ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
October
6, 1988
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
SITE—SPECIFIC EXCEPTION TO
)
EFFLUENT STANDARDS FOR THE
)
R87—2l
THE GREATER PEORIA SANITARY
AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by
R.
C.
Flemal):
This matter comes before the Board upon a Petition filed
July 7,
1987,
by the Greater Peoria Sanitary and Sewage Disposal
District
(“District”).
The District requests that the Board
adopt a site—specific rule and exception to the effluent
standards for ammonia nitrogen contained at
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
304.122(a)
for the District’s wastewater treatment plant located
in Peoria, Illinois.
The proposed exception would add a new
section to
35
Ill. Adm. Code Part 304, Subpart
B:
Site Specific
Rules and Exceptions
not of General Applicability,
as follows:
Section 304.213
The Greater Peoria Sanitary and
Sewage Disposal District
Discharges
This Section applies
to the publicly owned wastewater
treatment works operated by The Greater Peoria
Sanitary and Sewage Disposal District.
The treatment
works
is located
in Peoria,
Illinois, along the
Illinois River, and discharges
into that River
at
about River Mile 160.1.
Such discharges shall not be
subject to the effluent standards
for ammonia
nitrogen of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.122.
As discussed below, the Board
today denies the relief
requested by the District.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Public hearing was held on November
23,
1987,
at the
District’s Administration and Lab Building, Peoria.
In addition
to the District,
the hearing was attended
and participated
in by
representatives of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(“Agency”),
the Illinois Department of Energy and Natural
Resources
(“ENR”), and the Illinois Department
of Conservation.
A comment period was established by the Hearing Officer
at
hearing.
Additional comment periods were subsequently
established for reasons not germane to the instant discussion.
Comments were filed
by all those who participated
in the hearing.
93—79
—2—
On January 11,
1988
the Agency filed its Recommendation and
Brief
(“Agency Brief”)
in opposition to the District’s proposal,
alleging
in general that the proposal fails
to adequately address
and satisfy the statutory criteria of Section
27
of the Act, and
that the evidence presented by the District
is insufficient
to
support the relief requested.
ENR issued
a “negative declaration” of economic impact
in
this matter on July 7,
1988.
The Economic Technical Advisory
Committee
(“ETAC”) concurred
in that determination on July 22,
1988.
However, on July 30,
1988 ENR,
at ETAC’s suggestion,
filed
comments
(P.C.
#5)
to assist
the Board
in its evaluation of the
economic issues involved
in this docket.
BACKGROUND
The District
is
a municipal corporation organized pursuant
to the “Sanitary District Act of 1917”
(Ill.
Rev. Stat.
1987,
ch.
42, par.
298.99).
The principal purposes
of the District are
to
collect the domestic and industrial wastewaters of
the District
and convey them to
a treatment facility for treatment
in
accordance with the laws and regulations of the State of Illinois
and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”).
The District serves an area of approximately 58.4 square
miles and treats wastewaters from a sewer collection system of
about 569 linear miles.
The District owns and maintains about
343 miles of the tributary sewer collection system,
representing
about 60.3 percent of the total.
The District’s only treatment
plant
is located along the Illinois River
in the City of Peoria,
Peoria County,
Illinois.
The District’s treatment plant commenced operation
in
1931.
At that time the treatment processes consisted essentially
of screening and grit removal, primary sedimentation, and
biological treatment by the activated sludge process.
Although
some modifications had been made at the treatment plant during
the intervening years, major modifications were not initiated
until
1970 when the District authorized its engineering
consultants
to determine the degree of wastewater treatment needs
in light of the deliberations by the then newly—formed Board
concerning
the adoption of effluent requirements and water
quality standards.
Following promulgation of the current ammonia effluent
regulations, the District received
a State grant which partially
supported funding
for
a renovation project with costs
in excess
of $48 million.
The current treatment plant
is designed
to treat
an average wastewater flow of 37 million gallons per day (“MGD”)
and
a maximum flow of
60 MGD through the normal treatment
process;
during
the period
1981
through
1986 the District treated
93—80
—3—
an average of
27 MGD.
The normal treatment process includes
screening and grit removal, primary sedimentation, activated
sludge,
rotating biological contactors,
tertiary clarifiers,
lined and unlined tertiary ponds,
and chlorination.
Sludge
production is handled by anaerobic digestion with lagoons for
drying and storage.
The flowing—full capacities of
interceptors to the treatment
plant is 154 MGD.
The District contends that flows
in excess of
60 MGD are adequately handled by holding facilities with
pfovision for chlorination during overflow from them (Petition at
5
).
All flows less than than 60 MGD and all flows retained
in
the holding facilities are routed through the normal treatment
process.
The treated effluent of the District’s treatment plant
is
discharged
to the Illinois River pursuant
to NPDES Permit No.
IL00212288.
The effluent enters
the Peoria Pool of the Illinois
River
about
2
1/2 miles upstream of the Peoria Lock and Dam;
the
LaGrange Pool extends downstream from the Peoria Lock and Dam for
approximately 77 miles.
On December
5,
1986,
the Agency, at the
District’s
request, designated
a mixing zone on the Illinois
River
for
the District’s discharge
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Ammonia effluent discharges from the District’s wastewater
treatment facility are currently regulated pursuant to
35 Ill.
Adm. Code 304.122(a).
That section reads
in full:
Section 304.122
Nitrogen (STORET number
00610)
a)
No effluent from any source which discharges
to
the Illinois River, the Des Plaines River
downstream of
its confluence with the Chicago
River System or the Calumet River System,
and
1 Citations
to the District’s Petition are to the numbered
paragraphs contained therein consistent with presentation at
hearing.
2 A full description of the mixing zone occurs
in Exhibit
7.
In
general,
the designated mixing zone is confined
to the western
(discharge—side)
1/3
to 1/4 of the width of the Illinois River
and extends
from 250 feet upstream of the primary plant outfall
(001)
to
1700
feet downstream of
the primary plant outfall.
As
Exhibit
7 notes:
“All applicable water quality standards shall be
met at any point along
the boundary of the mixing zone and
outside of the mixing
zone”.
93—81
—4-.
whose untreated waste load
is 50,000 or more
population equivalents shall contain more than
2.5 mg/i
of ammonia nitrogen as N during
the
months of April through October,
or
4 mg/i at
other
times.
Other regulations
relevant to
the
instant matter occur
in
the Board’s effluent standards at 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 304.105 and
in the Board’s water quality standards at 35
Ill. Adm.
Code
302.210, 302.212(a), 302.212(b),
and 302.212(c).
In pertinent
part these regulations specify:
Section 304.105
Violation of Water Quality
Standards
no effluent shall,
alone or
in combination with
other
sources, cause
a violation of
any applicable
water quality standard.
*
*
*
**
Section 302.210
Substances Toxic
to Aquatic Life
Any substance toxic
to aquatic life shall not exceed
one—tenth
of the 96—hour median tolerance limit
(96—
hr.
TLm)
for native fish or essential fish food
organisms
**
*
*
*
Section 302.212
Ammonia Nitrogen and Un—ionized
Ammonia
a)
Ammonia nitrogen
(as N: Storet Number 00610)
shall
in no case exceed 15 mg/i.
b)
If ammonia nitrogen
is less than
15 mg/i and
greater
than or equal to 1.5 mg/i,
then un-
ionized ammonia
(as N)
shall not exceed 0.04
mg/i.
C)
Ammonia nitrogen concentrations of less than 1.5
mg/i are lawful regardless of un—ionized ammonia
concentration.
The District contends that it has developed an operational
plan that will permit
it to discharge a treated effluent that
will not violate
a water quality standard of 1.5 mg/l of ammonia
nitrogen outside
of its mixing
zone, consistent with 35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 302.212(c)
and 302.102.
The operational plan takes into
consideration river
flow rates, effluent flow rates,
river
temperature and effluent temperature,
and
the concentration of
93—82
—5—
ammonia nitrogen
in the treated effluent.
The District therefore
does not seek relief from any water quality standard applicable
to the Illinois River
(Petition at
4,
31,
35).
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY AND ECONOMIC REASONABLENESS
The District’s current nitrification process was placed into
operation
in October
1979.
The process consists primarily of
12
reinforced concrete tanks with seven rotating biological
contactors
(“RBC”) per tank.
Each contactor has
a diameter of
11
feet and contains media, spread uniformly throughout
a shaft of
25
feet.
The system was designed specifically
to remove ammonia
nitrogen with some BOD and suspended solids polishing
(Petition
at 36(a),
R.
at
44).
It
is estimated that
the units have
a
20
year design life
(R.
at 49).
The District states that the nitrification process “has
performed satisfactorily since
it was placed
in operation, and
has been effective
in reducing ammonia nitrogen concentrations
as
well as concentrations of biochemical oxygen demand”
(Petition at
36(b)).
The record further indicates that the District
is
currently having no problem meeting any of its effluent
limitations
(R.
at 40).
It was also stated that there has been
substantial
improvement in the quality of treatment and effluent
which has “exceeded expectations”
(R.
at
20).
The District states that maintenance and operation of the
RBC units
is difficult
at times and that replacement of units
would be costly.
The District points
to variables such as air
temperature, water
temperature, BOD loading, abruptness of change
in ammonia loadings,
and thickness and character of the RBC
biomass which can affect the efficiency of treatment through the
RBC process.
The District then claims that these variables
coupled with expected increased loadings from a new Archer
Daniels Midland facility locating
to the District’s service
area,
may make
it difficult
to meet the current ammonia nitrogen
standard
in the future
(Petition at 36(b),
R.
at 46, 64).
The
Agency concludes that the general allegations
of difficulty
in
maintaining
and operating the RBC units does not justify shutting
down the system
(Agency Brief at
5).
The District also believes that it
is economically
unreasonable for
it
to be required to continue
to meet the
current ammonia nitrogen standard.
In general,
it
is the cost of
its current use of the RBC system for removal of
ammonia nitrogen
from
its effluent which
the District claims
is unreasonable when
balanced with the allegedly minor environmental impact of any
increased ammonia nitrogen in its effluent.
The District
identifies two savings which
it alleges would
accrue
to
it should
its proposal
be adopted:
reduction in
93—83
—6—
operations and maintenance
(“O&M”)
costs
for
the RBC units,
and
reduction
in replacement
costs
for the RBC units.
Nevertheless, O&M cost savings which would
be achieved
should
the Board adopt the District’s proposed rule change are
cloudy, partly because on—point data have not been entered
into
the record,
and partly because of the speculative nature of
future costs.
Among the figures which are agreed upon is that the District
had expended an average of $81,960 per year
in O&M for the RBC
units over
the period of the fiscal years 1983—1986
(Petition at
36(d)).
However, granting of the requested relief would not
allow this entire sum to be saved.
One reason
is that the
principal
individual element
in the RBC’s O&M is the cost of
power, which the District estimates at 89
of
the total
O&~4
costs
(Id.).
The District has recently completed
a project which has
allowed
it to generate some of
its own power,
and thereby to
decrease
its unit cqst of power such as
to realize an annual
savings
of $200,000”
(Id.).
Presumably, this overall reduction
in power costs would be reflected
in
a decrease
in the cost of
operation of the power—intensive
RBC
units.
While
the
record
does not contain
a figure specifically identified as the
District’s power
costs prior
to implementation of
the new power
system,
it does mdi ate that the District’s power,
heat,
and
light costs
for 1987 were $1,053,000
(P.C.
#5 at 7).
A $200,000
decrease from this base
is therefore a savings of 1/6
to 1/5 over
prior costs.
If the RBC units are assumed to have participated
in this power savings
in the same proportion as the District’s
operations
as a whole, RBC annual power
costs should be
approximately $10,000
to $12,000 lower at present than during the
1983—1986 period,
or approximately $71,000.
More critically,
the District does not intend
to completely
remove the RBC units from service even
if the requested relief
is
granted.
Rather,
the District intends
to employ them on an as—
needed basis
for continued control of BOD and suspended solids
(R.
at
55).
It
is unclear as to how often the RBC units would be
so used, although the District implies that this might be about
one—third of the time
(R.
at 51).
Thus,
there would be a
continuing RBC O&M cost.
Again, the record does not identify
what this cost would be.
However,
if it
is roughly assumed
that
the RBC units would be operated at one—third time at one—third of
The Board notes that the $200,000 savings
is at places
in the
record confusedly considered
a savings generated from adoption of
the instant proposal.
However, District testimony clearly
indicates that the $200,000 savings derives from an independent
and already complete project
(R. at 30—32), and its realization
therefore
is not dependent of the outcome of the
instant matter.
93—84
—7--
the current cost,
the RBC O&M costs would continue
at a rate of
approximately $27,000 per year and the O&M savings to be realized
by the District under adoption of
its proposal would be on the
order of $54,000.
No figures are presented on the O&M costs of the District’s
proposed alternative ammonia control program.
Nevertheless, any
such costs would further offset any O&M gains the District would
receive
from discontinuing use of the RBC units
for ammonia
control.
On the matter of replacement costs,
the District contends
that it has annually budgeted $192,000 to replace defective RCB
units,
and that
it wishes the Board
to consider this
an annual
savings
to be realized from adoption of its proposal.
There
is
no indication, however, thai the District has actually ever spent
any replacement—cost monies
.
Although it was estimated that
replacement cost would be somewhere between $50,000 and $100,000
per unit
(R.
at 50),
there
is no data in the record on the actual
cost of replacement of
an RBC unit.
Moreover, as noted earlier,
each RBC unit has an expected operational
life of twenty years,
less than half
of which has passed.
Based upon this combination
of conditions,
the Board cannot reasonably conclude that the
District’s line item for
RCB replacement constitutes
a legitimate
present cost nor a complete estimate of the savings which would
accrue by virtue of adoption of the instant proposal.
As speculative as this analysis is,
it
is all that the Board
can do based upon the record before it.
Admittedly,
some
significant questions remain unanswered.
For example,
if the
District must continue using the RBC units for ammonia control
and therefore cannot use them solely for BOD and SS reduction,
will it have to invest in added equipment for BOD and SS
control?
At what cost?
Even if the RBC units are used solely
for BOD and SS control, will they be sufficient to meet the
District’s perceived need to treat its expected stronger
influents?
Would not RBC units used
for BOD and SS control
require replacement the same as RBC units required
for ammonia
control?
The Agency,
for
its part, concludes:
The District cannot be expected
to predict the
future:
however,
it should attempt to determine the
Although two of the original 84 RBC units have apparently
failed,
the District has not replaced them.
The failure of these
two units has not caused effluent quality to measurably
deterioriate, and presumably has therefore not necessitated
replacement of the units.
93—85
—B—
impact upon treatment performance
in ammonia
reduction of additional RBCs being
taken out
of
service as
they malfunction.
For
instance,
there has
been no indication as
to the ascertainable effect of
the two units being
taken out of service thus far.
Elaborate statistical calculations, such as already
proposed
if relief were granted, may not be
necessary.
As long as the District is able to meet
effluent limits,
the most pragmatic
route to take
is
simply
to continue
to operate the RBCs
to maximize
ammonia
removal
for
the
remaining
life
of
the
units.
Then at whatever time that treatment
efficiency
is hindered by the loss of RBC capacity,
the District could repetition the Board
for
a rule
change.
As the units age,
the District would also
have
the option of building additional or alternative
nitrification facilities.
The District’s proposal at
this point
in time
is premature.
(Agency Brief
at
7).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The reach
of the Illinois River between the District’s
discharge point and the Peoria Lock and Dam is narrow and
sinuous.
The District maintains that the configuration of the
river coupled with barge traffic, often congested because of
proximity to the lock and dam, precludes
any meaningful
recreational activity on or
in
its waters.
The District also
asserts that there is also no public access to the river
in this
reach (Petition at 4).
The District further states that recreational fishing
in the
LaGrange Pool, except
in the vicinity of the Peoria Lock and Dam,
is mostly limited to backwater
lakes and sloughs;
that there are
several sandy areas
along the pool’s shoreline,
notably near the
confluence of the Mackinaw River
and several miles upstream of
Havana, where people frequently congregate for outings,
swimming,and water—skiing; that public access
is generally
limited
to areas near Kingston Mines, Havana, and Beardstown,
about 12,
28,
and 70 miles downstream of the lock and dam;
and
that the principal activity on the Pool
is commercial barge
traffic (Petition at
4).
The Illinois Department of Conservation (“DOC”) presented
testimony that there
is exceedingly heavy fishing
in the channel
proper, contrary
to the District belief that fishing
is limited
to backwater areas.
DOC maintains that this
is especially true
downstream from the Peoria Lock
and Dam extending
to
a point
close to Havana,
Illinois
(R.
at 181).
The DOC did not, however
object to
the proposal, provided that the ammonia nitrogen
standard
is not exceeded outside the mixing zone
(P.C.
#1).
93—86
—9—
The waters of the Illinois River are designated
as general
use waters and general use water quality standards apply.
As
noted above,
the District does not seek relief from any water
quality standards applicable
to the Illinois River.
The District
asserts that the environmental
impact of its discharge
if
the
proposed regulatory relief were to be granted
“will not differ
from the environmental impact
...
under
current operations”
(Petition at 4).
The Agency maintains that any increased ammonia
loadings
to the River would necessarily result
in some dissolved
oxygen
(“DO”) depletion beyond the District’s mixing zone (Agency
Brief
at
2).
Violations
of water quality standards
involving DO
continue to occur
in the Illinois River
(R.
at 163).
The District presents extensive evidence from the principal
authors of State Water Survey (“Survey”)
reports on water quality
in the Illinois River and LaGrange Pool.
In early studies
conducted in 1965—67,
the authors noted
that:
Analyses of the oxygen demand characteristics of
the
waters within the LaGrange Pool indicate that
a
significant nitrogenous demand exists at
the upper
end.
The composition represents about
54 percent of
the total oxygen demand.
Dissolved Oxygen Resources and Waste Assimilative
Capacity of the LaGrange Pool, Illinois River
(1970),
T.A.
Butts, D.H. Schnepper and R.L.
Evans.
(Petitioner’s Exh.
2
at
3)
Later
studies noted
that:
Previous studies
in the LaGrange Pool of the Waterway
demonstrated the need
for assessing both the
carbonaceous oxygen demand and the nitrogenous oxygen
demand,
i.e.
the microbial oxidation of ammonia—N and
nitrite—N.
For this study,
the sum of
these demands
was considered
the total dissolved biochemical oxygen
demand upon the dissolved oxygen resources
in the
waterway.
The bottom sediments also exert an oxygen
demand...
Oxygen depletion as
a result of benthic activity
is
influenced by two factors
in the study area:
(1)
biological extraction of dissolved BOD by attached
zoological growth, and
(2) biological stabilization
of deposited sediments,
referred
to as sediment
oxygen demand
(SOD).
Oxygen usage results from four
factors:
(1)
dissolved carbonaceous BOD,
(2) dissolved nitrogenous
BOD,
(3)
benthic biological extraction and
(4)
sediment oxygen demand.
93—87
—10—
Water Quality Features of the Upper
Illinois
Waterway,
(1975)
Butts,
Evans and Lin.
(Petitioner’s
Exh.
3 at 13,
16,
39)
The District contends that the oxygen demand
imposed upon
the LaGrange Pool as cited
in Petitioner’s Exhibit
2,
is
representative solely of
carbonaceous and nitrogenous demand and
is not the total oxygen demand imposed on the waters of the
pool.
District testimony indicates that the other causes for
oxygen depletion,
as noted above, were subsequently examined.
In
1979,
SOD rates were measured
in situ throughout the pool, and
for the first time an attempt had been made
to incorporate SODs
into the DO balance of the LaGrange Pool
(R.
at 152, Petitioner’s
Exh.
4).
As the June
1981 report of the 1979 study
states:
The relative influence of the three primary oxygen
demand sinks
—
carbonaceous BOD, nitrogenous BOD, and
sediment oxygen demand
—
on the DO resources of
the
pool were examined.
For 7—day, 10—year low flow
conditions at 30
C, using assumed CBODs
and NBODs at
6.5 mg/l and 5.5 mg/i,
respectively,
in conjunction
with measured SODs the relative impact of each oxygen
demand component
is as follows:
CBOD, 56.5 percent;
NBOD,
13.4 percent;
SOD, 30.1 percent.
Adding
6600
cfs diversion flow to the low flow base changed the
relative
influence thus:
CBOD, 68.5 percent;
NBOD,
11.2 percent, SOD,
20.3 percent.
These values reflect pool averages only.
At the
beginning of the pool under
7—day, 10-year low flow
conditions,
the CBOD accounts for
65
to 72 percent of
the oxygen usage while at the end
it accounts
for
only
35
to 40 percent.
In the meantime,
the SOD
fraction increases from about 15—20 percent
to around
40 percent and the NBOD increases from about
15
percent to a little over 25 percent.
Water Quality Assessment and Waste Assimilative
Analysis of the LaGrange Pool,
Illinois River
(June
1981), Butts, Roseboom, Hill,
Liri, Beuscher, Twait
and Evans.
(Petitioner’s Exh.
4 at 105)
The District presented further evidence of
a 1984 study,
partially funded by the District, entitled The Impact of Greater
Peoria Sanitary District Ammonia Discharges on Illinois River
Water Quality,
principal author Thomas
A. Butts
(Petitioner’s
Exh.
5).
The study concludes,
inter
alia:
1.
The requirement that the GPSD meet a
2.5 mg/L
ammonia effluent standard
is unjustified and
severely restrictive.
93—88
—11—
2.
Ammonia—N loads
in the
range between those
historically and presently discharged by the GPSD
affect Illinois River D.O.
resources very little.
3.
A permissible increase
in GPSD effluent ammonia
concentration
is limited to
a maximum value
dictated by toxicity and mixing
zone standard
requirements
as set forth
in IPCB Rules
and
Regulations.
Id.
at
135..
CONCLUSIONS
It
is apparent that
it has been and continues to be
technically feasible for the District to meet the current ammonia
nitrogen standard.
That the District alludes that
it may,
at
some time
in the future, have difficulty meeting the
limits,
does
not change this fact.
The record does not indicate whether
loadings
to the District’s plant have actually increased at this
time, and thus the District’s assertions about further loads are
speculative
at best.
The record on economic reasonableness is clouded by
uncertainties.
It should not be the Board’s position to offer
speculation
in the face of these uncertainties.
Rather,
it
is
the responsiblity of the proponent
to prove that compliance with
the existing rule
is economically unreasonable.
Such
presentation would necessarily include specific economic
information directly applicable
to the issues raised, upon which
the Board can reasonably deliberate.
In attempting to sort out the observations on environmental
impact,
the Board must consider its charge to adopt regulations
“to promote the purposes and provisions”
of
the Environmental
Protection Act
(“Act”,
Ill.
Rev. Stat.
1987,
ch.
1111/2, par,
1013(a)).
One of
the purposes expressly identified
in the Act
is
to “restore, maintain and enhance the purity of the waters of
this State
in order
to protect health, welfare, property, and the
quality of life and to assure that no contaminants are discharged
into the waters of the State”
(Id.
at 1011(b); emphasis added).
Pursuant thereto,
the Board has adopted certain water
quality standards.
These standards serve multiple purposes,
including defining minimum goals for the quality of polluted
waters
on the one hand,
and maximum allowable ceiling on
deterioration of higher quality waters
on the other.
In either
case,
the mandate
of the Act
to restore, maintain and enhance
water quality requires that Illinois strive
to go beyond the
minimum cleanup goal
of polluted waters,
as well
as
to resist the
temptation to pollute higher quality waters up to the maximum
allowable limits.
93—8.
—12—
In applying these principles
to the instant matter,
it
is
to
be noted
that the District’s proposal has potential effect on two
water quality parameters,
DO and ammonia.
As regards DO,
it
is
uncontested that the violations of the DO standard caused by
excessive oxygen demand,
to which ammonia
is
a contributor,
continue
to occur
downstream from the District’s discharge.
While the District contends that its contributions
to this demand
are small,
the Board
nevertheless considers the continued
violations
to represent
a critical situation which requires all
reasonable efforts
to reverse.
The Board cannot find that the
District’s present contribution to this effort
is unreasonable.
It
is further important
to note that,
although the District
proposes
to assure that no violations
of the ammonia water
quality standard
itself will occur,
it does propose an untried
operating plan which would allow the standard
to be consistently
approached.
The Board finds this
a circumstance difficult to
reconcile with the
restore,
maintain and enhance provision of the
Act.
Moreover,
the District has presented no evidence that the
plan can operate
“close
to the line” without actually and
inadvertently causing
the standard to be exceeded.
The Board
finds this circumstance also difficult to reconcile with prudent
environmental management.
These perspectives on the District’s proposal might have
taken
a different turn were not the District currently
in
possession of and operating
a technically feasible and arguably
economically reasonable ammonia removal facility.
However, given
the totality of the facts,
it
is neither prudent nor consistent
with the Act at this time
to allow an effective and functioning
ammonia—removal system to
be taken off—line.
In summary, uncertainties in the record on both economic and
environmental matters preclude the Board from granting the
requested relief at this time.
However, the Board does note that
the District is
free to repetition for relief
as the situation
becomes clearer,
should
it wish to do
so.
IT IS
SO ORDERED.
The Petition
for
Site Specific Exception to the Effluent
Standards filed by the Greater Peoria Sanitary and Sewage
Disposal District
is hereby denied and this proceeding
is
dismissed.
Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act,
Ill. Rev.
Stat.
1987 ch.
1111/2 par.
1041,
provides
for appeal of
final
Orders
of the Board within
35 days.
The Rules of
the Supreme
Court of Illinois establish filing
requirements.
93—90
—13—
I,
Dorothy M. Gunn,
Clerk
of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the abpveQpinion and Order was
adopted on the
~
day
of
~
,
1988, by a vote
of
7c’
~7.
~
Dorothy
M. ~nn,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
93-9 1
