ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September 7,
1995
CITY OF ELGIN,
)
)
Petitioner,
PCB 94—371
v.
)
(Water-Well Setback
)
Exception)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
WILLIAM COGLEY APPEARED ON
BEHALF
OF THE PETITIONER;
CONNIE TONSOR APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(By J.
Yi):
This matter comes before the Illinois Pollution Control
Board
(Board) upon a petition filed by the City of Elgin
(City)
on December 2,
1994,
and supplemented on March
3,
1995, for an
exception to the water—well setback zone requirements.
The City
is requesting the exception to enable it to construct a new two—
cell lime residue storage lagoon, which is within
the
water—well
setback zone,
at its Airlite Street Water Treatment Plant.
Construction of this type is prohibited unless an exception has
been granted by this Board.
The Board’s responsibility and authority in this matter
arises from the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (Act).
The
Act provides in Section 14.2 that a minimum setback zone is
established for the location of each new potential source or new
potential routes of contamination.
(415 ILCS 5/14.2
(1994).)
The Board is charged with granting exceptions from the setback
requirements where the Board finds that the petitioner has
demonstrated that the requirements will be satisfied.
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
is
charged with the responsibility of investigating each petition
for exception and making a recommendation to the Board
as
to the
disposition of the petition.
Further, the Agency is required to
appear in hearings on petition for exceptions.
Hearing on this matter was held on May
9,
1995,
9:00 a.m.,
at the Kane County Courthouse in Geneva,
Illinois, before hearing
officer June Edvenson.
In addition to Mr. Cogley and Ms. Tonsor,
noted above as filing appearances of record, the following people
testified on behalf of the Petitioner
-
Mr. Larry
E.
Deibert, the
Director of Water Operations for the City;
Mr. Paul T.
Miller,
the Chief Water Plant Operator for the City; and Mr. Lawrence J.
2
Almalch, Geotechnical/Disposal Consultant
(Black
& Veatch); and
on behalf of the Respondent
-
Mr. William D. McMillan,
representing the Planning Assessment Unit, Groundwater Section,
Division of Public Water Supplies of the Agency.
At the hearing, petitioners submitted full copies of reports
that were originally filed with the Clerk of the Board as partial
copies attached to the petitions.
The petitioner’s witnesses
each presented oral testimony at the hearing.
Some of the
testimonies of the witnesses were pre—filed.
The respondent’s
witness, Mr. McMillan, presented,
orally,
a summary of his pre—
filed testimony.
All pre-filed testimonies and reports were
marked into’ evidence.
BACKGROUND
The City’s Airlite Street Water Treatment Plant,
located at
74 north Airlite street, Elgin,
Illinois has a capacity of eight
million gallons per day and operates under Agency permit No.
0894380008.
It is a lime-softening treatment plant.
In addition
to the five deep wells, the facility consists of pumping
equipment, water treatment basins, finished water reservoirs and
a two—celled residue storage lagoon.
(Generally Amend.
Pet.
at
6
)1
Mr. Paul Miller, the Chief Water Plant Operator for the City
for the past fourteen
(14)
years, testified at the hearing that
the existing two—cell lime residue storage lagoon, which is
classified as a surface impoundment, receives only the by-
products of the water treatment softening and clarification
reactions at the plant.
(Tr. at 12.)
The plant treats
groundwater only,
and the lime residue is classified as a
“special waste”.
This material is presently permitted for land
application under Agency permit No. 1993—90-3690.
(Amend. Pet.
at 2.)
The lagoon is
a necessary part of the facility since the
land application can be accomplished only at specific times
during the year whereas the water treatment process is
continuous.
(Amend.
Pet. at 2.)
The Agency determined in 1987 that the minimum setback zone
for all five of these wells is two hundred feet, as per criteria
listed in the Illinois Groundwater Protection Act.
Mr. Lawrence
Deibert, the Director of the Water Operations for the City for
the past seven years, testified at the hearing that during the
process of applying for these minimum and maximum setback zones,
‘The amended petition filed by the City will be referenced
as “Amend.
Pet. at
“;
the Agency response will be referred to as
“Resp.
at
“
and the transcript of the hearing will be referenced
as “Tr. at
“.
3
the City became aware that the softening residue lagoon,
constructed in the early 1960’s was,
in fact,
in violation of
current rules.
(Tr. at 29)
The Airlite Street Plant’s five deep wells range from 1,350
feet to 1,378 feet deep and are supplied primarily by water from
the Glenwood-St. Peter and Ironston-Galesville Aquifers within
the Cambrian-Ordovician Aquifer System.
The static water levels
on the wells range from 460 feet to over 600 feet below the
ground surface.
(Pr. at 14-15.)
Well No.
22165, which has the
lime residue storage lagoon within its minimum setback zone, has
a continuous steel pipe casing extending to a depth of 366 feet.
(Tr. at 13,
19.)
The other wells, within maximum setback zones,
also have continuous steel pipe casings extending from 359 feet
to 390 feet in depth.
By review of the well driller’s logs and
geological formation information,
it is clear that all the
casings extend well into the layers of limestone and shale.
The
Airlite Street Plant wells were classified as “Groundwater NOT
under the Direct Influence of Surface Water” with a special
exception permit by the Agency in April,
1994.
(Tr.
at 12-13.)
The existing residue storage facility shall be closed so
that a new residue storage facility can be constructed in its
place that will meet the current requirements as contained in
“Groundwater Protection Regulations for New Activities Setback
Zone or Regulated Recharge Area”
(35 Ill.
Adm. Code Part 616.444)
The
new residue lagoon will be constructed utilizing today’s
technology.
(Amend.
Pet. at 2-6.)
Mr. Deibert further testified that it is the intention of
the City to construct a new surface impoundment in the same
location as the current residue lagoon.
(Tr. at 30.)
The
existing non—conforming lagoon will be removed from service, one
cell at a time, and the new facility will be constructed, one
cell at a time, and put into service.
(Tr. at 13.)
The City has engaged a professional engineering firm to
oversee the design and construction of the new residue lagoon.
Mr. Lawrence Almalch, the consultant,
stated that the City will
use the best available technology economically achievable to
minimize the likelihood of contamination of the potable water
supply wells as stated in Section 14.2(c) of the Act.
(Tr. at
45.)
REGULATORY REOUIREMENTS
The Board, pursuant to Section 14.2(c), shall grant an
exception whenever it is found upon presentation of adequate
proof:
1.
that compliance with setback requirements of the
4
statute would pose an arbitrary and unreasonable
hardship on the petitioner,
2.
that the petitioner will utilize the best available
technology controls economically achievable to minimize
the likelihood of contamination of the potable water
supply well,
3.
that the maximum feasible alternative setback will be
utilized, and
4.
that the location of such potential source or potential
route will not constitute a significant hazard to the
potable water supply well.
In addition, the guidelines specified in the New Activities
in a Setback Zone or Regulated Recharge Area
(35 Ill. Adm. Code
Part 616) clearly outlines the procedures that will be followed
during the design and construction periods.
Section 616.444 of
Subpart F: On—Site Surface Impoundment, describes the liners and
leachate collection systems required for new surface impoundments
located within a setback zone that contain special waste
generated on site.
ARGUMENT
The City and the Agency presented evidence,
as noted below,
and contend that the necessary conditions for the grant of a
water—well setback exception,
as indicated,
have been met.
Arbitrary and Unreasonable Hardship
Mr. Miller stated that to rebuild the lagoon on-site is the
most economically feasible alternative available to the City.
(Tr. at 13.)
The Airlite Street Plant is landlocked;
it is
surrounded by an elementary school,
a hospital, residential
housing and private property that precludes adjacent relocation
of the subject lagoon.
(Amend.
Pet. at 6-7.)
Mr. Miller also stated that as an alternative, the City
considered the construction of a remote sludge storage facility
to meet the requirements of Section 14.2(c).
(Tr. at 23.)
This
alternative consists of constructing,
in addition to the
retention facility,
a pumping station,
a pipeline to transport
the lime residue to the remote location and the necessary land
access acquisitions.
(Pr. at 20-21.)
The City alleges that the
construction estimates, generated by the Consultant,
indicates
that the costs involved would be prohibitive; would pose an
unreasonable financial hardship on the City.
(Amend. Pet. at 11-
13.)
5
The Agency states that the City has presented the least
costly alternative and that arbitrary and unreasonable hardship
would result if the exception were not granted.
(Resp. at 13,
Pr. at 60,
62.)
Best Available Techncilociy
Mr. Deibert testified that it is the intention of the City
to replace the current surface impoundment, at the same location,
using the best available technology.
The existing residue lagoon
consists of a single liner retention system with no monitoring
capabilities.
Currently,
any liquids, solids and dissolved
chemicals that are put into the lagoon may percolate into the
groundwater systems with no provisions for detection or remedy.
Mr. Deibert continued that the construction of the new
residue lagoon will be in accordance to the requirements of Title
35
(Environmental Protection), Subtitle F (Public Water Supply),
Part 616
(New Activities in a Setback Zone or Regulated Recharge
Area), Subpart F:
On-Site Surface Impoundments, Section 616.444
(Design Requirements), Section 616.445
(Inspection Requirements)
and Section 616.446
(Operating Requirements).
(Tr. at 40.
)
The
City shall install,
in addition to the two liners,
a leachate
collection system.
Any liquid that would pass the liners will be
collected by the leachate collection system and be re-directed to
the head of the treatment plant for treatment recycling.
(Tr. at
39.)
Maximum Feasible Alternative Setback
The new facility will not be closer to Well #22165 than the
existing facility.
The Agency notes that the City has presented
evidence that the lagoon is located in the most feasible site but
does not comment further.
(Resp. at 13.)
The Agency at hearing
concludes that the City has presented evidence on all of the four
issues that the location of the new lagoons will not pose a
significant increase in the risk to the groundwater.
(Pr.
at 60,
62.)
Significant Hazard to the Potable Water Supply Wells
Mr. Miller testified that even though the lime residue is
classified as a “special waste,” the residue lagoon will receive
only the by-products of the water softening reactions at the
plant.
(Pr. at 12.)
The residue is primarily nonharmful calcium
and magnesium carbonates which do not pose a hazard to the
potable water supply wells.
(Pr. at 12.)
In addition to the by—products being harmless, the
construction of the new facility, utilizing the best available
technology, will insure that the new facility will be no less—
protective than the current situation.
Even with the existing
6
facility, there have been no incidence of problems.
In summarizing his testimony,
Mr. McMillan stated that the
Agency has evaluated the information submitted and testimonies
presented at the hearing,
related to this replacement of the
retention lagoon and concluded that the proposed lime residue
lagoon will not pose a significant increased risk of groundwater
contamination.
(Tr. at 58—60.)
Finally, Ms. Tonsor noted that the Agency believes that
evidence has been presented on all of the four issues which the
Board must consider in reaching its determination, and that
evidence presented indicates that the location of the new lagoon,
at the site of the old lagoon, would not pose a significant
increase in the risk to the groundwater at the site.
(Tr. at
62.)
CONCLUSION
The issue before the Board is whether the City’s petition
for setback zone exception should be granted thereby allowing the
City to construct and operate the new residue storage lagoon
within the minimum setback zone at its Airlite Street Water
Treatment Plant.
The Board, pursuant to Section 14.2(c)
of the Act shall
grant an exception whenever it is found upon presentation of
adequate proof that the four requirements,
as enumerated in the
Regulatory Requirements Section of this opinion, were met.
To fulfill the requirements of these criteria, the City has
submitted an original petition,
a supplemental petition and a
response to the Agency’s comments to the petitions.
In addition
to the material pre-filed with the Board, the City presented
testimony at the hearing through two City employees and an
engineering consultant.
The Agency also presented testimony at
the hearing; the Agency is not opposed to the petition.
In addition, the City has a contingency plan should
contamination occur.
During the period that the Airlite Plant
would be shut down for remediation, the City’s water needs will
be fulfilled by the increase output at the City’s Riverside Water
Treatment Plant, which utilizes the Fox River as a source water,
that currently provides 90
of the water used by the City.
The City of Elgin and the Agency both present evidence and
contend that the necessary conditions established in Section 14.2
of the Act for the grant of a water-well setback exception have
been met.
The Board agrees and accordingly grants the requested
setback exception.
7
This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
The City of Elgin is hereby granted, pursuant to Section
14.2(c)
of the Environmental Protection Act
(415 ILCS
5/14.2(c) (1994)), an exception to the setback zone requirements
of a community water supply well.
The exception applies to the
two-cell lime residue storage lagoon at its Airlite Street Water
Treatment Plant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act,
(415 ILCS
5/41 (1994)), provides for appeal of final orders of the Board
within 35 days.
The Rules of the Supreme Court of Illinois
establish filing requirements.
(See also 35 Ill.
Adm. Code
101.246, Motions for Reconsideration.)
I, Dorothy Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby cer
•fy that the~ftbov~~opinion
and order was
adopted on the _____day of
,~Z~4i~-?i
,
1995,
by a vote of
70.
~
Dorothy M4’Gunn, Clerk
I1linois~7ollutionControl Board
