ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
October
20,
1988
IN THE AMOUNT OF:
)
PETITION FOR SITE—SPECIFIC
EXCEPTION TO EFFLUENT STANDARDS
)
FOR THE ILLINOIS—AMERICAN
)
R85—11
WATER COMPANY, EAST ST. LOUIS
)
TREATMENT PLANT.
)
PROPOSED RULE.
SECOND NOTICE.
PROPOSED 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.
Adm. Code 304.124,
are
15 milligrams per liter
(mg/l) and
2
mg/l,
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.
An
additional hearing was held,
and the Company and the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) submitted
briefs.
On June
16,
1988
the Board proposed for First Notice
a
temporary rule exempting
the Company from the TSS and total
iron
limitations 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
effect on small businesses.
(P.C.
#77.)
Comments were also
filed
by the Company
(P.C.
#75)
and the Agency
(P.C.
#76).
This
Opinion will
address only these comments.
The Board’s
rationale
for proposing this
rule
is set forth
in the Proposed Opinion
of
June 16,
1988.
93—251
—2—
In its comments,
the Company states 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 states that the proposed rule is
consistent with federal and state approval
requirements for
drinking water polymers.
The Company notes that the Safe
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
IJSEPA.
On the other hand,
the Agency’s comments
(P.C.
#76) reflect
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.
llll/~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
93—252
—3—
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).
After consideration of the comments received during the
First Notice period,
the Board sees no need
to alter the
substance of the proposed rule.
The only change which has been
made from First Notice
is the incorporation by reference of
USEPA’s September
1987 list of acceptable drinking water
additives.
ORDER
The Board hereby proposes the following amendment
for Second
Notice, which
is to be filed with the Joint Committee on
Administrative Rules.
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 which is located
at East St.
Louis,
and which discharges into the Mississippi
River.
The discharges of that plant shall not be subject to the
effluent standards for
total suspended solids and total iron of
Section 304.124, provided that the Illinois—American Water
Company uses only biodegradable coagulants listed on September
25,
1987 by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as
acceptable drinking water additives
(does
not include any later
amendments
or additions;
tJSEPA, Office of Drinking Water Criteria
and Standards Division, 401 M Street SW, Washington,
D.C.
20460).
This Section will expire on January 1,
1992.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
93—253
—4—
I, Dorothy M.
Gunn, Clerk
of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above 1roposed Opinion and Order
was adopted on the
‘~‘~-
day of
_________________,
1988,
by a
vote of
7’—O
Dorothy
M. 531nn, Clerk
Illinois Poflution Control Board
93—254