ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
June
16,
1988
IN THE MATTER OF:
PETITION FOR SITE—SPECIFIC
EXCEPTION TO EFFLUENT STANDARDS
FOR THE ILLINOIS—AMERICAN
)
R85—11
WATER COMPANY, EAST
ST. LOUIS
TREATMENT PLANT.
PROPOSED RULE.
FIRST 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. Mm.
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.
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.
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is withdrawn from the river,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
are
in the
City
of
East St. Louis and adjacent areas.
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
90—255
—2--
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.)
Mississippi River water
is withdrawn at two intakes which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 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
(Tn.
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.
(Tn.
75—76, 88—89.)
Sediment discharges occur from the Aldrich plant,
the
Lamella separators,
the sedimentation basis,
and the filters
in
the conventional plant.
(Tr.
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
(Tr.
78—80).
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.
(Tr.
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
90—256
—3—
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 pen
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
approximately 82,430 pounds.
(Company
Ex.
1 at 35.)
On an
annual basis,
the plant discharges oven 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 Lamella 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 fernic 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
90—257
—4—
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.)
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
Lamella 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 Lamellas 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 and 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;
Tr.
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 River
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
90—25S
—5—
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
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;
Tr.
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
(Tn. 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
(BOD)
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. Adm. 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
90—259
—6—
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
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.
Corinor, 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.
Mr. 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.
Conclusion
When promulgating regulations
under
the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act
(Act), the Board
is required
to
consider:
90—260
—7—
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 type of
pollution.
(Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1987,
ch.
lllL/2,
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 propose 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
Company,
but
it will improve the nature
of those discharges.
The
Company will no longer use alum and ferric 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,
90—26 1
—8—
1986 Opinion.
Additionally,
the use
of
the biodegradable
polymers will result
in a dramatic reduction in the volume of
additives necessary——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
7~ct.
(33 U.S.C.
1342(a)(l).)
The
Board continues
to believe that directives from USEPA give the
Board and the Agency
(as permitting authorities)
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; Tr.
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.
(Tr.
189; 203.204.)
Because the
biodegradable polymers remove more
of the residual
solids,
the
sediment basins will apparently need
to be back—flushed more
often because there will
be more accumulation.
The Company
should avoid discharging when the Mississippi
is low,
to further
reduce the environmental impact.
(Tr. 204—205.)
The Board wishes to emphasize that the proposed temporary
relief
is
a result
of unique circumstances.
The Board sees
a
90—262
—9—
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 water treatment plants.
(Tr.
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.
Finally,
the Board notes that it received a Filing from the
Company late yesterday, June
15.
The Company moves that the
Board
allow it
to file instanter information on preliminary
polymer
sludge testing.
The motion
is denied.
The company
is
free
to file any information
it wishes during
the First Notice
comment period.
ORDER
The Board hereby directs the Clerk
of the Board
to cause
publication
in the Illinois Register
of the First Notice
of the
following amendment.
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 by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency as acceptable drinking
water additives.
This Section will expire on January
1,
1992.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
90—263
—10—
I,
Dorothy
M.
Gunn,
Clerk
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Proposed Opinion and Order
was
adopted
on
the
~
day
of
__________________,
1988,
by
a
vote
of
7—e
.
~72~ ~
Dorothy M~7Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
90—264
