ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
August
1,
1985
It~THE MATTER OF:
)
PETITION FOR SITE—SPECIFIC
)
R84—46
GROUNDWATER QUALITY STANDARDS
BY CENTRAL ILLINOIS PUBLIC
)
SERVICE COMPANY
OPINION AND
ORDER
OF THE BOARD
(by J.
Anderson):
This matteL
comes before
the Board
on a petition for site—
specific regulatory relief
to establish alternative groundwater
quality standards filed by Central Illinois Public Service
Company (ItCIPSh)
on December
18,
1984.
First and Second Amended
Proposals were filed on March
5 and 25,
1985,
respectively.
Hearing
was
held on March
13,
1985,
in the City of Robinson,
Crawford County, Il1inois~ Approximately seven members of the
Public attended, primarily representatives of other Illinois
electrical utilities,
but provided
no comments, questions
or
testimony.
CIPS provided supplemental data
in the form of Public
comments
on March 29, 1985.
The Department of Energy and Natural
Resources (“DENR”)
filed a “negative declaration”
of economic
impact on May 9, 1985, obviating
the need for
a full economic and
environmental impact analysis.
The Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (“Agency”) provided comments on May 29,
1985,
recommending
that the Board grant the requested relief subject to
some modifications..
CIPS submitted final comments on May 30,
1985,
and on June 20,
1985,
the record closed by hearing officer
order.
Procedural History and Prior Board Action
CIPS requests that the Board adopt site—specific groundwater
quality standards for boron, manganese,
total dissolved solids
(TDS)
and sulfate
for
the aquifer underlying
their Hutsonville
Power Station
(“Station”)..
CIPS currently operates an unlined
fly ash pond,
as part of their wastewater
treatment system,
which
is contaminating the underlying aquifer
arid
is causing violations
of the State’s general
use water quality standards for boron,
manganese,
TDS and sulfate and the Public and food processing
water supply standards for manganese, TDS and sulfate.
CIPS
would like to build a new,
unlined fly ash pond,
as the existing
pond
is reaching
its
capacity.
CIPS applied
to the Agency for
a
construction permit
for this new unlined fly ash pond on April
2,
1984..
The Agency denied
the permit on June
27,
1984, and
an
appeal
of that decision was filed with this Board and docketed as
PCB
84—105.
On
November
8,
1984, the Board
reversed the Agency’s permit
decision
in pa~t~
and affirmed
in part.
The Board
found that the
65-197
—2—
fly ash pond was not
a ~vpointsource” and that consequently,
State
effluent limitations were not applicable
to the leakage.
The Board also found that because
the underground waters
in
question were currently being used as a public water supply of
the non-community type, that general
use,
as well
as Public
and
food processing water supply standards were applicable and were
being violated..
The Board notes that the DENR’s letter
of
“negative declaration” of economic impact states that no water
quality standards are presently applicable
to groundwater.
This
is obviously incorrect,
as the
impetus for
the
instant rulemakin~
is
the existance of violations of
the applicable water
quality
standards.
As
a consequence of this decision, CIPS filed
the present
regulatory propo~aIwhich would provide less stringent standards
for boron, manganese,
TDS and sulfates
in
the underlying
aquifer.
These site—specific standards,
if adopted, would recognize the
existing
level of contamination due to
15 years
of leaching
from
the current pond,
as well as provide for continued contamination
from
a new unlined pond.
At
a
special Board Meeting
held July 19,
1985,
the Board by
a
5—2 vote adopted an Order dismissing these proceedings,
intending
thereafter
to issue an Opinion.
At its August
1
meeting,
a Board Member’s motion
to reconsider that Order carried
by a vote of
6-1.
This Opinion, and
the accompanying Order
denying the
requested rule change, constitute
the Board’s
final
action
in this matter.
Facts
The CIPS Etutsonville Station
is
a coal burning facility,
located adjacent to the Wabash River.
The proposed fly ash pond
would be part of the system used
to process fly ash transport
water.
Water
is taken from the Wabash River
arid used
to clean
and convey fly ash from the station’s electrostatic
precipitators.
Because of high levels of total suspended solids
(TSS), the wastestream cannot be discharged directly to public
waters.
CIPS plans
to sluice fly ash to the proposed pond.
Overflow from the proposed pond will be
routed
to an existing fly
ash pond from where
it will ultimately discharge
into the Wabash
River
through the currently permitted National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES)
outfall.
The existing fly ash pond occupies 24 acres,
is unlined, and
is built with material native
to the site (Amended Proposal p.
1,
5,
R.
44)..
It receives
a number
of wastestreams
in addition
to
fly ash and
is nearing its capacity.
Data from nine groundwater
monitoring wells installed in February,
1984,
clearly indicates
that leachate from the existing unlined fly ash pond
is leaking
into the underlying aquifer and
is entering the groundwater.
The
groundwater monitoring data shows values consistently higher
than
the general
use
water
quality standards
for boron, manganese,
sulfate and TDS~
The
relevant well data
is shown on the
following page,
65-198
—3—
EXEIBIT 3
SUTSONVILLE
GENERATING
STATION
1984 GROUNDWATER MONITORING RESULTS
Manganese
(~ig/1J
2/16
2/23
2/29
3/1
3/7
3/15
3/19
4/16
5/15
5/26
5/30
M—6
0.446
0.470
1.0
**
0.95
0.667
0.553
1.297
1.188
1.43
1.286
M—7
*
1.091
~
1.0
0.508
0.421
0.811
0.781
0.750
0.679
P1—S
*
*
**
0,259
0.15
0,015
0,197
0,257
0.688
0.417
0.607
6/18
7/18
8/1~
9/12
10/17
11/15
11/29
12/12
12/27
1/17
P1—6
0.86?
2.93
3.0
0.65
Dry
1.8
2.04
3.0
2,5
1.60
P1—7
0.383
0.57
0.7~i
0,4
0.83
0.88
1.11
1.15
1.0
0.29
M—8
0.208
0.22
0.22~
0,3
0.13
0,35
0.333
0.343
0.4
0.17
TDS
Residue
(~g/1)
2/16
2/23
2/2.5
3/1
3/7
3/15
3/19
4/16
5/15
5/26
5/30
P1—6
1044
1160
1213
**
906
1012
934
825
438
892
865
M—7
*
*
880
**
960
902
835
857
916
857
881
P4—8
*
**
839
874
851
814
841
715
860
832
6/18
7/18
8/15
9/12
10/17
11/15
11/29
12/12
12/27
1/17
P1—6
7~3
938
857
940
Dry
1076
1325
1460
1265
1204
P4—7
862
995
934
980
787
659
619
812
843
975
M—8
789
909
813
925
762
758
762
774
774
770
Soror~
(umg/1)
2/16
2/23
2/29
3/1
3/7
3/15
3/19
4/16
5/15
5/26
5/30
P4—6
11.5
9.4
21
**
9.8
16.4
23.2
50.0
13.5
23.1
22.2
~_7
*
*
1.6
**
0.76
1.4
0.52
0.72
0.88
0.94
1.1
P4—B
*
*
**
7.9
23.8
22.5
14.3
30.8
15.8
14.8
13.9
6/18
7/18
8/15
9/12
10/17
11/15
11/29
12/12
12/27
1/17
P1—6
39.5
4.8
21.9
7..02
Dry
22.1
21.7
18.1
15.9
19.0
P1—7
0.72
2.1
0.7
1.36
0.85
0~.60
0.38
0.5
0.6
1.28
P1—B
45.6
12.6
15.8
1~.8
13.6
19.1
22.5
15.9
13.6
20.0
Sulfate
(xtmg/1)
2/16
2/23
2,’29
3/1
3/7
.3/15
3/19
4/16
5/15
5/26
5/30
P1—6
519
522
564
330
419
375
271
132
313
265
*
*
336
292
30~L
276
257
333
240
244
P4—B
*
*
311
378
350
346
347
313
301
310
6/18
7/18
8/15
9/12
10/17
11/15
11/29
12/12
12/27
1/17
1—6
234
205
194
261
Dry
395
703
889
640
342
4—7
321
272
27~
319
300
175
200
317
285
346
P1—S
324
314
28~
365
325
275
322
392
324
323
**
Wells
Flooded
•~
No
Data
85-199
—4-.
CIPS asserts that radial flow under
the existing pond
is
estimated
to be
50 to
100
feet beyond the borde9
of
the pond,
based on
a hydraulic conductivity
(k)
of
1
x 10
cm/sec
(R.
44),
This
k value appears
to be an estimate as there
is no
evidence
suggesting
that permeability, pump,
or slug tests were
performed.
If the estimate of
k
is too high,
then the
contaminant
plume
is likely
to extend
farther
to the north and
south than estimated by CIPS.
At hearing, CIPS stated that
they
did
not know for certain
if the contaminant plume was completely
within
CIPS’ property
(R. 66).
After
the leachate initially flows radially,
it
is
further
asserted
that
the leachate then generally flows east with the
groundwater
towards the Wabash River where
it ultimately
discharges.
While
no modeling was performed and no piezometric
readings
were taken,
the general
flow
of
the groundwater
in
this
area was determined using
the data from the groundwater
monitoring
wells
(R.
54).
The wells were sampled
to determine
the surface elevation of water
in the aquifer.
The direction of
flow in
this unconfined aquifer can be estimated by noting
the
decrease
in water surface elevation as the flow approaches
the
river.
In times of high water levels in the Wabash River,
groundwater
flow is subject
to reversal of direction
(2nd Amended
Proposal p.
5).
CIPS asserts that because
of the great dilution
potential of
the Wabash River,
there
is little or
no adverse
environmental
impact on the wabash River from
the contaminated
groundwater.
Little information regarding
the characteristics
oi~
the river
and no rigorous analysis of the
impact of
the
contaminants were provided.
The dilution ratio at the surface
NPDES outfall
is estimated
to be 2000:1.
The volume of this
surface outfall was stated to be greater
than the volume of
subsurface discharge,
so presumably the dilution ratio would
be
greater than 2000:1
(2nd Amended Proposal p.
10).
The aquifer that underlies the station
is composed of highly
permeable sands and gravels and is geologically desirable
for
development of a water supply well.
In addition to the nine
groundwater monitoring wells,
there are two deep wells
in this
aquifer, 70
to
80 feet deep,
that provide drinking water
for
the
Station employees,
as well
as boiler makeup
in the steam
generating cycle
(R..
49).
There are approximately 30
to
40
employees per shift.
Three
shifts per day are operated.
The
groundwater monitoring wells are between
10 and 20 feet deep and
capture groundwater
from the upper part of the aquifer.
The deep
wells are finished at bedrock and draw water from the entire
column of the aquifer.
Deep well data
is shown on the following page,
as compared
with selected monitoring well data
(Ex..
9),
The proposed fly ash lagoon will occupy 8.8
acres, will be
unlined and built with the same native
sands and gravels as
the
existing
pond.
It
is undisputed
that
the proposed pond will leak
in the same manner
as the current pond.
Loading of
the proposed
~5~20O
EXEIBIT
9
DEEP
WELL
VS.
MONITORING
WELL
WATER
QUALITY
Manganese
11/29/84
12/12/84
12/27/84
1/17/85
0.667
0.796
2.04
1.11
0,333
0.60
0.63
3.00
1,15
0.343
0.5
0.6
2,5
1.0
0.4
0.52
*
1.60
0.29
0.17
11/29/84
Total
Dissolved
Solids
PQM
1/17/85
12/12/84
12/27/84
511
401
1460
812
774
500
399
1265
843
774
555
*
1204
975
770
Deep
Deep
Well
Well
11
#2
14-6
P1-i
14-8
Deep
Deep
nell
Well
#1
#2
481
391
14—6
1325
14—7
619
14—8
762
1/17/85
Deep
Well
#1
1.75
Deep
Well
#2
*
14—6
19.0
P1—7
1.28
14—8
20.0
Sulfate
PPM
11/29/84
12/12/84
12/27/84
1/17/85
Deep Well
#1
117
113
120
120
Deep Well #2
76
81
73
*
14—6
703
889
640
342
14—7
200
317
285
346
14—8
322
392
324
323
11/29/84
Boron
PPM
12/12/84
1.24
0.46
21.70
0.38
22.50
12/27/84
0.8
0.12
18.1
0.5
15.9
0.7
0.12
15.9
0.16
13.6
*
Out—of—Service
65-201
pond would
be approximately 100 tons transported by 600,000
gallons of water on a daily basis
(R. 71).
The
same general
pattern of initial
radial flow beyond
the borders
of
the pond
and
eventual
movement
towards
the
river
is
expected
to
occur.
The
anticipated
effect
of
the
proposed
pond
is
to
increase
leachate
migration
into
the
groundwater.
Fly
ash
is
comprised
of
very
tine particles,
the majority are glassy spheres,
scoria,
iron
rich
fractions, crystalline matter, and carbon.
Silica, alumina,
iron and calcium make
up 95
to 99 percent of fly ash by weight.
The remaining
1 to
5 percent
is comprised of trace elements which
may
be toxic
at high concentrations..
There are no toxic organic
pollutants associated with fly ash
(R.
69—70).
Due
to its size and shape,
the characteristics of
fly ash
are that of a high surface area to volume ratio
solid that has
agglomerated materials on its surface.
The spherical portion of
the fly ash
is somewhat immune
to dissolution due
to its glassy
structure.
However, on the surface of
the spheres exist either
easily exchangeable or adsorbed molecules which, when
in the
presence of
a
liquid,
become
dissolved.
It
is this latter
characteristic which results in the majority of soluble elements
in fly ash being eluted in the ash transport water
and discharged
through the surface discharge prior
to settlement of the ash
in
the pond.
Another
important characteristic of fly ash is its
pozzolanic
or
self—hardening
nature.
Fly
ash
in
the
presence
of
moisture reacts with alkali and alkaline earth products
to
produce cementitious products.
When these reactions occur,
the
permeability of the ash will decrease over
time.
Rowever,
this
phenomenon has not been demonstrated at the existing pond
as
leakage
is still occurring.
A final significant environmental attribute of fly ash is
the amenability of leached materials from fly ash
to attenuate
in
the soil matrix underlying ash ponds.
While
the extent
of
attenuation
is highly dependent upon the nature of the soils,
some degree
of attenuation will occur
in virtually all soil
types, with clayey soils generally having
the highest potential
for
attenuation.
CIPS contends that because of the high flow
rate of
the groundwater
that little or no attenuation will
occur.
However, as a general principle,
some attenuation will
occur
(2nd Amended Proposal p.
6).
Fly ash
is sluiced from
the
electrostatic
precipitators
to
the
ash
pond
by
the
transport
water
sluice
system.
As
the
sluice
water
enters
the
ash
pond,
the
velocity
of
the
water
drops
and
fly
ash
particles
settle
out
as
the
transport
water
flows
from
the
influent
pipe
to
the
outfall
structure.
After
a
retention
period of between
15 to 60 days,
there are virtually no fly ash
particles
in
the
effluent
(B..
71).
During
the
retention
period,
a
major
portion
of the leachable material goes into solution
prior
to
the
ash
settling
to the bottom of the pond.
This
dissolved material
is discharged through the surface outfall
to
65-202
—7-.
the ~abash River
(R.
71—72).
The remaining leachable fraction
impacts groundwater with higher concentrations of contaminants
than the concentrations in the surface discharge.
This
is caused
by two factors.
First, water percolating
through the ash
is
in
contact with the ash much longer
than the water
in the pond.
Second,
the volume of water passing through the ash
is contended
to
be
smaller, proportionally,
than the volume of water
to which
ash within the pond is exposed
(B.. 72).
As
a result of the
longer contact time and reduced dilution effect, groundwater
around
the existing fly ash pond shows higher concentrations
than
in the
surface discharge.
The concentrations of contaminants
in
the
leachate
will
gradually
be
reduced
as
successive
pore
volumes
of
water
pass through the flyash.
CIPS contends that rapid leaching of contaminants will end
after
the ponds are retired from service, which will be
in
approximately 20 years when
the Station
is retired
(R.
74,
86)..
CIPS estimates that the contaminants
in the groundwater will be
flushed through the aquifer
to the
river
in approximately 25
to
150 years, which in geologic time is
a relatively short period
(B..
84—85)..
This
is admittedly
a very difficult period
to
estimate,
and
is
presumably
based
on the relatively fast moving
groundwater, highly permeable soils, and limited attenuation.
Therefore, based
on
these
extremely
rough
estimates,
the aquifer
underlying
the Station will be contaminated for approximately 45
to 170 years beyond the present or potentially, until
the years
2030
to
2155.
CIPS asserts that future adverse exposure
to the
contaminated aquifer will be limited because of their present
ownership and control
of the surface property (2nd Amended
Proposal p.
7).
The Station will be
in service
for approximately
twenty more years.
It
is uncertain what the fate of the property
will be
after
the facility is retired
(B.. 76).
CIPS relies on
the existence of physical remains of the Station as method
of
putting
future
land
users
on
notice
of the contamination.
CIPS
could
also provide notice through the deed or
documents
of
conveyance, although no firm plans or commitments have been made
(R.
86—87).
CIPS contends that the potential uses that would be made of
the property in the distant future also limit potential harmful
exposure
to the contaminated aquifer.
CIPS hypothesizes that
residential, commercial and industrial
uses are unlikely due
to
the property’s location and the physical remains.
Agricultural
applications
(either grazing
or
crop
production)
would
appear
to
be
the most likely
(B..
77).
Additionally, CIPS believes that the
property is an unlikely location for development of a public
water supply because
of its location,
the current existence of
other Public water supplies
in the area,
and because under
the
design criteria of the Illinois Water Well Construction Code
—
Rules
and Regulations development of a well would be undesirable
(R.
78—83).
The Illinois Water Well Construction Code design
criteria, located
at 77 IlL Mm. Code 920.40,
provide at
65-203
—8—
subsection
a)
that
“location
of
the well shall
include
utilization of every natural protection available to promote
sanitary conditions.”
Subsection
b) provides that
“the well
construction
shall
be
adopted
to
the
geologic
formations
and
groundwater conditions at
the site.”
Subsection
C)
provides that
“water bearing formations shall be excluded by installing casings
or
a
liner
and
properly
sealing
when
such
formations
contain
undesirable
water or when the primary purpose
for
the well
is to
withdraw
water
from
a
deeper
formation.”
Subsection
d)
provides
that “capability of the well to produce as much of the desired
water quantity as the aquifer or aquifers can safely furnish.”
CIPS argues that due to the contaminated state of the aquifer,
that no shallow production wells would be located down—plume,
according to these design criteria
(B.. 80—81).
Additional
location criteria are found
in Section
920.50
which
require
consideration of existing sources of contamination and consequent
minimum
lateral
distances
for
placement of wells.
Finally, CIPS
contends that Section 920.50(c) would
preclude
an area subject to
flooding such as the site
in question
(B..
82—83).
The potential environmental impacts of the contaminants on
human
health,
livestock
watering,
and
irrigation
were
addressed
by
CIPS
(R.
99).
(Because
of
the
negligible
predicted
impact
on
surface waters,
aquatic toxicity was not analyzed.)
Each
contaminant is analyzed below.
1..
Manganese
—
Manganese
is an essential element for human and
the
average
human
intake
is
approximately
10
mg/day.
The
maximum concentration of 0.05 mg/i
in domestic water was
recommended
by
the
World
Health
Organization,
the
U.S.
Public
Health Service and the USEPA to prevent undesirable
taste
and
discoloration.
According
to
a USEPA Health Assessment
Document
for
manganese,
published
in
1983,
there
are
no
toxicity—based criteria or standards for manganese in
freshwater
and none have been proposed.
This same document
cited
no
information relating manganese exposure
to cancer
occurrence
in humans or animals
(B.. 60—102)
The USEPA’s 1977 Quality Criteria for Water states that
manganese
is not known to be a problem
in water consumed by
livestock
(R.. 104).
Studies
cited
in
the
1972
Water
Quality Criteria
demonstrate
that
the
sensitivity
of
plant species
to excess
manganese concentrations ranges greatly and
is closely
related
to soil
pH.
With suitable management practices,
all
plant species should
be able to
tolerate
2.0 mg/i manganese
under continuous irrigation applications; and for short—term
use,
up to
20
mg/i
should not cause adverse effects
(B..
106—
107),
2..
Total Dissolved Solids
—
The
1977 Quality Criteria
for Water
state that high levels of total dissolved solids,
the exact
concentration depends on the nature of the salts and
on the
65-204
—9—
sensitivity of the individual,
can cause gastro—intestinal
distress that may produce laxative effects in humans.
High
concentrations may also produce swelling due
to salt
retention
in sensitive individuals.
These effects are
temporary and disappear when the affected individual
stops
consuming the water.
According
to the 1977 Quality Criteria for Water, high
total dissolved solids
in the range of 1,283
to 1,333 ppm
produce unpalatable mineral
tastes.
When total dissolved
solids
are 1,750 ppm or greater,
they can be corrosive to
household plumbing
(B..
106).
Studies cited
in the 1977 Quality Criteria for Water
indicate that chickens,
swine, cattle
and sheep can survive
on saline waters with up
to 15,000 mg/i salts
of sodium
and
calcium combined with bicarbonates, chlorides, and sulfates,
but only 10,000 mg/i of corresponding salts of potassium and
magnesium,
The limit
for highly alkaline waters containing
sodium
and calcium carbonates consumed by livestock is 5,000
mg/l
(B.. 104—105).
The 1972 Water Quality Criteria state
that the
irrigation
use of water depends on the ratio of cations
present and their resultant osmotic effects.
The National
Technical Advisory Committee to the Secretary of the Interior
in 1968 set standards for dissolved solids
in irrigation
waters
for arid and semi—arid areas.
water with dissolved
solids
in the range of 1,000
—
2,000 mg/i in these areas may
have some adverse effects on crops, such as various fruit
crops.
Water with dissolved solids in the range of 2,000
—
5,000 mg/i can be used in such areas
for tolerant species
with careful management practices
(R.
107).
3.
Sulfate
—
The 1977 Quality Criteria for Water
states that
sulfate levels above
250 mg/i may result in gastro—intestinal
irritation
in some individuals.
These effects persist while
the individual consumes water with sulfate
at those levels.
No
long—term effects or chronic effects other
than the
gastro—intestinal distress are known
to result from oral
consumption of sulfates at the concentration of the proposed
standard
(B..
102—103)..
Water Quality Criteria of 1972 state that waters
in
excess of
500 mg/i sulfates become undesirable
for livestock
watering due
to potential gastro—intestinal upsets.
These
problems disappear when the water
is no longer consumed by
livestock
(R.
105).
An Illinois State Water
Survey analysis
stated that concentrations of sulfate greater than 200 mg/l
begin
to render waters unsuitable
for certain irrigation
applications.
Sensitivity
to such water is dependent upon
other
ionic species present arid the type of crops to which
the water
is applied
(B.. 107).
65~205
—10—
4.
Boron
—
The citations for boron are
from the Preliminary
Investigation of Effects on the Environment of Boron
published by the USEPA in 1975 and Gough, 1979
(Ex. 13).
Boron
is widely distributed
in foods,
and humans
constantly ingest and excrete boron with little or no
accumulation
in the body.
Minimum lethal doses of boric
acid
or borates have not been established.
Intakes of
up to
four
grams per day
in adults without incident have been reported,
while
single doses of 10
to 20 grams have been reported
to be
fatal.
However, the few reported cases of boron poisoning
have involved high doses of boron administered either orally
or dermaily for treatments of infections.
Long~termconsumption of water
in excess of 4.6 mg/i
caused chronic disruption of normal gastro—intestinal
functions in some of the 288
individuals
studies.
It
has
also been documented that a few sensitive individuals
developed inflammation and swelling due to consumption of
water with boron.
As
soon
as
the
consumption
of
water
ceased, all
symptoms
disappeared
without
any
permanent
effects,
No evidence has been found
to indicate
that boron is
a
carcinogen;
in
fact, boron has been used
in tumor
therapy
(R.
103—104)
A study by Weeth in 1974 indicated that cattle can
tolerate at least 50 mg/i of boron with no adverse effects.
Other
studies cited
in the USEPA Preliminary Investigation of
Effects on the Environment of Boron have shown that dogs fed
water
containing 350 mg/i of boron demonstrated normal
fertility,
litter size, weight and appearance
(R.
105)..
Studies cited
in the USEPA Preliminary Investigation of
Effects on the Environment of Boron and
in the 1972 Water
Quality Criteria demonstrate
that boron tolerance values vary
greatly among plant species, ranging
from
sensitive
citrus
crops
to tolei~antplants, such as alfalfa.
The most
significant crops of concern
in the Hutsonville area
are
corn,
soy beans
and wheat, which are classified
in an
intermediate sensitivity category with the limits of
tolerance
at 5,0 mg/i of water
soluble boron.
However,
the
tolerance levels of these species increase where irrigation
is used only on an intermittent rather than continual basis
(B...
108),
Regarding
the probability of long—term
irrigation
in
the
Flutsonville
area;
the land in this area is characterized as
bottom
lands and
in normal years experiences flooding and
drainage problems due
to an over abundance of moisture during
the
growing season~ Therefore,
CIPS contends that the practice of
long—term irrigation does not appear
to be likely
in the future
(B.. l05—l06)~ The Board does note, however,
that this contention
65-206
—lie
refers specifically to current CIPS property, and not necessarily
to all
the lands underlain by the present or potential
contaminant plume.
CIPS presented testimony on an array of possible pond liner
and alternative management options and their costs,
as compared
with an unlined pond.
The unlined option
is based on detailed
engineering evaluations, while
the estimates
for the alternatives
are based
on very rough “educated guesses”
(R.
138—139).
Construction and operation costs over the life of the plant have
been reduced to present value
in each case.
The unlined option
is estimated to cost $1,968,000,
if on—site disposal of dredged
fly ash
is allowed; other disposal options raise
the estimated
cost
(2nd
Amended
Proposal
p.
18).
Options utilizing various types of liners
are more expensive
due to a number of
factors.
First,
is the cost of liner
materials and additional construction.
Clay material
is not
native
to the Station property and would have
to be obtained off—
site.
Second,
a lined pond has smaller capacity than an unlined
pond of
the same general dimensions
and consequently needs
to be
dredged
more
frequently.
An
alternative
to
more
frequent
dredging
is
to
build
a
larger
lined
pond,
at
an
increased
cost.
The cost of the liner option~vary from $5,097,488 for
a
pond lined with ten feet of 1x10’
cm/sec. maximum permeability
clay ($6,418,976
for
a larger pond with this type liner)
to
$3,054,000
for
a pond lined with two feet of clay.
A five foot
clay liner would cost $3,945,033.
Alternative ash management
systems analyzed include:
converting
to a dry fly ash collection
system at
a cost of $4,752,425;
frequent dredging of existing ash
pond and dewatering on—site at a cost of $2,176,168;
and
construction of an off—site
fly ash pond
in an area with native
clay of
a suitable permeability at a cost of $4,116,012
(2nd
Amended Proposal p. 18—20).
Construction of a slurry wall system
was not deemed feasible due
to permeable bed rock
(B..
140).
Non—
clay liner systems were estimated to cost $3,110,105 for
a
stabilized scrubber sludge liner, $3,207,336
for a synthetic
liner
and $3,341,604
for
a soil cement liner
(2nd Amended
Proposal p. l8-20),
CIPS contends that
any
liner system will eventually leak
and;
therefore,
water quality standards will eventually be
impacted when the liner
fails,
A liner will,
however, decrease
the rate of leaching and the volume of water that percolates
through the bottom and sides of the pond will
be much lower
(B..
118—119).
ConseQuently,
a
greater
volume
of
water
will
be
discharged through the NPDES outfall.
The record
indicates that
installation of
a liner
system will have no
impact on compliance
with
the NPDES effluent standards
(B.. 120).
65-207
—12--
ed
Re ulator
Relief
CIPS requests that a
new
Section 303.323 be adopted
by
the
Board.
CIPS~ final proposal adopts changes suggested by the
Agency
(P.C.
5,
p..
3)..
The new rule establishes
two
sets
of
water quality standards in place of
the general
use water quality
standards and the Public and food processing water supply
standards presently applicable..
A less restrictive
set of
standards would apply to
the upper portion of the aquifer
underlying CIPS~property, while
a more stringent set of
standards would apply to the lower portion of
the aquifer.
Thesu
standards would apply
in subsurface regions defined by the legal
description of CIPS’
surface property and subsurface elevations
referencing mean sea level.
Compliance with the standards is
determined
on the basis of the type and
frequency of sampling
prescribed by the Agency’s operating permit for
the ash disposal
system.
Additionally, there
are certain “safety valves”
in the
rule
that allow up to 25
of
the
samples
collected
from
a
single
monitoring location
to exceed
the
standards
and
that
single
samples may exceed up to two times the prescribed numerical
standards.
The currently applicable general
use water quality standards
are as
follows:
Boron
—
1,0 mg/i; Manganese 1.0 mg/i; TDS
—
1,000 mg/i;
Sulfate 500 mg/i
(35 Iii. Adm. Code 302.208).
The
Public
and food processing
water
supply
standards
are
as
follows:
Boron
—
no standard; Manganese
—
0.15
mg/i;
TDS
—
500
mg/i
and Sulfate
250 mg/i
(35 IlL Adm. Code 303,304),
The
proposed rule
is provided below:
Section 303.323
Underground Waters at the Hutsonvilie Power
Station,
a)
This section applies
to
the
underground waters above
elevation 350 feet Mean Sea Level
(MSL)
located
in the
South half of the Section Number Seventeen
(17)
in
Township Eight
(8) North, Range Eleven
(11) West the
Second Principal Meridian,
in the County of Crawford,
State of Illinois,
b)
For the constituents listed below,
the standards of
35
Ill. Adm.
Code
302,208
and
302.304
do not apply to these
waters,
Instead, the
following levels shall apply,
provided that no more than 25
of the samples collected
from a single monitoring location on an annual basis
shall exceed the prescribed numerical standard and that
no single sample shall
exceed
two
(2)
times
the
prescribed numerical standard.
65-208
—13—
1)
From elevation 410
feet MSL to ground surface
—
STORET
CONSTITUENT
NUMBER
CONCENTRArION
(m9/1)
Boron
01022
30.0
~4anganese
01055
3.0
Sulfate
009451
600.00
Total Dissolved Solids
70300
1,300.00
2)
From elevation 350 feet MSL to elevation 410
feet MSL
CONSTITUENT
Boron
STORET
NUMBER
CONCENTRATION
(mg/i)
01022
2.5
Manganese
01055
1.0
Total Dissolved Solids
70300
600.00
C)
Compliance
with
numerical
standards
of
paragraph
303.323(b)
shall be determined on the basis
of
the type
and frequency of sampling prescribed
by the Agency’s
operating permit
for the ash disposal system.
Discussion
CIPS presents a number
of arguments
in support of the
requested relief.
The “justification”
for this regulation
is
based primarily on the following
six elements:
1..
The proposed fly ash pond would be located in close
proximity
to
a large surface water
body,
the Wabash
River;
2,
Groundwater
in the area of the proposed fly ash pond
flows
into
the
Wabash
River;
3,
CIPS owns
all
property
between
the
proposed
facility and
the Wabash River;
4.
There are no present or potential uses of the specific
segment of groundwater which would be impacted by the
proposed
fly
ash
pond;
5..
Groundwater which would be impacted by the proposed
facility would have
no impact on the water quality of
the Wabash River; and
6...
Groundwater
impacts from
the
proposed
fly ash pond will
be at their most pronounced
stage during the
initial or
operating years of the facility and will have been
eliminated
or reduced
to
insignificant
levels
at
the
time of closure
or within
a reasonably short
time after
65-209
—14—
While
the Board does not necessarily accept these elements
of “justification”
as compelling, CIPS has failed
to prove
its
case on its own terms and criteria.
The Board
recognizes the
first
and third elements
to be true.
They are simply statements
of fact.
However,
it does find that the record contains
insufficient information or data to support in full the remaining
four elements.
While
CIPS’ assertion that
the general groundwater discharge
in the area of question is
into
the
Wabash
River
is
indeed
the
most
simple
and
logical
expectation,
the
record
supports
neither
that all the grour.kdwater does
so discharge, nor
that the
discharge
is all directly to
the Wabash River.
These are
fundamentally important considerations because they direct
themselves
to
the
impact
the
proposal
would
have
not
only
on
CIPS, but also on
the
adjacent
landowners.
Much of CIPS’ position
is based
on
the
contention
that
the
area of contaminated groundwater
is confined to their property,
and hence
that no adjacent property would be affected
as
a
consequence of adoption of the proposal
The Board
notes that
CIPS has not provided any off—site monitoring data
to support the
contention of confinement of the contaminant plume
to their own
property.
Moreover,
the record itself does not support
the
position of
no off-site contamination.
Monitoring well M—6,
which
is located
at the south property line, shows
clear evidence
of contamination by ash pond effluent.
CIPS’
exhibit
5, which
consists of potentiometric maps, also shows
that the direction of
groundwater flow from the existing ash pond
is southward from the
pond, past well M—6,
toward
the property to the south.
A prudent
conclusion which could be drawn from these data
is that the flow
from the
current ash pond does extend off the CIPS property
towards the south.
The proposed ash pond
is located, similarly to
the
existing
ash pond,
near the southern margin of the CIPS property.
The
potentiometric
maps
similarly
suggest
that
groundwater
flow
from
the proposed pond would be towards the south,
and therefore off
the CIPS property.
Less certain of
interpretation,
but nonetheless critical
to
this proposal
is the question of possible groundwater
contamination in other
than the southerly direction
In asserting
that all the groundwater discharge
is directly to
the Wabash,
CIPS tacitly implies that
the
plume
of
contaminated
water does
not extend eastward (the asserted direction of groundwater
flow)
beyond
the Wabash..
Although this may be the simplest flow
system, there are no data in the record
to support that this
is
the
flow system of fact,
The Board
notes that there are many
examples
where
assumed
simple
groundwater
systems
have
shown,
upon more specific investigation, to
involve unexpected
complexities,
and that flow
beneath
and
beyond
a
suspected
discharge point
is one such common complexity.
Cross sections A—
A and B—B from Attachment
I of the proposal extend only to the
85-210
—15—
boundary
of the
site,
The
regional
groundwater
flow
system
can
not be evaluated from these cross sections.
The Board notes that
if the contamination does currently
extend beyond CIPS property, or would do
so with the addition of
the new pond,
and
if the CIPS proposal were granted,
that CIPS
would be
in immediate violation of their
site—specific regulation
by virtue
of failure to meet the geographic limitations specified
in
a)
of proposed section 303.323.
These circumstances raise a
question with the Board
as
to the sufficiency of the factual data
upon which this regulatory proposal
is based.
CIPS makes
the
argument that the contaminated groundwater
is within certain
geographical boundaries, yet their
own
monitoring well data would
seem
to disprove this,
Values for hydraulic conductivity
(k)
are
represented as
fact when they are,
in reality, rough estimates..
~t hearing,
the author of CIPS’
groundwater report was not
available
for questioning by the Board or Agency
(R.
55—59),
Certain
other
information
was
inexplicably
“deleted”
from
CIPS’
filings (Proposal, Attachment
I, Appendix A),
Proponent’s position that there
is no present or potential
uses of the specific segment of groundwater which would be
impacted by the proposed fly ash pond
is not supported by the
record.
There
is obvious evidence of present impact
in that
Proponent’s own water
supply wells show evidence of some
contamination.
Even with the great dilution that occurs
in the
deep production wells, there
is evidence of contamination
(Ex.
9).
In the case of boron, there have been exceedences of the
1,0
mg/i
standard in the deep well production zone
(Ex.
9).
Contaminant levels
in other portions of the aquifer are much
greater.
The alternative levels proposed
in the rule could
result in adverse human impacts as a result of boron and sulfate
consumption.
More importantly, without data delimiting
the
extent of the current contamination plume,
it cannot be
determined
that present uses of the groundwater beyond the CIPS
property are not being
impacted..
Potential uses are inherently more difficult to address due
to uncertainty as to future
land
use,
Future
land
use
is
particularly difficult to determine due
to the long time
intervals
involved in returning the aquifer
to an uncontaminated
condition, which are by CIPS
own
assertions
are
on
the
order
of
25
to 150 years beyond closure
(45
to 170 years
from present),
Who
could
have safely projected
in
1850
what
life
would
be
like
in 1985?
The Board finds it equally difficult
to
project
in
1985
what land uses might be even
20 years from
now,
yet
alone
170
year from now,
At the minimum, there
is no question that the aquifer has
potential
for domestic and public water
supply;
it is used so now
and there
is no reason to believe that a future land owner might
not wish to use
it similarly,
CIPS asserts that
it
is unlikely
that any future owner might wish
to exploit this potential
because, among other reasons, regulatory guidelines would
65-211
—16—
preclude development of a well
in the aquifer because the aquifer
is contamianted.
This logic
is rather circular, because CIps
itself would have caused
the contamination.
Beyond use as a domestic and public water
source, there
is
also the prospect of other
uses of the aquifer, such as livestock
watering, irrigation,
and industrial
uses.
This is particularly
true
if the contaminant plume extends eastward
from the
river.
The record provides no confirmation that one or more of
the uses
might not be desirable
in the future.
Use of the aquifer for
irrigation
could
present
particular
problems
associated
with
the
high boron content
in
the contaminant plume and
the
known
sensitivity of crops
to long—term irrigation with water of high
boron concentration..
The Board,
in adopting the 1.0 mg/i general
use water
quality standard for boron,
stated the level was “...based on
evidence that higher levels can harm irrigated crops.
While 100
irrigation is unlikely in Illinois,
the uncontrolled discharge of
large quantities of boron
is clearly undesirable.”
(In re
Effluent Criteria,
R70—8;
In re Water
Quality Standards
Revisions, R7l—14;
In re Water Quality Standards Revisions for
Intrastate Waters (SWB—14),
R7l—20, March 7,
1972, p.
6).
In element
(6) CIPS presents contentions concerning
the
relationship between impact of the proposed ash pond and
time..
The Board agrees that the quality of the contaminated groundwater
will likely improve after closure.
However,
the assertion that
the impact will have been eliminated or reduced to
insignificant
levels at the time of closure or within a reasonably short time
after closure
is not supported by the record.
Closure
is
estimated to be
in approximteiy 20 years,
and
the contention
is
that the pozzolanic properties of the fly ash will work towards
sealing
the pond over
its 20 year lifetime.
However,
the
present
ash pond has been
in use since 1968
(R. 8),
a period of
almost 20
years, and
it continues to produce
a not insignificant impact.
There
is no reason to believe that the proposed pond, which would
be constructed similarly to
the present pond, would behave
differently.
CIPS has further contended elsewhere
in the record
that contamination would persist from 25
to 150 years
(B..
85)
following
closure,
a statement which can not be reconciled with
the position stated
in element
(6).
While
25
to 150 years may be
viewed as a geologically short time, as does CIPS
(R.
85),
the
Board believes
the
relevant
perspective
here
is
human
time,
and
that 25
to 150 years cannot be judged short on this more
appropriate scale.
Additionally, CIPS makes other
arguments
in support of
their
proposal.
CIPS relies
on the Illinois State Water Plan Task
Force’s Strategy for
the Protection
of Underground Water
in
Illinois,
October
9,
1984
(Ex.
9),
CIPS
believes
that
their
proposal
is consistent with this general policy document.
CIPS
also relies on the current
regulations
and
guidelines
regarding
development of public water supply wells as evidence that future
adverse impacts are not likely
(Ex. 12)
65-212
—17
Section 3(00)
of the Act provides:
“WATER” means all accumulations of water,
surface
and
underground,
natural,
and
artificial,
Public
and
private,
or
parts
thereof,
which
are
wholly
or
partly
within,
flow through, or border upon the State.
(Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1983,
ch.
1111/2, par. 1003(oo)).
Groundwater clearly
is a “water
of the State.”
35
Ill. Mm.
code
303.302
provides:
The underground waters of Illinois which are
a
present or
a potential source of water
for
public
or
food processing supply shall meet
the general use and Public and food processing
water
supply standards of Subparts B and C,
Part 302, except due to natural causes.
The contamination of the aquifer
in question
is not due
to
natural causes,
The term “potential
source of water”
should not
be viewed
too narrowly.
The Board,
in adopting Section 303.302
(old Rule 207), stated that:
“Protection
of
groundwater
is
of
paramount
importance.
The
provision
has
been
amended
to
make
clear
it
does
not
protect
natural
brines
or
deal
with
the
problem
of
deep—well
disposal
except
to
assure
protection
of
present
or
potential water supplies.”(In re Effluent
Criteria R70—8;
In
re Water Quality Standards
Revisions, R7l—14;
In
re Water Quality
Standards
Revisions
For
Intrastate
Waters,
(SWB—l4),
R7l—20, March
7,
1972, p.
11).
CIPS has attempted
to prove that future uses are not probable.
it has failed to show that future uses are not possible due
to
natural
contamination
.
The intent of this regulation is
to
provide minimum water quality standards for all groundwater
except
in those aquifers that had
no potential for potable use,
such as natural brine aquifers used
in the UIC program.
The
existing
policy
is
to
prevent
man—made
contamination
where
possible and
to preserve potable underground waters as a resource
for present and future uses.
This broad interpretation of
“potential”
is appropriate
in the context of groundwater, where
contamination will persist for very long periods of time.
Even
in
the
instant
situation,
where
flushing
is
relatively
rapid
in
geologic terms,
the time in human terms
is long.
In the instant
case,
the aquifer
is actually
a present public water supply
source
and
is
certainly
a
potential
source
in
the
future.
CIPS argues that
they
are
making
a
“reasonable
use”
of
the
Stat&s water rasc~urces” (B..
7,
142).
The Board disagrees.
By
65-213
—18—
utilizing an unlined pond system in the highly permeable natl5
e soils
the leaking of contaminants is maximized.
Large volumes
of water
are lost through the bottom and sides of the pond by
design.
CIPS has asserted that,
under
the prevailing groundwater
conditions,
the majority of this contaminated leachate will
discharge to the Wabash River.
To grant the requested relief,
the Board must approve
a scheme that intentionally maximizes
contamination of
an aquifer
and relies on subsurface discharge
to
a
river.
In
Central
Illinois
Public Service Co.
v. EPA, PCB 73—384,
May 23,
1974,
~&ffirmed Central Illinois Public Service Co.
v.
EPA and
PCB,,
:111.
App.
3d 397,
344 N.E.2d
229
(1976)),
the
~oard found
that.
a man—made lake situated within CIPS’
property,
which was
a water
of the State, could not be used as a treatment
works.
CIPS once again relies on its private ownership of the
surface property as a justification for pollution of waters of
the State.
CIPS claims that this ownership creates
a right of
“reasonable une”
of the underlying waters.
While
this concept
was applicable under common law, Edwards
v.
Haeger, 180 Ill. 99,
54 N,E.l76 (l~9), the Act and Board regulations apply to all
waters of the State,
regardless of private ownership interests.
Even
if
a “reasonable use” standard were applicable,
the Board
could
not affirm this practice as such, where technology exists
to control this contamination.
CIPS primary rationale for this rule is based
on private
ownership and eventual dilution of contaminants.
As previously
noted above, private ownership is not controlling.
The record
indicates that technology exists
to control groundwater
contamination.
CIPS examined a number
of liner options
which
could greatly control leaking
into the aquifer.
The Board agrees
that
all
liners
will
eventually
leak,
However,
a
liner
will
greatly slow down the
rate
and
reduce
the
volume
of
leachate.
The leaking that will occur will
be of
a quantity more easily
attenuated
in the natural
soils,
While
the
volume
of
water
leaking out the bottom and sides of the pond will greatly
decrease,
the record shows that there will be no impact on the
quality of the discharge from the NPDES
surface outfall.
Additionally, CIPS has analyzed non—containment strategies
for reducing groundwater contamination; including converting
to
a
dry ash system,
frequent dredging of
the existing pond and
dewatering—on--site and construction of an off—site fly ash pond
in area with native soils of sufficient impermeability.
As CIPS
analysis has demonstrated, denial
of the requested relief does
not necessarily force CIPS
to install a particular liner
system..
It
is beyond
the scope of this record
for
the Board
to
specify a particular strategy to reduce contamination of the
groundwater.
The record merely demonstrates that alternatives
exist
to prevent groundwater contamination,
The record
:.~ndicates that
an
unlined
fly
ash
pond
is
the
cheapest op~.::.~available to CIPS.
This fact alone is not
65-214
tantamount to a showing of economic reasonableness.
Other
options are more expensive,
but would achieve
a significant
reduction
in groundwater contamination.
CIPS’
analysis of the
alternative control options
indicates that technologies are
feasible and are economically reasonable
(Ex.
15).
The
Board
finds
that
the
information
in
the
record
regarding
site
geology
and
groundwater
flow
is
inadequate
to
form
a
basis
for granting the requested site—specific standards.
What
the
record does show is that the contaminant levels requested as
alternative groundwater quality standards would pose both a human
health
risk
through consumption and adversely impact agricultural
property and crops through irrigation.
CIPS requests a boron
level
of
30,0 mg/i
for
the
upper
portion
of
the
aquifer.
The
record shows that boron at a level of
4.6 mg/i causes chronic
disruption of normal gastrointestinal functions while levels of
5.0 mg/i will adversely impact irrigated crops commonly grown in
the Hutsonviile area
(R.
103—104,
108).
CIPS requests
a sulfate
level of 600 mg/i while levels of 250 mg/i will cause
gastrointestinal
irritation
and
levels
of
200
mg/i
will
adversely
impact irrigated crops
(R. 102—103,
107).
CIPS’
own data on the
health and environmental
impacts of boron and sulfates
demonstrate
some degree of risk,
Additionally,
the record
shows
that installation of
a containment system or other management
alternative
to control
groundwater
contamination
is
technically
feasible and economically reasonable under
these circumstances,
The aquifer
in question
is both a present and potential public
water supply and
is highly productive..
Future uses of the
aquifer
are
highly
likely
especially
during
the
long
time
period
in question.
The Board, therefore, declines
to adopt the proposed
regulation.
ORDER
The
regulatory
change
sought
by
the
Central Illinois Public
Service Company
in Docket R84—46
is hereby denied.
IT
IS SO ORDERED
J.
D.
Dumelle
and
B.
Forcade
concurred.
I,
Dorothy
NI.
Gunn, Clerk of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board,
hereby certify that the above
Opinion
and
Order
was
adopted on the /4~-
day of ______________________,
1985, by a
vote of
7—o
.
U
j)
Dorothy
M.
G’unn,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
65-215
