ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
December
20,
1984
IN THE
MATTER
OF:
)
SITE-SPECIFIC PHOSPHORUS
)
R83-12
LIMITATION FOR
THE
CITY
OF SHELBYVILLE
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE
BOARD
(by
3.
Marlin):
This matter comes before
the Board
upon a May 23,
1983
filing by the City of
Shelbyville
(City)
requesting site-
specific regulatory relief
from the
phosphorus water quality
standard.
On July 14,
1983 the Board
granted the City~s
motion
for
waiver of the
200 signature
requirement
(53
PCB
65).
The City filed a
supplemental petition
on January 17,
1984 and a second supplemental
petition on
April 26,
1984,
the latter requesting
relief from
the
phosphorus effluent
standard located at 35
Ill, Adm.
Code
304.123(c), or in the
alternative that Shelbyville’s
effluent not
contain more
than
2.8 mg/i of phosphorus as
P, or such other
relief from Section
304.123(c)
that
the Board
may deem appropriate.
A
public
hearing
was
held
in
Shelbyville, Illinois
on April 24,
1984
at which
members
of the
public and press
attended.
The
Ii-
linois
Department
of
Energy
and Natural
Resources issued a
negative
declaration on July
9, 1984,
finding that an
economic
impact
study
was not
necessary.
On July 24,
1984 the
Economic
Technical Advisory Committee
concurred in
this finding.
Shel-
byville filed its brief
on September
10,
1984 and the Illinois
Environmental Protection
Agency (Agency)
filed its comments
on October
16,
1984.
The City previously
was granted
variance from 35 Ill, Adm.
Code 302,205
(Old Rule 203(c)
of
Chapter
3)
and Section 304.105
(Old Rule 402 of Chapter
3)
until June
1,
1982 or upon a change
in regulations
(27 PCB 136,
August
4, 1977,
PCB 77-150).
The
previously inapplicable
phosphorus effluent
standard
(Old
Rule
407 of Chapter
3) was modified
and codified
at
35 III. Adm.
Code 304.123, effective
May 17, 1979, and
became applicable
to Shelbyville at that time~
The City’s
NPDES permit was
amended by the Agency to
require that the
City~seffluent
not exceed
1 mg/i phosphorus
(Pet., Exh,
A, at 2).
The
City’s
population equivalent
is
more than 5,000.
The City~swastewater
treatment plant
(WWTP)
is being
up-
graded
to include an
activated sludge system.
The design
in-
cludes chemical and polymer
feed facilities
for phosphorus.
The current peak flow to
the
WWTP
is
3 MGD.
The average
flow
is 1,5
MGD.
Modifications
to the plant will
limit peak
flow
to
2 MGD.
After modification,
the plant
effluent will have
62-31
2
an
average
flow rate of
0.73 MGD, and the
storm lagoon
overflow,
0.77 MGD
(Pet.
Exh.
A, at
4).
With a
phosphorus concentration
of
1 mg/i, the
combined
effluent would
contribute 2066
kg/yr
phosphorus
(5.66
kg/day)
during normal
operation
(Ag.
Exh.
2,
revised Table
4).
These figures correctly
assume that
first
flush is fully
treated
for phosphorus as
required by
35
Iii.
Adm. Code 306.305,
Presently, based on an
average flow rate
of
1.6 MGD and
an
average phosphorus
concentration of
2.8 mg/l,
the
WWTP discharges 6,260 kg/yr phosphorus
(17.15 kg/day
or
37.73
lbs/day)
into the
Kaskaskia River
(Ag.
Exh.
2,
Table 3).
The
City’s figures estimate 33.8 lbs/day
phosphorus
(Pet.
Exh.
A, at
4).
The WWTP
discharges
to the Kaskaskia
River,
a tributary
of the
Carlyle
Reservoir
(Reservoir).
The
Kaskaskia
flows 85
stream miles
(47 miles,
R.
124) south to
the
41 square
mile
reservoir
constructed by
the Army Corps of
Engineers in
1967.
The
Reservoir
is used for
flood control,
navigation, water
supply, recreation
and
low flow augmentation.
It provides
water
to 8,500
people and
is visited by 2.5
million recrea-
tionists
a year
(R.
122).
The average
depth is 8.9 feet
(R.
69).
The
Reservoir watershed
of 2,678 square
miles is
composed
of
eighty percent cropland, ten percent pasture
and ten
percent
woodland
(Ag.
Exh.
2, Table 1).
The average
retention
time
for
the Reservoir
is 64
days
(Pet. Exh. A, at
10).
While
the
water
quality
standard
for the Reservoir is
0.05 mg/i total
phosphorus
(35 Ill. Adm.
Code 302.205), the
Reservoir
contains
0.14
mg/i
(R.
164),
almost triple the standard.
Of that
amount,
0.03
mg/i is
dissolved
phosphorus which is
available for
plant
growth
(R. 165).
Exhibit A
to the petition
cites that
the
median concentration of
total phosphorus
in Lake Carlyle
is
84
mg/i
(p.
13).
The
Board assumes
this
figure is in error.
DISCUSSION
The City
contends
it should be granted
relief because
“the
imposition
and
enforcement of Sections
304.123(c)
and
302.205 would
not only
impose an
arbitrary
and unreasonable
economic hardship
upon the
City, but would
also have no sig-
nificant effect upon the
Carlyle Reservoir.”
(Pet. Brief,
at
15).
The
estimated cost of
the WWTP upgrading
is
$4.7
million
(R.
15).
This does not
include the cost
of any sewers.
The
capital cost of phosphorus control equipment
is $33,500
with
an estimated annual Operation and maintenance
cost of
$44,200
(Pet.
Exh. A,
at 5—7).
Step
3
construction
funding was approved
by the
Agency
(Pet.
Brief at
3).
A City
contract has been
awarded
for
$4,268,500
(Id.).
The
City’s
25 percent
share would be
62-32
3
$1,067,125
(R.
15).
The City voters
passed
a referendum
authorizing the issuance of $1,100,000 in
general
obligation
bonds for the project
(Pet. Brief at 3).
This adds
to the
previous debt of one million and sets the
municipal debt at
$2.1 million
(R.
18).
The City figures that it will be neces-
sary to raise the combined sewer and water bills
for each
connection by seventeen to twenty—two dollars annually to
cover the operation and maintenance costs
(R.
45,
46,
47,
51).
The total engineering fees for the WWTP project approxi-
mate $392,581.46
(R.
25—6).
The City must
pay
$11,000 of that
amount for a combined sewer overflow study
and will
be reim-
bursed by the
Agency for
75 percent of
$381,581.46,
which
totals $286,186.10
(Id.).
The City is having financial problems.
Income
for the
1984 fiscal year was
$803,000 while expenditures
were
$869,000
(R.
13).
The City has suffered a decline in
revenue
due to
a variety of causes including the recession,
reduced
sales tax
revenue, declining revenue sharing and the homestead exemption.
The City has laid off five employees
(R.
37),
needs
a new water
tower which is expected to cost $450,000 to $500,000
(R.
39-41),
can only make emergency sewer repairs to the
seventy
year old
portions of the sewer system rather than replacing them
(R.
11-12), has other projects on hold and is expected to pass tax
anticipation warrants in May 1984
(R.
35).
In 1981 the water rates were increased
30 percent and the
sewer rates
80 percent
(Pet. Brief at
7,
Pet. Exh.
2).
A 1982
ordinance increased the rates by another 30
percent
(Pet.
Brief
at
7,
Pet.
Exh.
3).
The minimum monthly sewer
and
water bills
are $4.50 each
(R.
34).
The Mayor testified
that an
average
bill for a family of two for sewer and water is twenty-five
to thirty dollars
(R.
35).
The expected rise of seventeen to twenty-two dollars per
connection per year for combined sewer and
water bills
(R.
46,
49) amounts to a user charge of $1.42 to
$1.84 per month
to
cover annual operation and maintenance costs
(Id.).
The Agency contends that the annual
operation and
main-
tenance estimates for phosphorus removal may
be overstated
(Ag. Brief at 3).
The City’s consultant based
the
estimate
on reducing phosphorus content from
8 mg/i in
the raw
influent
water to 1.0 mg/i in the effluent
(R.
83).
However,
the cur-
rent plant produces an effluent with an average phosphorus
concentration of 2.7 mg/i
(R. 62) without
phosphorus treat-
ment.
The Agency believes that this might allow
the
reduced
use of chemicals which make up about 75 percent of the opera-
tion and maintenance costs.
The City’s consultant states
62-33
4
that the upgraded plant will differ from the current system
and that
~we’l1 not necessarily see the same reduction in
phosphorus through an activated sludge plant as we do through
the current plant.”
(R.
83).
The City has not argued that the entire upgrading
project
is economically infeasible; only that the phosphorus control
equipment is economically infeasible.
The Board notes that in R76—l it deleted the general
water quality standard for phosphorus of 0.05 mg/i and re-
placed
it with
a 1.0 mg/i effluent standard for discharges
affecting lakes and reservoirs
of twenty acres or larger.
The Economic Impact Study
(EcIS) concluded that without the
change, the 27 municipalities currently required to meet
the 1.0 mg/i standard would have had to expend an additional
total of 2.2 to 2.7 million dollars to meet the 0.05 mg/i
standard (EcIS at
2).
The City maintains
it currently discharges
12,300 pounds
of phosphorus annually to the Kaskaskia River.
Carlyle
Reser-
voir receives
a total of 698,100 pounds.
The
City,
therefore,
claims responsibility for about 1.8 percent of the
total
(Pet.
at
12).
The City further maintains that by meeting the standards
it will reduce total impact to the lake by a mere
0.54 percent
(R.
70).
The City points out that 80-90 percent of the loading
comes from non—point sources and that the reduction obtained
by treatment does not justify the expense.
An Agency witness contends that
if Shelbyvilie meets the
standard, total loadings will
be reduced by about three percent
(R.
133).
She stated that the reservoir currently receives
198,816 kg (437,395 ibs)
of phosphorus per year.
She pointed
out that the phosphorus input from non—point sources has been
reduced by 34 percent since 1973 and is expected to be reduced
by an additional ten percent as conservation tillage
is used
on additional acres of cropland
(R.
126)
and that her data is
more recent than that used by the City.
She also assumed that
more of the City’s total discharge would be treated than did
the City
(R.
134).
The record in numerous places makes
a distinction between
phosphorus which
is
available for uptake
by algae and readily
contributes
to eutrophication and that which for a variety of
reasons is not readily available.
The term “total phosphorus”
does not distinguish between the two forms.
The Board will
take notice of comments on this point from the EcIS
in R76—i
to help clarify the situation:
62-34
5
“The benefits derived from phosphorus removal
from waste water treatment plants are calculated on
a total phosphorus
basis.
This type of calculation
underestimates the benefits of this phosphorus re-
moval.
The reason is that not all of the phosphorus
in a lake or in
a discharge to
a
lake can be utilized
by the organisms
in that lake.
Only that which is
orthophosphate
or is converted to orthophosphate
in
the lake is available for uptake by organisms.
The
percentage of phosphorus which is available in waste
water effluents is quite high,
usually greater than
80 percent.
Conversely, the percentage of phosphorus
from indirect sources——erosion,
etc.
is usually much
less than
50 percent.
Thus,
removing one pound of
phosphorus from waste water effluents is equivalent
to removing
2 or
3 pounds
of phosphorus from other
sources.”
(p.
10—11).
The Agency witness explained that the terms ortho-,
free,
soluble and dissolved phosphorus all are generally equivalent
(R.
175).
She said that about
35 percent of the phosphorus
from non-point sources is dissolved as opposed to almost 80
percent from point sources.
She also said that approximately
seven percent of the dissolved phosphorus reaching Lake Car—
lyle comes from the Shelbyville discharge
(R.
137-8),
The
witness for the City had conducted no study of the avail-
ability of phosphorus for uptake by algae
arid could provide
no information
on that specific topic
CR.
93-5),
In response to the City’s contention that meeting the
regulation would not significantly impact the eutrophication
problem, the Agency witness conceded that the reservoir would
remain eutrophic even if the standard were met
(A.
164).
She
went on to point out,
however, that reducing the point source
inputs would prevent future degradation of the resource since
phosphorus builds up in the reservoir over time, making the
problem worse
CR.
165—8).
She also testified that because of
the
direct relationship between phosphorus concentrations and
algal
biomass, reducing phosphorus
loadings would reduce algal
biomass in Carlyle Reservoir
(Ag. Exh.
2,
p.
5).
She pointed
out that the City~sdistance from the reservoir does not dim-
inish the impact of its
phosphorus discharge.
It is clear from the record that the phosphorus discharge
from Sheibyville
is a
contributing factor to eutrophication
in Carlyle Reservoir.
When the percentage of
dissolved
phos-
phorus
is
considered,
the impact of the
discharge far
exceeds
the level indicated by the City.
62-35
6
The City has requested a
2.7 mg/i
limit on the amount
of
phosphorus
it may discharge as
an alternative
to installing
control equipment.
A careful reading of
the record shows
that
this would not work.
In the first
place the 2.7 mg/k
figure
is a mean value with a range of 1.0 to
3.6 mg/i.
It is
based
on an unspecified number of
effluent
samples taken between
April of 1975 and September of 1976
(R.
61—2).
It is
un-
likely the plant could meet
a standard based on 2.7 mg/i
without a considerable allowance for exceedences.
Secondly,
and most importantly,
the
plant is being upgraded
and
the
past performance
cannot
be used to predict performance at the
upgraded facility according to the City’s witness
CR.
83).
The Board gives
moru
weight to this conclusion
by the
witness
than the
statement at
R.
103-4 which was in
the context
of
the plant as operated
in 1975 and 1976.
It
should be noted
that Vandalia’s V~1i~TPcurrently discharges 6.2 mg/i to the
Kaskaskia
(R.
148).
The Agency
points out
that Shelbyville
is one of three
cities
which fall under the
1.0 mg/i
standard which together
account
for seven percent
of the total
phosphorus discharge
to the reservoir and questions the
adverse
precedential
value
if relief is
granted
CR.
127-8).
In this context
the
Agency
argues:
“The requirement to keep site specific relief site
specific is important for many reasons.
When
the
Board originally promulgated the rule it
based its
decision on a broad range of information
pertaining
to dischargers throughout the state and
intended the
rule to apply to those dischargers with
relatively
few exceptions.
To the extent that the
Board
creates
new exceptions,
it
undercuts the enforceability
of
the original
rule.
If
the Board makes a
site specific
rule change
for one
discharger when
others are simi-
larly
situated,
enforcement of the original
rule
is
simply unfair.
In
addition the concept
of having
rules of
general applicability fails when each rule
is riddled
by exemptlons,~
(Agency
Brief)
CONCLUSIONS
The Board
finds that phosphorus from point sources
is an
important contributor to eutrophication in
Cariyle Reservoir
and
that the
1.0 mg/l
standard will help protect
the
reservoir
resource
which is
used
by
2.5 million people
annually.
The
seven percent
of the total
dissolved phosphorus
input
to the
Reservoir from
the City
cannot be considered insignificant.
Point source phosphorus control will become
increasingly
im-
portant as
non—point sources are
reduced.
82-36
7
Given
these
environmental
benefits,
the
Board
finds
that
the
small
capital
costs
of
installing
phosphorus
controls
are
reasonable.
The
construction
of
phosphorus control
equipment
is
a
small
part
of the proposed project.
Once
it is in
place
the
City
will
have the
ability
to
control
phosphorus
by
adding
certain
amounts
of
chemicals.
Once
the
plant is in operation,
the
actual
operating
and maintenance costs will be
determined.
The
record
indicates
that
the
future
operating
and
maintenance
costs
may
be
less than estimated.
Based
on
the
record
here,
granting
site
specific
relief
is
not
justified
and is
at
best
premature.
The
Board
appreciates Shelbyville’s current fiscal
diffi-
culties.
However,
on
reviewing
the
justification
for
permanent
site—specific
relief,
the
Board
focuses
on
the economic
reason-
ableness
of
the
expenditures
as
related
to
the environmental
effects.
This
would
he
true
even
if
a
community
has
a
temporary
money
surplus.
For the
Board
to
do
otherwise
would
undermine
the basis for the regulation
itself,
Over
twenty other local
governments
are subject to
the regulation,
two of whom affect
Lake Carlyle.
In so saying the
Board
also notes, for clarifi-
cation only,
that claims
of arbitrary or
unreasonable economic
hardship can
be heard in
a variance proceeding,
and
can pro-
vide temporary
relief
if
justified as balanced
against temporary
environmental consequences.
Shelbyvilie’s
petition
for site—specific
relief
is denied.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Pollution
Control
Board
that:
the
petition of the City ci Shelbyville for site—specific relief
from
35
111.
Atm.
Code.
304.123(c)
is denied.
IT
IS
SO
ORDERED.
I,
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Poflution
Control
Board,
hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted
on
the
day of
~
.1984
by
a
vote
of
~.
~g
j~
9~-~
Dorothy
Gunn,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board