year 201 0.' The Piasa Creek
discharges into the Mississippi River approxiinately 5.5
iniles upstream from the point at which
the Alton facility discharges into the River. The 6,600 tons in sedimentation reductions, if
achieved, would represent a 2 to 1 offset of the 3,300 tons of TSS that were anticipated to be
present in the Alton facility's effluent. That is, the Piasa Creek Watershed Project, if successful,
would prevent two tons of soil
fi-oin entering the Mississippi River for every one ton of TSS that
Illinois-American's Alton facility was anticipated to discharge into the River each year.
as Attachment A), at 7712-1 3; Affidavit of Howard
0.
Andrews, Jr. (attached to this Petition as Attachillent E), at 112,4-5;
Affidavit of Paul ICeck (attached to this Petition as Attachment D), at 773, 6-8.
The goal was established in the contract between Illinois-American and the Great Rivers Land Trust. (See Piasa Creek
Watershed Report,
Attachinent B to the Petition, at Appendix 1, p. 5). Illinois-Ainerican entered into that contract as a condition
of AS 99-6.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
7.
The Board's September 7,2000 Order directs the Agency to make a
detennination of the Project's effectiveness after five years, which coincides with the renewal of
Illinois-American's NPDES pennit for its Alton facility.
See
Opinion
&
Order of the Board
dated Sept. 7, 2000 at 16.
In its Order dated October 19,2000, the Board extended the deadline
for this review to reflect the
time that had passed since its September 7,2000 Order was adopted.
See
Order of the Board dated Oct. 19,2000 at 5.
8.
The Board's September 7,2000 Order also provides that if the Project is showing
signs of success by the five year mark, Illinois-American will continue to fund the second half of
the ten year project.
See
Opinion
&
Order of the Board dated Sept. 7,2000 at 16. (Illinois-
American has continued to fund the Project since the five-year anniversary.) In addition, that
Order provides that if the Project is not showing signs of success at that time, the Agency will
either give Illinois-American a set amount of time to fix the Project, or will require Illinois-
Anerican to treat the effluent
fioin the new facility as a condition for Illinois-American to
receive a new NPDES
pennit.
Id.
(The Agency has
imposed either obligation on Illinois-
American because the Project has shown signs of success.) The
Agency's Final Brief in the
initial proceeding before this Board regarding AS 99-6 similarly notes that "in the case of an
insunnountable failure of the
prograin the Agency will require treatment of the water plant's
effluent" as a
pennit condition. IEPA, Final Brief of Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
Proposed
Adiusted Standard Applicable to Illinois-American Water Company's Public Water
Supply Replacement Facility Discharge to the Mississippi River (June
20,2000), AS 99-6 at 5.
9.
The Piasa Creek Watershed Project has been reinarkably successful. As of the
five year mark on October 19,2005, the Project had achieved a savings of approximately 6,487
tons of soil per year.
See
Affidavit of Alley Ringhausen (attached to this Petition as Attachment
STLDO 1-1265007-5
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
A) at
"1[.
So, at the Project's half-way point in 2005, the ten-year goal had nearly been achieved.
As of October 12,2006, the Project has already surpassed the ten-year goal, by achieving a
savings of
approxiinately 6,69 1 tons of soil per year.
Id.
Mr. Alley Ringhausen, Executive
Director of GRLT, estimates that by 201 0, the Project will achieve a savings of no less than
10,000 tons per year, and may save as
much as 12,000 to 15,000 tons per year.
Id.
As a result of
its success in achieving such savings, the Project has received the 2002 Illinois Governor's
Pollution Prevention Award as well as
numerous other awards from nationally-recognized
environmental organizations.
Id.
at 78. The national awards bestowed on the Piasa Creek
Watershed Project include:
the Trees Forever National Award for the
BusinesslEducatio~onprofit
Category, which is awarded to one business or organization that has improved
water quality and promoted land stewardship;
a National Resource Conservation Service's Conservation Academy Award,
which is awarded in recognition of conservation-related achievements;
o
a U.S. Deparhnent of Agriculture Earth Team Volunteer Program Award,
which is awarded to organizations that achieve a certain level of volunteer
participation; and
one of three Soil and Water Conservation Society's National Merit awards,
which are given in recognition of an outstanding project by an organization
that promotes conservation of soil, water, and related natural resources.
10.
But the Piasa Creek Watershed Project is far
inore successful than these numbers
indicate. As noted above, the Project has already achieved this 6,600 ton mark. The actual
ainount of TSS in the Alton facility's effluent is, however, far lower than anticipated. While the
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
6,600 ton goal is based on the estimate that the Alton facility would discharge approxiinately
3,300 tons of TSS each year, this estimate was based on predicted operating conditions, and the
actual operating conditions at the facility differ
froin those predicted.
See
Affidavit of Paul Keck
(attached to this Petition as Attachment D) at
71 5. If this estimate had been calculated using the
actual operating conditions at the facility, the estimated tons of TSS discharged each year would
have been 1
,545.4
Id.
Using this estimate calculated on the basis of actual operating conditions at
the facility, the reductions achieved so far by the Project have resulted in an offset of 4.3 to 1.
1 1.
This Petition relies on the estimated tons of TSS discharged (1,545) to calculate
the offset for the reductions achieved so far by the Project because this estimate is based on the
same fonnula previously utilized before this Board, but incorporates data reflecting actual
operating conditions of the facility. However, another set of data could also be utilized to
examine TSS loading. This data was generated by a
inandate imposed by Illinois EPA, under
which Illinois-American
must collect and analyze grab sainples each month as a condition in the
facility's NPDES
pennit.
See
Affidavit of Paul Keck at '721. Illinois-American's practice is to
collect these grab sainples on a
randoin day each inonth during tiines of discharge froin
Superpulsator blowdown and filter backwash events.
Id.
This practice presents a worst case
scenario of TSS and total iron in the Alton facility's effluent, as the TSS in Illinois-American's
effluent is higher during such events.
Id.
Based on the data generated froin the 59 grab sainples
collected
froin the Alton facility between February 2001 and December 2005, approximately
1,333 tons of solids are discharged in the facility's effluent each year.
See
id;
Evaluation of
Residuals (attached to this Petition as Attachment
C) at 3 .5 Illinois-American is not advocating
The calculation of this estinlate is outlined in further detail, below.
See
1749-50.
'
It is iinportant to note, however, that the facility optimized its operations in 2002 by decreasing the time between operational
maintenance events such as blowdowns
from the Superpulsator.
See
Affidavit of Paul Keck at 71 0. If only the data from 2002-
2005 is considered, the tons of TSS discharged from the facility each year is 691.
See
Evaluation of Residuals at 5.
-
8
-
STLDO 1-1265007-5
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
use of this grab sample data in establishing the tons of solids discharged froin the facility,
because the estimate of 1,545 tons presents a
inore conservative estiinate of the tons of TSS in
the facility's effluent and is based on a greater number of
samples. However, that data is
consistent with the 1,545 ton estimate,
see
Affidavit of Paul Keck at 721, which fbrther validates
the estimate of TSS discharged.
12.
As of the date of this Petition, the Project has also achieved an environmental
benefit which was not specifically planned but is of significant value and relevance.
Sedimentation reductions have reduced the total iron discharged to the Mississippi River by
approximately
79 tons of total iron per year.
See
Evaluation of Residuals at 4. NPDES monthly
monitoring data for the facility indicates that the Alton facility discharges an average of 21 tons
of iron per
year.6
Id.
This annual offset of approximately 3.8 to 1 will prevent nearly four tons of
total iron
froin entering the Mississippi River for every one ton of total iron that the Alton
facility discharges into the River each year.
Id.
at 5. Data collected by Black
&
Veatch in a
recent sampling supports the conclusion, however, that the
ainount of iron discharged from the
facility is far lower than
inay be gleaned from NPDES monthly monitoring data. Based on Black
&
Veatch's study, Illinois-American's discharge contains an average of only 9 tons of iron each
year, which represents an offset of approxiinately 8.8 to
1.
Id.
The NPDES data from 2002
through 2005
(i.e., that data collected after optimization of the facility's operations) generally
supports this figure; based on that data, Illinois-American's discharge contains an average of
12.5 tons of iron each year, which represents a 6.3 to 1 offset.
Id.
13.
TSS reductions achieved by the Piasa Creek Watershed Project will be sustained
through stewardship activities completed on the lands owned, leased, or under cooperative
Illinois-American does not measure the ainount of iron in the facility's influent, so an estiinate for the amount of iron predicted
to be discharged
from the facility is not available.
-9-
STLDO 1
-
1265007-5
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
agreement with GRLT. See Affidavit of Alley Ringhausen at 76. In other words, an offset of at
least 2 to 1 for total suspended solids for the calendar year in question and the four preceding
calendar years will be maintained year after year. Although additional funding by
Illinois-
American will be required for some period of time after the expiration of the ten-year agreement
between Illinois-American and GRLT, and Illinois-American will provide such funding, the
Project is expected to reach a point at which it will be sustainable without future funding
from
outside sources. See id.
14.
The Board9 s October 19,2000 Order imposes a seven-year sunset provision on
Adjusted Standard
99-6, and provides that Illinois-American must request an extension of the
Adjusted Standard past its seventh year. See Order of the Board dated Oct. 19, 2000 at
4-5.
Adjusted Standard 99-6 will therefore expire on October 16,2007 unless the Board grants
Illinois-American an extension to Adjusted Standard 99-6, as requested in this Petition.
Id.
at 5.
15.
Based on the renewal provisions in the
Board's Orders dated September 7,2000
and October 19,2000, and on the overwhelining success of the Piasa Creek Watershed Project,
the Board should approve this Petition and adopt an extension of Adjusted Standard 99-6.
16.
A new sunset provision providing for expiration of the adjusted standard in a set
number of years is not necessary under these circumstances. In other adjusted standard
proceedings, this Board has identified several factors that justify use of such a sunset provision to
allow the Board to revisit a case. See,
e.g., In the Matter of: Petition of PDV Midwest Refining,
L.L.C. for a Site-Specific Ruleinaking
Amendment to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.213 (Dec. 17,
1998), R98-14 at 3 (including a sunset provision when such a provision would encourage the
petitioner to take advantage of new technology and to continually explore
methods to lower its
effluent levels); In the Matter of: Proposal of Union Oil Company of California to Amend the
STLDO 1
-
1265007-5
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
Water Pollution Regulations (March 19, 1 987), R84- 13 at 12 (including a sunset provision when
the water quality of the receiving stream was expected to change in the near future, when
granting
permanent relief would remove any incentive for the petitioner to improve its effluent
quality, and when the petitioner's evaluation of alternatives was not detailed enough to
conclusivel~ rule out all alternatives); In the Matter of: Site-Specific Rulemaking for the Sanitary
District of Decatur, Illinois (Jan. 23,
1986), R85-15 at 7 (noting that there may be merit in
considering sunset provisions when granting pennanent relief would utilize a portion of the
receiving water that would not then be available to future dischargers). Relief of an indefinite
duration is appropriate in this case because none of the above factors are present. The conditions
in the Piasa Creek Watershed and the Mississippi River are not likely to change in the near
future, and
Illinois-American's Site-Specific Jinpact Study was coinprehensive enough to rule
out other alternatives. In addition, the Piasa Creek Watershed Project actually reduces the
amount of TS S and iron in the Piasa Creek Watershed and in the Mississippi River and creates
capacity in the receiving waters for future dischargers. Therefore, exploration of new
technologies or alternative methods to reduce the amount of TSS and iron in Illinois-American's
effluent is not necessary.
17.
Permanent relief is also appropriate on these facts because Illinois-American has
successfully enhanced water quality in the Mississippi River above even the
most ambitious
expectations, and this Board has granted pennanent relief to petitioners on lesser grounds.
See,
e.g.,
In the Matter of: Proposal of Mobil Oil Cornoration to Amend the Water Pollution
Regulations (Feb. 5,
1987), R84-16 at 8 (holding that a sunset provision was not necessary when
the petitioner's discharge was "quite close" to the regulation of general applicability).
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
18.
Finally, requiring subinission to the Board of annual reports reflecting the soil
savings of the Project and conditioning the adjusted standard on satisfaction of certain conditions
(such as ensuring that the average offset for the calendar year in question and the four preceding
calendar years is not reduced below a 2 to 1 offset for total suspended solids), rather than
including a sunset provision, would allow this adjusted standard to remain in place until the
Board determines that the adjusted standard is no longer successfully reducing the TSS loading
to the Mississippi River. This Board has approved the use of a reporting requirement in other
adjusted standard proceedings, provided that the Board retains
some oversight over the
petitioner's compliance with the standard. See,
e.g., In the Matter of: Ainendinents to Water
Quality and Effluent Standards Applicable to the Chicago River System and
Calumet River
System (March 24,
1988), R87-27 at 23 (including a reporting requirement); In the Matter of:
Site Specific Rule for City of
Effinghain Treatment Plant Fluoride Discharge, 35 Ill. Adm. Code
304.233 (July
24,2003), R03-11 at 9 (granting permanent relief, but noting that the Board would
revisit the standard if the passage of time reveals that the proposed water quality standards are
not being met).
II*
19.
Neither the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (the "Act") nor the Board's
rules establish a separate procedure for an extension to an adjusted standard. This Petition
therefore satisfies the
requirements for an initial petition for an adjusted standard as required by
Section 28.1 of the Act and Subpart
D of Part 104 of the Board's procedural rules.
20.
Section 28.1 of the Act provides that after the Board adopts a regulation of
general applicability, the Board may grant, in a subsequent adjudicatory determination, an
adjusted standard for persons who can justify such an adjustment consistent with Section 27 of
the Act. 41 5
Ill. Coinp. Stat. 518.1 (a). Section 27 of the Act provides in pertinent part as follows:
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
In promulgating regulations under this Act, the Board shall take into
account the existing physical conditions, the character of the area
involved, including the character of surrounding land uses, zoning
classifications, the nature of the
. . .
receiving body of water, as the case
inay be, and the technical feasibility and economic reasonableness of
measuring or reducing the particular type of pollution.
415
Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/27(a).
21.
Section 28.1 of the Act also provides that the Board shall adopt procedures
applicable to adjusted standard
determinations. 4 1 5 111. Coinp. Stat. 5128.1 (d). The Board
adopted such procedures at Subpart
D of Part 104 of the Board's procedural rules. Section
104.406 (the section of Part 104 that establishes requirements for the contents of a petition for an
adjusted standard) lists several categories of
information that must be included in each petition.
Each of these categories is discussed in greater detail, below.
22.
Section 28.3 of the Act also lists several factors that should be considered in an
adjusted standard proceeding for the direct discharge of waste solids to the Mississippi or the
Ohio Rivers
froin clarifier sludge and filter backwash generated in the water purification process
by any public water supply utilizing the Mississippi or the Ohio Rivers as its raw water source
that does not utilize
lime softening in the purification process. 4 1 5 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/28.3(a).
That Section provides as follows:
Justification based upon discharge impact shall include, as a
minimum, an
evaluation of receiving streain rations,
known stream uses, accessibility to
streain and side land use activities (residential, commercial, agricultural,
industrial, recreational), frequency and extent of discharges, inspections of
unnatural bottom deposits, odors, unnatural floating material or color,
streain
inorphology and result of streain chemical analyses. Where
minilnuin impact cannot be established, justification shall also include
evaluations of streain sediment analyses, biological surveys (including
habitat assessment), and thorough streain chemical analyses that may
include but are not limited to analysis of parameters regulated in 35
Ill.
Adin. Code 302.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
41 5 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/28.3(c). However, that Section, by its terns, applies only to petitions
submitted no later than January 1, 1991. 41
5 111. Coinp. Stat. 5/28.3(b). This Board has noted that
it will therefore
examine these factors only to the extent relevant to an examination of the factors
at Section
28.l(c) of the Act.
See
Opinion
&
Order of the Board dated Sept. 7,2000 at 6.
A.
Standard
from which
an
Adjusted Standard
is
Sought
23.
Section
104.406(a) of the Procedural Rules provides that the petition must contain
a statement describing the standard
froin which an adjusted standard is sought. This must include
the Illinois Administrative Code citation to the regulation of general applicability imposing the
standard as well as the effective date of that regulation.
24.
Illinois-American seeks an extension to its adjusted standard from the following
sections of the Board's Water Pollution Control Regulations: the effluent standard for total
suspended solids at Section 304.124; the effluent standard for total iron at Section 304.124; the
effluent standard for offensive discharges at Section 304.106; and the general use water quality
standard for offensive discharges at Section
3 02.203.
25.
Section 304.124 of the Board's Water Pollution Control Regulations provides that
no person shall cause or allow the concentration of Total Suspended Solids in any effluent to
exceed 15.0
mgil, and that no person shall cause or allow the concentration of total iron in any
effluent to exceed 2.0
mgll. These effluent standards apply to all discharges to waters of the State
of Illinois, regardless of the nature of the receiving stream or the
environmental impact of the
discharge. The Board's effluent standards initially became effective on January 6, 1972.
See
Opinion of the Board, Effluent Criteria, Water Quality Standards, Water Quality Standards
Revisions for Intrastate Waters
(SWB 14) (Jan. 6, 1972), R70-8, R71-14, and R7 1-20 at 19.
These standards are now codified in Part 304 of the Board's Water Pollution Control
STLDO 1
-
1265007-5
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
Regulations, which becaine effective July 27, 1978. Section 304.124, the section of Part 304
addressing TSS and iron, was
ainended in R88- 1 at 13 Ill. Reg. 5976, effective April 18, 1989.
26.
Section 304.106 of the Board's Water Pollution Control Regulations provides in
pertinent part that no effluent shall contain settleable solids or sludge solids, and that turbidity
must be reduced to below obvious levels. This effluent standard applies to all discharges to
waters of the State of Illinois, regardless of the nature of the receiving
stream or the
environmental impact of the discharge. As noted above, the Board's effluent standards initially
becaine effective on January 6, 1972.
See
id. at 5. These standards are now codified in Part 304
of the Board's Water Pollution Control Regulations, which becaine effective July 27, 1978.
27.
Section 302.203 of the Board's Water Pollution Control Regulations provides in
pertinent part that waters of the State shall be free
from sludge or bottom deposits and turbidity
of other than natural origin. This water quality standard applies to all discharges to waters of the
State of Illinois for which there is no specific designation. This water quality standard also
becaine effective on January 6, 1 972.
See
id. at 4. This standard is now codified in Part 302 of
the Board's Water Pollution Control Regulations, which was filed with the Secretary of State on
January
1, 1978. Section 302.203, the section of Part 302 addressing water quality, was amended
at 14
Ill. Reg. 2899, effective February 13, 1990.
B.
Indication of whether the Regulation of General Applicability was
Promulgated
to Implement the Requirements of Federal Environmental Law
28.
Section 104.406(b) of the Procedural Rules provides that the petition must contain
a statement that indicates whether the regulation of general applicability was promulgated to
implement, in whole or in part, the requirements of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
5 125 1 et
seq.); the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C.
5 300(f) et seq.); the Coinprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (42 U.S.C.
5 9601 et seq.); the Clean
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
Air Act (42 U.S.C. 5 740 1 et seq.); or the State prograins concerning the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, the Underground Injection Control program, or the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination S ys tein.
29.
Neither the effluent standards for total suspended solids and total iron at Section
304.124 nor the effluent standard for offensive discharges at Section 304.106 was proinulgated
to iinpleinent the requirements of any of the above-listed federal environmental laws or state
programs. The Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
5 1251 et seq.) requires effluent standards for
"discharges of pollutants
hoin a point source or group of point sources" to be established, 33
U.S.C.
5 1312(a), but the effluent standards at Section 304.124 and Section 304.106 apply to all
discharges to waters of the State of Illinois. See Illinois Institute for Environmental Quality,
Evaluation of Effluent Regulations of the State of Illinois, Docuinent No. 76/21 at
4-5 (1 976)
(noting that federal law
"differs from Illinois law, in requiring industrial category-specific
guidelines whereas the Illinois standards apply equally to all dischargers").
In addition, there are
no federal categorical effluent liinitations for public water supply treatment facilities. See,
e.g.,
SSIS at 1.2; Opinion
&
Order of the Board, In the Matter of: Petition for Site-Specific Exception
to Effluent Standards for the East St. Louis Water Treatment Plant by the Illinois
American
Water Coinpanv, PCB 8 5- 1 1 (Feb. 2, 1 989) at 1. Rather, effluent limitations are developed on a
site specific basis using Best Professional Judgment ("BPJ").
Id.
30.
In contrast, the general use water quality standard for offensive discharges at
Section 302.203 was proinulgated to iinpleinent the requirements of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C.
5 1251 et seq.). See 33 U.S.C. 1313(c) (requiring states to adopt water quality standards,
and noting that whenever states revise water quality standards or adopt a new standard, such
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
revised or new standard shall be submitted to the USEPA Administrator).
See also
Opinion
&
Order of the Board dated Sept. 7,2000 at 20.
C.
Level of Justification Necessary for an Adjusted Standard as Specified by the
Regulation
of General Applicability
3 1.
Section 104.406(c) of the Procedural Rules provides that the petition must contain
the level of justification as well as other
information or requirements necessary for an adjusted
standard as specified by the regulation of general applicability, or a statement that the regulation
of general applicability does not specify a level of justification or other requirements.
32.
Section 302.124, Section 3 04.106, and Section 302.203 of the Board's Water
Pollution Control Regulations do not specify a level of justification or other requirement for an
adjusted standard. Section 28.1 (c) of the Act does, however, specify a level of justification or
other requireinent for an adjusted standard that applies when no such justification or requireinent
is specified by the regulation of general applicability. That Section provides as follows:
If a regulation of general applicability does not specify a level of
justification required of a petitioner to qualify for an adjusted standard,
the Board may grant individual adjusted standards whenever the Board
determines, upon adequate proof by petitioner, that:
(1) factors relating to that petitioner are substantially and significantly
different from the factors relied upon by the Board in adopting the
general regulation applicable to that petitioner;
(2) the existence of those factors justifies an adjusted standard;
(3) the requested standard will not result in environmental or health
effects substantially and significantly more adverse than the
effects considered by the Board in adopting the rule of general
applicability; and
(4) the adjusted standard is consistent with any applicable federal law.
415
Ill. Coinp. Stat. 5/28.1(c).
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
I).
Nature of Illinois-American's Activity that is the Subject of the Proposed
Adjusted
Standard
33.
Section
104.406(d) of the Procedural Rules provides that the petition must contain
a description of the nature of the petitioner's activity that is the subject of the proposed adjusted
standard. The description
must also include the location of, and area affected by, the petitioner's
activity; the
number of persons employed by the facility at issue; the age of that facility; the
relevant pollution control equipment already in use; and the qualitative and quantitative
description of the nature of einissions, discharges or releases currently generated by the
petitioner's activity. Each of these issues is discussed in greater detail, below.
1.
Location of Illinois-American's Activity
34.
Illinois American's Alton facility is located on the Mississippi River near River
Mile 204. The facility site consists of approxiinately 22 acres located within the bounds of the
City of Alton, Illinois, in Madison County. Alton is located in southwestern Illinois north of St.
Louis, Missouri. Other local population centers near Alton include the towns of East Alton,
Elsah,
Grafton, Bethalto, and Godfrey. Highways that pass near the vicinity of the site include
Illinois Routes 3, 67, 100, 1 1 1, 140, 143, and 267. The site is located on Illinois Route 100
(Great River Road), a four-lane highway along the Mississippi River, at the site of a
forner
quarry. Access to the site is from Route 100. The site can also be accessed from Grand Avenue,
an unimproved street. SSIS at 4- 1.
2.
Area Affected by Illinois-American's Activity
35.
Residential subdivisions are located along the western and northeastern comers of
the property. The site is abutted by both single and multi-family residences. Land uses near the
site include higher and inoderate
income single family residences, apartments, and industrial
sites. The immediate area is nearly
fully developed with ininimuin vacant land available. Barges
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
tie up along the River banks just downstream of this area prior to or traveling through the Melvin
Price Locks and
Dain. SSIS at 4-2.
3.
Number of Persons Employed by Ibois-American's Alton Facility
36.
The Alton facility currently employs 3 1 people. The Production Department,
which works inside the plant itself, employs one management level employee and eight hourly
employees; the Network
Department, which performs meter reading and maintenance activities
for the distribution system, employs one manageinent level employee and 20 hourly employees;
and the Environmental Management and Compliance Department, which works to ensure that
Illinois-American's operations in the Alton Water District and the Cairo Water District remain in
compliance with all applicable permits and laws, employs one management level employee.
4.
Age of Alton Facility
37.
The Alton facility was constructed in 1999 and 2000 to replace a previous water
treatment facility that was located near the site of the current facility. The
"replacement9' facility,
referred to as the "Alton facility9' or the
"new Alton facility," began operations on December 3 1,
2000. As of the date of this Petition, the Alton facility is therefore approximately six years old.
5.
Relevant Pollution Control Equipment Already in Use
38.
With the exception of several
ininor changes to the dechlorination process, the
Alton facility was constructed as proposed in the March 1999 Petition and the Site Specific
Iinpact Study, and the capacity and output of the facility are consistent with the estimates
contained therein.
See
Affidavit of Paul Keck at 773, 6-8, 14. Much of the infornation in the
following sections is thus addressed in the March 1999 Petition and the Site Specific Iinpact
Study, and citations to those documents are provided for reference and completeness.
39.
The Alton facility consists of a raw water intake and
pumping station,
clarification and filtration units, filtered water storage, and chemical feed facilities. SSIS at 3-4.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
Clarification of raw water at the facility is provided by four Superpulsator units, which are high
rate "sludge-blanket" type clarifiers manufactured by Infilco Degremont, Inc. S SIS at 3-5.
Filtration is provided by six gravity dual media
(sandlgranular activated carbon) filter units, and
each filter is equipped with a rate-of-flow controller, filter-to-waste piping, an air wash systein,
and automated monitors for flow rate, head loss, and water level. The
chemical feed facilities
include a sodium thiosulfate dechlorination system.
See
Affidavit of Paul Keck at 74. Other
equipment used at the facility includes an analyzer, controller, flow proportioning systein,
automatic switchover device,
difhser, and a scale for cylinders. SSIS at 3-6.
40.
Illinois-American uses the technique of chlorainination at the Alton facility. SSIS
at 3-5. With chlorainination, ammonia is applied just after chlorine treatment in order to
form
chlorainines rather than free chlorine residuals.
See
Affidavit of Paul Keck at 76. Ammonia and
chlorine are added to the raw water prior to Superpulsator treatments. As a result, the Total
Residual Chlorine (TRC) level in the Superpulsator units is approxiinately 1.0 to 1.5
ingll.
Id.
Settled solids are continually removed from the Superpulsators, routed in the Superpulsator
blowdown trough, and periodically flushed to the effluent discharge.
41.
Clarified water
froin the Superpulsators flows to the six carbodsand dual media
filter units. SSIS at 3-5 to 3-6. The filtration of the clarified water through carbon causes a
reduction in chlorine residuals. Chlorine and
ai~unonia are then re-applied to the filtrate to
maintain a disinfectant residual in the potable water as it passes on to the clearwell and then to
the distribution systein; this application raises the level of TRC to the targeted range of 3.0 to 3.5
mg/L in the finished water.
See
Affidavit of Paul Keck at 76. Periodically, finished water froin
the clearwell is used to backwash the filters to remove accuinulated solids.
Id.
at 71 1. Filter
backwash is routed to the effluent discharge. SSIS at 3-6.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
42.
The Alton facility prevents unacceptable TRC concentrations in effluent
discharge through dechlorination with sodiuin thiosulfate. SSIS at 3-6. There is one
dechlorination system, which has two feed points that can be used to treat the effluent discharge
stream.
See
Affidavit of Paul Keck at 75. First, a sodiuin thiosulfate feed system feeds to a
dechlorination basin which receives effluent discharge coinposed of Superpulsator
blowdown
and filter backwash. The facility's use of Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA)
prograinrning allows the sodiuin thosulfate dosage to the dechlorination basin to increase during
filter backwashes to accoininodate the resulting higher flow volume. There is also an alternative
feed point to the filter backwash influent water that is used if the facility decides to run the filters
in a biologically active mode. To date, this alternative feed point has not been used.
Id.
6.
Qualitative and Quantitative Description of the Nature of Discharges
43.
The Alton facility currently discharges its effluent directly to the Mississippi
pursuant to Adjusted Standard 99-6. Effluent discharges from the Alton facility include
operational discharges and maintenance discharges.
See
Affidavit of Paul Keck at 78.
Operational discharges occur regularly (on a daily or weekly basis) during periods when the
facility is treating raw water, and include return of intake screen wash,
blowdown froin the
Superpulsators, and filter backwash. Maintenance discharges occur during the
semi-annual
cleaning of accuinulated solids in the clarifier, sedimentation basins, and inixing tanks.
Id.
44.
The two main operational discharges consist of intennittent Superpulsator
blowdown and filter backwash.
Id.
at 79. Approxiinately 72,000 gallons per day ("gpd") of
blowdown are discharged each day froin the Superpulsators. In addition, approximately 227,000
gallons of backwash are discharged from the six
sandlcarbon filters in each filter backwash.
There are
normally one to three filter backwashes per day, depending on water temperature and
turbidity; the daily average for 2005 was 1.6 backwashes per day.
Id.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
45.
The frequency and duration of these blowdowns are generally fixed.
Id.
at YO.
Blowdown in the Superpulsator now occurs twice per hour. Stated differently, the interval
between blowdowns is approxiinately 30 minutes. Throughout 2001 and early 2002, the intervals
were less regular
-
at times, the interval between blowdowns was as long as 5.5 hours. The
duration of the filter backwash process is generally fixed at 25 minutes.
Id.
at 11 1. Each filter
runs approxiinately 30 to 120 hours between backwashings.
Id.
46.
The TSS and total iron concentrations in the
blowdown are highly variable
because they are dictated by raw water turbidity and plant operational conditions.
Id.
at 712.
Higher levels of TSS and total iron in the raw water generally correlate with higher levels of TSS
and total iron in the facility's discharge. In addition, longer intervals between blowdowns allows
solids to build up in the
blowdown troughs, so the amounts of TSS and total iron in samples
collected froin Superpulsator blowdowns after such longer intervals will generally be elevated.
Finally, the flow rate of the facility's influent can affect TSS and total iron in the facility's
discharge. TSS and iron in the facility's influent can
become trapped for several hours in the
solids blanket in a Superpulsator, but a higher flow rate can cause these solids blankets to expand
and overflow into the collection troughs. Directly following such an overflow, the amount of
TSS and iron in the facility's discharge will likely be higher.
Id.
47.
Maintenance discharges arise
froin cleaning accuinulated solids from the
Supeiyulsators.
Id.
at 71
3.
These inaintenance discharges occur two tiines per year, and each
maintenance discharge lasts approximately four days. Approximately 5,000
gpd of water
containing residuals are discharged each day during each four day maintenance activity. The
total annual discharge from maintenance activities is therefore approximately 40,000 gallons.
Id.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
48.
The Alton facility treats sufficient raw water to make available, on average, 8.5
inillion gallons per day (MGD) of potable water for the Alton area.
Id.
at 714. The average
proportional internal facility
demand is 0.49 MGD for the average potable water flow of 8.5
MGD.
Id.
The combined flow of 8.99 MGD was therefore considered in quantifying the
discharges and evaluating the potential discharges in Section
II.G, below.
49.
At the
time that the original Petition for an Adjusted Standard was prepared,
Illinois-American and GRLT estimated that the annual dry tons of solids in the Alton facility's
effluent would be approximately 3,300.
See
Piasa Creek Watershed Report, Attachment B to the
Petition, at Appendix 1, p. 5. This estimate
assuined that 100% of the TSS in the facility's
influent would be discharged in the facility's effluent.
See
Affidavit of Paul Keck at 11 6. This
assumption is consistent with facility operations.
Id.
However, that estimate was based on
predictions regarding the operating conditions of the facility, which are different than predicted.
50.
The estimated amount of solids discharged assumed that the turbidity of the
influent of the new Alton facility would be the saine as the turbidity of the influent at the
previous facility (90 NTU, or 180
ing/L).
Id.
at 17. However, the turbidity of the new facility's
influent, determined using data collected three
times each day at the new facility, is 54 NTU (108
mg/L).
Id.
The estiinated ainount of solids discharged also assuined that the daily flow rate for
the facility would be 1 1.2 MGD, but the actual daily flow rate for the facility is 8.99 MGD.
Id.
at
18. Finally, Illinois-American uses coagulants to precipitate out those solids naturally
occurring
in the river water,
see id.
at 917, and the estimated amount of solids discharged assumed that the
application rate of the coagulants would be the saine as in the previous facility (40
pp~n).~
The original estimate of the amount of coagulant residuals predicted to be discharged from the facility each year was also
calculated
incotrectly.
Id.
at 20. If the proper fonnula had been used, the ainount of coagulant residuals predicted to be
discharged
froin the facility would have been approxitnately 50 tons per year (rather than the 290 tons set forth in the original
petition).
Id.
This would have resulted in a total estiinated discharge of 3,120 tons each year (3,070 tons of suspended solids in
the influent, plus 50 tons of coagulant residuals).
A soil savings of only 6,240 tons thus would achieve a 2 to 1 offset.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
However, the actual application rate of coagulants is 60 ppm.
Id.
at 20. If the formula relied upon
in the initial petition is used with these actual figures, the estimated tons of solids discharged
fioin the facility is 1,545.
Id.
at 2 1 .8 Even if the daily flow rate of the facility is increased to 16
MGD (the inaximuin daily flow rate for the facility,
see
SSIS 3-4), the estiinated tons of solids
discharged from the facility is 2,749.
See
Affidavit of Paul Keck at 722. These figures are
considerably lower than the 3,300 annual dry tons of solids estiinated by Illinois-American and
GRLT when they negotiated their contract in 2000.
5 1.
The facility's effluent also contains total recoverable iron. Based upon monthly
monitoring conducted at the Alton
facility,9 the average ainount of iron discharged each year by
the facility is 21 tons.
See
Evaluation of Residuals at 4.
E.
Efforts Necessary to Comply with the Regulation of General Applicability
52.
Section
104.406(e) of the Procedural Rules provides that the petition must contain
a description of the efforts that would be necessary if the petitioner were to
coinply with the
regulation of general applicability. All compliance alternatives, with the corresponding costs for
each alternative,
must be discussed. The discussion of costs must include the overall capital costs
as well as the annualized capital and operating costs.
53.
To prepare its petition to request the adoption of Adjusted Standard 99-6,
Illinois-
American conducted a coinprehensive study regarding the efforts that would be necessary if
Illinois-American were to
coinply with Section 302.124, Section 304.106, and Section 302.203
This is consistent with the actual tons of solids measured in the facility's effluent based on the 59 grab samples collected froin
the new Alton facility between February 2001 and December 2005 and reported to IEPA as required by the facility's NPDES
pertnit. That data indicates that approximately 1,333 tons of solids are discharged from the facility each year.
Id.
The data collected from the facility between February 2001 and December 2005 is used to calculate the ainount of iron
discharged from the facility each year because the Alton facility does not
measure the ainount of iron in the facility's influent and
therefore it is not possible to calculate a predicted value. Although a predicted value for iron based on a large
number of sa~nples
obtained from the facility's influent rnay be slightly nlore reliable than a value calculated using the facility's grab sarnples alone,
Illinois-American's practice of collecting one discrete grab sample per month during times of discharge from Superpulsator
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
of the Board's Water Pollution Control Regulations.
See
73, above. This Site Specific Iinpact
Study evaluated several technologies for treatinent of the effluent
froin the Alton facility:
(1) land application; (2) discharge to the Alton publicly owned treatinent works (POTW); (3)
permanent storage in monofills; and (4) temporary storage and dewatering in lagoons coupled
with off-site landfilling.
See
SSIS at 6-1 to 6-20. Illinois-American also considered direct
discharge to the Mississippi River without such treatinent. These technologies and the
corresponding costs of each are discussed in greater detail, below.
1.
Land Application
54.
One of the options explored by Illinois-Ainei-ican is land application of residuals
in Illinois-American's effluent. This option involves separating river silts out of the effluent,
temporarily storing the residuals at the Alton facility, and then transporting these residuals to
local agricultural land. These residuals would either be applied to the land as a liquid or as a
dewatered residual called "cake." For liquid residuals, the residuals are injected into the soil, or
applied to the surface as a spray and then disked or plowed into the soil within 24 hours of
application. For cake residuals, the residuals are spread in thin layers directly
froin the truck
using a device
similar to a manure spreader and then disked or plowed into the soil.
55.
Applying liquid residuals costs between $70 and $300 per ton, which depends on
the distance the soil
must be hauled. Significant farmland is not available in the immediate
vicinity, and residential growth trends in the area indicate that the
farmland will be even further
away from the Alton facility in the future. The high end of the cost range is therefore a more
blowdown and filter backwash events ensures that these sanlples are obtained when concentrations of TSS and total iron are
likely to be the highest.
See
Affidavit of Paul Keck at
712.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
reasonable estimate of the cost of such treatinent. Applying dewatered residuals costs between
$20 and $68 per
ton.'' SSIS at 6-2 to 6-3.
56.
Although land application is technically feasible, this treatment method is
associated with considerable uncertainty due to weather, public acceptance,
pennit requirements,
and land availability. Application
inay not be feasible during some winter months due to frozen
soil, and public acceptance of residuals is likely to be low because the residuals add little to (or
detract
from) soil fertility. In addition, land application is further coinplicated by pernit
regulations concerning the content of applied materials. Finally, approximately 263 acres of land
must be acquired every twenty (20) years due to the manganese content of the effluent. SSIS at
6-3 to 6-4. This option was eliminated from further consideration when the Alton facility was
constructed in 1999, and
remains eliminated at the current time.
2.
Discharge to Altcon POTW
57.
Another option explored by Illinois-American is the discharge of effluent to the
Alton POTW, an option similar to that used by
inany other water treatment facilities.
58.
The cost of expansion of the Alton POTW would be similar to the cost if Illinois-
American were to construct an on-site treatment facility.
59.
This option is technologically infeasible for several reasons. Specifically, the
estimated flow and mass of solids could not be treated at the Alton POTW without expansion of
the POTW. Without such expansion, the flexibility of the
POTW's Wre operations would be
severely curtailed by accepting the Alton facility's residuals. SSIS at 6-4. This option was
explored on a preliminary basis with the Alton POTW staff, who indicated that this option is not
lo Fronl this point through paragraph 73, Petitioner will present cost figures for the vasious options it explored in 1999 in order to
co~nply with the regulation of general applicability. The cost figures reflect costs in the SSIS, which was prepared in 1999.
Adjusting for inflation, those figures could properly be increased by
2 1
%
according to the "CPI Inflation Calculator" utilized by
the U.S.
Depashnent of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics.
See
www.bls.gov/cpi.cpicalc. Petitioner will, nevertheless, set forth
all costs in 1999 dollars in this Petition in order to avoid confusion between the Petition and the SSIS.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
feasible based on potential hydraulic overload of the adjacent sewer system, inadequate slope of
the inceptor sewer, elimination of the
POTW's reserve capacity, and a quadrupling of the solids
loading.
Id.
Accordingly, this option was eliminated from hrther consideration when the Alton
facility was constructed in 1999 and remains eliminated at the current
time.
3.
Permanent Storage in Monofills
60.
Illinois-h~eiican also explored perrnanent storage of residual solids in a monofill
as a treatment option. This option involves the construction of impoundinents for permanent
storage. SSIS at 6-4. Based on the average loading of 92 tons of wet residuals (10% solids) per
day over a typical 20 year period, a 40 acre inonofill with a 14 foot depth would be required.
61.
The site of the Alton facility is not large enough to construct such a inonofill, so
Illinois-American would have to purchase
farnland at a cost of approximately $6,000-$10,000
per acre. SSIS at 6-4. In addition, the construction of the large, lined impoundinent necessary to
implement this option would cost at least $20 million, based on preliininaiy estimates calculated
in 1999. Annual operation and maintenance costs would be approximately $1.3 million.
62.
Storage in a
monofill is neither technologically feasible nor econoinically
reasonable on a long-tenn basis. SSIS at 6-4. Disposal in monofills is likely to limit the future
use of the land, and
replacement inonofills will continually be required. Accordingly, this option
was eliininated
fioin fiuther consideration when the Alton facility was constructed in 1999 and
remains eliminated at the current time.
4.
Dewatering Residuals Coupled with Offsite Landfilling
63.
Finally, Illinois-American explored temporary storage and dewatering coupled
with
offsite landfilling. Dewatering can be accomplished by non-mechanical or mechanical
techniques, or a combination of
multiple techniques.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
64.
Non-mechanical dewatering techniques such as drying beds and lagoons rely on
drainage, decanting, evaporation, and freezing processes to dewater residuals. SSIS at 6-5.
Non-
mechanical techniques are commonly used because of their simplicity and low operational costs.
However, use of drying beds requires more land area than use of lagoons and construction costs
are estimated to be higher, so drying beds were not considered further. Use of lagoons and other
non-mechanical techniques alone is also not feasible because non-mechanical dewatering can be
disrupted by fluctuations in climate, and such techniques have a low overload capacity if a
facility's production of solids is greater than planned.
65.
Mechanical dewatering techniques are typically used in the water industry when
insufficient space is available for non-mechanical processes, when high solids concentrations are
required
fo1- disposal, or when economics dictate their use. SSIS at 6-5. Illinois-American
considered several mechanical dewatering techniques including vacuum filtration, centrifugation,
and belt filter pressing.
66.
In vacuum filtration, a vacuum is applied to a rotating drum surface coated with
residuals to dewater the solids and to
form a cake. SSIS at 6-6. The feasibility of using vacuum
filtration is not clear, however, as this method has only been evaluated on a pilot project scale for
sludge application due to the high amounts of conditioning chemicals used in producing potable
water and poor cake yield.
67.
Centrifugation is a proven method of dewatering residuals. SSIS at 6-6. Solid
bowl centrifuge technology is the most
coininon type of unit used in centrifugation, as such
technology can operate either in co-current or counter-current flow modes. The costs of
centrifugation are
similar to the costs of dewatering using belt filter press technology. However,
Illinois-American ruled out centrifugation because belt filter press technology is
inore common
STLDO 1-1265007-5
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
and is used in several of Illinois-American's "sister" operations throughout the United States,
and because
centrihgation has a poor track record in handling residuals from the Mississippi.
68.
The belt filter press uses a well-known and reliable technology to dewater
residuals. SSIS at 6-6. Although use of a belt filter press is more expensive than use of a
non-
mechanical means, belt filter presses produce a higher density product (1 5 to 25 percent solids)
and thus require less space for landfilling. Space at the Alton facility site is available for filter
press units and all associated tanks.
69.
A combination of non-mechanical and mechanical dewatering is an even more
viable option for treating residuals
from the Alton facility. Illinois-American considered a
dew
atering technique involving lagoons and belt filter press technology coupled with disposal of
dewatered residuals in
offsite landfills. To implement this technique, Illinois-American would
need to build four one-acre lagoons for dewatering its residuals on-site at the Alton facility. SSIS
at 6-8. Residuals would be stored in these lagoons until they reached a 4% solid state. This stage
of the dewatering would have minimal maintenance requirements. After the residuals reach a 4%
solid state, the residuals would be
removed from the lagoons and further dewatered in a
mechanized belt filter press system in order to produce a product that is between 15% to 25%
solids. The residuals would then be shipped to an
offsite landfill.
70.
Provided that the residuals contain no hazardous waste, the residuals may be
landfilled in a
pennitted non-hazardous special waste landfill. Preliminary discussions in 1999
with the operator of the nearest landfill that accepts residuals from water treatment plants, Waste
Management Inc., located in Granite City, Illinois, indicated that there was at that time, sufficient
capacity at the Granite City site to hold residuals from the Alton facility for 30 years. SSIS at
6-
6. Presuinably, only 23 years of capacity now reinain.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
7 1.
The total capital cost for dewatering residuals fioin the Alton facility through four
on-site lagoons, pennanent inechanical dewatering by belt filter presses, and subsequent
landfilling is approximately $7,380,000. SSIS at Table
D-1A. Assuming that the capital will be
amortized over 30 years at an interest rate of
9%, the total annualized cost is approxiinately
$1.14 million, which is comprised of an annualized capital cost of $720,000 and an annualized
operation cost of $420,000.
72.
Although Illinois-American
determined that a combination of non-mechanical and
inechanical dewatering techniques was a viable means of treating its residuals, this option is
nevertheless a less preferable option than direct discharge to the Mississippi coupled with
coinpletion of a sedimentation reduction program. The costs for dewatering residuals through
four on-site lagoons, pennanent inechanical dewatering by belt filter presses, and subsequent
landfilling are extremely high and do not justify the
ineager environmental benefits.
See
Opinion
&
Order of the Board dated Sept. 7,2000 at 11. As landfill capacity diminishes and tipping fees
increase, Illinois-American believes that it may become cheaper to build a
monofill which would
only accept residuals
froin the facility.
See id.
at 12.
In
addition, landfilling dewatered residuals
is an extremely ineffective use of landfill capacity and, over time, the landfill's
usehl life may
be shortened and
inay require construction of another landfill or increased cost and energy to
haul future trash to other distant landfills.
Id.
In addition, an estimated 750 truck trips per year
will be required on the Great River Road to haul away the treated residuals; two trips per day
will be required on average, but there could be as many as 17 truck trips per day.
See id.
at 13.
Increased traffic leads to congestion, air pollution
froin truck exhaust, hazards to safety, and a
possible decrease in the value of nearby real estate.
Id.
Accordingly, this option was eliminated
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
froin further consideration when the Alton facility was constructed in 1999 and remains
eliminated at the current
time.
5.
Direct Discharge to the Mississippi River
73.
Each of the four alternative means of treating Illinois-American's effluent was
eliminated for the reasons discussed above. Adjusted Standard 99-6 authorized direct discharge
by Illinois-American to the Mississippi River without such treatment, and the Board should
continue to authorize such direct discharges at this time. The proposed extension to Adjusted
Standard 99-6 is discussed in Section
1I.F' below.
I?.
Proposed Adjusted Standard
74.
Section
104.406(f) of the Procedural Rules requires the petition to contain a
narrative description of the proposed adjusted standard as well as proposed language for a Board
order imposing the standard. Efforts necessary to achieve this proposed standard and the
corresponding costs
must also be presented. These issues are discussed in greater detail, below.
1.
Description of Proposed Adjusted Standard
75.
Illinois-American petitions the Board to extend Adjusted Standard AS 99-6,
which provides that the effluent standard for offensive discharges at 35
Ill. Adm. Code 304.106,
the effluent standard for total suspended solids (TSS) at 35
Ill. Adin. Code 304.124, and the
effluent standard for total iron at 35
Ill. Adin. Code 304.124 shall not apply to discharges from
the Alton facility, and that the general use water quality standard for offensive discharges at 35
Ill. Adin. Code 302.203 shall not apply to a one mile stretch of the Mississippi River which
receives effluent
froin the facility and is immediately downstream froin the facility's discharge.
76.
The adjusted standard should be conditioned on Illinois-American's coinpliance
with the
terrns of the Consulting and Performance Agreeinent between Illinois-American and
GRLT throughout the
tenn of that Agreement, and on Illinois-American's agreement to enter
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
into a contract for maintenance of the Project with GRLT or such other nonprofit corporation,
soil and water conservation district, or other person or entity selected by Illinois-American and
approved by IEPA, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The order should also
require Illinois-American to enter into a substitute or additional contract for maintenance of the
Project if the contract for maintenance is terrninated by either party or if Illinois-American
determines that a substitute or additional contract is necessary. Any such contract for
maintenance will require
Illinois-knerican to provide funds needed to ensure that the average
offset for the calendar year in question and the four preceding calendar years is not reduced
below a
2 to 1 offset for total suspended solids, and will require the contracting party to submit
to IEPA annual reports detailing the reductions achieved by implementation of the
sediment
reduction measures and describing the sediment load reductions achieved for each measure.
77.
The relief granted by the adjusted standard should be indefinite in nature, and
should expire if (a) the Board determines that the conditions of the Mississippi have changed
such that the adjusted standard is
made obsolete or infeasible, or (b) the average offset for the
calendar year in question and the four preceding calendar years fails to reach a
2 to 1 offset for
total suspended solids.
In the event that any of the above events occur, the Adjusted Standard
should remain in effect for three years
froin the occurrence of such event. Expiration of the
Adjusted Standard should be delayed, however, during pendency of a petition for extension, and
the Board should consider another extension at that
time, if warranted by the petition.
78.
The order should also provide that Illinois-American will not be required to enter
into any contract for maintenance, or
inay terminate any then-existing contract for maintenance,
if new regulations are promulgated that
liinit or prohibit Illinois-American's discharges to the
Mississippi or otherwise invalidate the adjusted standard.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
79.
Proposed language for a Board order iinposing this adjusted standard is attached
to this Petition at
Attachnent F and incorporated herein.
2.
Efforts and Costs Necessary to Achieve the Adjusted Standard
80.
Achieving the proposed adjusted standard at the Alton facility will require
Illinois-American to comply with the
tenns of the Consulting and Performance Agreeinent
between Illinois-American and GRLT throughout the tern of that Agreeinent. That Agreement
requires Illinois-American to provide a
minimum of $4,150,000 to GRLT for completion of the
sediment loading reduction project
inanaged by GRLT (the "Project"), payable in equal
payments of $41 5,000 per year for ten years. Illinois-American has already
made six of these
required ten payments. GRLT will use the remaining payments to continue implementation of
the Project, to monitor sediment reduction, and to take other actions necessary to obtain
additional soil savings. The Project is anticipated to save 12,000 to 15,000 tons of soil each year
by the expiration of the Agreeinent.
See
Affidavit of Alley Ringhausen at 75. Although
additional funding by Illinois-American will be necessary after the expiration of the ten-year
agreement between Illinois-American and GRLT to maintain these savings and Illinois-
American will provide such necessary funding, the Project is expected to reach a point at which
it will be sustainable without future funding from outside sources.
See
Affidavit of Alley
Ringhausen at
@f6.
Illinois-American and GRLT are currently engaged in discussions regarding a
potential contract for maintenance.
6.
Quantitative and Qualitative Impact on the Environment
8 1.
Section
104.406(g) of the Procedural Rules provides that the petition must contain
the quantitative and qualitative description of the impact of the petitioner's activity on the
environment if the petitioner were to
comply with the regulation of general applicability as
compared to the quantitative and qualitative
impact on the environment if the petitioner were to
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
comply with only the proposed adjusted standard. To the extent applicable, cross-media impacts
must be discussed. Also, the petitioner must compare the qualitative and quantitative nature of
einissions, discharges or releases that would be expected
from coinpliance with the regulation of
general applicability as opposed to that which would be expected from coinpliance with the
proposed adjusted standard.
82.
Illinois-American examined the potential impact
froin its discharges from the
Alton facility and concluded that the Alton facility's discharges pose no significant
iinpact to the
receiving body of water. SSIS at 5-1 1. Specifically, Illinois-American's analysis indicated that
the discharge of untreated effluent
from the Alton facility would not result in either measurable
sedimentation or observable TSS, and reached similar conclusions regarding aluminum and iron
in the discharge effluent.
See id.
This analysis is discussed in significant detail in the Site
Specific Iinpact Study.
See id.
at 5-1 1 to 5-25.
83.
As noted above, the environmental characteristics and conditions of the
Mississippi River near the Alton facility have not changed significantly since the Site Specific
Iinpact Study was prepared in March 1999.
See
Affidavit of Alley Ringhausen at lql2-13;
Affidavit of Howard
0.
Andrews, Jr. (attached to this Petition as Attachment E) at 772,4-5. In
addition, the facility was constructed as proposed in the March 1999 Petition and the Site
Specific Iinpact Study, and the capacity and output of the facility are consistent with the
estimates contained therein.
See
Affidavit of Paul Keck at 773, 6-8, 14. The evaluation set
forth in the Site Specific Iinpact Study of the
iinpact of the Alton facility is therefore reliable
today.
See
SSIS at 5-1 1 to 5-25; Affidavit of Paul Keck at 72/23.
84.
The flow amount and TSS concentration of the discharge effluent are sensitive to
intake TSS amounts. SSIS at 5-3. The Study therefore evaluated potential increases based on
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
TSS concentrations in the influent as low as 20 indl and as high as 600 ingll. SSIS at 5-27.
Under low flow conditions (the worst case scenario), the Study estimated that a river surface area
of approximately 175 feet by 30 feet (or 0.12 acres) would be subject to concentrations of 1.0 to
2.5
mgll higher than ambient levels following a discharge of untreated effluent fioin the Alton
facility.
Id.
This change in TSS concentration is 5% to 13% higher than ambient levels. SSIS at
5-4. The Study concluded that the lower end of the range represents a value that will be difficult
to visually discern and very difficult to
measure with conventional instrumentation.
Id.
After the
edge of this mixing zone, however, the increinental increases in TSS concentration were 0.1
mgil
to 0.3 mgll, or 0.43% to 0.06% higher than ainbient levels. SSIS at 5-27.
85.
The Site Specific Iinpact Study also concluded that the
amount of coagulant
added will not lead to an exceedance of the ainbient water quality standards for either aluminum
or iron, even under low flow conditions.
See
SSIS at 5-4. Under low flow conditions, the
increinental increase in aluminum concentration is 0.003
mgil, or a 10.2% increase over ambient
conditions. SSIS at 5-28. However, under average flow conditions, the increase in
aluminum
concentration is estimated to be much lower; the increinental increase is 0.001 ingil, or a 0.5%
increase over ainbient conditions.
Id.
The Study also estimated that there would be no
measurable increase in
mean dissolved iron concentration.
See
SSIS at 5-29. The concentrations
of total iron, however, are slightly higher.
See
Section II.D.6.
86.
In addition, the Study identified the potential for unnatural bottom deposits, odors,
and unnatural floating inaterial or color. The Study indicates that the River currents will not
allow a significant build-up of effluent solids on the river bottom.
See
SSIS at 5-1 1. In addition,
the potential water quality effects or
bottom deposit impacts are either confined to a small
surface area or are negligible in accuinulation, and are not anticipated to result in visible oils or
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
odors. SSIS at 5-22. Since the discharge does not elevate nutrients in the receiving water, no
additional plant or algal growth is expected. Due to the naturally occurring character of the
majority of the effluent material
(i.e., river silts), no unusual discoloration will result from the
discharge.
Id.
87.
The Study also detennined that the turbidity in the area of the discharge may
increase in intensity. However, the discharge plume is not expect to reach the surface until some
distance downstream (900 to
1000
ft),
at which time the surface concentrations range from 25 to
50
mgil TSS above ambient but quickly decrease to 40 mgil. The Study concluded that it is
extremely doubtful that these areas of increased turbidity will be discernible.
Id.
Natural flow,
local navigational traffic, or activities in the barge tugboat docking area are anticipated to
produce
similar variations in turbidity level, and increinental increases in this area generally
cannot be detected due to the opaqueness of the Mississippi River. SSIS at 5-23.
88.
Finally, the Study also concluded that discharges of untreated effluent
froin the
Alton facility would have no
impact on the stream inorphology or water chemistry, due to the
considerable channel size, the potential for high
volume and high velocity flows, the negligible
quantity of discharge inaterial relative to natural sediinent loads, and the existing influence of
periodic disturbance due to operation and maintenance of the nearby navigational channel.
Id.
89.
If Illinois-American were to
coinply with the standards of general applicability,
the increinental increases in TSS, aluininuin, and total iron concentrations discussed above
would be slightly lower. However, the discharges of untreated effluent from the Alton facility
together with the completion of the Piasa Creek Watershed Project will decrease the overall
sediinent loading of the River, which will have a net positive effect on the TSS and iron
concentrations in the River system.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
90.
As this Board has already
determined, the Project "will eventually keep much
inore TSS out of the Mississippi than the [Alton] facility's discharge puts in."
See
Opinion
&
Order of the Board dated Sept. 7,2000 at 19. As this Board has also observed, Ms. Annie
Hoagland, Chair of the Alton Lake Heritage Parkway Commission, has stated in support of this
Project that "the potential to
permanently reduce sediment is tremendous, while at the discharge
site, they [Illinois-American] are
merely putting back what they took out of the river."
Id.
at 14.
At this
time, only six years into the Project, the Project has already reached its ten-year goal of
achieving a 2 to
1 offset if the TSS loading estimate from 1999 (3,300 tons) is utilized. If the
TSS loading estimate is calculated using actual operating conditions
froin the facility each year
(1,545
tonslyear), the offset has already reached 4.3 to 1
.
91.
In addition, Illinois-American coininissioned Black
&
Veatch Corporation to
conduct a study to
deternine the extent to which the total iron loading in the River is reduced by
the sedimentation reduction projects impleinented as part of the Piasa Creek Watershed Project.
In conducting this study, Black
&
Veatch considered several factors, including the different soil
types present in the Piasa Creek Watershed, the concentrations of total iron present in each soil
type, and the type of sedimentation project impleinented.
See
Evaluation of Residuals at 2. Based
on an evaluation of the NPDES sainpling data, Black
&
Veatch concludes in this study that the
Alton facility's effluent contains, on average, approximately 2 1 tons of total iron each year.'
'
See
id. at 4. However, based on an evaluation of the additional sainpling conducted by Black
&
Veatch, Black
&
Veatch concluded that the Alton facility's effluent contains approxiinately 9
tons of total iron each year.
Id.
"
As noted above, Illinois-American does not measure the amount of iron in the facility's influent, so an estimate for the a~nount
of iron predicted to be discharged from the facility is not available.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
92.
Black
&
Veatch also concluded that the sedimentation reduction projects
iinpleinented as part of the Piasa Creek Watershed Project have achieved a savings of
approximately 79 tons of total iron each year as of June 2006.
Id.
at 4. Even using the NPDES
sampling data, which provides the highest values for the amount of iron in the effluent, there is
an offset ratio of 3.8 to
1.
Id.
at 5. That is, the Piasa Creek Watershed Project, prevents nearly
four tons of total iron
froin entering the River for every one ton of total iron that Illinois-
American's Alton facility discharges into the River. However, considering Black
&
Veatch's
sampling data, the
sediment reduction projects iinpleinented as part of the Project have achieved
a net yearly decrease of 70 tons of iron each year, which represents an offset ratio of
8.8 to 1.
Id.
93.
Due to operational optiinization within the facility, however, considering data
reported for February 2001 through
December 2005 may not accurately represent the average
amount of iron contained in the facility's discharge. While blowdown in the Superpulsator now
occurs twice per hour
(i.e., at intervals of 30 minutes), the intervals between blowdowns in 2001
and in the early part of 2002 were
much less regular.
See
Affidavit of Paul Keck at
f
10. At times,
the interval between blowdowns was as long as 5.5 hours.
Id.
Longer intervals between
blowdowns allows solids to build up in the
blowdown troughs, so the amounts of TSS (and thus
iron) in samples collected from Superpulsator blowdowns after such longer intervals will
generally be elevated.
Id.
at 112. If iron loading from the plant for only years 2002 through 2005
is considered (12.5
tonslyear), the offset is 6.3 to 1.
See
Evaluation of Residuals at 5.
94.
The incremental increases and other slight
impacts of the facility's discharge
pursuant to the extension of Adjusted Standard 99-6 requested herein are thus justified in light of
the success of the Project. Justification for this adjusted standard is discussed in greater detail in
Section
II.H, below.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
H.
Justification for the Proposed Adjusted Standard
95.
Section 104.406(h) of the Procedural Rules provides that the petition must contain
a statement which explains how the petitioner seeks to justify, pursuant to the applicable level of
justification, the proposed adjusted standard. As noted in Section
II.C, above, Section 28.1 of the
Act establishes the level of justification required by Illinois-American. Each element of this level
of justification, along with an explanation of how Illinois-American seeks to justify each
element, is discussed below.
1.
Substantially and Significantly Different Factors
96.
The first element of the level of justification set forth in Section 28.1 requires
Illinois-American to establish that factors relating to Illinois-American are substantially and
significantly different
froin the factors relied upon by the Board in adopting the general
regulation applicable to that petitioner. 4 1 5
Ill. Coinp. Stat. 28.1 (c)(l).
97.
The factors relied on by the Board in adopting the effluent standards for TSS in
1972 were increased turbidity and "harmful bottom
deposits."
See
Effluent Criteria, Water
Quality Standards, Water Quality Standards Revisions for Intrastate Waters (SWB
14) (Jan. 6,
1972), R70-8, R7 1
-
14, R7 1-20, at 1 9. The factors relied on by the Board in adopting the effluent
standards for iron were the nuisances that excessive iron can cause for domestic uses, and
undesirable bottom deposits.
Id.
at 16. The factors relied on by the Board in adopting the effluent
standard for offensive conditions were that primary treatment of effluent should be universal, and
that nuisances should be unacceptable.
Id.
at 5. Finally, the factors relied on by the Board in
adopting its general water quality standards were protection against health hazards, protection of
aquatic life in streams that support it, and protection of potability in potable streains.
Id.
at 4.
98.
This Board has previously detennined that
"[tlhe factors relating to [Illinois-
American] are substantially and significantly different than the factors which the Board relied
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
upon in adopting the regulations at issue herein."
See
Opinion
&
Order of the Board dated Sept.
7, 2000 at 20. Specifically, the offsets attainable (and attained) by the Piasa Creek Watershed
Project are a substantially different factor than those that the Board considered in adopting the
standards of general applicability. The general assumption underlying each of those standards
was that the reduction of TSS and iron in effluent would be achieved by a technology applied to
the effluent itself. In the present case, however, reductions in suspended solids and total iron in
the Mississippi River are achieved through alternative, non-technology based methods applied
outside the Alton facility. The amount of these reductions, therefore, is not
limited by the
effectiveness of the technology that would otherwise be used to reduce the sediment loading and
total iron in Illinois-American's discharge.
2.
Justification on the Basis of Substantially and Significantly Different
Factors
99.
The second element of the level of justification requires Illinois-American to
establish that the existence of those substantially and significantly different factors justifies an
adjusted standard. 415
Ill. Coinp. Stat. 5/28.1(~)(2).
100. The offsets achievable through the coinpletion of the Piasa Creek Watershed
Project, a substantially and significantly different factor, justify the extension to the adjusted
standard as requested herein.
In granting Adjusted Standard 99-6, this Board concluded that
Illinois-American had "properly justified its petition for an adjusted standard." Opinion
&
Order
of the Board dated Sept. 7,2000 at 20. As noted above, the environmental characteristics and
conditions of the Mississippi River near the Alton facility have not changed significantly since
the Site Specific Impact Study was prepared in March 1999.
See
Affidavit of Alley Ringhausen
at
7712-13; Affidavit of Howard 0. Andrews, Jr. at 712,4-5. The Board's previous decision
that an adjusted standard for discharges
froin the Alton facility was justified is therefore reliable
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
in this proceeding. This Petition therefore discusses this justification only briefly, and refers this
Board to the Site Specific
Impact Study for a detailed discussion of this justification.
See
SSIS at
6-9
to 6-20.
101. Justification for the extension of the adjusted standard turns on the absence of site
specific
environmental and health impacts of the Alton facility. Although the offsets achievable
by the Piasa Creek Watershed Project are a substantially and significantly different factor, the
Project will not have environmental and health impacts substantially and significantly different
from those considered by the Board in adopting the standards of general applicability.
102. As noted above, the factors relied on by the Board in adopting the effluent
standards for TSS were increased turbidity and
"hannhl bottom deposits."
See
797. However,
the Site Specific Impact Study detennined that discharge from the Alton facility pursuant to the
adjusted standard would not significantly increase turbidity or
hannhl bottom deposits in the
Mississippi,
see
SSIS at 5-1 1, and this Board has determined that any increase in turbidity and
bottom deposits will be "so slight that they will be difficult to
measure" and that "[sluch bottom
deposits could hardly be described as
'hannful."' Opinion
&
Order of the Board dated Sept. 7,
2000 at 18. In addition, the factors relied on by the Board in adopting the effluent standards for
iron include the nuisances that excessive iron can cause for domestic uses, and undesirable
bottom deposits,
see
797, and this Board has previously detennined that the Alton facility's
effluent will not contribute to the concerns that the Board expressed in adopting the total effluent
standards for total iron. Order of the Board dated Oct. 19, 2000 at
3. Next, the factors relied on
by the Board in adopting the effluent standard for offensive conditions were that primary
treatment of effluent should be universal, and that nuisances should be unacceptable,
see
797,
and the Site Specific Impact Study determined that no visible oils or odor are expected, no
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
additional plant or algal growth is expected to result, and no unusual discoloration would result
from the discharge.
See
SSIS at 5-22. Finally, the factors relied on by the Board in adopting its
general water quality standards were protection against health hazards, protection of aquatic life
in streams that support it, and protection of potability in potable streams.
See
'797. This Board has
determined that the untreated discharge from the facility, including the iron in the effluent, will
not
ham huinan health and will protect aquatic life immediately downstream of the
discharge, Order of the Board dated Oct. 19,2000 at 3, and that potability of the water in the area
of the facility's discharge should not be affected.
Id.
at 1 7.
103. To
fully evaluate the site specific impacts of the Alton facility, however, it is
necessary to
deternine the Best Degree of Treatinent (BDT), as guided by the factors identified
in 35
Ill. Adin. Code Section 304.102. That Section provides that "it shall be the obligation of
any person discharging contaminants of any kind to the waters of the state to provide the best
degree of treatment of wastewater consistent with technological feasibility, economic
reasonableness and sound engineering judgment," and that a determination of BDT must
consider
"[wlhat degree of waste reduction can be achieved by process change, improved
housekeeping and recovery of individual waste components for reuse," and "[wlhether individual
process wastewater streams should be segregated or combined." 35
111. Adin. Code
5
304.102(a).
Illinois-American's BDT analysis is discussed in greater detail in the Site Specific Impact Study.
See
SSIS at 6-1 to 6-1 4.
104. Significantly, the Site Specific Iinpact Study concluded that "no treatment" of
TSS in the Alton
facility's discharge is the Best Degree of Treatinent for discharges from the
facility.
See
SSIS at
6-
14. The offsets achievable through the Piasa Creek Watershed Project
therefore justified Adjusted Standard 99-6, and justify the extension of that standard at this time.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
Six years into the Project, the results once thought "achievable" have already been achieved.
Using the conservative estimate of tons of TSS expected to be discharged
froin the facility each
year, the offset is 4.3 to 1. A
similar (though unanticipated) offset has been attained for total iron.
If the Board extends the Adjusted Standard, Illinois-American will continue to contribute to the
PCWP for its full ten year tenn, and even greater TSS and iron reductions will be achieved.
3.
No Environmental or Health Effects Substantially and Significantly
More
Adverse than under the Rule of General Applicab~Q.
105.
The third
element of the level of justification requires Illinois-American to
establish that the requested standard will not result in
environmental or health effects
substantially and significantly
inore adverse than the effects considered by the Board in adopting
the
rule of general applicability. 41 5 Ill. Coinp. Stat. 5128.1 (c)(3).
106.
Illinois-American evaluated the potential environmental and health effects to the
biota and habitats in the Mississippi River that could result from potential increases in
TSS,
dissolved iron, and dissolved aluininuin in the Mississippi River due to daily discharges from the
Alton facility. This evaluation is detailed in the Site Specific Iinpact Study.
See
SSIS at 5-12 to
5-25. As noted above, the environmental characteristics and conditions of the Mississippi River
near the Alton facility have not changed significantly since the Site Specific Impact Study was
prepared in March 1999.
See
Affidavit of Alley Ringhausen at fl12-13; Affidavit of Howard
0.
Andrews, Jr. at @f@f2,4-5. The findings and conclusions set forth in the Site Specific Impact
Study therefore reinain reliable in this proceeding. This Petition therefore discusses the
environmental and health effects of the adjusted standard only briefly, and refers this Board to
the Site Specific Iinpact Study for a detailed discussion of this issue.
See
SSIS at 5-12 to 5-25.
107.
The aquatic receptors of concern were the fish and macroinvertebrate
cominunities near the proposed discharge. SSIS at 5- 12. The Site Specific Impact Study
-
43
-
STLDO
1 -
1265007-5
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
identified the major habitats present near the Alton facility's discharge, as well as the fish and
macroinvertebrate cominunities present in each habitat.
See
SSIS at 5- 12 to 5- 14. Both the
physical (non-toxic) impacts
from TS S and the potential iinpacts from coagulant-associated
inetallinetalloid addition to the Mississippi River in water treatment plant residuals were
considered to evaluate the potential
environmental iinpacts of the discharge effluent on this biota.
For physical (non-toxic) impacts, the Study concluded that an increase of TSS would cause a
small but finite iinpact to riverine biota, which
"may lead to avoidance behavior by some aquatic
species but should not lead to any significant impact to fish or aquatic cominunities in the River
near Mile
204."
See
SSIS at 5-16. In addition, the Study concluded that the minor rates of
deposition of silty inaterial on the river
bottoin "are unlikely to bury sessile organisms found
there," as a bottoin habitat characterization conducted in 1997 revealed that no observable silt
accumulation has occurred due to discharges
froin the fonner facility, which was located at the
site of the Alton facility and operated at
full capacity until December 3 1,2000 (and at a reduced
capacity until February
12,2001), despite 100 years of operation at that site.
See
SSIS at 5-1 7.
For toxic impacts, the Study concluded that site-specific (i.e., non-salmonid) species like those
near River Mile 204 are more tolerant and
aluminum toxicity is thus unlikely.
See
SSIS at 5-20
to 5-21. In addition, the Study concluded that due to the high levels of natural
cornplexation of
aluininuin and iron, discharges of untreated effluent
froin the Alton facility have no significant
potential
iinpact to the river environment and its biota.
See
SSIS at 5-21. As noted above, the
environmental characteristics and conditions of the Mississippi River near the Alton facility have
not changed significantly since the Site Specific Impact Study was prepared in March 1999.
See
Affidavit of Alley Ringhausen at 771 2-1 3
;
Affidavit of Howard
0.
Andrews, Jr. at 112,4-5.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
The findings and conclusions set forth in the Site Specific Iinpact Study therefore reinain reliable
in this proceeding.
108.
Finally, the Study concluded that there are no state-listed threatened or
endangered species present in the Mississippi River near the Alton facility,
id., and Illinois-
American
determined "to the Board's satisfaction9' that there is no mussel coimnunity in the
Mississippi iimnediately downstreain of the Alton
facility's discharge pipe.
See
Order of the
Board dated Oct. 19,2000 at 3.
109.
This Board therefore
detennined in the previous adjusted standard proceeding that
"the untreated discharge
from the new facility, provided it occurs in the context of the GRLT
Project, will not
hann huinan health and will protect aquatic life iinmediately downstreain of the
discharge." Opinion
&
Order of the Board dated Sept. 7,2000 at 19. Because the findings and
conclusions set forth in the Site Specific Iinpact Study reinain reliable in this proceeding, the
Board's previous determination regarding the effluent's lack of effect on human health and on the
environment is similarly reliable regarding this issue.
4.
Consistency with Applicable Federal Law.
1 10.
The final element of the level of justification requires Illinois-American to
establish that the adjusted standard is consistent with any applicable federal law. 415
Ill. Comp.
Stat. 5128.1
(c)(4). This element is discussed in depth in Section 11.1, below.
I.
Reasons that the Board may Grant the Proposed Adjusted Standard
Consistent
with Federal Law
1 1 1.
Section
104.406(i) of the Procedural Rules provides that the petition must contain
a statement with supporting reasons that the Board may grant the proposed adjusted standard
consistent with federal law. The petitioner must also
inform the Board of all procedural
STLDO 1
-
1265007-5
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
requirements applicable to the Board's decision on the petition that are imposed by federal law
and not required by this Subpart. Relevant regulatory and statutory authorities must be cited.
31.
Consistency with Federal Law
112. Under federal law, a permit authorizing the discharge of a pollutant may be issued
upon the condition that the discharge will meet all applicable
requirements set forth in the Clean
Water Act, including the technology-based effluent limitations provided in Section 13 1 1 of that
Act and the water quality-based effluent limitations provided in Section 13 12 of that Act.
See
33
U.S.C.
5 1342(a); 33 U.S.C. 5fj1311, 1312. In cases where there are no federally-promulgated
categorical effluent limitations, as here, case-by-case effluent limitations must be developed
reflecting Best Professional Judgment (BPJ).
See
33 U.S.C. 5 1342(a)(1); SSIS at 1-8.
1 13. Federal regulations implementing the Clean Water Act establish that such
case-
by-case liinitations reflecting BPJ should be developed after consideration of the statutory factors
listed in 40 C.F.R. Section
125.3(d); consideration of the appropriate technology for the category
or class of point sources of which the applicant is a
member; and consideration of any unique
factors relating to the applicant. 40 C.F.R.
5 125.3(~)(2).
1 14. The first consideration in the required BPJ determination, the statutory factors
listed at 40 C.F.R. Section
125.3(d), requires two separate analyses. First, it is necessary to
detennine the Best Practicable Control Technology (BPT) as guided by the factors identified in
40 C.F.R. Section
125.3(d)(l). BPT is a ininiinuin standard, however, so it is also necessary to
detennine the Best Conventional Pollution Control Technology (BCT) as guided by the factors
identified in 40 C.F.R. Section
125.3(d)(2), and to consider whether the effluent limitation
developed with such technology should be
inore stringent than BPT requirements.
11 5.
The factors identified in 40 C.F.R. Section
125.3(d)(l) for consideration in the
BPT determination for the facility include:
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
(i) the total cost of application of technology in relation to the effluent reduction
benefits to be achieved
froin such reduction;
(ii) the age of equipment and facilities involved;
(iii) the process employed;
(iv) the engineering aspects of the application of various types of control techniques;
(v) process changes; and
(vi) non-water quality
environmental impact (including energy requirements).
40 C.F.R.
ยง125.3(d)(l). Next, 40 C.F.R. Section 125.3(d)(2) lists the factors that must be
considered to deternine Best Conventional Treatment. With the exception of a
cost-
reasonableness factor requiring consideration of "[tlhe reasonableness of the relationship
between the costs of attaining a reduction in the effluent and the effluent reduction benefits
derived," the factors listed in 40 C.F.R. Section
125.3(d)(2) are substantially similar to those set
forth in 40 C.F.R. Section
125.3(d)(l).
11 6.
Illinois-American detennined through BPJ that the BPT for the Alton facility is
"no treatment" of the discharge. SSIS at 6-17. In addition, Illinois-American also detennined that
application of BCT technology was not cost-reasonable, and adoption of the BCT effluent
limitations in lieu of the previously developed BPT effluent limitation thus was not warranted.
SSIS at 6-20. Illinois-American's BPJ analysis is discussed in greater detail in the Site Specific
Impact Study.
See
SSIS at 6-1 5 to 6-20.
11 7. The second consideration in the required BPJ
determination, the appropriate
technologies for the category or class of point sources, requires consideration in this case of the
various technologies for treating residuals
from drinking water production facilities. These
various inethods, along with the reasons that such
inethods were rejected from fbrther
consideration, are discussed at Section II.E, above.
11 8.
Finally, the third consideration (any unique factors relating to the applicant)
requires consideration on these facts of the effects of the Piasa Creek Watershed Project.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
Justification for the adjusted standard on the basis of the coinpletion of the Piasa Creek
Watershed Project, a substantially and significantly different factor than those relied upon by the
Board in adopting the regulation of general applicability, is discussed at Section II.H.2, above.
1 19.
In the previous proceeding on this adjusted standard, this Board
determined that
"the requested adjusted standard is consistent with existing federal law." Opinion
&
Order with
the Board dated Sept.
7, 2000 at 20. As noted above, the environmental characteristics and
conditions of the Mississippi River near the Alton facility have not changed significantly since
the Site Specific Impact Study was prepared in March 1999.
See
Affidavit of Alley Ringhausen
at
771 2-1 3
;
Affidavit of Howard 0. Andrews, Jr. at 'fiT2,4-5. In addition, the federal laws
applicable to this adjusted standard have not changed since 1999 such that the Board's decision
would no longer be relevant to the proceeding at hand. Granting an extension to Adjusted
Standard 99-6 as requested herein is thus consistent with federal law.
2.
Procedural Reqllairements Imposed by Federal
Law
120.
Federal law does not
impose any additional procedural requirements that must be
satisfied in this proceeding.
J.
Waiver of Hearing on the Petition
12 1.
Section
104.406Q) of the Procedural Rules provides that the petition must contain
a statement requesting or waiving a hearing on the petition.
122. Illinois-American hereby waives a hearing on its Petition. Although Section
104.422(a)(4) of the Board's Procedural Rules provides that a public hearing will be held and the
Board will assign a hearing officer to an adjusted standard proceeding when the adjusted
standard is sought pursuant to 35
Ill. Adin. Code 212.126 of the Clean Air Act, the Board's
Rules do not similarly require a hearing for the adjusted standard sought here. The facts relevant
STLDO 1-1265007-5
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
to this Petition involve the progress and success of the Piasa Creek Watershed Project, which
Petitioner believes to be undisputed.
l2
K.
Supporting Documents or Legal Authorities
123.
Section
104.406(k) of the Procedural Rules provides that the petition must cite to
supporting docuinents or legal authorities whenever they are used as a basis for the petitioner's
proof. Relevant portions of the docuinents and legal authorities other than Board decisions, State
regulations, statutes, and reported cases must be appended to the petition.
124.
Illinois-American has appended the following documents to this Petition in
compliance with Section 1
04.406(k):
Attachment A: Affidavit of Alley Ringhausen, Executive Director of Great
Rivers Land Trust;
Attachment B: Great Rivers Land Trust, Piasa Creek Watershed Project
Report (October 2006);
e
Attachment C: Black
&
Veatch Corporation, Evaluation of Residuals
Discharged
froin Illinois-American Water Company's Alton Water
Treatment Plant (October 2006);
Attachment
D: Affidavit of Paul Keck, the water quality supervisor at
Illinois-American Water
Company9 s Alton facility;
Attachment E: Affidavit of Howard
0. Andrews, Jr., an engineer at Black
&
Veatch Corporation; and
Attachment
F: Proposed Order of the Board.
To avoid duplication of the documents produced in the previous preceding before this Board
regarding Adjusted Standard 99-6, many of the docuinents relied upon in that previous
proceeding have not been appended to this Petition.
"
Petitioner notes that GRLT has provided quarterly progress reports on the PCWP to the Agency and the Agency has steadfastly
overseen the Project, all as noted by the Board.
See
Opinion
&
Order of the Board dated September 7, 2000 at 15, 16.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
L.
Additional Information which may be Required by the Regulation of
General Applicability
125.
Section
104.406(1) of the Procedural Rules provides that the petition must contain
any additional
information which may be required in the regulation of general applicability.
126.
Sections 304.124, 304.106, and 302.203 of the Board's Water Pollution Control
Regulations do not require a petition for an adjusted standard to contain any information in
addition to that contained herein.
1
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, for all the reasons stated above, Illinois-American Water Company
respectfully requests that the Board grant the adjusted standard specified herein for
Illinois-
American's public water supply treatment facility in Alton, Madison County, Illinois in
accordance with the Proposed Order of the Board attached hereto.
Respectfully submitted,
ILLINOIS-AMEMCAN WATER COMPMY
By:
J
Alison M. Nelson, #206 1 82
Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin LLP
'720 Olive St., 24th Floor
St. Louis,
MO 63 101
Telephone: (3 14) 345-6000
Facsimile:
(3 14) 345-6060
Attorneys for Petitioner
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE
MATTER OF:
)
PROPOSED EXTENSION OF ADJUSTED STANDARD
)
AS 06-
APPLICABLE TO ILLINOIS-AMERICAN
(Adjusted Standard)
WATER COMPANY'S ALTON PUBLIC WATER
)
SUPPLY FACILITY DISCHARGE
TO THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER
)
MOTION TO INCOWOUTE
BY
mFERENCE THE PETITION FOR ADmSTED
STMDAD FILED
IN
DOCmT NUMBER AS 99-6, AJVD THE SITE SPECIFIC
IMPACT STUDY ACCEPTED INTO EVIDENCE
IN
DgBlCrtgET NUMBER AS 99-6,
INTO PETITIONER9S PETITION IFOR EXTENSION OF ADmSTED STMDAm
PURSUANT TO
35
ILL. ADM. CODE 101.306(a)
Petitioner, Illinois-American Water Company ("Illinois-American"), by its attorneys
Bradley S. Hiles and Alison M. Nelson, requests approval to incorporate by reference into the
attached Petition for Extension of Adjusted Standard the PETITION FOR ADJUSTED
STANDARD filed by Illinois-American Water Company in Docket Number AS 99-6 (the
"March 1999 Petition"). Illinois-American also requests approval to incorporate by reference the
attached SITE-SPECIFIC ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS OF POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR
HANDLING PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY RESIDUALS AT PROPOSED ALTON, IL
FACILITY prepared by ENSR, an environmental consulting and engineering firm, dated March
1999 (the "Site Specific Impact Study"), which was accepted into evidence in Docket Number
AS 99-6.
In support of its motion,
Illinois-American states the following:
1. On March 19, 1999, Illinois-American filed the March 1999 Petition with the Board,
seeking an adjusted standard from the effluent standard for offensive discharges at 35
Ill. Adm. Code 304.106, the effluent standard for total suspended solids (TSS) at 35
Ill. Adm. Code 304.124, the effluent standard for total iron at 35 Ill. Adm. Code
304.124, and the general use water quality standard for offensive discharges at 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 302.203. The March 1999 Petition was assigned a docket number of AS
99-6.
2. On September 7,2000, the Board adopted Adjusted Standard 99-6, which provided
that the effluent standard for offensive discharges at 35
Ill. Adm. Code 304.106 and
the effluent standard for total suspended solids (TSS) at 35
Ill. Adin. Code 304.124
shall not apply to discharges from the Alton facility, and that the general use water
quality standard for offensive discharges at 35
Ill. Adin. Code 302.203 shall not apply
to a one mile stretch of the Mississippi River which receives effluent
froin the Alton
facility and is immediately downstream from the Alton facility's discharge. On
October 19,2000, the Board issued an order modifying AS 99-6 to provide that the
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
effluent standard for total iron at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.124 also shall not apply to
discharges
from the Alton facility.
3. 3 5
Ill. Adm. Code 10 1.3 06 allows the Board or hearing officer to incorporate
materials from the record of another proceeding provided that the material to be
incorporated is authentic, credible, and relevant to the proceeding. See 35
Ill. Adin.
Code 101.306(a).
4. Illinois-American's Petition for Extension of Adjusted Standard seeks an extension of
the adjusted standard granted by the Board in AS 99-6. The March 1999 Petition that
accompanies this filing was printed from the Board's
website. This makes the March
1999 Petition authentic and credible. Also, the Petition for Extension of Adjusted
Standard relies on
much of the same information set forth in the March 1999 Petition,
and the March 1999 Petition
inay therefore be useful to the Board to provide
suppleinental
infonnation regarding the issues discussed in the Petition for Extension.
This makes the March 1999 Petition relevant.
5. The Site Specific Iinpact Study provides
infonnation regarding the environmental
impact, technical feasibility, and econoinic reasonableness of the potential
alternatives to treat discharges from the Alton facility; to satisfy state and federal
requirements under various substantive and procedural statutes; and to address Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency concerns about the facility. The Site Specific
Iinpact Study was offered to and received in evidence by the Board in Docket
Number AS 99-6. The Board has therefore already
determined that the Site Specific
Iinpact Study is authentic and credible. Also, the Petition for Extension of Adjusted
Standard cites to the Site Specific Iinpact Study as the source for
much of the
information set forth in the Petition, and refers the Board to the Site Specific Iinpact
Study for a detailed discussion of the justification for extension of Adjusted Standard
99-6. In addition, several affidavits submitted along with the Petition for Extension
of Adjusted Standard also establish that the environmental conditions of the
Mississippi River near the Alton facility have not changed significantly since the Site
Specific Impact Study was prepared in March 1999.
See
Affidavit of Alley
Ringhausen (attached to the Petition for Extension of Adjusted Standard as
Attachment A), at
771 1-1 2; Affidavit of Howard
0.
Andrews, Jr. (attached to the
Petition for Extension of Adjusted Standard as Attachment E), at
'774-5. This inakes
the Site Specific Impact Study relevant.
6. The granting of this motion will not modify the Petition for Extension of Adjusted
Standard or prejudice any party.
[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
WHEREFORE, Illinois-American respectfully requests that the Board grant this motion and
incorporate by reference the PETITION FOR ADJUSTED STANDARD filed by
Illinois-
American Water Company in Docket Number AS 99-6 (the "March 1 999 Petition") and the
SITE-SPECIFIC ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS OF POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR
HANDLING PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY RESIDUALS AT PROPOSED ALTON, IL
FACILITY prepared by ENSR, an
environlnental consulting and engineering firm, dated March
1999 (the "Site Specific Iinpact Study") into Petitioner's Petition for Adjusted Standard pursuant
to 35
Ill. Adm. Code 101.306(a).
Respectfully submitted,
ILLINOIS-AMENCm WATER COMPmY
By:
iles, #03 128879
By:
~lisol
M. Nelson, #206 182
Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin
LLP
720 Olive St., 24th Floor
St. Louis,
MO 63101
Telephone: (3 14) 345-6000
Facsimile: (3 14) 345-6060
Attorneys for Petitioner
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
PROPOSED EXTENSION OF ADJUSTED STANDARD
)
AS 06-
APPLICABLE TO ILLINOIS-AMERICAN
)
(Adjusted Standard)
WATER COMPANY'S ALTON PUBLIC WATER
)
SUPPLY FACILITY DISCHARGE
)
TO THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on October 3 1,2006, the attached PETITION FOR EXTENSION OF
ADJUSTED STANDARD and the attached MOTION TO INCOWORATE BY REFERENCE
THE PETITION FOR ADJUSTED STANDARD FILED
W DOCKET NUMBER AS 99-6,
AND THE SITE SPECIFIC IMPACT STUDY ACCEPTED INTO EVIDENCE IN DOCICET
NUMBER AS 99-6, INTO PETITIONER'S PETITION FOR ADJUSTED STANDARD
PURSUANT TO 3 5 ILL. ADM. CODE 10 1.3
06(a) were filed by electronic transinission with
the Office of the Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, and were served by first class
mail, postage prepaid, upon the following person:
Division of Legal Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
102 1
North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
Respectfully submitted,
ILLINOIS-AMENCAN WATER COMPmY
\
By:
Alison M. Nelson,
#206 1 82
Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin LLP
720 Olive St., 24th Floor
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone:
(3 14) 345-6000
Facsimile: (3 14) 345-6060
Attorneys for Petitioner
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 31, 2006
* * * * * AS 2007-002 * * * * *