ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

November

8,

1984

IN

THE MATTER OF:

)

PETITION OF THE CITY

OF LOCKPORT

)

R83-19

TO AMEND REGULATIONS

PERTAINING

)

TO WATER POLLUTION

)

PROPOSED

RULES

SECOND NOTICES

PROPOSED OPINION AND

ORDER

OF THE BOARD

(by W. J~

Nega)~.

On December 29,

1983, the Board adopted

a proposed rule,

First Notice Order

in

this rulemaking

T~p~s

was published

in the

~n,9isR~~ster

(8

Ill.

Reg.

813, Issé~, January 20,

1984).

On February 22,

1984,

the

Board adopted a

proposed Opinion

in

support of its First

Notice Order,

On March

2,

1984, the City of

Lockport (Lockport)

filed

a Motion to Extend

Time

to File Corn-

ments.

On March

8,

1984,

the Hearing Officer

entered

an Order

which extended the first

notice comment

period until March 26,

1984.

On March 23,

1984,

the Illinois

Environmental Protection

Agency (Agency)

filed its Comments

on

First Notice,

On April

27,

1984, Lockport filed

its

Motion

for Leave

to File Comment on

First Notice Instanter,

which is hereby granted,

and Comment on

Proposed Opinion and Order

(First Notice).

On October

4,

1984,

Lockport submitted a

letter* to the Board in support of the

relief requested and to bring

to the Board~s

attention certain

financial

information

that just became

available pertaining to

Federal

and State

grant

funding.

This matter comes before the Board on the City of Lockport~s

Rutition to Amend the Board*s Water

Pollution

Regulatione (Pet,)

which was filed

on September 14,

1983.

The City of Lockport

(Lockport), which

discharges

its final

effluent into a 3,7 mile long, man~madereceiving stream known as

Deep Run Creek,

is

requesting the addition

of a new section

designated

as 35

Ill, Adm.

Code 304.108 to allow a site~specific

exemption from the existing 10 mg/i BOD

and 12 mg/i total sus~

pended solids

(TSS) effluent standards ~f Section 304,120(c)

for

discharges from

Lockport~ssewage treatment

plant

(STP)

into Deep

Run

Creek in Will

County,

Illinois in order to

reduce the cost of

proposed improvements

to its STP.

Lockport

is requesting

a less

stringent

standard

of

20 mg/i BOD5 and 25 mg/i

of TSS to apply to

*This

letter

dated October

4,

1984 shall

be designated as

Exhibit #19.

61~79

---

—2—

its

discharges

into

Deep

Run

Creek.

Additionally, Lockport

requested

that

the

provisions of Section 302.206

(General Use

Water

Quality

Standards for Dissolved Oxygen)

and

Section

302.212(b)

(General

Use Water Quality Standards for

Ammonia

Nitrogen

and

Un~ionizedAmmonia)

“shall not apply to said

discharge”,

provided

certain conditions are met.

Prior to First

Notice,

a hearing on the merits

of

this regulatory

proposal was held in Lockport,

Illinois on

November

10,

1983

at

which members of the public

and

the press

were

present.

Eight

witnesses testified at this hearing and

18

exhibits

were

admitted

into

evidence,

The

initial

public

comment

period

and

record

in the instant proceeding closed on

December

12,

1983.

On

Novemberjp~~,

1983, Lockport filed

a

Motion

for

Decision

which

requested~

edited consideration of its proposed site-

specific regulation

to help the city in its attempt to obtain

a

75

Federal

grant to

fund

improvements

in its sanitary sewers

and STP,

The Board

complied with Lockport’s request for

expedited

actions

by adopting the Proposed Order for

first

notice

on December 29,

1983.

On

Decemberiil

,~

1983,

Lockport

filed

its

written

Comment

in response

to the

~Hearing Officer’s request for additional

information on

the applicability of Federal regulations.

On

December 13,

1983,

the

Agency

filed

its

written

Comments

in

support

of

the

requested

site—specific

amendment

and

suggest-

ed

various

chang~s

in

the

proponent’s

proposed

order,

On

December

14,

1983,

Lockport submitted a

letter

to

the

Board

which

indicated

~iiat

Lockport

had

“no

major

objection

to

the

Agency’s

proposed~language

changes”

in

the

suggested

order.

The

Illinois

Department of Energy and Natural Resources

(DENR)

advised

the

Board on December 6,

1983 that an economic

impact

study

on the regulatory proposal

in R83—19

is not

necessary

and

issued

a

“negative

declaration”

of

economic

impact.

The

City

of

Lockport, which has a population of approx-

imately 10,000

people,

is located near the Chicago Sanitary

and

Ship

(S

&

S)

Canal

on the banks of the Illinois and Michigan

(I &

M)

Canal

in Will County,

Illinois,

Although there

are

separate

sanitary

sewers

in the northern and eastern portions

of

Lockport, portions of

the sewer system that serve

as combined

sewers

in

the

central

part of Lockport were built over 100 years

ago.

(Pet,,

¶2),

Lockport

operates a treatment facility which was built

in

1970 and

has

a design capacity of 2.0 million gallons

per

day

(gpd).

This

treatment plant, which is located between the

I

& M

Canal

and

the S

& S Canal

and

discharges

into

Deep

Run

Creek,

is

61-80

---

—3—

secondary

treatmeflt

process.

Comminution,

sewage

pumping,

and

aerated

grit

chamber,

rectangular

primary

settling

tanks,

diffused

aeration

basins,

rectangular

final

settling

tanks,

sludge

drying

beds,

chlorination,

and

aerobic and

anaerobic

digestion

are

some

of

the

process

units

included

in

this

facility.

Deep

Run

Creek,

which

drains a basin of less than

1

square

mile

between

the

I

&

M

Canal

and

the

S

&

S

Canal,

empties

into

the

S

&

S

Canal

below

the Lockport locks (approximately

1

mile

below

the

treatment

plant discharges).

Deep

Run

Creek

receives

overflow

from

the

I

&

M

Canal

at its headwaters

and

from

the

S

&

S

Canal

via

several

infiltration

points.

~low

the

Lockport

treatment

plant,

Deep

Run

Creek is inaccessible for

public

use

and

is

bordered

on one side by the Santa Fe Railroad’s

tracks

and

on

the

other

side

by

the

S

&

S

Canal

embankment,

The

stream

is

about

80

feet

wide

and

1

foot

deep

downstream

of

the

Lockport

plant,

flows

over

~.

limestone bedrock substrate,

and has

practically

no

canopy

cover

(Pete,,

¶2-4).

The City of Lockport

has

a

history

of

environmental

problems

relating to its

STP.

In

1979,

a

group

of

concerned

local

residents

filed,, a Complaint with the

Board

in

PCB

79-28

which

alleged

th~t

Lockport’s

sewer

system

was

inadequate

and

com-

plained

abàut

individual

problems

with

sewer

and

basement

hack-ups.

(Ex.

2).

The Board ordered

L’ockport

to

“abate”

pollution,

and to proceed with the grant

process

to upgrade its

sewage

system.

(Citizens

Concerned

for

the

Quali~j~j~fe

in

the

L~c)~ort_Area

v.

yofLock29~,

PCB

79-28,

May

15,

1980,

Exhibit

2),

Lockport

subsequently

issued

non-referendum

general

obligation

bonds

to

finance

the

design

work

for

improve-

ments

at

the

treatment

plant

and

for

the

sanitary

sewers

to

abate

pollution.

(R.

20).

On June 30,

1983,

the Board granted

Lockport

a

variance

in

PC13 83-38 until March

1,

1988 from the water quality standards of

35

111.

Adrn.

Code

304.105

pertaining

to dissolved oxygen

(Section

302.206)

and

ammonia

nitrogen

(Section 302.212(b))

subject

to

the

condition

that

Lockport

meet

a

specified

com-

pliance

schedule

for

completion

of

design

work for

treatment

plant

and

sewer

system

improvements

before

beginning

actual

construction

by

September

1,

1984.

(c_~y~Locko~v.I.E.P.A.,

PCB

83—48,

June

30,

1983),

Lockport

presently

intends

to

expend

$9.3

million

in

basic

improvements

to

the

treatment

plant.

This

amount

includes

a

$775,000

filtration

unit

to

comply

with

the

10

mg/i

BOD

and

12

mg.l

TSS

requirements

of

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 304.120(c),

and

$890,000

for

a

nitrification

unit

(plus

about

$60,000/yr.

in

operating

costs).

Lockport

believes

these

latter two

expendi-

tures

will

produce

no

measurable

environmental benefit and

requests

site

specific

relief.

If granted relief,

construction

costs

would

be

reduced

to

$7,717

million.

Assuming

$5

million

in

state

and

federal

grants,

Lockport’s

share

will

be

$2,717

61-81

---

—4—

million.

Lockport

asserts

that,

even

with

grant

of

relief,

it is

within

$400,000

of

its

general

obligation

bon,ding

authority

limits

for

other

projects,

and

wishes

to

avoid

the

increased

cost

of

revenue

bonds.

Lockport

also

asserted

that

it

is

presently

experiencing

financial

difficulties

because

of

declining

revenues.

(Pet.

¶6,

Exh.

15,

19,

R.

19,

20,

109,

110,)

Because

the

treatment

needs

and

environmental

controls

for

deoxygenating

wastes

are

separate

from

those

for

ammonia

nitrogen,

they

will

be

discussed

separately.

DEOXYGENATING

WASTES

Deoxygenating

waste

discharges

by

Lockport are controlled

under

two

provisions

of

35

111.

Adm,

Code:

Section 304,120(c)

and Section 302.206,

Section 304,120(c) requires Lockport’s

effluent to meet

a 10/12mg/I, BODç/TSS standard,

Section 303.206,

in conjunction with Section ~304,tO5,requires Lockport~seffluent

to not cause dissolved oxygen

(D,O,)

levels to fall below 5.0

mg/I ever,

or fall below 6.0 mg/I during

16 hours of any 24

hour

period.

Lockport is not currently meeting the 10/12 mg/i

stan-

dard

(Ex.

10,

p.

69) and Deep

Run

Creek

is

not

meeting

the

6.0/5.0 mg/I D,O. minimums.

(Ex,

10,

pp.

33—35),

Despite the clear D.O. violations on Deep Run Creek,

it

does not appear that Lockport’s discharge contributes to the D,O,

violations,

First,

there are significant D.O. violations up-

stream of Lockport~sdischarge which are solely attributable

to

plant/algal respiration.

(Ex.

10,

p.

32),

Second,

it appears

there is no measurable difference

in 0,0. variation upstream

of

Lockport~sdischarge compared to two downstream sampling points.

(Ex.

10,

p.

36).

And third, during periods of lowest upstream

0.0., Lockport~seffluent improves the downstream D.O.

levels,

(Ex.

10,

pp.

34-35),

Therefore,

the Board finds that the facts

presented

in

this

proceeding

do

not

demonstrate

that

Lockport is

causing

or

contributing

to

0.0.

violations

in

Deep

Run

Creek.

Since

violation

of

a

standard

is

a

prerequisite

to

seeking

site-

specific relief

(In the Matter

of:

The Petition

of the Gales~~

~

1983),

Lockport is ineligible

for that relief.

Lockport did

withdraw its request for relaxation of the D.O. Standard,

(H.

187,

P.C.

#1).

Lockport

is violating the 10/12 mg/i BOD5/TSS limitation and

must

demonstrate

that

no

significant

environmental

impact

will

occur

to seek relief from that limitation,

Here,

the only facts

show that, during worst case 0.0. levels

in Deep Run Creek,

Lockport~sdischarges tend to improve D,O, levels.

(Ex,

10,

pp.

34-35).

Installation

of

tertiary

filtration

would

not

result

in

any

beneficial

stream

uses.

---

Lcckport has demonstrated that the costs of compliance

with the

i0!i2~mg/I BOD5/TSS limitation

are

unreasonable,

For these reasons,

the Board

will

grant Lockport’s request

for

a

20/25

mg/i,

BOD5/TSS,

limitation,

AMMONIA NITROGEN

The City of Lockport

has

requested

site-specific

regulatory

relief from the currently applicable

1.5

mg/i

ammonia

nitrogen

limitation apparently imposed by the Agency because Deep Run

Creek has,

on occasion, exceeded the ammonia nitrogen water

quality requirements of Section 302,212(b).

(See:

Exhibit 10,

p.

3;

p.

69),

and

Lockport’s

discharges

cause

or

contribute

to

these violations

(Exh, 9,

p.

5).

Moreover,

ammonia water

quality

levels would improve if Lockport

added

complete

nitrification

(Exh,

10,

p.

5).

The

Board

initially

denied

this

requested

relief

in

its

proposed rule at First Notice.

Both the Agency and the City of

Lockport

subsequently

submitted comments advocating that the

Board

reconsider its

preliminary conclusions concerning applicable ammonia nitrogen

limitations.

The Agency urged the Board

“to accept the original

proposal

for

relief

from

the ammonia nitrogen

standards.”

(Agency

Comments,

Mar,

23,

1984 p.

3.)

The Agency denied that it had

supported the elimination

of

ammonia nitrogen water quality

standards for Deep Run Creek,

Rather,

the Agency suggested that

the Board limit the ammonia nitrogen

in Lockport’s wastewater

discharge sufficient to achieve compliance with the 2.5/4.0

mg/i

secondary use water quality

standard

at confluence

of

the

Deep

Run

Creek and the Sanitary and Ship

Canal.

The Agency acknow-

ledged that, while this approach allows ammonia nitrogen

in Deep

Run

Creek

to

exceed

the

secondary

use water

quality

standard,

it

is a rational

administrative strategy’ and would not permit

deterioration

of

existing

quality

shown

to

support

an indigenous

aquatic community.

(Agency

comments,

March

23,

1984,

p.

2.)

The

Agency had earlier asserted

that, given the

~~ie

conditions of

Deep Run Creek,

the addition of tertiary filtration and

nitrification

would

achieve

no

improved

or

beneficial

stream

uses.

(Agency Comments,

December

13,

1983,

p.

2.)

Additionally, the Agency has indicated that it believes

that

the Board should distinguish between the effects

of possible

violations of the dissolved oxygen and ammmonia nitrogen

standards.

The

Agency

points

out

that

“severely

depressed

dissolved

oxygen

values

impact

aquatic

life

more

rapidly

and

severely

than

61-83

---

—6—

nominal

short term violations of ammonia nitrogen standards,

while septicity and aesthetic problems resulting from the

low

dissolved oxygen concentrations are not an issue with

ammonia

unless

the ammonia is high enough to depress dissolved

oxygen.”

(Agency Comments, March

23,

1984,

p.

3).

The

Agency

feels

that

since

“the

record contains

a

biological

survey

showing

the

presence

of

an indigenous

aquatic

population

being

maintained

under

historical

ammonia

concentrations”,

it is logical

to conclude that “these

concentrations

will

be

maintained or

improved through the

controls necessary to meet the

downstream standards”

(Agency Comments,

March 23,

1984 p.

3).

Moreover,

the

Agency

has

noted

that

the

Board has

granted

both total

and partial relief from a water quality standard

without

deleting

that

standard

on

numerous occasions in the past,

citing

a

number

of

such

instances.

(Agency Comments, March 23,

1984,

p.

2),

Tbus,

the Agency has urged the Board

“to

accept the original

proposal

for relief from the ammonia nitrogen standards,”

(Agency

Comments, March

23,

1984,

p.

3).

In the Comment of the City of

Lockport

on

the First Notice

Proposed Opinion and Order which was filed

on

April

27,

1984,

Lockport supported the Agency’s position on the City’s requested

relief

from

the

ammonia

nitrogen

standards,

While also acknow-

ledging that the City of Lockport’s sewage treatment plant may

add some ammonia nitrogen to Deep Run Creek,

Lockport notes that

the

record

in

this

proceeding

demonstrates

“that

the sewage

treatment

plant

does

not

have

an

adverse

effect

upon

the

aquatic

habitat

or

the

potential

of

that

stream,”

(Lockport’s

Comments,

p.

5—11),

Lockport

noted

that,

on

the

issue

of

potential

injury

to

the

environment,

it

had

provided

ample

evidence

at

the

hearings

that

no

such

environmental

harm

would

occur and

indicated

that

the

testimony

of

Mr.

James

B.

Huff

demonstrated

that

their

present

discharges

do

not

harm

aquatic

life

and that

aquatic

life

would

not

improve

even

if

the

quality

of

the

ammonia

nitrogen

dis-

charges

improved.

(See:

R.

44—84;

Ex.

9;

Ex.

10).

In

reference

to

the

Board’s

statement

in

the

February

22,

1984,

First

Notice

Opinion

pertaining

to

preliminary

evaluations

of

ammonia

nitrogen

levels

in

Deep

Run

Creek

showing

that

the

Section

302.407

standard

may

have

been

exceeded

ifive

times

at

sampling

site

J

(1000

feet

downstream

of

discharge,

River

Mile

1.05)

fron

November

of

1982

to

July

of

1983,

Lockport

points

out

that

the

numerical

data

may

be

interpreted

in

a

somewhat

different

light

because

of

various

factors

involving

the mixing zone and

specific

stream

conditions.

61-84

---

Pertaining

t~

the

a:imo~ia concentration 1,000 feet down-

stream of Locthor~’

n

sec’age

treatment

plant

at Site J,

the

petitioner sr~teat

&tho~gn5 out of the 32 samples

collected dui~ngr ~

t.rrc

oei~.odbetween November 11,

1982 and

June

3,

~933

rn~

hi~’c

erceethd

the

appropriate

standard,

Lockport

feeTh

the:,

t~

Id

take

into

consideration

“the

close

~ess

CL

‘C

~.Luea

Loclor~

no~

0

‘~~‘

“the

first two of these samples

wcr-a

only

0.,

~

‘c~ve ~th

‘~

5/4

0

standard,

and the remaining

~

?,O.c~~’/,S

.~

.

n

vhe’

L~ckport’s

ammonia

levels were

at

a~

.0

6

mg/l,

respectively.”

OndeL

this

Lnterpre~ation

of

the

figures,

Lockport

main-

tain:

that

‘even

e

u

is outside the mixing

zone,

only

thrc~

~ai

o’

~ctcd

~e~e

clearly

above

the

2,5/4,0

i’m/I

amino

i’

~

~omments,

p.

7),

‘~

t

the

record

reveals

no

v

at

Site

K,

5Th

feet

down—

~/l

ammonia

concentration

to

be

an

analytical

error

0

ekport

s

discharge

contained

Lockport

also

maintains that “the

mg/I

and

0.2

mg/i

above

the

applicable

~

thereby implies that an insigni—

(Lockport’s Comments,

p.

6-7).

Eve’

if

D~r~were

~ot

to

completely accept the City

of

“~ockporr. s

r

ternrct~’

io’~ of

the

numerical sampling data,

Lor’~ilort

ervo.as~2’es

~

“the

record

here shows

that

the

City’s

eff1~

rt

rs

r ,,t

L~

arverse

impact

upon

aquatic

life

in

the

m’trean

~‘ockp

rc

omments,

p.

7).

Y~

City

I

L ckport also notes that its proposal

for

s~

sper.itTh re~

co.r’~ptuaiy seeks the same treatment for its

sewage

‘:rea~rirropie:

‘~

discharges

as if these discharges

were

dirc~Iy irt

the

Car,,oI

or directly into the Illinois

RIVCL’.

Und.~4. §3i4.I22

a

~f Lockport were discharging directly

into

the

Ilfrcis

Rirer,

it

would

not

be

subject to any specific

ammonia

nitrc~er

e~a~ard

~‘nce

its

untreated waste load would

be

urder

the

ttheeha’d

50,C00

popelation

level.

Lockport notes

that,

if

it

were

dThonargirg

directly

to the Illinois River

and

:f

‘.t

ws’re

ah

~c’

~‘

OCO

oo~’‘ation

level,

the 2,5/4,0 standard

cc

with

the

specific

body of water

~

I

200

foot

diameter

(i,e,,

hay-

‘,~

:owahle

under

Section

302,102(a),

or

~o

three samples

(of the 59

.u

5,4

0

mg/I

standard)

may

~ e

for

the

City’s

effluent.”

in

~“ect:

r

ro

ire

r

irci

Lockport

e-

r.~4’e

celThcted

ron

hE~(

baE~

“

(Lothport

‘Thrce

r

C

I

(

onl

2.0

oci

o

~1a

da

e

oTher

sanpl

r

y

I

~

seoo~Ca~y

C’

..~0”

~t

r~.erd

f:”~~

eicur’th.

cc

o~red

---

—8—

would

be

applicable,

Lockport

asserts

that,

in

light

of the

minimal

contribution

made

by

its

sewage

treatment

plant

to

ammonia

nitrogen

levels

in

the

S

&

S

Canal,

its

effluent

dis-

charges

“would

not

have

a

measurable

effect

upon

ammonia levels

in

that

body

of

water

either.”

(Lockport’s

Comments,

p.

8;

see:

Lockport’s

Exhibit

9,

page

8).

Following

this

line

of

reasoning,

Lockport

argues

that

“the

only

reason

to

restrict

the

City’s

discharges

beyond

that

originally

proposed

in

its

petition

would

beto

protect

the

aquatic

habitat,

such

as

it is,

for

the 1.25

miles

of

Deep

Run

Creek

below

the

Lockport

sewage

treatment

plant.”

(Lockport”s

Comments,

p.

8-9).

Lockport.

further

maintains

that

the

1,25

miles

of

Deep

Run

Creek

below

its

sewage

treatment

plant

is:

(I)

a

channelized

stream

bEd

that

lacks

canopy

cover;

(2)

inaccessible

to

the

generd

peblic;

and

(3)

significantly

affected

by. its

downstream

confluence

with

the

S

&

S

Canal.

Thus,

Lockport

notes

that

“there

appears

to

be

a

beneficial

impact”

on

the

aquatic

habitat

~due to

its

discharges

to

Seep

Run

Creek

because

“the

CIty’s

effl:ient

is

raturally

aerated

by

virtue

of

the

fact

that

it

falls

several

feet

from

the

outfall

pipe

onto

rocks

as

it

flows

into

Deep

Run

Creek.”

tockport

also

stresses

that

“fish

were

observed

only

In

the

plume

from

the

sewage

treatment

plant,

and

the

benthic

community

also

appears

to

be

slightly

better

just

down-

stream

of

the

plant

outfall.”

(Lockport’s

Comments,

p.

8—9;

see:

Lockport’s

Exhibit

9,

p.

5—7).

Accordingly,

Lockport

requests

that

the

Board

grant

its

requested

relief

from

the

applicable

ammonia

nitrogen

standard

because:

(I)

there

is

no

adverse

impact

upon

the

aquatic

habitat

or

the

stream;

(2)

the

Agency

will

r..etain

the

requisite

authority

to

monitor

and

control

effluent

discharged

from

Lockport’s

STP

by

utilizing

the

S

&

S

Canal

as

a

monitoring

point;

(3)

the

NPDES

permitting

process

is

the

appropriate

mechanism

for

determination

of

the

proper

mixing

zone

and

for

imposing

ammonia

nitrogen

standards;

(4)

Lockport

finds

itself

in

an

analogous

position

to

other

dischargers

along

the

Illinois

River

system;

(5)

“the

requested

relief

is

less

of

a

change

than

would

be

the

result

had

the

City

requested

that

Deep

Run

Creek

be

changed

to

a

secondary

contact

water”;

and

(6)

it

would

help

alleviate

financial

hardsh~i.p on

the

City

of

Lockport.

(Lockport’s

Comments,

p.

in

reviewing

all

the

ramifications

of

the

requested

relief

from

the

ammonia

nitrogen

limitations,

the.Board

is

persuaded

that

Lockport

should

be

granted

site—specific

relief

from

the

ammonia

nitrogen

water

quality

standards,

The

Board

emphasizes

that

it

considers

the

conditions

of

Deep

Run

Creek

to

be

unique

and

is

persuaded

that

additional

treatment

would achieve little,

if

any,

environmental

improvement,

and

tbus,

the

nitrification

facilities

expenditures

are

economically

unreasonable.

---

—‘~ —

Accordingly~

the

Board

will

hold

that

the

ammonia

water

quality

standards

are

inapplicable

to

Lockport’s

treatment

plant

discharges.

However,

the

Board

will

delete

the

word

“significantly”

from

Section

304.208(c).

The

Board

agrees

with

the

Agency

that

this

language

appears

to

be

inconsistent

with

12(a)

of

the

Act.

(Agency

comments,

December

13,

1983,

p.

4.)

Finally,

the

Board

notes

that

it

appreciates

Lockport’s

pre-

sent

fiscal

difficulties.

However,

in

reviewing

the

:iustification

for

site specific

relief,

the

Board

focuses

on

the

economic

reasonableness

of

the

expenditures

as

related

to

environmental

effects,

rather than

on

whether

the

community

is

presently

experiencing

fiscal

problems.

In

like

manner,

the

Board

would

not

refuse

a

fully

justified

site

specific

relief

because

the

local

community

has

a

money

surplus.

ORDER

The Board directs that second notice

of the following rule

be

submitted

to

the

Joint

Committee

on

Administrative

Rules:

TITLE

35:

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

SUBTITLE

C:

WATER

POLLUTION

CUAPTER

I:

POLLUTION

CONTROL

PART

304

SITE—SPECIFIC

RULES

AND

EXCEPTIONS

NOT

OF

GENERAL APPLICABILITY

Section

304.208

Discharges

From

~blic1~_~d

Treatment

Works

Into

Deep

Run

Creek

in

Will

Countj~

a.

This section

applies

only

to

discha~es

from_the

Ci~of

Lockport’s

sewage

treatment

plant

into

Deep

Run

Creek

in

Wil~~,_çpunty,

Illinois,

b.

Theprovisionsof

§304.120

shall

not~pl,yto

said

di scj~~~~rovided

that

said

di

schar

esliall

not

e

xceed

20m

BOD~gr25

jj~otal_su~~ed

solids.

c.

T~jr

ovisions

of

§302.2

12(h)andS3

02.212 (e)

shall

not

apply

to

said

discharge,

provided

that

saic

discharge

does

not

cause

or _contr~ite

~

~.~lity

Standards

in

the

DesPlainesRive

r

or

the

Chic a~o Sani

ta~jandS~i

Canal,

IT

61-87

---

—10—

Mr.

Forcade

dissents.

I,

Dorothy M.

Gunn,

Clerk

of

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board,

hereby

certify

that

the

above

Qpinion

and

Order

was

adopted

on

the

____

day

of

~

______,

1984

by

a

vote

of

.5-i.

_____

~

~

Dorothy

M.

~

Clerk

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

61-88