ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October

6,

1983

IN THE MATTER OF:

PETITION FOR SITE SPECIFIC

)

 R82—3

EXCEPTION TO EFFLUENT STANDARDS

FOR ALTON WATER TREATMENT PLANT

Pr~p~Q~

 Ru1e.

First

 Notice

PROPOSED OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

 (by J.

 Anderson):

This matter comes before the Board on the petition for site

specific “exception” filed by the Alton Water Company

 (Company)

February 9,

 1982 as amended July 21,

 1982.

 The Company seeks

exception from 15 mg/i total

 suspended solids

 (TSS) and

 2 mg/i

total iron effluent standards of 35

 Ill.

 Adm. Code 304.124(a),

as they relate to the wastewater discharged by the Company’s

potable water treatment

 facility.

 Identical

 variance relief

was granted in PCB 82—13, August 18,

 t982 until

 September

1,

1985 or the earlier completion of this rulemaking

 (See Company

Gr.

Ex.

 1.).

A consolidated merit and economic hearing was held in Alton

on February 15, 1983.

 In addition to the testimony

 arid

exhibits

in support

 of the petition advanced by employees of the company,

the Mayor of the City of Alton,

 a member of the City Council,

 and the President of the Greater Alton Chamber of Commerce also

made presentations in support

(R.

 8—16,

 City Ex.

1,

 Timmermiere

Ex.

 1—2, Utterback

Ex.

1).

 On behalf of the Department of Energy

and Natural Resources

 (DENR),

 Linda Huff presented testimony

concerning her “Economic Impact Assessment Regarding R82—3:

A

Site Specific Exemption for the Alton Water Company”

 (DENR Ex.

1)

(also see PC

1).

 The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency) appeared at hearing to ~3xamine the Company’s witnesses,

but presented no testimony or witnesses.

 The Agency did, however

submit written comments

 (PC 2).

PLANT DISCHARGES

 AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

The Alton Water Company, Madison County,

 is a public utility

which provides drinking water to approximately 16,900 residential,

commercial,

 industrial,

 and municipal customers

 in the City of

Altorl and the surrounding area.

 The Company owns and operates

a water purification plant which withdraws raw water from the

54-185

2

Mississippi River and purifies and

distributes

 finished water to

its customers.

 Wastewater resulting from

 the purification process

is discharged into the Mississippi downstream

 from the intake.

An

average of 12.5 millions of gallons per day

 (mgd)

 of raw water is

treated prior to distribution by means of coagulation, settling,

filtration, chlorination and

 fluoridation.

As of 1980, the rate filtered capacity

of

the Company’s plant

was 10.4 mgd.

 On account of lack of reserve treatment capacity,

the plant was placed on the Agency’s Division of Public Water

Supplies’ Critical Review list on July 1,

 1981.

 As a result of

various modifications to the Company’s system,

 the rate filtered

capacity was subsequently increased to 13.3 mgd,

 and the plant

was removed

 from the Critical Review

 list.

The Company has recently completed construction of a new

additional treatment system to increase

 the plant capacity by

5

rngd to 18.3 mgd.

 The Company alleges that the addition is

necessary to enable the Company to meet existing system peaks and

normal summer season demands on the

system.

 Construction of this

addition proceeded pursuant to a “construct-only~permit issued

by the Agency.

 The Agency issued a short-term operation permit

after grant of variance

 in PCB 82—13,

 but absent site-specific

relief facilities to remove excess TSS and iron from the Company’s

effluent will need to be constructed.

Operation of this plant addition would not change the

 treatment process or discharge configuration of the existing

plant,

 although the quantity of discharge would increase as

production of finished water

 increases.

 The treatment process

here involved begins with the pumping of raw river water at an

intake structure,

 where alum and polymer are added

to

the water.

It is then conveyed to two circular mixers and then to a clarifier

where addition of a small quantity of lime for pH adjustment,

pre—chiorination, and occasionally a coagulant aid, occurs.

 Water

then flows through two sedimentation basins,

 and finally through

sand and gravel filters, a filter aid having been added when

required.

 Post—chlorination and fluoride additions are made after

filtration.

 Finished drinking water flows to a clear well before

distribution.

The high TSS concentration

 in the Company’s wastewater was

the subject of an earlier Board proceeding,

 East St. Louis

and

Interurban Water Co.

v.

IEPA and Alton Water

Co.

v.

 IEPA

(consolidated),

 PCB 76—297 and 298,

 24 PCB 801, February 17,

 1977.

In that case, average TSS concentration of Alton’s discharge was

reported as being

11,060 mg/i,

 24 PCB at 803.

 The Company

unsuccessfully argued that since the high TSS concentration was

largely attributable to high TSS

 levels

 in its

 raw water source

(e.g.

 68 mg/i), that it qualified for a Rule 401(a)

 exemption to

the Rule 408 effluent limitations.

 The Board affirmed the

Agency’s denial

 of an operating permit.

 Following this Board

decision, the Company began investigating methods of treating its

discharge,

 as well

 as the possibility of obtaining site specific

regulatory relief.

54-186

3

In pursuing the latter option, the Company contacted the

State Water Survey

 (Survey)

 concerning the possibility of the

Survey doing

 a study of the environmental impact of the discharge

on the Mississippi.

 Due to the Survey’s workload, its commitment

to undertake the study was not made until

 May,

 1979.

 The recently

completed study,

 “Waste from th.~Water Treatment Plant at Alton

and its Impact on the Mississippi

 River”,

 Ralph Evans

 et al.

(1982)

 (Evans Report)

 (Evans Ex.

 1), and the supporting testimony

of Mr.

 Evans,

 is the source of much of the information relied on

by the Company.

The Evans Report estimates the volume of wastewater produced

at the plant to be 603,000 gpd,

 or roughly 48,000 gallons of

wastewater per million gallons of raw water treated.

 Wastes are

produced in the mixers,

 clarifier, sedimentation basins and

filters.

The

significant contributors to the waste

 loads

 in the

discharge were viewed to be the TSS content of the raw water and

the alum added

 for coagulant purposes.

 Average daily production

of dry solids

 in the treatment system was estimated to be 12,500

pounds, of which only 150 pounds were attributed

 to alum usage.

During normal daily plant operations,

 in addition to TSS,

the discharge exceeds only one other effluent standard:*

the

2.0 mg/i iron limitation, the average concentration in the

discharge being 14.6 mg/i.

 Again, however,

 the raw water contains

iron in excess of the limit.

 During the twice yearly cleaning of

sedimentation basins, the 2.0 mg/l barium standard and the 1.0

mg/i manganese standard are also violated,

 as the average

concentrations in the discharge at those times are estimated to

be, respectively,

 6.0 mg/l and 3.92 mg/i.

The

 Company believes

that such excursions could be eliminated by more frequent basin

cleaning, which it has undertaken to do

(R.

 27),

In assessing the environmental impact of these discharges,

the Survey believed it necessary to perform a study of in—stream

water quality,

 based upon its earlier studies of water treatment

plant discharges.

 Calculations were made concerning the impact

 of the TSS discharge under worst case conditions.

 Using

 the daily

load of suspended solids

 in the discharge

 (12,500

 lbs.)

 and the

7—day,

 10—year low flow for the River

 (21,700 cfs) with a 10

mixing zone and a river TSS concentration of 10 mg/i,

 Evans

included that the in-stream TSS concentration would be 34 mg/i.

*At the hearing,

 the Agency inquired whether the discharge

had been examined for levels of BOD and fecal coliforin

(R.

 76—81).

As

Mr.

Blanck noted, the NPDES Permit does not establish

limitations for these parameters.

 Although the Company could not,

at that juncture, submit contemporary information,

 it did supply

available data.

 Based on this data, the Company asserts that the

discharge does not pose any threat of violating water quality

standards,

 or even effluent standards,

 for these pa..~ameters.

(Evans Ex.

No.

 1 at 20—21;

R.

 76—81;

Co.

Ex.

No.

 2 at cover

letter,

5,

10,

25,

30,

 134—138.)

 The Agency has not challenged

this assertion.

54-187

4

Except during such conditions,

 the Company’s discharge was

estimated to represent only 0.018

 of the average daily solids

 load conveyed by the stream.

Calculations were also made as to the effect of the barium,

manganese and iron discharges during the twice—yearly (April,

November) basin cleaning episodes during the worse November

(average stream

 flow)

 conditions.

 Again assuming a 10

 mixing

zone, the concentration in the Mississippi without the waste, and

then with it, were estimated to he:

 for barium

0,10

mg/i vs.

0.11 mg/l,

 for manganese 0.25 mg/i vs.

 0.27 mg/i, and for iron

8.60 mg/i vs.

 9.40 mg/i.

The Survey did do sampling of river bottom sediments,

to

determine their content as well as the

types of densities

of

macroinvertebrates located in these sediments,

 The Survey

determined that while the Company’s waste

 flows were

detectable

in

the River’s bottom segments, that

the areal extent

of their

influence was limited to 200 feet offshore

and within 2,000

feet

downstream of the waste outfail.*

Mr.

 Evans testified that examination

of the sediments

did

not reveal

 a measurable “blanket” of sludge

deposits

foreign to

the sediments of the river,

 but that the Company’s discharges

had changed the character of the sediments.

 Usual Mississippi

 River Bottom sediments are mainly sand

(i,e~

94

 sand,

4

 silt,

and 2

 clay), while the bottom sediments

in the

impacted area

consists mainly of silt and clay (i,e~33

 sand,

49

 silt

and

18

 clay).

Examination of the sediments for

bottom dwelling organisms

did not reveal an adverse impact on

them due

the

 Company’s

discharges.

Mr.

 Evans noted that a mixture of

sand,

 silt

and

clay is a more stable environment than

sand for these

organisms,

and that while

 “the impact of

the

waste

may not be solely

beneficial

 in enhancing the habitat,

it

nevertheless

does not

have an adverse impact”

(R.

 53—54).

In response to a concern expressed in a Concurring Opinion

in PCB 82—13,

 Mr. Evans performed a

literature search concerning

the toxicity of aluminum to aquatic

 life,

(As

aforementioned,

the

Company’s discharge introduces

 about 150 pounds

of alum

into the

river daily).

Mr.

 Evans observed that in the USEPA publications

 he consulted, chlorides,

 nitrates, oxides, and sulfates of

aluminum were suspected of adversely affecting

various

shellfish.

However, hydroxides of aluminum, those contained

in

the Company’s

waste, were not mentioned.

 Based on this information,

 as well as

on his observation that the number,

 type,

 and diversity of

*At hearing,

Mr.

 Evans clarified that this mixing zone would

be well within that allowable by Section 302,102, that is, the

area of a circle with a radius of 600 feet

(R.

 48.~49),

54-188

5

macroinvertebrae did not differ between sediments upstream of the

discharge and sediments in the area impacted by the discharge,

~r. Evans concluded that the aluminum content in the discharges

were not a “limiting factor” in the aquatic habitat

(R.

 56).

In the EcIS,

 Linda Huff provided information concerning

stream uses immediately downstream of the Company’s discharge and

Ms.

 Huff noted that next to the Alton Water Company are two

commercial/industrial facilities, and that a grain dock,

a

petroleum dock,

 and a sand operation are

 located immediately

downstream and adjacent to the shoreline,

 all within 3000 feet of

the Company’s discharge (DENR Ex.

1,

p.

 11).

 (As aforementioned,

the areal extent of the Company’s discharge is limited to 200

feet offshore and within 2,000 feet downstream of the waste

outfall.)

Ms. Huff also notes that there

 is no

water

quality monitoring

point located immediately downstream of the Company’s discharge,

located at river mile 204.2, located 1.32 miles upstream of Lock

and Dam No.

26.

 The closest downstream

station

 is that at the

East St. Louis water intake

 (river mile 180);

 any effects of the

Alton discharge would be dissipated before that point

 (DENR Ex.

1,

p.

 9—10).

TREATMENT OPTIONS AND COSTS

The Company has,

 since 1973, considered various options for

disposal of the sediments contained in its wastewater,

 Because

of the small

 size of the plant site, only off-site disposal is

feasible

(R.

 27),

 The possibility of discharging into the City’s

sewer system was discussed but rejected

by the City on the

basis

of its engineers’

 findings that the treatment system could not

accept the entire plant discharge

(R.

 28; Company Ex.

No,

1,

Amended Petition for Variance at Ex.

 8; Company

Ex.

No.

 2 at 141—

142).

 The Company also considered discharge

of

a portion of the

 wastewater to the city system.

 This alternative would,

 however,

require construction of holding facilities which could not be

accommodated on the plant site

(R.

 129—130),

 Negotiations to

acquire nearby property for such holding facilities were unsuc-

cessful

(R.

 96—97).

 Nor did this course present a more economical

alternative

 for disposal.

 Construction costs were estimated (in

1977—78) at some $2 million for the holding facilities

(R.

 28—29).

In addition to these capital expenditures, annual user fees of

$147,000 to $196,000 for disposal

 to the city system would be

imposed

(R.

 28—29).

Various alternatives for treatment and disposal of the total

discharge off—site were considered,

 including lagoon disposal,

barging and mechanical dewatering

 (filter press and centrifuge)

(R. 34).

 The Company’s summary (Herman Ex.

3)

 of these options

and costs is summarized below in table

 form:

54-189

6

St~PF2~ZD~i_~

SOLItE DIS~-~AL

AL~ WMER Cct~~’ANY

Puyç

1490cm

Med~anica1lyE~waterarxl

Disçcsal

Site

Tn~d

Disposal

Site

Barge

Dis~x*sa1Stta

Filter

Press

Centrifuge

Illinois

Misicsiri

Capital

Cist

 $3,000,000

$3,300,000

 $3,120,000

 $4,140,000

$3,270,000

Cç~rating

Labor

ar~1~ertjy

0*ta

$

1.1,850

$

 33,100

$

 76,700

$

 9,400

$

 6,700

Mai.nt~x*

$

5,000

$

 16,250

$

 17,500

$

 11,250

$

1.1,250

Hau1.ing/~t

$

—

$

 67,600

$

78,000

$

 5,200

$

 5,200

$

16,850

$

116,950

$

172,200

 25,850

$

 23,150

The Company’s engineers concluded that the lagoon disposal

method was the only feasible alternative

(R.

 34—36).

The chosen compliance option,

 if ultimately required, would

involve pumping of wastewater to an off-site lagoon disposal

system.

 A site

3½

miles upstream of the plant has been purchased

at a cost of $243,000.

 Capital costs of construction of a

collection system at

 the plant,

 installation of piping and lift

stations,

 and construction of two drying lagoons, are estimated

to be $3,000,000 with annual operation and maintenance costs of

$16,850.

 Such a system would take approximately 20 months to

construct.

Mr.

 Herman testified that the $3,000,000 estimate

 (updated

to 1982 dollars) included costs for

 1) equipment and construction,

2)

 engineering,

3)

 interest and contingencies, and 4)

 land

(R.

37;

Herman Ex.

1).

 Annual operating expenses were estimated

(in

1982 dollars)

 to be $19,000

 (Herman Ex.

2).

To support the capital investment,

 the Company would have

to request annual increased revenues

 in excess of $710,000.

Additional revenues, in the amount of $19,000, the estimated

annual operating expenses, would also be required.

 Finally,

revenues

to

cover depreciation,

 in the approximate amount of

$60,000 (reflecting

 $3 million

 in capital costs),

 would be

needed.

 Thus, the total estimated additional

 revenues per year

would total some $789,000

(R.

 30).

To generate these revenues,

 the Company would be

 required to

seek an increase in its rates of an average 16 percent for all

customer classes.

 Based upon

 the rate approved by the Illinois

Commerce Commission

 in its Order of October 27,

 1982,

 a typical

residential customer now pays

an

average

 of $163.00 per year.

54-190

7

If the additional increase

 to reflect the cost of waste treatment

and disposal

 facilities were included, the average residential

customer would pay an additional

 $26.00 per year,

 for a total

 bill

of $189.000*

(R.

31;

 126—127).

At hearing,

 Mrs.

 Huff generally did not disagree with the

compliance costs estimated by the Cornpany.**

 In the EcIS,

a

lengthy comparison of the costs and benefits of

 full compliance

was made, which were summarized in Table

5-1

 (DENR Ex.

1,

p.

 55).

This Table

 is reproduced below:

Table 5-1.

 Comparison of Environmental

 Costs and Benefits of

the

Alton Water Company

 Complying with

the

 Illinois Effluent

Limitations

impact Category

Annual

 Costs

 Annual

 Benefits

Description

 S/yr

 Description

 S/yr

Uton Water Company

1~esthetics

Pollution Control

 Expenditures

$5~7,000

Not Quantifiable

Environmental

 Impacts

Fish

Benthic Coniuunity

Bacterial

 Contamination

Aesthetics

No impact

0

No measurable

improvement

0

Not known

No shoreline access

for

 public

0

Public Water Supplies

 Reduced solids

Loading on downstream

users

 041,200

Navigation

$517,000

Reduced dredging

costs

 044,000

045,200

 Totals

*Mrs.

 Huff compared Alton to three suppliers on the

Mississippi River

 (DENR Ex.

 1 at 66), finding

the exist3~p9Alton

rates

 lower than those of the City of Quincy but substantially

higher than those of Rock Island and East St.

 Louis,

**The EcIS

 (Ex.

1,

p.

 20—22) had noted that the capital

costs of treatment

options originally submitted by the Company

were substantially higher than Huff and Huff estimates based on

“New Concepts in Water Pollution’~by Cuip and Culp

 (DENR Ex.

4).

At hearing

(R.

 87—93),

 it was explained in detail that the

discrepancy had in large part resulted from differences between

the Alton facility~andthe facility serving

 as the basis

 for the

Culp and Cuip figures,

 and in use of different indices in bringing

1970’s dollars up

 to 1982 dollars.

54-191

8

The

 EcIS also considered treatment of part of the discharge

through mechanical dewatering and disposal

 (DENR Ex,

1,

p.

 22—28).

Mr. Herman calculated the expenses of such efforts

to

be

substantially higher than suggested by the consultant

(R.

 88-91).

Mr. Herman also testified that the construction costs would be

the same as for disposal

of all of the discharge because of the

necessity for disposing off—site

(R.

 131—134).

AGENCY

COMMENTS

In

 its comments,

 the Agency does not dispute the economic

testimony presented, and agrees that “the continued discharge

will have no significant impact on the Mississippi River.”

However, it declined to make

 a recommendation either that the

Board grant or deny the requested relief.

The reasons for the Agency’s maintenance of this posture

will

 be best conveyed by quotation rather than by paraphrase:

“The Agency is concerned that

 a grant of relief here may

cast doubt on the validity of suspended solids standards

contained in the Board’s regulation and continued ability

to enforce them against facilities which discharge contami-

nants that originates in raw river water.

 In East St.

 Louis

and Alton Water Company v.

 IEPA,

 PCB 76-297 and 298,

February 17,

 1977 the Board held that these contaminants

must be controlled.

 Many facilities along both the

Mississippi and Illinois Rivers,

 including other public

water supplies and gravel

 and sand dredging operations,

 have

less concentrated waste and perhaps as little impact.

Yet

these facilities must still control their discharges

 to meet

the effluent standards.

The Board adopted effluent standards on the basis of

the ability of the individual discharger to treat the waste,

rather than the impact on water quality.

 This treatibility

basis was enunciated in the Board’s opinion adopting effluent

standards,

 R70—8, January 7,

 1972,

 and repeated in the

Board’s review of those effluent standards in R76—21,

September 24,

 1981.

 The concept was that all discharges

should be treated to the degree that the Board found

feasible and reasonable.

Here there is no question the technology is available

to treat the discharge.

 The Water Company can treat the

wastewater rather than discharging

 it untreated into the

river.

The

Water Company has

 testified however that it

would be costly to include any treatment and that treatment

would raise the rates of the users.

 In deciding this case

 the Board must consider whether these are sufficient grounds

to grant relief.

 If the Board decides that relief here is

54-192

9

warranted then it should explain

 this departure

 from the

usual theory of setting effluent standards.

 This explanation

will greatly aid the Agency and other dischargers in deter-

mining future effluent limitation policy”

 (PC.

2,

p.

 4—5).

THE RESOLUTION

In its above—cited remarks, the Agency has accurately

reflected the Board’s general philosophy in enacting effluent

standards.

 However,

 in so doing,

 the Board noted that the

desirability of generally applicable effluent standards in part

flowed from the fact that “determining

 discharge requirements

on a case—by—case basis

 so as

 to tailor discharges

 to stream

quality requirements

 is a very time—consuming procedure that

creates

 a great deal of uncertainty”

(R.

 70—8,

 3 PCB 401 at 401,

January

6,

 1972).

 Too,

 in that Opinion, it was noted that the

effluent standards for both TSS and total

 iron were predicated

in

part

on prevention of “widesirable” or “harmful” bottom deposits

(Id.,

 3 PCB at 416,

 419),

The Mississippi River

 is naturally high both

 in TSS and

iron.

 In this case,

 the study of the Company’s discharge by the

State Water Survey indicates that the bottom deposits are at

worst benign,

 and may be beneficial.

 Assuredly,

 the Board gives

greater weight to the Survey’s analysis than it might to that of

another consultant—contractor, based on the Water Survey’s

nationwide reputation and the Board’s own history of dealings

with it.

 Given this environmental analysis,

 the high costs of

removal of TSS and iron from the Company’s discharge are not

justifiable.

 The Board will therefore grant the relief requested

by the Company.

In reaching this result,

 the Board realizes

that it has

not provided the easily applicable guidelines the Agency has

requested.

 The Board further acknowledges that this may be

troubling particularly in light of another recent site—specific

rulemaking petition for discharge of TSS into the Mississippi

River

 i.e.

 Sauget/East St.

 Louis,

 R81-12, September 23,

1983

(proposed rule)),

 and further petitions anticipated pursuant to

the Part 306, Subpart D

 “Exception Procedure”.

 However,

 in the

last analysis, conditions for the granting of site—specific

relief are not capable of precise legal or technical definition.

Additionally, the fundamental

 goal of all standards,

 regardless

of how established,

 is to enhance stream quality.

 In this case,

the “time consuming procedure” demonstrates with reasonable

certainty that the application of the general effluent standards

will contribute minimally,

 if at all, towards stream quality

enhancement.

 Given this “reasonable certainty”

 the Board does

not feel

 that the discharger should bear the costs

 of compliance

outlined in this case.

~A.

I OQ

In redrafting the rule as proposed,

 the Board has added

provisions tying the exception to the Company’s current 18.3 mgd

treatment capacity;

 any additional expansion will necessitate a

rule

change

and

new

environmental,

effects

analysis.

this

proposed

first

notice

Opinion

and

Order

subject

revision

both

the

second

notice

and

final

adoption

stages,

will

not

appear

the

Board’s

published

opinion

volumes.

Copies

will,

however,

placed

the

files

made

available

the

public.

ORDER

The

Board

proposes

adopt

the

following

rule,

first

notice

which

shall

sent

the

Illinois

for

publication:

TITLE

35:

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

SUBTITLE

WATER

POLLUTION

CHAPTER

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

SUBPART

SITE

SPECIFIC

RULES

AND

EXCEPTIONS

NOT

OF

GENERAL

APPLICABILITY

Section

 Alton Water Comj~an~Treatment

Plant_Di~~~es

This

section

applies

the

 existing_18.3 rniUio~allons

day

potable

drinking

water_treatmen~p~ant

owned

the

Alton

 Water

Co~yç~is

located

at,

and

discharges

 into, river

mile_204.4

the

 Mississ

ipp

 I River.

 Such discharges

 shall

not

sub

j

ectto

the effluent standards

for

 total

~j~ended

 solids and total_iron

 35 Ill.__Adm. Code 304.124.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Christan

 L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby~ertify that

 th9 a~oveOpinion and Order

was adopted1on the

~

 day of

 1983 by

a vote of

L(~()

,~.

~

____

Chri

Star

1.

Mofet(fl~~rk

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

54-194