ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August

18, 1982

ALTON WATER CO.,

)

)

Petitioner,

)

v.

)

PCB 82—13

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER

OF THE BOARD

(by J~

Anderson):

This

matter comes before the Board on the petition for

variance filed February 10,

1982 as

amended

July

16,

1982

by

the

Alton Water Company (the Company).

The Company seeks

variance

from the

15 mg/I total suspended solids

(TSS) and 2 mg/i total

iron effluent standards of Section 304.124(a)

of

Ill.

Adm. Code.

Title

35, Subtitle

C,

Chapter

1

formerly

Rule 408(a)

of Chapter

3:

Water Pollutionl*, as they relate

to the wastewater discharged

by

the

Company~s potable

water

treatment

facility.

The

Company

also

has

initiated

a site—specific rulemaking requesting identical

relief

which has

been

docketed as R82—3

(which proceeding had

been

delayed

pending the Company~’sfiling of an amended regulatory

petition,

received

July 21,

1982).

On July 16,

1982,

the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)

filed its Recommendation

in support of grant of variance subject

to conditions for either

three

years

or

until

a decision is reached in R82—3,

whichever

comes first.

Hearing was

waived

and none has been held.

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

Aiton

and

the surrounding area.

The Company owns and operates

a water purification plant which withdraws raw water from the

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.

*

The

Agency

in

its

Recommendation

implies,

without

specifically

addressing

the matter,

that the 30

mg/i

TSS

limit

of

Section

304,120(a)

is the applicable

limit,

47-529

---

2

As of

1980,

the rated filter ~-paci~y of the Company~s

plant

was

10.4 mgd~ On

acco’ nt of lack of reaerve treatment capacity,

the

plant was placed on the Agency~sDivision of Public Water

Supplies~

Critical Rcii-~li~ a:. Julj

1,

1981.

As a result of

various

modifications ~

tha

ompary~ssystem,

the rated

filter

capacity

was subseq~enty irc ease~ito 13.3 mgd, and the plant

was

removed from the Critical deview list.

The Company has begun construction of a new additional

treatment system to increase the plant capacity by

5 mgd.

The

Company

alleges that

tie addition is necessary to enable the

Company

to meet existing system peaks and normal

summer

season

demands

on the systea.

Corstructior of this addition,

scheduled

to be completed in ~1gLst, 1982, has proceeded pursuant

to a

“construct—on1y~permit issued by the Agency:

absent grant

of

a

variance

or site—specific rule change, the Agency will not issue

an

operating permit

Operation of ~

o ant addition would not change

the

treatment process or discharge configuration of the existing

plant,

although the quantity of discharge would increase

as

production of firished ~ater ircreases

The treatment process

here involved begins with t~epumping of raw river water at

an

intake

structures

wtere alum and oolymer are added to the

water.

It

is then con~ieyedto t~o 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~swastewater

was

the

subject of an earlier Board proceeding,

East St.

Louis and

Interurban Water Co.

V

iEPA and Alton Water Co.

v. IEPA

~

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

¶iSa le~’els~n its raw water

source

(e.g.

68

mg/l), 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,

~n pursuing the latter option,

the

Company

contacted the Stafe 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 rcc

tli completed study,

~Waste from

the

Water

Treatment Plant at í4ton and its Impact on the

Mississippi

River”,

Ralph Evans et a?,

(July,

1981)

(Evans Report)

(Ex.

1),

is the

source of most of

he informacion relied on by the

Company.

---

3

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 was attributed to alum usage.

Additional monitoring of plant discharges was conducted

in

response to Agency questions concernin9 the variance petition.

During normal daily plant operations,

in addition to

TSS, the

discharge exceeds only one other effluent standard:

the 2.0 mg/l

iron limitation,

the average concentration in the discharge being

14.6 mg/l.

Again, however,

the raw water contains iron in excess

of the limit.

During the twice yearly cleaning of sedimentation

basins,

the 2.0 mg/i barium standard and the 1.0 mg/l manganese

standard are also violated, as the average concentrations in the

discharge at those times are estimated to be, respectively,

6.0

mg/i and 3.92 mg/i

(Ex, 5),

(The Company believes that such

excursions could be eliminated by more frequent basin cleaning.)

In assessing the environmental impact of these discharges,

the Survey believed

it

unnecessary 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 and a river TSS concentration of 10 mg/I,

Evans concluded

that the in-stream TSS concentration would be

34 mg/i.

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

(Ex,

1).

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,

the concentration

in the Mississippi

without the waste,

and

then with it, were estimated to be:

for barium 0.10 mg/i vs.

0.11. mg/i,

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

octrail,

do unnatural

sludge deposits

were observed,

and

there was

no evidence that the iron and

47~53i

---

4

aluminum

concentrations in the sediment was toxic to aquatic

organisms.

The study therefore concluded that the

changes in the

chemical and

physical composition in these sediments should not be

considered

“a mark of environmental degradation”

(Ex,

1 at 31).

The

study of macroinvertebrates lead the Survey to

conclude

that the impact

of the Company~sdischarges was not

an adverse one.

Based on the

Evans

Report, the

Company alleges its belief

that its discharges

have

no

adverse

environmental impact.

In

further support,

the Company has presented

a statement of the

Army Corps of

Engineers

stating

its opinion that the discharges

have no effect

on the Corpse channel maintenance duties

(Ex.

6).

The Company

has,

since 1973, considered various options for

disposal of

the sediments contained in

its wastewater,

The City

of Alton

determined in 1978 that

it could not accept and treat the

Company’s discharge

at the municipal sewage treatment plant

(Ex.

8).

Given the

small

size of

the

Company’s plant site,

all feasible

compliance options involve off—site disposal of sediments.

Four

options have been

rejected,

Two of these would involve transpor-

tation of sludge by

barge to

a disposal

site in either a)

Illinois

or b) Missouri.

Capital costs involved in

the Illinois choice

would be

$4,140,000 and $3,270,000 in the Missouri

choice, with

annual hauling

operation and maintenance

expenditures estimated

respectively at $25,850

and $23,150.

The other two rejected

options are for mechanical dewatering of sludge which would be

shipped by

truck to a disposal site,

Dewatering by filter press

and centrifuge

systems were considered at respective

capital

costs of $3,300,000

and $3,120,000 and

respective

annual hauling,

operation and maintenance costs of $116,950 and $127,200

(Ex. 7).

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,

arid

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.

Given the

asserted lack

of environmental impact and the

pendency of the R82—3

rulemaking, and its need to commence

operation of its additional purification facilities, the Company

asserts that immediate compliance would impose an arbitrary or

unreasonable hardship.

To support lagoon construction capital

investments, the Company expects

it would require an annual

increase

in revenues of $710,000, which would result in an average

12

rise in water use rates to its customers.

The Company has

already petitioned the ICC for a rate increase for reasons related

to this petition.

The Company notes that,

assuming its December 4,

1981 petition for rate increase

is approved, compliance costs would

add $23.00 per year to a typical residential user’s projected

$188.00 annual bill.

47-532

---

5

Given all of the above circumstances, the Agency supports

grant of variance subject to conditions for a period not to exceed

three years.

In so doing,

the Agency expressly stated that its

Recommendation “should not be taken as acquiescence in the rule

change petition...

The Agency’s decision in the rule change

petition

will be based on the evidence and testimony”

in that

proceeding.

The Board finds that the Company has proven that immediate

compliance would impose an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.

Based on the uncontroverted evidence presented concerning

community water needs,

the asserted financial hardship, and the

Survey’s environmental impact assessment, the Board finds that

delay in compliance with Section 304.124 is justifiable.

Variance

is accordingly granted for the term and subject to the conditions

outlined in the attached Order.

In so doing, the Board expresses

no pre—judgement of the outcome of R82-3,

in which the initial

hearing is yet to be held.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

ORDER

1.

Petitioner,

the Alton Water Co., is granted variance

from the 15 mg/i total suspended solids

(TSS) and

2 mg/i total

iron effluent standards of Section 304.124(a)

of the Iii. Mm.

Code,

Title 35, Subtitle

C, Chapter

1,

subject

to the following

conditions:

a.

This variance shall terminate September 1,

1985

or upon any earlier

final decision in R82—3.

b.

Petitioner shall operate

its facility so as to

minimize the TSS and iron content of its discharge.

c.

Within

90 days of the date of this Order,

petitioner shall develop and submit to the Agency a plan

for the cleaning of its clarifier basins with sufficient

frequency to avoid violations of the barium and manganese

standards.

This plan shall be followed during the life

of this variance.

2.

Within forty—five days of the date of this Order,

Petitioner shall execute and forward to the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency, Division of Water Pollution Control, Compliance

Assurance Section,

2200 Churchill Road,

Springfield, Illinois

62706, a Certificate of Acceptance and Agreement to be bound to

all terms and conditions of this variance.

This forty—five day

period shall be held in abeyance for any period this matter is

being appealed.

The form of the certificate shall

be as follows:

47-533

---

6

CERTIFICATION

I,

(We),

,

the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board in PCB 82-13,

dated

—,

understand and accept the

said Order,

realizing that such acceptance renders all terms and

By:

Title

Board Member J.

Dumelle concurred.

I, Christan L. Moffett,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby cçrtify that the above Opinion and Order

was adopted on the

/~“-

day of

___________________,

1982

by a vote of

_____*

Christan

Illinois Pollution Control Board

47-534