ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May 10,

1979

IN THE MATTER OF:

LAKE MICHIGAN PERMIT FOR

)

PCB 78—114

WAUKEGAN PORT DISTRICT

OPINION

OF THE BOARD

(by Mr.

Dumelle):

On April

24,

1978 the Board

received

a

permit application

and an unsigned permit from the

Illinois Dept.

of

Transporta-

tion, Division

of Water Resources

(DOT),

The permit concerned

the repair

of concrete boat launching

ramps and maintenance

dredging by the Waukegan Port

District

(the District)

in

Waukegan Harbor.

The DOT enclosed

unconditional approval

letters from the Army Corps

of Engineers

(the

Corps) and the

Illinois Department

of Conservation. The Illinois

Environ-

mental Protection Agency had

concurred in the issuance of

the permit on the conditions

that no water pollution be

caused,

nearby water

supply intakes be protected,

and all

dredge spoil be

deposited in

a

permitted land site.

On

April

27,

1978 the

Board authorized the Chairman to sign the

permit.

On June 1,

1978 the People of the State of Illinois

and the Agency advised

the Board that the Agency had withdrawn

its prior conditional

approval and asked the Board to withdraw

its concurrence or,

in the alternative,

hold an informational

hearing on this

matter.

On January

4,

1979 the Board ordered

a public hearing to be held to determine

whether the repairs

and dredging would cause water

pollution

as that term is

defined in Section

3(n)

of the Act.

The hearing was held on

January 31,

1979

in the Lake County

Courthouse

in Waukegan.

On February 15, 1979 the Board

adopted an Order which

stated that the Board had jurisdiction to

rule on the merits

of

this matter and that the

Board concurred in the issuance

of

the

permit on certain conditions.

This Opinion supports

the Board~sOrder dated February

15,

1979.

Section 65 of Chapter 19 of the

Illinois Revised Sta-

tutes states

in part that

“.

.

no permit shall be issued

or renewed authorizing any fill

or deposit of

rock,

earth,

sand, or other material, or

any refuse matter of any kind or

description in Lake Michigan except with the

concurrence of

the Pollution Control Board,

and

no such permit

is valid

without such

concurrence.” When the DOT

first sent this

permit application

to the Board,

it stated:

33—439

---

“Inasmuch as this work will involve dredging

materials

from the bed of Lake Michigan,

it appears

that

the work

would come under the

provisions

of State Statutes,

Chapter 19, Section 65,

which requires your concurrence

before a permit can be issued for the work.”

The Board~sauthority to review these permits

was

supplied by Public Act 76~-2453which

was effective on July

1,

1970.

That same public act also amended Section 61(a)

of

Chapter

19 to read in part as follows:

“It

is the express intention of this legislation that

close cooperation shall exist between the

Pollution

Control Board, Environmental

Protection Agency,

Illinois

Institute for Environmental

Quality, and the Department

of Transportation and that every resource of state

government shall be applied to the proper preservation

and utilization of the waters of Lake Michigan.”

Both Sections 61(a) and 65 of Chapter 19 are

included

under the provisions of Section 76 which states that:

“At all times this act shall be construed

in

a

liberal

manner for the purpose of preserving to the State

of

Illinois and the people of the State,

fully

and unimpaired,

the rights which the State of

Illinois and the people

of the State of

Illinois may have in any of

the public

waters of the State

of Illinois,

and

to give them in

connection therewith,

the fullest

possible enjoyment

thereof,

and to prevent

to

the fullest extent,

the

slightest improper encroachment or invasion

upon

the

rights of the State of Illinois,

or any of its

citizens

with reference thereto.”

In this case the District is

not seeking a permit to

deposit any dredge spoil

in Lake Michigan.

On the contrary,

the District intends to remove material which is

already

lying

in the lakebed.

This circumstance should not

be viewed

as a means to escape the Board~sjurisdiction in this

matter.

Any dredging project, by its very nature,

causes the

suspension

of particles in the water, which will migrate and

eventually

be deposited someplace else.

Leaching of soluble

deposits

may be enhanced,

When this

is viewed in conjunction with

the express intention in Section 61(a)

and the mandate

for

liberal construction in Section 76,

the Board

is

forced to

take a broad interpretation of Section 65. The

dredging

which the District is trying to complete will result

in a

“deposit” in Lake Michigan.

The Board has been

given the

authority to

“.

.

.

determine,

define,

and implement

the

environmental control standards applicable

in

the State of

Illinois.

,

,“

Section

5(b)

of the Environmental

Protection

Act.

The Board will use that authority here

to determine

whether the District will cause water pollution

as that term

is defined in Section 3(n)

of the Environmental

Protection

Act.

33—440

---

—3—

The

primary concern of all the interested parties in

this case has been the

threat of contamination from polychlor—

mated biphenyls (PCB~s)

if the dredging were permitted.

This concern is complicated

by the fact that the Board has

never promulgated

any

water

quality or effluent standard for

PCB~s, Consequently

the Board must turn to Section 3(n)

of

the Act which defines water

pollution as follows:

“WATER POLLUTION is such alteration

of the physical,

chemical,

biological,

or radioactive properties of any

waters of the State,

or such discharge of any

contamin-

ant into any waters

of the State,

as will or is likely

to create a nuisance

or

render

such waters harmful or

detrimental or injurious

to public health,

safety or

welfare or to

domestic,

commercial,

industrial, agricul-

tural,

recreational,

or

other legitimate uses,

or to

livestock,

wild

animals, birds,

fish, or other aquatic

life.”

The District presented

the results of a one day sampling

program which analyzed the

bottom sediments

in the vicinity

of the boat launching

ramps,

The samples showed that the

top six inches of sediment

contained an average of 5.3 ppm

PCB~swith a range from

2,7 ppm to 8.1 ppm

(Ex,

5).

Exhibit

7

consists

of guidance used by USEPA to classify

Great Lakes

harbor sediments.

This guidance classifies

sediments in the

range

of 1-10 ppm PCB’s as “moderately

polluted”.

Sediments

in this range are determined by the

U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers

to be unsuitable for open lake

disposal

(R,140) and must

be evaluated on a case by case

basis

(R,142).

Although these guidelines are described as

“interim” and

“.

.

.

subject to revision as new information

becomes

available”,

they are valuable as USEPA’s latest

thinking in this area.

The

guidelines indicate that these

sediments may

be dredged as long as their ultimate disposal

is closely monitored,

Dr.

Thomas J.

Murphy testified

that PCB’s which would

be suspended due to dredging would

associate with smaller

organic particles and remain suspended for a

long period of

time

(R,399). When these suspended

particles

settle, they

will tend to create an abnormally high concentration

at the

interface

with the water

(R,412),

Dr. Murphy testified

that

this dredging project would contribute to this problem,

but

not appreciably (R,414)

if the sediments

average approximately

5 ppm PCB~s (R.349).

Mr. Michael T. Kobylanski,

General Manager of the

District, testified that the

dredging project would involve

removal

of approximately

2700 cubic yards

of sediment

(R.16).

This will increase depth

in the vicinity of the boat ramps

from four feet to nine feet

(R,19,15).

33—44 1

---

—4—

Mr. Jerry Lapish,

whose

firm

has contracted to do the

dredging, testified that the area

to be dredged consists of

hard sand with some silt

(R.297),

He testified that the

sediments in this area have moved

in from Lake Michigan

(R,306).

Although some sediments travel around Waukegan

Harbor (R,318),

the area to be dredged was not characteristic

of the rest of the harbor

(R.331),

He testified that

the

nearest sites sampled in Exhibits 12 and

13 which

showed far

higher levels

of PCB contamination were very different

in

composition than the area where dredging would occur.

Mr. Howard Peskator, Superintendent of the City of

Waukegan Water Utility,

testified concerning use of an

emergency water intake

located inside the harbor in the

vicinity of the boat ramps.

This intake

is used an average

of

6 hours per year

(R,272),

During

these periods

the water

filtration plant uses an

activated carbon process

(R,282).

Exhibit

18 includes the results of analyses done by the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency during

April,

1978

on finished drinking water during use of the

emergency

intake.

Exhibit 18 indicates

that no PCB contamination

(less

than 0.00005 ppm) was detected during this period.

Based on the above analysis the Board can make the

following conclusions,

The

level

of PCB~sfound in the top

six inches of sediment indicate that very little contamination

exists in the volume to be dredged.

When these

low levels

are viewed

in conjunction with the

nature of the sediments

in the area,

additional core

samples taken at greater depths

appear to be unnecessary.

The size of the dredging project

and the results in Exhibit 18 indicate that although some

contamination may result,

it will be negligible.

Now the Board must determine what controls should be

imposed on this project

to minimize any contamination which

could result,

Mr.

David Beno stated

that the U.S.

Army

Corps of

Engineers preferred the clamshell method of dredging in this

case because it knew what

to expect

(R,123),

Mr.

Lapish

stated that hydraulic dredging would require use of a

cutter

head in the hard sand which would aggravate turbidity

(R.299).

Mr. Lapish felt that installation of sheet piling

would be

dangerous

(R,308) and would upset bottom sediments

(R,336).

Based on this evidence the Board concludes that the clamshell

method

is the best alternative.

Mr.

David Beno stated that a

silt curtain placed

around

the dredging operation could decrease widespread turbidity

and act as an oil boom

(R,106)

to contain PCB~ssoluble in

oil

(R,149).

Mr. Lapish

felt that

a

silt curtain was the

best containment alternative

(R,315),

The Board

concludes

that a silt curtain should

be placed around the dredging

operation to contain stirred

up

sediments and oils released

by dredging.

33—442

---

—5—

The Board concludes that the dredging and disposal must

be completed within one year because circumstances including

the scope of this project and PCB levels

in the sediments

could change significantly over a longer period of time.

This Opinions constitutes the Board~sfindings of fact

and

conclusions of

Mr. Young concurs

I,

Christan L. Moffett,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board,

hereby certify the above Opinion was adopted

on the

I

day of

or)

a_-i

,

1979

byavoteof

_________________,

(1)

Illinois Pollution

itrol Board

33—443