ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February 16,
1995
VILLAGE OF CREVE COEUR,
)
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 94—229
)
(Water-Well Setback Exception)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
JULIAN
CANNELL
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF
PETITIONER;
CONNIE L. TONSOR APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by R.C. Flemal):
This matter comes before the Board upon a petition filed by
the Village of Creve Coeur
(Creve Coeur).
Creve Coeur requests
that it be granted an exception front the water-well setback
requirements found at Section 14.2 of the Environmental
Protection Act
(Act)
(415 ILCS
5/1
et seq.
(1992)).
Creve Coeur
desires to construct a new sludge storage unit within the setback
zones of three existing community water supply wells.
Construction of this type is prohibited unless an exception has
been granted by this Board.
The Board’s authority in this matter arises from the Act.
The Board is charged there with granting exception from the
setback requirements where the Board finds that the petitioner
has made several necessary showings.
(415 ILCS 5/14.2(c).)
The
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
is required to
appear in hearings on petitions for exception.
The Agency is
also charged, among other matters, with the responsibility of
investigating each petition for exception and making a
recommendation to the Board as to the disposition of the
petition.
(35 Ill.
Adin. Code 106.603.)
The Agency filed its
recommendation on November 14,
1994.
Hearing was held on January 16,
1995 in Creve Coeur before
hearing officer Stephen H. Gunning.
Prior to hearing both Creve
Coeur and the Agency provided pre—filed testimony.
Creve Coeur
filed the testimony of Daniel R. Good,
P.E.,
of Randolph and
Associates,
Inc.,
engineering consultants to Creve Coeur.
The
Agency filed the testimony of William D. McMillan and Ukanno
Foxworth, Agency technical personnel who participated in the
—2—
investigation of Creve Coeur’s petition.
The three witnesses
also appeared at hearing where they gave additional testimony1.
Creve Coeur has requested expedited decision on this matter,
which the Board grants by today’s action.
As presented below, the Board finds that Creve Coeur has
made the showings necessary for the grant of exception.
Accordingly, the exception will be granted.
BACKGROUND
The Act at Section 14.2 sets out various provisions designed
to protect groundwater from possible contamination.
Among these
provisions
is the prescription of a setback zone around each
existing community water supply well2.
Within the setback zone
no new potential source nor new potential route of groundwater
contamination may be sited, unless an exception has been granted
by this Board.
(415 ILCS 5/14.2(c).)
Creve Coeur owns and operates a public water supply plant.
Located at the plant and at issue in this proceeding are three
community water supply wells.
The wells supply water from an
unconfined aquifer, the Sankoty Sand.
(McNillan at p.
4..)
Pursuant to Section 14.2(d)
of the Act,
a community water supply
well deriving water from an unconfined aquifer is provided with a
400-foot setback zone.
In addition to its public water supply,
Creve Coeur also
owns and operates a publicly owned wastewater treatment works
(POTW).
The POTW is located on land adjacent to the three
community water supply wells.
Creve Coeur proposes to build a new sludge storage unit at
the POTW.
The sludge storage unit would be located in part at
distances less than 400 feet from each of the three community
water supply wells,
and hence would be within the setback zones
of the wells.
1
For purposes of citation herein, the pre-filed testimony
is identified by the name of the witness (e.g.,
“Good at p.”).
The transcript of the hearing
is cited to in the form t1Tr
at p._-
“.
The Agency recommendation and Creve Coeur’s petition are
cited to in the forms “Rec.
at
p._”
and “Petition at
¶“,
respectively.
2
It is uncontested that the wells at issue are community
water supply wells as defined at Section 3.04 of the Act (415
ILCS 5/3.04).
—3—
It is uncontested that a sludge storage unit is a potential
primary source of groundwater contamination, as that term is
defined at Section 3.59 of the Act
(415 ILCS 5/3.59).
As such,
a
new sludge storage unit may not be sited in a setback zones
absent an exception granted by this Board.
The Board must grant a requested exception when the Board
finds that adequate proof has been presented “that compliance
with the setback requirements
.
.
.
would pose an arbitrary and
unreasonable hardship upon the petitioner, that the petitioner
will utilize the best available technology controls economically
achievable to minimize the likelihood of contamination of the
potable water supply well, that the maximum feasible alternative
setback will be utilized, and that the location of such potential
source
.
.
.
will not constitute a significant hazard to the
potable water supply well”.
(415 ILCS 5/14.2(c).)
ARGUMENT
Sludge is generated by Creve Coeur as part of the operations
of its POTW.
The sludge must be disposed.
The possible methods
of disposal are land application or landfilling.
Creve Coeur
desires to land apply the sludge to agricultural lands as the
most economical and environmentally suitable method of disposal.
(Petition at ¶5.2; Good at p.
1;
Tr. at p.
7-8,
19.)
Creve Coeur
holds a permit that allows it to land apply sludge.
(Foxworth at
p.
3.)
Sludge may be applied to agricultural lands only before
crops are planted in the spring or after crops are harvested in
the fall.
It is therefore necessary to provide for storage of
the sludge during the intervening months.
Creve Coeur estimates
that capacity of 34,000 cubic feet is required to provide six-
months storage of its sludge.
(Petition at ¶3.1.)
Creve Coeur proposes a system where,
during normal
operations, dewatered sludge would be trucked to a storage unit
and stored up to six months.
During spring and fall, when the
fields are available for sludge spreading, the sludge would be
removed from the storage unit and trucked to the fields.
(Petition at ¶3.2.)
The sludge storage unit that Creve Coeur proposes to
construct is 60 feet wide and 80 feet long.
It is proposed to
have a one—foot thick concrete base slab with a one—foot thick
and eight-foot high concrete wall that forms three sides and a
center dividing wall.
The fourth side would be open to allOw
truck and endloader access.
The open end would have a full—
length trench drain for collection of any water that drains from
the sludge; any water collected would be conveyed to the influent
stream at the head end of the treatment process.
The entire unit
—4—
is proposed to be covered with a rain-tight roof.
(Petition at
¶3.2.)
The Agency observes that the sludge unit as proposed by
Creve Coeur constitutes the Best Available Technology
(BAT)
that
is economically available.
(Rec. at p.
5; Foxworth at p. 2-3;
Tr.
at p.
38,
41.)
The Agency additionally notes that the unit
as proposed is consistent with the requirements for new waste
piles at 35
Ill. Adm. Code 616.
(Rec.
at p.
5; McMillan at p.
7;
Tr. at p.
36.)
Based upon the submitted designs, the Agency has issued a
permit to Creve Coeur for construction of the sludge storage
unit.
(Foxworth at p.
3..)
However, construction is currently in
abeyance pending disposition of the instant exception petition.
(Tr.
at
p.
9.)
The POTW is located within an area confined by an interstate
highway,
a railroad,
a steel storage yard,
a steep bluff, and the
water supply plant.
Creve Coeur contends that for this reason
there is only one available location for the new sludge storage;
that location Is within the 400-foot setbacks distances.
(Good
at p.
1.)
The proposed location for the storage unit would be
within 140,
190,
and 200 feet of the three wells,
respectively.
(Rec.
at p.
4.)
The Agency believes that if the unit is so
placed,
it will be at the maximum feasible alternative distance,
as prescribed at Section 14.2(c)
of the Act.
(Rec.
at
p.
7.)
Creve Coeur contends that the usage and design of the sludge
storage unit will introduce little or no increased risk of
groundwater contamination.
(Good at
p.
2.)
Creve Coeur observes
that the unit will be roofed so as to be sheltered from the wind
and rain; that the thick concrete walls and floors will prohibit
liquid migration out of the structure;
that any leachate derived
from the sludge will be collected and returned to the POTW for
treatment; and that the unit will be sited above the 100-year
floodplain.
(~)
It is further observed that Creve Coeur has an
emergency operations plan to be placed in effect should there be
an emergency at either the POTW or water plant.
(See attachment
to Good testimony.)
Based on its analysis, the Agency concludes that the
proposed sludge storage unit does not pose a significant
increased risk to the groundwater of the Creve Coeur area.
(Tr.
at p.
25,
37,
42..)
Both the Agency and Creve Coeur contend that any arrangement
of disposal options and storage sites other than that proposed
would be more costly, and hence constitute an economic hardship.
(Tr. at p.
18-20.)
The Agency believes that the hardship rises
to the level of an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship.
(Tr. at
p.
41.)
—5—
CONCLUSION
Creve Coeur and the Agency both present evidence and contend
that the necessary conditions for the grant of a water—well
setback exception have been met.
The Board agrees and
accordingly finds that exception must be granted.
This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
The Village of Creve Coeur is hereby granted, pursuant to
Section 14.2(c)
of the Environmental Protection Act
(415 ILCS
5/14.2(c)
(1992)),
an exception against the prohibition of siting
a new potential source within the setback zone of a community
water supply well.
The exception applies to the sludge storage
unit and three community water supply wells described in the
opinion that accompanies this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Board Member J. Theodore Meyer dissented.
Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act
(415 ILCS
5/41
(1992)) provides for the appeal of final Board orders within
35 days of the date of service of this order.
The Rules of the
Supreme Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.
(See
also 35 Ill.Adm.Code 101.246 “Motions for Reconsideration”.)
I, Dorothy M. Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby certify that the abovej~pinionand order was
adopted on the
~
day of
____________________,
1995, by
avoteof
__________.
(
Dorothy N./ unn, Clerk
Illinois I~ llution Control Board