ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 11, 1989
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
)
R87-6
PHOSPHORUS EFFLUENT STANDARD,
)
35 ILL. PADM. CODE 304.123
)
PROPOSED RULE. SECOND FIRST NOTICE.
PROPOSED OPINION AND ORDER O~THE BOARD (by J. Anderson):
A. Background
This rulemaking was initiated by the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (Agency) on March 20, 1987. The Agency filed
an amended proposal on July 13, 1987. The Agency proposes that
the Board make the following changes to the phosphorus effluent
standard of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.123:
1. Delete existing Paragraph 304.123(b). This
would result in discharges to the Fox River
Basin being regulated under the generally
applicable proposed paragraphs.
2. Delete existing Paragraphs 304.123(c) and
d). These would be replaced with a single
paragraph which would impose a 1.0 mg/i
effluent standard on all dischargers of 2500
population equivalents (P.E.) or more, but
only if the discharge is located within 40.25
kilometers (25 miles) of a 20—acre or larger
lake. As amended, the Agency proposal would
also exempt all dischargers to Lake Decatur
and its tributaries; according to the Agency
in its “Additional Justification” for the
Amendment to Proposal filed July 13, 1987,
this further amendment will make the Agency’s
proposal in this docket consistent with the
Agency’s reasoning in its proposal in Board
proceeding R83-20, In the Matter of: Proposed
Water Quality and Effluent Standard
Amendmentsfor Water in the Sangamon River
Basin.* The current exemption for third—stage
lagoon systems would be retained.
*
R83—20 was dismissed on April 7, 1988, upon Motion by the
Agency.
99—83
—2—
3. Delete the compliance dates in Paragraphs (f)
and (g), and replace them with a single
paragraph specifying compliance with the new
standard as soon as the discharger has the
capability, but in rio event later than the
“federally mandated” ~NPDES) deadline of July
1, 1988. The Board was advised by the Agency
(a) that the United States Environmental
Protection Agency has “adopted” the proposal
as part of its approval of the Illinois NPDES
program.
Merit hearings were held in Chicago on May 18, 1987, and in
Springfield on July 21, 1987. Participants at the hearings
besides the ~gency were the Northeastern Illinois Planning
Commission (NIPC), the Department of Energy and Natural Resources
(DENR), the Urbana and Champaign Sanitary District (U—C Sanitary
District) and members of the public.
Following completion of the merit hearings, DENR, with the
concurrence of the Economic Technical Advisory Committee (ETAC),
determined that an Economic Impact Study (EcIS) was warranted in
this proceeding. On March 31, 1988, an EcIS report prepared on
behalf of DENR by Blaser, Zeni and Co., a management consulting
firm, was filed with the Board (Exh. 40). On April 7, 1988, the
Board adopted the Agency’s proposal for first notice. This first
notice appeared in the Illinois Register on April 29, 1988.
Upon receipt of the EcIS report, the Board scheduled and
conducted two additional public hearings to consider the EcIS.
Present at these hearings were DENR, the Agency and William L.
Blaser, President of Blaser, Zeni and Co. and the principal
author of the EcIS report. Some other members of the EcIS
drafting team were also present. Hearings were held on June 7,
1988 in Springfield, and on June 21, 1988 in Chicago.
On December 15, 1988, the Board adopted for Second Notice a
Proposed Opinion and Order in the matter. Since the Second
notice proposal differed in certain respects from the ~gency—
drafted First Notice proposal, the Board deferred filing of the
proposal to allow interested participants opportunity to
comment. On January 5, 1989 in order to correct a drafting error
in the December 15, 1988 Order, the Board adopted a Correction of
Proposed Order of the Board.
Five public comments (Nos. 12—16) were received in response
to the Board’s Second, Notice Proposal. Public Comment U5 was
filed by the Agency. In response to questions from the Board’s
staff requesting clariEication of the intent and effect of
certain of the Agency’s comments, the Agency on March 9, 1989
filed Supplemental Agency Final Comments (Public Comment 17).
Changes to the body of the proposed Second Notice Order and other
99—84
—3—
responses to Public Comments 12 through 17 are separately
described and explained below (see “Response to Public Comments
Regarding Deferred Second Notice Proposal”).
Since, pursuant to Section 5.01(d) of the Illinois
Administrative Procedure Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, Ch. 127, par.
1001 et seq., par. 1005.01(d), no rule can be adopted more than
one year after the date of publication of First Notice, it is
obviously necessary to return this proceeding to First Notice.
The Board will utilize this necessity to afford the participants
additional time to consider this rulemaking in lightof the
changes proposed by the Board (see following). Additionally, the
Board has concluded that at least one more hearing in this docket
will be advisable in view of the continuing problems posed by the
present record. The Hearing Officer is directed to schedule such
a hearing as soon as practicable.
B. Eutrophication of Lakes and Reservoirs
The Participants introduced some 48 exhibits (one, Exh. 36,
was withdrawn). Chief among these were the Agency’s 1986 report,
“Phosphorus: A summary of Information Regarding Lake Water
Quality” IEPA/WPC/86—010 (introduced and admitted as Exhibit 1),
and the EcIS Report, “A Economic Analysis of Proposed Amendments
To Water Pollution Regulations Phosphorus Discharges
-
R87—6”,
Department of Energy and Natural Resources, 1988 (introduced and
admitted as Exhibit 40). These two reports tend to rely upon and
summarize data contained in many of the other exhibits; for
instance, pages 8—13 of the Agency’s report (Exh. 1) cites
Exhibits 8—12 in support of its discussion of phosphorus
transport in streams (see also R.2l—22 (5/18/871). Exhibits 8—12
are reports by various authors of results of studies of
phosphorus in a number of settings including the Lake Erie
watershed (Exh. 8), the Lake Champlain Basin (Exh. 10) and a
portion of the Sangamon River in Illinois
(Exh.
12).
Both principal studies and several cornrnenters viewed
phosphorus loading as, generally, the key determinant of
“eutrophication”. The term “eutrophication” was generally used
to describe the accelerated decline in water quality of lakes
attributable to human activities which introduce excessive
nutrient (e.g., phosphorus) loadings; this is also referred to as
“cultural eutrophication” (Exh. 40, pgs. 10—12; Exh. 32, Att. 1,
pgs. 10—11). The commenters and reports noted, however, that
lake eutrophication is a very complicated process, involving
significant other factors, such as retention time, turbidity,
lake depth, other nut,rient loadings, temperature, algal species
and abundance, internal regeneration, seasonal timing and
numerous other factors. (Exh. 1, pcjs. 8, 30—34; Exh. 40, pgs. 12—
16, Exh. 32 and attachments). All cornmenters agreed that control
and moderation of eutrophication require knowledge of lake—
9 9—85
—4—
specific conditions; control of point sources of phosphorus may
be of little use in one area, but may be valuable in others. All
agreed that in—lake phosphorus management strategies could be
highly beneficial. Changes in other factors (e.g., turbidity)
may increase or decrease the relative importance of phosphorus
loading (Exh. 1, pg. 57; Exh. 40, pgs. 128—131, Exh. 32).
One commenter in particular, Dr. Paul F. Derr, an
environmental consultant to FMC Corporation, characterized
phosphorus, oer se, as “not the cause of eutrophication” (Exh.
32, pg. 2; emphasis in original). Rather, he asserted,
phosphorus is but one of “15 to 20 essential nutrient elements”,
high inputs of which lead to cultural eutrophication,
“particularly when they enter streams and lakes as organic
wastes” (id). Such organic forms, according to Dr. Derr, “place
a large oxygen demand on these waters, which leads to rapid
recycling of all the nutrient elements from the sediments into
the surface waters to support algal growth” (id; R..81—82
7/21/871; emphasis in original). The value of phosphorus
measurements and standards, concludes Dr. Derr, is as “nothing
more than a tracer of organic pollution which contains all of the
fifteen to twenty nutrient elements” (Exh. 32, pg. 3, and Att.
III, pg. 11; R.84—85 7/21/87
).
In turn, he notes, phosphorus
removal and control is only valuable as a “surrogate” for BOD and
COD control, that is, for removal and control of the 15 to 20
nutrients (P.95—96,101—103 and 109—110 7/21/87
) ,
since control
of phosphorus tends to control the other nutrients as well.
Neither the Agency nor DENR took issue with Dr. Derr’s
statements; as Dr. Derr noted, the essential difference between
his views and those expressed by the Agency in Exhibit 1 is the
Agency’s occasional reference to “phosphorus removal” rather than
“nutrient removal” (R.llO 7/21/87).
C. Trophic Status of Lakes and Reservoirs
Not’.;i ihstandin~j the
unce ~t~
ii~
cat: ~alation
between phOe.~)hO~us
and lake eutrophication, both the Agency and DENR focused their
attention upon phosphorus in gauging the trophic status of lakes
and reservoirs. Although the Agency’s phosphorus study (Exh. 1)
and the EcIS report (Exh. 40) differed as to the use of the so—
called “Vollenweider model”, they have both used the model (see,
e.g., Exh. 1, pgs. 32—33, and Exh. 40, pgs. 17—19). The model,
as modified by Rast and Lee and others provides a means of
determining “critical” phosphorus loading rates of lakes and for
classifying lakes’ “trophic states” based on their phosphorus
loading, morphometric characteristics and algal biomass. (see
Exh. 1, pg. 33) Under this model, lakes and reservoirs are
generally classed as being oligotrophic (total phosphorus
concentration of less than 10 ug/l), mesotrophic (total
phosphorus concentrations of 30—80 ug/l), or eutrophic (total
phosphorus concentrations of mote than 80 ug/1). Lakes or
reservoirs having total phosphorus concentrations of at least 100
99—86
—5—
ugh are sometimes described as “hypertrophic”. Although 86
percent of all Illinois lakes surveyed exhibit eutrophic
conditions (Exh. 1, pg. 14), two of the six lakes potentially
impacted by this rulemaking may not be classified as eutrophic; a
third has not had its trophic state redetermined since its
division into two separate impoundments in 1981 (see
following). In any event, due to seasonal variations and other
factors, the range of phosphorus values from individual samples
can overlap; that is, a single sample from a eutrophic lake may
exhibit a total phosphorus concentration which is also consistent
with another trophic status •(see Exh. 40, Table 111—2, pg. 18).
D. The Nature and Behavior of Phosphorus
Although the hearings in this proceeding were sometimes
contentious, there was little disagreement over the Agency’s
characterization of the behavior of phosphorus in streams and
lakes. It was not disputed that “for a typical wastewater
discharge to a stream there is a significant increase in instream
phosphorus concentration, depending on dilution, followed by a
rapid decline in water column concentrations to the point where
ambient levels approach the background levels found upstream.
This typically occurs within approximately 10 miles under low
flow conditions” (Exh. 27, pg. 4; R.39 7/21/871).
There was also agreement that the rapid decline in water
column concentration of phosphorus was due primarily to
dilution. Another factor may be the conversion of phosphorus
from one of its dissolved forms into one of the particulate
forms. Although the phosphorus standard is (and under the
Agency’s proposal would continue to be) expressed in terms of
total phosphorus (the sum of particulate phosphorus and dissolved
phosphorus), measurement is taken of only the water column. The
Agency did not suggest that the decline in total phosphorus
measurements indicated destruction or conversion of this element.
Rather, its Final Comments (PC #10,
p.?)
suggest that this and
other basic EcIS conclusions on phosphorus transport and loading
(e.g., that substantially all phosphorus released to a tributary
stream eventually reaches the receiving lake or reservoir) are
“self
—
evident”.
No commenters disagreed with the Agency characterization of
its experiences with small dischargers (or defining small
dischargers as all those with flows of less than 2500 population
equivalents, or “P.E.”). According to the gency, such
facilities find it very difficult and disproportionately
expensive to achieve •and maintain compliance with the standard
using small mechanical facilities (P.20—21 5/18/87).
Similarly, there was no disagreement with the Agency’s assertion
that a phosphorus effluent standard less than 1.0 mg/i is
technically infeasible (P.13,17—18 5/18/87
).
Finally, there
was no opposition to the Agency’s exemption of Lake Decatur
99—87
—6—
tributaries, which was based essentially on its short hydraulic
retention time: the two other factors cited by the Agency,
namely, high turbidity and extensive non-point contributions
(P.42 7/21/87), are shared to some degree by most of the other
five lakes identified in the EcIS as affected under the Agency’s
proposal (see below).
E. The Impact of the Agency’s Proposal
The EcIS determined that there are six lakes which have
tributary treatment plants potentially impacted by the Agency’s
proposal (EcIS report, pg. 2). These are:
1.
Crab Orchard Lake
2. Lake Decatur
3. Pistakee Lake
4.
Lake Charleston
5.
Lake Shelbyville
6. Lake Carlyle
The authors of the EcIS report identified
and listed some 38
point sources which are tributary to these six lakes and which
are subject to the current standard (Exh. 40, Table 11—1, pg.
3). Of these point sources, some 21 are listed as being exempted
from the 1.0
mg/i phosphorus standard under the Agency’s
proposal. These 21 point sources, and the reason(s) for their
exemption under the Agency’s proposal, are summarized in Table
11—2 of Exhibit 40, which table
is reproduced below:
99—88
—7—
TABLE
11-2
Illinois Wastewater Treatment Plants
Exempted by
Adoption of
Proposed
Regulation R87—6
As of 2/15/88
Reason For Exemption
Phosphorus—
25 mile
Increase in
Lake
Decatur
Rei~va1
LakeAMrP
Exemption
P.E. Exemption
Exemption
Capability
CARLYLE
CF Ir~3ustries
x
No
Pana
x
Yes
Shelbyville
x
Yes
CHkRLEST~~
Arcola
x
Yes*
Tolono
x
No
Tuscola*
x
No
Villa Grove
x
Yes*
CRAB ORCHARD
Crab Orchard NWR
x
No
DECA’lUR
Cerro Gordo
x
x
No
Fisher
x
x
x
No
Gibson City
x
x
Yes
Mahomet
x
x
No
Monticello
x
No
Viobin Corp.
x
No
PISTAKEE
Hebron
x
Yes
SHELBYVILLE
Arthur
x
No
Bement
x
x
No
Bethany
x
Kraft, Inc.
x
No
Urbana—Champaign. x
Yes
US Ind. Chem.
x
No
*
City will
combine two existing plants into one new facility.
9 9—89
—8—
The gross “benefit” of adopting the Agency’s proposal for
these 21 sources, in terms of cost savings only, is estimated by
the EcIS to amount to $567,566 per year (Exh. 40, Table XI—2, pg.
102). Actually, since two of these 21 point sources, Kraft, Inc.
and Viobin Corp., are shown as having no measurable phosphorus in
their effluent, (Exh. 40, Tables VIII—4, pg. 67, and XI—l, pg.
101), the annual benefits are actually spread among the remaining
19 point sources (Exh. 40, Table XI—2, pg. 102). These benefits
range from $9,779 for Bethany to $136,726 for U.S. Industrial
Chemical Company (USICC). No “non—dollar” benefits were
identified by the EcIS (Exh. 40, pg. 103).
As Table 11—2 of the EcIS report shows, 16 of the 21 sites
which would be exempt from the operation of the current standard
by adoption of the Agency’s proposal would qualify for that
exemption by virtue of the 25 miles exemption; four of these 16
sites would also qualify for exemption under one or more of the
other criteria
changed under the proposal (i.e.,
the increase in
the population equivalents criteria and/or the blanket exclusion
for Lake Decatur tributaries). Hence, 12 of these sites
(including Kraft, Inc.) would be exempt solely by virtue of the
25 mile exemption.
F. Costs vs. Benefits
The authors of the EcIS attempted to assess the costs of
adopting the Agency’s proposal (Exh. 40, Chapter XII, pgs. 104—
116). They considered as “primary costs” the reduction in the
quantity and quality of recreational activities associated with
each of the affected lakes (Exh. 40, pg. 105); the implicit
assumption is that increases in phosphorus loading causes or
triggers such reduction in recreational activities. “Secondary
costs” were also identified. These include losses of
expenditures for sport fishing and other forms of aquatic
recreation as well as costs to farmers for obtaining alternatives
to those phosphorus—rich wastewater treatment plant sludges used
as fertilizer. The report also suggested that other
consequences, including impossible—to—quantify costs, may occur
(Exh. 40, pg. 105). The report identified no non—monetary costs
(Exh. 40, pg. 115).
The EelS acknowledged that no study had been found which
correlates changes in phosphorus concentrations with changes in
aquatic recreation under circumstances applicable to Illinois
(Exh. 40, pg. 117). It concluded that such scarcity of data
precluded any reasonably defensible dollar estimates of cost
consequences of adoption of the proposal (Exh. 40, pg. vii and
117). It proposed, in place of such a study, use of a form of
break—even analysis, under which the known benefits were
correlated with the corresponding reduction in aquatic—related
recreation, expressed as “consumer surplus”, adopted from Ciecka,
James E., et al., An Economic Analysis of Phosphorus Control and
99—90
—9—
Other Aspects of R76—1, Illinois Institute for Environmental
Quality, Chicago, 1978 (Exh. 40, pgs. 118—122 and Appendix 13—2,
pgs. A13—l to Al3—3). According to this methodology, the
reduction required in aquatic—related recreation to exceed
anticipated benefits, if one assumes benefits and costs both
commence in 1989, is approximately 2.B for all six lakes, with a
range of 0.3 for Lake Pistakee to 15.8 for Lake Charleston
(Exh. 40, Table xIII—l, pg. 119). However, the authors argue
that costs associated with increased phosphorus loading may not
be fully realized for some time, as it can take months and
perhaps years for the phosphorus (especially in its particulate
form) to be transported to the receiving lakes or reservoirs and
fully assimilated. For the sake of comparison, the EcIS authors
calculated and displayed the results of assuming that costs would
not begin (manifest themselves) until five years after benefits
had begun. Under this Set of assumptions, the reduction in
aquatic—related recreation necessary to exceed anticipated
benefits was calculated to be approximately 3.9 for all six
lakes, with a range of from 0.4 for Lake Pistakee to 22.2 for
Lake Charleston (Exh. 40, Table Xiii—2, pg. 120). Finally, the
authors of the EelS argue that “to determine whether the benefits
of adoption exceed the costs, it is not necessary to accurately
estimate the resulting decrease in usage”. Rather, they suggest,
it is necessary only “to determine whether the estimated decrease
in usage is less than the break—even percentage”
(Exh. 40, pg.
121). The EelS report does not explain how one can determine
whether the “decrease in usage” is less than some value (“break—
even percentage”) without some estimation of what that “decrease
in usage” is.
G. EelS Conclusions
The EelS concludes that no significant change in aquatic—
related recreation will occur with respect to any of the
potentially
impacted lakes, except for Lake Shelbyville,
where
the resulting decrease in recreational usage is described as “un—
quantified”.
Also, “un—quantified” is the change in aquatic—
related recreation for all six lakes taken as a whole (Exh. 40,
pgs. 121—122).
Using the Vollenweider model, the EelS predicted
an average percentage increase in total phosphorus loadings to
the receiving lakes
resulting from the approval of the Agency’s
proposal as follows:
Lake
Status
Increase in P
Crab Orchard
Eutrophic
0.4
Pistakee
Eutrophic
0.5
Decatur
Eutrophic
6.7
99—91
—10—
Charleston
Eutrophic (?)l*
10.5
Shelbyville
Mesotrophic
19.4 (26.9)2
Carlyle
Mesotrophic(?)3
5.4
(Date for the above graphic was extracted from Exh. 40, pgs.
24,28—29,34,38—39,44,48—49,57,61,66—67,71—73,77,81 and 85—86).
The EelS conclusions for the lakes which are described as
“Eutrophic” are based generally upon the assumption that
additions of phosphorus to eutrophic lakes should not cause a
biologically significant increase in algal productivity. The
EelS uses virtually identical language with respect to each of
the first three lakes, suggesting that the alleged non—effect of
additional phosphorus is due to the “already high levels of
primary production” (see pgs. 29,38 and 48). It appears to hold
that Lake Charleston also falls within this principle, but also
characterizes Lake Charleston as more “riverine’t than lake—like
due to its asserted very short hydraulic retention time (Exh. 40,
pg. 61) and thus less likely to support high production of algal
biomass despite its eutrophic classification. It also appears to
suggest that Lakes Decatur and Charleston are more similar to
each other than to the other potentially affected lakes, due
mainly to their asserted very low retention
times, although the
EelS acknowledges th~t water quality data for Lake Charleston is
“extremely limited”.
*
1 Trophic status of this lake has not been determined
since its division into two separate impoundments in 1981.
2 Second figure (in parenthesis) is based on more recent
but less reliable (single sample) data regarding effluent from
USICC. (see page 10).
EelS (pg. 85) states that this lake “can be considered
an eutrophic lake, but may also be borderline mesotrophic”. This
is due to conflicting chlorophyll a and N:? data. Tributaries to
Lake Shelbyville are also tributary to this lake, which is
downstream from the Shelbyville dam.
See Exh. 40, pg. 61. Lake Charleston’s mean hydraulic
retention time, according to the EelS, is a fraction of one day;
both Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 40 place Lake Decatur’s mean hydraulic
retention time at 11 days although the Agency’s statement (Exh.
27, pg. 6; P.42 7/21/87
suggests its retention time is 7
days. The Board w~ 1nl~1e to locate, in the record of this
proceeding or in R83—20 (to ~ihich the Agency referred), support
for the 7—day assertion. Note also that the conclusions of the
EelS regarding Lake Charleston have been challenged by commentars
(see P.C. #12 and 14).
99—92
—11—
The EelS conclusion for Lake Shelbyville is that the fairly
substantial increase in phosphorus loading and chlorophyll a
concentration which would be attributable to adoption of the
proposal ~may be considered a biologically significant increase”.
(Exh. 40, pg. 72); this conclusion is tempered by the possible
effect of unidentified other factors which may be limiting algal
productivity. In any event, the lake is described as possibly
being in a “transitional stage of eutrophication” (Id). Further
complicating the issue is the existence of somewhat contradictory
data regarding the phosphorus loading attributable to USICC. Two
possible assumptions were identified. “Assumption I” is that the
USICC effluent phosphorus concentration is 1.64 mg/i as suggested
by USICC’s 1981 permit application data. “Assumption II” is that
USICC’s effluent phosphorus concentration is 5.8 mg/i as
suggested by a single—sample value obtained by the Agency in
1987. This difference is described by the EelS as “significant”
(Exh. 40, pgs. 72—73). Simply stated, if Assumption I is
utilized, the percent increase
in phosphorus loadings to the lake
from all sources is 19.4, while the figure jumps to 28.9 under
Assumption II (Exh. 40, pg. 73). Put another way, using EelS
data the Board has calculated that under Assumption I, USICC will
contribute a 1.45 increase in phosphorus loadings to Lake
Shelbyville if the Agency’s proposal is adopted (2063 kg/year
divided by 142,131 kg/year); under Assumption II, USICC will
contribute a 10.88 increase in phosphorus loading under
identical conditions (15,470 kg/year divided by 142,131 kg/year).
As for Lake Carlyle, the EelS is ambiguous. While
suggesting the lake can be considered eutrophic, it notes that a
relatively low chlorophyll a level exists, suggesting that
phosphorus may not be the limiting factor in algal
productivity. Lake Carlyle, it asserts, “may be a lake that is
in a delicate balance between mesotrophy and eutrophy” (Exh. 40,
pg. 85). The effect of other factors influencing the lake’s
trophic state is suggested but not quantified by the EelS. Based
on the assumption that one or more such other unidentified
factors may be at work in Lake Carlyle, the EelS concludes that
the 5.4 increase in phosphorus loading would have no effect on
primary (algal) productivity “unless a change in these limiting
factors would occur” (Exh. 40, pg. 86).
It must be remembered that the EelS’ descriptions of trophic
states are primarily reflective of the biological production
levels of each lake; other phenomena affecting the trophic state
of a lake are not equally taken into account. Hence, as the EelS
report acknowledges (pg. 12), “a lake may be defined as eutrophic
because of its nutrient status, but in terms of productivity
it may be something less than eutrophic”.
Unfortunately, the EelS provides little in the way of
guidance as to either the net economic impact of the Agency’s
proposed rules or the appropriate measure of when a particular
99—93
—12—
point source contributes a significant phosphorus load to a
receiving lake or reservoir. It provides no meaningful economic
impact figures. Its “break—even” analysis lacked numerical
estimates of the resulting decrease in lake usage attributable to
grant of the requested relief, making use of its breakeven
formula impossible. The Board cannot comprehend how one can, as
the EelS suggests (pg. 121) “determine whether the resulting
decrease in usage is more or less than the break—even percentage”
if one does not or cannot estimate that resulting decrease in
usage. Neither the EelS nor any other exhibit or testimony
attempted to substantiate its conclusions regarding loss of
aquatic—related recreation except to the extent that all
eutrophic lakes were essentially lumped together as experiencing
“no significant change”. All other conclusions regarding loss of
such use were “un—quantified”.
Board Conclusions and Modifications
The Board notes that the Record of this proceeding does not
provide the Board with unambiguous data on the role of
phosphorus, (particularly measured as total phosphorus in the
water column) in the eutrophication of lakes generally. Neither
for that matter, does it provide solid data needed to assess the
impact and contribution of phosphorus to the trophic status of
any of the six lakes discussed at length in the EelS. Absent
such data, it is very difficult to project the consequences of
increasing phosphorus loadings as suggested by the Agency’s
proposal. However, there is little to suggest that phosphorus is
not at least useful in broad general terms in gauging the
nutrient load tributary to a lake. Since there is ample support
on the record for the notion that control of phosphorus is
effective to control such nutrient loading, the Board will (as
have most of the commenters) presume that, all other factors
being equal, phosphorus is the limiting factor in
eutrophication. This presumption, of course, can be overcome by
other factors. As more information become known about the
eutrophication dynamics of specific lakes and reservoirs in
Illinois, it may be necessary to reconsider this position.
Within these limitations, the Board finds that the Agency
has amply demonstrated the wisdom of applying a 1.0 mg/i effluent
phosphorus as P standard upon all point sources of 2500 P.E. or
more located within 25 miles of a 20—acre or larger lake or
reservoir. It is the Agency’s testimony that the 1.0 mg/i
standard is attainable using conventional treatment, and that
add—on phosphorus control for point sources of less than 2500
P.E. is uncertain, e~çpensive and difficult. The Board will
accept this testimony as true in the absence of contrary data in
the record; the Board does not understand the Agency to suggest
that all of those point sources under 2500 P.E. which have such
controls are unsuccessful in their efforts to control
phosphorus. The Board also believes that retaining the treatment
99—94
—13—
requirement for all dischargers within 25 miles is prudent based
on the Agency’s data showing that phosphorus from nearby point
sources is more likely to reach the lake in the more readily
available dissolved phosphorus form for immediate algae uptake
than is the phosphorus from more distant dischargers. Exemption
of tributaries to Lake Decatur appears warranted, due primarily
to its short hydraulic retention time, although the record is not
absolutely clear on that point.
The Board is not, however, satisfied that the Agency has
demonstrated that significant point sources of phosphorus which
happen to be located more than 25 miles from a lake can be
generally ignored by these phosphorus rules. First, what little
is known of the six impacted lakes from the record of the
proceeding suggests that, at least in some cases, particulate
phosphorus could have a significant impact on trophie status. At
least two of the lakes are classified as mesotrophic. One in the
internal regeneration process of these is described in the EelS
as “transitional”, the other as possibly being in a “delicate
balance between mesotrophy and eutrophy”. This suggests to the
Board that even small changes in phosphorus loading could be
critical. When other factors are considered, one or more of the
other four lakes potentially impacted by this rulemaking may
prove either not to be eutrophic or to be similarly
“transitional” or “balanced” (e.g., Lake Charleston, for which no
current data exists, and Lake Decatur, which was described by the
EelS report in docket P83—20 Exh. 4(a), pg. 99 as being non—
eutrophic). Second, no exhibit or testimony was offered to
challenge the EelS assumption that substantially all phosphorus
released in an effluent eventually reaches the downstream lake or
reservoir. Third, no exhibit or testimony was offered to
challenge the concept that particulate phosphorus may, through
the processes of internal regeneration, be converted back into
the dissolved form through anoxie, aerobic and other processes.
Indeed, the Agency stated that such internal regeneration can be
a “significant factor” in lake eutrophication (Exh. 1, pgs. 6—8,
34—38 and 54). This is a view evidently shared by Dr. Derr (Exh.
32, pg. 2) and DENR (Exh. 40, pg.l5).
The foregoing suggests to the Board that distance alone is
not dispositive as to the need for phosphorus controls on a point
source. The record contains numerous unchallenged assertions
that additional study is needed in order to understand the
specific dynamics of eutrophication on a lake—by—lake basis (P.16
5/18/87; Exh. 1, pg. 57; exh. 7; Exh. 40, pgs. 128—131).
Absent such understanding, the record suggests that the role and
relative impact of particulate phosphorus (from any significant
source,
including sources more than 25 miles distant) on the
water quality of a given lake cannot be readily determined. The
record affirms (e.g., Exh. 29, P.61—64 (7/21/87)) that internal
regeneration of phosphorus can be critical.
99—95
—14—
There remains the thorny issue of what constitutes a
significant individual point source contribution to a lake’s
overall phosphorus loading. The EelS reveals that at least one
measure, the potential untreated phosphorus loading from a given
point source relative to the overall potential phosphorus loading
of the receiving lake, is supported by the record. The EelS
indicates that only a handful of point sources (7) more than 25
miles upstream of the receiving lakes potentially contribute more
than 3 of the total phosphorus loading to such lakes. Two of
these (Urbana—Champaign and USICC) are tributary to Lake
Shelbyville and, by extension, Lake Carlyle, the lakes of obvious
greatest concern to the authors of the EelS. Since the EelS
suggests, and the Agency does not deny, that relatively small
contributions to a mesotrophic lake might result in eutrophic
conditions, it would seem prudent and fully supported by the
record to at least include within the standard those point
sources which have been identified as sizeable or significant.
In this case, the EelS has noted the importance of tJSICC’s daily
flow of 2.336 million gallons per day as the third—largest point
source potentially affected by these rules; it further describes
the range of variables in that discharge as “significant” and the
potential point source increases attributable to adoption of the
Agency’s proposal as “relatively high”. The Board notes that
under either “Assumption I” or “Assumption II” (see above), the
relative contribution of USICC is at least 3 (actually, under
Assumption I, 3.1). The Board finds that 3 is therefore a
reasonable measure of “significance”, and has amended Section
304.123 accordingly, adding subsection (c)(2).
It is also apparent to the Board that, insofar as is known,
Lake Charleston has characteristics similar to those of Lake
Decatur. Their common distinguishing feature is their relatively
low hydraulic retention times. If, as the Agency suggests,
sources tributary to Lake Decatur should be exempted, there
appears to be no reason to not exempt sources tributary to Lake
Charleston or any other lake exhibiting such “riverine” traits.
The Board will, therefore, so frame this
proposal as to exclude
sources tributary to lakes having short retention times. The
Board believes that a retention time of 18 days (0.05 years) or
less is a reasonable standard, consistent with the Agency’s
pronouncements and its exhibits in this proceeding, particularly
Exhibit 7. This standard is reflected in the last clause of
subsection (b) and in subparagraph (e)(l) of Section 304.123.
Finally, the Board declines to adopt the July 1, 1988
deadline as proposed by the Agency in its subsection (d)(2) of
Section 304.123, and which the Agency states is federally
mandated. The Board does so for three reasons. First, the date
is manifestly impossible to attain; because of procedural
requirements the proceedings in this docket were not capable of
being completed until after July 1, 1988. Second, this date may
be subject to unilateral modification and can cause confusion.
99—96
—15—
The Board notes that the regulatory compliance dates for combined
sewer overflows (35 Ill. Adm. Code 306.306) were also derived
from such administrative deadlines, which deadlines have long
since been superseded. Third, any enforceability of the date
derives from the Act, so the Board’s language is unnecessary.
Therefore, as a matter of practice, the Board is reluctant to
embed such requirements in its regulations. The Board considered
removing this subsection, now subsection (e)(2), in its entirety,
consistent with its view that whatever authority the Agency may
have to condition its permits in this regard is derived from the
Act, rather than from Board rules. It should thus be understood
that the reference in (e)(2) to compliance dates “as required by
NPDES permit” is intended by the Board as purely informational
rather than as a purported delegation of authority to the Agency
by Board rule.
Response to Public Comments Regarding Deferred Second Notice
Proposal
The comments received by the Board were varied. Several
persons noted the typographical errors in proposed Section
304.123(b) and (c), in which 25 miles was equated with 10.25
kilometers; the correct figure, 40.25 kilometers, has been
restored.
Two comrnenters objected to the exclusion of phosphorus
dischargers tributary to Lake Charleston. Both commenters, Mr.
Alford (P.C. #12) and Mr. Sherman (P.C. #14) represent the City
of Charleston. Both assert that they are familiar with Lake
Charleston characteristics and have reservations regarding the
accuracy of data and assumptions contained in the EelS. Mr.
Alford suggests that the hydraulic retention time attributed to
Lake Charleston may be substantially understated. Both
commenters urge the Board not to rely upon current data, noting
that the City of Charleston, partly in conjunction with the
Agency, is conducting studies of the lake and reservoir. They
request the Board take no action to revise the effluent
phosphorus standard as to Lake Charleston until studies of the
lake and reservoir are complete.
In this regard, the Board again is confronted by conflicting
opinions, assumptions and data. Consistent with the return to
First Notice, the interim nature of these proposed rules and the
fact that, for whatever reason, these commenters did not
participate in the Board’s hearings in this matter to provide
testimony, the Board will not modify this Second First Notice
proposal to read differently from its original Second Notice
proposal so as to maintain the status quo for tributaries to Lake
Charleston. However, the Board believes that Lake Charleston
warrants a high priority for review in light of these comments
and the shortage of current information regarding Lake
Charleston.
As noted above, the Board has directed the Hearing
99—9 7
—16—
Officer to schedule at least one additional hearing in this
docket; the commenters will thus have an opportunity to provide
testimony with respect to Lake Charleston.
The DENR’s comments (P.C. 113) focused on two points.
First, the Board was reminded that the Department did provide
information (Exh. 37) on a “potentially economical” system for
treating wastewater effluents for phosphorus removal, which
system is applicable to small dischargers. Exhibit 37 is duly
noted by the Board, although it does not, per se, challenge the
Agency’s assertion regarding smaller dischargers (and defining
such dischargers as those with flows of less than 2500 P.E.).
The Board will decline to address this issue further, or to
address the issue of “technology selection with respect to
economic reasonableness and water quality standards” as suggested
by DENR (Ibid). These are matters which were simply not placed
before the Board in this proceeding. In the hoped—for future
regulatory proceedings which the Board envisions will augment or
replace the rules today proposed, these matters can be properly
and timely raised by the Department.
DENR’s second concern involves the issue of the possible
impacts of this rulemaking on streams. This, too, is a matter
not fully developed by participants in the instant proceeding.
The focus of hearings and exhibits in this docket is generally
upon lakes and reservoirs. The Agency’s proposal, upon which
this rulemaking is founded, was mainly an effort to provide
regulatory relief to those point sources of phosphorus whose
effect on receiving lakes and reservoirs, as opposed to streams
or watersheds, was viewed as negligible due to either the
distance to the lake or reservoir or to the “riverine” nature of
the receiving lake or reservoir (i.e., the Lake Decatur
principle). The Board believes the present Second First Notice
proposal is at least somewhat more protective of streams than the
original (First Notice) proposal in this docket, inasmuch as riot
all point sources of phosphorus which are more than 25 miles
upstream of a receiving lake are ipso facto relieved of their
duty to meet the phosphorus effluent standard. More information
must be developed with regards to stream effects in order to
produce more appropriate standards. DENR may wish to take
advantage of the additional public hearing in this docket to more
fully present testimony and data regarding streams.
The Agency’s comments focused primarily on Board—initiated
changes embodied in proposed Section 304.123(c). The Agency
attacks that section’s provision limiting the exclusion from
effluent phosphorus r~egulations for larger (2500 P.E. or more)
point sources more than 25 miles upstrean from the receivinq lake
or reservoir. The Board’s provision would make this exclusion
available only to such point sources whose potential (untreated)
phosphorus contribution to the receiving lake or reservoir is
less than 3 of the total potential phosphorus loading (from both
99—98
—17—
point and non—point sources) tributary to the receiving lake or
reservoir. The Agency opposes this provision on the grounds
that: 1) accurate phosphorus loading data are non—existent; 2)
there is no documented relation between a 3 or greater
discharger and a “significant” discharger, and 3) the 3 figure
itself is arbitrary and wholly unsupported by the record.
The Board is well aware that current, accurate and
comprehensive loading data for Illinois lakes is lacking; that
fact has been noted by the Board above. The dearth of
information is not limited to loading data, however, and may be
viewed as potentially a two—edged sword, raising the question as
to whether there should be any rulemaking in this area at this
time. The data provided on some of the affected lakes, most
notably Lake Charleston, is extremely incomplete; the core lake
characteristic data is uniformly dated, posited on a federal lake
study which is now over 16 years old and whose methodology has
been called into question (Agency Final Comments, pp. 2—3).
Nevertheless, the Agency evidently found sufficient support
in the data to propose an increase in the P.E. cutoff criteria
for some smaller point sources (from 1500 P.E. to 2500 P.E.) and
a decrease for certain others (from 5,000 P.E.). It also found
sufficient support in the data to propose a 25 mile cutoff for
all point sources of phosphorus and to propose an exemption for
Lake Decatur tributaries.
In all of these matters, as noted above, the Board concurred
with the Agency, with two exceptions. First, the Board found no
support in the record for distinguishing Lake Decatur from
similarly “riverine” lakes, such as (apparently) Lake
Charleston. Second, the Board found that the record simply does
not support the wholesale exclusion of point sources of
phosphorus more than 25 miles upstream of a lake or reservoir.
There is no disagreement among the participants regarding the
eventual fate of phosphorus from point sources discharges: within
10 or 12 miles, generally, it is absorbed by biota and/or
converted to the particulate form, in which form its generally
settles to or travels along the stream bottom. All participants
generally agreed also that, over time virtually all such
particulate phosphorus reaches the receiving lake or reservoir,
wherein it becomes a player in the complex and lake—specific
processes known as “internal regeneration” (lbid, pp. 5—6). In
this connection, the Agency’s Final Comments appear to be on
target in asserting that “It is thus improper to assume that a
lake’s behavior is determined solely by external loading:
internal regeneration, also plays an important role... Dischargers
must be viewed on an individual basis...” (Ibid, p. 6).
Unfortunately, the Agency’s proposal fails either to view
dischargers on an individual basis or to account for the role of
external sources of particulate phosphorus in internal
99—99
—18—
regeneration. Absent some check, such as the Board’s 3 loading
criterion, all point sources of phosphorus, irrespective of their
size or concentration of phosphorus, are relieved of the
necessity for compliance with the phosphorus standard if they are
at least 25 miles upstream. In view of the unknown sensitivities
of the respective lakes to incremental increases in phosphorus
loadings (Ibid, pp. 5—6), it strikes the Board as irresponsible
to turn a blind eye to the size of the phosphorus discharge
relative to the overall phosphorus load of the receiving lake or
reservoir. Absent such data, neither the Board nor the Agency
can dismiss the potential role of distant significant point
sources of phosphorus upon receiving lakes and-reservoirs in the
course of internal regeneration simply because the phosphorus
from such sources arrives chiefly in the particulate form or
because many Illinois lakes may be naturally eutrophic.
To be sure, today’s proposed rule is an imperfect response
to the phosphorus loading problem. The Board endorses calls by
all the participants in this proceeding to undertake the studies
necessary to fashion lake—specific standards which account for
“sensitivity factors” and watershed uses. The Board has no doubt
that the regulations today proposed for Second First Notice will
be substantially modified or replaced once the necessary
information is available.
The Agency asserted that the 25 mile cutoff criterion stands
above and requires no further limitation such as the Board’s 3
loading criterion. It stated as follows:
“The issue at this point in the proceeding is
not whether another numerical cut—off point is
more appropriate than 25 miles, or whether a
percentage loading requirement would assist in
fine—tuning the rule. The sole remaining
issue is whether the record in this rulemaking
adequately supports the technical feasibility
and economic reasonableness of each element of
the proposed rule” (Id; emphasis added).
The Board disagrees with the Agency’s position. The Agency
will look in vain for authority, statutory or otherwise, for the
proposition that this Board is limited to assessing the technical
feasibility and economic reasonableness of each element of a
proposed regulation.
Finally, as regards the Agency’s attacks on the 3 loading
criterion, the Board notes that the Agency miseharacterizes it as
an effort to “fine—time” the proposed rule; it is, rather, an
effort by the Board to salvage the proposed rule in the face of a
sizeable body of uncontroverted data in the record which portrays
internal regeneration as a potentially critical determinant of
trophie status. This record at the same time reveals a
99—100
—19—
substantial shortage of data regarding the trophic status of
affected lakes and virtually complete ignorance of the lake—
specific factors which determine each lake’s trophic status and
the relative role of particulate phosphorus from remote point
sources as one of those factors.
As for the 3 figure, the Board acknowledges that it is
somewhat arbitrary.
It does not agree that this figure is
“totally unsupported by the record” as the Agency asserts (Ibid,
p. 1). The Agency’s position in this regard is
somewhat
inconsistent;
the Agency has elsewhere stated:
“Every regulation adopted by the Board poses
the
risk of being over—inclusive or under—
inclusive, overly rigorous or insufficiently
so.
The Act recognizes this situation
and
invests the Board with the
proper discretion
to be exercised
when these considerations
arise”. Supplemental Agency Final Comments,
p. 7).
It is in the exercise of its
“proper discretion” that the Board
has adopted the 3 criterion.
In accepting the Agency’s
essential uncontroverted yet largerly
undocumented assertions
regarding the appropriate flow volume
cutoff point (2500
P.E.)
and in accepting the Agency’s well—documented but
one—dimensional
distance criteria (25 miles), the Board has exercised that
discretion in a manner which generally relaxes the current
phosphorus standard for the reasons suggested by the Agency. In
like manner, for the
reasons noted above, the Board has looked to
the record to fashion a limiting criteria (in this case, 3) by
which to delimit the relief granted. Without such a limitation,
the proposal necessarily must fall; the
3 criterion may be
viewed as a necessary counter—balance to the other two
criteria.
All three criteria reflect a
measure of discretion
exercised by the Board; none embodies scientific certainty.
The
Board need not defend its numerical standards against all other
numbers to the seventh digit following the decimal.
It need only
find rational support in the record for the number it has
chosen. In this proceeding, under no theory advanced in the
record
could the
potential phosphorus contribution from the
Urbana—Champaign facility (25.2; see Exh. 40, p. 67) not be
viewed
as potentially significant, particularly since the
receiving lake (Lake Shelbyville) is clearly heavily used for
recreational purposes and is undoubtedly mesotrophic. In like
manner, the potential phosphorus contribution to Lake Shelbyville
from tJSICC appears to be substantial,
whether viewed as a
percentage of overall lake loadings
(4.5,
equal to the potential
for all other “benefitted point sources” combined; Id) or as a
percentage of all point source contributions (12.3
to 21.2; see
Exh. 40, p. 65). No other uncontrolled “benefitted” point source
of phosphorus tributary to any lake or reservoir
identified in
9 9—101
—20—
the record (see Exh. 40, p.
3) came close
to USICC in
potential. Finally, as noted above, (and by the Agency in
its
Final Comments at p. 6), the EelS characterizes
the range of
variables in USICC’s discharge as “significant”;
this suggests to
the Board that, within the context of this point source’s average
flow (2.336 MGD, described by the EelS (p. 72) as
the
“third
largest in the study”), and in view of the EelS’ characterizing
the potential impact of the relaxation of standards on
tributaries to Lake Shelbyville (of whieh USICC is the second
largest) as “relatively high”, it is not unreasonable to set the
standard for defining a “significant point source discharger of
phosphorus” accordingly.
The Board is,
however, sympathetic to the potential burden
of demonstration to which the Agency alludes. It is not the
Board’s intention to compel the Agency
or every potentially
benefitted discharger of phosphorus to undertake an exhaustive
analysis of the applicable watershed system. The data in this
record is clearly insufficient to sustain such a burdensome
requirement. Therefore, the Board will amend the rule to require
that the 1973 federal National Eutrophication Surveys (NES) data,
as adjusted by IEPA to reflect estimated improvements in non—
point source control, be utilized until such time as a more
current data base is adopted by regulation for the affected
watershed system. This is the methodology employed by the
authors of the EelS. The NES data is admittedly dated even when
adjusted for improvements in non—point source controls. However,
it is the only viable and comprehensive data base on the subject
and was relied upon to some extent by virtually all participants
in this proceeding. The Board notes that the Agency and any
other potential participant can “perfect” this rule as to any
given point source or watershed system by amendatory rulemaking
(based upon current data on watershed characteristics, in—lake
treatment or individual waste strams) or by resort to the
adjusted standards mechanism of Section 28.1 of the Act.
For the sake of clarification, the Board provides below a
table entitled “Facilities Subject to Phosphorus Control
Requirements Under Various Scenarios”. Specifically, the table
illustrates, based upon data provided in the record of this
proceeding, those facilities which are currently subject to the
Board’s phosphorus regulations and those which are or may be
subject to the phosphorus regulations as proposed today by the
Board (“PCB Second First Notice Proposal”) and as originally
proposed by
the Agency (IEPA Proposal”). Note that several
facilities with installed and operating phosphorus controls
(e.g., Arcola) would be relieved from the need for continuing
operation of t~-irphosphorus controls un~er either roposal.
99—102
—21—
-
FACfl.~1TIESSJBJECtT0PrX)SPIr*I(xJS CI~flR0LR~JTR~1YtTS~
VMIQJS
SC~ARIOS
PCB S.cors~ 1st
flPA Proposal
Equip~ent
Mi
Current
Motice Proposal
(based on
Population
~atus
frcxa
board
(based on
criteria
iemarks
Facility
Equivalent
2i15/88
Lake
Re~ulationi
criteria
1.2.3.4)
1.2 & 3)
~A8 C~C~Ak~)LèJ(E
Crab Orchard WWR
Plan
Only
0,7
X
Marion
5.5
x
PE
not ~o~n
Little Grassy PH
Yea
23
K
7
Pt not km~n
PISTAKEE LAKE
Hebron
1,888
Install & Oper.
35.2
K
Ric)~ni’
1,203
Yes
14.7
K
LAKE
D~ATLR
Cerro Cordo
1,553
Plan
Only
‘25
K
Fisher
1,572
Plan
Only
60.7
X
Gibson City~
5,930
Inst.
•
not Oper.
78.1
K
Mahctmet”’
1,986
Contract
Let
44,6
K
Monticello
4,753
Design Only
23.5
K
Viobin Corp
N App
Mot AppI.
25
X
No
flow
LAKE
O(ARLSIt*~
Arcola’
2,711 &
Operating
~25
X
conflicting
2,714
data on Pt
Toloi~o~”
2,434
Contract 1,at
66.5
X
Tuscola
3,839
Plan
Only
51.4
K
Villa
Grov.
2,797
Operating
55.0
K
LAKE
~EL8YV1LLE
Arthur
Plan
Only
36.4
K
conflicting
data on Pt
bement”
1,820
Inst.,
not
Oper.
43.6
X
8ethany”
1,550
Inst., not Oper.
6.2
K
UO~ampaign’
53,4(x)
Operating
68.5
X
K
tJSICC
23,360
Plan Only
23
K
K
Sullivan
4,526
Ye,, Installed
3.0
K
X
X
Keats
1,Cogfl
or unler Inst.
Xraft,
Inc.
Mo.
25
K
7
Pt
not 1qx~.m
LAKE CARLYLE
CF Ir,dustires
2.730 &
Plan
O~ly
15
X
K
K
Conflicting
2503
dateonPt
Pena’
8,9~O
~er~ing
54.4
X
~e1byville~
5,~0
Opersti~g
66.2
Vandalia
6.250
Mo
10.0
X
K
X
LAKE SIDCUI
Wauconda
1.8
K
7
Pt not kno~rn
LAKE CHANWEL
Antioch
2.5
X
7
Pt
not kno.rn
LAKE
fl&YlI)EBBWD
Crystal Lake
#3
1,4(X)
‘~es
3.0
X
LAKE GRASSY
Lake Zurich, ~
Ye-c
3.0
X
X
K
ass~zr~sno
short
retention
LAKE W~l
Tra.tenol Lab
Ind.
3.0
K
7
7
Pt
not known
Lake
Villa
3~X)
~ies
3.2
X
K
X
sss~xses no
short
r.tention
LAKE CLIN’IC*~
Fatmer City
4.0
K
7
Pt
not known
Leroy
14.0
K
7
Ptnotkno~
LAKE ‘~C~~DEB
Woodstock, N.
7,6(x)
Mo
9.8
K
X
X
ass,rres no
short
AlliedCorp.
md.
7
Ptnot
LAKE
REND
lbts,t
Vernon
Ye,
14.5
K
7
7
Pt
not kno.~n
LAKE VERMILLI(X4
Pcopestoii
8,0))
Yes
20.6
K
asstInes no
short
retention
-
Exempt frc~n
P
Control u~der
the board’s
proposal
Currently has
instalied
and operating
P
Controls
Exempt
frcm P
Control txx~erthe Agency’s proposal
Currently
has
thatalled, but not operating P Controls
“Currently has
contract
to install P
Control.
Exemption Criteria: I
-
Miniim.rn
size of 25(X) Pt
2
—
Distance of 25 miles or less
99—103
3
—
Detention
tine
of 18 days or less
4
Contrihution of ‘3 when
beyond
25 miles
S
Lake Decatur exemption
—22—
Cautionary Note
The proposed rules which
the Board today proposes again for
First Notice should be understood as interim measures,
representing an accommodation of the needs expressed by the
~gency, but limited to the telief actually justified by the
record of this proceeding. It is the Board’s wish that the
requisite studies of individual lake eutrophication dynamics be
undertaken by the Agency and/or DENR promptly. The results of
such studies should pave the way for further refinements in the
phosphorus standards or, indeed, for framing a regulation that
addresses limiting factors other than phosphorus, if appropriate
to the dynamics of individual lakes.
Because these proposed rules are interim measures, the Board
cautions that those dischargers which under this proposal would
be relieved from the necessity of installing or maintaining
phosphorus control facilities should not rush to dismantle any
such facilities now in place or in progress; it is clear to the
Board that one possible outcome of future lake studies is that
phosphorus/nutrient control requirements may be reinstated on a
lake—by—lake basis.
ORDER
The Board hereby proposes the following revised and
corrected proposed amendment for Second First Notice, which is to
be filed with the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules~
TITLE 35: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE C: W~ITER POLLUTION
CHAPTER I: POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PART 304
EFFLUENT STANDARDS
SUBPART A: GENERAL EFFLUENT STANDARDS
Section
304.101
Preamble
304.102
Dilution
304.103
Background Concentrations
304.104
Averaging
304.105
Violation of Water Quality Standards
304.106
Offensive Discharges
304.120
Deoxy~--’n.~ting~Th~tes
304.121
Bacteria
304.122
Nitrogen (STORET number 00610)
304.123
Phosphorus (STORET number 00665)
304.124
Additional Contaminants
99—104
—23—
304.125
pH
304.126
Mercury
304.140
Delays in Upgrading (Repealed)
304.141
NPDES Effluent Standards
304.142
New Source Performance Standards (Repealed)
SUBPART B: SITE SPECIFIC RULES AND EXCEPTIONS
NOT OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY
Section
304.201
Wastewater Treatment Plant D.ischarges of the
Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago
304.202
Chlor—alkali Mercury Discharges in St. Clair County
304.203
Copper Discharges by Olin Corporation
304.204
Schoenberger Creek: Groundwater Discharges
304.205
John Deere Foundry Discharges
304.206
Alton Water Company Treatment Plant Discharges
304.207
Galesburg Sanitary District Deoxygenating Wastes
Discharges
304.208
City of Lockport Treatment Plant Discharges
304.209
Wood River Station Total Suspended Solids
Discharges
304.210
Alton Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharges
304.212
Sanitary District of Decatur Discharges
304.213
Union Oil Refinery Ammonia Discharge
304.214
Mobil Oil Refinery Ammonia Discharge
304.215
City of Tuscola Wastewater Treatment Facility
Discharges
304.216
Newton Station Suspended Solids Discharges
304.219
North Shore Sanitary District Phosphorus Discharges
304.220
East St. Louis Treatment Facility, Illinois—
American Water Company
SUBPART C: TEMPORARY EFFLUENT STANDARDS
Section
304.301
Exception for Ammonia Nitrogen Water Quality
Violations
304.302
City of Joliet East Side Wastewater Treatment Plant
APPENDIX A References to Previous Rules
AUTHORITY: Implementing Section 13 and authorized by Section 27
of the Environmental Protection Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch.
111 1/2 pars. 1013 and 1027).
SOURCE: Filed with the Secretary of State January 1, 1978;
amended at 2 Ill. Reg. 30, p. 343, effective July 27, 1978;
amended at 2 Ill. Reg. 44, p. 151, effective November 2, 1978;
amended at 3 Ill. Reg. 20, p. 95, effective May 17, 1979; amended
at 3 Ill. Reg. 25, p. 190, effective June 21, 1979; amended at 4
Ill. Reg. 20, p. 53, effective May 7, 1980; amended at 6 Ill.
99—105
—24—
Reg. 563, effective December 24, 1981; codified at 6 Ill. Reg.
7818; amended at 6 Ill. Reg. 11161, effective September 7, 1982;
amended at 6 Ill, Reg. 13750, effective October 26, 1982; amended
at 7 Ill. Reg. 3020, effective March 4, 1983; amended at 7 Ill.
Reg. 8111, effective June 23, 1983; amended at 7 Ill. Reg. 14515,
effective October 14, 1983; amended at 7 Iii. Reg. 14910,
effective November 14, 1983; amended at 8 Ill. Reg. 1600,
effective January 18, 1984; amended at 8 Ill. Req. 3687,
effective March 14, 1984; amended at 8 Ill. Reg. 8237, effective
June 8, 1984; amended at 9 Ill. Reg. 1379, effective January 21,
1985; amended at 9 Ill. Reg. 4510, effective March 22~ 1985;
peremptory amendment at 10 Ill. Reg. 456, effective December 23,
1985; amended at 11 Ill. Reg. 3117, effective January 28, 1987;
amended in R84—13 at 11 Ill. Reg. 7291, effective April 3, 1987;
amended in R86—17(A) at 11 Ill. Reg. 14748, effective August 24,
1997; amended in R84—l6 at 12 Ill. Reg. 2445, effective January
15, 1988; amended in R83—23 at 12 111. Reg. 8658, effective May
10, 1983; amended in R87—27 at 12 Ill. Reg. 9905, effective May
27, 1988; amended in R82—7 at 12 Ill. Reg. 10712, effective June
9, 1983; amended in R85—29 at 12 Iii. Reg. 12064, effective July
12, 1988; amended in R87—22 at 12 Ill. Reg. 13966, effective
August 23, 1983; amended in R86—3 at 12 Ill. Reg. 20126,
effective November 16, 1988; amended in R84—20 at 13 Ill. Reg.
851, effective January 9, 1989; amended in R85—ll at 13 Ill. Reg.
2060, effective February 6, 1989, amended in R88—1 at 13 Ill.
Reg. 5976, effective April 18, 1989-i-; amended in R87—6 at
Ill. Reg.
________,
effective __________________________
Section 304.123 Phosphorus (STORET number 00665)
a) No effluent discharge within the Lake Michigan Basin
shall contain more than 1.0 mg/i of phosphorus as P.
b+ No eff~tien~from eny ~ot~ree wh~eh ~ eherge~ w~h4n ~he
Fox R4ver
Bo~n
eSe~’e~ ~ine ding P~~ekee~eke en~
wl’~e~e~re&eed wo~e 3ood 4~ ~&OO or more p~e~on
e~ert~s sho~ eon~eirimore then ~-O mg~4 of
~ho~phorti~es P~
e+ No eff~uen~ from ~ny sot,ree wh~eh d
eherges ~o e ~eke
~r reservoir w4th e st~rfeee
area
of 8~
e~eres f2~
aeres+ ot’
mo-re or k~e
any
~r-~ibti~ary ~o st~eh a
~ee
or
reservo4r an~ whose t~n~ree~edwaste ‘oad 4s 5OO~or more
pep
a~or~
e~en~s
sha~1~eon~a~nmore
than ~-O m~/
of phosphortis es P-~
d-~ No eff~tian~f~r~nany
setiree wh-~eh
d sehar~e ~e a ‘ake or
reserve4r w~kh a stirfeee area of 8-~4 hee~eres ?2~oere~
or mere wh~ehdoes rto~ eomp~y with See~on 3O~2O5 or ~e
any ~r±bti~ary~e st,eh a i&~eor reserve-it’ an~whose
tin~rea~edwes~e ‘oad 4s ~GO or more
po~e~ion
99—106
—25—
e~tiva~en~eand which 4s ne~geverrted by See~ons
42O+a~ or 3O4~2O-(-e+ sha~ eor~ai~nmere than ~
mg~4 of phosphorti~ as
b) No effluent from any source which discharges to a lake
or reservoir with a surface area of 8.1 hectares (20
acres) or more, or to any tributary of such a lake or
reservoir within 40.25 kilometers (25 miles) of the
point where the tributary enters the lake or reservoir,
whose untreated waste load is 2500 or more population
equivalents, and which does not utilize a third—stage
lagoon treatment system as specified in Sections
304.120(a) and (c), shall exceed 1.0 mg/i of phosphorus
as P; however, this subsection
(b) shall not apply where
the lake or reservoir on an annual basis exhibits a mean
hydraulic retention time of 0.05 years (18 days) or
less.
C)
No effluent from any source which discharges to a lake
or reservoir with a surface area of 8.1 hectares (20
acres) or more, or to any tributary of such a lake or
reservoir beyond 40.25 kilometers (25 miles) of the
point where the tributary enters the lake or reservoir,
whose untreated waste load is
2500 or more
population
equivalents, and which does not utilize a third—stage
lagoon treatment
system as specified in
Sections
304.120(a) and (c), shall exceed 1.0 mg/i of phosphorus
as P.; however, this subsection (c) shall not apply:
1) Where the lake or reservoir on an annual basis
exhibits a mean hydraulic retention time of 0.05
years (18 days) or less; or
2) Where effluent, if untreated for removal of
phosphorus, would contribute less than 3 of the
phosphorus loading of all tributaries to such lake
or reservoir, including non—point sources.
e+d) For the purpose of this Section the term “lake or
reservoir” shall not include low level pools constructed
in free flowing streams or any body of water which is an
integral part of an operation which includes the
application of sludge on land.
f+ eomp~-ianeew~h the m~a~-iensof paragraph +e)- sha~
be achieved by the fo3~owing dates~
-~-~
New sources sha~ eemp~y em the effee~ive date of
ths regulat±0m7
and
2-~ Ex-isting sources sha1~eomp~yby Becember 3~1-~I98O-~
or st~eh other date as regured by NPBES permit7 or
99—107
—26—
a~ ordered by the Board trnder P4t3e
V~f~
or
tPiHe
~4 of the Act7
g+ eomp~ianeewith the
~imitations
of paragraph +d+ shail
be achieved by Becember
~-,
~98S-y
or such ether date as
re~ired by NPBBS permit7 or as ot’dered by
the
Beard
under cP4t~eV~f or
PtIe ~1 of the Act~
de) Compliance with the limitations of paragraph (b) shall
be achieved by the following dates:
1) Sources with the present capability to comply shall
doso on the effective date of this regulation
2) All other sources shall comply as required by NPDES
permit.
(SOURCE: Amended at
Ill. Reg.
_________,
effective
IT IS SO ORDERED.
J. Dumelle concurred.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Proposed Opinion and Order
was adopted on the
//~
day of
7-~&_j
,
1989, by a vote
of
_______.
~_//‘~-~7
~1.
Dorothy M.
Gu~nn,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
99—108
