BEFORE THE ILLNOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

N THE MATTER OF:

PROPOSED EXTENSION OF ADJUSTED STANDARD

)

AS 2007-2

APPLICABLE TO ILLINOIS-AMERICAN

)

(Adjusted Standard)

WATER

COMPANY'S ALTON PUBLIC WATER

)

SUPPLY FACILITY DISCHARGE

)

TO THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER

NOTICE

OF

FILING

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 2,2007, the AMENDED PETITION FOR EXTENSION

OF ADJUSTED STANDARD was filed with the Clerk of the Pollution Control Board. A copy is

herewith served upon you.

Respectfully submitted,

ILLmOIS-AMEMCm WATER COMPmY

By:

Alison M. Nelson,

#0628845 1

Blackwell Sanders

Peper Martin LLP

720 Olive St., 24th Floor

St. Louis,

MO 63 101

Telephone: (3 14)

345-6000

Facsimile: (3 14) 345-6060

Attorneys for Petitioner

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

BEFOIQE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BO

IN THE blATTER OF:

)

PFWPOSED EXTENSION OF ADJUSTED STANDARD

AS 2007-2

APPLICABLE TO

ILLINOIS-AJMERICAN

)

(Adjusted Standard)

WATER COMPANY'S ALTON

PUBLIC WATER

SUPPLY FACILITY DISCHARGE

)

TO THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER

Petitioner, Illinois-American Water Company ("Illinois-American Water"), by its attorneys

Bradley S. Hiles and Alison

M. Nelson, pursuant to Section 28.1 of the Illinois Environmental

Protection Act ("the Act"), 41 5

Ill. Comp. Stat. 5128.1 and Part 104 of the Procedural Rules of the

Illinois Pollution Control Board ("Board), 35

Ill. Adm. Code Part 104, respectfully submits to the

Board its amended petition for an extension of Adjusted Standard 99-6, the adjusted standard now

applicable to Illinois-American Water's public water supply treatment facility in Alton, Illinois (the

"Alton facility"). This Amended Petition for Extension of Adjusted Standard and the Attachments filed

herewith supersede the Petition for Extension of Adjusted Standard filed with the Board on October 3 1,

2006, as well as Attachments

D and F attached thereto. Adjusted Standard 99-6, which is scheduled to

expire on October 16, 2007, provides that the effluent standard for offensive discharges at 35

Ill. Adm.

Code 304.106, the effluent standard for total suspended solids (TSS) at 35

Ill. Adm. Code 304.124, and

the effluent standard for total iron at 35

Ill. Adm. Code 304.124 shall not apply to discharges from the

Alton facility.

Adjusted Standard 99-6 (sometimes referred to as "AS 99-6") was issued by the Board, in large

part, because of a sediment reduction project now known as the Piasa Creek Watershed Project

(sometimes referred to as

"PCWP" or "the Project''). Although the Illinois Environmental Protection

Adjusted Standard 99-6 also provides that the general use water quality standard for offensive discharges at 35 111. Adin. Code

302.203 shall not apply to a one

inile stretch of the Mississippi River which receives effluent froin the Alton facility and is

iininediately

downstreai~~

froin the Alton facility's discharge, but Illinois-American is not requesting an extension of such relief.

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

Agency ("IEPA" or "the Agency") opposed Illinois-American Water's petition for an adjusted standard

when it was first filed in 1 999,

see

Agency Response to Petition for Adjusted Standard, In the Matter

of: Petition of Illinois-American Water Companv's Alton Public Water Supply Replacement Facility

Discharge to the Mississippi River for an Adiusted Standard

from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.203, 304.106,

and 304.124 (Sept.

10, 1999), AS 99-6 ("Agency Response"), the Agency later stated that it had

"abandoned" its position

in opposition to the petition and that it would instead support Illinois-

American Water's petition provided that Illinois-American Water funded the Project.

See

Order of the

Board,

In the Matter of: Petition of Illinois-American Water Company's Alton Public Water Supply

Replacement Facility Discharge to the Mississippi River for an Adiusted Standard

fiom 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 302.203, 304.106, and 304.124 (Oct.

19,2000), AS 99-6 ("Opinion

Order of the Board dated

Sept.

7,2000") at 2 (describing the procedural histoly of AS 99-6); EPA, Agency Amended Response

to Petition for Adiusted Standard (June

20,2000), AS 99-6 ("Agency Amended Response") at 2.

Funded by Illinois-American Water at a rate of $41 5,000 per year for ten years, the Project's

goal was to reduce two tons of soil loading into the Mississippi River for every one ton of solids in the

Alton facility's effluent. However, not knowing whether this 2 to 1 offset would be attained, the Board

inserted two safeguards in AS 99-6. First, the Board obligated the Agency to assess the effectiveness of

the Project at the five-year mark (roughly October, 2005) to determine if the Project was on pace to

reach its 2 to 1 objective by the end of the ten year period. Second, the Board imposed a seven-year

sunset provision into AS 99-6, in case the Project failed to meet expectations. As the Agency itself

noted

in its Final Brief in the proceedings before this Board regarding AS 99-6,

"in the case of an

i7zsurnzountable failure of the prOoguanz

the Agency will require treatment of the water plant's effluent"

a permit condition,

see

IEPA, Final Brief of Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Proposed

Adjusted Standard Applicable to Illinois-American Water Company's Public Water Supply

Replacement Facility Discharge to the Mississippi River (June 20, 2000), AS 99-6 ("Agency Final

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

Brief

at 5 (emphasis added), and the Board's safeguards provided a clear mechanism for the Agency

to do just that.

This proceeding coincides with the approaching seven-year sunset of AS 99-6. The central

issue in this proceeding is whether this Board should extend AS 99-6, or treat the Project as an

"insusmountable failure" and require Illinois-American Water to treat its effluent prior to discharge.

The Project has been anything but an

"insuimountable failure"

to the contrary, it has been an

ovenvhelrning success. Four years ahead of schedule, the Project has already achieved its goal

the

offset ratio from the Alton facility has already reached approximately 4.2 to 1.

In fact, the Project is a

model of success which has been showered with accolades statewide

(i.e.

the Governor's Pollution

Prevention Award) and nationally.

Furthermore, the Project has achieved an additional result that was

not initially contemplated by AS 99-6 or Illinois-American Water: total iron loading from the Piasa

Creek Watershed has been reduced so significantly that the offset ratio fi-om the Alton facility in recent

years is no less than

3.8 to 1 for that metal. Further reductions will be achleved as Illinois-American

Water continues to

hnd the Project into 2010. Accordingly, AS 99-6 should be extended indefinitely.

An extension of AS 99-6 as proposed in this proceeding would require Illinois-American Water

to ensure that the goal originally selected by the Agency

a 2 to 1 offset of the TSS in the Alton

facility's effluent

continues to be met in perpetuity. This "2 to 1" goal was proposed in Illinois-

American Water's Motion to Amend Petition for Adjusted Standard

(Januaiy 5,2000), AS 99-6, at

7167, and was clearly recognized as the goal by the Agency and the Board throughout the initial

proceedings. Specific quotations fi-om the Board's decisions and the Agency's witnesses and pleadings

can be found in paragraph 6, below, endorsing and mandating the 2

to1 offset objective. Beyond 201 0,

Illinois-American Water will therefore provide

hnds to ensure that the TSS reductions attained by the

Project or by other projects in the watershed are sustained above the 2 to 1 offset ratio.

In addition, Illinois-American Water will provide hnds needed to ensure that the TSS

reductions attained by the Project are sustained above 6,600 tons per year.

In 2000, when the current

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

facility was under construction, Illinois-American Water and GET estimated that the annual dry tons

of solids in the Alton facility's effluent would be approximately 3,300; so a 6,600 ton sediment

reduction, if achieved, would represent a 2 to 1 offset.

See

7'7,

below. However, an estimate of the tons

of solids discharged based on the actual conditions at the facility, including River turbidity and the

facility's daily flow rate, shows that the amount of solids discharged has been much lower

only 1,600

tons per year

so maintaining the savings at or above this 6,600 tons per year mark will provide

increased environmental benefits over the savings required to satisfy the 2 to 1 offset (3,200 tons).

course, Illinois-American Water will ensure that the 2 to 1 offset, if higher, is maintained as well.

With

AS 99-6, the Board set in motion a cooperative effort among a public water supplier, the

state's

environmental protection agency, and a non-profit land trust. This effort has achieved

remarkable success and has exceeded the expectations of all stakeholders years ahead of schedule.

initial discussions with the Agency in 2006, the Agency supported Illinois-American Water's basic

request for an extension of the adjusted standard as long as both the 2: 1 offset and the 6,600 ton

sediment reduction were maintained. Regrettably,

the Agency advised Illinois-American Water in

February 2007 that it was no longer willing to support this extension.

Terminating the adjusted

standard now, at the height of the Project's success, would seriously threaten (and will likely eliminate)

any

future interest in offset projects by private or public entities. This would be most unfortunate for

the state of Illinois, as the Piasa Creek Watershed Project is nationally

rec~~onized

as a success story for

TSS offset trading and Illinois-American Water understands that it is the only such project in the state.

In addition, terminating the adjusted standard (or imposing additional obligations beyond

maintaining soil savings) will have an impact beyond Illinois-American Water. Illinois-American

Water is a regulated public utility with a responsibility to spend its ratepayers' money prudently, and

the adjusted standard issued by the Board in 2000 was prudent for Illinois-American Water's

ratepayers. Further, it was

prudent for the environment. The construction of lagoons not only comes at

a higher cost than the Project, it is substantially less beneficial to the

environment. In fact, although

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

treatment in lagoons prevents solids that were removed Gom the River from being retuined to it, the

Project's soil savings are 100% greater because the Project

act~~ally

pveverzts solidsfi-onz erzteving the

water.

Requiring treatment therefore makes no more sense in 2007 than it did in 2000.

Illinois-American Water strongly urges this Board to remain consistent with the Board's orders

in AS 99-6 and the accepted understanding of the purpose of this adjusted standard by adopting the

extension to AS 99-6 as proposed.

I.

BACKGROUm

Illinois-American Water operates a public water supply treatment facility in Alton,

Illinois, in Madison County. This public water supply treatment facility (the "Alton facility") is located

along the Mississippi River near River Mile 204. Illinois-American Water constructed the Alton facility

in 1999 and 2000 to replace an aged facility previously located at that site (the "previous facility"),

which was inundated by the Mississippi River in 1993 and threatened again in 1995. The Alton facility

was constructed across a highway Gom the previous facility, and was constructed on the top of a bluff

to minimize the potential for future flooding.

In connection with the construction of the Alton facility, Illinois-Ameiican Water filed

a petition on March 19, 1999, for an adjusted standard Gom the generally-applicable effluent standards

for offensive discharges, total suspended solids, and total iron, and from the general use water quality

standard for offensive conditions (the "March 1999 Petition"). The March 1999 Petition was offered

and received by the Board in a previous proceeding,

In the Matter of: Petition of Illinois-American

Water Company's Alton Public Water

Supply Replacement Facility Discharge to the Mississippi River

for an

Adjusted Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.203, 304.106, and 304.124 (Sept. 7,2000), AS

99-6, and has been

incorporated by reference into evidence in the present proceeding.

See

Order of the

Board dated

Dec. 7,2006.

As part of the March 1999 Petition, Illinois-American Water submitted a Site-Specific

Analysis of Impacts of Potential Alternatives for Handling Public Water Supply Residuals at Proposed

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

Alton, IL Facility (the "Site Specific Impact Study" or "SSIS") prepared by ENSR, an environmental

consulting and

engineering firm, dated March 1999. The purpose of the Site Specific Impact Study was

to provide the Board with sufficient

information regarding the environmental impact, technical

feasibility, and economic reasonableness of the potential alternatives to treat discharges from the Alton

facility; to satisfy state and federal requirements under various substantive and procedural statutes; and

to address Agency concerns about the new facility. The Site Specific Impact Study was offered to and

received in evidence by the Board in a previous proceeding, In the Matter of: Petition of

Illinois-

American Water Company's Alton Public Water Supply Replacement Facility Discharge to the

Mississippi River for an Adiusted Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.203,304.106, and 304.124

(Sept.

7,2000), AS 99-6, and has been incorporated by reference into evidence in the present

proceeding.

See

Order of the Board dated Dec. 7,2006.

On September 7,2000, the Board adopted Adjusted Standard 99-6, which provided that

the effluent standard for offensive discharges at 35

Ill. Adm. Code 304.106 and the effluent standard for

total suspended solids (TSS) at 35

Ill. Adm. Code 304.124 shall not apply to discharges fkom the Alton

facility, and that the general use water quality standard for offensive conditions at 35

Ill. Adm. Code

302.203 shall not apply to a one mile stretch of the Mississippi River which receives effluent from the

Alton facility and is immediately downstream from the Alton facility's discharge. Opinion

Order of

the Board,

In the Matter of: Petition of Illinois American Water Company's Alton Public Water Supply

Replacement Facility Discharge to the Mississippi River for an Adiusted Standard from 3 5

Ill. Adm.

Code

302.203,304.106, and 304.124 (Sept. 7,2000), AS 99-6 at 21. On October 19,2000, the Board

issued an order modifying AS 99-6 to provide that the effluent standard for total iron at 35

Ill. Adm.

Code 304.124 also shall not apply to discharges from the

Alton facility. Order of the Board, In the

Matter of: Petition of Illinois-American Water Company's Alton Public Water Supply Replacement

Facility Discharge to the Mississippi River for an Adjusted Standard

from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.203,

304.106, and 304.124 (Oct.

19,2000), AS 99-6 at 5.

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

As a condition of AS 99-6, the Board required Illinois-American Water to enter into a

contract with

GRLT for a sediment loading reduction project to be managed by

GRLT. 

See

Opinion

Order of the Board dated Sept. 7,2000 at 5. This project has come to be known as the Piasa Creek

Watershed Project. The Board required the contract to specify that

Illinois-Amel-ican Water must

provide $4,150,000.00 to GRLT for the Project.

Id.

Piasa Creek discharges into the Mississippi River approximately 5.5 miles upstream

from the point at which the Alton facility discharges into the River. The goal of the Project is to reduce

sedimentation in the 78,000 acre Piasa Creek Watershed, located in portions of Jersey, Madison, and

Macoupin counties, by preventing two tons of soil from entering the Mississippi River for eveiy one

ton of TSS that Illinois-American Water's Alton facility discharges into the River each year. The

Agency's interest in a 2: 1 offset was vigorous.

See, 

e.g.,

Agency Amended Response at 2 (noting that

the Project "shall produce a sustained, verifiable discharge offset at a ratio of 1 to

2");

id.

at 13 (noting

that the Project "will be designed to provide at least

a 1 :2 offset"); Agency Final Brief at 3 (noting that

"[tlhe discharge from the replacement plant is expected to contain 3,360 tons per year of residual solids

(approximately the same as the present discharge); at the stipulated offset ratio of 1 :2, the solids loading

from Piasa Creek into the Mississippi will be reduced by 6,720 tons per year at the end of 10 years");

id.

at 7 (noting testimony that the proposed Project "should easily achieve the goal of 1 :2 offset in

solids reductions");

id.

at 9 (summarizing the mechanism which "will be responsible for achieving and

maintaining the 1

:2 offset from the Piasa Creek Plan"); Testimony of Thomas G. McSwiggin, Manager,

IEPA Bureau of Water Permit Section (noting that "the Agency

determined that an offset of 1 :2, instead

of the federal ratio of 1

1.5, would be appropriate for the Alton replacement plant"); Transcript of

Public Hearing held Jan. 6,2000 at pg. 45 lines 22-23. The Board adopted the Agency's (and Illinois-

American Water's) suggested offset ratio. Opinion

Order of the Board dated Sept. 7, 2000 at 21

("By the beginning of year nine of the project, GRLT hopes to prevent twice as much sediment from

entering the Mississippi as the new facility discharges into it."); Order of the Board dated Oct. 19,2000

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

at 5 ("Order of the Board dated Oct. 19,2000") ("GRLT estimated that the project would offset

sediment discharges from the new facility by a ratio of two to one.").

The Board's September 7,2000 Order directs the Agency to make a determination of

the Project's effectiveness after five years, which coincides with the renewal of Illinois-American

Water's NPDES

permit for its Alton facility.

See

Opinion

Order of the Board dated Sept. 7,2000 at

16.

In its Order dated October 19,2000, the Board extended the deadline for this review to reflect the

time that had passed since its September 7,2000 Order was adopted.

See

Order of the Board dated Oct.

19, 2000 at 5.

The Board's September '7,2000 Order also provides that if the Project is showing signs

of success by the five year mark, Illinois-American Water will continue to fund the second half of the

ten year project.

See

Opinion

Order of the Board dated Sept. 7,2000 at 16.(Illinois-American Water

has continued to fund the Project since the five-year anniversary.)

In addition, that Order provides that

if the Project is not showing signs of success at that time, the Agency will either give Illinois-American

Water a set amount of time to fix the Project, or will require Illinois-American Water to treat the

effluent

fiom the new facility as a condition for Illinois-American Water to receive a new NPDES

perrnit.

Id.

The Agency has

imposed either obligation on Illinois-American Water because the

Project has shown signs of success, and the Agency's Final Brief in AS 99-6 indicates that this course

of action was anticipated only "in the case of an

insurmountable failure of the program."

See

Agency

Final Brief at 5.

The Piasa Creek Watershed Project has been remarkably successful. As of the five year

mark on October 19,2005, the Project had achieved a savings of approximately 6,487 tons of soil per

year.

See

Affidavit of Alley Ringhausen (attached to this Petition as Attachment A) at '75. At the time

the original Petition for an Adjusted Standard was prepared, Illinois-American Water and GRLT

estimated that the annual

dry tons of solids in the Alton facility's effluent would be approximately

3,300.

See

Piasa Creek Watershed Repoi-t (attached to this Petition as Attachment B) at Appendix 1, p.

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

5. A 6,600 ton sediment reduction, if achieved, would therefore represent a 2 to 1 offset of the TSS

anticipated to be present in the facility's effluent. So, at the Project's half-way point in 2005, the ten-

year goal (a

2 to 1 offset of the 3,300 tons of TSS predicted to be in the facility's effluent) had nearly

been achieved. As of October 12,2006, the Project had achieved a savings of approximately 6,691 tons

of soil per year.

Id.

Mr. Alley Ringhausen, Executive Director of GRLT, estimates that by 20 10, the

Project will achieve a savings of no less than 10,000 tons per year (and perhaps as much as 12,000 to

15,000 tons per year).

Id.

As a result of its success, the Project has received the 2002 Illinois

Governor's Pollution Prevention Award as well as numerous other awards

fiom nationally-recognized

environmental

organizations.

Id.

at '78. The national awards bestowed on the Piasa Creek Watershed

Project include:

the Trees Forever National Award for the

Business/Education/Nonprofit Category,

which is awarded to one business or organization that has improved water quality

and promoted land stewardship;

s

a National Resource Conservation Service's Conselvation Academy Award, which

is awarded in recognition of conservation-related achievements;

a U.S. Department of Agriculture Earth Team Volunteer Program Award, which is

awarded to organizations that achieve a certain level of volunteer participation; and

one of three Soil and Water Conservation Society's National Merit awards, which

are given in recognition of an outstanding project by an organization that promotes

conservation of soil, water, and related natural resources.

10.

But the Piasa Creek Watershed Project is far more successful than the previously cited

numbers would indicate. As noted above, the Project has already surpassed the 6,600 ton mark (which

represents a 2 to 1 savings if 3,300 tons of TSS are discharged

fiom the facility each year as predicted).

However, the actual amount of TSS in the Alton facility's effluent has been lower than anticipated.

When predicting the 3,300 tons of TSS each year in effluent from the "new" Alton facility in 2000,

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

predicted conditions for River turbidity and the facility's daily flow rate (both of which affect the

amount of solids in the facility's effluent) were utilized. However, actual conditions for both River

turbidity and the facility's daily flow rate differ

from those predicted.

See

Affidavit of Paul Keck

(attached to this Petition as Attachment D) at

71 5. If the actual conditions at the facility had been used

in the 2000 estimate, the estimated tons of TSS discharged each year would have been only

1,600.~

The

reductions achieved so far by the Project therefore actually result in an offset of 4.2 to

1. This Petition

relies on the estimated tons of TSS discharged (1,600) to calculate the offset for the reductions achieved

so far by the Project because the 1,600 figure is based on the same formula previously utilized before

this Board but incorporates data reflecting actual conditions of the

fa~ility.~

11.

As of the date of this Petition, the Project has also achieved an environmental benefit

which was not specifically planned but is of significant value and relevance. Sedimentation reductions

have reduced the total iron discharged to the

Mississippi River by approximately 79 tons of total iron

per year.

See

Evaluation of Residuals at 4. NPDES monthly monitoring data for the facility indicates

that the Alton facility discharges an average of 21 tons of iron per

year.4

Id.

This annual offset of

Id.

The calculation of this estimate is outlined in further detail, below.

See

7146-47.

A third set of data could also be utilized to examine TSS loading. This data was generated by a mandate imposed by Illinois EPA,

under which Illinois-American must collect and analyze grab samples each

inonth as a condition in the facility's NPDES pennit.

See

Affidavit of Paul Keck at '72 1. Illinois-Anerican's practice is to collect these grab sa~nples on a random day each month during

times of discharge

from Superpulsator blowdown and filter backwash events.

Id.

This practice presents a worst case scenario of TSS

and total iron in the Alton facility's effluent, as the TSS in Illinois-American's effluent is higher during such events.

Id.

Based on

the data generated

from the 59 grab samples collected froin the Alton facility between February 2001 and December 2005,

approxiinately 1,333 tons of solids are discharged in the facility's effluent each year.

See

id;

Evaluation of Residuals (attached to

this Petition as Attachment

C) at 3. Illinois-American is not advocating use of this grab sa~nple data in establishing the tons of solids

discharged

froin the facility, because the estimate of 1,600 tons presents a inore conservative estiinate of the tons of TSS in the

facility's effluent and is based on a greater number of samples. However, that data is consistent with the 1,600 ton estimate,

see

Affidavit of Paul Keck at 721, which further validates the estimate of TSS discharged. Also, it is important to note that the facility

optimized its operations in 2002 by decreasing the time between operational maintenance events such as blowdowns

from the

Superpulsator.

See

Affidavit of Paul ICeck at 71 0. If only the data from 2002-2005 is considered, the tons of TSS discharged froin

the facility each year is even lower.

See

Evaluation of Residuals at 5.

Illinois-Anlerican does not measure the amount of iron in the facility's influent, so an estimate for the a~nount of iron predicted to

be discharged

froin the facility is not available.

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

approximately 3.8 to 1 will prevent nearly four tons of total iron from entering the Mississippi River for

every

one ton of total iron that the Alton facility discharges into the River each year.

Id.

5.5

12.

As proposed in this Amended Petition, an offset of at least 2 to 1 for total suspended

solids for the calendar year in question and the four preceding calendar years will be maintained year

after year through TSS reductions attained by the Project or by other projects in the watershed.

addition, the TSS reductions achieved by the Piasa Creek Watershed Project will be sustained above

6,600 tons per year. These soil savings can be sustained through stewardship activities completed on

the lands owned, leased, or under cooperative agreement with

GRLT,

see

Affidavit of Alley

Ringhausen at

'76, and Illinois-American Water and GUT are currently engaged in discussions

regarding a potential contract for such maintenance. Although additional funding by Illinois-American

Water will be required for some period of time after the expiration of the ten-year agreement between

Illinois-American Water and GRLT, and Illinois-American Water will provide such funding, the

Project is expected to reach a point at which it will be sustainable without future

fitding fiom outside

sources.

See

id.

13.

The Board's October 19,2000 Order imposes a seven-year sunset provision on

Adjusted Standard 99-6, and provides that Illinois-American Water must request an extension of the

Adjusted Standard past its seventh year.

See

Order of the Board dated Oct. 19,2000 at 4-5. Adjusted

Standard 99-6 will therefore expire on October 16,2007 unless the Board grants Illinois-American

Water an extension to Adjusted Standard 99-6, as requested in this Petition.

Id.

at 5.

14.

Based on the renewal provisions in the Board's September 7,2000 and October 19,

2000 Orders, and on the overwhelming success of the Piasa Creek Watershed Project, the Board should

approve this Petition and adopt the requested extension of Adjusted Standard 99-6.

Data collected by Black

Veatch in a recent sa~npling supports the conclusion, however, that the amount of iron discharged from

the facility is far lower than may be gleaned from NPDES nlonthly monitoring data. Based on Black

Veatch's study, Illinois-

American Water's discharge contains an average of only 9 tons of iron each year, which represents an offset of approxi~nately 8.8 to

1. Id. The NPDES data fro~n 2002 through 2005 (i.e., that data collected afier opti~nization of the facility's operations) generally

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

15.

A new sunset provision providing for expiration of the adjusted standard in a set

number of years is not necessary under these circumstances. In other adjusted standard proceedings,

this Board has identified several factors that justify use of such a sunset provision to allow the Board to

revisit a case. See,

e.g., In the Matter of: Petition of PDV Midwest Refining, L.L.C. for a Site-Specific

Rulemaking Amendment to 35 111. Adm. Code 304.2 13 (Dec. 17, 1998), R98-14 at

(including a

sunset provision when such a provision would encourage the petitioner to take advantage of new

technology and to continually explore methods to lower its effluent levels);

In the Matter of: Proposal

of Union Oil Company of California to

Amend the Water Pollution Regulations (March 19, 1987),

R84- 13 at 12 (including a sunset provision when the water quality of the receiving stream was expected

to change in the near

future, when granting peimanent relief would remove any incentive for the

petitioner to improve its effluent quality, and when the petitioner's evaluation of alternatives was not

detailed enough to conclusively rule out all alternatives); In the Matter of: Site-Specific

Rulemaking for

the

Sanitaiy District of Decatur, Illinois (Jan. 23, 1986), R85- 1 5 at 7 (noting that there may be mei-it in

considering sunset provisions when granting peimanent relief would utilize a portion of the receiving

water that would not then be available to future dischargers). Relief of an indefinite duration is

appropriate in this case because none of the above factors are present. The conditions

in the Piasa Creek

Watershed and the Mississippi River are not likely to change in the near future, and Illinois-Amei-ican

Water's Site-Specific

Impact Study was comprehensive enough to rule out other alternatives. In

addition, the Piasa Creek Watershed Project actually reduces the amount of TSS and iron in Piasa

Creek and in the Mississippi River and creates capacity in the receiving waters for future dischargers.

Therefore, exploration of new technologies or alternative methods to reduce the amount of TSS and

iron in

Illinois-Ameiican Water's effluent is not necessary.

supports this figure; based on that data, Illinois-Ameiican Water's discharge contains an average of 12.5 tons of iron each year,

which represents a

6.3 to 1 offset.

Id. See

79 1 for further discussion of these calculations.

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

16.

Peimanent relief is also appropriate on these facts because Illinois-American Water has

success~lly enhanced water quality in the Mississippi River above even the most ambitious

expectations, and this Board has granted permanent relief to petitioners on lesser grounds. See,

e.g.,

ip

the Matter of: Proposal of Mobil Oil Corporation to Amend the Water Pollution Regulations (Feb. 5,

1987), R84-16 at 8 (holding that a sunset provision was not necessary when the petitioner's discharge

was "quite close" to the regulation of general applicability).

17.

Finally, requiring submission to the Board of annual reports reflecting the soil savings

of the Project and conditioning the adjusted standard on satisfaction of certain conditions, rather than

including a sunset provision, would allow this adjusted standard to remain in place until the Board

determines that the adjusted standard is no longer success~lly reducing the TSS loading to the

Mississippi River. Illinois-American Water proposes that the Board impose the following conditions on

Illinois-American Water: (1) ensure that the average offset for the calendar year in question and the

four preceding calendar years is not reduced below a 2 to 1 offset for total suspended solids; (2) ensure

a continued savings of 6,600 tons each year; and (3) submit annual reports on the foregoing to the

Board and the Agency. This Board has approved the use of a reporting requirement in other adjusted

standard proceedings, provided that the Board retains some oversight over the petitioner's compliance

with the standard. See,

e.g., In the Matter of: Amendments to Water Quality and Effluent Standards

Applicable to the

Chica%o River System and Calumet River System (March 24, 1988), R87-27 at 23

(including a reporting requirement);

In the Matter of: Site Specific Rule for Ci@ of Effingham

Treatment Plant Fluoride Discharge, 3 5 Ill. Adrn. Code 304.233 (July 24,2003), R03- 1 1 at 9 (granting

permanent relief, but noting that the Board would revisit the standard if the passage of time reveals that

the proposed water quality standards are not being met).

11.

18.

Neither the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (the "Act") nor the Board's

rules

establish a separate procedure for an extension to an adjusted standard. Thls Petition therefore satisfies

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

the requirements for an initial petition for an adjusted standard as required by Section 28.1 of the Act

and Subpart

D of Pal? 104 of the Board's procedural iules.

19.

Section 28.1 of the Act provides that after the Board adopts a regulation of general

applicability, the Board may grant, in a subsequent adjudicatory determination, an adjusted standard for

persons who can justify such an adjustment consistent with Section 27 of the Act. 41 5

Ill. Comp. Stat.

518.1 (a). Section

2'7 of the Act provides in pertinent part as follows:

In promulgating regulations under this Act, the Board shall take into account the

existing physical conditions, the character of the area involved, including the

character of surrounding land uses, zoning classifications, the nature of

the

. . .

receiving body of water, as the case may be, and the technical feasibility

and economic reasonableness of measuring or reducing the particular type of

pollution.

415

Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/27(a).

20.

Section 28.1 of the Act also provides that the Board shall adopt procedures applicable to

adjusted standard

determinations. 415 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5128.l(d). The Board adopted such procedures at

Subpart

D of Part 104 of the Board's procedural rules. Section 104.406 (the section of Part 104 that

establishes requirements for the contents of a petition for an adjusted standard) lists several categories

information that must be included in each petition. Each of these categories is discussed in greater

detail, below.

2 1.

Section 28.3 of the Act also lists several factors that should be considered in an adjusted

standard proceeding for the direct discharge of waste solids to the Mississippi or the Ohio Rivers

fiom

clarifier sludge and filter backwash generated in the water purification process by any public water

supply utilizing the Mississippi or the Ohio Rivers as its raw water source that does not utilize lime

softening in the purification process. 415

Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/28.3(a). That Section provides as follows:

Justification based upon discharge impact shall include, as a

niininium, an

evaluation of receiving stream rations, known stream uses, accessibility to

stream and side land use activities (residential, commercial, agricultural,

industrial, recreational), fi-equency and extent of discharges, inspections of

unnatural bottom deposits, odors, unnatural floating material or color, stream

morphology and result of stream chemical analyses. Where minimum impact

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

cannot be established, justification shall also include evaluations of stream

sediment analyses, biological surveys (including habitat assessment), and

thorough stream chemical analyses that

may include but are not limited to

analysis of parameters regulated in 35

Ill. Adm. Code 302.

415

Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/28.3(c). However, that Section, by its terms, applies only to petitions submitted

no later than January 1, 1991.41 5

Ill. Comp. Stat. 5128.3(b). This Board has noted that it will therefore

examine these factors only to the extent relevant to an examination of the factors at Section 28.1 (c) of

the Act.

See

Opinion

Order of the Board dated Sept. 7,2000 at 6.

A.

Standard from which an Adjusted Standard is Sought

22.

Section 104.406(a) of the Procedural Rules provides that the petition must contain a

statement describing the standard

froin which an adjusted standard is sought. This must include the

Illinois Administrative Code citation to the regulation of general applicability imposing the standard as

well as the effective date of that regulation.

23.

Illinois-American Water seeks an extension to its adjusted standard

from the following

sections of the Board's Water Pollution Control Regulations: the effluent standard for total suspended

solids at Section 304.124; the effluent standard for total iron at Section 304.124; and the effluent

standard for offensive discharges at Section

304.106.~

24.

Section 304.124 of the Board's Water Pollution Control Regulations provides that no

person shall cause or allow the concentration of Total Suspended Solids in any effluent to exceed 15.0

mgll, and that no person shall cause or allow the concentration of total iron in any effluent to exceed 2.0

mgll. These effluent standards apply to all discharges to waters of the State of Illinois, regardless of the

nature of the receiving stream or the environmental impact of the discharge. The Board's effluent

standards initially became effective on January 6, 1972.

See

Opinion of the Board, Effluent Criteria,

Water

Ouality Standards, Water Quality Standards Revisions for Intrastate Waters (SWB 14) (Jan. 6,

1972), R70-8, R7 1-1 4, and R7 1-20 at 19. These standards are now codified in Part 304 of the Board's

As noted above, Illinois-American is not seeking an extension of AS 99-6's adjusted standard from the general use water quality

standard for offensive discharges at

Ill. Ad~n. Code

302.203.

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

Water Pollution Control Regulations, which became effective July 27, 1978. Section 304.124, the

section of Part 304 addressing TSS and iron, was amended in

R88-1 at 13 Ill. Reg. 59'76, effective April

18, 1989.

25.

Section 304.106 of the Board's Water Pollution Control Regulations provides in

pertinent part that no effluent shall contain settleable solids or sludge solids, and that turbidity must be

reduced to below obvious levels. This effluent standard applies to all discharges to waters of the State

of Illinois, regardless of the nature of the receiving stream or the environmental impact of the

discharge. As noted above, the Board's effluent standards initially became effective on January 6, 1972.

See

id. at 5. These standards are now codified in Part 304 of the Board's Water Pollution Control

Regulations, which became effective July 27, 1 978.

B.

Indica~om of whether the Regnla~on of General AppPicabiEliiQ was Prrasmullga$ed to

Implement the Requirements of Federal Environmental Law

26.

Section 104.406(b) of the Procedural Rules provides that the petition must contain a

statement that indicates whether the regulation of general applicability was promulgated to implement,

in whole or in part, the requirements of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.

5 1251 et seq.); the Safe

Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C.

5 300(f) et seq.); the Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation and Liability Act (42 U.S.C.

5 9601 et seq.); the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 5 7401 et

seq.); or the State programs concerning the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Underground

Injection Control program, or the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System.

27.

Neither the effluent standards for total suspended solids and total iron at Section

3 04.124 nor the effluent standard for offensive discharges at Section 3 04.106 was promulgated to

implement the requirements of any of the above-listed federal environmental laws or state programs.

The Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.

5 125 1 et seq.) requires effluent standards for "discharges of

pollutants from a point source or group of point sources" to be established, 33 U.S.C.

5 13 12(a), but the

effluent standards at Section 304.124 and Section 304.106 apply to all discharges to waters of the State

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

of Illinois. See Illinois Institute for Environmental Quality, Evaluation of Effluent Regulations of the

State of Illinois,

Docuinent No. 7612 1 at 4-5 (1 976) (noting that federal law "differs from Illinois law,

in requiring

industrial category-specific guidelines whereas the Illinois standards apply equally to all

dischargers").

In addition, there are no federal categorical effluent limitations for public water supply

treatment facilities. See,

e.g., SSIS at 1.2; Opinion

Order of the Board, In the Matter of: Petition for

Site-Specific Exception to Effluent Standards for the East St. Louis Water Treatment Plant by the

Illinois American Water Company, PCB 85- 1 1 (Feb. 2, 1989) at 1. Rather, effluent limitations are

developed on a site specific basis using Best Professional Judgment

("BPJ"). Id.

Level of Jas~fica~om

Necessary for an Adjusted Standard as Specified by the

Regulla~om of Gelraeral ApplBicabiliQ

28.

Section 104.406(c) of the Procedural Rules provides that the petition must contain the

level of justification as well as other

information or requirements necessary for an adjusted standard as

specified by the regulation of general applicability, or a statement that the regulation of general

applicability does not specify a level of justification or other requirements.

29.

Section 302.124 and Section 304.106 of the

Board's Water Pollution Control

Regulations do not specify a level of justification or other requirement for an adjusted standard. Section

28.1 (c) of

the Act does, however, specify a level of justification or other requirement for an adjusted

standard that applies when no such justification or requirement is specified by the regulation of general

applicability. That Section provides as follows:

If a regulation of general applicability does not specify a level of justification

required of a petitioner to qualify for an adjusted standard, the Board may grant

individual adjusted standards whenever the Board determines, upon adequate

proof by petitioner, that:

(1) factors relating to that petitioner are substantially and significantly

different

fkom the factors relied upon by the Board in adopting the

general regulation applicable to that petitioner;

(2) the existence of those factors justifies an adjusted standard;

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

(3) the requested standard will not result in environmental or health effects

substantially and significantly more adverse than the effects considered

by the Board in adopting the rule of general applicability; and

(4) the adjusted standard is consistent with any applicable federal law.

415

Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/28.1(c).

Nature of Illiraois-American Water's Activity that is the Subject of the Proposed

Adjusted Standard

30.

Section

104.406(d) of the Procedural Rules provides that the petition must contain a

description of the nature of the petitioner's activity that is the subject of the proposed adjusted standard.

The description must also include the location of, and area affected by, the petitioner's activity; the

number of persons employed by the facility at issue; the age of that facility; the relevant pollution

control equipment already in use; and the qualitative and quantitative description of the nature of

emissions, discharges or releases

cursently generated by the petitioner's activity. Each of these issues is

discussed in greater detail, below.

1.

Location of Illi~ois-American Watery s Ac~viw

3 1.

Illinois-American Water's Alton facility is located on the Mississippi River near River

Mile 204. The facility site consists of approximately 22 acres located within the bounds of the City of

Alton, Illinois, in Madison County. Alton is located

in southwestern Illinois north of St. Louis,

Missouri. Other local population centers near Alton include the towns of East Alton, Elsah,

Grafton,

Bethalto, and Godfrey. Highways that pass near the vicinity of the site include Illinois Routes 3, 67,

100, 1 1 1, 140, 143, and 267. The site is located on Illinois Route 100 (Great River Road), a four-lane

highway along the Mississippi River, at the site of a

forrner quarry. Access to the site is from Route

100. The site can also be accessed from Grand Avenue, an unimproved street. SSIS at 4-1.

Area Affected by Illinois-American Water9$ Ac~viQ

32.

Residential subdivisions are located along the westein and northeastern corners of the

property. The site is abutted by both single and multi-family residences. Land uses near the site include

higher and moderate income single family residences, apartments, and industrial sites. The

invllediate

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

area is nearly fully developed with minimum vacant land available. Barges tie up along the River banks

just downstream of this area prior to or traveling through the Melvin Price Locks and Dam. SSIS at 4-2.

Number of Persons Employed by Illinois-American Water's Alton Facility

33.

The Alton facility currently employs 3 1 people. The Production Department, which

works inside the plant itself, employs one management level employee and eight hourly employees; the

Network Department, which performs meter reading and maintenance activities for

the distribution

system, employs one management level employee and 20 hourly employees; and the Environmental

Management and Compliance Department, which works to ensure that Illinois-American Water's

operations in the Alton and Cairo Water Districts remain in compliance with all applicable

permits and

laws, employs one management level employee.

Age of Aton Facility

34.

The Alton facility was constructed in 1999 and 2000 to replace a previous water

treatment facility that was located near the site of the current facility. The "replacement" facility,

referred to as the "Alton facility" or the "new Alton facility," began operations on December 3 1,2000.

As of the date of this Petition, the Alton facility is therefore approximately six years old.

Relevant Pdla~on Controll Equipment Already in Use

3 5.

With the exception of minor changes to the dechlorination process, the Alton facility

was constructed as proposed in the March 1999 Petition and the Site Specific Impact Study, and the

capacity and output of the facility are consistent with the estimates contained therein.

See

Affidavit of

Paul Keck at

7'73, 6-8, 14. Much of the information in the following sections is thus addressed in the

March 1999 Petition and the Site Specific Impact Study, and citations to those documents are provided

for reference and

con~pleteness.

36.

The Alton facility consists of a raw water intake and pumping station, clarification and

filtration

units, filtered water storage, and chemical feed facilities. SSIS at 3-4. Clarification of raw

water at the facility is provided by four

Superpulsator units, which are high rate "sludge-blanket" type

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

claiifiers manufactured by Infilco Degremont, Inc. SSIS at 3-5. Filtration is provided by six gravity

dual media

(sandgranular activated carbon) filter units, and each filter is equipped with a rate-of-flow

controller, filter-to-waste piping, an air wash system, and automated monitors for flow rate, head loss,

and water level. The chemical feed facilities include a sodium thiosulfate dechlorination system.

See

Affidavit of Paul Keck at '74. Other equipment used at the facility includes an analyzer, controller, flow

proportioning system, automatic switchover device, diffuser, and a scale for cylinders. SSIS at 3-6.

37.

Illinois-Arnerican Water uses the technique of chloramination at the Alton facility. SSIS

at 3-5. With chloramination, ammonia is applied just after chlorine treatment in order to

form

chloramines rather than free chloi-ine residuals.

See

Affidavit of Paul Keck at 76. h~onia

and

chlorine are added to the raw water prior to Superpulsator treatments. As a result, the Total Residual

Chlorine (TRC) level in the Superpulsator units is approximately 1.0 to 1.5 mg/l.

Id.

Settled solids are

continually removed from the Supei-pulsators, routed in the Superpulsator

blowdown trough, and

periodically flushed to the effluent discharge.

38.

Clarified water from the Supei-pulsators flows to the six

carbonhand dual media filter

units. SSIS at 3-5 to 3-6. The filtration of the clarified water through carbon causes a reduction

chlorine residuals. Chlorine and ammonia are then re-applied to the filtrate to maintain a disinfectant

residual in the potable water as it passes on to the cleanvell and then to the distribution system; this

application raises the level of TRC to the targeted range of 3.0 to 3.5

mg/L in the finished water.

See

Affidavit of Paul Keck at 76. Periodically, finished water from the cleanvell is used to backwash the

filters to remove accumulated solids.

Id.

at 71 1. Filter backwash is routed to the effluent discharge.

SSIS at 3-6.

39.

The Alton facility prevents unacceptable TRC concentrations in effluent discharge

through dechlorination with sodium thiosulfate. SSIS at 3-6. There is one dechlorination system, which

has two feed points that can be used to treat the effluent discharge stream.

See

Affidavit of Paul Keck at

'75. First, a sodium thiosulfate feed system feeds to a dechlorination basin which receives effluent

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

discharge composed of Superpulsator blowdown and filter baclwash. The facility's use of Supervisory

Control and Data Acquisition

(SCADA) programing allows the sodium thiosulfate dosage to the

dechlo~ination basin to increase during filter backwashes to accommodate the resulting higher flow

volume. There is also an alternative feed point to the filter backwash influent water that is used if the

facility decides to run the filters in a biologically active mode. To date, this alternative feed point has

not been used.

Id.

Qndita~ve and Quan&iitative Descrip~on of the Nature of Dischmges

40.

The Alton facility currently discharges its effluent directly to the Mississippi pursuant

to Adjusted Standard 99-6. Effluent discharges from the Alton facility include operational discharges

and maintenance discharges.

See

Affidavit of Paul Keck at

78.

Operational discharges occur regularly

(on a daily or weekly basis) during periods when the facility is treating raw water, and include return of

intake screen wash,

blowdown from the Superpulsators, and filter backwash. Maintenance discharges

occur during the

semi-annual cleaning of accumulated solids in the clarifier, sedimentation basins, and

mixing tanks.

Id.

41.

The two main operational discharges consist of intermittent Superpulsator

blowdown

and filter backwash.

Id.

at 79. Approximately 72,000 gallons per day ("gpd") of blowdown are

discharged each day from the Superpulsators.

In

addition, approximately 227,000 gallons of backwash

are discharged from the six sandlcarbon filters in each filter backwash. There are normally one to three

filter backwashes per day, depending on water temperature and turbidity; the daily average for 2005

was 1.6 backwashes per day.

Id.

42.

The frequency and duration of these blowdowns are generally fixed.

Id.

at 710.

Blowdown in the Superpulsator now occurs twice per hour. Stated differently, the interval between

blowdowns is approximately 30 minutes. Throughout 2001 and early 2002, the intervals were less

regular

at times, the interval between blowdowns was as long as 5.5 hours. The duration of the filter

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

backwash process is generally fixed at 25 minutes.

Id.

at 711. Each filter runs approximately 30 to 120

hours between backwashings.

Id.

43.

The TSS and total iron concentrations in the blowdown are highly variable because they

are dictated by raw water turbidity and plant operational conditions.

Id.

at 712. Higher levels of TSS

and total iron in the raw water generally correlate with higher levels of TSS and total iron in the

facility's discharge. In addition, longer intervals between blowdowns allows solids to build up in the

blowdown troughs, so the amounts of TSS and total iron in samples collected from Superpulsator

blowdowns after such longer intervals will generally be elevated. Finally, the flow rate of the facility's

influent can affect TSS and total iron in the facility's discharge. TSS and iron in the facility's influent

can become trapped for several hours in the solids blanket in a Superpulsator, but a higher flow rate can

cause these solids blankets to expand and overflow into the collection troughs. Directly following such

an overflow, the amount of TSS and iron in the facility's discharge will likely be higher.

Id.

44.

Maintenance discharges arise from cleaning accumulated solids from the

Superpulsators.

Id.

at 71 3. These maintenance discharges occur two times per year, and each

maintenance discharge lasts approximately four days. Approximately 5,000

gpd of water containing

residuals are discharged each day during each four day maintenance activity. The total annual discharge

from maintenance activities is therefore approximately 40,000 gallons.

Id.

45.

The Alton facility treats sufficient raw water to make available, on average, 8.5 million

gallons per day (MGD) of potable water for the Alton area.

Id.

at 114. The average proportional internal

facility demand is 0.49 MGD for the average potable water flow of 8.5 MGD.

Id.

The combined flow

of 8.99 MGD was therefore considered in quantifying the discharges and evaluating the potential

discharges in Section

II.G, below.

46.

At the time that the original Petition for an Adjusted Standard was prepared, Illinois-

American Water and GRLT estimated that the annual dry tons of solids in the Alton facility's effluent

would be approximately 3,300.

See

Piasa Creek Watershed Report, Attachment

I3

to the Petition, at

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

Appendix 1, p. 5. This estimate assumed that 100% of the TSS in the facility's influent would be

discharged in the facility's effluent.

See

Affidavit of Paul Keck at 116. This assumption is consistent

with facility operations.

Id.

However, that estimate was based on predictions regarding the conditions

of the facility, and the actual conditions of the facility have been different than predicted.

47.

The estimated amount of solids discharged assumed that the turbidity of the influent of

the new Alton facility would be the same as the turbidity of the influent at the previous facility (90

NTU, or 180

mg/L).

Id.

at 17. However, the turbidity of the new facility's influent, determined using

data collected three times each day at the new facility, is 56 WTU (1 12

mg/L).

Id.

The estimated

amount of solids discharged also assumed that the daily flow rate for the facility would be

1 1.2 MGD,

but the actual daily flow rate for the facility is 8.99

MGD.

Id.

at 18. Finally, Illinois-herican Water

uses coagulants to precipitate out those solids naturally occurring in the river water,

see

id. at 77, and

the estimated amount of solids discharged assumed that the application rate of the coagulants would be

the same as in the previous facility (40

ppm).7 However, the actual application rate of coagulants is 60

ppm.

Id.

at 20. If the formula relied upon in the initial petition is used with these actual figures, the

estimated tons of solids discharged from the facility is 1,600.

Id.

at 21 .8 Even if the daily flow rate of

the facility is increased to 16 MGD (the maximum daily flow rate for the facility,

see

SSIS 3-4), the

estimated tons of solids discharged from the facility is 2,846.

See

Affidavit of Paul Keck at 722. These

figures are considerably lower than the 3,300 annual dry tons of solids estimated by Illinois-Amel-ican

Water and GRLT when they negotiated their contract in 2000.

The original estimate of the an~ount of coagulant residuals predicted to be discharged from the facility each year was also

calculated incorrectly.

Id.

at 20. If the proper formula had been used, the amount of coagulant residuals predicted to be discharged

from the facility would have been approxilnately 50 tons per year (rather than the 290 tons set forth in the original petition).

Id.

This would have resulted in a total estinlated discharge of 3,120 tons each year (3,070 tons of suspended solids in the influent, plus

50 tons of coagulant residuals). A soil savings of only 6,240 tons thus would achieve a 2 to 1 offset.

This is consistent with the actual tons of solids measured in the facility's effluent based on the 59 grab

samples collected from the

new Alton facility between February 2001 and

December 2005 and reported to IEPA as required by the facility's NPDES pern~it.

That data indicates that approxilnately 1,333 tons of solids are discharged from the facility each year.

Id.

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

48.

The facility's effluent also contains total recoverable iron. Based upon monthly

monitoring conducted at the Alton

facility,9 the average amount of iron discharged each year by the

facility is 21 tons.

See

Evaluation of Residuals at 4.

E.

Efforts Necessary to Comply with the Regula&iion of General AppllicsabiliQ

49.

Section

104.406(e) of the Procedural Rules provides that the petition must contain a

description of the efforts that would be necessary if the petitioner were to comply with the regulation of

general applicability. All compliance alternatives, with the corresponding costs for each alternative,

must be discussed. The discussion of costs must include the overall capital costs as well as the

annualized capital and operating costs.

50.

To prepare its petition to request the adoption of Adjusted Standard 99-6, Illinois-

American Water conducted a comprehensive study regarding the efforts that would be necessary if

Illinois-American Water were to comply with Section 302.124 and Section 304.106 of the Board's

Water Pollution Control Regulations.

See

73, above. This Site Specific Impact Study evaluated several

technologies for treatment of the effluent

from the Alton facility: (1) land application; (2) discharge to

the Alton publicly owned treatment works

(POTW); (3) permanent storage in monofills; and (4)

temporary storage and dewatering in lagoons coupled with off-site landfilling.

See

SSIS at 6-1 to 6-20.

Illinois-American Water also considered direct discharge to the Mississippi River without such

treatment. These technologies and the corresponding costs of each are discussed in greater detail,

below.

The data collected from the facility between February 2001 and December 2005 is used to calculate the amount of iron discharged

froin the facility each year because the Alton facility does not measure the ainount of iron in the facility's influent and therefore it is

not possible to calculate a predicted value. Although a predicted value for iron based on a large

number of sarnples obtained from

the facility's influent

may be slightly inore reliable than a value calculated using the facility's grab samples alone, Illinois-

American's practice of collecting one discrete grab

sample per inonth during times of discharge froin Superpulsator blowdown and

filter backwash events ensures that these samples

are obtained when concentrations of TSS and total iron are likely to be the highest.

See

Affidavit of Paul Keck at ql2.

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

1.

Land Application

5 1.

One of the options explored by Illinois-American Water is land application of residuals

in Illinois-American Water's effluent. This option involves separating river silts out of the effluent,

temporarily storing the residuals at the Alton facility, and then transporting these residuals to local

agricultural land. These residuals would either be applied to the land as a liquid or as a dewatered

residual called

"cake." For liquid residuals, the residuals are injected into the soil, or applied to the

surface as a spray and then disked or plowed into the soil within 24

hours of application. For cake

residuals, the residuals are spread in thin layers directly

from the tmck using a device similar to a

manure spreader and then disked or plowed into the soil.

52.

Applying liquid residuals costs between $70 and $300 per ton, depending on the

distance the soil must be hauled. Significant farmland is not available in the immediate vicinity, and

residential growth trends in the area indicate that the

familand will be even further away fi-om the Alton

facility in the future. The high end of the cost range is therefore a more reasonable estimate of the cost

of such treatment. Also, applying dewatered residuals costs between $20 and $68 per

ton.'' SSIS at 6-2

to 6-3.

53.

Although land application is technically feasible, this treatment method is associated

with considerable uncertainty due to weather, public acceptance, permit requirements, and land

availability. Application may not be feasible during some winter months due to

frozen soil, and public

acceptance of residuals is

likely to be low because the residuals add little to (or detract fi-om) soil

fertility.

In addition, land application is further complicated by permit regulations concerning the

content of applied materials. Finally, approximately 263 acres of land must be acquired every twenty

(20) years due to the manganese content of the effluent. SSIS at 6-3 to 6-4. This option was eliminated

From this point through paragraph 73, Petitioner will present cost figures for the various options it explored in 1999 in order to

co~nply with the regulation of general applicability. The cost figures reflect costs in the SSIS, which was prepared in 1999.

Adjusting for inflation, those figures could properly be increased by

2 1

according to the "CPI Inflation Calculator" utilized by the

U.S.

Departnent of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics.

See

www.bls.gov/cpi.cpicalc. Petitioner will, nevertheless, set forth all costs

in 1999 dollars in this Petition in order to avoid confusion between the Petition and the SSIS.

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

from further consideration when the Alton facility was constructed in 1999, and remains eliminated at

the

current time.

Dishchaerge to Aton POTW

54.

Another option explored by Illinois-American Water is the discharge of effluent to the

Alton POTW, an option similar to that used by many other water treatment facilities.

55.

The cost of expansion of the Alton POTW would be similar to the cost if Illinois-

American Water were to construct an on-site treatment facility.

56.

This option is technologically infeasible for several reasons. Specifically, the estimated

flow and mass of solids could not be treated at the Alton POTW without expansion of the POTW.

Without such expansion, the flexibility of the

POTW's future operations would be severely curtailed by

accepting the Alton facility's residuals. SSIS at 6-4. This option was explored on a

preliminaiy basis

with the Alton POTW staff, who indicated that this option is not feasible based on potential hydraulic

overload of the adjacent sewer system, inadequate slope of the inceptor sewer, elimination of the

POTW's reserve capacity, and a quadrupling of the solids loading.

Id.

Accordingly, this option was

eliminated from further consideration when the Alton facility was constructed in 1999 and remains

eliminated at the current time.

Permanent Stasraga: in MasnofiEllls

57.

Illinois-American Water also explored permanent storage of residual solids in a

monofill as a treatment option. This option involves the construction of impoundments for permanent

storage. SSIS at 6-4. Based on the average loading of 92 tons of wet residuals (10% solids) per day over

a typical 20 year period, a 40 acre

monofill with a 14 foot depth would be required.

58.

The site of the Alton facility is not large enough to

construct such a monofill, so

Illinois-American Water would have to purchase farmland at a cost of approximately $6,000-$10,000

per acre. SSIS at 6-4.

In addition, the construction of the large, lined impoundment necessary to

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

implement this option would cost at least $20 million, based on preliminary estimates calculated in

1999. Annual operation and maintenance costs would be approximately $1.3 million.

59.

Storage in a

monofill is neither technologically feasible nor economically reasonable on

long-term basis. SSIS at 6-4. Disposal in monofills is likely to limit the hture use of the land, and

replacement monofills will continually be required. Accordingly, this option was eliminated

fiom

firther consideration when the Alton facility was constructed in 1999 and remains eliminated at the

current time.

Dewaaterinag Residuals Coupled with Offsite Landfillling

60.

Finally, Illinois-American Water explored temporary storage and dewatering coupled

with

offsite landfilling. Dewatering can be accomplished by non-mechanical or mechanical techniques,

or a combination of multiple techniques.

61.

Non-mechanical dewatering techniques such as drying beds and lagoons rely on

drainage, decanting, evaporation, and freezing processes to dewater residuals. SSIS at 6-5.

Non-

mechanical techniques are commonty used because of their simplicity and low operational costs.

However, use of drying beds requires more land area than use of lagoons and construction costs are

estimated to be higher, so drying beds were not considered further. Use of lagoons and other

non-

mechanical techniques alone is also not feasible because non-mechanical dewatering can be disrupted

by fluctuations in climate, and such techniques have a low overload capacity if a facility's production

of solids is greater than planned.

62.

Mechanical dewatering techniques are typically used in the water industry when

insufficient space is available for non-mechanical processes, when high solids concentrations are

required for disposal, or when economics dictate their use. SSIS at 6-5. Illinois-American Water

considered several mechanical dewatering techniques including vacuum filtration,

centrifugation, and

belt filter pressing.

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

63.

In vacuum filtration, a vacuum is applied to a rotating drum surface coated with

residuals to dewater the solids and to form a cake. SSIS at 6-6. The feasibility of using vacuum

filtration is not clear, however, as this method has only been evaluated on a pilot project scale for

sludge application due to the high amounts of conditioning chemicals used in producing potable water

and poor cake yield.

64.

Centrifugation is a proven method of dewatering residuals. SSIS at 6-6. Solid bowl

centrifuge technology is the most common type of unit used in centrifugation, as such technology can

operate either in co-current or counter-current flow modes. The costs of

centrifugation are similar to the

costs of dewatering using belt filter press technology. However, Illinois-American Water ruled out

centrifugation because belt filter press technology is more

common and is used in several of Illinois-

American Water's "sister7' operations throughout the United States, and because centrifugation has a

poor track record in handling residuals from the

Mississippi.

65.

The belt filter press uses a well-known and reliable technology to dewater residuals.

SSIS at 6-6. Although use of a belt filter press is more expensive than use of a non-mechanical means,

belt filter presses produce a higher density product

(1 5 to 25 percent solids) and thus require less space

for landfilling. Space at the Alton facility site is available for filter press units and all associated tanks.

66.

A combination of non-mechanical and mechanical dewatering is an even more viable

option for treating residuals

fiom the Alton facility. Illinois-American Water considered a dewatering

technique involving lagoons and belt filter press technology coupled with disposal of dewatered

residuals in

offsite landfills. To implement this technique, Illinois-American Water would need to build

four one-acre lagoons for dewatering its residuals on-site at the Alton facility. SSIS at 6-8. Residuals

would be stored in these lagoons until they reached a 4% solid state. This stage of the dewatering would

have minimal maintenance requirements. After the residuals reach a 4% solid state, the residuals would

be removed from the lagoons and further dewatered in a mechanized belt filter press system in order to

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

produce a product that is between 15% to 25% solids. The residuals would then be shipped to an offsite

landfill.

67.

Provided that the residuals contain no hazardous waste, the residuals may be landfilled

in a

permitted non-hazardous special waste landfill. Preliminary discussions in 1999 with the operator

of the nearest landfill that accepts residuals

from water treatment plants, Waste Management Inc.,

located in Granite City, Illinois, indicated that there was at that time, sufficient capacity at the Granite

City site to hold residuals from the Alton facility for 30 years. SSIS at 6-6. Presumably, only 23 years

of capacity now

remain.

68.

The total capital cost for dewatering residuals from the Alton facility through four on-

site lagoons, permanent mechanical dewatering by belt filter presses, and subsequent landfilling is

approximately $7,380,000. SSIS at Table

D-1A. Assuming that the capital will be amortized over 30

years at an interest rate of 9%, the total annualized cost is approximately $1.14 million, which is

comprised of an annualized capital cost of $720,000 and an annualized operation cost of $420,000.

69.

Although

Illinois-American Water determined that a combination of non-mechanical

and mechanical dewatering techniques was a viable means of treating its residuals, this option is

nevertheless a less preferable option than direct discharge to the Mississippi coupled with completion

of a sedimentation reduction program. The costs for dewatering residuals through four on-site lagoons,

permanent mechanical dewatering by belt filter presses, and subsequent landfilling are extremely high

and do not justify the meager environmental benefits.

See

Opinion

Order of the Board dated Sept. 7,

2000 at 1 1. As landfill capacity diminishes and tipping fees increase, Illinois-American Water believes

that it may become cheaper to build a

monofill which would only accept residuals from the facility.

See

id. at 12. In addition, landfilling dewatered residuals is an extremely ineffective use of landfill capacity

and, over time, the landfill's useful life may be shortened and may require construction of another

landfill or increased cost and energy to haul

future trash to other distant landfills.

Id.

In addition, an

estimated 750

truck trips per year will be required on the Great River Road to haul away the treated

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

residuals; two trips per day will be required on average, but there could be as many as 17 truck trips per

day.

See

id. at 13. Increased traffic leads to congestion, air pollution fiom truck exhaust, hazards to

safety, and a possible decrease in the value of nearby real estate.

Id.

Accordingly, this option was

eliminated fiom further consideration when the Alton facility was constructed in 1999 and remains

eliminated at the current time.

5.

Direct Discharge to the Mississippi Rver

70.

Each of the four alternative means of treating Illinois-American Water's effluent was

eliminated for the reasons discussed above. Adjusted Standard 99-6 authorized direct discharge by

Illinois-American Water to the

Mississippi River without such treatment, and the Board should

continue to authorize such direct discharges at this time. The proposed extension to Adjusted Standard

99-6 is discussed in Section

II.F, below.

F.

Proposed Adjusted Standard

7 1.

Section

104.406(f) of the Procedural Rules requires the petition to contain a narrative

description of the proposed adjusted standard as well as proposed language for a Board order imposing

the standard. Efforts necessary to achieve this proposed standard and the corresponding costs must also

be presented. These issues are discussed in greater detail, below.

1.

Description of Proposed Adjusted Standard

72.

Illinois-American Water petitions the Board to extend Adjusted Standard AS 99-6,

which provides that the effluent standard for offensive discharges at 35

Ill. Ah. Code 304.106, the

effluent standard for total suspended solids (TSS) at 35

Ill. Adm. Code 304.124, and the effluent

standard for total iron at 35

Ill. Adm. Code 304.124 shall not apply to discharges fiom the Alton

facility.

73.

The adjusted standard should be conditioned on Illinois-American Water's compliance

with the

teims of the Consulting and Performance Agreement between Illinois-American Water and

GET throughout the teim of that Agreement, and on Illinois-American Water's agreement to enter

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

into a contract or contracts for maintenance of the 2 to 1 offset and of the 6,600 tons per year savings

achieved by the Project.

Such contract(s) shall be entered between Illinois-American Water and GUT

(or such other nonprofit corporation, soil and water conservation district, or other person or entity

selected by Illinois-American Water and approved by the Agency, which approval shall not be

unreasonably withheld). The order should also require Illinois-American Water to enter into a

substitute or additional contract for maintenance of the

2 to 1 offset and the 6,600 tons per year

achieved by the Project if the contract for maintenance is terminated by either party or if Illinois-

American Water determines that a substitute or additional contract is necessary.

Any such contracts

will require Illinois-American Water to provide the funds needed to ensure that an

annual soil savings

2 tons is achieved for every 1 ton of solids discharged fiom the facility, and to ensure that the soil

savings achieved by the Project is not reduced below 6,600 tons. Such

contract(s) will also require the

contracting party to submit to the Agency annual reports detailing the reductions achieved by

implementation of the sediment reduction measures and describing the sediment load reductions

achieved for each measure.

74.

The relief granted by the adjusted standard should be indefinite in nature, and should

expire if (a) the Board determines that the conditions of the Mississippi have changed such that the

adjusted standard is

made obsolete or infeasible; (b) the average offset for the calendar year in question

and the four preceding calendar years fails to reach a

2 to 1 offset for total suspended solids as a result

of a change in the condition of the

Mississippi, increased capacity of the Alton facility, or for any other

reason; or (c) the soil savings of the Piasa Creek Watershed Project is reduced below 6,600 tons of soil

per year.

In the event that any of the above events occur, the Adjusted Standard should remain in effect

for three years

fiom the occurrence of such event. Expiration of the Adjusted Standard should be

delayed, however, during pendency of a petition for extension, and the Board should consider another

extension at that time, if

warranted by the petition.

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

75.

The order should also provide that if new regulations are promulgated that limit or

prohibit Illinois-American Water's discharges to the Mississippi or otherwise conflict with the adjusted

standard, Illinois-American Water will be bound by any such regulations. Also, the order should

provide that in such event, modification or termination of the adjusted standard may be required, and

should permit Illinois-American Water to terminate any then-existing contracts for maintenance or

other soil savings entered by Illinois-American Water.

76.

Proposed language for a Board order imposing this adjusted standard is attached to this

Petition at Attachment

F and incorporated herein.

2.

Efforts and Costs Necessary to Achieve the Adjusted Standard

77.

Achieving the proposed adjusted standard at the

Alton facility will require Illinois-

American Water to comply with the terms of the Consulting and Performance Agreement between

Illinois-American Water and GRLT throughout the term of that Agreement. That Agreement requires

Illinois-American Water to provide a minimum of $4,150,000 to GRLT for completion of the sediment

loading reduction project managed by GRLT (the "Project"), payable in equal payments of $41 5,000

per year for ten years.

Illinois-American Water has already made six of these required ten payments.

GRLT will use the remaining payments to continue implementation of the Project, to monitor sediment

reduction, and to take other actions necessary to obtain additional soil savings. The Project is

anticipated to save 12,000 to 15,000 tons of soil each year by the expiration of the Agreement.

See

Affidavit of Alley Ringhausen at 75. Although additional funding by Illinois-American Water will be

necessaiy after the expiration of the ten-year agreement between

Illinois-American Water and GRLT to

maintain these savings above 6,600 tons per year and Illinois-American Water will provide such

necessary funding, the Project is expected to reach a point at which it will be sustainable without future

funding fi-om outside sources.

See

Affidavit of Alley Ringhausen at 76. Illinois-Ameiican Water and

GRLT are currently engaged in discussions regarding a potential contract for maintenance.

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

78.

If the tons of soil in Illinois-American Water's effluent increase above 3,300 tons per

year, Illinois-American Water will also need to enter into a contract to provide

funding for these

additional soil savings (unless its contract for maintenance of the savings achieved by the Project

provides for such additional savings).

Quan~tative and Qualitative

Impact

on the Environment

79.

Section

104.406(g) of the Procedural Rules provides that the petition must contain the

quantitative and qualitative description of the impact of the petitioner's activity on the environment if

the petitioner were to comply with the regulation of general applicability as compared to the

quantitative and qualitative impact on the environment if the petitioner were to comply with

only the

proposed adjusted standard. To the extent applicable, cross-media impacts must be discussed. Also, the

petitioner must compare the qualitative and quantitative nature of emissions, discharges or releases that

would be expected from compliance with the regulation of general applicability as opposed to that

which would be expected from compliance with the proposed adjusted standard.

80.

Illinois-American Water examined the potential impact from its discharges

from the

Alton facility and concluded that the Alton facility's discharges pose no significant

impact to the

receiving body of water. SSIS at 5-1 1. Specifically,

Illinois-American Water's analysis indicated that

the discharge of untreated effluent from the Alton facility would not result

in either measurable

sedimentation or observable TSS, and reached similar conclusions regarding aluminum and iron in the

discharge effluent.

See

id. This analysis is discussed in significant detail in the Site Specific Impact

Study.

See

id. at 5- 1 1 to 5-25.

8 1.

As noted above, the environmental characteristics and conditions of the Mississippi

River near the Alton facility have not changed significantly since the Site Specific Impact Study was

prepared in March 1999.

See

Affidavit of Alley Ringhausen at 7712-13

;

Affidavit of Howard

Andrews, Jr. (attached to this Petition as Attachment E) at q172,4--5. In addition, the facility was

constructed as proposed in the March 1999 Petition and

the Site Specific hnpact Study, and the

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

capacity and output of the facility are consistent with the estimates contained therein.

See

Affidavit of

Paul

Keck at 773, 6-8, 14. The evaluation set forth in the Site Specific Impact Study of the impact of

the Alton facility is therefore reliable today.

See

SSIS at 5-1 1 to 5-25; Affidavit of Paul Keck at 723.

82.

The flow amount and TSS concentration of the discharge effluent are sensitive to intake

TSS amounts. SSIS at 5-3. The Study therefore evaluated potential increases based on TSS

concentrations in the influent as low as 20

mgll and as high as 600 mgll. SSIS at 5-27. Under low flow

conditions (the worst case

scenario), the Study estimated that a river surface area of approximately 175

feet by 30 feet (or 0.12 acres) would be subject to concentrations of 1.0 to 2.5 mgll higher than ambient

levels following a discharge of untreated effluent from the Alton facility.

Id.

This change in TSS

concentration is 5% to 13% higher than ambient levels. SSIS at 5-4. The Study concluded that the

lower end of the range represents a value that will be difficult to visually

discern and very difficult to

measure with conventional

instrumentation.

Id.

After the edge of this mixing zone, however, the

incremental increases in TSS concentration were 0.1

mg/l to 0.3 mgll, or 0.43% to 0.06% higher than

ambient levels. SSIS at 5-27.

83.

The Site Specific Impact Study also concluded that the amount of coagulant added will

not lead to an exceedance of the ambient water quality standards for either

aluminum or iron, even

under low flow conditions.

See

SSIS at 5-4. Under low flow conditions, the incremental increase in

alunlinurn concentration is 0.003 mg/l, or a 10.2% increase over ambient conditions. SSIS at 5-28.

However, under average flow conditions, the increase in aluminum concentration is estimated to be

much lower; the incremental increase is 0.001 mgll, or a 0.5% increase over ambient conditions.

Id.

The Study also estimated that there would be no measurable increase in mean dissolved iron

concentration.

See

SSIS at 5-29. The concentrations of total iron, however, are slightly higher.

See

Section II.D.6.

84.

In addition, the Study identified the potential for unnatural bottom deposits, odors, and

unnatural floating material or color. The Study indicates that the River currents will not allow a

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

significant build-up of effluent solids on the river bottom.

See

SSIS at 5-1 1. In addition, the potential

water quality effects or bottom deposit impacts are either confined to a small surface area or are

negligible in accumulation, and are not anticipated to result in visible oils or odors. SSIS at 5-22. Since

the discharge does not elevate nutrients

in the receiving water, no additional plant or algal growth is

expected. Due to the naturally

occui-ring character of the majority of the effluent material (i.e., river

silts), no unusual discoloration will result from the discharge.

Id.

85.

The Study also determined that the turbidity in the area of the discharge may increase in

intensity. However, the discharge plume is not expect to reach the surface until some distance

downstream (900 to

1000

ft), 

at which time the surface concentrations range from 25 to 50 mgll TSS

above ambient but quickly decrease to

40 mgll. The Study concluded that it is extremely doubthl that

these areas of increased turbidity will be discernible.

Id.

Natural flow, local navigational traffic, or

activities

in the barge tugboat docking area are anticipated to produce similar variations in turbidity

level, and incremental increases in this area generally cannot be detected due to the opaqueness of the

Mississippi River. SSIS at 5-23.

86.

Finally, the Study also concluded that discharges of untreated effluent from the Alton

facility would have no impact on the stream morphology or water

chemistry, due to the considerable

channel size, the potential for high volume and high velocity flows, the negligible quantity of discharge

material relative to natural sediment loads, and the existing influence of periodic disturbance due to

operation and maintenance of the nearby navigational channel.

Id.

87.

If Illinois-American Water were to comply with the standards of general applicability,

the incremental increases in TSS,

aluminum, and total iron concentrations discussed above would be

slightly lower. However, the discharges of untreated effluent from the Alton facility together with the

completion of the Piasa Creek Watershed Project will

decrease

the overall sediment loading of the

River, which will have a net positive effect on the TSS and iron concentrations in the River system.

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

88.

As this Board has already determined, the Project "will eventually keep much more

TSS out of the Mississippi than the [Alton] facility's discharge puts in."

See

Opinion

Order of the

Board dated Sept. 7,2000 at 19. As this Board has also observed, Ms. Annie Hoagland, Chair of the

Alton Lake Heritage Parkway Commission, has stated in support of this Project that "the potential to

permanently reduce sediment is tremendous, while at the discharge site, they [Illinois-American Water]

are merely putting back what they took out of the river."

Id.

at 14. At this time, only six years into the

Project, the Project has already surpassed its ten-year goal of achieving a 2 to 1 offset

in fact, if the

TSS loading estimate is calculated using actual conditions

fiom the facility each year (1,600 tonslyear),

the offset has already reached 4.2 to 1.

89.

In addition, Illinois-American Water commissioned Black

Veatch Corporation to

conduct a study to determine the extent to which the total iron loading in the River is reduced by the

sedimentation reduction projects implemented as part of the Piasa Creek Watershed Project.

conducting this study, Black

Veatch considered several factors, including the different soil types

present in the Piasa Creek Watershed, the concentrations of total iron present in each soil type, and the

type of sedimentation project implemented.

See

Evaluation of Residuals at 2. Based on an evaluation of

the NPDES sampling data, Black

Veatch concludes in this study that the Alton facility's effluent

contains, on average, approximately 21 tons of total iron each

year.11

See

id.

at 4.

90.

Black

Veatch also concluded that the sedimentation reduction projects implemented

part of the Piasa Creek Watershed Project have achieved a savings of approximately 79 tons of total

iron each year as of June 2006.

Id.

at 4. Based on the NPDES sampling data, this represents an offset of

3.8 to 1.

Id.

at 5. That is, the Piasa Creek Watershed Project, prevents nearly four tons of total iron fiom

entering the River for every one ton of total iron that Illinois-American Water's Alton facility

discharges into the River.

As noted above, Illinois-Ainel-ican does not measure the ainount of iron in the facility's influent, so an estiinate for the amount of

iron predicted to be discharged

from the facility is not available.

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

91.

The offset is significantly

hlgher, however, if different data sets are evaluated. For

instance, an evaluation of the additional sampling conducted by Black

Veatch concluded that the

Alton facility's effluent contains approximately 9 tons of total iron each year.

Id.

The sediment

reduction projects implemented as part of the Project have achieved a net yearly decrease of

70 tons of

iron each year which, considering this sampling data, represents an offset ratio of 8.8 to 1

.I2

92.

The incremental increases and other slight impacts of the facility's discharge pursuant

to the extension of Adjusted Standard 99-6 requested herein are thus justified in light of the success of

the Project. Justification for this adjusted standard is discussed in greater detail in Section

ILH, below.

a.

Jus~fica~on

for the Proposed Adjusted Standard

93.

Section

104.406(h) of the Procedural Rules provides that the petition must contain a

statement which explains how the petitioner seeks to justify, pursuant to the applicable level of

justification, the proposed adjusted standard. As noted in Section ILC, above, Section 28.1 of the Act

establishes the level of justification required by Illinois-American Water. Each element of this level of

justification, along with an explanation of how Illinois-American Water seeks to justify each element,

is discussed below.

Subshn~aIQIZy

and Slignificandy Different Factors

94.

The first element of the level of justification set forth in Section 28.1 requires

Illinois-

American Water to establish that factors relating to Illinois-American Water are substantially and

significantly different

fiom the factors relied upon by the Board in adopting the general regulation

applicable to that petitioner. 4 15

Ill. Comp. Stat. 28.1 (c)(l).

Id.

Also, due to operational optimization within the facility, considering data reported for February 2001 through December 2005

may not accurately represent the average amount of iron contained in the facility's discharge. Mile blowdown in the Superpulsator

now occurs twice per hour

(i.e., at intervals of 30 minutes), the intervals between blowdowns in 2001 and in the early part of 2002

were

much less regular. See Affidavit of Paul Keck at 710. At times, the interval between blowdowns was as long as 5.5 hours.

Id.

Longer intervals between blowdowns allows solids to build up in the blowdown troughs, so the amounts of TSS (and thus iron) in

sa~nples collected fro~n Superpulsator blowdowns after such longer intervals will generally be elevated.

Id.

at 11 2. If iron loading

fro111 the plant for only years 2002 through 2005 is considered (12.5 tonslyear), the offset is 6.3 to 1.

See

Evaluation of Residuals at

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

95.

The factors relied on by the Board in adopting the effluent standards for TSS in 1972

were increased turbidity and

"harrnhl bottom deposits."

See

Effluent Criteria, Water Ouality Standards,

Water Quality Standards Revisions for Intrastate Waters

(SWB 14) (Jan. 6, 1972), R70-8, R71- 14, R71-

20, at 19. The factors relied on by the Board in adopting the effluent standards for iron were the

nuisances that excessive iron can cause for domestic uses, and undesirable bottom deposits.

Id.

at 16.

Finally, the factors relied on by the Board in adopting the effluent standard for offensive conditions

were that primary treatment of effluent should be universal, and that nuisances should be unacceptable.

Id.

at 5.

96.

This Board has previously determined that

"[tlhe factors relating to [Illinois-American

Water] are substantially and significantly different than the factors which the Board relied upon in

adopting the regulations at issue herein."

See

Opinion

Order of the Board dated Sept. 7,2000 at 20.

Specifically, the offsets attainable (and attained) by the Piasa Creek Watershed Project are a

substantially different factor than those that the Board considered in adopting the standards of general

applicability. The general assumption underlying each of those standards was that the reduction of TSS

and iron in effluent would be achieved by a technology applied to the effluent itself.

In the present case,

however, reductions in suspended solids and total iron in the Mississippi River are achieved through

alternative, non-technology based methods applied outside the Alton facility. The amount of these

reductions, therefore, is not limited by the effectiveness of the technology that would otheiwise be used

to reduce the sediment loading and total iron in Illinois-American Water's discharge.

Justification on the Basis of Substantially and Significantly Different

Factors

97.

The second element of the level of justification requires Illinois-American Water to

establish that the existence of those substantially and significantly different factors justifies an adjusted

standard. 41 5

Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/28.1 (c)(2).

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

98.

The offsets achievable through the completion of the Piasa Creek Watershed Project, a

substantially and significantly different factor, justify the extension to the adjusted standard as

requested herein.

In granting Adjusted Standard 99-6, this Board concluded that Illinois-American

Water had "properly justified its petition for an adjusted standard." Opinion

Order of the Board dated

Sept. 7,2000 at 20. As noted above, the environmental characteristics and conditions of the Mississippi

River near the Alton facility have not changed significantly since the Site Specific

Impact Study was

prepared in March 1999.

See

Affidavit of Alley Ringhausen at n12-13; Affidavit of Howard O.

Andrews, Jr. at @712,4-5. The Board's previous decision that an adjusted standard for discharges from

the Alton facility was justified is therefore reliable in this proceeding. This Petition therefore discusses

this justification only briefly, and refers this Board to the Site Specific

Irnpact Study for a detailed

discussion of this justification.

See

SSIS at 6-9 to 6-20.

99.

Justification for the extension of the adjusted standard turns on the absence of site

specific environmental and health impacts of the Alton facility. Although the offsets achievable by the

Piasa Creek Watershed Project are

a substantially and significantly different factor, the Project will not

have environmental and health impacts substantially and significantly different from those considered

by the Board in adopting the standards of general applicability.

100.

As noted above, the factors relied on by the Board in adopting the effluent standards for

TSS were increased turbidity and

"harmful bottom deposits."

See

'797. However, the Site Specific

Impact Study determined that discharge from the Alton facility pursuant to the adjusted standard would

not significantly increase turbidity or harmful bottom deposits in the Mississippi,

see

SSIS at 5-1 1, and

this Board has determined that any increase in turbidity and bottom deposits will be "so slight that they

will be difficult to measure" and that

"[sluch bottom deposits could hardly be described as ‘harmful."'

Opinion

Order of the Board dated Sept. 7,2000 at 18. In addition, the factors relied on by the Board

in adopting the effluent standards for iron include the nuisances that excessive iron can cause for

domestic uses, and undesirable bottom deposits,

see

797, and this Board has previously determined that

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

the Alton facility's effluent will not contribute to the concerns that the Board expressed in adopting the

total effluent standards for total iron. Order of the Board dated Oct. 19,2000 at 3. Finally, the factors

relied on by the Board in adopting the effluent standard for offensive conditions were that primary

treatment of effluent should be universal, and that nuisances should be unacceptable,

see

197, and the

Site Specific Impact Study determined that no visible oils or odor are expected, no additional plant or

algal growth is expected to result, and no unusual discoloration would result fiom the discharge.

See

SSIS at 5-22.

101.

hlly evaluate the site specific impacts of the Alton facility, however, it is necessary

determine the Best Degree of Treatment (BDT), as guided by the factors identified in 35 Ill. Adm.

Code Section 3 04.1 02. That Section provides that "it shall be the obligation of any person discharging

contaminants of any kind to the waters of the state to provide the best degree of treatment of

wastewater consistent with technological feasibility, economic reasonableness and sound engineering

judgment," and that a

determination of BDT must consider "[wlhat degree of waste reduction can be

achieved by process change, improved housekeeping and recovery of individual waste components for

reuse," and

"[wlhether individual process wastewater streams should be segregated or combined." 35

Ill. Ah. Code

304.102(a). Illinois-American Water's BDT analysis is discussed in greater detail in

the Site Specific

Irnpact Study.

See

SSIS at 6-1 to 6- 14.

102.

Significantly, the Site Specific Impact Study concluded that "no treatment" of TSS in

the Alton facility's discharge is the Best Degree of Treatment for discharges from the facility.

See

SSIS

at 6- 14. The offsets achievable through the Piasa Creek Watershed Project therefore justified Adjusted

Standard 99-6, and justify the extension of that standard at this time. Six years into the Project, the

results once thought "achievable" have already been achieved. Using the conservative estimate of tons

of TSS expected to be discharged

fiom the facility each year, the offset is 4.2 to 1. A similar (though

unanticipated) offset has been attained for total iron. If the Board extends the Adjusted Standard,

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

Illinois-American Water will continue to contribute to the PCW for its full ten year terrn, and beyond,

and even greater TSS and iron reductions will be achieved.

No Environmental or Health Effects Substan~ally and Significantly More

Adverse than under the Rule of General Applicabilliq.

103.

The third element of the level of justification requires Illinois-American Water to

establish that the requested standard will not result

in environmental or health effects substantially and

significantly more adverse than the effects considered by the Board

in adopting the mle of general

applicability. 41 5

Ill. Comp. Stat. 5128.1 (c)(3).

104.

Illinois-American Water evaluated the potential environmental and health effects to the

biota and habitats in the Mississippi River that could result

fiom potential increases in TSS, dissolved

iron, and dissolved aluminum in the Mississippi River due to daily discharges G-om the Alton facility.

This evaluation is detailed in the Site Specific Impact Study.

See

SSIS at 5-12 to 5-25. As noted above,

the environmental characteristics and conditions of the Mississippi River near the Alton facility have

not changed significantly since the Site Specific Impact Study was prepared

in March 1999.

See

Affidavit of Alley Ringhausen at a12-13; Affidavit of Howard

0.

Andrews, Jr. at 712,4-5. The

findings and conclusions set forth

in the Site Specific Impact Study therefore remain reliable in this

proceeding. This Petition therefore discusses the environmental and health effects of the adjusted

standard only briefly, and refers this Board to the Site Specific Impact Study for a detailed discussion

of this issue.

See

SSIS at 5-12 to 5-25.

105.

The aquatic receptors of concern were the fish and macroinvertebrate communities near

the proposed discharge. SSIS at 5-12. The Site Specific Impact Study identified the major habitats

present near the

Alton facility's discharge, as well as the fish and macroinvertebrate communities

present in each habitat.

See

SSIS at 5- 12 to 5- 14. Both the physical (non-toxic) impacts G-om TSS and

the potential impacts

from coagulant-associated metal/metalloid addition to the Mississippi River in

water treatment plant residuals were considered to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

discharge effluent on ths biota. For physical (non-toxic) impacts, the Study concluded that an increase

of TSS would cause a small but finite impact to

riverine biota, which "may lead to avoidance behavior

by some aquatic species but should not lead to any significant impact to fish or aquatic

cornunities in

the River near Mile 204."

See

SSIS at 5-16. In addition, the Study concluded that the minor rates of

deposition of silty material on the river bottom "are unlikely to bury sessile organisms found there," as

a bottom habitat

characteiization conducted in 1997 revealed that no observable silt accumulation has

occurred due to discharges

fi-om the former facility, which was located at the site of the Alton facility

and operated at full capacity until December 3 1,2000 (and at a reduced capacity until February 12,

2001), despite 100 years of operation at that site.

See

SSIS at 5-17. For toxic impacts, the Study

concluded that site-specific

(i.e., non-salmonid) species like those near River Mile 204 are more

tolerant and aluminum toxicity is thus unlikely.

See

SSIS at 5-20 to 5-21. In addition, the Study

concluded that due to the high levels of natural complexation of aluminum and iron, discharges of

untreated effluent fi-om the Alton facility have no significant potential impact to the river environment

and its biota.

See

SSIS at 5-21. As noted above, the environmental characteristics and conditions of the

Mississippi River near the Alton facility have not changed significantly since the Site Specific Impact

Study was prepared in March 1999.

See

Affidavit of Alley Ringhausen at 1112-13; Affidavit of

Howard

0. Andrews, Jr. at

Tp,

4-5. The findings and conclusions set forth in the Site Specific Impact

Study therefore remain reliable in this proceeding.

106. Finally, the Study concluded that there are no state-listed threatened or endangered

species present in the Mississippi River near the Alton facility,

id., and Illinois-American Water

determined "to the Board's satisfaction" that there is no mussel community in the Mississippi

immediately downstream of the Alton facility's discharge pipe.

See

Order of the Board dated Oct. 19,

2000 at 3.

107.

Ths Board therefore determined in the previous adjusted standard proceeding that "the

untreated discharge

fiom the new facility, provided it occurs in the context of the GRLT Project, will

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

not harm human health and will protect aquatic life immediately downstream of the discharge."

Opinion

Order of the Board dated Sept. 7,2000 at 19. Because the findings and conclusions set foith

in the Site Specific Impact Study remain reliable in this proceeding, the Board's previous determination

regarding the effluent's lack of effect on human health and on the

environment is similarly reliable

regarding this issue.

Consistency with Applicable Federal Law.

108.

The final element of the level of justification requires Illinois-American Water to

establish that the adjusted standard is consistent with any applicable federal law. 41 5 111. Comp. Stat.

5128.1(~)(4). This element is discussed in depth in Section 11.1, below.

Reasons that the Board may Glrant the Proposed Adjusted Standard Consistent

with Federal Law

109.

Section

104.406(i) of the Procedural Rules provides that the petition must contain a

statement with supporting reasons that the Board may grant the proposed adjusted standard consistent

with federal law. The petitioner must also

inform the Board of all procedural requirements applicable to

the Board's decision on the petition that are imposed by federal law and not required by this Subpart.

Relevant regulatory and statutory authorities must be cited.

1.

Consistency with Federal Law

1 10. Under federal law, a permit authorizing the discharge of a pollutant may be issued upon

the condition that the discharge will meet all applicable requirements set forth in the Clean Water Act,

including the technology-based effluent limitations provided in Section 13 1 1 of that Act and the water

quality-based effluent limitations provided in Section 13 12 of that Act.

See

33 U.S.C. 5 1342(a); 33

U. S.C.

5 5 13 1 1, 13 12. In cases where there are no federally-promulgated categorical effluent

limitations, as here, case-by-case effluent limitations must be developed reflecting Best Professional

Judgment (BPJ).

See

33 U.S.C. 5 1342(a)(1); SSIS at 1-8.

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

11 1.

Federal regulations implementing the Clean Water Act establish that such case-by-case

limitations reflecting BPJ should be developed after consideration of the statutory factors listed in 40

C.F.R. Section

125.3(d); consideration of the appropriate technology for the category or class of point

sources of which the applicant is a member; and consideration of any unique factors relating to the

applicant. 40 C.F.R.

125.3(~)(2).

1 12. The first consideration in the required BPJ determination, the statutory factors listed at

40 C.F.R. Section

125.3(d), requires two separate analyses. First, it is necessary to determine the Best

Practicable Control Technology (BPT) as guided by the factors identified in 40 C.F.R. Section

125.3(d)(l). BPT is a rninimum standard, however, so it is also necessary to determine the Best

Conventional Pollution Control Technology (BCT) as guided by the factors identified in 40 C.F.R.

Section

125.3(d)(2), and to consider whether the effluent limitation developed with such technology

should be more

stringent than BPT requirements.

1 13.

The factors identified in 40 C.F.R. Section

125.3(d)(l) for consideration in the BPT

deteimination for the facility include:

(i) the total cost of application of technology in relation to the effluent reduction benefits to

be achieved

fioin such reduction;

(ii) the age of equipment and facilities involved;

(iii) the process employed;

(iv) the engineering aspects of the application of

various types of control techniques;

(v) process changes; and

(vi) non-water quality

environmental impact (including energy requirements).

40 C.F.R.

§125.3(d)(l). Next, 40 C.F.R. Section 125.3(d)(2) lists the factors that must be considered to

determine Best Conventional Treatment. With the exception of a cost-reasonableness factor requiring

consideration of

"[tlhe reasonableness of the relationship between the costs of attaining a reduction in

the effluent and the effluent reduction benefits derived," the factors listed in 40 C.F.R. Section

125.3(d)(2) are substantially similar to those set forth in 40 C.F.R. Section 125.3(d)(l).

1 14. Illinois-American Water determined through BPJ that the BPT for the Alton facility is

"no treatment" of the discharge. SSIS at 6-1

7. In addition, Illinois-American Water also deteimined that

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

application of BCT technology was not cost-reasonable, and adoption of the BCT effluent limitations in

lieu of the previously developed BPT effluent limitation thus was not warranted. SSIS at 6-20. Illinois-

American Water's BPJ analysis is discussed in greater detail in the Site Specific Impact Study.

See

SSIS at 6-15 to 6-20.

1 1 5.

The second consideration in the required BPJ determination, the appropriate

technologies for the category or class of point sources, requires consideration in this case of the various

technologies for treating residuals

from drinking water production facilities. These various methods,

along with the reasons that such methods were rejected

fi-om further consideration, are discussed at

Section

II.E, above.

1 16. Finally, the third consideration (any unique factors relating to the applicant) requires

consideration on these facts of the effects of the Piasa Creek Watershed Project. Justification for the

adjusted standard on the basis of the completion of the Piasa Creek Watershed Project, a substantially

and significantly different factor than those relied upon by the Board in adopting the regulation of

general applicability, is discussed at Section

II.H.2, above.

1 17.

In the previous proceeding on this adjusted standard, this Board detelmined that "the

requested adjusted standard is consistent with existing federal law." Opinion

Order with the Board

dated Sept.

7, 2000 at 20. As noted above, the environmental characteristics and conditions of the

Mississippi River near the Alton facility have not changed significantly since the Site Specific Impact

Study was prepared in March 1999.

See

Affidavit of Alley Ringhausen at 771 2-1 3; Affidavit of

Howard

Andrews, Jr. at 772,4-5. In addition, the federal laws applicable to this adjusted standard

have not changed since 1999 such that the Board's decision would no longer be relevant to the

proceeding at hand. Illinois-American Water acknowledges that new federal regulations may be

promulgated that could conflict, in part or entirely, with this adjusted standard, and that Illinois-

American Water will be bound by any such regulations.

In that event, the adjusted standard may require

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

modification or termination. However, the mere possibility that new federal regulations may be

promulgated should not impact Illinois-American Water's request to extend the adjusted standard.

2.

Procedural Requirements Imposed by Federal Law

1 18.

Federal law does not impose any additional procedural requirements that must be

satisfied in this proceeding.

J.

Waiver of Hearing on the Pe~$ion

1 19.

Section 104.4066) of the Procedural Rules provides that the petition must contain a

statement requesting or waiving a hearing on the petition.

120. The Board's Rules do not require a hearing for the adjusted standard sought here.

addition, the facts relevant to this Petition involve the progress and success of the Piasa Creek

Watershed Project, which Petitioner believes to be

undisputed.13 Illinois-American Water thus waives

hearing on its request for extension of its adjusted standard, except to the extent that the Petition is

opposed and the relief requested herein by Illinois-American Water may be granted in

part only or

denied.

Suppor$ing D~cuments or Legal Anthori$iies

12 1.

Section 104.406(k) of the Procedural Rules provides that the petition must cite to

supporting documents or legal authorities whenever they are used as a basis for the petitioner's proof.

Relevant poi-tions of the documents and legal authorities other than Board decisions, State regulations,

statutes, and reported cases must be appended to the petition.

122.

Illinois-American Water has appended the following documents to this Petition:

Attachment A: Affidavit of Alley Ringhausen, Executive Director of Great

Rivers Land Trust;

Attachment B: Great Rivers Land

Trust, Piasa Creek Watershed Project Report

(October 2006);

Petitioner notes that GRLT has provided quarterly progsess reports on the PCWP to the Agency and the Agency has steadfastly

overseen the Project, all as noted by the Board.

See

Opinion

Order of the Board dated September 7,2000 at 15, 16.

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

Attachment C: Black

Veatch Corporation, Evaluation of Residuals

Discharged

fiom Illinois-Arnerican Water Company's Alton Water Treatment

Plant (October 2006);

a

Attachment D: Affidavit of Paul Meck, the water quality supervisor at Illinois-

American Water Company's Alton facility;

e

Attachment E: Affidavit of Howard 0. Andrews, Jr., an engineer at Black

Veatch Corporation; and

Attachment F: Proposed Order of the

Board.14

L.

Addi~onal Informa.B.ion which may be Required by the Regnla&ion of General

AppBicabiliQ

123.

Section

104.406(1) of the Procedural Rules provides that the petition must contain any

additional information which may be required in the regulation of general applicability.

124.

Sections 304.124 and 304.106 of the Board's Water Pollution Control Regulations do

not require a petition for an adjusted standard to contain any information in addition to that contained

herein.

ALTEWATIVE lRlELIEP

125. In the event that Board does not extend the Adjusted Standard and disallows direct

discharge G-om the Alton plant, Illinois-Arnerican Water will need to continue its current practice of

direct discharge until it can design and construct lagoons and filter presses. Although Illinois-American

Water opposes such a decision, Illinois-American Water

respectfully requests the following alternative

relief if such a decision is reached by this Board: First, Illinois-American Water requests that the Board

issue an Order modifying AS 99-6 to immediately terminate Illinois-American Water's obligation to

pay $41 5,000 per year to

GUT for the implementation of sediment control projects. Relief fiom that

obligation is warranted because Illinois-American Water has achieved (and exceeded) the 2: 1 offset

goal, because the Board will have concluded that treatment is preferable to additional sediment control

projects, and because Illinois-American Water owes a duty to its

consumers/rate payers to allocate

Please note that to avoid duplication of the documents produced in the previous preceding before this Board regarding Adjusted

Standard

99-6, niany of the documents relied upon in that previous proceeding have not been appended to this Petition.

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BO

IN

THE MATTER OF:

PROPOSED EXTENSION

OF ADJUSTED STANDARD

)

AS 2007-2

APPLICABLE TO

ILLNOIS-AfvIERXCAN

)

(Adjusted Standard)

WATER COJJ~E~NY'S

ALTON PUBLIC WATER

SUPPLY FACLITY DISCMGE

)

TO TEE MISSISSPPI mR

I, Paul Keck, after being first duly sworn upon my oath, do depose and say as follows

I work at Illinois-American Water Company ("lllinois-American"), where I hold

the position of Water Quality Supervisor at Illinois-American's water treatment facility

in Alton,

Illinois (the

"Alton facility"). I am providing this affidavit at the request of Brad Hiles, counsel

to Illinois-American, but

I do so of my own free will. The statements in this affidavit are me to

the best of my knowledge, information and belief, and I am providing these statements under

oath. I would provide this same

information in a hearing before the Illinois Pollution Control

Board

("IPCB"), if necessary, also under oath and penalty of perjury.

2.

The Alton facility was constructed in 1999 and 2000 to replace an older facility

located at that site (the

"previous faciEQ"). The Alton facility first began operating on

December

3 1,2000. However, the previous facility continued operating at a reduced capacity

through February 12,200 1. During this time, the previous facility served the '"main service"

area, in the southeast area of the distribution system, and the Alton facility served the

"high

service" area, in the northwest area of the distribution system. On February 12,200 1, the Alton

facility took over service to the main service area as well, and the previous facility was removed

from service. All of the data reported prior to February

12,200 1 was therefore collected from

the previous facility's effluent stream. A chain of custody for the data reported for February 2001

in compliance with the facility's

NPDES permit indicates that this data was obtained on February

28,200 1, and was therefore collected

from the Alton facility's eMuent stream.

As Water Quality Supervisor for the facility, I aln familiar with the pollution

control equipment used

by the Alto11 facility. In addition, I am familiar with the report titled

Site-Specific Analysis of Impacts of Potential Alternatives for Handling Public Water Supply

Residuals at Proposed Alton,

IL Facility, which was prepared by ENSR in March 1999 (the "Site

Specific

Impact Study" or "SSIS9'). To my knowledge, the SSIS accurately describes the

pollution control equipment and other equipment proposed for the

Altoii facility and, with the

exception of several minor changes to the

dechlorination process (described below), the Alton

facility was constructed as proposed.

ATTACHMENT'

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

The SSIS indicates that the proposed facility would use sulfur dioxide as a

dechlorinating agent. The Alton facility actually uses sodium thiosulfate. Because of this

change, the

SOz detector referenced in the SSIS is no longer necessary.

The SSIS indicates that the proposed facility would have two dechlorination

systems. The Alton facility actually uses one

sodium thiosulfate dechlorination system with two

feed points that can be used to treat the effluent discharge stream. First, a sodium thiosulfate

feed system feeds to a dechlorination basin which receives effluent discharge composed of the

Superpulsator

blowdown and the filter backwash. The sodium thiosulfate dosage to the

dechlorination basin increases during filter backwashes to accommodate the resulting higher

flow volume due to the facility's application of Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition

(SCADA) programming. In addition, there is an alternative feed point to the filter backwash

influent water that is used if the facility decides to run the filters in a biologically active mode.

To date, this alternative feed point has not been used.

The water treatment process used by Illinois-American at the Alton facility is

generally consistent with

the technique described in the S SIS

Illinois-American uses

chloramination, in which ammonia is applied to raw water just after chlorine treatment in order

to form chloramines rather than

free chlorine residuals. Ammonia and chlorine are added to the

raw water prior to Superpulsator treatments, which results in a Total Residual Chlorine

(TRC)

level in the Superpulsator units of approximately 1.0 to 1.5 mg/1. Filtration of this water through

carbon causes a reduction in chlorine residuals. Chlorine and ammonia are

then re-applied to the

filtrate to maintain a disinfectant residual

in the potable water as it passes on to the cleanvell and

then to the distribution system; this application raises the level of TRC to the targeted range of

3.0 to 3.5 mg/L in the finished water.

Illinois-American's use of coagulants to precipitate out those solids naturally

occurring

in the river water is also generally consistent with the technique described in the SSIS.

With the exception of Illinois-American's use of a coagulant dosage rate of

66 ppm rather than

the predicted dosage rate of 40 ppm, Illinois-American's use of coagulants is consistent with the

technique described

in the SSIS.

The nature and quantity of the discharges from the Alton facility are also

generally consistent with the proposed discharges described

in the SSIS. EMuent discharges

from the Alton facility include operational discharges and maintenance discharges. Operational

discharges occur regularly (on a daily or weekly basis) during periods when the facility is

treating raw water, and include return of intake screen wash,

blowdown from the Superpulsators,

and filter backwash. Maintenance discharges occur during the semi-annual cleaning of

accumulated solids in the clarifier, sedimentation basins, and mixing tanks.

The two main operational discharges consist of intermittent Superpulsator

blowdown and filter backwash. Approximately 72,000 gallons per day ("gpd") of blowdown are

discharged each day

froin the Superpulsators. In addition, approximately 227,000 gallons of

backwash are discharged from the six

sand/carbon filters in each filter backwash. There are

norrnally one to three filter backwashes per day, depending on water temperature and turbidity;

the daily average for 2005 was

1.6 backwashes per day.

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

10.

The frequency and duration of blowdowns from the Superpulsator are generally

fixed.

Blowdown in each Superpulsator now occurs twice per hour. Stated differently, the

interval between blowdowns is approximately 30 minutes. However, throughout 2001 and part

of 2002, the intervals between blowdowns were much less regular. At times, the interval

between blowdowns was as long as

5.5

hours. The facility's Supervisory Control and Data

Acquisition (SCADA) data illustrates the various intervals between blowdowns during that

period:

2 hours between blowdowns (recorded on 3/9/2001)

2 hours to 4 hours (4/9/2001)

1 hour (51912001)

1 hour (6191200 1)

20 minutes (7191200 1)

1 hour (81912001)

2 hours to 4 hours (9/9/2001)

1 hour 3 0 minutes to 3 hours (1 0/91200 1)

1 hour 3 0 minutes to 3 hours (1 1/9/200 1)

hours (1211 312001)

4 hours (1/13/2002)

3 hours (312012002)

3 hours (412012002)

45 minutes (412212002)

In 2003, the interval between blowdowns was consistent at 45 minutes. In 2004 and 2005,

blowdowns occurred even more frequently, at 30 minute intervals.

11.

Finished water fiom the clearwell is periodically used to backwash the filters to

remove accumulated solids. The duration of the filter backwash process is generally

fixed at 25

minutes. Each filter runs approximately 30 to 120 hours between backwashings.

12.

The TSS and total iron concentrations in the Superpulsator blowdown are highly

variable because they are dictated by raw water turbidity and plant operational conditions.

Higher levels of TSS and total iron

in the raw water generally correlate with higher levels of TSS

and total iron in the facility's discharge.

In addition, longer intervals between blowdowns allows

solids to build up in the

blowdown troughs, so the amounts of TSS and total iron in samples

collected fiom Superpulsator blowdowns after such longer intervals will generally be elevated.

Finally, the flow rate of the facility's influent can affect

TSS and total iron in the facility's

discharge.

TS S and iron in the facility's influent can become trapped for several hours in the

solids blanket in a

Supe~pulsator, but a higher flow rate can cause these solids blankets to expand

and overflow into the collection troughs. Directly following such

an overflow, the amount of

TSS and iron in the facility's discharge will likely be much higher.

13.

Maintenance discharges arise fiom cleaning accumulated solids

from the

Superpulsators. These

inaintenance discharges occur two times per year, and each maintenance

discharge lasts approximately four days. Approximately 5,000

gpd of water containing residuals

are discharged each day during each four day maintenance activity. The total annual discharge

fiom maintenance activities is therefore approximately 40,000 gallons.

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

14.

The capacity and output of the facility are generally consistent with the estimates

set

forth in the SSIS. The Alton facility treats sufficient raw water to make available, on

average, 8.5 million gallons per day (MGD) of potable water for the Alton area. The average

proportional internal facility demand is

0.49 MGD for the average potable water flow of 8.5

MGD. The combined flow is therefore 8 -99 MGD.

15.

Although the facility was constructed as proposed (with the exception of the

several

minor changes described above), operating conditions at the facility differ f?om those

predicted. As a result, the amount of TSS (and therefore the total iron) discharged fkom the

facility differs from that predicted. The original petition submitted by Illinois-American in 1999

predicted that an estimated 3,358 dry tons of solids would be discharged

from the Alton facility

each year. However, the

formula used to calculate the tons of solids discharged relied on

predicted values for the concentration of TSS in the new facility's influent, the average daily

flow rate for the facility, and the coagulant dosage rate. When the actual values for these

measurements is used, the same formula indicates that an average of 1,600

dry

tons of solids

would be discharged

from the facility each year.

16.

The original petition's prediction that

an estimated 3,358 dry tons of solids would

be discharged fkom the Alton facility each year was based on the assumption that 100% of the

TSS in the facility's influent would be discharged in the facility's effluent. This assumption is

consistent with facility operations.

17.

This prediction also assumed that the turbidity (and thus the concentration of

TSS) of the influent of the new Alton facility would be

the

same as the turbidity of the influent at

the previous facility. Page 3-6 of the SSIS indicates that the mean of the annual averages for

turbidity in the previous facility's influent for the six year period

between January 1990 and

December 1995 was 90

NTU. By correlating turbidity to concentration by using a ratio of 1 :2

NTU/TSS, the TSS concentration of the influent at the previous facility was determined to be

180

mgL. However, the turbidity of the new Alton facility's influent is different from the

turbidity of the previous facility's influent. The mean of the

amual averages for turbidity in the

new Alton facility's influent

for the five year period from February 200 1 to December 2005 was

56 NTU. This turbidity was determined using data collected at the new Alton facility. The Alton

facility's standard practice is to test the turbidity

of the influent approximately three times each

day. By correlating turbidity to concentration using a ratio of

1 :2 NTU/TSS, the TSS

concentration in the

new facility's influent was determined to be 112 mg/L.

18.

In addition, this prediction assumed that the daily flow rate for the facility would

11.2 MGD. However, as noted above, the actual daily flow rate for the facility is 8.99 MGD.

19.

The amount of TSS predicted to be discharged

f?om the new facility each year

was calculated by multiplying the

TSS concentration in the previous facility's influent (180

mg/L) by the predicted daily flow rate for the new facility (1 1.2 MGD) and by a number of

conversion factors used to standardize the units for the values used (mg to tons, days to years,

etc.), as follows:

180rnpx 11.2MGx3.7854118Lx 1,000,000 galx365 davsx 1 ton x

llbs

3,070 tons

1 L

1 day

1 gal

1 MG

1 year

2,000 lbs 453,592.37 rng

1 yr

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

Using this fonnula, the ainount of TSS predicted to be discharged from the new facility each

year was approximately 3,070 tons. However, this

same formula yields different results if the

actual TSS concentration in the new

facility's influent (1 12 mg/L) and the actual daily flow rate

for that facility (8.99

MGD) are taken into account. If these actual figures had been used to

predict the amount of

TSS to be discharged from the new facility, the estimated amount

discharged each year would have been calculated as follows:

112 rng x 8.99 MG x 3.78541 18 L x 1,000,000 gal x 365 davs x

1 ton

x

1 lbs

1,534 tons

1 L

1 day

1 gal

1 MG

1 year

2,000 lbs 453,592.37 mg

Using this same fosrnula with actual figures thus indicates that the estimated amount discharged

each year should be approximately

1,534 tons.

20.

The amount of solids discharged from the facility also includes coagulant

residuals. Page 6-2 of the SSIS indicated that approximately 580,000 pounds (290 tons) of

coagulant residuals would be discharged

koin the facility each year. This estimate, however,

was calculated incorrectly. On August 25,2006, I spoke with Torn

Coughlin, a technical

representative at General Chemical, the manufacturer

of the ClartIon used at the facility. He

explained that a

1 mg/L dose (1 ppm) of Clar+Ion 41 00 in one million gallons of water would

produce 0.61 pounds of solids, and that approximately 8.34 pounds of

Clar+Ion 4100 must be

added to raise the concentration of

Clar+Ion to that level. Based on this information, it appears

that approximately

,073 pounds of solids are produced by every one pound of Clar+Ion added to

the facility's influent. The amount of coagulant residuals discharged

from the facility each year

therefore should have been calculated as follows:

8.34 lbs Clar+Ion x .073 lbs solids x 11.2 MGIday x 40 pprn x 1 ton solids

x 365 days

50 tons

ppm

1 MG/day 1 lb Clar+Ion

2000 lbs solids

1 year

If the forrnula set forth above was used in the original petition, the amount of coagulant residuals

predicted to be discharged

from the facility would have been approximately 50 tons per year

(rather than the 290 tons set forth in the original petition). However, as with tons of

TSS, this

same fornula yields different results if the actual dose of ClartIon applied by the new facility

(66 ppm) and the actual daily flow rate for that facility (8.99

MGD) are taken into account. If

these actual figures had been used to predict the amount of coagulant residuals to be discharged

from the new facility, the estimated amount discharged each year would have been calculated as

follows:

8.34 ibs Clart-Ion x ,073 1bs solids x 8.99 MGIday x 66

ppnl

x

1 ton solids

x 365 days

66 tons

1 ppm

1 MGiday 1 lb Clar+Ion

2000 lbs solids

I year

1 year

Using this same forrnula with actual figures thus indicates that the estimated amount of coagulant

residuals discharged each year should be approximately 66 tons.

21.

When the estimated tons of coagulant residuals are taken into account, the total

tons of solids estimated to be discharged

from the new facility each year is approximately 1,600

tons.

This estimate is consistent with the actual tons of solids measured in the Alton facility's

effluent. Based on the 59 grab samples collected from the Alton facility between February 2001

through December 2005 and reported to

IEPA as required by the facility's NPDES permit,

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

approximately 1,33 3 tons of solids are discharged in the facility's effluent each year. A chart

summarizing the data reported to LEPA is attached to this Affidavit as Exhibit 1. Illinois-

American's practice is to collect these grab samples on a random day each month

dwing times of

discharge from Superpulsator

blowdown and filter backwash events. This practice presents a

worst case scenario of

TSS and total iron in the Alton facility's effluent, as the TSS in Illinois-

American's effluent is higher during such events. As Water Quality Supervisor for the facility,

am responsible for monitoring operations at the facility and for ensuring that samples of the

facility's effluent are properly obtained and tested in accordance with industry standards.

To my

knowledge, all samples of the facility's effluent were collected under

my supervision and

analyzed at Illinois-American's Peoria facility

in accordance with industry standards.

22.

Even if the daily flow rate of the facility is increased to

16 MGD (the maximum

daily flow rate for the facility,

see

SSIS 3-4), the estimated tons of solids discharged from the

facility would be below the 3,300 annual dry tons of solids estimated by Illinois-American and

the Great Rivers Land

Tmst when they negotiated their contract in 2000. If the actual TSS

concentration of the influent at the new Alton facility and

an assumed daily flow rate of 16 MGD

(the maximum daily flow rate) are used to predict the amount of TSS to be discharged fi-om the

facility, the estimated amount discharged each year would be calculated as follows

112mgx 16MGx3.7854118Lx1.000.000palx365davsx 1ton x

11bs

2,729 tons

1 L

1 day

1 gal

1 MG

year

2,000 lbs 453,592.37 mg

1 yr

The estimated amount of TSS discharged each year should therefore be approximately 2,729

tons.

In addition, the amount of coagulant residuals discharged from the facility each year would

be calculated using the actual coagulant application rate (66 ppm) and an assumed daily flow rate

16 MGD, as follows:

8.34 lbs Clar+Ion x ,073 Ibs solids

x

16 MG/day

x

66 ppm

x

1 ton solids

x 365 davs

1 17 tons

1 ppm

1 MG/day 1 1b Clar+Ion

2000 lbs solids

1 year

year

The estimated amount of coagulant residuals discharged each year should therefore be

approximately 117 tons. When the tons of TSS in the influent and the amount of coagulant

residuals are taken into account, the total tons of solids estimated to be discharged

from the

facility each year is approximately 2,846 tons.

23.

Because the Alton facility was constructed as proposed in the Site Specific Impact

Study, the evaluation in that Study of the impact of the

,fY

n facility is reliable today.

Further, Affiant sayeth not.

Paul Keck

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

Exhibit 1

IBlinois American Water Alton

NPDES

Constituents Report

200d -2005

Based on monthly grab samples. NPDES Permit

lL0000299

Year

2001

200 1

2001

Month

Jan*

Feb

7.2

March

7.3

April

7.1

May

7.4

June

7.5

July

7.6

Aug

7.3

Sept

7.6

Oct

7.5

Nov

TSS

mgll

324

3750

20035

9 1

7769

I I

8740

243 1

Iron

mgll

323

2.8

165.6

0.3

106.4

1.5

46.4

0.4

Avg. 

Daily

Flow

WAG

0.465

1.067

0.553

0.861

0.521

0.563

1.107

0.396

0.668

Max Daily

Flow MG

0.823

.a98

1.01

1.865

1.222

1.573

2.875

0.71 6

2.225

Days Per Month

3 1

Tons of lron

Per Month

0.22

0.97

22.36

0.31

10.80

0.02

15.23

0.07

4.01

0.03

(Avg Daily)

Tons of Solids

Per

Month

10.06

517.51

1386.75

10.1 3

506.63

0.80

1251.36

3.32

21 0.03

0.75

2001

Dec

8.13

0.3

0.449

1.198

~0.05

0.02

0.58

Average

3930.6 60.064

0.665273

1.53

322

Total Tons per Year

54.04

3897.93

*No data was obtained in January 2001 from the new Alton facility.

(Avg Daily)

TSS

Iron

Avg.

Daily

Max Daily

GI2

Tons of Iron

Tons of Solids

Year

Month

mgll

mg/l

Flow MG

mgll

Days Per Month

Per Month

2002

Jan

0.2

0.842

1.49

~0.05

0.02

1.96

2002

Feb

7.69

0.4

0.04

0.43

1.152

~0.05

0.00

0.02

2002

March

2.4

0.05

0.386

0.607

~0.05

0.00

0.12

2002

April

7.9

0.2

0.794

2.295

c0.05

0.02

0.20

2002

May

7.31

1024

27.6

0.75

1.918

~0.05

3 1

2.68

99.33

2002

June

7.86

301

5.8

0.453

1.016

~0.05

0.33

17.07

2002

July

7.63

3106

0.526

1 .I34

~0.05

3 1

4.63

21 1.31

2002

Aug

7.97

179

3.8

0.655

1.307

~0.05

0.32

15.16

2002

Sept

1.6

0.987

1.968

~0.05

0.20

8.1 5

2002

Oct

0.8

0.622

1.22

~0.05

3 1

0.06

3.86

2002

Nov

7.4

2457

0.608

1.743

~0.05

3.73

186.98

2002

Dec

8.5

1009

1.126

2.37

~0.05

1.75

146.94

Average

684.4

14.091

0.681583

1.518333

365

Total Tons per Year

13.74

691

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

(Avg Daily)

TSS

Iron

Avg. Daily Max Daily

C12

Tons of Iron

Tons of Solids

Year

Month

mgll

Flow MG

mgil

Days Per Month

Per Month

2003

Jan

8.1

1226

0.932

1.63

~0.05

3 1

I .21

147.79

2003

Feb

8.1

1929

I .011

1.337

~0.05

I .89

227.83

2003

March

7.9

300

0.776

1,671

~0.05

3 1

0.20

30.1 1

2003

April

7.7

2061

0.433

0.784

~0.05

1.03

111.70

2003

May

7.6

565

0.584

1.685

~0.05

3 1

0.38

42.68

2003

June

7.6

0.509

1.452

~0.05

0.00

0.96

2003

July

7.6

176

0.41 8

0.672

~0.05

3 1

0.16

9 -52

2003

Aug

7.8

0.855

2,094

~0.05

3 1

0.00

1.66

2003

Sept

7.6

2527

0.659

1.217

<0.05

2.72

208.44

2003

Oct

7.8

834

0.606

1.314

~0.05

3 1

0.71

65.37

2003

Nov

167

0.612

1.644

~0.05

0.15

12.79

2003

Dec

7.8

154

0.464

1.518

~0.05

3 1

0.12

9.24

Average

830.75

8.41 67

0.654917

I ,4181 67

365

Total Tons per Year

8.57

868.07

Year

2004

Month

Jan

Feb

March

April

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

TSS

mgll

7.7

214

8.1

7.8

7.9

154

7.7

112

7.7

597

7.7

7.69

708

7.68

Avg. Daily

Flow MG

0.404

0.793

0.346

0.833

0.649

0.449

0.614

0.428

0.41 9

Max Daily

Flow MG

0.63

1.119

0,786

2.49

2.256

1.055

1.694

0.9

1.173

C12

mgll

c0.05

~0.05

C0.05

~0.05

c0.05

~0.05

C0.05

Days Per Month

Tons of lron

Per

Month

I .41

0.1 0

0.04

0.31

0.17

0.51

0.08

0.86

0.02

(Avg Daily)

Tons of Solids

Per Month

11.18

9.31

0.27

16.06

9.40

33.55

0.56

39.19

0.63

2004

Oct

7.83

0.128

0.44

1.058

~0.05

0.07

0.00

2004

Nov

7.52

7400

149

0.394

0.772

<0.05

7.35

364.93

2004

Dec

7.76

0.34

0.555

1.258

~0.05

0.02

1.08

Average

776.83

17.447

0.527

1.26591 7

366

Total Tons per Year

10.88

486.1 5

(Avg Daily)

TSS

iron

Avg. Daily Max Daily

C12

Tons of Iron

Tons of Solids

Year

Month

mgll

mgll

Flow MC;

Flow MG

mgll

Bays

Per

Month

Per

Month

Per

Month

2005

Jan

7.76

1.02

0.557

1.395

~0.05

3 1

0.07

5.91

2005

Feb

7.42

8950

221

0.405

0.87

~0.05

10.46

423.45

2005

March

8.02

184

3.85

0.43

1.168

~0.05

0.21

10.23

2005

April

7.96

870

21.8

0.555

1.339

~0.05

1.51

60.44

2005

May

7.88

1.13

0.405

0.804

~0.05

0.06

1.83

2005

June

7.65

106

2.06

0.389

0.625

~0.05

0.10

5.1 6

2005

July

7.79

0.636

1.995

~0.05

0.08

1.81

2005

Aug

7.86

1520

25.2

0.51

1.09

~0.05

3 1

1.66

100.26

2005

Sept

7.85

110

1.52

0.494

1.32

~0.05

0.09

6.80

2005

Oct

7.96

1240

0.391

0.81 1

c0.05

0.91

62.71

2005

Nov

7.92

0.72

0.363

0.6

~0.05

0.03

2.50

2005

Dec

7.63

420

6.62

0.73

1.245

~0.05

3 1

0.63

39.65

Average

1132.8 25.327

0.48875

.I05167

365

Total Tons

per

Year

15.82

720.75

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

PROPOSED EXTENSION OF ADJUSTED STANDARD

)

AS 200'7-2

APPLICABLE TO ILLINOIS-MRICAN

)

(Adjusted Standard)

WATER

COWM'S ALTON PUBLIC WATER

)

SUPPLY FACILITY DISCMGE

)

TO THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER

ORDER OF THE BO

(by

)

The Board hereby finds that the requested extension of the adjusted standard applicable to

discharges to the Mississippi River (the "Mississippi") fiom Illinois-American Water Company's Alton

Public Water Supply Facility located near River

Mile 204 in Alton, Illinois (the "Alton facility"), which

was constructed to replace the previous facility at that site, is justified because the factors relating to

Illinois-American Water Company ("Illinois-American Water") are substantially and significantly

different fiom the factors relied upon by the Board in adopting the regulations of general applicability;

the existence of those factors justifies an extension of the adjusted standard; the requested extension

will not result in environmental or health effects substantially and significantly more adverse than the

effects considered by the Board in adopting the rules of general applicability; and the extension of the

adjusted standard is consistent with any applicable federal law.

The Board hereby adopts the following adjusted standard, pursuant to the authority of Section

28.1 of the Environmental Protection Act:

The effluent standard for total suspended solids at 35

Ill. Adm. Code 304.124

will not apply to the effluent discharged from the Alton facility.

The effluent standard for total iron at 35

Ill. Adm. Code 304.124 will not apply

to the effluent discharged fiom the Alton facility.

The effluent standard for offensive discharges at 3 5 Ill. Adm. Code 3 04.1 06 will

not apply to the effluent discharged from the Alton facility.

No facilities with

outfalls or discharges to the Mississippi will benefit from the

relief provided in this Order except for the Alton facility.

The Board grants the adjusted standard pursuant to the following conditions:

Illinois-American Water will send all of its discharges from its Alton

facility only to the Mississippi at River Mile 204. Illinois-American

Water will not send discharges fiom its Alton facility to tributaries of

the Mississippi. Illinois-American Water will not send discharges

from its Alton facility to any other body of water or to land.

Illinois-American Water will comply with the

terns of the Consulting

and

Performance Agreement between Illinois-American Water and

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

Great Rivers Land Trust (GIPLT) throughout the term of that

Agreement.

No later than six (6) months after the adoption of this Order, Illinois-

American Water will enter into a contract for maintenance of the soil

savings achieved by the Piasa Creek Watershed Project at or above

6,600 tons per year. Such contract shall be entered between Illinois-

American Water and

GRLT (or such other nonprofit corporation, soil

and water conservation district, or other person or entity selected by

Illinois-American Water and approved by the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency, which approval shall not be unreasonably

withheld).

If Illinois-American Water determines that the amount of solids in its

discharge are likely to exceed 3,300 tons per year and its contract for

maintenance under Section

5(c) above does not provide for additional

savings, Illinois-American Water will enter into a contract or contracts

for additional soil savings to ensure that the 2:

1 offset is achieved.

Such additional savings may be attained by the Piasa Creek Watershed

Project or by other projects in the watershed.

In the event that any of the contracts entered pursuant to Sections 5(c)

and (d) above are teiminated by either party or Illinois-American

Water determines that entry into a substitute or additional contract for

maintenance is necessary or desirable, Illinois-American Water shall

enter into a contract for maintenance of the Piasa Creek Watershed

Project with a person or entity selected by Illinois-American Water

and approved by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, which

approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.

At a minimum, such contracts must specify that:

Illinois-American Water will provide funds needed to ensure

that the soil savings achieved by the Piasa Creek Watershed

Project are not reduced below 6,600 tons of soil per year, and

that the 2 to 1 offset ratio is maintained by the Project or by

other projects in the watershed.

ii.

GRLT or such other nonprofit corporation, soil and water

conservation district, or other person or entity selected by

Illinois-American Water shall submit to the Agency annual

reports detailing the reductions achieved by implementation of

the sediment reduction measures and describing the sediment

load reductions achieved for each measure or practice

implemented.

Within ten (1 0) days of entering into any such contract for

maintenance, Illinois-American Water must provide a copy of the

contract to the appropriate personnel at the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency.

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

This adjusted standard shall be indefinite in nature, and shall expire if any of the

following events occur:

The Board determines that the conditions of the Mississippi have

changed such that the adjusted standard granted herein is made

obsolete or infeasible;

The average offset for the calendar year in question and the four

preceding calendar years fails to reach a 2 to 1 offset for total

suspended solids as a result of a change in the conditions of the

Mississippi, increased capacity of the Alton facility, or for any other

reason; or

The savings of the Piasa Creek Watershed Project is reduced to below

6,600 tons of soil per year.

In the event that any of the above events occur, this Adjusted Standard shall

expire upon the date that is three years from the occurrence of such event.

Expiration of the Adjusted Standard shall be delayed, however, during

pendency of a petition for extension, if any, and the Board will consider another

extension at that time, if warranted by the petition.

Notwithstanding the terms set forth herein, if new regulations are promulgated

that limit or prohibit Illinois-American Water's discharges to the Mississippi or

otherwise conflict with this adjusted standard, Illinois-American Water will be

bound by any such regulations, and modification or termination of the adjusted

standard may be required.

In the event that the adjusted standard is modified or

terminated, Illinois-American Water may terminate any contracts entered

pursuant to Sections

5(c) or 5(d), above.

Section 4 1 of the Environmental Protection Act (4 1 5

ILCS 514 1 (1 998)) provides for the appeal

of final Board orders to the Illinois Appellate Court within 35 days of service of this Order. Illinois

Supreme Court Rule 335 establishes such filing requirements. See 172

Ill. 2d R. 335; see

also

35 Ill.

Adm. Code 10 1.246, Motions for Reconsideration.

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, hereby certify that

the above Order was adopted on the

day of

20-,byavoteof

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007

BEFORE THE ILLNOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN

THE MATTER OF:

PROPOSED EXTENSION OF ADJUSTED STANDARD

AS 2007-2

APPLICABLE TO ILLNOIS-AMERICAN

)

(Adjusted Standard)

WATER

COMPAW'S ALTON PUBLIC WATER

)

SUPPLY FACILITY DISCHARGE

TO THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER

CERTIFICATE

OF

SERVICE

I hereby certify that on April 2,2007, the attached AMENDED PETITION FOR EXTENSION

OF ADJUSTED STANDARD was filed by electronic transmission with the Office of the Clerk

of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, and was served

by first class mail, postage prepaid, upon

the following person:

Mr. Thomas M. Andryk

Division of Legal Counsel

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

102 1 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

Respectfully submitted,

ILLINOIS-AMEMCm WATER COMPmY

By:

~Fon

M. Nelson, #06288451

Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin LLP

720 Olive St., 24th Floor

St. Louis, MO 63 101

Telephone: (3 14) 345-6000

Facsimile: (3 14) 345-6060

Attorneys for Petitioner

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 2, 2007