U
U
U
U
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
September 25, 1986
U
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
U
PETITION FOR SITE SPECIFIC
)
R85—11
EXCEPTION TO EFFLUENT STANDARDS
)
FOR THE ILLINOIS-AMERICAN
)
WATER COMPANY, EAST ST. LOUIS
)
TREATMENT PLANT.
)
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by R.
C. Fiemal):
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This matter comes before the Board upon a petition for site—
specific rulemaking filed on April 23,
1985, by Illinois—American
Water Company (“Company”),
a subsidiary of American Water Works
Company.
The Company requests that
its East St. Louis water
U
treatment plant be exempted from the effluent limitations
relating
to total suspended solids
(“TSS”)
and total iron
U
contained at
35
Iii. Adm. Code 304.124.
The limitations
found at
304.124 for these parameters are 15 mg/l and 2 mg/i,
respectively.
U
Hearing was held in this matter on September
10,
1985, at
the Sauget City Hall.
Statements supporting the Company’s
U
petition were given at hearing by Senator Kenneth Hall
(D—57th);
Clyde Jordan,
a Supervisor of East St.
Louis Township,
Commissioner
of the East Side Health District, President of the
East St. Louis School District 189 Board of Education, and
businessman;
and Jerry F.
Costello, Chairman of the St. Clair
County Board.
The Board has also received 69 public comments
supportive of the petition.
U
On February 14, 1986, the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
(“Agency”) filed its comments regarding this matter.
The
Agency recommends that the site specific relief requested by the
Company be denied.
The Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources
issued a “Negative Declaration” of economic impact in this
proceeding on March
4,
1986.
The Economic Technical Advisory
Committee concurred in that determination on March
7,
1986.
U
For the reasons discussed below,
the Board declines to grant
U
the regulatory change requested by the Company.
The Company’s
petition will therefore be denied.
U
U
U
U
72-429
U
U
—2—
BACKGROUND
The discharges at issue
in this proceeding emanate from a
facility known as the East St. Louis Treatment Plant
(“Plant”),
which
is owned and operated by the Company.
The Plant is located
on the Mississippi River
(“river”)
at mile 180.8, which
is across
from St. Louis,
Missouri
(“Evaluation of Wastes from the East St.
Louis Water Treatment Plant and Their Impact on the Mississippi
River”, Lin, et.
al., 1984,
at
7;
this document has been admitted
onto the record in this proceeding as Petitioner’s Exhibit 1,
and
will hereinafter be referred
to as “Pet.
Ex. 1”).
Raw water is withdrawn from the river.
The water is then
purified and distributed
to the homes and businesses of the
Company’s 14,000 customers in East St.
Louis and 50,000 customers
in surrounding areas
(R.
at 35).
The Plant has a capacity to
treat 56.6 million gallons per day
(“mgd”)
of raw water, and
during the period 1980—1984 treated an average of 43.7 mgd.
The Plant is served by two water intakes.
One intake
(the
“low service” intake)
is
in the river near the Plant, about 15
miles downstream of the river’s confluence with the Missouri
River.
The second intake
is located in the river
at Chouteau
Island (river mile 192.0), about 10 miles upstream of the plant
site and about five miles below the confluence of the Mississippi
and Missouri Rivers.
Water
from the Chouteau Island intake
is treated by Dorr—
Aldrich hydrotreators.
The hydrotreators are circular clarifiers
surrounded by
a sand filter and topped by
4 inches of anthracite
on top.
Overflow from the clarifier portion enters the sand
filter at the periphery.
Each clarifier is equipped with
mechanical equipment to remove accumulated sludge.
Water from the low service intake, as well as water blended
from the two intakes,
is
treated by
a conventional process.
The
first step of this process involves sending the water
to a mixing
tank where coagulants (usually alum,
sometimes ferric chloride)
and polymers
(Nalco 8793,
Nalco 8174, Magna floc 587C)
used as
supplemental coagulants or filter aids are added.
Settling
basins then remove the largest solids.
Solids accumulate at the bottom of the settling basins as
sludge.
Two of the four basins operated at the plant have
mechanical equipment to remove the sludge.
The other two basins
are cleaned twice a year by draining them down to the sludge
level and manually flushing the solids out with fire hoses
(R. at
117).
The resulting slurry is discharged by gravity drains to
the river.
The clarified water
is then processed by mixed media
filters.
Each filter has 18 inches of granular carbon on top of
12 inches of sand.
The filters are backwashed once or twice a
day,
and the backwash water
is discharged to the river by gravity
drains.
72-430
—3—
TYPES AND VOLUME OF WASTE
The equipment utilized at the plant produces two different
waste streams: backwash waste from the 20 conventional and seven
Dorr—Aldrich filters which is discharged daily, and semi—annual
discharges
of accumulated solids from the four settling basins
and seven Dorr—Aldrich clarifiers.
Due to the differences
between these waste streams, they will be discussed separately.
The
20 conventional filters used at the plant are each
backwashed an average of 1.7 times per day, while the seven Dorr—
Aldrich filters each receive 0.7 backwashes per day
(Pet.
Ex.
1
at 29).
During each backwash cycle,
a conventional filter
releases approximately 100 pounds of suspended solids, while
a
Door—Aldrich filter releases about 150 pounds
(Id.
at 32).
The
total amount of dry solids discharged daily from the filter
backwash operations is approximately 4,180 pounds
(Id. at 35).
The amount of dry solids that accumulate daily
in the
sedimentation basins and the clarifier portions of the Dorr—
Aldrich hydrotreators totals 55,970 pounds and 22,280 pounds,
respectively (Id.).
Therefore,
the daily dry solids residue in
the basins and clarifiers totals approximately 78,250 pounds
(Id.).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The Company commissioned the Illinois State Water Survey to
undertake a study of
the impact of the Company’s discharges to
the Mississippi River.
The study
(Pet.
Ex.
1) concluded,
inter
alia, that
Except during 7—day 10—year low flow conditions,
increases in suspended solids in the Mississippi
River during occurrences of maximum waste discharges
will not be perceptible.
(Pet.
Ex.
1 at 60).
The average flow past the Company’s facility
is estimated
to
be 177,000 cfs
(Id.
at 2), while the 7—day 10—year low flow of
the Mississippi
at St. Louis
is 45,970 cfs
(Id. at 39).
The
study also notes that although the composition of the bottom
sediments of the impacted area of the Mississippi are altered,
“there is no measurable blanket of sludge deposits” and the
changes are “not a mark of environmental degradation”
(Id. at
60).
The impacted area
is calculated to be 100 feet offshore and
4,000 feet downstream from the waste outfalls
(Id.
at 58).
Within that area the composition of the bottom sediments are 0.6
percent gravel, 64.9 percent sand,
and 34.5 percent silt
(Id.).
Natural Mississippi
River bottom sediments,
on the other hand,
consist of
8 percent gravel,
92 percent sand, and no silt or clay
(Id.).
72-431
—4—
The Agency, on the other hand, has expressed several
concerns regarding the impact of the Company’s discharges on the
Mississippi.
The Agency believes that the Company’s discharges
may violate certain other Board regulations,
in addition to those
for TSS and total iron.
In furtherance of this contention the
Agency submitted data compiled during March,
1974,
from samples
taken of,
inter alia, the filter wash and basin sludge
(Comments
of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, hereinafter
referred
to as “Agency Comments”;
the data are found in Agency
Exhibit
I,
attached to the Agency Comments).
These data show
excursions over the Board’s standards for mercury, manganese, and
five day biochemical oxygen demand
(BODç)
(in violation of 35
Ill. Adm. Code 304.126, 304.124, and
304.120, respectively).
These data also indi~atehigh levels of total coliform in the
Company’s discharges
.
The Company contends that the data are no
longer valid due to changed conditions
(R.
at 160).
The record also contains more recent sampling data on these
parameters.
In response to Agency questioning at hearing,
the
Company agreed to provide current data on the levels of certain
parameters in
its discharges.
Sampling conducted on the filter
backwash water
(from the conventional and Aldrich processes)
and
on the basin wash water during September and October, 1985,
showed no violations
of Board regulations for ROD5,
fecal
coliform, mercury, manganese,
or copper
(Memorandum in Support of
Proposed Site—Specific Rule and Exception, hereinafter referred
to as “Company Memorandum”, at 12).
However, sampling done of
basin sediments at the Company’s facility during that same period
yielded the following information (this information is found in
the Company Memorandum,
Ex.
4):
Sediment Analysis
(mg/i)
Basin Wash
Total Plant
Constituents
Discharge
Basin Sediments
Discharge
BOD
(5 day)
13.2
6.4
Fecal Coliform
(per 100 ml)
0
0
Mercury
0.0004
0.0002
0.00025
Manganese
2.24
72.90
0.44
Copper
0.10
1.20
0.04
1The effluent bacteriological parameter utilized by the Board is
fecal,
rather than total, coliform.
See 35
Iii. Adm. Code
304.121.
72-432
—5—
The Agency notes that these data “indicate the possibility
of effluent standard violations for mercury’, manganese,
and
copper”.
The Agency emphasized that the data drawn from this
basin sediment analysis should be of particular interest because
“they
are
derived from sampling during periodic flushing of the
basin and may be representative of long—term averages, whereas
the data from daily backwashing is derived from several days and
is more variable” (Agency Comments, at 3).
The Company points
out that
it has responded to this potential problem by installing
Lamella separators on the raw water intake line, at a capital
cost of $1.2 million (Illinois—American Water Company’s Response
to Agency Comments, hereinafter referred to as “Company
Response”,
at 4).
These separators are intended to remove sand
and other
solids from the raw water prior
to potable water
treatment, continuously returning these solids to the river
(Id.).
The Company believes the separators will reduce the
solids loading of the basins by at least 25
(Company Response,
at 5).
The Agency has highlighted several other concerns of an
environmental nature.
First,
it alleges that the operations of
the Company’s plant concentrates the detectable amounts of
mercury found
in the Mississippi, and that the mercury contained
in discharges of backwash water alone from the plant amounts to
over 1.5 pounds per year
(Agency Comments,
at 3).
Second,
it
believes the waste residual from the plant may contain hazardous
materials and trace organics
(Id.).
Finally, the Agency notes
that
With the exception of Alton Water Co.
(PCB R82—3),
the levels of suspended solids in Petitioner’s waste
are orders of magnitude higher than allowable
in
other permitted discharges in the state.
Backwash
maximum concentrations of TSS...range from 330
to
2,700 mg/l, with an overall average of 196 mg/l
(Pet.
Ex.
1,
pp.
28,40).
Basin wash water TSS
“release
concentration” was reported at 103,080 mg/l
(Pet.
Ex.
1,
p.
40).
(Id.
at 3—4).
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Information pertaining to the range of waste disposal
alternatives available
to the Company was introduced at
hearing.
Mr. Harry Herman,
a senior planning engineer with the
American Water Works Service Company, gave testimony on the six
alternatives he studied and considered for use at the Company’s
plant.
He listed the alternatives as:
2The Board notes that the data do not appear to indicate any
violation of 304.126,
the effluent standard for mercury.
72-433
—6—
1.
lagooning the waste at the plant site with
natural dewatering;
2.
mechanical dewatering at the plant
(using
centrifugal dewatering, filter—press dewatering,
or plate—and—frame dewatering);
3.
lagooning the waste at a remote site with natural
dewatering and supernatant return to the plant
(using barges or piping and pumping facilities
to
transport the waste
to the remote site);
4.
lagooning the waste at
a remote site with natural
dewatering but without supernatant return;
5.
mechanical dewatering of the waste
(using
centrifugal, filter—press,
or plate—and—frame
dewatering) at a remote site, with disposal of
the solids at the remote site and supernatant
return to the plant; and
6.
mechanical dewatering of the waste at a remote
site with disposal of the solids at the remote
site with no supernatant return.
R. at 61—2.
Upon review, alternatives
3 and
5 were eliminated from
further consideration because the cost of the facilities
necessary to return
the supernatant
to the plant from any remote
site would make that water more expensive than that treated at
the plant
CR. at 62).
Alternative
6, mechanical dewatering at a
remote location without supernatant return, was also dismissed as
a possibility for
the reason that the necessary facilities would
be difficult and expensive to maintain
(R. at 63).
Of the remaining alternatives
(1,
2,
and 4), mechanical
dewatering
(by certrifuge)
at the plant site was indicated by Mr.
Herman as the preferable alternative should the Company be
required to install
a treatment facility
CR.
at 67).
He
estimates this alternative would entail
a capital cost of $8.5
million and $150,000 annually in operating expenses
(R. at 67—
8).
Mr. Herman stated that the Company currently owns
18 acres
of land on which the residue produced by this process could be
disposed
(R.
at 68), but that the disposal capacity of that land
(if used
for this purpose)
would be exhausted within eight years
(R. at 69).
After that time the residue would need to be trucked
away
(Id.).
The alternative recommended by Mr. Herman, alternative
2,
is
not the least expensive.
Lagooning the waste at a remote site
with natural dewatering but without supernatant return
(alternative 4) would be the least costly.
Depending on the
remote site chosen
(Milistadt, Illinois, or Columbia, Illinois),
capital costs for this alternative (exclusive of land acquisition
72-434
—7—
costs)
would be $3.3 or $3.43 million, respectively (Exhibits lA
and lB).
Annual operating costs for this alternative at either
site would be $151,332
(Exhibit XB).
Mr. Herman believes this
alternative is not appropriate due to “problems with sludge
settling
in the transmission line, the questionable availability
of land at affordable prices, and the very real liability risks
relating to injury to children or others who trespass on our
remote site”
(R. at 66).
The alternative of lagooning at the treatment plant with
natural dewatering was not recommended due to the large amount of
acreage that would be required to satisfactorily accommodate the
waste generated by the plant.
Mr. Herman estimated that two 5—
foot deep lagoons, each with a surface area of
29 acres, would be
necessary
(R.
at 67).
In addition to the alternatives discussed above,
the
possibility of delivering
the plant’s waste to the regional
sewage treatment facility was discussed by Mr. Herman at
hearing.
Due
to the costs involved with this option
($8.8
million capital cost and $3.33 million annual operating cost),
Mr. Herman described
it as “the least reasonable or practical
alternative of all”
(R. at 70).
Though Petitioner believes that none of the treatment
alternatives it examined are economically reasonable,
it
is true
that all are technically feasible.
A 1970 study by Evans et.
al.
of 114 water treatment plants in Illinois showed that about 43
of the plants discharged basin residues directly to lakes and
streams,
and that about 54
of the plants similarly discharged
backwash waters
(Pet.
Ex.
1,
at
38).
About 16
of the plants
discharged their waste to dry creeks
(Id.).
It can be assumed
that the remaining plants applied some form of treatment to their
waste streams.
The study commissioned by the Company suggests
that some changes in the practice of dealing with these wastes
have likely occurred since 1970
(Id.), since alternative disposal
methods such as sanitary sewer disposal, lagooning, mechanical
dewatering, sand drying beds, and iron and aluminum recovery are
available today
(Id.).
Recent trends in handling water treatment plant wastes are
illustrated
in the following table, compiled in 1981 by Robertson
and Ljri from information collected
in 1979—1980
(this data is
excerpted from a document entitled “Waste Disposal From Water
Treatment Plants”, admitted onto the record
in this proceeding as
Board Exhibit 2).
The data represents a survey of selected
plants
in the United States and Canada:
72-435
—8—
Waste Disposal Practice at Selected
Plants in 1979—1980
Plant
Lake Forest
Evanston
Racine
Chicago (Jardine)
Chicago (South)
Northbrook
Kenilworth
Glencoe
Green Bay
Detroit
(Springwells)
Toronto
(Harris)
Toronto (Clark)
Toronto
(Island)
Gary
Louisville
(Crescent Hill)
Louisville
(Payne)
Des Plaines
Design
Capacity
~MGD)
10
72
40
1440
720
14
1.5
8
30
500
260
120
110
54
240
60
3
Sludge
Disposal
Method
San. Auth.3
San. Auth.
San. Auth.
San. Auth.
San. Auth.
San. Auth.
San. Auth.
San. Auth.
Lagoons
San.
Lake
Lake
N/A
San.
Lagoon
N/A
N/A
Filter
Washwater
Disposal
Method
Recycle
Recycle
Recycle
Recycle
Recycle
Recycle
Recycle
Recycle
Recycle
Recycle
Lake
Lake
Lagoon
N/A
Recycle
Lagoon
Lagoon
These data indicate that many plants similar to Petitioner’s
are applying various
forms of treatment
to their waste streams.
ECONOMIC HARDSHIP
Much of the argument for economic hardship as presented
in
the record deals with the depressed economic condition of the
East St. Louis area.
Mr. Robert Greaves, Vice—President and
Manager
of
the Company,
testified that 49.2
of all households in
East St. Louis have incomes placing them below the poverty level
(R. at 33).
Mr. Clyde Jordan testified that almost 6,000
residents of East St.
Louis Township receive general assistance
(R.
at 23).
Mr. Jerry Costello added that East St. Louis has the
highest unemployment rate in the state, and
that the City’s
taxable assessed valuation fell from $150 million
in 1970 to $36
million
in 1980
(R.
at 52).
Many of the public comments received
in this matter also reiterated
the unfortunate economic condition
of East St. Louis.
3Abbreviation for “Sanitary Authority”.
Auth.
Auth.
72-436
—9—
Mr.
Greaves noted
that the Company would attempt
to increase
its rates by approximately 10
if required
to construct and
operate the facilities necessary to bring
the plant into
compliance
CR..
at 32).
This calculation appears
to be based on
the assumption
that the Illinois Commerce Commission, which has
authority in such matters, would accept the Company’s cost
figures,
would allow complete absorption of the costs by the
customers,
and that th9e costs would be equally prorated among
the Company’s customers
As the Company noted,
the Illinois Commerce Commission
determines rates which
a company may charge
its customers by
district
(R.
at 29—30).
The district in question
is the
Company’s “Interurban District”, which includes, among others,
Belleville, Granite City, Caseyville,
O’Fallon, Shiloh,
Millstadt,
Dupo, Columbia, Cahokia Water District, Mitchell and
Pontoon Water Districts,
and areas adjacent thereto
(R.
at
29,
44).
Thus the Board notes
that any costs which might warrant a
rate increase would be expected
to be shared among all customers
in the Interurban District, not just the customers in East St.
Louis.
FEDERAL LAW
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”)
has not yet promulgated regulations establishing effluent
limitations on water treatment plant waste.
In the absence of
such regulations, effluent limitations are
to be established on
a
case—by—case basis under 402(a)(l)
of the Federal Water
Pollution
Control Act (hereinafter referred
to as the “CWA”).
Permits
containing case—by—case effluent limitations are to be based on a
permit writer’s “best professional judgement”
(“BPJ”)
(49 Fed.
Reg. 38,025
(1984)).
In discussing
the application of BPJ
to
discharges from water treatment plants, USEPA has said that:
The particular
technology used to determine BPJ
technology—based effluent limits depends on the
application of the statutory criteria for different
levels of control,
for example, best practicable or
best conventional technology.
These regulations are
intended neither
to ban such discharges nor
to
prohibit permit authorities from imposing such a ban
in specific cases where this is
the appropriate
standard for control.
(Id.
at 38,027).
4me Company’s customers include both residential
and commercial,
industrial,
and other utility customers.
Approximately 40
to 45
of present revenues are derived from residential customers;
the
remainder
is derived from the commerical,
industrial,
and other
utility customers
(R.
at 39).
72-437
—10—
This directive from USEPA, being the most recent on the
matter, appears
to give the Board and the Agency
(as permitting
authorities)
broad discretion in determining the appropriate
standard of control
to apply to discharges from water treatment
plants.
THE ALTON PROCEEDING
Petitioner correctly notes that the circumstances presented
here have
some similarity to those of the Alton proceeding
(Petition for Site Specific Exception
to Effluent Standards For
Alton Water Treatment Plant,
R82—3,
57 PCB 139,
March
8, 1984).
That proceeding involved
a water treatment plant owned by another
subsidiary of American Water Works Company,
the Alton Water
Company.
The Alton Water Company also draws raw water from the
Mississippi River
and sought exception from the Board’s effluent
limitations pertaining
to TSS and total
iron.
The Board granted
the requested relief
to the petitioner
there.
In the Alton proceeding the Board went to great lengths
to
point out the unique circumstances present there, and noted
that
it
is “rather unlikely that two discharges would ever be
so
‘similarly situated’
that a Board determination in one case would
serve
to control its determination
in another”
(57 PCB 139 at
149).
The Board affirms this belief by noting that the instant
matter
is readily distinguishable
from Alton.
A principal
distinction
is
in the volume of dry solids generated, which are
approximately 82,430 and 12,500 pounds per day for the East St.
Louis
and Alton plants, respectively.
The volume generated by
the plant
in question
in this proceeding
is t~ereforemore than
six times greater
than that involved
in Alton
•
In addition, the
capital costs
for the treatment options selected
in the
instant
matter and
in Alton
($8.5
and $3 million, respectively) indicate
a substantial difference
in the cost of treatment per pound of
dry solids.
The Company can treat six times the solids at less
than three
times
the cost that was present
in Alton.
Finally,
the Alton plant, unlike the Company’s plant, had no land
available for adding facilities
for treatment of suspended
solids, much less their disposal, as negotiations
to acquire such
5The Board has considered
the issue of partial relief
for the
Petitioner
(i.e.,
requiring the Company
to substantially reduce
the volume of its discharge but allowing
it to discharge at
a
level comparable
to that allowed
in Alton,
for example).
The
Board was precluded
from giving serious deliberation to such
relief,
however,
due
to statements made by the Petitioner.
Specifically,
the Company believes that treatment of a portion of
the discharge would necessitate nearly identical capital costs as
full treatment would require, with limited operating cost savings
(Company Response, at 11).
72-438
—11—
land had proved fruitless.
(This was
a “special difficulty” of
which the Agency took particular note).
CONCLUSION
In reaching the determination that the petition before
it
must be denied,
the Board has taken many factors into
consideration.
Among
these
are consistency with environmental
protection and technical feasibility and economic
reasonableness..
In cases of this type it
is necessary to
consider
all of the various factors as
a whole.
Among
the factors contributing
to the Board’s decision is
agreement with the position of the Agency regarding the seminal
nature of this proceeding.
The Agency’s Comments forcefully
communicate the belief that this proceeding
is
a seminal one
in
determining
the level of treatment applicable
to discharges
in
the water
treatment plant industry:
The key point
to be derived
is that decisions on the
appropriate
level of technology
for these wastes will
continue to be made
at the state level.
This
proceeding must establish the expected level of
control
in Illinois for this industry and do
it
in a
way that allows other water
treatment plants
to plan
for future needs.
Otherwise,
the Agency expects
to
see
a series of these time and effort—consuming
proceedings for
a number of facilities.
The Agency
is supportive of
a reasonable level of technology for
all facilities.
Complete relief should be restricted
to the most extraordinary circumstances...
To base
relief solely upon the premise of no detectable
impacts and
alleged economic hardship undermines the
basis of our effluent standards... There
is no
unreasonable or disproportionate economic hardship
connected with achievement of existing discharge
control requirements upon Petitioner.
(Agency
Comments at 11—13).
The Board agrees with the Agency that the position adopted
by the Petitioner,
that the Mississippi River has the
assimilative capacity to handle
the discharge and that treatment
is expensive and therefore can be totally foregone, simply flies
in the face of this State’s technology—based effluent
standards.
The Company
is
in the business of processing a raw
material, Mississippi River water,
into
a finished product,
drinking water.
During this process, waste materials are
created.
Like other businesses
in the State whose operations
create wastes, the Company is subject
to regulations, which
generally require the application of
a varying degree of
treatment to the waste
in a manner consistent with the stated
purpose of the Environmental Protection Act to
“restore, protect
72-439
—12—
and enhance the quality of the environment...”
(Section 2(b)).
These effluent regulations are not based on the assimilative
capacities of any stream.
To accept the Petitioner’s argument
that treatment
is unnecessary
is to take a large step towards
defeating
the purpose of having
a system of technology—based
regulations
in the first place.
Moreover,
the Board would add
that granting
the relief requested here would risk “opening the
floodgates” on this type of dumping by water treatment plant
operators along
the Illinois reach of the Mississippi, let alone
elsewhere in the State..
Such
a result would be unsupportable,
but
is especially so
in the context of
a stream as stressed by
man as
is the Mississippi.
The Agency desires this proceeding
to “establish the
expected
level of control
in Illinois
for this industry and do it
in
a way that allows other water treatment plants
to plan for
future needs”
(Agency Comments at
11).
The Board is unable
to
provide any guidance of this nature
in very precise terms
in this
proceeding;
such matters are more appropriately dealt with in a
general
rulemaking
than in a site—specific proposal.
What is
established here, however,
is that no
treatment is an
unacceptable means of dealing with large—volume water
treatment
plant wastes.
As regards the specific
rule proposed here by Petitioner,
the Board’s concern
is
in no small measure related
to the
staggering magnitude of waste material that
is collected,
concentrated,
and discharged..
As noted, the daily solids loading
at the plant
is approximately 82,430 pounds (41.2
tons).
A daily
solids loading of that level aggregates
to over 30,000,000 pounds
(15,000 tons) of dry solids discharged from Petitioner’s facility
to the Mississippi
River on an annual basis,
Certainly
prohibiting the placing of this material back into the River
is a
significant step toward enhancing the quality of the environment.
The Board
is no less troubled by the altered nature of the
solids which are proposed
to be discharged.
Petitioner contends
that it removes solids from the Mississippi
as a consequence of
its operations,
and then simply “returns the sand and mud
to the
River”.
However,
the record
indicates that the discharges are
not as innocuous as that.
The Company uncontestably makes
chemical additions to the solids during the processing of the
water.
An average of 10,820 pounds of alum,
a coagulant utilized
in water treatment,
is a~deddaily by the plant to the water
withdrawn from the River
.
Approximately 486 pounds per day of
this mater’ial remains behind at the plant after
the treatment
process, and represents
a portion of the daily solids
6Pet.
Ex.
1 at
25.
This figure represents
a compilation of the
alum used during operations of the plant’s conventional process
and
its Dorr—Aldrich units.
72-440
—13—
generated7.
Solids accumulated
in the residue at water treatment
plants additionally contain some substances
at concentrations
many times greater than the levels of those same substances
in
the stream (Fulton, “Disposal of Water Plant Alum Wastes”,
at
2;
this document has been admitted onto
the record
in this
proceeding as Board Exhibit 8).
For
example, the basin residue
at the Company’s plant contains an average iron level of 35,600
ppm,
(Pet.
Ex.
1,
at
37).
Of course, this level
represents the
quantity of iron found
in the basin sediment itself, and
is not
the level
found
in the effluent which is discharged from the
plant when the basins are flushed out,
The addition of large
volumes of water during the flushing process dilutes this level
considerably.
Even so,
the estimated iron concentration
in the
wastestreams of basins
4 and 5,
for example,
is 3,790 mg/i
(Pet.
Ex..
1,
at
41).
When compared
to the Board’s
2
mg/I effluent
limitation for
iron found
at
304.124,
the very concentrated
nature of this discharge becomes apparent.
By way of further
comparison,
the average iron concentration in the Mississippi
River
is 3.2 mg/i (Id.).
Even
if the Company were proposing
to simply return
unadulterated sand and mud
to
the Mississippi, this matter would
not be one warranting site—specific relief.
The Board believes
that the Company does not possess a fundamental
right,
in this
instance, to discharge pollutants simply because
it has captured
those pollutants during the course of its activities.
Allowing
the discharge of untreated water treatment plant waste would
clearly not be
in keeping with the spirit of the Act and would
frustrate the objective
to “restore, protect and enhance the
quality of the environment”.
Moreover, the Board’s effluent limitations are based upon
concentrations achievable with conventional treatment
technology.
It
is assumed that in order
to meet those
limitations,
a discharger will have
to apply conventional
technology in some
form..
The primary codified exception to this
philosophical approach is found at 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 304.103
(Background
Concentrations),
which
reads in full
as follows:
Because the effluent standards
in this
Part
are
based
upon concentrations achievable with conventional
treatment technology which is largely unaffected by
ordinary levels of contaminants
in intake water, they
are absolute standards that must be met without
subtracting background concentrations.
However,
it
is not the
intent of these regulations
to require
users to clean up contamination caused essentially by
7Pet.
Ex.
1
at
25.
This figure represents a compilation of the
solids generated
(as a result of
alum coagulation) by the plant’s
conventional process and Dorr—Aldrich units,
72-441
—14—
upstream sources or
to require treatment when only
traces of contaminants are added
to the background.
Compliance with the numerical effluent standards
is
therefore not required when effluent concentrations
in excess of the standards result entirely from
influent contamination, evaporation, and/or the
incidental
addition
of
traces
of
materials
not
utilized
or
produced
in
the
activity
that
is the
source
of
the waste..
This
exception
is not applicable to discharges such
as those
emanating
from
water
treatment
plants,
and the Board has
in fact
previously
held
that
section
304.103
does not apply to the
Company’s
operations.
East
St. Louis and
Interurban
Water
Co.
and Alton Water
Co.
v.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
PCB 76—297, 298
(consolidated) involved appeals filed by the
Company (as
it was then known)
and the Alton Water Co.
of denials
of operating permits by the Agency.
Both companies contended
there that the Rule 401(b)
(now section 304.103) exception to the
numerical effluent limitation
for concentrations caused by
influent contamination should apply to
them..
The Board
found
that:
Rule 401(b)
clearly exempts effluent concentrations
which are
a result of influent contamination.
In the
present case, Petitioners deliberately concentrate
the suspended solids
in their effluent by removing
the water....The Board
finds that the concentration of
suspended solids
in Petitioners’ effluent is not a
result of either
influent contamination, evaporation
or
the addition of trace amounts of materials and
that Rule 401(b)
did not intend
to exempt effluents
in which contaminants were deliberately
concentrated.
Therefore,
Rule 401(b) does not apply
(24 PCB 801 at 803;
emphasis as
in original).
The Board has already noted that compliance
in this instance
is technically feasible
(see p.
7),
Given the enormity of the
environmental matters at issue
here,
the Board also believes that
it is not unreasonable for the Company to treat
to the degree
necessary to come into compliance with existing standards.
Economic reasonableness is determined
in part by considering the
cost of control relative to the amount of environmental
benefit
to be gained.
In the instant matter the environmental gain is of
such magnitude as
to justify the cost,
An additional facet of economic reasonableness is the
ability of the responsible party to bear the cost.
The record
stresses the poor economic conditions within East
St. Louis as
the controlling element of ability to bear
the cost.
However,
even assuming that all costs could be passed on to the customers
of the Company,
the record indicates that the Company’s customers
72-442
—15—
in East St. Louis constitute but 14,000 of the Company’s 64,200
service connections
in the Interurban District
(R. at 35).
East
St. Louis service connnections therefore constitute approximately
22
of the total number.
Moreover,
some of the non—East
St..
Louis service connections are
to municipalities and other
water
districts.
These are considered by the Company as single
connections,
even
though
they
“might
serve
a
population
of
five
or
ten thousand”
(R.
at
43).
Therefore,
a more appropriate
perspective of the role of East St. Louis
in the Company’s
service area is based on population data.
In this regard, the
Company notes that it serves an Interurban District population of
approximately 350,000
(R. at 43),
which compares with an East St.
Louis population of approximately 55,000.
On this basis,
the
residents of East
St..
Louis constitute less than 16
of the
population served by the Company.
Furthermore, the majority of
the Company’s revenue is derived from the sale of water
to non-
residential
users.
Approximately 55
to 60
of the Company’s
revenue represents
sales
to commerical and
industrial users and
other utilities, with the remainder representing residential
revenue
(R.
at
39).
Assuming, arguendo, that the costs of the
necessary improvements would be equally borne by all residents
in
proportion to this revenue ratio, the contribution of East St.
Louis residents would be less than 7
of the total.
Moreover, while the economic situation of the East St.
Louis
area and
its residents have been amply demonstrated, the economic
situation of the Company,
a for—profit corporation,
has not.
The
Company has presented
no data indicating whether, as a good
corporate citizen but consistent with its duty to provide a
reasonable return on investment
to Company shareholders,
it has
the ability
a)
to absorb any or
all compliance costs, or b)
otherwise reduce that impact on the users.
This record does not
support the notion that a 10
rate increase would actually take
place.
Rather, the Company simply asserts such would occur.
The
10
across—the—board rate increase envisioned by the Company
would appear
to be
a worst case scenario.
The best case
impact
on East St. Louis cannot be assessed by the Board, due
to the
selective manner
in which data have been presented by the
Company.
The Board suspects that the full facts of this
situation can be obtained only in the context of
a proceeding
before the Commerce Commission.
Nevertheless,
should the
Commerce Commission hold that some rate increase
is justified,
the Board trusts that the Company would fully assist local or
state officials in any effort
to tap funding sources or otherwise
relieve the financial burden on its economically distressed
users,
Given all
these circumstances, the Board
is unable
to reach
the conclusion that
it is economically unreasonable
for the
Company to provide the necessary improvements..
72-443
—16—
Finally,
the Board wishes to emphasize that
in denying
the
Company’s petition
it does not do
so without great consideration
of the depressed economic conditions within parts of the service
area of the Company, and particularly within East St. Louis.
This matter has,
indeed, weighed heavily with the Board.
However,
in the final analysis
it is the Board’s responsibility
to
strive toward
a quality environment
for
all, for economically
depressed citizens as well as for citizens of more fortunate
circumstances.
The Board believes that today’s action of denying
the Company’s petition is a necessary step in that direction.
ORDER
The April
23,
1985,
petition for site—specific exception
to
effluent standards
for the East St.
Louis Water Treatment Plant
is hereby denied.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
Board Member
J. Theodore Meyer voted present.
I, Dorothy
M..
Gurin,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that
the
a
ye
pinion and Order was
adopted on the
‘~i~day of
______________,
1986, by
a vote
of
~5—o
.
M2.
~
Dorothy M. ~Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
72-444
