TLLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November
8,
1990
IN THE MATTER OF:
PETITION OF THE CITY OF
PANA~
FOR SITE
)
R84-44
SPECIFIC RELIEF
FROM
PHOSPHORUS
)
(Rulemaking)
REGULATIONS
ADOPTED RULE.
FTN~LORDER.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by
3. Marlin):
This matter comes before
the Board on
an amended petition
for site
specific
regulatory relief
ffled
by the City of Pana
(“Pana”)
on February
1,
19R5.
Pana’s original petition,
filed
December
7,
1984 requested
the Board
to adopt
a site—specific
rule
to provide Pana
an
“exclusion
from
the phosphorus di~charge limitation
as set forth
in Section
203(c),
402 and 407(c)
in Chapter
31
of the Illinois
Pollution Control Board Rules
and Regulations.”
As shown through
testing, Pana’s discharge does not meet the applicable effluent
limitation
of 1.0 mg/i
of phosphorus
as
P as established
in
Section 304.123.
Section
304.105 prohibits the discharge of
effluents which would “cause
a violation
of any applicable
water
quality standard.”
35
Iii.
Adm.
Code 304.105.
On June
7,
1990,
the Board proposed
for
First Notice
this
site specific relief from the Board’s phosphorus
rules
for the
City
of Pana’s wastewatet
treatment plant.
The full
text of the
proposed rule was published
in the Illinois Register
on July 13,
1990
(14 Ill.
Reg.
11093).
The oublic comment period expired
August 27,
1990,
45 days after publication.
On August 20,
1990 the Illinois Department of Commerce and
Community Affairs
filed
a copy
of the Small Business Assistance
Bureau’s Impact Analysis
of the proposed
rul.e
(PC ~8).
The
analysis concluded that the rule would have no
impact on
the
small businesses
in
the State
of Illinois.
The Administrative
Code Division of the Office
of
the Secretary
of State
filed
1
(Presently
the
effective
phosphorus
standards
are set forth
in
35
III.
Adm.
Code
304.105
and
304.123.)
References
to the hearing
of
pril
9,
1985 are referred to
as
1TR.
;
those
of March
25,
1988
as
2TR.
____.
The exhibits
from those hearings bear
the designation
lExh.
___
and 2Exh.
___
respectively.
116—121
2
comments
on August
22,
1990
(PC ~t9). The ~3ointCommittee on
Administrative Rules
(JCAR)
received
the Board’s Second Notice
filing on September
26,
1990.
Only
changes reflecting agreements
reached
during conferences with JCAR have been made
in the Final
Notice version
adopted today by the Board.
On October
11,
1990
JCAR issued
to the Board
a certification
of No Objection
to
Proposed Rulemaking.
The Board now proceeds
to Final Notice
publication
of the proposed
rulemaking.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April
9,
1985,
a public hearing was held
in Pana,
Illinois which was attended by members of
the public and by
representatives
of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(“Agency”),
the Department
of Energy and Natural Resources
(“~ENR”),Pana, and Pana’s consultant,
the Architectural
and
Engineering Service Corporation.
After witnesses
for Pana had
testified,
the witness
for
the Agency stated that the Agency was
committed
to reevaluating
the phosphorus effluent limitations
containe’~ in Board regulations.
In
that regard the Agency
recommended that
any ruling or decision
in this case
he delayed
at least
until
it had
an opportunity
to address
these issues
in
more detail and provide more
information
for
the record,
either
in this proceeding
or
a separate proceeding
(1TR
100—104).
The witness further
testified
that the Agency’s position was
that
this proceeding essentially be put on hold until
the Agency
had a
firm recommendation.
In the alternative,
the Agency
recommended dismissal
until such time
as the regulation
could
be
assessed on
a state—wide basis
(Id.).
On August
1,
1985,
Pana filed
a Motion
to Stay Proceedings
requesting
the Board not to make
a decision until
the Agency
“determines what
its regulations will
be regarding phosphorus
discharge limitations”.
On August
11,
1985,
the Agency filed
its
response wherein
it did not object
to Pana’s motion.
On September
20,
1985,
the Board denied
Paria’s motion
stating:
1)
alternate relief exists
in the form of
a variance;
2)
the Agency had made no firm commitment.to filing
a proposal
for regulatory change and
3) even
if
a proposal were filed,
such
proceeding could
take one
to two years
for completion.
On October
18, 1985, Pana advised
the Board of
its intention
to dismiss
this petition for site specific relief and
file
a
variance proceeding.
However,
on December
2,
1985,
Pana filed
a
motion
to have the Board proceed.
Subsequently,
in
a letter dated December
31,
1985,
DENR
informed the Board
that
it had evaluated the record and decided
to attempt an Economic Impact Study
(EcIS)
based on the model
developed
in the R83—23 Tuscola site—specific rulemaking.
The
letter stated:
116—122
An
EcTS
of
a
generic
nature
is
currently
being
contracted
for
P83—23
Tuscola
Site—
Specific
which
will
result
in
a
broad
evaluation
model
to
examine
waste
water
treatment
alternatives
and
their
corelative
(sic)
cost/benefits for
small municipalities.
Pana
has
similar
demographic
characteristics
and involves the same issues.
Therefore,
the
Department
will
attempt
an
Economic
Impact
Study
which
encompasses
P84—44
Pana
Site
Specific based
on
the model
developed
by
the
P83—23 EcIS.
A letter dated December
22,
1986 from the Agency
to Pana,
however, expressed the belief that DENR was awaiting the outcome
of
the Agency statewide review before
rendering
a decision on the
economic aspects of Pana’s proposal.
This letter also stated
that the Agency’s review of
the phosohorus standards had
been
completed
in August and that
the Agency was waiting
for USEPA
comments before finalizing
the Agency position.
On January 20,
1937 DENP sent
a letter
to the Board stating
that:
DENR had evaluated
the record,
had decided
to do an EcIS,
had approved the scope
of work,
and would mail requests
for
proposals
to potential
cont;ractors
in the near future.
On March 20,
1987
the Aqency filed proposed amendments
to
35
Ill.
Adrn.
Code 304.123,
(P87—6) the phosphorus
rules
of general
state—wide applicability.
On January
6,
1988,
DENR filed
an EcIS
prepared
by Blaser,
Zeni.
& Co.
On March 25,
1988
the Board
conducted
an EcIS hearing. The only member
of the public present
was also
a member
of
the press.
Representatives
of DENR,
Pana,
the Agency,
and Maser,
Zeni attended.
The Agency pointed
out
to
the participants
in this matter that the phosphorus regulations
were being
revised
in
a separate rulemaking,
P87—6.
The Agency
urged
the Board
to provide
relief
to the City
of Pana,
hut
suggested that
it might be better
to act on
the Agency’s
phosphorus
proposal.
first
(2TR.
27).
At the Agency’s
suggestion,
this was
the course chosen by the Board.
The new state—wide phosphorus
regulations were adopted over
a period
of
3 years after
five opportunities for public
input,
three merit hearings and two public hearings
to consider the
economic reasonableness
and technical feasibility
of the
proposal.
The Board proceeded
to Final Notice
of the Rule
on
April
12,
1990 and
the rule was published
in the Illinois
Register, May
4,
1990
(14 Ill.
Reg.
6777).
Because
of the changed standard,
the Hearing Officer alerted
Pana to the newly adopted
state—wide phosphorus
rule.
On April
27, 1990 the Hearing Officer
advised Pana of the Board’s
intention
to proceel
to
a decision
in the matter
and requested
116— 123
4
that Pana advise the Hearing Officer whether
it wished
to amend
its pleadings
to request an adjusted standard
or, alternatively,
desired
a decision
on
its pending
request
for site—specific
relief.
On May 18,
1990, Pana advised
the Board
that
it wished
a
decision
on
its pending
request.
APPLICABLE LAW
The goals of water pollution control
in the State
of
Illinois
are
set out
in Title
III of
the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act (“Act”;
Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1987,
ch.
111 1/2).
It
is
there prescribed
that:
It
is the purpose
of this Title
to restore,
maintain and enhance
the purity
of the waters
of this State
in order protect health,
welfare,
property,
and the quality of
life,
and
to assure that
no contaminants are
discharged
into the waters
of the state,
as
defined herein,
including,
hut not limited
to, waters
to any sewage works,
or into any
well,
or from any source within the State of
Illinois,
without being given
the degree
of
treatment
of control necessary
to prevent
pollution,
or without being made subject
to
such
conditions as
are required
to achieve
and maintain compliance with State and
federal
law.
Id.
at par.lOll(b)
Section
13(a)
of Title
III further specifies
that:
The Board, pursuant
to procedures prescribed
in Title VII
of
this Act, may adopt
regulations to promote
the purposes and
provisions
of this Title.
Without
limiting
the generality
of this authority,
such
regulations may among other things prescribe:
1.
Water quality standards specifying
among
other
things,
the maximum short—term and
long—term concentrations
of various
contaminants
in the waters,
the maximum
permissible concentrations
of dissolved
oxygen and other desirable matter
in the
waters,
and the temperature of
such
waters;
2.
Effluent standards specifying
the
maximum amounts of concentrations,
and
the physical,
chemical,
thermal,
biological
and radioactive nature of
contaminants
that may be discharged
into
116—124
5
the waters
of the State,
as defined
herein,
including,
but not
limited
to,
waters
to any sewage works,
or
into any
well,
or from any source within the
State.
II.
at par.
1013(a)
Proposals
for site—specific regulations are governed by the
provisions
of Title VII
of the Act,
specifically Section
27
(Ill.
Rev. Stat.
1987
ch.
111—1/2, par.
1027).
Subsection
(a),
in
relevant part,
states
as follows:
a.
The Board may adopt substantive
regulations
as described
in this
Act.
Any such regulations may make different
provisions
as required
by circumstances
for different contaminant sources
and
for different geographical
areas...and
may include regulations
specific
to
individual persons or sites.
In
promulgating regulations under
this
Act,
the Board
shall
take
into account
the
existing physical
conditions,
the
character
of the area involved...the
nature
of the...receiving
body
of
water...and the technical
feasibility
and economic reasonableness
of measuring
or reducing
the particular
type
of
pollution.
While Pana’a petition specifically
requests site—specific
relief
it must be noted
that this request originated before
legislative creation of
the “adjusted
standard” mechanism.
That
mechanism
is governed by Section
28.1 of the Act.
Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1989
ch.
111
1/2,
par.
1028.1.
The general effluent limitations
standard for phosphorus as
revised
is set forth below:
SUBPART
A:
GENERAL EFFLUENT. STANDARDS
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 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 whose untreated waste
load
is
2500
or more population
116— 1.25
6
equivalents,
and which does not utilize
a third—stage
lagoon treatment system as
specified
in Section 304.120(a)
and
(c),
shall
exceed
1.0
rng/l
of phosphorus
as
P; however,
this
subsection
shall
not
apply where
the lake
or reservoir,
including any side channel
reservoir
or
other portion thereof,
on an annual
basis exhibits
a mean hydraulic
retention time of 0.05 years
(18 days)
or
less.
DISCUSSION
Pana operates
a wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP).
Pana
contends that the expenditures
it makes
to reduce phosphorus
levels
in
its effluent exceed the resulting benefits.
It
therefore,
has petitioned the Board
to relieve
it
from applicable
phosphorus regulations
or,
alternatively,
to raise
the allowable
effluent
limitation
from 1.0 ing/l
to 2.8 mg/l of phosphorus
as
P.
Pana also requests protection
and relief from applicable
water quality standards and “such other
and
further relief
as the
Board deems equitable
and just”.
(Amended
Pet.,
p.8).
Pana has the equipment required
to meet the
1 mg/l
phosphorus
limit
(2TR.
8).
However,
Pana contends that
(a)
the
downstream benefits are not worth
the expenditures;
(b)
the
phosphorus loadings
of Lake Carlyle are
four
times
the critical
eutrophic
limit,
(c) all point sources combined contribute only
3.0
of
the phosphorus
loadings of Lake Carlyle, and
(‘5) Pana’s
compliance with
the 1.0 mg/l standard would reduce Lake Carlyle
loadings by only 0.94.
(Pet.
pp.
2—4,
6,
7)
At the public
hearing
of May 31,
1985
Paria altered
this last contention to
approximately 2
of loadings but
no more than
5
(1TR.
23).
Pana
currently contributes
14.8
of the point source loading
to Lake
Carlyle;
if relief were granted
it would contribute
33
(2TR.
60,63).
The principal
benefits of granting the petition would
be
a
reduction
in expenditures by the City
for operating
its
phosphorus—removal program.
Pana contends that
the principal
cost of granting the petition would be
the effect
on the
receiving water
including, but not limited
to, Lake Carlyle.
Pana identified
the affected water bodies
as Coal Creek, Opossum
Creek, Beck Creek,
the Kaskaskia River
and the Carlyle Reservoir
(2TR.
8).
116—126
7
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Effluent Quality
The Pane
WWTP
is
an advanced
treatment plant employing
chemical precipitation
for phosphorus removal by the addition
of
lime
(2TR.
10).
it has
a design average flow capacity of 1.17
MGD and
a design maximum flow capacity
of 3.3 MGD.
Grab sample
tests
by IEPA during periods
of non—phosphorus removal and
by
Pana during periods while phosphorus was being removed,
from
1985—1987, yielded
effluent test results.
From these results
estimated phosphorus
loadings were calculated
(2TR.
10—11).
Based
upon these
results,
the estimated phosphorus concentrations
and loading
to receiving waters would be:
Petition
Petition
Denied
Granted
Difference
Concentration
1.0 mq/l
2.98 mg/i
1.98 mg/i
Loadings
(per
day)
4.082
Kg
12.166 Kg
8.084
Kg
Loadings
(per year)
1,487 Kg
4,440 Kg
2,953
Kg
(Id.
Pane would contribute
1,487 kg/year
of total phosphorus
to
the receiving water
if
the petition
is denied;
4,440
kg/year
if
the petition
is granted.
The concentrations
of
total phosphorus
in the Carlyle Reservoir would
increase 0.0045 mg/i
if the
petition
is granted.
The present total
concentration in Lake
Cariyle
is 0.25 mg/I
(2TR.
12).
Receiving Stream Character
The effluent from the Pana
WWTP
is discharged
54 miles
upstream from Lake Carlyle.
This discharge
flows
through Coal
Creek, Opossum Creek, Beck Creek
and the Kaskaskia River before~
entering the lake.
All
three creeks experience
natural
7—day,
10—year
zero low flows.
Each
of
the streams yielded
fish, mostly
small—sized,
during 1983
fish surveys conducted by the Illinois
Department of Conservation
(2Exh.1,
p.4).
The samples also
yielded good diversity
(2TR.
54—55).
These samples were taken
when Pana’s phosphorus controls were not operational
and are
assumed
to be
representative
of
the effect upon the receiving
streams
if Pane’s petition were
to
be granted.
Phosphorus Loading
The form of the total
phosphorus changes from that
at point
of discharge as
it travel downstream.
At discharge
the
percentage
of dissolved phosphorus
to
total phosphorus
is
on the
order
of 65—85 percent.
As
it proceeds downstream the percentage
falls
to 30—45 percent.
Dissolved phosphorus
is more
readily
available
for biological
uptake
(ITR.
77).
116-
127
8
Pane presented testimony that
the numerical
impact of
phosphorus reduction from the
WWTP
is
shown by
a USEPA
1975
National Eutrophication Study
(NES) which estimates
that 97
of
the phosphorus entering the reservoir
is from non—point sources
combined
(Petition, Attachment
1).
This condition
is not
expected
to
improve.
At hearing Pane quoted from a Soil
Conservation Service
report that
“a significant reduction of
annual cropland soil loss and phosphorus loading
is not
anticipated
in the foreseeable future, based upon current farming
and erosion control technology”
(1TR.
48).
Pane asserts
that the
current
farming practices
do not indicate the large percentages
of cropland under conservation tillages
as was attested
to
in the
P83—12 Shelbyville
site—specific relief proceeding
(1TR.
85).
The representative
of Blaser
and Zeni testified
that whether
the
non—point
source loadings are actually higher
or not is largely
irrelevant.
Lake Carlyle
is
so large
that Pane’s contributions
are still
slight
(TR.
30—35).
Effects upon Carlyle Reservior
Testimony revealed that the Carlyle Reservoir can be
characterized as nutrient—enriched.
By depth—transparency
measures and phosphorus concentration,
it
is considered
eutrophic
(2TP.
12—13).
Biological manifestations such
as heavy algae
blooms
as measured
by chlorophyll
a are not present, however.
Phosphorus does not appear
to be
the limiting nutrient;
the
critical
factors are nitrogen—phosphorus
ratios
and turbidity.
IrS.
Because phosphorus
is not
the
limiting factor controlling
primary plant production
in Lake Carlyle, granting the petition
would not affect aquatic biology
or aquatic recreational
expenditures
(2TR.
17).
Pana
also presented
testimony that nitrogen and phosphorus
are generally considered
the two main nutrients
in the
eutrophication process, although not the only nutrients
required
for algae growth
(1TR.
75, 2TR.
45—48).
A five percent reductiOn
in these nutrient levels will not have
an effect on
the algae
growth
in the lake where nutrient levels three
to
four times
“higher than excessive” exist
(1TR.
75).
However,
if light—
limiting factors
are removed
arid
in—lake concentrations of
nitrogen increase,
a possibility arises of
increasing primary
production under these circumstances.
Testimony did not reveal
whether Lake Carlyle’s nutrient levels were considered
three
to
four times
“higher than excessive.”
(2TR.
51).
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY AND ECONOMIC REASONABLENESS
Pane’s phosphorus
removal
system became operational
in mid—
1985 and
is successfully treating the wastewater
to achieve
compliance.
Pana did not argue,
therefore,
that phosphorus
removal was not technically feasible.
116—128
9
Pane, however, contends that requiring
it
to comply with the
phosphorus
limitations will have
a “terrible”
impact on
its
finances
(1TR.
7).
A little better than
25 percent of
the
population
is
on fixed
income and the City recently suffered the
loss
of several
industries
(1TR.
8).
Past
increases in water
rates
led
to many complaints
from people who were
then unable
to
pay their bill
(1TR.
10,
12).
In
its petition, Pane estimated
the cost savings
from relief
at $29,570.
The 1988 EcIS report,
however, estimated savings
in
annual
operations
and maintenance costs
at $40,636.
Any capital
expenditures have already occurred and can not be considered.
Pana also submitted
a cost analysis and operational
impact
report for
its wastewater
treatment plant with
its petition.
This report demonstrated
the
increased average monthly use charge
from equipment installation
for phosphorus
removal totalled $1.45
per month
per user
or
connection.
The average water
bill
is
~30.00 bi—monthly
(1TR.
91).
Pana did not,
however,
estimate what operation
and
maintenance costs would
be
if there were no phosphorus effluent
limit
whatsoever imposed upon the Pane facility nor for any
alternatives
to the removal method chosen
(1TR.
58).
Pana
dismissed
as prohibitively expensive any phosphorus control
alternatives other
than the lime—addition treatment chosen
(1TR.
61).
AGENCY RECOMMENDATION
As stated previously,
at the hearing
of April
9,
1985,
the
Agency recommended that the decision on this case be delayed
because
of
its pending phosphorus proposal
(1TR.
103).
The
Agency stated
it would however, support any variance requests
for
those municipalities which did not have phosphorus hardware
in
place which resulted from any delay.
For those cities which
di5,
the Agency representative testified
they would
“have
that heard
and would delay that variance until
the further measure
of point
source phosphorus controls are known”
(1TR.
104).
As recounted
in the discussion of procedural history,
the Agency urged
the
Board
to provide relief
to
the City
of Pana,
but suggested that
it might be better
to act on
the Agency’s phosphorus proposal
first
(2TR.
27).
At the Agency’s suggestion,
this was the course
chosen by the Board.
CONCLUSION
The Board
is persuaded
that Pana’s discharge meets
the
requirements necessary
to gain
relief from the
1 mg/l phosphours
standard.
Pane’s discharge does not significantly contribute
to
eutrophication
of the receiving waters.
Therefore
the Board
decides today
to grant Pana relief consistent with
its Amended
116—129
10
Petition and elects
to set the applicable effluent limitation
standard
for Pane’s
WWTP
discharge
at 2.8 mg/l
of phosphorus as
p.
The decision
in this case cannot be made without
distinguishing our prior decision
in Shelbyville.
(In the Matter
of Site Specific Phosphorus Limitation
for the City of
Shelbyville,
62 PCB
31, P83—12
(December
20,
1984 )~
.
There,
too,
a city discharging
to the Lake Carlyle reservoir
had requested
relief from the phosphorus water quality standard and
related
effluent limitations due
to economic considerations.
Shelbyville
had contended that upgrading
its wastewater treatment plant to
adequately
control
phosphorus
imposed
hardship
upon
the
city
arid
would have no significant effect upon the
reservoir.
(62 PCB
32)
Despite testimony that
the City was under
financial strain,
the estimated cost
of the
WWTP
upgrading totalled $4.7 million
and the phosphorus loadings
to Lake Carlyle
from the City were
1.8
of the
total,
the Board declined
to grant
relief.
The Board
found
that despite
the low total percentages,
the phosphorus
from
point sources
such
as Shelbyville’s were
an important contributor
to eutrophication
in the Carlyle Reservoir
and that granting
Shelbyville
site—specific relief would
both add
to the problem
and set poor
precedent
for similarly situated communities
(62 PCB
36—7)
Since our decision
in Shelbyville,
however,
the Board has
acted
on the Agency’s request
to modify
the state—wide
rules
of
general applicability
for phosphorus,
P87—6.
These
finalized
rules provide for
an adjusted standard procedure, whereby
a
Petitioner may
be granted
an exception
to the general phosphorus
rule upon
a
specific showing.
The adjusted standard proceeding
was intended
to allow for
a streamlined
consideration of
a
permanent,
site—specific petition
to
utilize this mechanism
for
relief,
it chose
to proceed with
its pending
request.
Although
Pane could have readily converted
its petition
to utilize this
mechanism for relief,
it chose
to proceed with its pending
request.
However,
the Board will look
to the following factors
set forth
in Section 304.123
of
its rules
for guidance
in
reaching its determination.
Section 304.123 provides that
“...the applicant prove
that the effluent resulting
from grant of
the adjusted standard will not contrihuteto cultural
eutrophication, unnatural plant
or algal growth or
dissolved
oxygen deficiencies
in the receiving lake of reservoir.
Such
effluent
is deemed
to contribute
to such conditions
if phosphorus
is the limiting nutrient
for biological growth
in the lake
or
reservoir,
taking
into account the
lake or reservoir limnology,
morphological, physical and
chemical characteristics,
and
Sediment transport.
However,
if the effluent discharge enters
a
tributary at least 40.25 kilometers
(25 miles) upstream of the
Point
at
which
the
tributary
enters
the
lake
or
reservoir
at
normal
pool level,
such effluent
is
riot deemed
to contribute
to
Such conditions
if the receiving lake
or
reservoir
is eutrophic
and phosphorus
from internal regeneration
is
not
a limiting
nutrient.”
35
Ill. Adm.
Code 304.123(c)
116—130
11
The record demonstrates that Pana’s discharge
is more than
25 miles upstream of Lake Carlyle.
Because of existing
conditions
in
Lake
Carlyle
the
increased
phosphorus
loadings
caused
by granting Pane site—specific relief do not significantly
contribute
to cultural eutrophication or algae growth.
Growth
in
the lake appears
to be limited either by the amount
of nitrogen
or by the low levels of
light available for
plant growth.
Therefore, granting Pane relief
is consistent with
the new
phosphorus rules.
In both
its Petition and Amended Petition, Pane requests
an
exemption
from
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
304.105,
the prohibition against
contributing
to
or causing
a violation of
a water quality
standard.
Pana
did
not
propose
language which would accomplish
this.
No record was developed concerning
this
request which
would assist
the
Board
in making any determination with respect
to this issue.
Therefore
the Board
takes
no action
on the issue.
As
a final matter,
it should
he noted
that our decision
today should
in no way be considered
an abrogation
of our
position regarding site—specific relief set forth
in Greater
Peoria Sanitary District.
In
the Matter
of:
Site—Specific
Exception to Effluent Standards for
the Greater
Peoria Sanitary
and
Sewage
Disposal
District,
93
PCB
79,
P87—21
(October
6,
l988).
In Greater Peoria,
the Board determined
that
the
applicant’s
proof regarding economic reasonableness had failed.
The intervention of the new phosphorus
rules
and, particularly,
the specific
showing
to
be
made
in an adjusted standard
proceeding thereunder,
serves
to further distinguish
the
two.
ORDER
The
following
site—specific
rule
is hereby proposed.
The
Clerk of the Board
is directed
to submit this
rule
to
the
Secretary of State
for Final Notice publication
in
the Illinois
Register.
TITLE
35:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE
C:
WATER POLLUTION
CHAPTER
1:
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
PART
304
EFFLUENT
STANDARDS
SUBPART
B:
SITE—SPECIFIC
RULES
AND
EXCEPTIONS
NOT
OF
GENERAL APPLICABILITY
304.218
City
of Pana Phosphorus Discharge
The
general
effluent
standard
for phosphorus
as
P contained
in
Section
304.123
shall
not
apply
to discharges from the City of
Pana
wastewater
treatment
plant.
Instead
these discharges
shall
116—13 1
12
comply with
an effluent limitation of
2.8 mg/l phosphorus
as
P as
measured at the point
of discharge.
IT
IS
SO
ORDERED.
I,
Dorothy
M.
Gunn,
Clerk
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board, hereby certify that
the above Opinion
and
Order
was
adopted
on
the
7~’
day of
~
1990, by a vote
Illinois P
on Control Board
116—132
