ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February 28,
1991
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 90—199
(Variance)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
MR. ROBERT J. MUFFLER APPEARED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER,
and
MS. LISA MORENO APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J. Anderson):
This matter comes before the Board on a Petition for
Variance (“Petition”) filed by the Depar.tment of the Army
(“Army”) on November
2,
1990.
The Army seeks variance from 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 302.208(e),
“Chemical Constituents”, and from
304.124(a),
“Additional Contaminants”,
to the extent that the
rules
relate to the water quality standards for total chloride,
sulfates, dissolved iron, and total manganese and the effluent
standards for
total
iron and manganese.
The Environmental
Protection Agency
(“Agency’t)
filed its Recommendation on December
24,
1990.
The Agency recommended that variance be granted, but
that
it he subject to conditions.
On January
2,
1991,
a hearing
was held in this matter
in Alton,
Illinois.
On January 17,
1991,
the Agency filed an Amended Recommendation.
The Agency again
recommended that variance be granted, but modified the
Recommendation with regard to certain proposed variance
conditions.
Based on the record before
it, the Board finds that the Army
has presented adequate proof that immediate compliance with the
Board’s regulations would impose an arbitrary or unreasonable
hardship.
Accordingly,
the variance will be granted subject to
the conditions set forth
in accompanying Order.
BACKGROUND
As part of its duties under the Civil Works Program,
the
United States Army Corps of Engineers,
St.
Louis District,
is
responsible for flood control on the Mississippi River and for
the operation and maintenance of 505 flood relief wells that are
a part
of
the mainline flood protection system for the Metro East
Sanitary District and the Chain of Rocks Canal Levee.
(Amended
Rec. par.
3).
119—43
—2—
The Army submitted its Petition for Variance so that
it may
implement a program
to rehabilitate the relief wells.
(Pet.
p.
1).*
The rehabilitation program consists of two projects.
(Id.).
The first, entitled “Relief Well Rehabilitation Phase
I,
Metro East Sanitary District
(MESD)
P&S”,
is currently in the
p1ann~ngand specification stage.
(Id.).
The second project
will follow and is entitled, “Chain of Rocks Relief Well
Rehabilitation Phase
I,
P&S”..
(Id.).
Each project consists of
three phases
(Phases
I through III).
(Id.).
Geographically, the St. Louis District
is comprised of
approximately 27,000 square miles of land
in eastern Missouri and
western Illinois.
(Id.).
The area’s population
is approximately
three million persons,
two million of whom are located
in the
St.
Louis Metropolitan area.
(Id.).
Major geographic
features of
the St. Louis District include 300 miles of the Upper Mississippi
River;
the lower
80 miles of the Illinois River; all of the Salt
and Meramec Rivers, and the Upper St. Francis Basin
in Missouri;
the Kaskaskia, Big Muddy,
and the Lower Cache Rivers in Illinois;
and several smaller
tributary streams and creeks.
(Id.
pp.
1-2).
The area involved in the variance request
is divided into
the following locales:
a.
the Lower Flank, with
63 relief wells that discharge
towards the Prairie Du Pont Creek;
b.
the Upper Flank, with
6 relief wells that discharge
towards the Cahokia Creek Diversion Channel;
c.
the Chain of Rocks Canal East Levee, with 200
relief
wells that discharge towards the Chain of Rocks Canal;
and
d.
the Riverfront,
with 236 relief wells,
18 of which
discharge into the Granite City Sewer Ditch which
in
turn discharges into the Mississippi River, and 218 of
which discharge directly into the Mississippi from Mile
184
to Mile 174.
(Id.
p.
2; Reference Portfolio
Enclosure 3- Table
1 and aerial
maps)
*
Because the rehabilitation program will create a discharge
that is classified as a wastewater pursuant
to Board regulations,
the Army must obtain both a variance and a National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System
(“NPDES”) permit to operate the
wells.
(Pet.
pp.
1,
11; Amended Rec. par.
11).
After
the Board
grants the variance,
the Agency will issue a permit
that
incorporates the effluent and water quality standards established
by the variance.
(Amended Rec. par.
11).
119—44
—3—
The relief wells were installed in the 1950’s and early
1960’s, and consist of 8—inch diameter, slotted treated wood
stave pipe and metal housings at the surface.
(Id. p.
2).
In
the Metro East. area,
the wells are approximately 70
to
80
feet
deep.
(R.
o.
8).
The wells are installed in large diameter
holes,
drilled down into levee or floodwall foundations.
(Pet.
p.
2).
Graded gravel filter packs surround the pipe annulus.
(Id.
The purpose of the relief well system is
to provide a relief
for excessive hydrostatic pressure coming from the flood stages
on the Mississippi River.
(R.
p.
8).
There is an aquifer
beneath the clay that is overburden
in most of the floodplain
areas.
Levees are built on the aquifer.
(Id.).
The levees’
integrity
is dependent upon the pressure release of
the relief
wells because such release lowers
the natural uplift grade end
down to
a point where there will not be instability at the land-
slide levee toe.
(Id.).
The Army asserts that
the capacity of the relief wells has
declined considerably from the original capacity.
(Pet.
p.
2).
Specifically, the Army states that recent studies indicate that
the yields from the relief wells are 35 percent below their
installed capacities,
and that,
as a result, such reduced
capacities will adversely affect the integrity of the flood
protection system.
(Id.).
The Army notes that the decline
in
performance
is attributable to the accumulation of bacterial
residue and other fine—grained materials
(i.e. mineral scale and
possibly silt to clay—sized particles)
in the screens and filter
packs that surround the pipe annulus.
(Id.).
As previously stated,
the Army is proposing a three phase
rehabilitation program.
Such program consists of cleaning all
wells with household chemicals
(Phase
I), cleaning those wells
in
a worse condition with a combination treatment of steam,
chemicals, and acid
(Phase
II), and replacement of a few wells
(Phase III).
(Id.).
The program was developed from the data
gathered from recently completed relief well testing programs and
on the Army’s experiences
in rehabilitating relief wells
in the
other drainage and levee districts.
(Id.).
A detailed
description of the program is as follows:
Phase
I
All wells
(except
those included
in the testing program) will
be sounded for depth and pumped to determine their existing
condition.
The wells will
be pumped at an approximate rate
of 500 gallons per minute for two hours
to produce
approximately 60,000 gallons of groundwater discharged to the
surface.
The Army will then add a combination of detergents
and disinfectants
to the wells, which will be agitated for
approximately
15 minutes by surging with a long block and
surgeon tool.
The detergent will be a dispersing agent
or
surfactant such as trisodium phosphate (added in the amount
119—45
—4—
of approximately 10 pounds per 100 gallons of water).
The
disinfectant will consist of chlorine
in the form of calcium
hypochlorite which is used in swimming pools
(added in the
amount of approximately
2 pounds per 100 gallons of water).
After
24 hours,
the wells will then be purged of the effluent
by surging.
In addition to the combination of the chemicals
and surging that will kill bacteria and remove the fine—
grained material from the well screens and filter material,
a
scrubber brush and a surgeon tool will also be used to clean
the encrustation from the well screens and put the chemical
and cleaning agents out into the gravel pack where they will
kill the bacteria and dislodge the silt and mineral
encrustation.
This stage will last approximately two
hours.
Approximately 30,000 gallons will be discharged on
the riverside of the levee or floodwall.
The Army will then
insert
a submergible well and a well pump in order
to
evacuate all the cleaning agents from the well.
The pumping
will last approximately one hour, and the chemicals will be
discharged on the riverside of the levee after traveling
through a discharge line that is run over the levee.
Another
pump test will then be performed to evaluate the amount of
improvement,
and the results compared with the minimum
acceptable criteria developed for that well.
The Army
anticipates that this phase will return approximately two—
thirds
of the wells to their original design performance.
Phase II
Those wells with specific capacities below the minimum design
yield criteria following Phase
I will
be subject to this
phase.
The Army estimates that approximately one—third of
the wells will be subject
to this phase
(i.e.
approximately
100 wells in the Metro—East area and
60 in the Chain of Rocks
levee).
Phase II will consist of a treatment program using a
process similar
or equal
to the Blended Chemical Heat
Treatment
(BCHT)
currently under patent by ARCC,
Inc.
In
this process,
steam and a combination of surfactants,
hydrochiorine, and acids are used to substantially reduce the
bacteria surrounding the wells, and remove any material that
reduces efficiency.
Included in this phase are qualitative
bacterial and chemical field tests that will assist
in
diagnosing the cause of well yield decline and in selection
of the most appropriate combinations of chemicals to be
used.
As in Phase
I, the wells will be purged of the
effluent,
and approximately 30,000 gallons will be discharged
on the levee or floodwall.
Final pump tests will be
performed as in Phase
I
to evaluate performance.
The Army
anticipates that this phase will bring all of the remaining
wells to a performance level within minimum design criteria.
Phase
III
Wells that are missing, damaged,
or deteriorated beyond
repair
in the MESD and along
the Chain of Rocks Canal will be
119—4 6
—5—
replaced with new wells.
No chemicals are involved in this
phase.
(i~:•
pp.
2—3)
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”)
has promulgated general use water quality standards for several
chemical constituents
in water.
Illinois subsequently adopted
the same limits under Illinois law.
The current applicable water quality and effluent standards
from which the Army is seeking a variance are as follows:
35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.208(e)
(water quality):
Chloride
(total)
500.0 mg/l
Sulfate
500.0 mg.l
Iron (dissolved)
1.0 mg/i
Manganese
(total)
1.0 mg/i
35 Ill. Mm. Code 304.124(a)
(effluent):
Iron (total)
2.0 mg/i
Manganese
1.0 mg/l
In consideration of any variance, the Board determines
whether
a petitioner has presented adequate proof that immediate
compliance with the Board regulations at
issue would impose an
arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.
Ill. Rev.
Stat. 1989,
ch.
ill 1/2,
par. 1035(a).
Further,
the burden
is not upon the Board
to show that the harm to the public outweighs petitioner’s
hardships;
the burden is upon petitioner
to show that its claimed
arbitrary or unreasonable hardship outweighs the public interest
in attaining compliance with regulations designed to protect
human health and the environment.
Willowbrook Motel
v.
Illinois
Pollution Control Board,
135 Ill.App.3d
343,
481 N.E.2d 1032
(1st
Dist.
1985).
Lastly,
a variance by its nature is a temporary reprieve
from compliance with the Board’s regulations and compliance
is to
be sought regardless of the hardship which the task
of eventual
compliance presents an individual polluter.
Monsanto Co.
v.
IPCB
67 Ill.
2d
267,
367 N.E.2d 684
(1977).
Accordingly, except
in
certain special circumstances,
a variance petitioner
is required,
as
a condition to grant of variance,
to commit
to a plan that
is
reasonably calculated to achieve compliance with the term of the
variance.
COMPLIANCE PROGRAM
The Army asserts that
it
is not proposing a treatment
program for the effluent from the rehabilitation program because
119—47
—6—
a treatment program,
a one time program of short duration that
will encompass wide spread locations and numerous wells,
is not
justified economically.
(Pet.
p.
10).
The Army adds,
however,
that compliance will resume upon completion of the program
because the rehabilitation program is a temporary program to
cleanse and restore the wells.
(Id.).
The Army asserts that studies on alternative ways of
rehabilitating relief wells were conducted
in the past.
(Id. p.
11).
The Waterways Experiment Station
in Vicksburg, Mississippi
assisted and contributed
to the development of the rehabilitation
program selected.
(Id.).
The selected program was based on
engineering feasibility,
effectiveness, and economics.
(Id.).
A pipeline will be attached to the relief wells to carry the
wastewater
to riverside of the levee.
(Id.).
The wastewater
will have
a saxophone discharge.
(Id.).
The surrounding area
beneath the discharge point
will
have an erosion barrier such as
a heavy plastic sheeting.
(Id.).
Upon completion of the
rehabilitation program and
in order
to minimize environmental
impacts, any areas damaged by the discharge will be restored to
their original condition.
(Id.).
The Army has developed the following tentative schedule for
the rehabilitation program, which is dependent upon available
funding:
Phase
I
Plans
& Specs to SEA 8(a) Program
Dec. 1990
Receive Proposal from SBA Contractor
Jan. 1991
Contract Award
Feb.
1991
Notice to Proceed
Mar. 1991
Begin Actual ~ehabilitation
Apr. 1991
Complete Rehabilitation
Oct.
1991
anticipate
135 days of actual pumping
Phase II
Advertise/Plans
& Specs
to SBA
Mar.
1992
Bid Opening/Receive Proposal
Apr.
1992
Contract Award
May
1992
Notice to Proceed
Jun.
1992
Begin Actual Rehabilitation
Jul.
1992
Complete Rehabilitation
Dec.
1992
anticipate
80 days of actual pumping
(Id.
p.
10).
119=48
—7—
HARDSHIP
The Army provides four
reasons why
it believes that
compliance with the Board’s regulations would impose an arbitrary
and unreasonable hardship economically and technically.
First,
the Army asserts that the cost to treat the discharge from the
rehabilitation program is not justified for the short duration
required to implement
the program.
(Id. p. 12).
Second,
the
Army notes that the development and construction of a treatment
facility to treat the discharge would take longer and create more
damage to the surrounding area than the rehabilitation program.
(Id.).
Third,
the Army notes
that in addition to the cost to
treat the discharge,
the increased time period required to
develop the treatment system would increase the risks associated
with potential flooding and structural integrity of the flood
protection system.
(Id.).
Specifically, a levee slide or an
embankment failure could occur
that may eventually lead to the
actual breaching of
a levee
in which water would be released to
previously protected areas and result
in property destruction and
possible loss of life.
(R.
p.
9).
Finally,
the Army notes
that
a major design modification would be required to the subject
project
in order to maintain compliance,
and that the
modifications would result
in
a “considerable cost”
increase to
the project and major changes to the scheduled construction dates
in addition to the cost that would be incurred should the flood
protection system fail.
(Pet.
p.
12).
The Agency agrees with the Army that requiring the
discharges from the rehabilitation program to be treated to meet
applicable standards would cause an arbitrary and unreasonable
hardship, particularly in light of the nature and short duration
of the project and the fact that the treatment system would have
to be mobile and relatively complex in order
to accommodate the
contaminants involved in the project.
(Amended Rec. par.
14).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The water quality for each of the tributaries receiving the
relief well discharge (listed on page
2 above)
is as follows:
Chloride Sulfates
Manganese
Iron
Nitrogen
Phosphorous
(mg/i)
(mg/i)
(mg/i)
(mg/i)
(mg/i)
(mg/i)
Lower Flank
(Prairie Du Pont Creek)
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
Upper Flank
(Cahokia Creek Diversion Channel)
58—150
.23—1.4
.68—24
.1—1.5
.l2—.97
119—49
—8—
Chain of Rocks Canal
22—48
38—53
.15—.20
1.5—2.2
.42—2.0
.l4—.25
Riverfront
(Granite City Sewer Ditch)
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
Riverfront
(Mile
184 to Mile 174)
20—41
54—130
1.1—20
.07—.96
.54—5.7
.05—.47
(Pet.
pp.
5—9)
The Army states that when the calcium hypochiorite is added
to the relief wells during Phase
I,
the contact time
is
calculated so that the available chlorine will be spent.
(Id.
p.
3).
It also notes
that the chemical reactions will
be numerous
with the end product being an increase in concentration of
chloride salts.
(Id.).
Finally,
the Army notes that any
increase
in concentration of phosphorus compounds due
to the
addition of trisodium phosphate during the phase will be
insignificant because,
if
it reached the receiving water,
it
would bind with suspended material and rapidly settle
to the
bottom and
be unavailable for biological uptake.
(Id.).
With regard to Phase II,
the Army notes that when the
sulfamic acid (HOSO,NH~,) is used,
the contact time is calculated
so that the acid will break down to sulfur salts and nitrogen
salts and so there will be no significant change in the pH of
the
effluent when compared to ambient groundwater conditions.
(Id.).
The Army also asserts that any heating of the water that
occurs during this phase will
be insignificant because the
contact time is sufficient such that
the discharge water would
return to ambient temperatures.
(Id.).
Chlorine
in the form of
calcium hypochiorate
is also added as
a disinfectant in this
phase resulting in an increase
in chlorides.
In both Phase
I and Phase II,
the water flowing under
natural conditions and the water discharged from the wells during
the rehabilitation program eventually reach the same receiving
water.
(Id.).
The only difference appears to be an increase
in
chlorine salt in Phase
I and sulfur salts
in Phase
II.
(Id.).
The discharge rate of the effluent during the rehabilitation
process
is 500 gpm for
60 minutes or
1.1 cubic feet per second
for each well.
(Id.).
Thus,
where the receiving water
is known,
there exists a very large dilution effect between the effluent
and receiving water.
(Id.).
119—50
—9—
In terms of numerical values, the Army anticipates the
following relief well discharge water quality during the two
phases of the rehabilitation program:*
Chloride
Sulfates
Iron
Manganese
(mg/i)
(mg/i)
(mg/i)
(mg/i)
Lower Flank (Prairie Du Pont Creek)
Ambient
Groundwater2
0.89—21
2.5—168
7.7—26
0.27—1.9
Effluent
Phase
I
0.89~608~-
2.5—168
7.7—26
0.27—1.9
Effluent
Phase
II
0.89_6081
2.5_23,7001
7.7—26
0.29—1.9
Upper Flank (Cahokia Creek Diversion Channel)
Ambient
Groundwater2
9—57
41—130
1.5—9.4
0.05—0.8
Effluent
Phase
I
9~608~-
41—130
1.5—9.4
0.05—0.8
Effluent
Phase II
9—608~-
4l—23,700~-
1.5—9.4
0.05—0.8
Chain
of Rocks
Canal
Ambient
Groundwater2
3—40
45—160
5—10
0.36—0.59
*
The Army predicts that, although some effluent will enter one
of the areas listed below, most of the well discharge and
cleaning effluent will not reach the receiving streams because
it
will evaporate or percolate into the ground at the base
of the
riverside levee toe
(or,
in some instances,
as much a thousand
feet away from the levee and the water).
(Pet.
p.
5).
Moreover, the Army,
in
its petition, shows calculations
indicating an increase
in nitrogen and phosphorus.
However, both
the Army and the Agency do not discuss the formation of nitrogen
and phosphorus compounds or their impact on the receiving
streams.
We note that the addition of nitrogen and phosphorus
compounds could add to the nutrient bonding of the receiving
streams.
119=5 1
—10—
Effluent
Phase
I
3_6081
45—160
5—10
0.36—0.59
Effluent
Phase
II
3_6081
45_23,7001
5—10
0.36—0.59
Riverfront
(Granite City Sewer Ditch)
Ambient
Groundwater2
42
91
21
1.6
Effluent
Phase
I
42—608~-
91
21
1.6
Effluent
Phase
II
42_6081
9l—23,700~-
21
1.6
Riverfront
(Mile 184 to Mile 174)
Ambient
Groundwater2
3.5—66
15—553
3.4—23.8
0.24—1.7
Effluent
Phase
I
3.5—608~-
15—553
3.4—23.8
0.24—1.7
Effluent
Phase II
3.5_6081
15_23,7001
3.4—23.8
0.24—1.7
1-The Army does
not know the exact form of the
chemicals
to
be
used
or
the
rate
of
mixing
that
will
occur.
As
a
result,
the chloride
and sulfate concentrations for Phases
I and
II
are estimates
with
the upper
limit
being
the
initial
concentration
of
the
chemicals added
to
rehabilitate
the
relief wells.
As mixing
with
groundwater
occurs
over
time,
the
concentrations
found
in
the
discharges
will
drop
to
the
lower
values.
The
values
for
total
iron
and
manganese
represent
ambient
groundwater concentrations.
2A
complete
summary
.
of
the
chemical
characteristics
of
the
ambient
groundwater
from
the
relief
wells
can
be
found
in
Enclosure
1 of the Reference Portfolio that
is
attached to the Army’s Petition for Variance.
(Pet.
Ex.
1)
119—5 2
—11—
In addition to the above, the Army gives ~severalmore
reasons as to why it believes that granting
a variance from
certain Board standards for
the water discharged from the relief
wells during the rehabilitation program into the various
receiving waters will have a negligible environmental
impact.
First,
the Army asserts that the Mississippi River between
river miles 174 to 184 and the Chain of Rocks Canal
is so vast
that the impacts of the relief well discharge will be negligible
due to dilution.
(Id. p.
10).
As for the Chain of Rocks Canal,
the Army notes that fish and wildlife resources on the canal are
poor in comparison to the main channel of
the Mississippi River
because of the heavy level of barge traffic on the canal and
sterile riparian zone, and that impacts
to fish and wildlife
resources on the canal would be minimal and short term due to the
dilutive effects of the Mississippi River.
(Id. pp.
10—11).
The Army also notes
that the Cahokia Ditch Diversion Canal,
Granite City Sewer Ditch, and Prairie du Pont Creek provide very
poor fish and wildlife habitat.
(Id.
p.
11).
Specifically, the
Army asserts that these ditches experience elevated temperatures
during critical low flow summer months and support only aquatic
life which
is tolerant of a hostile environment
(i.e.
gizzard
shad, carp fathead minnows, and green sunfish) because these
streams experience low/nonexisting flow conditions,
forming a
series of polluted pools
in the summer and because all have been
highly modified by channelizatiori and lack a riparian border to
provide shade.
(Id.).
Although the Army has not conducted an
aquatic inventory of these ditches,
it notes that the aquatic
biota
is likely to be similar
to a number of other urban ditches
in the general area which have been sampled because the streams
receive inflow from smaller drainage ditches and storm sewers
from nearby municipalities that contain pollutants such as oil,
gasoline, antifreeze,
salt,
etc.
into the streams.
(Id.).
CONSISTENCY WITH FEDERAL LAW
Both the Army and the Agency state that there are no federal
regulations currently in effect that are applicable to the relief
well rehabilitation project.
(Pet.
p.
12; Amended Rec. par.
20).
AGENCY RECOMMENDATION
The Agency states that
it believes that the Army’s variance
request
is reasonable.
(Amended Rec. par.
21).
Specifically,
the
Agency states that
it appears that rehabilitation of the relief
wells
is overdue, and should be done as quickly as possible in
order
to mitigate the potential for flooding due
to reduced
relief performance.
(Id.).
With regard to the term of the variance, the Agency
recommends that variance begin upon initiation of Phase
I of the
project and continue until Phase
LI
is complete or
in five years,
whichever occurs first.
(Amended Rec.,
par.
22(E)).
119—53
—12—
CONCLUSION
In light of all the facts and circumstances of this case,
it
appears that the Army has presented adequate proof that immediate
compliance with 35
Ill. Adm. Code 302.208(e)
and 304.124(a)
would
impose an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship upon
the Army.
Moreover, although the Army has not quantified the amount of
dilution that will occur
in the receiving streams,
the Board
agrees with the parties that no significant environmental impact
will result from the rehabilitation program.
The Board will
accordingly grant variance consistent with this Opinion.
As a final note,
the Board believes that
the conditions as
recommended by the Agency are generally appropriate.
The Board,
however, makes one substantive insertion;
the placement of the
phrase,
“or with any standard for water then
in effect”,
or
like
phrases, at appropriate places
in the Order.
The purpose
is to
assure that
if the standard is altered during the term of
variance by USEPA action and corresponding action by the Board,
the compliance target
for the Army then becomes the revised
standard rather than the presently applicable standard.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
Petitioner,
the Department
of the Army,
is hereby granted
variance from 35
Ill. Adm. Code 302.208(e), Chemical
Constituents, and 304.124(a), Additional Contaminants,
but only
as they relate
to the water quality standards for
total chloride,
sulfates, dissolved iron, and total manganese, and the effluent
standards for
total iron and manganese, subject to the following
conditions:
(1)
This variance shall begin upon initiation of Phase
I of
the well rehabilitation project.
(2)
This variance shall terminate on the earliest of the
following dates:
(a)
the date on which Phase
II
is complete;
or
(b)
in five years from the date this variance begins.
(3)
Compliance shall be achieved with the water quality
standards for total chloride, sulfates, dissolved iron,
and total manganese found in
35
Ill. Adm. Code
302.208(e), and the effluent standards for
total iron
and manganese found in
35
Ill. Adm. Code 304.124(a),
or
any standards for those constituents
in water then in
effect,
no later
than the date of termination of this
variance.
119—54
—13—
(4)
The Phase
I and Phase
II relief well rehabilitation
wastewater discharges to Prairie Du Pont Creek, Cahokia
Creek Diversion Channel, Granite City Sewer Ditch, and
Riverfront Mile 184
to Mile 174 shall
not exceed the
respective maximum concentration levels
for chloride,
sulfate,
iron, and manganese set forth in the table on
pages 9—10 of the Opinion accompanying this Order.
(5)
Prior
to beginning each phase of the rehabilitation
project the Petitioner shall notify Mr. Bob Schleuger of
the Department of Water Pollution Control, Collinsville
Office, by telephone at 618—346—5120.
Petitioner
shall
also notify Mr. Mark T. Books of the Agency’s Compliance
Assurance Section
in writing at the following address:
Mr.
Mark T.
Books
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Water Pollution Control
2200 Churchill Road
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield,
Illinois
62794—9276
(6)
Petitioner shall use the least amount of chemicals
needed to perform the necessary work and shall document
the dose rates.
(7)
Petitioner shall perform sampling at the time the wells
are initially purged of the effluent after
the surging
operations as follows:
A.
No sampling shall
be required for any well with an
overland flow greater
than 1,500 feet as indicated
in Table
1 of the Petition
(90 wells, all of which
discharge to the Mississippi River);
B.
For wells with an overland flow of less than 1,500
feet,
sampling shall
be conducted on a
representative number
of wells based on well
spacing,
such that one well shall be sampled for
every well within
a
200 foot distance of the
sampled well.
The total
of sampled wells in each
phase need not exceed one third of the total of all
wells
in that phase.
C.
‘me
following parameters shall be sampled:
1.
Chloride——Phase
I
for all wells to be sampled;
2.
Sulfates——Phase
II forall wells
to be
sampled;
3.
Iron——Phase
I and
II,
except Phase II wells
discharging into the Granite City Sewer Ditch;
119—5.5
—14—
4.
Manganese——Phase
I wells discharging to
Prairie Du Pont Creek only.
(8)
The results of the laboratory analyses shall
be reported
to:
Mr.
Mark T. Books
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Water Pollution Control
2200 Churchill Road
P.O.
Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois
62794—9276
(9)
Until
full compliance is achieved, Petitioner
shall take
all reasonable measures to minimize the levels of the
chemical constituents at
issue in this variance.
Within 45 days of
the date of this Order, Petitioner shall
execute and forward
to Mr. Mark T.
Books,
Division of Water
Pollution Control,
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
2200
Churchill Road,
Post Office Box 19276,
Springfield,
Illinois
62794—9276,
a Certification of Acceptance and Agreement
to be
bound to all terms and conditions of this variance.
The 45—day
period shall
be held
in abeyance during any period that this
matter
is being appealed.
Failure to execute and forward the
Certificate within
45 days renders this variance void and of no
force and effect
as a shield against enforcement of
rules from
which variance was granted.
The form of said Certification
shall
be as follows:
CERTIFICATION
I,
(We), ______________________________, hereby accept and
agree to the bound by all terms and conditions of the Order of
the Illinois Pollution Control Board,
in PCB 90-199, February
28,
1991.
Petitioner
By:
Authorized Agent
Title
119—56
—15—
Date
Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act,
Ill. Rev.
Stat.
1989,
ch.
111 1/2 par. 1041, provides for appeal of Final
Orders of the Board within
35 days.
The Rules of the Supreme
Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the abo~eOpinion and Order was
adopted on the
~
day of
~
,
1991,
by a vote
of
~O
.
~
~.
~
Dorothy M. inn,
Clerk
Illinois P4~lutionControl Board
119—57
