ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 20,
1993
IN
THE MATTER OF:
)
PETITION OF ILLINOIS AMERICAN
)
AS 91-11
WATER COMPANY FOR AN ADJUSTED
)
(Adjusted Standard)
STANDARD FROM 35 ILL.
ADM. CODE
)
304.124
(TSS AND IRON ONLY)
FOR
)
THE WATER COMPANY’S EAST ST. LOUIS
)
PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY FACILITY
)
NANCY
J.
RICH,
BELL BOYD & LLOYD, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ILLINOIS
AMERICAN WATER COMPANY;
BRUCE
L.
CARLSON, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by R.C.
Flemal):
This matter comes before the Board upon the petition by
Illinois American Water Company
(Water Company)
for an adjusted
standard from the effluent limitations for total suspended solid
(TSS)
and total iron set forth at 35
Ill. Adm. Code 304.124.
The
adjusted standard would apply to clarifier sludge and filter
backwash discharges to the Mississippi River at the Water
Company’s public water supply facility located in East St.
Louis,
Madison County,
Illinois.
The Water Company’s petition was originally filed on
December 31,
19911.
Following the production of various reports
and data,
and discussions and negotiations with the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency), the Water Company filed
an amended petition
(Petition)
on April
12,
1993.
The Agency filed
a response
(Response)
to the Water
Company’s amended petition on April
19,
1993.
The Agency
recommends that the Water Company be granted the adjusted
standard as requested.
(Response at ¶1.)
Hearing was held April
21,
1993 in Belleville,
Illinois.
Representatives of both the Water Company and the Agency
participated in the hearing; no members of the public were
in
attendance.
1
The statutory provision under which this action is brought,
415
ILCS
5/28.3
(see
below),
requires
that
a
petitioner
have
declared i?s intention to pursue an adjusted standard no later than
January
1,
1991,
and to have filed its adjusted standard petition
with the Board
rio
later than January
1,
1992.
The Water Company
has met both of these deadlines.
~
r~r
2
Based upon the record before it and upon review of the
factors involved in the consideration of adjusted standards,
the
Board finds that the Water Company has demonstrated the grant of
an adjusted standard in the instant matter is warranted.
The
adjusted standard accordingly will
be
granted as requested.
ADJUSTED
STANDARD
PROCEDURE
The
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act
(Act)
at
Sectic’ri
28.1
(415
ILCS
5/28.1)2
provides
that
a
petitioner
~aayrequest,
and the Board may impose,
an environmental standard that is:
(a)
applicable solely to the petitioner,
and
(b)
different from the
standard that would otherwise apply to the petitioner as 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 Iii. Adm.
Code Part 106.
For the matter at hand,
there are additional pertinent
provisions found at Section 28.3 of the Act.
Section 28.3
provides explicit authority for consideration by the Board of
adjusted standards applicable to clarifier sludge and filter
backwash discharges
(hereinafter collectively as “discharge”)
to
the Mississippi River or Ohio River from a public water supply
facility.
Additional qualifications are that the public water
supply facility
(a) receive its raw water supply from those
rivers, and
(b) does not use lime softening in the its raw water
purification process.
The Water Company meets each of these
qualifications.
In pertinent part,
Section 28.3 specifies:
a.
Utilizing the provisions of Section 28.1 and this
Section, alternative requirements may be
established by the Board in an adjusted standards
proceeding for the direct discharge of waste
solids to the Mississippi or Ohio Rivers from
clarifier sludge and filter backwash generated
in
the water purification process.
Any public water
supply utilizing the Mississippi or Ohio Rivers as
its raw water source may initiate such a
proceeding provided that its waste solids are
generated as described herein and it does not
utilize lime softening in the purification
process.
An adjusted standard granted by the
Board in an adjusted standards proceeding shall be
based upon water quality effects, actual and
2
Formerly Ill. Rev. Stat.,
ch.
111½,
par. 28.1.
0
~2-U65L~
3
potential stream uses,
and economic
considerations,
including those of the discharger
and those affected by the discharge.
b.
No later than January
1,
1991, the public water
supply shall make a declaration regarding the
intent to pursue an adjusted standard and assemble
and submit to the Agency any background
information in its possession relevant to current
discharge practices.
The Agency,
after a review
of its files and the submittal,
shall request such
further information as it deems necessary for its
initial determination.
*
*
*
*
*
c.
.
.
.
justifications shall be included in the
petition.
Justification based upon discharge
impact shall include,
as a minimum,
an evaluation
of receiving stream ratios, known stream uses,
accessibility to stream and side land use
activities
(residential,
commercial,
agricultural,
industrial,
recreational),
frequency and extent of
discharges, inspections of unnatural bottom
deposits,
odors, unnatural stream chemical
analyses.
Where minimal impact cannot be
established,
justification shall also include
valuation of stream sediment analyses, biological
surveys
(including habitat assessment), and
thorough stream chemical analyses that may include
but are not limited to analysis of parameters
regulated in 35
Iii. Adm. Code 302.
Except as
otherwise provided in this Section, the petitioner
shall adhere to the general procedural rules for
adjusted standards petitions as adopted by the
Board.
If the petitioner files singly,
justification shall include all components
identified as applicable to instances where
minimal impact cannot be established.
*
*
*
*
*
PRIOR PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The matter of discharges of waste solids by public water
supply facilities has been before the Board in a number of prior
actions, including a request for site-specific rulemaking
relating to the Water Company’s East St.
Louis facility addressed
by the Board in proceeding Petition for Site—Specific Exception
tot Effluent Standards for the Illinois-American Water Company,
East St. Louis Treatment Plant (February
2,
1989),
R85-11,
96 PCB
69.
By order of September 25,
1986
(at 72 PCB 429)
the Board
o
~~_Q~55
4
initially denied that request.
The Water Company then
successfully petitioned the Board to reopen the record.
After
supplementation of the record,
including an additional hearing,
the Board proposed a temporary rule that exempted the Water
Company from the TSS and total iron limit effective to January
1,
1992.
That rule was finalized by Board order of February 2,
1989.
In light of the circumstances of the Water Company,
as well
as several similarly situated facilities,
the legislature adopted
and the Governor signed into law P.A.
86—1363, effective
September
7,
1990, that established Section 28.3
of the Act.
NATURE OF THE FACILITY
The discharges at issue in this proceeding emanate from the
Water Company’s East St.
Louis3 treatment facility.
Raw water
is withdrawn from the Mississippi River and purified by removal
of the river solids in a clarification and settling process.
(Petition at ¶2.)
The purified water
is distributed to over
57,300 individual service connections
in the Metro—East area,
representing a population of approximately 300,000 people.
(Tr.
at
17..)
The Water Company’s East St. Louis facility has been in
operation since 1885.
(Tr. at 18.)
There are two actual water
intakes for the facility,
one located at East St. Louis,
and the
other upstream on Chouteau Island.
(3~.)
Sedimentation basins are used to remove heavy,
solid
materials from the raw water; the water is also filtered before
distribution.
(Tr. at 18.)
In both actions there are
accumulations of solids, which are mostly sand and silt that
were
present in the naturally turbid raw water; some of the solids
also result from chemical addition made to the raw water to
assist the coagulation of the natural solids.
The Water Company’s object in the instant action is to
obtain allowance for discharge of these solids into the
Mississippi River.
DISCHARGE SETTING
The Water Company’s discharge occurs directly to the
Mississippi River through an outfall located at River Mile 180.0
~ The Water Company has other facilities within Illinois,
as
well
as
other
states,
that are not the subject
of the
instant
proceeding.
5
and at thirteen feet below normal river
stage.
The river has a
7—day 10—year low flow (7Q10)
of 29,716 MGD
(45,970 cfs),
compared to mean and maximum Water Company discharges of 4.65 and
6.5 MGD,
respectively.
(Petition,
Attachment 2b at 5.)
The Agency observes that commercial traffic is the principal
and controlling use of the river in the vicinity of the outfall.
(Response at ¶12.)
The Agency further observes that the area is
regularly dredged by the Department of Army,
Corps of Engineers,
and by licensed dredges who often remove sand from the area of
the river for resale; the result is
a river bottom that “does not
support a substantial amount of bottom dwelling organisms”.
(j~.)
The Illinois Department of Conservation also reports that
to the best of its knowledge there are no freshwater mussel beds
in the vicinity of the outfall.
(Response, Attachment #1.)
The Illinois State Water Survey has surveyed the aquatic
community of the Mississippi River in the vicinity of the East
St. Louis facility.
It has found a low population density and
low diversity of benthic organisms attributable to the unstable
sand substrate and high stream velocities.
(Petition at ¶26.)
Density of macroinvertebrates showed no significant difference
in
the near shore sampling stations upstream and downstream of the
Water Company’s outfall.
(Id.)
The Water Company explains river-side land use
in the
vicinity of the outfall as follows:
the area near the East St. Louis operations are
commercial and industrial.
.
.
.
The close proximity
of the East St. Louis plant to petroleum docks,
downstream sewage treatment plants and other
industrial
activities, plus the heavy volume of commercial river
traffic, discourage any recreational use of the area.
(Petition at ¶19.)
The Mississippi River is leveed within the area of the Water
Company’s outfall.
(Petition at ¶23.)
NATURE OF THE SOLIDS AT ISSUE
Over time,
the technology and processing employed by the
Water Company has been modified to effect changes in the
composition and concentration of the solids as discharged.
(Tr.
at 66.)
In particular, the Water Company has in recent years
undertaken a number of actions to improve the overall quality of
its discharge,
including installation of Lamella separators and
equipment that allows for continuous discharge of solids from the
sedimentation basins
(Tr. at 20), staggering the backwash
sequences from the 20 filter units, and modification of coagulant
0
L~.2~3657
6
process to minimize the amount and quality of treatment residues
in the discharge4
(Tr.
at 21-22).
Prior to the installation of the continuous—discharge
equipment,
solids from the sedimentation basins were discharged
to the Mississippi River as “batch discharges” at the time of
semi-annual cleanings of each sediment basin.
(Tr.
at 31.)
These discharges were typically of high volume and concentration
over
a short time.
Since early 1992 the batch discharges have
been totally eliminated.
(~~.)
In combination with spreading
the filter backwash activity over a twenty—four hour period, the
continuous discharge now causes return of the “raw water solids
and minimal treatment additives to the river at a rate much more
similar to that at which the solids are withdrawn from the river”
(Tr.
at 32).
The Agency also notes that “discharges have been
more uniform in magnitude and makeup” which “also greatly reduces
the possibility of violations” of the color and turbidity
standards applicable to the Mississippi River.
(Response at ¶6.)
The Water Company has also modified its coagulant treatment
by using
a polymer technology in replacement of the prior
industry-standard alum and ferric salts technology.
The goal of
polymer technology is to replace metal—based coagulants with
biodegradable polymers, and thereby to greatly reduce metal-based
precipitates in the discharge.
(Tr. at 32—22.)
The Water
Company observes that,
after some experimentation,
it was able by
1991 to reduce metal-based coagulant precipitates to less than
one-third of
1
of the total discharge
(Tr. at 33,
42); this
represents an approximate 99
reduction in discharge of metal—
based precipitates.
(Tr. at 33.)
The Agency observes that the Water Company’s discharge is
quite unusual with respect to its
low percent of coagulant—
produced solids:
in the typical treatment plant 25
to 50
of the
discharged solids do not originate from the raw river water
source,
as opposed to the Water Company’s approximate 0.3.
(Response at ¶3; Tr.
at 81.)
The Agency also observes that in
the case of the total iron content, the Water Company’s discharge
is entirely from the raw water.
(Tr.
at 81.)
The Water Company intends to continue to search for a new,
better polymer technology
(Petition at ¶52); the currently-used
coagulant needed under high-turbidity conditions still involves
approximately a 4
metal-based component
(Tr. at 37).
‘~
A
‘principal
factor
in
the
Board’s
granting
of
the
temporary site-specific relief
in R85—11 was the request of
the
Water
Company
for
opportunity
to
investigate
and
implement
alternate coagulation technology.
See 96 PCB 69 et seq.
n
L
fl
“
7
The Water Company has employed ENSR Consulting and
Engineering
(ENSR)
to conduct, among other matters, studies of
the toxicity and impact of the discharge (see Attachment 2a to
Petition).
Toxicity testing was conducted on both the settleable
solids and supernatant of the effluent;
in both cases test
organism survival was
100
(Tr. at 46).
ENSR concludes that
neither the suspended solids nor the discharge water “pose a
potential for adverse impacts on the Mississippi River”.
(Tr.
at
46-47.)
Similarly, based on the “negligible effect of the
discharge on the physical environment arid a
local biota which
is
ecologically adapted to naturally elevated levels of TSS,
it was
concluded
by
ENSR) that the discharge has no significant impact
on the river biota”.
(Tr.
at 47.)
The Agency also notes that a
priority pollutant scan also indicated that the Water Company’s
effluent did not exhibit any toxicity.
(Response at ¶14.)
Review of historical data and current conditions indicated
the absence of any visible bottom deposits,
unnatural materials,
odors,
or color due to the Water Company’s discharge.
(Petition
at ¶22.)
Nevertheless, because of the important nexus between the
nature of the coagulant process and the resultant quality of the
discharges, both the Water Company and the Agency endorse the
imposition of a series of proscriptions on the nature of the
coagulant process as a necessary condition of grant
of the any
adjusted standard.
These
include5:
1)
Use of no non—metal based coagulants other than
those that are federally—approved for such use;
2)
Use of metal—based coagulants only as
necessary to produce potable water under high
turbidity raw water conditions; and
3)
Review and approval of any coagulant change
by the Agency.
EXISTING AND PROPOSED ADJUSTED TSS
AND
IRON STANDARDS
The rule of general applicability at issue is found at 35
Ill. Adm. Code 304.124, within the Board’s rules governing
general water effluent discharges.
Section 304.124 establishes
numeric standards for a variety of effluent contaminants.
These
standards apply to all discharges to the waters of the State,
unless specific provision has been made otherwise by this Board.
~ The full text and provisions of the coagulant condition as
proposed by the Water Company and the Agency, and accepted by the
Board,
occurs as item
(b)
in the order accompanying this opinion.
0
~2-O&59
8
In the instant matter the standards at issue are the
standard for TSS at 15 mg/L and for total iron at 2.0 mg/L; each
of these numeric limits
is subject to the “averaging rule” of
Section 304.104(a)6.
Analysis of the Water Company’s effluent demonstrates that
the only general effluent standards which are not being met at
the facility are those for TSS and total
iron.
(Petition at
¶28.)
The Agency concludes that the Water Company’s discharge is
in violation of the total iron standard entirely due to the
makeup of the solids of the Mississippi River7, which on any
given day may have a concentration that causes discharges from
the Water Company to exceed the standard.
(Tr.
at 85.)
The
Agency further observes that the Water Company therefore cannot
control the total iron discharge concentrations.
(u.)
Measurements of the dissolved iron concentration of the Water
Company’s effluent are below the 0.04 mg/L limit of detection
(Petition, Attachment 2a at 2—9),
confirming the strong
association of the total iron concentration with particulate
solids.
After consideration of alternative numeric caps for TSS and
total
iron,
both the Water Company and the Agency propose that
the existing TSS and total iron standards simply not apply at all
to the Water Company’s discharges.
The Agency observes that “it
would be too difficult to develop a numeric limit which would be
representative of the concentration
.
.
.
contained in the Water
Company’s discharge”.
(Tr.
at 86.)
The Agency adds that an
adjusted standard without numeric limits can be adequately
enforced through certain monitoring requirements contained in the
Water Company’s NPDES permit.
(u.)
As specifically regards the TSS standard, the Agency
observes that the natural in—river concentrations range from
seven tens to several hundreds rng/L.
Thus,
if a TSS
concentration cap were to be imposed, the Agency opines that it
would have to be “high enough to account for the times of high
TSS concentrations in the river, thus rendering the limit
rhetorical”.
(Tr. at 86.)
Moreover, under various scenarios of
~ Section 304.104(a) provides that
(1) no monthly average
shall exceed the prescribed numerical standard,
(2) no daily
composite shall exceed two times the prescribed numerical
standard, and
(3) no grab sample shall exceed five times the
prescribed numerical standard.
~ ENSR reports an average ambient total
iron concentration
in the river
of
1.9
m/L.
(Petition,
Attachment
2a
at
2-9
and
Table 2—2.)
Di
~.2-U66O
9
river flow and effluent discharges,
ENSR concludes that typically
the Water Company’s discharge would increase mixed in—stream TSS
concentrations by less than
1 nig/L.
(Petition, Attachment 2a at
2-7.)
This
is small with respect to ambient TSS concentrations;
it
is also small with respect to the precision involved in normal
TSS measurement procedures.
ALTERNATE
CONTROL STRATEGIES
The Water Company,
its consultants, and the Agency have
explored a range of control strategies8.
The Water Company
concludes that the alternatives are either infeasible or cost—
ineffective.
(Tr.
at 77.)
The Agency also concludes,
based its
independent review, that compliance alternatives available to the
Water Company are economically unreasonable and technically
infeasible.
(Response at ¶8; Tr.
at 83.)
CONCLUSION
The Agency concludes,
in view of the various special aspects
of the Water Company’s discharge and the environmental setting of
the discharge, that “granting of the adjusted standard will not
adversely impact the environment any more severely than
compliance with the regulations of general applicability,
i.e.,
the general effluent limitation”.
(Tr.
at 83.)
The Board
similarly finds.
Based upon its consideration of the record presented in this
action, the Board finds that the Water Company has provided
justification necessary for an adjusted standard to be granted
with conditions.
The Board has made one change in the conditions, and that is
to make it clear that the Agency shall approve or disapprove any
demonstration by the Water Company for proposal for change or for
changes to the coagulants.
Such Agency determination shall be in
writing and is appealable
(See Section 5(d)
of the Act).
This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
8
Substantial portions
of the instant record
are addressed
to
presentation
of various
compliance
alternatives.
The Board
will
not
attempt
to
do
an
alternative—by—alternative review
of
this
portion
of
the
record
here;
the
interested
person
is
directed to the summary presented at ¶~34-47of the Petition and
the Board’s discussion of compliance alternatives
in the earlier
R85-ll
(96 PCB 69,
et seq.) proceeding.
0
Lt2-066
I
10
ORDER
The Illinois-American Water Company
(Water Company)
is
hereby granted an adjusted standard applicable to its potable
drinking water treatment plant located in East St.
Louis,
Illinois, subject to the following conditions:
a)
Discharges of clarifier sludge and filter backwash
effluent shall not be subject to the effluent standards
for total suspended solids and total iron of 35
Iii.
Adm. Code 304.124.
b)
The Water Company shall use only non-metal based
coagulants approved pursuant to Sections 1442(a) and
(b) (1)
of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act
(42
U.S.C.
Sections 300j—l(a) and
(b)(1),
or identical
chemical equivalents of such approved non-metal based
coagulants at all times during which the raw water
turbidity level
is such that the exclusive use of the
non—metal based coagulants allows the Water Company to
produce potable drinking water which meets the
requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
At times
during which raw water turbidity levels exceed those
under which potable water can be produced with the
exclusive use of the non-metal based coagulants, the
Water Company may use the metal based coagulants with
the non—metal based coagulants to the extent required
to produce potable drinking water.
For the purposes of
this adjusted standard, non—metal based coagulants
shall mean coagulants containing no more than 5
aluminum by weight and no other metals which would
cause violations of applicable water quality or
effluent standards.
Additionally,
if the Water Company
proposes or
is required to change coagulants,
the Water
Company shall demonstrate to the Agency the effect of
the change and the percentage of solids in the
discharge that are attributable to treatment additives.
The Agency shall review and approve or disapprove any
such demonstration.
The Agency’s determination shall
be issued in writing.
C)
The granting of this adjusted standard is not to be
construed as affecting the enforceability of any other
Board regulations, the Act, the Clean Water Act, or any
federal regulation.
Nothing in this order shall
preclude the Agency from exercising its statutory
authority to require as
a permit condition a monitoring
program sufficient to assess compliance with this
adjusted standard and any other Board regulation, the
Act, the Clean Water Act, or any federal regulation and
other controls,
if needed for compliance including
compliance with water quality standards.
562
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act,
415 ILCS
5/41
(1992), 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 N.
Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above opinion and order was
adopted on the
O~-day of
L~7
,
1993 by a
vote of
~—~-‘
Control Board
