ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONI’ROL
BOARD
October
19,
1995
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
PETITION OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT
)
OF TRANSPORTATION, DISTRICT 8
)
AS 95-8
FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM
)
(Adjusted Standard-Water)
35 Ill.
Acim. Code 304.124
)
OPINION & ORDER OF THE
BOARD
(by G.
T. Girard):
On June 16,
1995, the Illinois Department
of Transportation
(IDOT) filed
a
request for an adjusted standard from the Board’s
regulations at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.124.
IDOT is requesting an
adjusted standard for the discharge of iron from IDOT’s deep well
system known as the Venice System outside Venice, Madison County,
Illinois.
In addition to the petition for adjusted standard filed June
16,
1995,
IDOT filed a motion to incorporate documents from AS
95-4 into this docket.
The Board granted that motion and
accepted the matter on August 4,
1995.
IDOT waived its right to
hearing.
The Board received no request for a hearing; therefore
no public hearing was held.
An August 14,
1995, the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)
filed a response to
IDOT’s petition supporting the requested adjusted standard with
one amendment.
Based upon the record and upon review of the factors
involved in the consideration of adjusted standards, the Board
finds that IDOT has demonstrated that the adjusted standard is
warranted.
Therefore, the Board will grant the requested
adjusted standard with conditions tor the reasons discussed
below.
ADJUSTED STANDARD PROCEDURE
The Board’s responsibility in this matter arises from the
Environmental Protection Act
(Act)
(415 ILCS 5/1 et seq.).
The
Board is charged therein to “determine, define and implement the
environmental control standards applicable
in the State of
Illinois”
(415 ILCS 5/5(b))
and to “grant***an adjusted standard
for persons who can justify such an adjustment”
(415 ILCS
5/28/1(a)).
More generally,
the Board’s responsibility in this
matter is based on the system of checks and balances integral to
Illinois environmental governance:
the Board is charged with the
rulemaking and principal adjudicatory functions, and the Agency
is responsible for carrying out the principal administrative
duties.
The Act provides that a petitioner may request, and the
Board may impose, an environmental standard that is different
from the standard that would otherwise apply to the petitioner as
2
the consequence of the operation of a rule of general
applicability.
Such a standard is called an adjusted standard.
The general procedures that govern an adjusted standard
proceeding are found at Section 28.1 of the Act and within the
Board’s procedural rules at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 106.
Where, as here, the regulation of general applicability does
not specify a level of justification required for a petitioner to
quality for an adjusted standard, the Act at Section 28.1(c)
specifies four demonstrations that must be made by a successful
petitioner:
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 effecLs substantially or 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.
RULES OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY
IDOT seeks an adjusted standard from the Board’s regulations
tor additional contaminants contained in 35 Iii.
Adm. Code
304.124 that provides in pertinent part:
Section 304.124
Additional Contaminants
a)
No person shall cause or allow the concentration
of the following constituents in any effluent to
exceed the following levels, subject to the
averaging rules contained in Section 304.104(a).
STORET
CONCENTRATION
CONSTITUENT
NUMBER
mg/L
Iron
(total)
01045
2.0
***
d)
Unle~~othQrwisQ indicatQd,
concontrationB
refer
to the total amount of the constituent present in
all phases, whether solid, suspended or dissolved,
elemental or combined,
including all oxidation
states.
Where constituents are commonly measured
3
as other than total, the word “total” is inserted
for clarity.
***
FACILITY DESCRIPTION
IDOT
owns and operates seven deep wells which comprise a
single well field known as the Venice System.
(Pet.
at
3~)1
The
Venice System operates along both sides of the Illinois Route 3
railroad viaduct in Venice, Madison County, Illinois.
(Pet.
at
4.)
These wells are used exclusively to pump water, through a
common
header
pipe,
to the Mississippi River for water table
control at the viaduct.
(Pet.
at
3; Ag. at 4.)
At this point,
Illinois Route 3 has an average daily vehicle load of 8,400,
and
without pumping, the road would be impassable.
(Ag.
at 4.)
Due to naturally occurring iron concentrations,
the ground
water pumped from the Venice System may cause exceedance
of the
effluent standards for dissolved iron as set forth in Section
304.124.
(Pet.
at
3.)
The groundwater in this system is “not
known to have been contaminated by any human activity”.
(Ag. at
4.)
The dissolved
iron
in the groundwater “quickly combines with
the oxygen in the air to form insoluble iron oxide”.
(Id.)
The
flow rate ranges from a maximum rate of six million gallons per
day
(mgd) or 9.3 cubic feet per second (cfs)
to an average rate
of 4.3 mgd or 6.7 cfs.
(Ag. at 4.)
The discharge commonly
contains more than the effluent limitation of 20 milligrams per
liter
(mg/L)
of total iron.
(Ag. at
4.)
RELIEF REQUESTED
IDOT is asking tor an adjusted standard to allow
IDOT
to
discharge into the Mississippi river the pumped groundwater with
effluent levels for dissolved iron of
20 ing/L.
Specifically IDOT
is requesting that:
1)
The
effluent standard for iron
(total)
shall be 20 Tag/L
for the Venice deep well system discharge.
The
effluent standard for iron
(total)
found at 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 304.124 shall not apply to this Mississippi
River discharge.
2)
The requirements of 35 111. Adm. Code 304.124,
as that
section relates to the effluent standards for iron
(total), shall
not apply
to the effluent discharges
from the Illinois Department of Transportation’s deep
well Venice System, provided that the effluent standard
established in this adjusted standard i~met.
‘IDOT’s petition will be cited as “Pet,
at
_“;
the Agency’s
response will be cited as “Ag. at
“.
4
In order to comply with the proposed adjusted standard,
the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) would
continue to operate the Venice System as it presently
operates.
There would be no capital costs or operating
costs for IDOT to comply with the adjusted standard.
(Pet.
at 8-9.)
AGENCY RESPONSE
The Agency generally supports the requested adjusted
standard for iron.
(Ag. at 9.)
However the Agency points out
that a review of the analytical data indicates that the composite
water analytical results for the Venice System has a 34 mg/L
concentration of total suspended solids
(TSS), whereas the Board
effluent limitation is 15.0 mg/L in 35 Ill.
Adiu. Code 304.124(a)
(Ag. at
9.)
The Agency recommends that the Board modify the
proposed language to include an alternative limitation of
35 mg/L
for TSS in the IDOT discharge.
(Ag. at 9.)
IDOT did not respond
to the Agency statement that the Board should grant IDOT an
adjusted standard for TSS.
COMPLIANCE
ALTERNATIVES
IDOT contracted with Homer and Shifrin, Inc. to prepare a
report on the existing conditions and possible treatment for the
Venice System.
(Ag. at 5.)
Two
primary alternatives
investigated in that report were conventional mechanical water
treatment and outfall diffusion in the Mississippi river.
(Pet.
at 6.)
According to the petitioner, the probable cost for a
water treatment plant would be $5,170,000; while the outfall
diffusion system would cost $i,ooo,ooo.
~pet. at 8.)
The cost
would be as follows:
Water Treatment
River Outfall/
Plant
Diffusion System
Construction
$2,200,000
$1,000,000
Annual Operation
$267,000
and Maintenance
Annual Chemical
$113,000
Present Worth
$5,170,000
$1,000,000
(Pet.
at 9.)
The Agency points out that the river outfall diffusion
system would require IDOT to seek a permit modification for the
delineation of a “mixing zone”.
(Ag. at 7.)
The Agency states:
5
Consequently, the costs and design of an outfall/diffusion
system are not properly before the Board when the Board
is
considering an adjusted standard from the effluent limit of
35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.124 for total iron and when the
determination of the optimum mixing efficiency is a duty of
the Agency under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.102(d).
(Ag. at 8-9.)
With respect to the use of a treatment plant the Agency
indicates that it believes the cost estimate “understates” the
probable actual cost.
(Ag.
at 8.)
The Agency points out that
the estimates do not include professional fees for the design,
bidding and construction supervision of the project.
(Id.)
Further the Agency believes that IDOT has underestimated the
costs of maintenance of the facility as well as failing to
discuss the residual chlorine in the effluent from treatment.
(Id.)
The Agency believes that the estimated expense is not
justified by any environmental benefit.
(Id.)
HEALTH
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
IDOT maintains and the Agency generally agrees that the
adjusted standard will not result in environmental or health
effects substantial more adverse than the effects considered by
the Board when adopting 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.124.
(Pet.
at 19;
Ag. at 10.)
The Agency bases this conclusion on the greater flow
of the Mississippi River and the levels of dissolved oxygen and
exiting concentrations of total suspended solids upstream of the
Venice system discharge.
(Ag.
at 10.)
The Agency states:
At maximum discharge of the Venice system, the 500 to 1
dilution ratio will provide sufficient oxygen to convert the
dissolved iron to the relatively non-toxic insoluble state.
Furthermore, the velocity
of
the
flow
in
the
Mississippi
will reduce the possibility of accumulated sediment.
(Ag. at 10—11.)
JUSTIFICATION
According to IDOT,
the factors relied upon by the Board in
adopting 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.124 concerned potential adverse
impacts upon aquatic life,
crop irrigation and water supplies.
(Pet, at 18.)
IDOT maintains that it the adjusted standard Is
granted no such adverse impacts are anticipated.
(Id.)
In
addition, IDOT argues that the compliance alternatives are
technically feasible but economically unreasonable
as
the
alternatives are costly and could have adverse cross—media
affects.
(Pet.
at 19.)
Finally, IDOT maintains and the Agency
agrees that the adjusted standard is consistent with federal law.
(Pet.
at 19; Ag.
at
16.)
6
The Agency agrees that the factors relied upon by the Board
in adopting 35 Ill.
Adin.
Code 304.124 are substantially~and
significantly different for IDOT.
The Agency points out that the
rule of general applicability considered the iron limitations in
the “usual treatment of water and wastewater, not as the sole
contaminant of concern”.
(Ag. at 14.)
Further, the Agency
states that it cannot foresee,
if the adjusted standard is
granted, any effects that are significantly and substantially
more adverse than the environmental and health effects considered
by the Board when adopting 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.124.
(Ag.
at
15.)
Finally the Agency states:
In this case, where the groundwater is relatively
uncontaminated by other pollutants, treating for iron alone
is not economically reasonable, given the lack of expected
environmental results.
(Ag. at
13.)
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that IDOT has demonstrated that the factors
surrounding the request for adjusted standard are substantially
and significantly different than the factors considered by the
Board in adopting the rule of general applicability.
Further,
the Board is persuaded that the alternatives for compliance would
be economically unreasonable and would result in no increased
environmental protection.
Therefore, the Board will grant IDOT
an adjusted standard for iron in its discharge from the Venice
System to the Mississippi river.
The Board notes that the Agency has recommended that IDOT be
granted an alternative limitation of 35 mg/L for TSS.
(~
Ag.
at 9.)
However, IDOT did not respond to the Agency’s
recommendation and the petition as submitted only requests
an
adjusted standard for iron.
Thus, the Board finds that there is
insufficient information in the record to support an adjusted
standard for TSS at this time.
This opinion constitutes the Board findings of facts and
conclusion of law.
ORDER
The Board hereby adopts the following adjusted standard,
pursuant to the authority of Section 28.1 of the Environmental
Protection Act:
1)
The effluent standard for iron
(total)
shall be 20 mg/L
for the deep well Venice system discharge.
7
2)
The requirements of 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 304.124,
as that
section relates to the effluent standards for iron
(total), do not apply to the effluent discharges from
the Illinois Department of Transportation’s deep well
Venice System, provided that the effluent standard
established in this adjusted standard is met.
3)
In order to comply with the proposed adjusted standard,
the Illinois Department of Transportation
(IDOT) would
continue to operate the deep well Venice System as
it
presently operates.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act
(415 ILCS
5/40.1) provides for the appeal of final Board orders within 35
days of service of this decision.
The Rules of the Supreme Court
of Illinois establish filing requirements.
(But 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 aboy~eqpinion and order was
adopted on the
/7~’
day of __________________,
1995,
by a
vote of
‘7~O
.
1~U
~
Dorothy
Iv!.
,4unn, Clerk
Illinois ~Jlution
Control Board
