BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF :
)
PROPOSED EXTENSION OF ADJUSTED STANDARD
)
APPLICABLE TO ILLINOIS-AMERICAN WATER )
COMPANY'S ALTON PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY
)
FACILITY DISCHARGE TO THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER )
NOTICE OF FILING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE
that I have today filed with the Office of the Clerk of the
Pollution Control Board the attached AGENCY RECOMMENDATION
on behalf of
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, a copy
of which is herewith served upon you .
Sanjay Sofat
Assistant Counsel
Division of Legal Counsel
By:
John Therriault, Assistant Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street, Suite . 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
William Richardson, Chief Legal Counsel
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
One Natural Resource Way
Springfield, IL 62702
Carol Webb
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
1021
North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19274
Springfield,
IL 62794-9274
DATED
: June 15, 2007
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Post Office Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
(217) 782-5544
Bradley S . Hiles
Alison M . Nelson
Blackwell, Sanders, Peper, & Martin, LLP
720
Olive Street, 24th Floor
St. Louis,
Missouri
63101
Matthew J . Dunn
Division Chief, Environmental
Enforcement
Illinois Attorney General
100 W . Randolph Street, 12" Floor
Chicago,
IL 60601
RECEIVED
CL RK'S OFFICE
JUN 18 2007
AS 2007-pollution
STATE OF
ControlILLINOISBoard
(Adjusted Standard)
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD CLERK'SRECEIVED
OFFICE
JUN 1
8 2007
STATE OF ILLINOIS
IN THE MATTER OF
:
Pollution Control
Board
PROPOSED EXTENSION OF ADJUSTED STANDARD
)
AS 2007-2
APPLICABLE TO ILLINOIS-AMERICAN WATER
)
(Adjusted Standard)
COMPANY'S ALTON PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY
)
FACILITY DISCHARGE TO THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER )
RECOMMENDATION OF THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
NOW COMES the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("Illinois EPA" or
"Agency") by one of its attorneys, Sanjay K
. Sofat, in response to the Amended Petition for
adjusted standard of Illinois American Water Company ("Illinois American" or "Petitioner")
from 35 Ill . Adm
. Code 304.124 and 304
.106 and pursuant to 35 III
. Adm . Code 104 .416, hereby
recommends that the Pollution Control Board ("IPCB" or "Board") DENY Illinois American's
request for an adjusted standard from 35 Ill
. Adm. Code 304.124 and 304
.106. In support of its
recommendation, the Illinois EPA states as follows
:
I. PLEADINGS
1 .
On October 31, 2006, Illinois American filed an adjusted standard petition with
the Board seeking relief from 35 Ill
. Adm. Code 304
.124 and 304
.106 regarding the total
suspended solids
("TSS"),
total iron, and offensive discharges effluent limitations and
requirements, and from 35 Ill
. Adm. Code 302
.203 regarding the narrative water quality standard
prohibiting offensive conditions, applicable to its public water supply plant located in the City of
Alton, Madison County, Illinois
.
2.
On April 2, 2007, Illinois American filed an amended petition ("Amended
Petition"), which replaces the original petition, withdraws the request for relief from 35 IIl
. Adm .
Code Section 302
.203, but retains the request for relief from the effluent standards for TSS, total
iron, and offensive discharges, pursuant to 35 Ill
. Adm
. Code Sections 304 .124 and 304 .106 .
Amended Petition for Adjusted Standard (`Pet.') at 1
. Revised Exhibits D and F were also filed
with the Amended Petition, consisting of a revised affidavit from one of Illinois American's
technical staff person and a revised proposed Board Order
.
3 .
On April 26, 2007, Illinois American filed a Certificate of Publication with the
Board pursuant to 415 ILCS 5/28
.1(d)(2000) and 35 Ill
. Adm . Code 104 .408 and 104
.410
certifying that notice of its Adjusted Standard Petition was published in the
The Telegraph, a
newspaper published in the City of Alton, beginning on April 16, 2007 and continuing through
April 19, 2007
.
4.
Illinois EPA is required to file a Recommendation with the Board within 45 days
of the filing of a petition for adjusted standard or within 30 days before a scheduled hearing date,
whichever occurs earlier
. See 35 Ill . Adm. Code 104
.416 .
II
. STATEMENT OF STANDARD OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY
FROM WHICH PETITIONER SEEKS AN ADJUSTED STANDARD
5.
Petitioner seeks an adjusted standard from the Illinois PCB regulations providing
effluent limitations and requirements concerning TSS, total iron, and offensive discharges
pursuant to 35 111
. Adm . Code 304
.106 and 304 .124
. These Sections, in pertinent part, provide
:
Section 304 .106
Offensive Discharges
In addition to the other requirements of this Part, no effluent shall contain settleable solids, floating debris, visible
oil, grease, scum or sludge solids
. Color, odor and turbidity must be reduced to below obvious levels
.
2
Total Suspended Solids
00530
15.0
(From sources other than
those covered by Section
304 .120)
d)
Unless otherwise indicated, concentrations refer to the total amount of the constituent present in all
phases, whether solid, suspended or dissolved, elemental or combined, including all oxidation states .
Where constituents are commonly measured as other than total, the word "total" is inserted for clarity
.
(Source
: Amended in R88-1 at 13 III . Reg
. 5976, effective April 18, 1989)
III
. IMPLEMENTATION OF FEDERAL LAW
6.
The effluent standards of 35 Ill
. Adm. Code Part 304 were adopted by the Board
to implement, in part, the water quality standards of Section 303(a) of the Clean Water Act
("CWA"), 33 U .S .C
. §1313(a), and the Illinois water quality standards of 35 Ill
. Adm. Code Part
302.
IV.
NATURE OF PETITIONER'SACTIVITY
7 .
Illinois American operates a public water supply treatment facility in the City of
Alton, located along the Mississippi River near River Mile 204, in Madison County ("the Alton
facility") . Pet. at 5 .
Illinois American's discharge is permitted pursuant to National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System ("NDPES") permit No
. 1L0000299, issued on January 24, 2001
(expiration date December 31, 2005)
. Illinois American timely filed for renewal of its NPDES
permit
. The permit review of that application is pending at the time of the filing of this Agency
Recommendation.
3
Section 304 .124
Additional Contaminants
a)
No person shall cause or allow the concentration of the following constituents in any effluent to
exceed the following levels, subject to the averaging rules contained in Section 304
.104(a) .
CONSTITUENT
STORET
CONCENTRATION
NUMBER
mg/1
8 .
Illinois American's Alton facility was constructed in 1999 and 2000 to replace an
aged facility previously located near this site . Since the older facility was inundated by flooding
in 1993, the current facility is constructed on the top of a bluff to minimize the potential for
future flooding .
Pet. at 5 .
The Alton facility began operations on December 31, 2000, and
consists of a raw water intake and pumping station, clarification and filtration units, filtered
water storage, and chemical feed facilities . Pet. at 10.
9.
Discharges of TSS and total iron from the Alton facility into the Mississippi River
not only include suspended solids and total iron from the raw source water (Mississippi River)
intake but also certain suspended chemical reagents from the water treatment process . Pet. at
19-24 .
The level of TSS and total iron in the effluent is variable due to the combination of
operational and facility maintenance discharges . Pet. at 21 . Operational discharges occur
regularly on a daily or weekly basis during periods when the facility is treating raw water,
whereas maintenance discharges occur during the semi-annual cleaning of accumulated solids in
the clarifier, sedimentation basins, and mixing tanks
. Pet. at 21 . The facility is discharging
approximately 1,600 tons of TSS and 21 tons of total iron directly to the Mississippi River each
year at its current operational treatment level of 8
.99 MGD. Pet. at 23 . These loadings of TSS
and total iron could increase when the plant starts treating more effluent, since the plant's current
maximum daily flow rate is 16 MGD . Pet
. at 23
.
10.
In an earlier proceeding, docketed as AS-99-6, the Board granted the Alton
facility an exemption from effluent standards for TSS, total iron, and offensive discharges, as well
as from the General Use water quality standard for offensive conditions
. This order requires
Petitioner, in exchange for the expenditure of $4,150,000 over 10 years through a contract with
Great Rivers Land Trust, to install best management practices ("BMPs") and sedimentation
4
controls in the Piasa Creek watershed
. The Board's revised Order, issued on October 19, 2000,
provided for a sunset date of October 16, 2007, at which time relief would end unless renewed by
the Board .
V.LEVEL OF JUSTIFICATION REQUIRED
11 .
The Illinois EPA agrees with Petitioner that the regulations of general
applicability at 35 111
. Adm. Code 304.106 and 304
.124 do not specify a level of justification or
other requirements necessary for this type of adjusted standard
. Since there is no specific level
of justification for adjusted standards from the regulations at issue in this Petition, the general
level of justification provided in Section 28
.1 of the Environmental Protection Act
("Act"), 415
ILCS 5/28
.1, is applicable here . Section 28.1(c)
of the Act provides the general level of
justification the Board must find a petitioner to have met when granting an adjusted standard
petition. That subsection provides
:
[T]he 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
from 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
; 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 . Id. ; See also
35 Ill . Adm. Code Section 104 .426.
For the reasons outlined below, the Illinois EPA asserts that Petitioner has failed to
satisfy the requirements specified in Section 28
.1(c) of the Act
:
5
A. FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FACTORS
12.
In
In the Matter of Effluent Criteria,
R70-8, R71-14, R71-20 (January 6, 1972,
combined rulemaking), the Board adopted its opinion concerning the effluent standards from
which Illinois American seeks relief (35 Ill
. Adm . Code 304
.124) and relied upon a number of
sources and authorities
. One authority providing testimony, Professor Wesley Pipes, was quoted
by the Board to provide the rationale for the requirement
:
. .
.the most appropriate questions to ask at this time are rather what can reasonably be
achieved in terms of percent reductions and percent removals by presently available
waste treatment processes . . . Dr
. Pipes presented a proposed regulation intended to
describe a `base level of treatment' or the treatment which every industry and
municipality in the State of Illinois should be required to provide as a matter of good
housekeeping
. Such uniform minimum requirements, he said, can be supported as
requiring people who are not doing that good a job to what everybody else is paying for
.
Id. at 3-410 .
The Board thus decided that the base or minimum level of treatment all dischargers are
expected to provide will ensure that good quality waters will be preserved and that polluted
waters will be restored
. A later order interpreted the Board's intent of the January 6, 1972 Order
as follows :
As we said in our January 6 opinion, prescribing the uniform use of readily available
technology as a minimum serves to prevent local nuisances, to avoid premature
exhaustion of assimilative capacity, and to further the established federal and state policy
against degradation of clean water .
In the Matter of Effluent Criteria, R70-8, R71-14,
R71-20 (March 7, 1972) at p . 3-766.
The Board's basic intent in adopting the effluent requirements in the above-mentioned
rulemaking was to provide a uniform baseline of technological treatment provided by all
facilities discharging into waters of the State
. The Agency believes that a grant of permanent
and complete relief from technology-based controls runs afoul of the Board's intent
.
13.
A new water treatment plant was certainly needed at Illinois American's Alton
facility when the new plant was built several years ago
. However, the Illinois EPA finds it
6
puzzling that Illinois American built a new treatment plant without the ability to treat its
wastewater
. Petitioner cited concerns from neighbors as one of the primary reasons for seeking
relief from treatment of wastewater
. Truck traffic generated to haul sludge out of the plant, it
was said, would disturb neighbors of the new plant
. However, this dilemma is not unique to this
facility
. Every new water treatment facility faces the challenge of appeasing its residents
.
Though the residents benefit from the service, they do not prefer to live near the facility
providing the service
. Such a rationale should not serve as a basis, even in part, for permanent
relief from standards that the rest of the regulated community must and is adhering to
. Nor
should cost be controlling when options to treat the effluent are technically and economically
feasible
.
14
.
Public Water Supply Regional Managers and staff at all of the Illinois EPA
Regional Offices were contacted concerning the question of how a typical public water supply
facility accomplishes the necessary treatment for its wastewater
. Most of the State's PWS
facilities using surface water as a raw source expend funds to either (1) pipe the plant's treatment
effluent to the local POTW under the appropriate sewer connection permit or (2) settle out the
sludge and haul it away for either land application or delivery of the sludge to a landfill, with the
supernatant (meeting applicable standards) discharged to the receiving waters under an NPDES
permit
. Land application of sludges is a permitted activity
. In the urbanized areas of the State,
as there is less room for lagoons and less available farmland, the discharge to local sewage
treatment plants is more common
. Sending sludges settled out of the raw water to landfills, more
expensive than land-application, is also more common in such urbanized areas
. Like many other
facilities in the State, Illinois American has the option to build its on-site treatment facility to
treat the wastewater from its operations
. Illinois American is thus seeking to avoid what other
7
facilities in the business of providing drinking water do to achieve compliance with the State
effluent standards .
15.
Illinois American relies on a good quality raw water source in order to serve its
customers, a concern for both public and private water supplies and other water users throughout
the State
. Protecting source water benefits both users and sellers of that water
. For example, the
City of Springfield operates a public water supply treatment plant on Lake Springfield and treats
the wastewater before discharging into the lake or the stream below the lake
. For years the City
of Springfield has been actively involved in soil conservation programs in the watershed of Lake
Springfield
. Soil conservation in the lake watershed leads to better quality water that is cheaper
to treat
. Springfield is working to improve the environment because it benefits from these
improvements
. No relief has been granted to Springfield to allow lesser or no treatment of its
water plant wastewater in exchange for soil conservation efforts
. Likewise, Ameren operates a
nuclear power plant at Clinton Lake
. It also conducts soil conservation programs in the
watershed of its lake
. These efforts help insure an adequate supply of cooling water for the
future
. Ameren receives no relief from applicable wastewater discharge control requirements for
these efforts
. It only makes sense that facilities both treat their effluents to mandated levels to
reduce pollution from point sources and improve non-point source pollution as benefits to their
operations and the environment in general
. The table below provides additional examples of
regulated facilities in the State that are conducting soil conservation projects to protect source
water without requesting relief from applicable effluent standards
:
8
Facility Name
NPDES Permit # Project Descriptions
Estimated Project Costs
Ameren Energy -
Clinton
IL0036919
Clinton Lake shoreline
stabilization and installation of
watershed practices
City of Decatur WTP
ILG640165
City of Decatur annual
allocation for Sangamon River
Annual allocations to
Macon County SWCD
B
. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
16 .
An adverse incremental effect on the water quality of the Mississippi River is
occurring and will continue to occur if Illinois American does not apply the technology-based
treatment controls .
C
. CONSISTENCY WITH FEDERAL LAW
17
.
Under specific guidelines, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
("USEPA") supports pollution trading as part of an overall effort to improve the quality of water
bodies
. USEPA allows pollution trading to help facilities that may otherwise find compliance
with water quality standards or total maximum daily load ("TMDL") limits impossible
. While
Illinois EPA believes that trading may be appropriate when treatment to meet water quality
standards is technically infeasible or economically unreasonable, the State effluent standards for
which Illinois American seeks relief have long been considered technically feasible and
economically reasonable
. As these State effluent standards are technology based rather than
water quality based, USEPA policy supports our position that trading in this case is not
permissible
. In the USEPA Water Quality Trading website
and tributaries a ershed
planning
City of Greenv lie WTP ILG640030
Governor Bond Lake shoreline
stabilization and installation of
watershed practices to reduce
identified pollutants
$865,139 .00
Kinkaid Area Water
System
ILG640136
Lake Kinkaid shoreline
stabilization and installation of
watershed practices
$575,000.00
Otter Lake Wa er
Commission
ILG640095
Otter Lake shoreline
stabilization, in lake sediment
basin and watershed practices
$810,000.00
City of Springfield WTP
- CWLP
IL0024767
Lake Springfield watershed
planning and installation of soil
conservation practices
$605,000.00 - annual
allocations to Sangamon
County SWCD as of 2007
http
://www .epa.gov/OWOW/watershed/trading .htm,
under "Frequently Asked Questions about
Water Quality Trading",
USEPA, (updated April 26th, 2007), USEPA states
:
When can trading occur?
. . .
. EPA does not support trading that results in an impairment of an existing or
designated use, adversely affect drinking water systems, or exceeds a cap
established under a TMDL
. In addition, the Trading Policy does not allow trading
to meet a technology-based effluent limit (TBEL)
. Trading can be used to meet
water quality based effluent limits (WQBELs) only
. (emphasis added)
What are baselines?
A buyer should meet its TBEL before buying credits . A buyer can use credits to meet its
water quality-based effluent limit (WQBEL)
. A point source seller should meet its most
stringent effluent limitation before it can generate credits .
A nonpoint source seller
should meet its TMDL load allocation or, if there is no TMDL, it should meet any state
and local requirements before it can generate credits
. Id. (emphasis added)
For a more detailed explanation of US EPA policy, see
Final Water Quality Trading
Policy,
US EPA, Office of Water (January 13th, 2003), also available at the above-cited website.
18.
Illinois American does not meet the USEPA's criteria for allowable pollutant
trading, and therefore, must be required to provide necessary treatment of its wastewater
. Illinois
American traded pollution in order to be relieved from a technology-based effluent limit, i
.e., the
35 Ill . Adm
. Code Part 304 limits
. Pollutant trading for technology-based limits that a vast
majority of other similar businesses must adhere to is inconsistent with the central intent of the
Clean Water Act and USEPA's trading policy
. Contrary to Petitioner's belief, pollutant trading
must not be defined as the most economical way to remove a given amount of pollution normally
regulated by technology based limits, but rather as a last resort for those entities that cannot meet
WQBELs or TMDL limits . In the case of Illinois American and the Piasa Creek Watershed, no
TMDL exists and relief from a WQBEL is not involved
.
10
19.
In making its decision, the Board should also consider the USEPA's efforts to
develop categorical effluent limits for water supply treatment plant effluents in federal
regulations
. Up-to-date information on this process was obtained from Mr
. Tom Bone of
USEPA's Office of Science and Technology within the Office of Water in Washington, D
.C.
USEPA is currently collecting data on all public water supply treatment plants serving
communities with populations of 10,000 or more
. This information will be used to characterize
the current status of treatment applied to plant wastewaters
. The Illinois American's Alton plant
is subject to this survey and data for the effluent in question must be submitted to USEPA by
Illinois American
. US EPA hopes to analyze the data and determine categorical effluent limits
for several parameters, including total dissolved solids, iron and aluminum
. The purpose of
federal categorical effluent limits is to establish technological controls for all dischargers
conducting the same activity, in this case, removing impurities from drinking water and
discharging the resulting wastewater back to water bodies
. Once federal effluent limits are
established and methods are identified to achieve these limits, dischargers then operate on a level
playing field and waters are protected across the nation from pollution from this source
. No
values for potential effluent limits have yet been determined
. The timeline for publishing the
draft rules is July 2008 with final action,
i.e
.,
adopted rules, by December 2009
. Adoption of
federal categorical effluent limits would supersede any limits previously adopted by states unless
the state limits were more stringent
. Federal action would therefore negate any continued relief
granted by the Board regarding Illinois American's petition for extended relief
11
VI
. ADDITIONAL JUSTIFICATION FACTORS
20.
The Board regulation at 35 111 . Adm . Code 104
.426 further states that the Board
must review the justification for an adjusted standard by the Petitioner consistent with Section
27(a) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/27(a)(2006)
. That Section requires the Board to take into account
five specified factors when promulgating regulations, including adjusted standards
: i) the
existing physical conditions
; ii) the character of the area involved including surrounding land
use; iii) zoning classifications
; iv) nature of the receiving water body ; and v) the technical
feasibility and economic reasonableness of measuring or reducing the particular type of
pollution
. Based on the discussion of these factors below, Illinois EPA's recommends that the
Board deny Petitioner's request for an adjusted standard
.
A
. EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS
21 .
The receiving waterway is the Mississippi River
. The 7-day, 10- year low flow
("7Q10") is 21,490 cubic feet per second
("cfs").
The discharge point is located upstream of
Lock and Dam No
. 26 in Alton.
B
. CHARACTER OF THE AREA INVOLVED, INCLUDING SURROUNDING LAND USES
22 .
The discharge point on the Mississippi River is located in an urban area
. The
plant site is also in an urban area
. The site occupies 22 acres within the City of Alton. The site
was a former quarry property and is bordered by residential subdivisions
.
12
C
. ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS
23 .
The 22-acre site has an 18-acre portion zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial District with
the remaining four acres zoned residential
. Illinois American's petition makes much of the fact
that citizens living near the plant would be opposed to increased truck traffic averaging two
truckloads per day if treatment capacity were constructed. Pet. at 29-30
. However, Illinois EPA
views this as a local zoning and not an environmental compliance issue .
D
. NATURE OF THE RECEIVING BODY
24
.
The Mississippi River is a General Use water
. It supports several beneficial uses
including aquatic life, primary contact, secondary contact, public water supply and agricultural
and industrial uses.
E. TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY AND ECONOMIC REASONABLENESS
25 .
Illinois American is requesting an adjusted standard that would provide
permanent relief from the effluent standards and requirements for TSS, total iron, and offensive
discharges, so that its Alton facility may continue to discharge untreated plant wastewater directly
into the Mississippi River . Pet. at 44-45 .
In support of the requested relief, Illinois American
points to the success of certain soil conservation projects that it has engaged in, and commits to
funding those projects through 2010, but not beyond that time . Pet. at 2-3
. Illinois American
notes that at some point after 2010 the soil conservation projects "will be sustainable without
future funding from outside sources ." Pet. at 11 .
Without specifying a specific level of financial
commitment, Petitioner also adds that it is engaged in discussions concerning a potential contract
between it and Great Rivers Land Trust ("GRLT") for future maintenance of the soil conservation
13
projects beyond 2010
. Illinois American is willing to provide some funding for future
maintenance of the soil conservation projects so that the estimated level of soil conservation at the
Piasa Creek Watershed does not drop below 6,600 tons per year
. Pet. at 3.
26.
Petitioner examined several alternatives to achieve compliance with the TSS, total
iron, and offensive discharge effluent limitations and requirements
. The alternatives addressed
by Illinois American are land application, discharge to the City of Alton sewage treatment plant,
permanent storage in monofills, and temporary storage and dewatering in lagoons coupled with
off-site landfilling . Pet. at 24. With regard to land application, Petitioner deemed this choice
impractical due to issues of land application in winter, manganese content of the effluent, and
cost. Pet. at 25-26. The Agency notes that, as discussed above, other public water supplies
using surface water for their raw water intake do land apply their effluent solids . Petitioner
eliminated the discharge to the Alton sewage treatment plant option due to the lack of current
plant capacity to accept the effluent .
Pet. at 26. Permanent storage in monofills was eliminated
by Petitioner from consideration primarily due to cost . Pet. at 26-27 . The Agency, however,
believes that Illinois American has the option to provide necessary treatment by hauling the
sludge to a landfill .
27.
Illinois American acknowledges that the option of temporary storage and
dewatering in lagoons coupled with off-site landfilling is viable, adding with regard to
dewatering processes that "a combination of non-mechanical and mechanical dewatering is an
even more viable option for treating residuals from the Alton facility ." Pet. at 28-30
.
28.
To secure additional funding to construct and operate a wastewater treatment
facility for its new Public Water Supply plant in 1999 and 2000, Illinois American filed a
petition for a rate increase before the Illinois Commerce Commission ("ICC"
). The direct
14
testimony of Mark Johnson,
P.E., before the ICC in the 2000 rate case, indicated that the
treatment alternative at the time involved a total capital cost of $7 .38 million and annual
operating costs of $419,300, which the witness equated to a total annual cost of $1 .136 million.
ICC Exhibit No . 2.0, Direct Testimony of Mark L . Johnson, at p . 10, in ICC Case No . 00-0340,
filed April 17, 2000 .
29 .
Illinois American's own testimony before the ICC verifies that treatment is
economically feasible . The cost of this treatment is not unreasonable in that these figures are
what any water treatment plant in the State is incurring to treat its wastewater .
VII.HEARING
30.
Illinois American has stated in its Amended Petition that it "waives a hearing on
its request for extension of the adjusted standard, except to the extent that the Petition is
opposed . . . .
VIII. RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION
31 .
Pursuant to 415 ILCS 5/28 .1 and consistent with 415 ILCS 5/27(a), the Agency
recommends that Petitioner, Illinois American Water Company, not be granted the requested
relief from the total suspended solids, total iron, and offensive discharges limitations and
requirements contained in 35 111 . Adm. Code 304 .106 and 304 .124, for its public water supply
treatment plant on the Mississippi River, located in the City of Alton, Madison County . In the
intervening years since relief was granted, concepts of pollutant trading and the importance of
providing reasonable treatment have been refined at the federal level
. The Agency thus believes
that the requested relief is no loner consistent with applicable federal law
. Moreover, Illinois
15
American has not established that factors relating to its Alton facility are substantially and
significantly different from the other facilities in the State
. In fact, these other facilities have
been consistently complying with the effluent limits and requirements regarding TSS, total iron,
and offensive discharges
. Further, many of these facilities find it economically beneficial to
conduct soil conservation programs to ensure a good quality water source for their operations
.
Consequently, the Illinois American's requested relief does not meet the requirements
established under 35 Ill
. Adm. Code Section 104
.426 as well as Sections 27(a) and 28
.1 of the
Act
. The Agency urges the Board to deny the Petitioner's request for extending this relief Like
other facilities in the State, Illinois American should be required to meet the State effluent
standards.
WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated herein, the Illinois EPA recommends that the
Pollution Control Board DENY the adjusted standard Petition of Illinois American Water
Company.
Respectfully Submitted,
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION-AGENCY
BY :
Sanjay K
. Sofat
Assistant Counsel
Division of Legal Counsel
DATED
: June 15, 2007
1021 N. Grand Ave
. East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
(217) 782-5544
16
STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
COUNTY OF SANGAMON
John Therriault, Assistant Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R
. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street, Suite
. 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
William Richardson, Chief Legal Counsel
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
One Natural Resource Way
Springfield, IL 62702
Carol Webb
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O . Box 19274
Springfield, IL 62794-9274
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, on oath state that I have served the attached the
AGENCY
RECOMMENDATION
upon the persons to whom it is directed, by placing a copy in an
envelope addressed to:
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME
THIS I,4
5
-c'r`
DAY OF June, 2007 .
SS
Bradley S . Hiles
Alison M
. Nelson
Blackwell, Sanders, Peper, & Martin, LLP
720 Olive Street, 24 th Floor
St. Louis, Missouri 63101
Matthew J . Dunn
Division Chief, Environmental
Enforcement
Illinois Attorney General
100 W
. Randolph Street, 12 th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
and mailing it from Springfield, Illinois on June 15, 2007, by U
.S. Mail with sufficient
postage affixed
.
,11
~N
'
•Y
BRENDA
4 •: 4i
OFFICIAL
•4 4 •i 444400044ti
BOEHNER
SEAL
••:•4•i 444•'
I NOTARY WIBUC,STATE OFIWNOIS
Y
40{
COMMISSION
••:•{•4 :•4•.•4444444444444
EXPIRES 113.2008
•:}
.
