ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
April
27, 1984
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
PROPOSAL OF THE ILLINOIS POWER
)
R83—11
COMPANY FOR A SITE-SPECIFIC
)
EFFLUENT RULE CHANGE (PROPOSED
)
AMENDMENT TO ILL. ADM. CODE,
)
TITLE 35, PART 304, SUPBART
B)
)
PROPOSED RULE.
FIRST NOTICE.
PROPOSED OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by W.
J.
Nega):
This matter comes before the Board on Illinois Power Company~s
proposal to amend the Board’s Water Pollution Regulations which
was filed on May 17,
1983.
The proposed site—specific regulation
in R83—11 would amend Ill.
Adm. Code,
Title 35, Part 304, Subpart
B by adding a new Section 304.109.
Under the proposed site—
specific effluent rule change, the effluent limitation on the
discharge of total suspended solids
(TSS) from the ash pond
system of Illinois Power Company’s Wood River Station in East
Aiton,
Illinois into Wood River Creek would be raised.
from 15
milligrams per liter
(mg/i) to 30 mg/i as an average of daily
values for thirty consecutive days, and from 30 mg/i to 100 mg/i
as
a
maximum
for
one
day.
(See:
Exhibit
1).
The TSS standards proposed by Illinois Power Company (IPC)
are the same as suggested by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA)
for the electric power generating point
source category as set forth in 47 Fed.
Reg. 52290
(November 19,
1983)
(to be codified in 40 C.FR. Part 423).
The Petitioner
believes that the Federal effluent standard of 30
mg/i
is more
appropriate in the instant situation because it was intentionally
established by the USEPA as being the best practicable treatment
currently available for one specific industry——the steam electric
industry.
(R.
137—138).
The Petitioner asserted that the USEPA
set the Federal effluent limits after carefully evaluating the
fuel types~equipment, age and size of electric plants, water
usage, and wastewater constituents involved in the steam electric
power industry, as well as considering the type, performance, and
cost of control and treatment technologies available for potential
use in this particular industry.
(R.
137—140;
R. 156—162).
Accordingly,
IPC is requesting that
it be granted a site—specific
relaxation of the state effluent standard to the same level as
the Federal standard.
(See:
Exhibit 5).
57-493
—2—
Two hearings on the merits of this regulatory proposal were
conducted,
The first merit hearing was held on August 22, 1983
in Alton, Illinois.
The second hearing took place on August 26,
1983 in Chicago,
Illinois.
Members of the public were present at
both hearings;
two witnesses testified, and
9 exhibits were
admitted into evidence.
At these hearings,
the Petitioner attempted to demonstrate
that it has been unable to meet the existing statewide non-industry
specific TSS limitation of 15 mg/i as set forth in 35
Ill. Mm.
Code 304.124(a) despite the installation of numerous control
measures.
IPC indicated that the only economically feasible
control measure which could achieve the 15 mg/i standard is
a
physiochemical wastewater treatment facility which would cost
$3.9 million to install and $145,000 annually to operate and
maintain.
(R.
35—36;
see:
Exhibits E
& F).
The company contended that such a facility would deprive
Wood River Creek of necessary phytopiankton and adversely affect
the propagation and recruitment of juvenile fish from the new ash
pond system by depriving these fish of
a vital breeding ground.
An engineering study by Sargent and Lundy was proffered to demon-
strate that the physiochemical treatment system is the
least
costly alternative control measure to achieve compliance with the
existing 15 mg/i TSS standard.
On November 30,
1983,
the Hearing Officer entered an Order
which stated that, pursuant to 35
Iii. Adm. Code 102.163,
the
initial public comment period and record in R83—11 would close
according to a specified schedule.
Under the Hearing Officer’s
schedule, comments by the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency were due by January
6,
1984; comments by Illinois Power
Company were due on January 20,
1984; and the close of the public
comment period and record was set for January 20,
1984.
In
addition to the first written comment filed by the proponent on
October 24, 1983 after the merit hearings, written comments were
subsequently filed by the Agency on January
1,
1984 and by IPC on
January 20,
1984 in a timely fashion in accord with the Hearing
Officer’s
Order.
The Director of the Illinois Department of Energy and Natural
Resources
(DENR) advised the Board on December 6, 1983 that the
DENR had made a finding that an economic impact study on the
regulatory proposal
in R83—11
is not necessary.
At its December 13,
1983 meeting, the Economic and Technical Advisory Committee
(ETAC)
concurred in the DENR’S finding.
IPC owns and operates a steam—electric generating plant in
East Alton,
Illinois which discharges effluent pursuant to NPDES
Permit No. IL00007Ol.
(R.
123—131; see: Exhibits 6,7, and 8).
The Petitioner’s plant, which is known as the Wood River Station,
(Station),
includes two large coal-fired electric generating
57-494
*3—
units which provide
77
of
the
facility’s
maximum
capacity
to
generate electricity, and three smaller units which burn oil or
natural gas.
(P...
14),
In the two coal-fired units, bottom ash and fly ash are
(1)
produced as by-products of coal combustion;
(2) removed from the
units by sluicing with water withdrawn from the Mississippi
River;
(3) transported by the sluice to an ash pond system; and
(4) deposited in the ash pond system.
CR.
14—15).
Total sus-
pended solids are first removed from the water which is channeled
into the ash pond system.
Then water
is released from the ash
pond system, which serves as part of the Stations’s pollution
control equipment,
and subsequently discharged through an earthen
conveyance into an unnamed tributary of Wood River Creek, which
flows into Wood River Creek and then to the Mississippi River.
During the twelve-month period ending on December 31,
1982,
effluent flows from the ash pond system averaged 2,74 million
gallons per day
(mgd) and ranged from 0.45 mgd to 5.10 mgd.
(R,
14—15).
Bottom ash and fly ash were sluiced from the two coal—fired
units into
art older ash pond system
(Old Ash Pond System) before
the completion and utilization of IPC’s New Ash Pond System.
CR.
16).
Because
of its many years of service,
the Old Ash Pond
System
had
become
nearly
filled
with
ash
by
1977,
and
dredging
was necessary to keep
it operative.
Additionally,
the concentra-
tion of TSS in the effluent from the Old Ash Pond System would
sporadically
exceed
the 15 mg/i
limit for TSS delineated in 35
Ill.
kdm, Code 304.124(a).
(R.
16).
To avoid the necessity of continual dredging operations and
to reduce TSS excursions,
IPC applied to the Agency and to the
U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers for the requisite construction
permits to build the New Ash Pond System early in 1977.
CR.
16—17).
On May
17,
1977,
the Agency approved IPC’s construction request.
Similarly,
in
December of 1977, the Corps of Engineers issued IPC
a
construction
permit.
(R.
17).
Construction of the New Ash
Pond System began in June of 1978 and was completed on September
29,
1979.
(R.
17-18).
Discharge of water sluiced from the two
coal-fired units first began from the New Ash Pond System on
February 22,
1980.
(R.
18—19),
Subsequently, in May of 1981,
the Agency permitted IPC by
permit modification approval for the rerouting of overflow water
from the ash hopper boiler blowdown water, certain water treatment
plant wastes, and demineralizer regenerate wastes to the New Ash
Pond System. On November 6,
1981, the rerouting of these waters
and wastes into the New Ash Pond System was completed.
57-495
—4—
While the New Ash Pond System was under construction during
the interim time period between June,
1978 and September,
1979,
the
Petitioner
tried
to
control
the
TSS
levels
in
its
effluent
by
undertaking
various
measures
such
as
(1)
adding
a polymer to
the
sluice
water
so
that
suspended
solids
might
settle
more
rapidly;
(2)
installing
gravel
near
the
outfall
to
reduce
ash
resuspension
brought about by the action of the wind and waves;
(3)
installation
of utility
poles
in
front
of
the overflow weir to combat wave
action;
(4) designing new skimmers for the existing pond outfails;
and
(5) testing to see what further actions would be helpful.
(R.
17-19).
After construction of the New Ash Pond System was
completed on September
29,
1979, the Petitioner capped the old
ash pond on October 25,
1979.
CR.
18).
The New Ash Pond System which is currently
in use at IPC’s
generating station consists of three interconnected compartments
which are operated in series.
CR.
15).
Initially, water
is
passed into the first compartment which has a surface area of
66
acres and a design volume of 539 acre—feet.
This water is next
channeled into a smaller,
second compartment which has a surface
area
of
5.2
acres
and
a
design volume of
16 acre—feet.
The water
then
flows
into
a
third
compartment
which
is
smaller
than
the
other
two
ponds
and
has
a
surface
area
of
4.7
acres
and
a
desiqn
volume
of
14
acre—feet.
(R.
15—16).
Mr.
Thomas
L.
Davis,
P.E.,
the
supervisor
of
water
quality
for
IPC’s
Wood
River
Station,
testified
extensively
on
behalf
of
the
proponent.
(R.
9-36;
R.
122—155;
see:
Exhibit
2),
In
reference
to
various
tables
in
Exhibit B indicating the monthly
average and daily maximum TSS concentration values of the effluent
from
both
the
old
and
new
ash
pond
systems
during
the
time
period
from
January,
1976
to
June,
1983,
Mr.
Davis
indicated
that
(1)
60
(24
of
40)
of
the
monthly
average effluent TSS concentration
values from the New Ash Pond System exceeded 15.0 mg/i
arid 12,5
(5 of 40) were also greater than 30 mg/i;
(2) 85
(34 of 40)
of
the daily maximum effluent TSS concentrations from the New Ash
Pond System exceeded 15.0 mg/i and 45.0
(18 of 40) were also
greater than 30.0 mg/i;
(3) only one daily maximum TSS value
exceeded 100.0 mg/i and this occurred in April,
1980; and
(4)
these percentages are comparable with the Old Ash Pond System.
(R.
18—20;
see:
Exhibit B and Exhibit 9).
Mr. James A.
Smithson,
a certified fishery scientist who is
presently the supervisor of field biology for IPC, testified
about the biological monitoring,
testing, and treatment programs
conducted at the Petitioner’s facility.
(R.
37—107;
R.
156—162;
see:
Exhibit 3).
Mr. Smithson stated that,
although water
quality in the New Ash Pond System has promoted the development
of a diverse fish community,
“the use of green sunfish and large—
mouth bass
in the second and third ponds has generally prevented
the populations of bottom dwelling species from becoming abundant
enough to cause a major elevation in TSS~.
(R.
44).
57-498
—5—
Mr. Smithson noted that,
even though the TSS
in
the
effluent
from the New Ash Pond System often has exceeded the 15 mg/i
level,
a diverse aquatic community has thrived over the last
three years
in the New Ash Pond System and in the ditch running
from it to the Wood River Creek.
(R.
45).
After conducting an in—depth biological survey in July,
1982
to examine the aquatic communities existing in the New Ash Pond
System, Mr. Smithson determined that the system was analogous to
an “artificial back water area” where Mississippi River water
with a high TSS
is used to move ash into a retention area and the
ash and silt then settle out.
(R.
59—62).
Consequently,
the
phytoplankton
thrive
due
to
the
increased
addition of nutrients and improved water clarity.
The flourishing
phytoplankton in turn provide the primary energy source for the
rest of the aquatic community.
CR.
61).
Juvenile fish, which
are produced and thrive in the New Ash Pond System, can escape
through the discharge pipe and enter the ditch running from the
system and eventually reach Wood River Creek and the Mississippi
River.
CR.
61).
Thus,
“the very richness of the aquatic community in the New
Ash Pond System has helped to create a situation where the System’s
effluent cannot meet the present limit for TSS set in the Board
rules.”
(R.
63).
Accordingly,
Mr. Smithson concluded that “the
biological community
in the receiving waters would benefit more
from the biological contributions from the New Ash Pond System as
they currently exist than from receiving water which has been
treated
and
filtered
to
reduce
the
TSS
below
fifteen
milligrams
per liter.”
CR.
63—64).
During
the
time
period
between
April
of
1980
and
September
of
1982,
IPC
spent
over
$125,169
on
corrective
measures
to
reduce
the
TSS
levels
in effluents from its New Ash Pond System.
However,
all
such
corrective
actions
have
proved
futile.
(R.
31;
R.
34—35;
see:
Exhibits
E & F).
The seven major factors which
possibly have been contributing to high concentrations of TSS in
IPC’s effluent include
Cl) berm damage caused by burrowing muskrats;
(2)
feeding activities of bottom fish;
(3) floating fly ash and
waves;
(4) wind and wave action causing bank erosion and ash
resuspension;
(5) dramatic increases in the abundance of one or
more algal species (i.e., “algal bloom”);
(6) non—uniform distribu-
tion of influent flow through the basin
(i.e.,
“short-circuiting”)
and
(7) insufficient hydraulic detention time in the basin which
limits the amount of suspended solids which can settle out of
suspension.
CR.
30—31).
Although the Petitioner has taken
various steps to lessen the effects of these seven primary contrib-
uting factors to the TSS problem,
it has not been able to substar
tially reduce the total levels of TSS in effluent from its New
Ash Pond System.
57-497
—6—
To alleviate the berm
damage
caused
by
the
burrowing
activi-
ties
of muskrats,
IPC trapped these muskrats during the winters
of
1980 and 1981.
The Petitioner has also attempted to limit the
po~sibleeffects of the feeding activities of bottom fish by
conducting fish eradications and by adding several hundred green
sunfish,
a natural predator,
to aggressively feed upon the eggs,
fry,
and
young
bottom—dwelling
fish.
(R.
32—33;
R.
42).
To lessen the possible effects of floating fly ash and
waves,
IPC has
(1) installed boards around the skimmers in the
first
and second compartments of the New Ash Pond System in
October of 1980;
(2)
located a diagonal row of floating utility
poles in the second and third compartments of the New Ash Pond
System in July of 1981; and
(3) installed floating utility poles
near the the outfall of the first compartment of the New Ash Pond
System
in September of 1981.
CR.
32).
To reduce the effects of
wind and waves,
along with the concomitant effects of bank erosion
and ash resuspension, rip—rap was placed along the banks in the
first compartment
(to reduce shoreline erosion) during June,
1981
and additional untiiity poles were installed in rows across the
surface of the third compartment to combat wave action.
CR.
32),
Additionallly,
IPC considered using an algicide or biocide
to control algal blooms.
These blooms, which frequently result
in decreased water transparency and a visible layer of algae at
the surface, contribute to the volatile organic portions of TSS.
However, this control measure was not implemented because it
would not reduce any of the non-volatile inorganic portions of
TSS.
Moreover,
its long-term use would have a detrimental effect
on the biological communities in the New Ash Pond System and in
waters
receiving
effluent
from
the
ash
pond.
CR.
34;
R.
44—45)~
Moreover,
a
forty—five
degree
diversionary
elbow
was
installed
in July,
1981 on the inlet pipe to the second compartment in an
attempt to reduce the possible effects of short—circuiting.
CR.
33).
However, on August 31, 1982 and September 1,
1982, IPC
conducted a dye—tracer study of the flow patterns in each compart-
ment which showed that the influent was not short—circuiting.
(R.
33—34),
Similarly,
IPC’s evaluation of the theoretical and actual
hydraulic retention times
of the New Ash Pond System concluded
that the 67-day retention time was adequate and was not respon~
sible for the high concentrations of TSS.
(R.
33—34).
IPC has maintained that,
although the studies and corrective
measures that it implemented have resulted in increased control
over some of the possible sources of TSS,
its expenditures of
$125,169 and the efforts to bring the concentration levels of TSS
in the effluent from the New Ash Pond System into consistent
compliance with the 15 mg/l standard of Section 304.124(a) have
not been successful.
CR.
34—35).
57-498
—7—
According to IPC,
the only other possible corrective action
which could offer reliable assurance of the reduction of TSS in
the effluent from the New Ash Pond System to meet the 15 mg/i
limit would be treatment by means of a physiochemical wastewater
treatment plant so that chemical coagulation, flocculation,
and
preelpitatlon followed by filtration could occur.
However,
IPC
has asserted that such a facility would prove effective only at
the cost of a number of adverse economic and environmental effects.
CR.
35—36).
IPC has estimated that the installation of the
physiochemical wastewater treatment facility will cost approximately
$3,904,000
in
capital
expenditures
plus
$145,000
per
year
for
operation,
maintenance,
and
chemicals.
(R.
35—36).
In addition to the high capital and maintenance costs of
physiochemical wastewater treatment,
IPC believes that treatment
of the high level of TSS
in the New Ash Pond System by the use of
chemicals and mechanical filtration would deprive the receiving
waters of the “primary energy subsidy” from the phytoplankton and
of the recruitment of juvenile fish from the New Ash Pond System~
CR. 4~—64).
IPC has maintained that the New Ash Pond System is ecologicalli
important because
it currently serves as
a spawning and rearing
area
(i.e.,
“nursery”)
for various species of
fish and is an
abundant source of phytoplankton.
CR.
46;
R.
50—60;
R.
61—62).
Phytoplankton, the passively floating plant life of
a body of
water,
acts as a primary energy source for the surrounding aquatic
ecosystem
arid provides food and energy for growth and development
of aquatic
life.
(R.67).
Because Wood River Creek, which receives
the effluent from the New Ash
Pond
System,
is
very
limited
in
its
natural ability to maintain its own biological
and aquatic community,
the juvenile fish and phytoplankton produced in the New Ash Pond
System greatly contribute to the aquatic life in the creek.
(R.
54;
R.
61-62;
R.
68; see:
Exhibit 4).
Concomitantly, the increase
in the abundance of phytoplankton also
is a contributing factor
in the increase in the volatile,
or organic, portion of the TSS
in the New Ash Pond System.
(R.
62—63).
The Petitioner has also indicated that its utilization of
green sunfish and largemouth bass
as biological controls in the
New Ash Pond System have provided Wood River Creek and the Missis-
sippi River with an additional source of these important game
fish.
(R.
44;
R.
62).
Additionally,
IPC emphasized that its New Ash Pond System
provides a mechanism for withdrawing water from the Mississippi
River which
is high in TSS and holding the water for a while so
that silt is settled out and nutrients in the water can be
utilized
by the aquatic organisms
in the ash pond.
When water is discharged
to the unnamed tributary of Wood River Creek,
juvenile fish,
phytoplankton, and other organisms leave the ash pond system and
eventually enter Wood River Creek
arid the Mississippi River.
57-499
—8—
Accordingly,
IPC argues that treatment of the TSS in the New Ash
Pond System by the use of chemicals and mechanical filtration
~ioulddeprive the receiving waters of the primary energy subsidy
from the phytoplankton and the recruitment of
juvenile fish from
the New Ash Pond System.
(R.
83;
R.
98—101).
Conversely,
IPC
contends that the discharge of effluent containing 30 mg/i of TSS
would have no adverse effect on the aquatic community in Wood
River Creek.
(R.
36—37;
R.
45—46;
R.
63).
IPC has noted that it must currently comply with the general
TSS standard of
15 mg/I set forth in
35 Ill.
Adm. Code 304.123(a)
which applies statewide to all types of industry and facilities
without making any realistic distinction as to variations which
may occur
in the technologies employed or in existing physical
conditions.
(See:
January
6,
1972 Opinion of the Pollution
Control Board in R70—8).
Thus,
IPC believes that the Federal
effluent limitation is more apropos
to conditions experienced by
electric utilities and more relevant to the control and treatment
technologies which are effective and available to the Station
than is the limitation contained in Section 304.124(a).
(R.
137—140;
R.
156—162;
see:
Exhibit
5;
39 Fed. Reg.
36,
186
(October
8,
1974);
45 Fed. Reg.
68,
331 (October 14,
1980).
Moreover, IPC
feels that the data used to develop the Federal effluent standard
is more representative than the historical data on TSS compiled
from pollution control equipment at the Station over a relatively
short four year period, since the Federal standard represents
an
across—the-board evaluation of data from many sources throughout
the country over the life of multifaceted control equipment.
(R,
139—140;
R.
142—63).
In its written comment of January
10, 1984,
the Agency did
not dispute the basic
facts presented by the Petitioner and did
not disagree with IPC’s cost estimates,
The Agency also concluded
that “the effluent from outfall 002 of the new ash pond does not
appear to he having a deleterious effect on the aquatic life o~
the receiving stream”.
(Agency Comment,
p.
1).
Although the Agency has endorsed the 30-day average effluent
limit of
30 mg/i
of TSS as being appropriate, the Agency has
advocated that the daily maximum effluent limit for TSS applicable
to IPC’s Station should be
50 mg/i,
rather than the requested
Federal standard of 100 mg/i.
(Agency Comment,
p.
3).
Although
some daily maximum concentrations of TSS in excess of 50 mg/I
occurred at IPC’s facilities,
the Agency notes that these excur-
sions happened before “final control measures” were taken in
March,
1982 and the Agency believes that a 50 mg/i daily maximum
effluent standard for TSS will be adequate to allow IPC to continue
operations without requiring further treatment.
(Agency Comment,
p.
3).
57-500
—9—
On the other hand,
IPC has contended in its Second Written
Submission filed on January 20,
1982 that the evidence presented
at the hearings indicates that the daily maximum effluent limit
on TSS should be 100 mg/i,
rather than the 50 mg/I
figure suggested
by the Agency.
IPC has emphasized that the New Ash Pond System has only
been in operation four years out of an expected life of approx-
imately twenty years and notes the fact that, as ash accumulates,
the retention time will decline and allow less TSS to settle out
in
the
system.
Consequently,
the
TSS
concentration
in the effluent
discharged will increase over time and therefore a higher limit
of
100 mg/i
is needed.
(2nd Written IPC Comment,
p.
2;
R.
135—136).
IPC points out
that
the
Agency’s
endorsement
of
a
50
mg/i
maximum daily TSS standard is based on a relatively small sample
of data over a short time period which shows most daily maximum
levels
at or
below
the
50
mg/i level, and does not take into
account the natural and probable consequences of the accumulation
of ash in the ash pond.
CR. 135—136).
Additionally,
IPC
disputes
the
Agency’s
view
that
the
levels
of TSS that were higher than 50 mg/i on various occasions were
anomalies which were eliminated after
“final control measures”
were instituted in March,
1982.
The Petitioner states that the
Agency’s position has totally disregarded the long history of
attempts to control the levels of TSS discharged at Wood River
Station from both the old and new ash pond systems which have
proved unsuccessful and have rendered assumptions about the
“final” effect of
control
measures
“exceedingly
dubious”..
(2nd
Written IPC Comment,
p.
2).
In its present situation,
the Petitioner has asserted that
the site-specific data involved here makes forecasting future
events very difficult,
and notes that the USEPA’s data,
which has
a broader base,
appears
to
be
more appropriate for determining
the applicable
TSS standards.
(2nd Written IPC Comment, p~3—4).
In
evaluating
Illinois
Power
Company’s site—specific regulatory
proposal, the
Board
finds
that
the
record
demonstrates that the
reduction of the
general
effluent
standard for this source to 30
mg/i
as
an average of daily values
for total suspended solids and
a daily maximum
limit
of
100
mg/i for total suspended solids
discharged from the ash pond system of IPC’s Wood River Station
in East Alton,
Ilinois is appropriate and environmentally acceptable.
The Board believes that the evidence has shown that the good faith
efforts of the Petitioner to control total suspended solids to
meet the existing TSS limitation of
15
mg/i
set
forth
in
Section
304.124(a) have not proven effective.
57-501
The evidence has also demonstrated that the possible installa-
tion of a physiochemical wastewater treatment facility, which
would cost in excess of $3.9 million to install
and over $145,000
annually
to
operate
and
maintain,
would
not
necessarily
offer
reliable
assurance
of
an
adequate
reduction
of
TSS
in
the
effluent
from
the new
ash
pond
system
and
would
adversely influence the
recruitment
of
juvenile
fish.
Furthermore, the Board
finds that the Agency’s suggested
daily
maximum
TSS
effluent
limit
of
50
mg/i
is
not
appropriate
in
light
of
the
record
in
this
case,
The
Board
therefore
proposes
to
adopt
the
100
mg/l
daily
maximum.
While the
Board
has
carefully
evaluated
the
Agency’s
argument
that adopting the Federal standard in this particular instance
will set a new precedent, the Agency’s concerns seem unwarranted.
In the past,
the Board has, on numerous occasions, approved
relaxation of a
state
standard
to
the level of a
Federal
standard
in specific instances where it has been proven appropriate.
Each
such relaxation must be justified by the source seeking it.
The Board assumes that further attempts to improve solids
settling
will
be continued.
One such suggestion may be in the
use
of
pontoons
with
silt
curtains
or
also
the
use
of
rafts
or
utility poles to accomplish this purpose and we would appreciate
comments on this technique
from
IPC,
the
Agency,
and
members
of
the public during the first notice period.
Accordingly,
the Board will grant the Petitioner the requested
relief,
ORDER
The Board hereby proposes to add a new §304,209 to Subpart B
of Part 304 of Title 35 of the Illinois Administrative Code which
shall read as follows:
~ection3O4.209
Wood River
StaTotSundSolid
Discharges
The
limitation on the
~
tamed
in Section 304. 124(a) sl
1
to the dischar
~~sflj~nd
system
of
~il
~s
Power
c2m
an’s
Wood Ri~er
Stations
located
in
East
Alton,
Illinois,
Instead,
the
concen—
trat
ion of Total ~
avera e of dail
values for thirt
(30) consecutive da
s and
salnotexceed
100
m~1
as
a maximum for an~~ne~
IT
IS
SO
ORDERED.
51~502
—11—
I, Christan L.
Moffett,
Clerk
of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board,
hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order
was adopted on the~1~day~
1984 by a vote of
Illinois
P0
Control Board
57-503
