1. IT IS SO ORDERED.
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February
2,
1989
IN THE MATTER OF:
PETITION FOR SITE—SPECIFIC
EXCEPTION TO EFFLUENT STANDARDS
FOR THE ILLINOIS—AMERICAN
)
R85—ll
WATER COMPANY,
EAST ST.
LOUIS
TREATMENT PLANT.
ADOPTED RULE.
FINAL ORDER.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J.
Theodore Meyer):
This matter
is before the Board
on
a petition
for site—
specific rulemaking
filed
by Illinois—American Water
Company
(Company),
a subsidiary of American Water Works Company.
In
its
original petition, filed
April
23,
1985,
the Company asked
that
its East
St. Louis
water
treatment plant be
totally exempted
from
the effluent limitations
for total
suspended solids
(TSS)
and
total
iron.
The limitations
for these contaminants,
found
at 35
Ill. Mm.
Code 304.124, are
15 milligrams per liter
(mg/i)
and
2
mg/i, respectively.
On September
25,
1986 the Board denied the
Company’s request for complete relief.
On October
28,
1986
the
Company
filed a motion
to reopen the record
so that
it could
submit additional evidence regarding alternative treatment
methods.
The Board granted
that motion on November 20,
1986.
The Company filed
its revised treatment proposal on January
20,
1987.
After
several cancelled hearing dates,
a
public
hearing was held on November
10,
1987
at
the East
St.
Louis City
Hall.
On
February
2,
1988,
the Department of Energy and Natural
Resources (DENR)
informed the Board
that
it found
that
its prior
negative declaration, issued March
4,
1986,
is still appropriate.
On June
16,
1988
the Board proposed
for
First Notice
a
temporary rule exempting
the Company
from the TSS and total
iron
1imit~tions of Section 304.124 for
a period
of three years,
provided that the Company uses only biodegradable coagulants
listed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA)
as acceptable drinking water
additives.
The proposed
rule would expire on January
1,
1992.
During
the three years of
the rule,
the Company
is
to conduct
a comprehensive study of the
effects
of
the use of
the coagulants on
the receiving stream.
The proposed rule was published
in the Illinois Register on July
8,
1988,
at
12
Ill.
Reg.
11397.
Several comments were received after
First Notice
publication.
The Department of Commerce and Community Affairs
filed
a comment which stated that the proposed rule will have no
—2—
effect on small businesses.
(P.C.
*77.)
Comments were also
filed by the Company
(P.C.
#75)
and the Agency
(P.C.
#76).
(The
substance of these comments will be addressed later
in this
Opinion.)
On January 17,
1989 the Joint Committee on Administrative
Rules
(JCAR)
filed its Certification of
No Objection
to the
rule.
To satisfy concerns raised by JCAR,
the Board has agreed
to make several non—substantive changes to the authority note and
the table of contents.
The Board has also agreed
to add
a
sentence
to the text of the
rule,
as follows:
The Company,
in consultation with
the
Agency,
shall conduct
a comprehensive
study of the effects of the use of those
polymers on the receiving stream,
including but not limited
to, information
on the toxicity of the discharge, both
to
humans and
to
fish;
the concentration of
the polymers
in the discharge as compared
with the raw water application rate of
the polymers;
and the rate and chemical
pathway
for degradation of the polymers.
This addition adds the requirement that the Company conduct a
study of the effects of the polymers on the receiving stream
to
the rule.
That requirement was previously stated only
in the
Board’s Opinion.
Background
The discharges at issue
in this proceeding emanate from
the
Company’s East
St. Louis treatment plant, which is located
on the
Mississippi River.
Raw water
is withdrawn from the river,
purified, and distributed
to
the homes and businesses of the
approximately
50,000 customers in the Company’s Interurban
District.
Of these customers, approximately 19,100 live
in and
around
the City of East St.
Louis.
The products of the
purification process are potable water
and residual solids.
The
solids are made up essentially of total suspended solids,
principally silt, which
is present
in the raw water drawn
from
the Mississippi.
There
are slight additions
to the
silt,
generated by coagulants which are used
in the treatment
process.
These solids are then discharged back into
the
Mississippi.
(Company Ex.
7, pp.
5,
8.)
The East
St.
Louis treatment facility is actually made up of
two separate plants.
(Transcript of November
10,
1987
(Tr.)
at
79.)
Water
is withdrawn from the Mississippi
River
at two
intakes which
are known as the low—service and Chouteau
Island
intakes.
The low—service
intake
is located at the East
St.
Louis
facility, which
is about
15 miles below
the confluence of the
96-70
—3—
Mississippi and Missouri Rivers.
The Chouteau Island
intake
is
somewhat north of Granite City,
5 miles below the confluence of
the two rivers
(Tr. 74).
The Chouteau Island
intake feeds water
to
a treatment
facility known as the Aldrich Plant,
which
is a
series of eight Pen—filters with clarifying equipment
in their
centers.
The water filter itself
is on the outside perimeter of
each Pen—filter.
(Tr.
75.)
After filtering
in
the Aldrich
plant,
the Chouteau Island water goes
to
a clear well located
next to
the Pen—filters.
Water withdrawn from the low—service
intake
is routed
directly to treatment units
known as Lamella separators.
At the
Lamella separators,
silt and other sediments are removed
from the
water.
After
treatment at the Lamellas,
some of the water
is
piped
to settling basins
1 and
2,
and some
to settling basins
4
and
5
(Tr.
76).
The clean
water
on top of the sedimentation
basins then overflows into
a trap that is connected
to
the low—
service
intake filter building at
the conventional (low service)
plant
(Tr.
88—89).
After treatment at the conventional plant,
the low—service
intake water goes into its own clear
well.
The
low—service clear well and
the Chouteau
Island clear
well are
piped
in common
into the treatment facility’s customer
distribution system.
(Tr.
75—76,
88—89.)
Sediment discharges occur
from the Aldrich plant, the
Lamella separators,
the sedimentation basis,
and
the filters
in
the conventional plant.
(Tn.
80—81.)
The Aldrich plant
discharges sediment back to
the river
in a daily cycle system
(Tr.
77).
The Lamella
separators discharge
to the river on
a
continuous basis.
Filter backwash removal
is required every 48
to
72 hours
at both the Aldrich Pen—filters
and the conventional
plant
(Tn.
78—SO).
The sediment basins are currently cleaned
twice
a year,
in
the spring
and
fall.
Flushing
is not done
during
the
winter because outside pressure may cause structural
damage when all of the water
is removed during
freezing
conditions.
Similarly,
the Company does not discharge the basins
during the maximum load summer periods because
a basin cannot be
taken out of service at that time.
(Tn.
204.)
See generally
Company
Ex.
1, Figure
3,
at
9.
Approximately 51,447 pounds of dry weight solids are drawn
through the low—service intake everyday.
This figure
is based
upon
a mean water flow of 26.475 million gallons per day and 233
parts per million of
total suspended solids
in the raw water.
About 29,148 pounds per day of dry weight solids are received
from the Chouteau
Islands intake.
That figure
is based upon
a
mean flow of 15 millions gallons per day and
233 parts
per
million of total suspended solids.
Thus,
the plant’s average
intake
is 41.475 million gallons per day.
(Tn.
66;
see Company
Ex.
6.)
The daily solids discharge from the plant
is
96—71
—4—
approximately 82,430 pounds.
(Company Ex.
1 at 35.)
On
an
annual basis,
the plant discharges over 30,000,000 pounds
(15,000
tons)
of dry solids
to the river.
Company Proposal
As previously noted, on September
25,
1986 this Board denied
the Company’s petition
for complete relief
from the TSS and iron
limitations contained
in Section 304.124.
The Company
subsequently moved
to reopen the record
so that
it could submit
additional evidence on treatment methods.
The Company stated
that the compliance method that
it had
intended
to use
(on—site
treatment
using mechanical centrifuges)
had been
found
to be
significantly less feasible, both economically and
technologically than originally anticipated.
The cost
of that
method had been originally estimated at
a capital cost of $8.5
million and $150,000 annually
in operating
costs,
but further
study indicated
a capital cost of roughly $12.4 million.
The
Company also stated that industry experience with centrifuges has
been sufficiently discouraging
to question whether the treatment
would work properly.
Thus,
the Company proposed
an alternative
treatment method.
The Company initially suggested that
it would lagoon all
discharge from its
Lainella separators.
Sediments
in the
discharge would be dried by evaporation and by withdrawing
settling water.
The dried
sediment would
be
transported off—
site.
In July 1987,
the Company learned
of the availability of
new biodegradable polymers and began testing
those polymers.
Prior
to that time,
the Company used inorganic coagulants (alum
and fennic chloride)
to help remove sand and sediment from the
raw water.
Preliminary test results showed
that the new
coagulants increase the effectiveness of the Lamella separators,
resulting
in the
removal
of an average of 80
of the residual
solids
in the raw water drawn through the low service intake.
Company
Ex.
6.
The Company therefore revised its alternative treatment
proposal
to consist of two parts:
(1)
the elimination of the
alum and fernic chloride coagulants
in favor of the new
biodegradable polymers; and
(2)
the construction of new lagoons
to dewater
the solids, with subsequent
land disposal
of the dry
sediment.
The
total
capital costs of
this lagoon
treatment
method are estimated
at approximately $7,494,000
in
1987
dollars.
Annual
operating costs would
be approximately $232,852
during the five years that the dried solids can be disposed of on
Company property.
When the dried
solids must be disposed of off—
site,
total
annual operating costs are estimated at $1,224,240.
(Company Ex.
6.)
The annual cost of the biodegradable polymers
is $27,000.
(Tr.
56—57;
Company Ex.
5.)
The
lagoon treatment
method
is expected
to reduce discharges from the East St.
Louis
facility by approximately
51.
(Company Ex.
5,
6;
Tr.
48.)
96—72
—5—
The implementation of the new coagulation system
is
a two—
step process.
First,
the biodegradable polymers are
injected
into the inlet line at
the low—service intake pump building,
which
feeds directly into the Lamella separators.
The second
stage polymer can be fed
at either
the
inlet or the outlet of the
Lame.la
units.
Test results indicate that
the second stage
polymer
is most effective when added at the Lamella outlet.
Although the Lamella separators service only the low—service
intake, the biodegradable polymers are used
at both the low—
service intake
and the Chouteau Island
intake.
(Company Ex.
5.)
The second step of
the Company’s proposal
involves the
construction of new lagoons
for the dewatering of the sediments
which are now discharged
from the Lamella separators
to the
Mississippi.
All solids removed by the
Lainellas would be placed
in this series of settling lagoons, where
they would
be dried
by
natural
evaporation and
the withdrawal of
the settling water
through
a pipe network beneath a sand
arid gravel
filter media.
The withdrawn water would be recycled
to the head of the
conventional treatment plant.
(See Company Ex.
6,
Revised
Attachment
1.)
The Company proposes
to build
six
settling
lagoons over 10.2 acres of land already owned
by the Company.
(Company
Ex.
6.)
After the solids are dried
they would be
removed
from the lagoons and landfilled.
The Company has
approximately 18 acres of property available
for this purpose.
This space will
be sufficient
for about
five years, after which
the dried sediment would be disposed of off—site.
(Company Ex.
6;
Tn.
66—68.)
The Company contends that
this proposal, although not
capable of total compliance with the TSS and total
iron effluent
limitations,
is the most economically reasonable, especially when
balanced against
its claim that the Mississippi
Riven
is not
adversely affected by the discharges from the
East St. Louis
treatment facility.
If its proposal is rejected and 100
compliance
required, the Company states that it would probably
utilize natural on—site dewatening.
This would
involve the
construction of two very large settling lagoons totalling
58
acres.
All residual solids at the treatment facility would
be
discharged
to these lagoons, where the sediment would be dried
solely through natural
evaporation.
The estimated capital cost
of this alternative
is $15,715,900.
This estimate does not
include
the cost of obtaining the
additional
land necessary
for
this alternative,
if such land
is available.
Additionally, when
the lagoons eventually fill
up,
the dried
solids would
have to be
transported off—site for disposal, resulting
in annual operating
costs of at least
$2 million per
year.
(Company Ex.
6;
Tr. 69,
73.)
Environmental Impact
In support of its original
request for complete relief,
the
9~~,_
73
—6—
Company submitted a study of
the
impact of
the Company’s
discharges
to the Mississippi
River.
(Company Ex.
1.)
That
study, done by the
Illinois State Water Survey
(SWS)
and
partially funded by the Company, concluded that:
Except during 7—day 10—year low flow conditions,
increases in suspended solids
in the Mississippi
River
during occurrences of maximum waste discharges will not
be perceptible.
(Company
Ex.
1 at
60.)
Mr.
Ralph
Evans, one of the
authors of the study, testified that
a change
in
the composition of the bottom sediments is only
detectable
at the time
the basins are cleaned, twice
a year.
A
week after the basin cleaning,
the river bottom composition had
returned
to natural levels.
(Company Ex.
1 at 58; Tn.
137.)
Mr.
Evans believes, based upon the results of the
SWS study, that the
Company’s discharge does not degrade the environmental quality of
the Mississippi
River
(Tr.
137—138).
This belief
was
strengthened by the Company’s use of biodegradable polymers.
Mr.
Evans
particularly stated that these biodegradable coagulants
would address the Board’s previous concerns, stated
in the
September 1986 Opinion and Order,
about the use of alum and
fernic chloride as coagulants.
(Company
Ex.
8.)
In response
to requests by the Board
and the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (Agency),
the Company submitted
information on the biochemical oxygen demand
(BaD) of the
biodegradable coagulants used at
the East
St. Louis plant.
The
results of the tests show that the BOD levels
are well within the
limits of
35
Ill. Adm. Code 304.120.
(Company Brief,
Exhibit
A.)
The Company also provided the results of the EP Toxicity
tests run on
the sludge produced after
use
of the biodegradable
polymers.
Those samples indicate that the sludges showed
no
toxicity under
federal regulations or
under
35 Ill. Mm. Code
721.124,
nor
were there any detectable levels of pesticides
or
herbicides
in any of
the samples.
(Company Brief, Affidavit of
Clarence
A.
Blanck,
Exhibit
B.)
The company states that it
is
generally believed
that because of the comparatively small
quantities of
polymers
used and the neutralization effect
resulting
from the anionic properties of the solids discharged
from the plant,
the discharges containing
the polymers will not
be
harmful.
However,
the
Company
notes
that
there
is
a
lack
of
conclusive
research
on
the
subject,
and
suggests
that
tests
be
run
on
the
discharge.
Such
tests
would
provide
direct
evidence
of
polymer
behavior
under
actual
treatment
conditions.
The
Company
agrees
that
its
requested
relief
be
conditioned
upon
such
tests.
(Company
Reply
Brief
at
22.)
The
Agency
states
that
it
has
concerns
about
the
use
of
the
biodegradable
polymers,
given
the
uncertainties
of
these
new
products.
The Agency states that
it has reviewed the September
25,
1987 USEPA
list of acceptable drinking water additives,
and
9A—74
—7—
that
while
AgeFloc
B—SO
is
listed,
no
listing
was
found
for
FreFloc
25.
(These
are
the
polymers
used
by
the
Company.)
Of
particular
concern
to
the
Agency
is
the
effect
of
the
polymers,
even
if
accepted
for
potable water
use,
on
fish
in
the
receiving
stream.
The Agency also raises
a concern about
the uncertainty
of the rate and chemical pathway
for degradation of the polymers.
Economic Impact
The Company admits that 100
compliance with the TSS and
iron limitations
is technically feasible, but argues that the
cost of full compliance
is economically unreasonable.
Much of
the Company’s argument is based upon
the depressed economic
condition of
the East St.
Louis area.
Mr. Thomas
M.
Connor, Vice
President and Manager of the Company, testified that 58.6
of the
households
in East St.
Louis have incomes placing
them below the
poverty line.
(Company Ex.
7.)
Mr.
Connor
stated that the costs
of full
compliance,
if allowed
by
the Illinois Commerce
Commission,
would result in rate increases of about
17,
or
approximately
$60 per customer
family.
The cost of the Company’s
alternative proposal would “necessitate” an 8
increase
in water
rates,
or
about
$28 per customer family.
Mn. Connor testified
that
given
the
very
poor
economic
conditions
in
the
East
St.
Louis
area,
and
keeping
in
mind
that
the
SWS
study concluded that
the
Company’s
discharges
do
not
cause
environmental
harm,
he
believes
that
the
costs
of
full
compliance
would
unfairly
burden
the
Company’s
customers.
(Company
Ex.
7.)
The
Agency
states
that
it
sympathizes
that
the
Company’s
customers
will
bear
additional
fees
if
full
compliance
is
required,
but
contends
that
the
cost
of
pollution
abatement
is
historically
the
most
readily
accepted
of
all
government
impositions.
The
Agency
notes
that
there
are
other
water
treatment
plants
in
Illinois which are
in
compliance
with
the
TSS
and
iron
limitations
(see
DENR
Ex.
1),
and
maintains
that
the
Company
has
avoided
the
compliance
costs
which
were
paid
long
ago
by
the
complying
plants.
Response
to
First
Notice
Comments
In
its
First
Notice
comments,
the
Company
stated
that,
based
upon
a
careful
review
of
the
proposed
rule,
it
supports
the
issuance
of
the
rule.
(P.C.
#75.)
The Company believes that
the
proposed
rule shields
its East St. Louis customers
from economic
hardship while promoting environmental goals.
The Company feels
that the on—Site
testing which will
occur during the temporary
rule will protect water
quality and facilitate
the Company’s use
of innovative
treatment technology.
Furthermore,
the Company stated that the proposed
rule
is
consistent with federal
and state approval
requirements
for
drinking water polymers.
The Company noted that the Safe
96—75
—8—
Drinking
Water
Act
(42
U.S.C.
300f
et
seq.)
provides
that
USEPA
is
the
designated
regulatory
authority
for
drinking
water
additives.
The
proposed
rule
requires
the
Company
to
use
only
coagulants
that
have
been
approved
by
USEPA.
The
Company
also
points
out
that
Section
653.202(b)
of
the
Agency’s
Technical
Policy
Statements
(35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
653.202(b))
provides
that
public water
supply chemical
treatment additives must be listed
by USEPA and
the American Water Works Association
(AWWA).
The
Company states that
AWWA
guidelines do not generally recommend
polymer
additives which have not been approved
by USEPA.
On
the other
hand,
the Agency’s First Notice comments
(P.C.
#76)
reflected its continuing objection
to the proposed rule.
The Agency raises three claims:
1)
that the proposed rule
violates Section
39 of the Environmental Protection Act
(Act)
(Ill. Rev.
Stat.
1987,
ch.
Ill
‘2’ par.
1039), which provides
for
Agency issuance of permits;
2)
that
the Board’s consideration of
water quality and economic
impact in proposing
the rule violates
federal law; and
3)
that the proposed opinion and order does not
define what testing
is required during
the period
of
the proposed
rule.
The first
two
issues raised by the Agency (issuance of
permit and consideration of water
quality and economic
impact)
were also argued
in
the Agency’s post—hearing briefs.
The Board
addressed both claims
in its June
16,
1988 Opinion and Order
(slip op.
at 8), and reaffirms its belief
in those holdings.
As
to the Agency’s third claim (that
the proposed opinion does not
define what testing
is to be done)
,
the Board points out that the
June
16 Opinion does contain general guidelines on what the study
shall contain.
(Slip op. at
7...)
However, the Board agrees that
the Agency’s expertise should be used
to more specifically define
what testing should be done by the Company.
Therefore,
the
Company is directed
to consult with the Agency when designing the
comprehensive study,
and
to periodically consult with
the Agency
during
the course of the study.
Finally,
the Board notes that the Company’s comments
indicate that
it will consider acting upon
the Board’s suggestion
that it might join other water
treatment plants
in
a general
rulemaking.
In order
to avoid any possible confusion,
the Board
wishes
to state that its suggestion of
a general
rulemaking
was
directed
only to other water treatment plants which
are similarly
situated
to the Company’s East St.
Louis treatment facility (i.e.
plants
which
intake from and discharge to the Mississippi).
~fter consideration of
the comments received during
the
First Notice period,
the Board
sees no need
to alter
the
substance of the rule.
.
~—
76
—9—
Conclusion
When promulgating regulations under
the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act (Act),
the Board
is required to
consider:
the existing physical conditions,
the character of
the area involved,
including the character of
surrounding
land
uses, zoning classifications,
the
nature of the existing air quality,
or receiving
body of water,
as the case may be,
and
the
technical
feasibility and economic reasonableness
of measuring
or reducing
the particular
tyoe of
pollution.
(Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1987,
ch.
lllT/~ par.
1027(a)
.)
After considering
the circumstances of this case
in light of all
these
factors,
the Board finds
that some relief
is
warranted.
Therefore,
the Board
will adopt
a
temporary regulation exempting
the Company
from the TSS and
total iron limitations of
Section
304.124 for
a period
of three years.
During
these three years,
the Company shall continue
to treat
its water
exclusively with
the biodegradable polymers.
The Company shall conduct
a
comprehensive study of the effects of the use of those polymers
on the receiving stream,
including information on:
(1)
the
toxicity of the discharge, both
to humans and
to
fish;
(2)
the
concentration of the polymers
in
the discharge as compared with
the raw water application rate of the polymers, and
(3)
the rate
and chemical pathway
for degradation of the polymers.
The
Company need not proceed with the construction of the new
settling lagoons at this time.
This three—year exemption
is
intended
to provide
a period of experimentation with these new
biodegradable coagulants, and
the
Board believes that it would
be
premature
to order
the construction of the lagoons before there
are conclusive results on
the effects of the polymers.
While
the
Board
finds that the preliminary evidence shows that these
coagulants are both safe and effective,
the possibility that the
final results of the study may not be as positive precludes the
Board from ordering
a $7.5 million expenditure on the lagoons at
this time.
The Board
believes that this temporary exemption
is
justified when all of the circumstances of this case are balanced
together.
It
is true
that total
treatment is technically
feasible:
it
is also true that the costs of such treatment are
high,
and
would
most
likely
be
passed
on
to
customers
who
live
in
a
severely
economically
depressed
area.
The
Board
does
not
believe
that
the
Mississippi
River will be adversely affected
by
the
temporary
exemption.
The Mississippi
is
a rapidly moving
river
which
naturally
contains
a
high
percentage
of
silt.
(Company
Ex.
1.)
The
use
of the biodegradable polymers by
themselves
will
not
reduce
the
amount
of
solids
discharged
by
the
—10—
Company,
but it will improve
the nature of those discharges.
The
Company will no longer use alum and fernic chloride as
coagulants,
thereby
virtually
eliminating
the
aluminum
in
the
discharge and greatly reducing the amount of
iron.
(Company Ex.
1,
8.)
The aluminum and
the concentrated iron
in the discharge
were specific concerns noted by the Board
in
its September 25,
1986 Opinion.
Additionally, the use of the biodegradable
polymers will result
in
a dramatic reduction
in the volume of
additives necessary.
According
to
the Company, the use of the
polymers will allow the use of less than 1/12 of previous
quantities at the low—service plant and
less than
1/3 of
the
former usage
at Chouteau
Island.
(Company Reply Brief at
16.)
The Agency argues that Section 304
of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C.
1314)
precludes the Board
from relying
on the
environmental impact or
the economic
impact on the discharger.
However, the Board believes that its
prior assessment of this
issue, included
in
the September
1986 Opinion
(72 PCB
429,
437—
438),
remains correct.
USEPA has not yet promulgated regulations
establishing effluent limitations on water
treatment plant
waste.
In the absence of such regulations, effluent limitations
are
to be established on a case—by—case basis under
Section
402(a)(l)
of the Clean Water
Act.
(33 U.S.C. 1342(a)(l).)
The
Board continues
to believe that directives from tJSEPA give the
Board
and
the
Agency
broad
discretion
in
determining
the
appropriate
standard
of
control
to
apply
to
discharges
from
water
treatment
plants.
Additionally,
as
noted
above,
the
Board
is
statutorily required to consider
the
the factors set out in
Section 27(a)
of the Act.
The Board
has done
so,
and finds that
under
the state statute, the Company has shown that it
is
entitled
to temporary relief.
There remain several
issues upon which the Board wishes
to
comment.
First,
the Agency suggested
the possibility that an
NPDES permit could
not be issued
to
the Company which did not
contain numerical limitations on TSS
and
iron.
Although the
Company argues in its reply brief that numerical limitations
should
not be set,
one of
its attorneys stated
at
the
hearing
that
the Company would
be willing
to work with the Agency for
as
long
as necessary
to work out NPDES limitations.
(Tr. 178—179;
209—210.)
The Board
trusts that the Agency and
Company will work
together on the issuance of
a permit.
Second, there was
previously some concern over the amount of mercury, manganese,
and copper
in the
Company’s
discharge.
The
Company
has
specifically stated that it
is willing
to accept
the limits on
these substances
set forth
in Section 304.124
and 304.126
(Company Ex.
5;
Tn.
61—63.)
Third, there was some discussion
about reducing the environmental
impact of the Company’s
discharges still
further by flushing
the
sediment basins more
often than twice
a year.
(Tn.
189;
203.204.)
Because the
biodegradable polymers remove more of the residual
solids,
the
sediment basins will apparently need
to be back—flushed more
96—7 S
—Il—
often because there will be more accumulation.
The Company
should avoid discharging when the Mississippi
is low,
to further
reduce the environmental impact.
(Tn.
204—205.)
The Board wishes
to emphasize that the proposed temporary
relief
is a result of unique circumstances.
The Board sees a
need
for further
testing of these new biodegradable coagulants,
and wishes to encourage the development and use of new treatment
technologies.
However, the regulated community is cautioned that
the Board
will rarely grant
such temporary relief from general
regulations, and
this proceeding
should not be viewed as
setting
a general precedent.
Finally,
the Board
notes that
there was
discussion at the hearing about the possibility of a general
rulemaking
for similarly
—
situated water
treatment plants.
(Tn.
165; 194—197.)
Since
the proposed site—specific relief will
expire
in three years, the Company may wish
to consider the
possibility of joining others
in such
a general rulemaking.
ORDER
The Board hereby adopts,
as final, the following amendment
to be filed with the Secretary of State:
TITLE
35:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE C:
WATER POLLUTION
CHAPTER
I:
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PART 304
EFFLUENT STANDARDS
SUBPART
B:
SITE SPECIFIC RULES AND EXCEPTIONS
NOT OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY
Section 304.220
East St.
Louis Treatment
Facility, Illinois—American Water Company
This Section applies
to the potable drinking water
treatment
plant owned
by Illinois—American Water Company (Company) which
is
located at East
St.
Louis,
and which discharges into the
Mississippi
River.
The discharges of
the plant
shall not be
subject
to the effluent standards
for total suspended solids and
total
iron of Section 304.124, provided
that the Company uses
only biodegradable coagulants approved by
the United States
Environmental Protection Agency pursuant
to Section
1442(a)
and
(b)(l) of the Safe Drinking Water
Act
(42 U.S.C. 300j—l(a)
and
(b)(1))
as acceptable drinking water
additives.
The Company,
in
consultation with the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
shall conduct a comprehensive study of the effects of the use of
those coagulants on the receiving stream,
including but not
limited
to information on the toxicity of the discharge,
both to
humans and
to fish;
the concentration of the coagulants
in the
discharge as compared with the
raw water application rate of the
96—29
—12—
coagulants; and
the rate and chemical pathway for degradation of
the coagulants.
This Section will expire on January
1,
1992.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy
M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Order was adopted on
the
~‘~/
day of
_______________,
1989, by a vote of
70
~
~.
Dorothy M~’7Gunn, Clerk
Illinois ~Po1lutionControl Board
96—80

Back to top