ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
October 15, 1987
IN THE MATTER OF:
PETITION OF THE CITY
OF TUSCOLA TO AMEND
)
R83—23
REGULATIONS PERTAINING
TO WATER POLLUTION
PROPOSED RULE. FIRST NOTICE.
PROPOSED OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J. Marlin):
This matter comes before the Board on a Petition to Amend
Regulations filed by the City of Tuscola (Tuscola) on October 31,
1983. Specifically, it is seeking relief from the effluent
limitations of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.120(c), Deoxygenating Wastes
and Suspended Solids, and Section 304.123(c), Phosphorus.
Section 304.120(c) would impose effluent limits of 10 milligrams
per liter (mg/l) for five—day biochemical oxygen demand and 12
mg/l for suspended solids (SS). Section 304.123(c) would impose
an effluent limit of 1 mg/l for phosphorus. Instead, Tuscola
wishesand
25 mg/lto
be
forsubject(SS).
onlyAlso,to
Tuscola,effluent islimitsrequestingof
20 (mg/l)relief BODfrom5
Section 304.105, Violation of Water Quality Standards, as it
relates to Section 302.212(a),(b) and (c), Ammonia Nitrogen and
Un—ionized Ammonia. Tuscola is requesting such relief so that it
may upgrade its wastewater treatment facility to a lesser extent
than what would be necessary in order to achieve compliance with
the existing, general regulations.
A hearing was held in this matter on February 3, 1984 in
Tuscola; members of the public were present. The transcript
generated by that hearing will be cited herein as “R’t. At that
hearing, the Hearing Officer granted the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency~s (Agency) motion to incorporate the record in
PCB 83—77, which was a variance proceeding concerning Tuscola’s
wastewater treatment plant discharge. (R. 5).
After hearing, great delay ensued in this proceeding due
primarily to Tuscola’s own actions. On April 5, 1984, the Board
granted Tuscola’s Motion to Stay Decision in this matter to allow
Tuscola and the Agency to continue discussions directed at
identifying and designing an affordable alternative treatment
system. By its Order, the Board granted the stay until August 6,
1984. The Board also directed Tuscola to file a progress report
concerning these negotiations on or before that date. On August
6, Tuscola did file a Progress Report which basically stated that
the work on design reevaluation had not yet been completed.
On February 1, 1985, the Hearing Officer issued a Report.
In
that
Report, the Hearing Officer stated that counsel for
82—3 29
Tuscola had promised on January JO, to send the Hearing Officer a
written report on the status of this proceedin~. The Report
concluded by stating that no such report had yet been received by
the Hearing Officer. On February 7, 1985, the Board issued an
Order which in part stated:
The Board had been aware of continuing
negotiations between the City of Tuscola and
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
to develop a feasible plan both for a related
variance case (PCB 84—146) and for this
regulatory proceeding. However, the record
in this matter is silent as to what has
happened in the last six months.
Unless the City of Tuscola files with the
Clerk of the Board within twenty—one days a
letter of intent to proceed promptly in this
matter, this proceeding will be subject to
dismissal.
In a letter to the Clerk of the Board dated February 28, 1985,
Tuscola claimed that it intended to “proceed promptly with this
matter”. Tuscola asserted that based on discussions with the
Agency, it was “prepared to resume its site—specific rulemaking
petition and proceed to final action with the Board”.
By an Order of March 12, 1985, the Hearing Officer ordered
that Tuscola submit a written account concerning its further
meetings with the Agency as well as supply more information
concerning waters which might be affected by Tuscola’s
discharge. Also, it was ordered that Tuscola contact the Hearing
Officer so that he could schedule another hearing within 30
days. Tuscola responded tp the Hearing Officer by a letter dated
April 11, 1985. The letter detailed reasons for a further delay:
There exists a dispute between the city and
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
concerning what will be recommended to the
Pollution Control Board. The Agency outlined
various programs which the city could
institute which would help the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency evaluate the
site specific relief requested by the city.
The city is now evaluating those programs.
The city is now in the process of making a
decision whether to continue to pursue this
regulatory relief, ~nd will know within the
next two weeks whether that will be done. At
that point, the hearing officer will be
contacted and a hearing will be set in
accordance with the hearing officer’s wishes.
8 2—3 30
3
Over one month later, in a letter to the Hearing Officer,
dated May 17, 1985, Tuscola asserted that “no further hearings
would be necessary”. In a subsequent letter dated July 2, 1985,
Tuscola requested that previous letters and filings, which
detailed its discussions with the Agency, be made part of the
record. Tuscola also stated:
As we had previously reported, Tuscola and
the IEPA have had discussions concerning the
resolution of this matter. Those discussions
have now terminated.
Tuscola believes that it has decisively
proven that it is entitled to the relief
requested. Tuscola does not believe that any
further substantive hearings are necessary
and, therefore, requests that the Board
decide this matter on the record before
it....
Consequently, 17 months after the hearing was held in this
matter, Tuscola requested that the Board make a decision on its
petition for site—specific relief.
Additional delay then resulted due to the preparation of an
Economic Impact Study by the Department of Energy and Natural
Resources (DENR). By a letter dated September 3, 1985, DENR
informed the Hearing Officer that DENR had determined that an
Economic Impact Study (EcIS) was necessary for this proceeding.
On April 20, 1987, 19 months later, DENR filed the ECIS for this
proceeding. After further discussions between Tuscola, the
Agency, and DENR, a hearing on the EcIS was held on July 29, 1987
in Tuscola. The transcript generated by this EcIS hearing will
be cited herein as “Ec.R.”.
General Information
In its Opinion and Order of January 24, 1985, which denied
Tuscola a variance extension request under Docket PCB 84—146, the
Board described Tuscola’s wastewater treatment facility.
Tuscola is located in Douglas County,
Illinois, and has a population of
approximately 4,600. The EcIS states that
Tuscola’s population is approximately
4,300. Tuscola’s post—EcIS hearing comments
Sets the population at 2,500. The City owns
and operates two sewage treatment plants.
The South Plant is 20 years old 1985 age
and employs primary sedimentation and
conventional activated sludge treatment. It
is designed to handle approximately 0.56
82—33 1
4
million gallons per day (MGD) but receives
only 0.2 MGD. This creates an organic
underload resulting in poor settling of
solids. Discharge from the South Plant is to
Scattering Fork Creek, which feeds into the
Embarras River. Downstream, water from the
Embarras is pumped into a side channel
reservoir by the City of Charleston.
Charleston uses this reservoir as a public
water supply and for recreational purposes.
The North Plant was built in 1938 with a
design capacity of 0.28 NIGD. It employs
secondary treatment consisting of an Imhoff
tank, trickling filter and sedimentatin tank
with sludge drying beds. During excess wet
weather flows, however, the Imhoff tank is
overloaded, sludge solids cannot be properly
handled and flow bypasses this plant.
Discharge is to the Hayes Branch, to the
Hackett Branch, to Scattering Fork Creek 3.2
miles downstream from the South Plant
outfall, and finally to the Embarras River.
City of Tuscola v. Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency, 62 POB 411—12 (1985).
At the EcIS hearing held in July of 1987, counsel for Tuscola
stated that the two plants had not been altered since the
February, 1984 hearing. (Ec.R. 60).
As stated earlier, Tuscola is seeking site—specific relief
so that it may upgrade its current wastewater treatment facility
in a manner that is significantly less costly when compared with
modifications that would be necessary to achieve compliance with
currently applicable regulations. At hearing, held in February
1984, Tuscola asserted that modifications to the wastewater
treatment facility, which would result in the facility’s
compliance with current regulations, would cost $6.1 million. (R.
6). The EcIS sets a present capital cost for the full compliance
conventional treatment alternative at $6,620,800. (EcIS, p.
vi). This alternative has been called Strategy 1 by the EcIS.
Instead of utilizing the full compliance alternative,
Tuscola has proposed a less costly treatment alternative in
connection with its requested site—specific relief. This
alternative pursued by Tuscola was labeled Strategy 4 by the
EcIS. For clarity, the Board will also refer to this treatment
alternative as Strategy 4.
Tuscola stated at hearing that Strategy 4 would cost
approximately $2.7 million. (R. 7). The EcIS estimates the
capital cost for Strategy 4 at $3,392,600. (ECIS, p. vi).
82—332
Strategy 4 calls for the abandonment of the North plant. The
EcIS details further the proposed modifications which constitute
Strategy 4:
1. Construction of a pump station at the
north plant to pump wastewater through a
force main to the south plant.
2. Installation of a new pump station at the
south plant to handle the increased dry
weather and wet weather flows.
3. Construction of a storm water first flush
basin and circular clarifier with a
chlorinated overflow to Scattering Fork
Creek.
4. Addition of an activated sludge tank, a
secondary clarifier and aerobic digesters.
5. Construction of sludge drying beds.
6.
Addition of wet sludge handling
facilities and land application equipment.
7. Addition of chlorination facilities.
8. Interconnecting piping and miscellaneous
appurtenances.
9. Standby generator.
(EcIS, p. 15)
Strategy 4 is similar in many respects to the full compliance
alternative of Strategy 1 except that Strategy 4 does not contain
the following treatment components: tertiary filters (for DOD
and SS control); nitrification tankage, blowers and appurtenances
(for ammonia nitrogen control); and chemical addition and
expanded sludge handling facilities (for phosphorus control).
(EcIS, p. 15).
Technically Feasible and Economically Reasonable Alternatives
Generally, the Board grants site—specific relief from the
requirements of general regulations only upon a showing that it
is not technically feasible or economically reasonable to comply
with the general regulations. A recent Appellate Court decision
has upheld this standard.
In Central Illinois Light Company v. Illinois Pollution
Control Board, No. 3—86—0841 (3d Dist. July 24, 1987), the Third
District affirmed the Board’s denial of a site—specific
82—333
6
rulemaking proposal of Central Illinois Light Company (CILCO).
CILCO argued on appeal that the Board did not properly apply the
statutory criteria in its evaluation of the record. The Third
District rejected this position and stated:
After a thorough review of the evidence
presented at the hearing in this case, we
conclude the Board’s determination that CILCO
failed to demonstrate compliance is
technically infeasible and economically
unreasonable are amply supported by the
record. As the Board pointed out in denying
a motion by CILCO for a rehearing, these
determinations
regarding
technical
feasibility and economic reasonableness alone
are sufficient to support the decision of the
Board.
(Id. slip op. at 10).
The Board notes that CILCO has filed a Petition for Leave to
Appeal the Third District’s decision with the Supreme Court of
Illinois. That petition is currently pending under Supreme Court
Docket No. 65777.
In order to evaluate the merits of Tuscola site—specific
proposal, the Board will examine whether there are any wastewater
treatment alternatives which would provide compliance with the
existing regulatory requirements and at the same time be
technically feasible and economically reasonable for Tuscola.
The first step in that examination is to identify treatment
alternatives which would enable Tuscola to comply with current
regulations. The EcIS evaluates in detail seven treatment
alternatives of which three are purported to afford compliance
with existing regulatory requirements.
The first alternative is the full compliance alternative
described by Tuscola as costing over $6 million, referred to as
Strategy 1. As stated earlier, the modifications included under
Strategy 1 are essentially the same as those under Strategy 4,
Tuscola’s proposal, except that Strategy 1 provides for further
controls to reduce BOD, TSS, ammonia nitrogen, and phosphorus.
Under Strategy 1, BOD and SS effluent levels would be reduced by
high rate tertiary filters. Strategy 1 would also employ a
single stage nitrification process which would “reduce both
carbonaceous and nitrogenous oxygen demand in a single stage of
aeration, clarification, and sludge return”. This strategy would
remove phosphorus “by adding chemicals to form insoluble
phosphates which would precipitate in the primary or final
clarifiers.” Sodium aluminate is the chemical that would be used
to precipitate out the phosphorus. (EcIS, p. 11—12).
82—334
7
The EcIS states that Strategy 3. has a capital cost of
$6,620,800 and an annual operating cost of $196,700.
The EcIS has also identified two other treatment
alternatives which would provide full compliance with existing
regulations. Each alternative is a variation of “land treatment”
technology. Essentially, “land treatment” entails the treatment
of wastewater in an aerated lagoon with the resulting nutrient—
rich effluent applied to crops or grass. Consequently, no
effluent would be discharged to the waters of the State. The two
additional compliance alternatives were identified by the EcIS as
Strategies 2A and 2B. Strategy 2A would involve the irrigation
of 230 acres of corn and interseeded rye at a hydraulic rate of
35 inches/year. Given the times of the year available for
irrigation, this amounts to an average application of 1 inch per
week. Strategy 2B is designed to provide for the irrigation of
90 acres of perennial grasses at a hydraulic rate of 90 inches
per year. This rate of application equates to 2.6 inches per
week. (EcIS, p. 19).
At the EcIS hearing, John Sheaffer, Ph.D. described in
detail the treatment process of the wastewater prior to land
application.
The land treatment system that we use for
comparative purposes is) the deep aerated
lagoon, what we do is make sure that the base
of the lagoon is at least two feet above
seasonal high ground water tab.e, which means
we build it up if we need to. •We want at
least 15 feet of working depth in it. The
wastes are injected through a comminutor or
grinder pump and put in at the bottom of a
filled lagoon.
So, there’s 15 feet of
aerated water always between your nose and
any untreated waste. So, we avoid any
exposure to the atmosphere of untreated
waste. The air is injected at the bottom of
the lagoon through static tube aerators,
which I describe them as like a stovepipe
with three pinwheels in, you know, each free—
moving, and one moves to counter one another
so we get a good distribution of the air.
The air is put in at the bottom. These are
resting on the bottom above the space we
provided for the sludge storage. In this
design, we provided 36 days of treatment. In
other words, the wastes undergo 36 days of
aerated treatment.
...T)he wastes stay in that aerated
treatment cell for 36 days, arid then they are
taken during the growing season from that
82—335
8
treatment cell through a chlorine contact
tank and then out into the irrigation
system. In the non—growing season or a
period of unusually wet weather, they go into
the winter storage, which when this report
was done we estimated 120 days of winter
storage.
...The aerated treatment) cells are
engineered out of compacted clay liners to
prevent any leakage, and we call for
monitoring wells upgrading and downgrading so
that one can demonstrate the effectiveness of
the system.
(Ec.R. 73—75)
With regard to the biological aspects of treatment, Sheaffer
testified:
I)t’s the same biological processes in any
treatment plan sic) except we’re riot trying
to accumulate biomass like in an activated
sludge. We’re not bringing bacteria back to
increase the biomass. What we are doing is
just providing a long period of time. So,
we’ve substituted time for sludge
accumulation in a treatment process, and by
going with engineered deep treatment cells,
you can provide time.
(Ec.R. 75).
The deep aerated treatment cells are designed to accumulate
a 20 year accumulation of sludge. As a result, sludge does not
have to be handled at any time during the first 20 years of
operation. (Ec.R. 60).
Sheaffer also testified about the quality of the effluent
that is applied to the land. With regard to BOD5 and suspended
solid concentrations, the effluent would have concentrations
lower than 10 rng/l BOD5 and 12 mg/i SS, which is the standard
that would apply if the effluent was discharged to waters of the
State. Also, due to the relatively long treatment period most of
the ammonia nitrogen will have been converted to nitrate
nitrogen. (Ec.R. 76). According to Sheaffer, a land treatment
facility at the Hamilton Lakes hotel and office complex, near
O’Hare airport, irrigates grass with an effluent containing the
following concentrations: BOlD5 of 3 mg/i; suspended solids of 5
mg/i; and fecal colliforrn of zero counts. The Hamilton Lakes
facility has a year round capacity of 250,000 gallons per day.
The capacity of a land treatment facility required for Tuscola
would be 600,000 gallons per day. (Ec. R. 62—63).
82—336
9
The issue concerning viral transmission via the treated
effluent, was also addressed at the EcIS hearing. Stephen John
stated that as the treated effluent percolated through the soil,
viruses would be effectively removed.
In a soil characteristic of this part of
Illinois Tuscola area)
,
there would be
complete removal of bacteria and viruses in
relatively short distances; I think distances
on the order of five to ten feet of movement
through the soil which provide complete
removal of both bacteria and viruses.
(Ec.R. 79)
On this same issue, the EcIS also quotes an authority as stating:
The land treatment system removes viruses to
a higher degree than conventional treatment
and disinfection systems.
Treatment
processes with longer detention times, such
as in ponds and storage lagoons, have better
removals than conventional activated sludge
treatment.
(EcIS, p. 45).
The EcIS then relates this finding to Tuscola’s situation
As applied to Tuscola, these conclusions
indicate that the land treatment strategies
would impose somewhat lower health risks than
the conventional treatment strategies on
downstream swimmers or users of Charleston
city water or other potable water supplies
drawn from the receiving waters.
The
difference in health impacts has not been
quantified or monetized.
(EcIS, p. 45—46).
Also, Sheaffer testified that the operation of the aerated
treatment cells as well as winter storage areas would not cause
an odor problem. (E.R. 66, 76).
The EcIS presents cost estimates for the two land treatment
alternatives. One set of capital cost estimates does not include
any costs to purchase the land that will be irrigated by the
treated effluent. This is in response to the assumption that it
would not be necessary for Tuscola to purchase the land. Rather,
it is thought that Tuscola could negotiate an arrangement with
current owners to accept the effluent for irrigation. (EcIS, p.
22). The EcIS also presents capital cost estimates which include
82—337
10
the acquisition cost of land to be irrigated. This additional
cost assumes a purchase price of $3,000 per acre. (EcIS, p.
56). To account for transaction costs due to negotiating an
agreement with current landowners, a higher percentage
contingency was included in the annual operating costs for the
land treatment alternatives than that what was included in the
conventional technology alternative operating estimates. (EcIS,
p. 23).. The EcIS presents cost estimates for the land treatment
as follows:
Without Land Purchase
With Land Purchase
Strategy 2A Strategy 2B
Strategy 2A
Strategy
Capi tal
Cost
$3,064,300
$2,748,200
$3,254,300
$3,018,20
Annual
Operating
Cost
$75,000
$78,300
$64,600
$73,90
(EcIS, p. vi)
(EcIS, p. 56)
There is nothing in the record to suggest that the
conventional treatment alternative for full compliance, Strategy
1, is technically infeasible. Similarly, the land treatment
alternatives of Strategy 2A and 2B, are technically feasible.
At the EcIS hearing, Sheaffer stated that the land treatment
system at the Hamilton Lakes complex has been operating since
December, 1980. (Ec.R. 63). He also stated that a land treatment
system which will have a capacity of 595,000 gallons per day
(Tuscola would require 600,000 gallons per day) is currently
being constructed in Lake County. (Ec. R. 62, 64). Sheaffer also
stated that there are approximately 25 private land treatment
facilities currently under construction in Illinois. (Ec.R.
71). Stephen John testified that there are two municipal slow
rate land treatment systems in the state, at Camp Point and
Pleasant Hills. (Ec.R. 64). In response to questions whether a
land treatment facility could be funded in part by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA) as a
demonstration project, John stated:
M)y understanding is that the Federal
Government at this point would not be
interested in funding demonstration projects
because throughout the country it’s land
treatment a thoroughly proven technology.
It doesn’t happen to be very common in
Illinois, but it’s
——
you know, it’s widely
used throughout the country, and I think the
Federal Government
——
USEPA would generally
82—3 38
11
feel that there’s no need for a demonstration
to prove that it’s an appropriate technology.
(Ec.R. 69).
The authors of the EcIS generally conclude that Tuscola
would be a good location for land treatment due to the type of
soil found in the area. (Ec.R. 80—82). The authors also assert
that a land treatment is a flexible type of treatment method
which could be easily expanded as the population of Tuscola
expands. (Ec.R. 83—85).
Although land treatment is not currently in widespread use
throughout the state, the record indicates that the land
treatment alternatives of Strategy 2A and 2B are technically
feasible methods of wastewater treatment for Tuscola.
Next, the Board needs to determine whether the costs for
these technically feasible, full compliance alternatives are
economically reasonable.
According to the EcIS, the present rates paid by Tuscola
residents for sewage services are lower than rates charged by
most other small communities in east—central Illinois. (Ec.R. 62,
EcIS, p. 58). At the same time, Tuscola has the highest median
household income, when compared to the same communities. (EcIS,
p. 58).
The authors of the EelS calculated the user charge per 1,000
gallons which would result from implementing each treatment
alternative without the aid of a grant. The user charge for each
technically feasible, full compliance alternative is presented
below. Also, the user charge for Tuscola’s proposed treatment
alternative is shown.
User Charge Per 1000 gallon
Strategy 1: Full compliance
——
Conventional Treatment
$7.99
Strategy 2A: Full compliance
——
Land Treatment of 230 acres
(Without Land Purchase)
$3.72
(With Land Purchase)
$4.16
Strategy 2B: Full compliance
——
Land Treatment of 90 acres
(Without Land Purchase)
$3.41
(With Land Purchase)
$3.52
82—339
12
Strategy 4: Tuscola’s Treatment
Proposal With Site—Specific Relief
$4.16
(EelS, p. 54).
Tuscola’s present sewer rate is $1.74 per 1,000 gallons. (EcIS,
p. 58).
If Tuscola would employ a land treatment system, it could
comply with current regulations as well as provide wastewater
treatment at a user cost that is less than or equal to the user
cost which would result from Tuscola’s proposed treatment
alternative. The economic impact resulting from *Tuseola’s
treatment proposal, which is dependent upon
*
a grant of
regulatory relief, would be basically equivalent to the economic
impact of complying with current regulations.
Tuscola proposes to upgrade its wastewater treatment
facility at a cost of over $3.3 million. This modification, for
all of its cost, will still not bring Tuscola’s wastewater
discharge into compliance with current regulatory requirements.
As a result, Tuscola is seeking to amend the State’s regulations
so that it will not be subject to the currently applicable
standards. However, the record demonstrates that by using land
treatment Tuscola can comply with current regulations at no more
cost than the proposed modifications.
Given the information in the record, the Board concludes
that compliance with current regulations is technically feasible
and economically reasonable for Tuscola.
Phosphorus Control
Testimony received at the February 3, 1984 hearing primarily
dealt with the issue of whether Tuscola should be granted relief
from the effluent limitation for phosphorus as required by 35
Ill. Adm. Code 304.123(c). Section 304.123(c) imposes an
effluent limitation of 1 mg/i of phosphorus. Specifically, the
testimony centered around Tuscola’s phosphorus discharge as it
impacts the side channel reservoir, which is approximately 50
stream miles downstream from Tuscola’s discharge.
The Agency and Tuscola each presented an expert witness;
these expert witnesses generally had opposing views. Allison
Brigham, an employee of the Natural History Survey (Survey)
testified on behalf of Tuscola. She testified as to the wo~rkthe
Survey did under contract to Clark Dietz. (R. 45). At hearing,
she stated:
I)t would be very difficult to detect any
measurable difference in phosphorus
concentration in the side channel reservoir
82—340
13
as a result of reduc~ng phosphorus
concentrations in the Tuscola effluent.
The phosphorus contributions to the upper
Embarras watershed are very complex, and they
include point source discharges, but that is
less than fifteen percent of the total
phosphorus load to what was existing in Lake
Charleston, and certainly those conditions
haven’t changed too dramatically since the
data were collected in 1973.
(R. 17).
Brigham stated that data indicates that Tuscola’s discharge
amounts to three to nine percent of the water pumped into the
side river channel reservoir during the time of low flow of the
Embarras (R. 35—36). She also asserted that “a considerable
amount of assimilation or uptake or cycling of the phosphorus can
occur within fifty stream miles.” (R. 18). She testified that a
study conducted by Clark Dietz shows that “phosphorus
concentrations declined even within two hundred yards of the
Tuscola) outfall... two and a half to twelve—fold, and
significant further decreases occurred just within Scattering
Fork....” (R. 19).
Donna Sefton, an Agency employee, testified on behalf of the
Agency. Sefton stated that according to a 1973 United States
Environmental Protection Agency’s (U.S.EPA) National
Eutrophication Survey, Tuscola’s phosphorus contribution to Lake
Charleston amounts to 42.5 of the phosphorus contribution from
all point sources. Sefton asserted that an updated calculation
finds Tuscola with a 53 contribution of the total point source
discharges (R. 67). Sefton further testifies:
“when Charleston pumps into the side
channel reservoir from the Embarras River in
the summertime that we have documented that
algal blooms occur after that, and that in
the summertime non—point source contributions
are at their lowest level and that point
sources would tend to make up more of the
percentage of the phosphorus loading in the
Embarras River at that time, and that Tuscola
is the largest of those point sources.
(R. 72—73).
Sefton also stated that during the summer months point sources
contribute 35 percent of the total phosphorus loading in the
Embarras. (R. 80). According to Sefton, this conclusion is based
on the underlying assumption, determined from limnological
literature, that all of the phosphorus from point sources in a
82— 341
14
watershed will eventually contribute to the eutrophication of a
downstream lake. (FL 83). Sefton concludes that if Tuscola
controlled phosphorus to an effluent concentration of 1 mg/l, the
currently applicable standard, the side channel reservoir would
experience less algal growth. Similarly, she also claims the
City of Charleston would not have to use as much copper sulphate
in the reservoir; copper sulfate is a chemical used to control
algae. (R. 88).
At the EelS hearing, the Agency stated that its position
with regard to phosphorus has changed since the 1984 hearing.
The Agency has currently proposed a rule, docketed as R87—6,
which would amend Section 304.123. According to the Agency, if
the R87—6 proposal was adopted by the Board, Tuscola would be
exempted from the requirements of Section 304.123 because of its
distance from the side channel reservoir. At the EelS hearing,
counsel for the Agency stated, “But I would state that it would
be the Agency’s position that Tuscola should not be subjected to
the phosphorus requirement since it would qualify for an
exemption under a new proposal”. (R. 59). However, the Agency,
in its post—Eels hearing comments seems to take a somewhat
different position on this issue. The comments state, “Although
the City Tuscola in the present proceeding has not adequately
justified relief as to phosphorus, the City would eventually
benefit from the Agency’s proposal in PCB R87—6”. The comments
conclude with the recommendation that Tuscola’s proposal be
denied. (P.C. #2, p. 6).
Tuscola argues in its comments that the Agency only opposed
the proposal due to the alleged effects upon the side channel
reservoir from phosphorus. Tuscola views the R87—6 proposal as
evidence that the Agency is no longer concerned about this
possible impact. As a result, Tuscola concludes, “Thus, the only
parameter of concern to the Agency in this proceeding is no
longer of concern to them”. (P.C. #1, p. 4).
The Board will grant Tuscola relief to the extent that it
will not be subject to the 1 mg/i effluent standard for
phosphorus as prescribed by Section 304.123(c). In reaching this
conclusion, the Board has considered the conflicting testimony in
the record and taken into account the distance of Tuscola from
Charleston and the fact that the reservoir in question is not a
main stream reservoir.
However, Tuscola is denied the remainder of the relief that
it has requested, since it is technically feasible and
economically reasonable for it to comply with current
regulations.
ORDER
The Board hereby proposes to adopt the following amendment
arid instructs the Clerk of the Board to cause its publication for
First Notice in the Illinois Register.
82—342
15
TITLE 35: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE C: WATER POLLUTION
CHAPTER I: POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PART 304
EFFLUENT STANDARDS
SUBPART B: SITE SPECIFIC RULES
AND EXCEPTIONS NOT OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY
Section 304.215 City of Tuscola Wastewater Treatment Facility
Discharges
The requirements of Section 304.123(c) shall not apply to the
discharges from the City of Tuscola’s wastewater treatment
facility into Scattering Fork Creek, Douglas County, Illinois.
(Source: Amended at
Ill. Reg. ____________________________
effective _________________________________________
IT IS SO ORDERED.
J.D. Dumelle concurred. B. Forcade dissented.
I, Dorothy M. Gum, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was
adopted on the /.A~ day of
_________________,
1987, by a vote
of
.5—,
Dorothy M’~, Gunn,’ Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
82—343
