ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

January 11,

1995

CITY OF

ELGIN,

Petitioner,

)

PCB 94—371

v.

)

(Water Well Setback Exception)

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

ORDER

OF THE

BOARD

(by J.

Yi):

On December

2,

1994 the City of Elgin

(City)

filed a

petition for an exception to the water well setback requirements,

pursuant to Section 14.2(c) of the Environmental Protection Act

(Act) and the Board’s procedural rules at 35 Ill. Adm. Code

106.601 et.

seq.

(415 ILCS 5/14.2(c)

(1992).)

The water well

setback requirements set forth in Section 14.2 of the Act provide

minimum

set back zones from public water supply wells for the

location of each new potential source.

(415 ILCS 5/14.2

(1992).)

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency), on

December 22,

1994,

filed a motion to dismiss or alternatively an

order requesting clarification and more information.

The City is requesting the Board to grant an exception from

the water well setback exception in order to construct new lime

residue storage lagoons at its Airlite Street Water Treatment

Plant located at 74 North Airlite Street, Elgin,

Illinois.

(Pet.

at 1.)’

The City states that its current lagoons are located

approximately 20 feet from one of its water supply wells and

within the 200 feet minimum setback zone for its other three

water supply wells.

The City states that the facility is

surrounded by an elementary school, hospital, residential areas

and a private property that do not permit adjacent relocation of

the lagoons.

The existing lagoons were constructed in the 1960s

and must now be closed pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm Code 615.442.

The

City alleges that the hydrogeological conditions surrounding the

water supply wells is such that there is minimal potential for

contamination.

The City further states that it “...will solicit

the services of a professional engineering

firm

to oversee the

design and construction of the new lagoon and also the closure of

the existing lagoon...” and that it will use the best available

1

The City’s exception petition will be referenced as “Pet.

at

“

and the Agency’s motion to dismiss will referenced as “Mot.

at

“.

---

2

controls economically achievable to minimize contamination.

(Pet. at 3.)

However, the City does not provide any specific

design, operational and maintenance plans and states that

“specific

design criteria, operating requirements, and costs

will be formulated after the Board’s response to this petition

for exception is received.”

(Pet.

at 3.)

The City concludes by

stating the following as its basis for the exception:

The Airlite Street plant is landlocked, which prevents

adjacent relocation of the lagoon.

Water production

must continue, which necessitates the lagoon to store

the lime residues.

Even though the lime residue is classified as a

“special waste,” the lagoons receive only the by-

products of the water softening reactions at the plant.

The residue is primarily non—harmful calcium carbonate,

which does not pose a hazard to the potable water

supply.

The lime residue is permitted for land application,

where it is beneficial,

as opposed to wasting valuable

landfill space.

The lagoon provides the necessary

storage space until land application can be completed.

To build a pumping station and a pipeline to send the

lime residue to a remote location would pose an

unreasonable financial hardship on the City of Elgin.

Not only would it be much more costly than

reconstruction of the lagoon, but our land application

permit specified different methods of spreading the

lime residue from the Airlite Street plant.

To mix

this lime residue with that from another source would

require all of it to be land applied with the much more

costly method, and this would necessitate an

unreasonable increase in costs for many years in the

future.

A new lime storage lagoon, properly constructed and

operated as per the guidelines in Part 616 under Title

35: Environmental Protection, will not pose any

significant threat to the City of Elgin’s groundwater

supply.

The likelihood of contamination of the

groundwater will be minimized by a properly constructed

and operated lime residue storage lagoon, since the

liners will be impervious and prevent migration of any

of the lime residue.

(Pet.

at

4—5.)

The Agency in its motion argues that the Section 14.2 of the

Act provides certain criteria for the Board to consider in the

evaluation for a request for an exception to the minimum setback

requirement.

(415 ILCS 5/14.2

(1992).)

Those criteria are as

---

3

follows:

-

.

.that compliance with the setback requirements of this

Section 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 or potential route will

not constitute a significant hazard to the potable water

supply well.

The Agency summarizes the City’s facts contained in the petition

and concludes that the City is requesting the Board to grant an

exception where the City has not provided specific design,

operational and maintenance plans for the new facility that is to

be located in the water well setback.

Therefore, the Agency

states that the Board would be in the position of granting an

exception pursuant to Section 14.2(c) of the Act without the

necessary specific information.

Thus, Agency requests the Board

to dismiss the petition as being legally insufficient due to the

lack of specific.

Alternatively, the Agency requests the Board to issue an

order directing the City to supplement its petition with the

following information:

“(1) describe the source of the

contamination;

(2)

specifically state the technology controls

that it will utilize in designing and constructing the source;

(3) provide an exact location of the proposed source and the

surrounding area that include sufficient information to determine

the maximum feasible setback;

(4) provide a contingency plan for

the provision of an alternative source of potable water;

(5)

set

forth implementation schedule that states proposed construction

dates;

(6) present the economic factors that will enable a

determination that the siting of this impoundment at some other

location would pose an economic hardship.”

(Mot.

at 7.)

The

Agency states that at a minimum the above information is required

in order for the petition to be sufficient.

As of the date of this order the City has not filed a

response to the Agency’s motion.

However, the Board denies the

Agency motion to dismiss this matter and grants the Agency’s

alternative request for an order directing the City to supplement

its petition with specific information.

The City of Elgin shall

file a supplemental petition that,

at a minimum, contains the

following information:

(1) A description of the source of potential contamination;

---

4

(2) A detailed description of the elements of the planned

new sludge storage facilities that relate to groundwater

protection such as liners,

leachate collection system,

etc.

the description shall include drawings and design

specifications;

(3) A detailed site map which, at a minimum, identifies the

location of the existing lime residue storage lagoons, the

new planned lime residue storage facility, public and

private water supply wells in the vicinity of the site;

Include sufficient information to determine the maximum

feasible setback;

(4) Site hydrogeologic characteristics including, but not

limited to groundwater flow rate, groundwater flow

direction;

(5) A discussion of the site geologic characteristics

supported by Illinois State Geologic Survey’s regional

geologic investigations or other studies.

(6) Public water supply well monitoring data and/or any

other groundwater monitoring data to characterize the

groundwater quality in the vicinity of the site; and

(7) An evaluation of technical feasibility and economical

reasonableness of compliance alternatives such as relocation

of public water supply wells, construction of remote sludge

storage facility, etc. to prove that compliance with the

setback requirements of Section 14.2(c) of the act would

pose an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship.

Such an

evaluation must include cost estimates of various compliance

alternatives.

The cost information should include the

overall capital cost as well as the annualized capital and

operating costs;

(8) Provide an implementation schedule that states proposed

construction dates; and

(9) A contingency plan for the provision of an alternative

source of potable water if existing source is contaminated;

Such supplemental petition, or any other appropriate motion,

shall be filed with the Clerk of the Board on or before March 10,

1995.

Failure to do so will subject this matter to dismissal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

---

5

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby cer

y that the above order was adopted op the

//~-

day of

_________________,

1995, by a vote of

~

A.

Thorothy M.,’-~unn,Clerk

Illinois ~óllution Control Board