ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
February 28,
1991
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
PETITION OF THE NUTRASWEET
)
AS 89-3
COMPANY AND CONSUMERS ILLINOIS
)(Adjusted Standard)
WATER COMPANY FOR AN ADJUSTED
)
STANDARD FROM 35
ILL. ADM.
)
CODE 304.105 OR 302.208,
)
STEVEN J. GOLDBERG OF THE NUTRASWEET COMPANY, AND LEE CUNNINGHAM
AND JEFFREY C.
FORT OF, GARDNER, CARTON
& DOUGLAS, APPEARED ON
BEHALF OF PETITIONERS.
JOSE GONZALES, ASSISTANT COUNSEL, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by B. Forcade):
This matter comes before the Board on
a petition filed on
June 30,
1989 by The NutraSweet Company and Consumers Illinois
Water Company (“NSC” and “CIWC” or collectively as “Petitioners”)
for an adjusted standard from the Board’s water quality standard
for total dissolved solids
(“TDS”)
found at
35
Iii. Adm. Code
302.208 and from the requirement of
35
Ill. Adm. Code 304.105,
that no effluent shall, alone or
in combination with other
sources,
cause a violation of any applicable water quality
standard.
Section 302.208 provides that the concentration of TDS shall
not exceed 1,000 mg/i.
Petitioners seek an adjusted water
quality standard of 2,100 mg/i for NSC’s TDS discharges to CIWC
and for CIWC’s discharge of TDS, from the point of discharge from
CIWC to Deer Creek,
to the confluence of Deer Creek
with Thorne
Creek and downstream in that part of Thorne Creek to the “USGS”
gaging station.
CIWC’s TDS effluent discharge to Deer Creek
would be limited
to 2,100 mg/i as a daily maximum and 1,675 mg/i
as
a monthly average.
The Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
(“Agency”)
supports the requested relief.
Additionally,
in comments filed on May 2,
1990 the Agency agreed that
monitoring requirements and limits on NSC’s discharges to CIWC
should be addressed through modification of NSC’s operating
permit which expires December
29,
1993.
Accordingly, the Agency
requests that the Board order the reopening of the NSC permit
to
reflect the proposed adjusted standard.
119—105
—2—
Procedural History
This matter initially came before the Board in a 1983
variance proceeding
in PCB 83—73.
See Opinion and Order,
December
29, 1983.
NSC and CIWC are now operating under a
subsequent variance from 35
Iii. Adm. Code 304.105 as
it applies
to the TDS standard of
35 Iii. Adm. Code 302.208, granted by the
Board in PCB 88—84 on December 15,
1988.
The variance granted in
1988 was conditioned upon NSC’s filing a site—specific rulemaking
petition by July
1,
1989; applying for any construction permits
by December 31,
1990; and completing installation by December
31,
1991.
This variance will expire on December
29,
1993.
On June
30, 1989 NSC and CIWC filed a motion requesting the
Board to accept the subject petition for either an adjusted
standard or a site—specific rulemaking.
On July 26,
1989 the
Agency filed
a response declining to take a substantive position
on the advisability of the adjusted standard form of
relief.
On
July 27, 1989, the Board granted the request to allow
the matter
to move forward as an adjusted standard proceeding.
On August
29,
1989,
the Agency filed a response, which raised various
issues but did not make a recommendation on the requested
relief.
On January 3,
1990 an amended petition was filed.
Hearing was held on March
28, 1990.
On April
30,
1990, NSC and
CIWC filed final comments and corrections
to the transcript
of
hearing.
The Agency filed its final comments on May
2,
1990,
in
large measure supporting the requested relief.
On December
18,
1990 NSC and CIWC filed for an extension of
the date to apply for construction permits
in PCB 88—84.
On
December
20,
1990,
the Board granted that modification of the
internal deadline
in the variance, extending the date to apply
for construction permits until May 9,
1991.
NCS anticipates that
if, after
the Board’s decision
in this adjusted standard
proceeding, construction should be required,
that construction
could be completed consistent with the variance deadline
of
December
31, 1991.
Background
NSC’s facility
is located
in University Park,
Will County,
Illinois.
It was acquired by NSC in 1982 and employs over
200
people with an average payroll
of over
$7 million.
The facility
manufactures aspartame,
a low—calorie sweetener, marketed as
“NutraSweet”.
The manufacturing process involves
the chemical
reaction of two amino acids and purification of the product.
The
process requires the use of inorganic acids and organic
anhydrides and neutralization by caustic soda.
Wastewaters are
created, which are high
in TDS and which are pretreated by NSC
prior
to discharge to the treatment plant of CIWC.
CIWC is a
privately owned utility company situated on Deer Creek, which
also supplies water and sewer services to the Village of
University Park.
NSC maintains a 460,000 gallon equalization basin for
treatment of boiler blow—down,
condenser cooling water,
soft
lit’
—3—
water regeneration, and backwash.
Boiler
blow—down and
regeneration backwash from Zeolite water softening are the
primary sources of the TDS discharge.
The major constituents of
the TDS are sulfates, which arise naturally from raw water usage;
chloride, which results from the raw water and from water
softening by NSC; calcium; magnesium; and sodium.
Under the variance granted in PCB 88-84,
the TDS
concentration of CIWC’s discharge to Deer Creek may not exceed
2,100 milligrams per liter
(“mg/i”) as a daily composite and
1,675 rag/i as a monthly average.
NSC’s TDS discharge
to CIWC may
not exceed 11,100 kilograms per day
(“kg/day”)
as a daily
composite and 6,000 kg/day as
a monthly average.
NSC’s average discharge flow to CIWC during 1988 was 0.124
MGD (0.317 MGD maximum).
This includes an average of
approximately 4,473 kg/day of TDS
(11,785 kg/day maximum).
Petitioners have indicated that
for the period from January 22,
1988
to June
25,
1988,
the water quality standard of
1,000 mg/i
for TDS
(found at 35
Ill. Adm. Code 302.208) was exceeded on 11
separate occasions at Gage #4,
a point approximately 1.3 miles
downstream of CIWC’s point of discharge.
Pet.,
Exhibit
E; Ag.
Response, p.3
(August
29,
1989).
On each of those 11 dates,
background TDS levels at Gage #1, 1000 feet upstream of CIWC’s
discharge, were below the regulatory standard.
For 1988 the
average TDS level at Gage
#4 was 1200 mg/i,
which would fall
below the level permitted under the Board’s variance.
In 1989 TDS discharge from NSC to CIWC averaged
approximately 10,408 pounds per day
(“ppd”), with a maximum of
25,382 ppd.
Additionally, NSC hauls over 15,000 gallons per day
of high TDS wastes off—site for disposal.
NSC’s discharges and pretreatment
in the equalization basin
are governed by Permit No.
1988—EP—l686, which the Agency issued
on December
30,
1988.
The permits contains terms and conditions
regarding load limits and monitoring
requirements based on the
variance granted by the Board in PCB 88-84 on December 15,
1988.
Those conditions would remain in effect through December
29,
1993,
the date on which NSC’s permit expires.
Ag. Final
Comments, p.1
(May 2, 1990).
The affected receiving stream is Deer Creek, which has been
characterized in the record as an intermittent stream with a
7—
day, 10—year low flow of
0 cubic
feet per second.
(7010=0).
Agency Response,
p.5, Aug.
29,
1989.
The discharge from CIWC
enters Deer
Creek approximately 14 miles upstream of its
confluence with Thorne Creek.
Pet. at p.2.
The affected stretch
of water
is estimated to be approximately 15 miles
in length.
Transcript
(“Tr.”)
at pp.
25—27.
Deer Creek
is more fully
described as follows:
Above the plant Deer Creek
is an intermittent
stream;
below
it
is perennial.
It meanders
east and north through suburban areas of Will
and Cook Counties.
At
the Lincolnshire Golf
119—107
—4—
Course
it is dammed
to form a shallow, 18—acre
lake called Deer Lake.
About
14 miles
downstream from the CIWC discharge Deer Creek
joins Thorne Creek,
a tributary of the Little
Calumet River.
Deer Creek
is a low gradient
stream, dropping only a small distance for each
mile of stream length.
It has been channelized
for short distances near East Chicago Heights.
Pet.
at p.8, Ag. Response, p.4
(August
29,
1989)
Additionally, the stream has been characterized as
follows:
“a poor quality stream and the biota are very tolerant
organisms”.
Tr.
at pp.
87—90.
Testimony of Michael Ander,
Senior Ecologist, Dames
& Moore, Park Ridge,
Illinois.
See also
testimony attached to transcript as Exhibit
2.
Regulatory Framework
The Board’s authority to grant an adjusted standard
is found
in Section 28.1 of the Act.
Section 28.1(a) provides that the
Board may grant such relief
if the adjusted standard
is
consistent with the site—specific rulemaking provisions of
Section 27(a).
Thus,
the Board
is to consider the technical
feasibility and economic reasonableness of measuring or reducing
the particular pollution.
Under Section 27(a)
the Board is also
to “take into account the existing physical conditions,
the
character of the area involved, including the character of
surrounding land uses,
zoning classifications, the nature of the
existing air quality, or receiving body of water.”
Section
28.1(b) authorizes the Board
to specify within a rule of general
applicability the level of justification necessary to support the
grant of an adjusted standard.
Since the Board’s water
regulations do not so specify,
Section 28.1(c)
is applicable to
the petition here.
That Section further describes the
petitioner’s burden of proof as follows:
c.
If a regulation of general applicability
does not specify
a level of
justification required of a petitioner
to qualify for an adjusted standard,
the
Board may grant individual adjusted
standards whenever
the Board determines,
upon adequate proof by petitioner,
that:
1.
factors
relating to that petitioner are
substantially and significantly
different
from the factors
relied upon
by the Board
in adopting the general
regulation applicable to that
petitioner;
2.
the existence of
those factors
justifies
an adjusted standard;
119—108
—5—
3.
the requested standard will not result
in environmental or health effects
substantially and significantly more
adverse than the effects considered by
the Board in adopting the rule of
general applicability; and
4.
the adjusted standard
is consistent with
any applicable federal law.
Section 28.1(c) of the Act.
The Board’s procedural rules at
35
Ill. Adm. Code 106.701 et
seq. also provide specific rules
for the adjusted standard
proceeding.
Proposed Adjusted Standard
Petitioners request an adjusted standard from both Section
304.105 and Section 302.208 consistent with the variance granted
in PCB 88—84.
NSC requests an adjusted standard for TDS from
Section 304.105 to allow
a maximum discharge limit of 11,100
kg/day and 6,000 kg/day as
a monthly average.
CIWC requests an
adjusted standard for TDS to allow a maximum daily discharge of
2,100 mg/i and 1,675 mg/l
as
a monthly average.
Petitioners also
seek an adjusted standard from the TDS water quality standard
in
Section 302.208
(1,000 mg/i).
Petitioners request that the
adjusted standard be established at 2,100 mg/i to reflect CIWC’s
requested effluent standard, since the current water quality
standard must be the same as CIWC’s maximum daily effluent limit
because Deer Creek has a “7QlO” of
zero.
NSC also requests that the load limits and monitoring
continue to be imposed through the permitting process and not as
part of the adjusted standard.
Agency Recommendation
At hearing the Agency expressed its support for the grant of
the adjusted standard.
Tr.
at pp.
10—11.
Additionally,
in its
Final Comments filed May
2,
1990,
the Agency agreed with the
Petitioners that the monitoring requirements and limits on the
flows from NSC could be imposed pursuant
to permit conditions,
but the Board must condition relief on reopening the permit to
reflect the terms and conditions
of the adjusted standard.
The
Agency also stated that federal review necessitates fashioning
relief from the water quality standard of Section 302.208 to
avoid a federally impermissible de facto
revision of
the water
quality standard.
See Ag. Response, pp.
57 August
29,
1989,
citing the Mobil
Oil, John Deere,
and Marathon Petroleum cases;
see also Borden Chemicals,
R86—l4, Opinion and Order,
November
29,
1990.
119-109
—6—
At hearing Dean Studer, an environmental protection engineer
with the Agency referred to Mr. Ander’s testimony in stating that
the requested 2100 mg/i TDS standard is below the 3000 mg/i TDS
level necessary for the protection of aquatic life
in the
affected stream.
Mr. Studer indicated that the proper approach
would be for the Board to grant an adjusted standard, subject to
conditions specified by the Agency,
from the TDS standard of
35
Ill. Adm. Code 302.208.
Mr. Studer states that a 2100 mg/i TDS
water quality standard and daily maximum effluent limitation and
1675 mg/i monthly effluent limitation should be easily attainable
by CIWC, and these were approved by the Board in the variance
case
in PCB 88—84.
However, he also stated that although
instream monitoring requirements for CIWC should no longer be
necessary,
the Agency may require through the NPDES permit
process that the monitoring frequency for CIWC be increased from
the currently required
3 times/week on a composite basis to
5
times/week.
Tr.
at pp.
97—98.
The Agency’s chief concern is
that the fairly rapid fluctuations
in the TDS concentrations in
NSC’s wastestream may cause problems
in CIWC’s treatment
process.
In particular,
“spikes” in TDS concentrations may pass
through CIWC and be discharged to waters of the State.
Continued
monitoring of TDS by NSC may alleviate this problem by
identifying the cause of the unusual fluctuation
in TDS levels.
Tr. at p.98.
Technical Feasibility and Economic Reasonableness
At hearing Mr. Andrew
J.
Quick, Manager
of Environmental
Engineering for NSC testified regarding the effectiveness and
cost of several compliance alternatives investigated by NSC.
He
discussed the findings of two studies conducted
in 1985 and 1986
by Environmental Resource Management
(“ERM”), attached as
Exhibits F and G to the petition.
In the first study,
ERM concluded that to achieve compliance
NSC would need to use electrodialysis or
ion exchange,
requiring
NSC to pretreat
its entire effluent for inorganics removal.
The
pretreatment would include:
1) equalization and neutralization;
2)
nutrient supplementation and aerobic biological treatment;
3)
gravity clarification and
filtration;
and 4) dissolved air
floatation,
aerobic digestion and belt filtration.
This would
involve major expenditures, with capital costs for pretreatment
alone of nearly
2 million dollars and with annual costs of
approximately $500,000.
ERM considered other options and found
evaporation-crystalization and hauling for disposal would be the
most cost—effective option.
In the second study,
ERM analyzed eight treatment
alternatives to minimize NSC’s overall wastewater treatment and
disposal costs and for NSC to pretreat its wastes or for CIWC to
expand
its plant capabilities.
These alternatives included
varying requirements for expansion of the CIWC treatment plant,
for pretreatment facilities owned by CIWC, and for pretreatment
facilities owned
by NSC.
The capital cost of the preferred option recommended by ERM
119—110
—7—
would be nearly 3.4 million dollars with total annual costs
in
excess of
4 million dollars.
Other options involved costs as
high as
6 million dollars per year.
A follow—up pilot plant study of the option recommended by
ERM
found
that capital costs,
in 1986 dollars, would be 3.5
million dollars and annual operating expenses would be 1.65
million dollars.
On the basis that the costs to comply were
unreasonable,
ERM
recommended that NSC seek site—specific
relief.
Tr.
at pp.
23—26, and Tr. Exhibit
1.
The Agency also pointed out that although the NSC reports
indicate that four technologies are available
to achieve
compliance with the water quality standards for TDS, each method
produces a wastestream with another disposal problem.
The Agency
notes that reverse osmosis,
eiectrodialysis,
ion exchange, and
vapor compression evaporation each generate a highly concentrated
brine solution requiring disposal.
Additionally,
the first three
methods involve extensive pretreatment due to the concentrations
of organics and solvents
in NSC’s discharge, and membranes
utilized in these three processes are easily fouled by organic
chemicals.
The Agency also noted
the significant costs
related
to these compliance alternatives.
Ag. Response, pp.
9—10
(August
29, 1989)
Environmental Impact
As an initial matter,
Mr.
Quick of NSC testified that “(t)he
TDS discharges from NSC
to CIWC have never caused any upset
to
CIWC’s biological treatment process.
Further, since NSC’s
discharges
in accordance with the requested adjusted standard
will remain at
or near present levels,
there
is
no significant
potential for future upsets.”
Tr.
at p.21.
(emphasis added).
See also testimony of Dennis Conwell of CIWC,
Tr.
at pp.63-64.
Mr. Quick also testified that NSC’s discharges have never caused
CIWC to exceed 2100 milligrams per liter
in their discharge of
TDS to Deer Creek.
Tr.
at p.35.
This
is a key consideration in
the Board’s evaluation of the environmental
impact of CIWC’s
discharge to Deer Creek as the Board’s decision is premised on
future discharges essentially duplicating historical information.
Michael Andres,
Senior Ecologist with Dames
& Moore, Park
Ridge,
Illinois, testified on behalf of NSC and CIWC that the
proposed adjusted standard would involve minimal environmental
impact on Deer Creek.
He testified as follows:
My
involvement with this matter began when
NSC and CIWC,
in connection with their original
variance petition,
asked Dames
& Moore
to
conduct various stream studies on the Deer
Creek area.
After these studies were
completed, we found
that TDS levels
in Deer
Creek
could exceed 3,000
mc1’?, without causing
undue stress
to
the aquatic life.
The effluent
and water quality data presented
in NSC’s and
119—111
—8—
CIWC’s current Petition for Adjusted Standards
clearly demonstrated that the TDS levels
in
Deer Creek are far below
that level.
Therefore,
it
is our opinion that the requested
adjusted standards will not have adverse
environmental effects upon aquatic life in the
affected stream reach.
Dames
& Moore has also investigated the
potential
impact of elevated TDS levels on
irrigation and shallow wells near Deer Creek.
...we found that the induced recharge from Deer
Creek and the resultant increase in TDS levels
would have only a minor impact on the overall
water quality in the regional aquifer.
Moreover, that impact
is well within the
natural range of variabiiity...At NSC’s
request, Dames
& Moore recently reexamined this
1986 report, and confirmed these conclusions.
I have reviewed a water quality study
prepared by Alpha Consultants,
Ltd., dated
October
17, 1986,...which
is Attachment
L to
the petition.
Of particular note are Alpha’s
findings that the TDS, chloride and sulfate
mass loadings from NSC
to the CIWC treatment
plant were well within the variance limits, and
the concentrations of those constituents
in
Deer Creek are well within the historical
range
of concentrations recorded since the early
1970’s.
Given these facts,
I agree with Alpha
Consultants’ recommendation that the current
environmental impact on Deer Creek water
quality from NutraSweet operation is
insignificant, and does not justify major
capital expenditure...
...Dames
& Moore conducted a field
investigation of irrigation practices using
water
from Jeer Creek...which
is Attachment
K
to the petition...only two parcels of land were
found to have been irrigated during 1983 and
1984.
Moreover, on neither parcel did
irrigation occur on more than 15 days per
year.
No one reported any problems...
This irrigation investigation was updated
in a follow—up study...in November 1989.
That
study
is Attachment P to the petition.
At that
time,
no agricultural land
in the Deer Creek
area was
being irrigated with Deer Creek
water...We specifically found that, based on
water balance calculations, Deer Creek meets
water quality requirements for supplemental
irrigation
to sustain crop yield potential.
119—112
—9—
***
(B)ased upon the potential use of Deer
Creek
for supplemental irrigation water, there
will be no adverse impact on crops
if the
adjusted standards requested by NSC and CIWC
are granted.
As part of its November 1989 investigation
on TDS levels
in Deer Creek, Dames
& Moore
conducted a study
to determine the stream reach
which may be subject
to excursions
of the 1000
mg/l TDS water quality standard if CIWC is
allowed to continue discharging at present
levels...
Based on this effort, the TDS load due
to
the CIWC discharge was predicted to be
insignificant at
the Thorne Creek USGS gaging
station,
15 miles downstream of CIWC’s
discharge.
...NSC and CIWC do not significantly
contribute to any exceedances of the 1,000 mg/i
TDS standard downstream of the USGS gaging
station on Thorne Creek.
Mr. Ander summarized his conclusions with the following
statements:
I do not believe that the granting of this
adjusted standard will impair any present or
potential beneficial use
of Deer Creek
for a
number of reasons.
One reason is
that the raw
water supplied to NSC from CIWC contains high
concentrations of TDS
(800—1,000 mg/i)
which
are naturally occurring pollutants.
Second,
Deer Creek
is an intermittent stream above the
CIWC treatment plant.
Without the effluent
volume entering the stream,
Deer Creek would
probably be intermittent for most of its
length.
The effluent water,
therefore,
provides the necessary streamfiow to keep Deer
Creek flowing year round and to provide the
habitat that
is available.
Finally,
Deer Creek
is a very small stream, and as such,
the
diversity of potential uses
is limited due
to
the limited amount of water and habitat
available.
Deer Creek
is naturally
intermittent for much of its length,
and much
119—113
—10—
of the biota
is present by virtue of the
discharge from the CIWC plant maintaining flows
in the Creek.
(T)here will be little or no adverse
environmental and health impact from NSC’s and
CIWC’s discharges if the Board grants
the
requested adjusted standards.
Further, the
Board’s granting of the relief requested will
not impair any present or potential beneficial
uses of the applicable stream segment.
Tr. Exhibit
2.
Consistency with Federal Law
The Agency has stated that the Clean Water Act,
33 U.S.C.
1251 et
seq.,
and federal regulations at
40 CFR 131.3 require
that the water quality standard for TDS for
the affected water be
changed.
In such
a circumstance federal review is required
pursuant to Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act and 40 CFR
131.5.
The Agency has contacted USEPA in connection with
satisfying federal requirements
of the Clean Water Act and
40 CFR
131.
See Agency Motion of August
8,
1989.
See also Agency
Response of August
29,
1989 at pp. 8—9.
The Agency asserts that
if relief
is to be granted,
federal regulations require the Board
to adjust the water quality standard and not merely grant relief
from 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 304.105.
At hearing the Agency indicated that a response from USEPA
has not been received,
but that federal approval will require
1)
a water quality standard, protective of stream uses and
2)
a TDS
effluent standard to be imposed upon CIWC.
Petitioners have indicated that relief may be granted
consistent with federal law.
The Board finds
that the Agency and
the Petitioners have provided an adequate basis for the Board’s
concluding that the adjusted standard may be granted consistent
with federal
law.
Conclusion
Based on the information before
it, the Board finds
that
NSC and CIWC have provided adequate proof of economic
unreasonableness, technical infeasibility, negligible
environmental impact and the factors found in Section 28.l(c)1—4
of the Act
to support
the conclusion
that the water quality
standard for TDS found at
35
Ill. Adm. Code 302.208 should be
adjusted for the receiving stream and that an adjusted standard
from 35
Ill. Adm. Code 304.105 should be granted to allow an
effluent discharge of up to 2100 mg/I of TDS.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings
of fact and
119—114
—ii—
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
Pursuant to the authority of Section 28.1 of the
En.vironmental Protection Act,
the Board hereby adopts the
following adjusted standard.
This standard becomes effective on
the date of this order.
1)
The water quality standard for total dissolved solids
shall be 2,100 mg/i
for that portion of Deer Creek between the
point
of discharge from the facility of Consumers Illinois Water
Company
in University Park,
Illinois and the confluence of Deer
Creek with Thorne Creek, and for that portion of Thorne Creek
between the confluence of Thorne Creek with Deer Creek and the
USGS gaging station located on Thorne Creek approximately fifteen
miles downstream of the point
of discharge from the above—
mentioned facility.
The water quality standard for total
dissolved solids found at
35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.208 shall not
apply.
2)
The requirements
of
35
Iii. Mm. Code 304.105,
as that
section relates
to the water quality standard for total dissolved
solids of
35
Ill.
Adrn.
Code 302.208,
shall not apply to the
effluent discharges from the facilities of Consumers Illinois
Water Company and The Nutrasweet Company located in University
Park, Illinois,
so long as the total dissolved solids
concentration in the effluent discharges from Consumers Illinois
Water Company does not exceed a maximum daily composite
concentration of 2,100 mg/i and a monthly average composite
concentration of 1,675 mg/i and the discharge from The Nutrasweet
Company to Consumers Illinois Water Company does not exceed
11,100 kg/day as a maximum daily composite and 6,000 kg/day as a
monthly average.
3)
The above adjusted standards granted to Consumers
Illinois Water Company and The Nutrasweet Company shall be
conditioned upon the revision of the Petitioners’ National
pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(“NPDES”) permits
consistent with these adjusted standards,
including such load
limits and monitoring requirements as proposed by the Agency in
this proceeding.
Consumers Illinois Water Company and The
NutraSweet Company shall perform all monitoring
requirments
for
the discharge of total dissolved solids and monitoring of the
water quality in Deer Creek and Thorne Creek
as may be required
pursuant to their NPDES permits.
Section 41 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act,
Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1989,
ch.
ill 1/2
,
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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
119—115
—12—
I, Dorothy M.
Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was
adopted on the ~T~(-day of _______________________,
1991,
by a
vote of ~O
.
Dorothy M~-/Gunn, ierk
Illinois pollution Control Board
119—116
