ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

January

5,

1989

IN

THE MATTER

OF:

PETITION OF THE CITY OF

)

JULIET FOR A SITE SPECIFIC

RULE FOR THE EAST SIDE

)

R84-2O

JOLIET WASTEWATER TREATMENT

FACILITY

ADOPTED RULE.

FINAL ORDER.

OPINION AND ORDER

OF THE BOARD

(by

J.

Theodore Meyer):

This matter

is before

the Board

on

a May 29,

1984 petition

for site

specific rulemaking filed by the

City of Joliet.

Joliet asks that

its East

Side Wastewater Treatment Plant

(EWTP), which discharges

into Hickory Creek,

be exempted from the effluent limitations for biochemical

oxygen

demand

(BOO)

and suspended solids

(SS) applicable

to Hickory Creek.

Those

limitations,

found

at

35

111. Adn. Code 304.120(c),

are 10 milligrams per liter

(rng/l)

and

12 mg/i,

respectively.

Instead,

Joliet requests that the discharges from EWTP

be subject

to the

BOD and SS

limitations applicable

to the Des Plaines

River.

Those standards,

set forth

at

35

Ill. Adm. Code 304.120(b),

are

20

mg/i

BOD and

25 mg/I

SS.

The merit hearing in this matter was held

on September 25,

1984 at Joliet

City

Hall.

The Illinois

Environmental

Protection Agency

(Agency) submitted

supplemental

information on November

5,

1986,

and Joliet provided additional

information

on

November 10,

1986 and January

15,

1987.

On October

14, 1987

the Department

of

Energy and

Natural

Resources

(DENR)

submitted its economic

impact study

(EcIS), entitled “The Economic

Impact of Proposed Site Specific

Changes

to Water Pollution Regulations Affecting Joliet,

Illinois.”

(Ex.

0.)

An economic

impact

hearing was

held at Joliet City

Hall

on March

29,

1988.

The comerit period closed

on

April

29,

1988.

On June 30,

1988 the Board proposed for

First Notice

a rule giving Joliet

the requested relief for five years.

This five—year period will

allow Joliet

to conduct water quality monitoring

for approximately three years, and still

have time to petition the Board

for permanent relief

if the monitoring results

are positive.

The proposed rule was established

in

the

Illinois Register on

July

15,

1988 at

12

Ill. Reg.

11669.

The Board

received only one public cornent during the

First Notice

period.

The Department

of Comerce and Community Affairs

stated that the

proposed rule will

have no effect

on

small

businesses

regulated by the rule.

(P.C. ~8.) The Board notes

that the proposed rule regulates only Joliet’s

EWTP.

95—201

---

—2—

After the close

of the

First Notice period

it came to the Board’s

attention that under

a

proposed federal

consent decree, Joliet would

pay

a

$160,000 civil

penalty to resolve

a federal enforcement action alleging Clean

Water Act violations of the EWTP.

(U.S.

v. Joliet,

DC

N.

Ill.

No. 88—5561.)

The consent decree also requires Jolfet

to

attain and maintain compliance with

its permit, upgrade facilities

to meet secondary treatment standards,

construct

a single—stage nitrification facility, and take measures

to

ensure

proper operation and maintenance of the EWTP.

On

September

22,

1988 the

Board

adopted

an order directing Joliet and the Agency to comment

on

any relation

between this rulemaking and the

federal

consent decree.

The Agency

filed its

response on

October

26,

1988, and

Joliet submitted its response on October

23,

1988.

Both the Agency and Joliet maintained

that the consent decree and

this

rulemaking are

related and consistent.

Joliet

stated that

the primary purpose

of the consent decree

is

to assure

that the city continues with

the

construction program identified

in

its municipal compliance plan.

(That

compliance plan

is discussed below, and

is Exhibit

F

in this docket.)

This

rulemaking

is

a

part of that municipal

compliance plan,

and thus

is

an

approved

part of the consent decree.

The Agency stated that the site-specific

relief sought

by Joliet

in this proceeding was approved by the Agency during

the settlement discussions between Joliet and the Agency,

and that the United

States Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA) also concurs

with the

site—

specific relief.

Joliet summarized the situation by declaring that the

construction of facilities,

the

request for site-specific relief,

and the

terms

of the consent decree have been coordinated to result

in compliance with

the effluent limitations for the Des

Plairies River.

Based

upon these

responses, the

Board found

that the

federal

consent

decree and this rulemaking are consistent, and proposed the site-specific

rule

for

Second Notice

on November

3,

1988.

On December 21,

1988 the Joint

Committee on Administrative Rules

(JCAR)

filed

its certification of

No

Objection.

No changes to

the

rule have been made during Second

Notice, and

the rule adopted today

is unchanged from the

proposal

issued

for First

Notice

on

June

30,

1988.

Background

Joliet’s EWTP

is an

activated sludge plant with

a design average flow of

22.5 MGD.

The plant has a primary treatment capacity of 33 MGD,

a secondary

treatment capacity of

up to

45 MGD, and provides disinfection only for flows

from 45

to

66 MGD.

The treatment

units

include mechanical

trash

screens

and

comminutors, velocity control

(non-aerated) grit chambers,

rectangular primary

clarifiers, aeration tanks with diffused aeration equipment,

peripheral

feed

final

clarifiers,

return sludge pumping equipment, and chlorination

facilities.

Primary sludge

arid waste activated sludge are digested

in the

primary anaerobic digesters.

The digested sludge

is concentrated

in

the

secondary digester and applied

to

farmland.

The

plant

is

located along

Hickory Creek near its confluence with the

Des

Plaines River.

Hickory Creek

flows

into the Des Plaines just below Brandon

Dam.

Plant effluent

is discharged

into Hickory Creek through outfall

001,

95—202

---

—3—

which

is

located 450 feet upstream from the Des

Plairies.

Outfall

002 operates

as

an emergency bypass, with those

flows

receiving only disinfection.

This

second outfall, located upstream from outfall

001,

was

used only twice between

1981 and

1984.

(Transcript

of

September 25,

1984 (Tr.

I)

at 37.)

Most of the

land along Hickory Creek below the plant’s outfalls

is

owned by Joliet.

Access

to the creek

is

limited by the plant

to the north and dense vegetation

to the

south.

There

is

a

foot bridge over the creek about

1500 feet upstream

of the outfalls.

(Tr.

I

at

15—16,

51.)

The

lower portion

of Hickory Creek,

where the

EWTP

is located,

has been channelized by the Illinois Department of

Transportation for flood control

purposes.

(Transcript

of March

29,

1988

hearing (Tr.

II)

at

53;

Tr.

I

at 43.)

Between January 1984

arid October 1985, the average BUD

in the plant

effluent was

16.5 mg/i, and

the average

SS was

17.3 nig/l.

(Ex.

F

at

5.)

The

concentration

of BUD in the creek

is more than twice

as

high downstream from

outfall

001

(85 mg/i) than

it

is upstream from the outfall

(39 mg/l).

(Tr.

I

at

19-20.)

The levels

of

SS are roughly the

sane.

Joliet states

that the

increased

BUD concentration

is due to backmixing from the Des Plaines

River.

Dennis Duffield, Director of Public

Works and Utilities for Joliet, testified

that the

flow of the creek

literally changes direction,

so that sometimes the

river backs

up into

the creek.

(Tr.

I

at

17.)

The testimony of Richard

Pershali,

the principal author

of the EcIS,

supports Joliet’s contention.

Mr.

Pershall

explained that the backmixing

is

a hydrologic phenomenon.

Because

the Des Plaines

is

at

a higher elevation than Hickory Creek, water

from the

river flows into the creek to

a point

a few hundred feet upstream of the

EWTP.

(Tr.

II

at 27-28.)

Joliet has been working with the Agency

to evaluate alternatives

to

upgrade the existing wastewater collection

and treatment system since the mid—

1970s.

As

a condition of the

National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination system

(NPDES)

permit for the EWTP,

Joliet

is

required to develop

and submit for

review

a municipal compliance plan to upgrade its wastewater facilities

to

meet existing

rules and regulations.

That plan, prepared by Clark Dietz,

Inc.

and revised

in July 1986, has

been admitted into

trie

record

of this case as

Exhibit

F.

The recommended additions

and modifications

to the

system are to

be completed

in seven

phases between 1984 and

2007.

The total

project cost in

May 1985 dollars

is estimated

at $55,688,000.

(Ex.

F.

at

1.)

The phases

of

the plan are:

(1) construction of separate storm sewers

throughout Joliet;

(2) the elimination

of combined sewer overflows (CSO)

where storm

sewers have

been constructed,

and the reduction in frequency of CSO5 at other locations;

(3) upgrading the EWTP,

including addition of

final

clarifiers

and an

anaerobic digester, modification of the chlorination facilities,

and

construction of an

interceptor

at McDonough Street

to

transfer some flow from

the EWTP

to

the West Side Wastewater Treatment

Plant

(WWTP);

(3A) approval

of

this site specific rule change or construction

of

a new effluent

sewer

so that

the EWTP may discharge at levels applicable

to the Des

Plaines

River;

(4)

the

monitoring and evaluation

of the existing CSOs,

so

as

to

identify priorities

for the elimination of

the CSOs;

(5) design

and construction of

improvements

at the EWTP to

provide for nitrification;

(6)

a

final

assessment

of the

improvements

in water quality as

a result

of the construction

of

storm sewers;

and

(7)

any

additional work

if required, based upon the results

of the

final

assessment

of phase

6.

(Ex.

F

at

48—55.)

The Agency approved this plan

in

95—203

---

-4-

July 1986,

and Joliet has begun work on many of the phases.

(See Ir.

II

at

46-52.)

Compliance Alternatives

There are five identified alternatives available to Joliet

for reducing

BOO and SS discharges from the EWTP.

The

first three alternatives

involve

additions to the plant

in the form of advanced wastewater technologies, and

include multi-media

filtration,

carbon absorption/multi—media filtration and

chemical coagulation.

The fourth and

fifth alternatives, although failing to

reduce effluent levels,

relieve Joliet

from meeting water quality standards

for Hickory Creek

by routing the plant’s outfall

to

the Des Plaines River

which

has higher standards of

20 and 25 mg/l

for BUD and 55, respectively.

One alternative for rerouting

the outfall

is for

it

to

run south under the

creek, then west

in order that

it discharges downstream

from Hickory Creek.

The other alternative would involve routing

it directly west

so that

it

discharges

in the Des Plaines, upstream from Hickory Creek.

The

EciS examined

these five alternatives, and made the following estimates of costs for

each

alternati ye:

Multi—Media Filtration

(Alt.

1)

$

9,258,719

Carbon

Absorption

(Alt.

2)

$19,377,263

Chemical

Coagulation

(Alt.

3)

$17,834,638

Relocate Outfall

(under Hickory Creek)

(Alt.

4)

$

855,890

Relocate Outfall

(directly west)

(Alt.

5)

$

491,958

(Ex.

0 at

29-45;

Ec.

0, Table

4.)

Joliet

has rejected the advanced treatment technologies (Alt.

1—3)

as too

expensive.

(Petition at

10; Tr.

I

at 23.)

If

its petition

for

a

site

specific rule is not granted, Joliet will

construct Alternative

4 and thus

extend the outfall

pipe under Hickory Creek and

then west to

the

river.

(Tr.

I

at

21—23;

Ex.

F at

53.)

Joliet does not believe that Alternative

5, which

calls for routing the outfall directly southwest of the EWIP to the

Des

Plaines just below the dam,

can be constructed

as estimated

in the EcIS.

Mr.

Duffield stated that the discharge at that point would

be immediately adjacent

to the storm sewer outfall

which

is located

in the toe of the riverwali

.

(Tr.

II

at

54.)

Another disadvantage with Alternative

5

is that some or

all

of the

effluent would end up

in Hickory Creek

as Des Plaines River backwater, since

the outfall

would

be upstream from the mouth of the creek.

(Ex.

0 at

44.)

A

sixth

alternative

is

to

run the outfall

directly west of the plant

to

the Des

Plaines, above

Brandon Dam.

However, both Joliet and the

EcIS rejected this

option.

Since the existing

river wall

is

20 feet higher than the treatment

plant

property,

a pump would be required, adding

significantly to the cost of

the project.

(Tr.

I

at

26—27;

Ex.

U

at 44.)

5~~204

---

—5—

Economic

Impact

Joliet does not contend that compliance with the BUD

and SS limitations

is not technically feasible, but argues that

the cost of compliance

is

economically unreasonable when compared to the

small

benefit to the

environment.

Joliet points out that

it

is undertaking a significant effort

to

upgrade

its treatment facilities

and that

its municipal compliance plan will

result

in

a better class

of treatment than

is

now provided.

The upgrading of

the EWTP will

result

in

a

longer detention and aeration time so that ammonia

nitrogen will

be

removed.

Mr. Duffield testified that the

proposal would

at

least

retain

the

same

level

of

SOD

in

the

effluent,

if

not

reduce

that

level.

(Tr.

II

at

63-64.)

Therefore,

Joliet

asks

that

instead

of

directing

funds

to the construction

of

a new outfall

the City be allowed

to use those

funds towards the upgrading of their wastewater

system, with

a greater

positive

impact

on the environment.

(Tr.

11

at

70.)

In addition to evaluating compliance alternatives and estimating

their

costs,

the

EcIS calculated

the costs

to Joliet’s utility customers of

implementing

each alternative.

Assuming an average monthly bill

of

$10.10,

utility bills would

increase as

follows:

Monthly

Increase

Increase

Multi-Media Filtration

(Alt.

1)

$3.38

34

Carbon Absorption

(Alt.

2)

$5.93

59

Chemical

Coagulation (Alt.

3)

$5.20

52

Relocate Outfall

(under

Hickory Creek)

(Alt.

4)

$

.21

2

Relocate Outfall

(directly

west)

(Alt.

5)

$

.10

1

(Ex.

D

at

4.)

The

EcIS also assessed the benefits

of

reduced

levels

of BOO

and

SS in

regard

to six direct benefit categories:

(1)

recreational

opportunities;

(2) aquatic

life;

(3) stream maintenance;

(4) flood control;

(5) agriculture; and

(6) human health.

The

EcIS concluded that only

recreational opportunities and stream maintenance could

be quantified:

the

other four categories are significantly impacted

by

reduced

pollutant

levels.

(Ex.

U.

58-66.)

The benefit to recreational

opportunities was

calculated

at

$460

(Ex.

U

at 59—60),

and the benefit

to stream maintenance was

valued

at $2332

(Ex.

D at 64—56).

The EcIS thus found

a large disparity

between the costs of each alternative and the associated benefits.

Costs

Benefits

Alternative

1

$

9,258,719

$2792

95—205

---

-6-

Alternative

2

$19,377,263

$2792

Alternative

3

$17,834,638

$2792

Alternative

4

$

855,890

$2792

Alternative

5

$

491,958

$2792

(Ex.

0

at

5;

73—73.)

The

cost

of

Alternative

5,

the

least

costly

option,

is

176

times

as

great

as

the

value

of

direct

benefits.

Joliet

believes

that

the

Ec1S

supports

its

contention

that

the EWTP

outfall

should

remain

in

its current location

and that the

additional

expense

to relocate the outfall

does not provide benefits even approaching the cost.

(Tr.

II

at 55.)

However, Joliet disputes the cost estimates made by the

EcIS

for

Alternatives

4

and

5.

(Tr.

II

at

52—53.)

The

EcIS

estimated

the

cost

of

Alternative

4

at

$855,390,

while

Clark

Dietz

estimated

the

cost

of

relocating

the outfall

under

Hickory Creek

at

S3,425,000.

(Ex.

F

at

52.)

Mr. Duffield

testified

that

he

feels

that

Clark

Dietz’s

estimate

is

very

conservative,

but

stated

that

the

actual

cost

would

approach

$2,000,000.

(Tr.

II

at

53.)

The

difference

in

estimates

is

partly

attributable

to

the fact that the

Clark

Dietz estimate done

for

Joliet

provides

for

a

longer

run

of

pipe

out

into the

river rather than ending the

pipe

at

the

river

bank

as

the

EcIS

assumed.

(Tr.

II

at

53.)

Mr.

Duffield stated

tnat he thought that Clark Dietz had proposed

to extend

the

outfall

out

into

the

river

so

as

to get good mixing of the

effluent with the

flow of

the Des Plaines.

(Tr.

II

at 62.)

The difference

in

estimates for Alternative

4

is

also partly due to Joliet’s belief

that

construction of the outfall

will

be very difficult, since the pipe will

run

under the channelized portion of Hickory

Creek and

then out into the

river.

This will

involve rock excavation in the river, since the pipe will

be

buried.

(Tr.

II

at

53,

60, 62.)

As previously noted, Joliet does not believe

that Alternative

5 can be

constructed as

proposed.

(Tr.

II

at

54,

60—61.)

At the economic impact hearing

Mr.

Pershall

presented some cost estimates

to bring the outfall

into the Des Plaines.

He estimated that

to bring the

outfall structure

300 feet into the river

(1/3 its width) would cost

$1,030,00U.

Bringing the structure 450 feet into the

river

(1/2 its width)

would

cost $1,112,500.

(Tr.

II

at

19.)

Mr.

Pershall

testified that there

is

no federal

or

state requirement that the

outfall

be actually in the

river, and

that most wastewater treatment plants

only bring the outfall

to

the edge of

the river.

(Tr.

II

at

20.)

Environmental

Impact

The record

in this case contains no information on

the water quality

in

the stretch of

Hickory Creek downstream from the EWTP outfall, and

very little

information

on

the water quality of the Des Plaines near its confluence with

Hickory Creek.

Joliet

states that due to the substantial

backrnixing of the

Des Plaines

in the lower

stretch

of the creek, the water quality

in the creek

at this point would be expected to closely resemble that of the Des Plaines.

Joliet has provided 1976 data from

a monitoring station

in the

Des Plaines

downstream of Hickory Creek which shows

a mean value of 9.0 mg/i

of dissolved

95—2Of~

---

—7—

oxygen

(DO)

and 3.03 mg/I

of ammonia nitrogen.

(That

monitoring station was

closed by the Agency

in

1976 due to budgetary constraints.)

At the merit

hearing the Agency asked

if the effluent from the

EWIP causes any water

quality standard violations

of DO or ammonia nitrogen

in Hickory Creek.

Joliet

stated that it had no information on that,

and promised to

do sampling

and investigate the issue further.

(Tr.

I

at 46-47.)

However, no such

information has been received.

In sum, Joliet’s position is that since the

downstream portion

of Hickory

Creek

is

so closely

integrated with the

Des

Plaines

River,

little benefit can be achieved by extending the outfall

from

the plant

into the river.

(Petition at

9.)

The EcIS used water

pollution models

in

an attempt

to

predict the impact

of BUD and

SS on

the water quality

in Hickory Creek.

The

EcIS concluded that

the environmental degradation associated with current

levels

of effluent

is

minimal.

The BUD model, using various concentrations of effluent BUD, showed

that under

all

average conditions the DO

in Hickory Creek remained above

5

mg/l,

which

is considered

sufficient

to

support

a healthy aquatic

environment.

(Ex.

D at 49-53.)

Suspended solids discharged from the EWTP

will

not routinely settle

in the

creek because of their minute particle

size.

Turbidity

is

not

expected

to cause problems because current

concentrations

are well below harmful

levels.

(Ex.

U

at

53—55.)

In

its post—hearing comments, the Agency again expressed its concern that

the levels

of DO and ammonia nitrogen might

be adversely affected by Joliet’s

proposal, and

pointed out that Joliet had promised to investigate the

matter.

The

Agency stated that

it continues

to support Joliet’s request for

effluent relief,

but intends to require water quality monitoring as

a specific

NPDES permit condition.

(Public Comment

(P.C.)

#6

at

1-2.)

The Agency points

out that Hickory Creek

is channelized for flood control purposes

and is

therefore unlikely to

support

a diverse aquatic community regardless

of water

quality.

The Agency insists that this fact does not justify degradation of

water quality, but

states that

it does

not anticipate that Joliet’s

investigation of water quality impacts will

reveal

any water quality

problems.

(P.C.

#6

at

3.)

The

Agency does contend that the BOO model

contained

in the EcIS should

be discounted by the Board.

First, the Agency states that Mr.

Pershall

indicated that

he did not

really model

SOD and

its effects

on

the creek’s DO,

but rather did

a

simple mass balance calculation of the DO after the effluent

mixes with the creek.

(Tr.

II

at

34—35.)

Second, the

Agency maintains that

the

ECIS’S assumption that the DO

in the effluent varies directly with

the SOD

Concentration

is simplistic and typically inaccurate.

Third, the Agency notes

that the SOD model

assumed that there

is

no entrapment of the creek flow at

its mouth, while Joliet

has documented the likelihood

of such occurrences.

Finally, the Agency submits that the model

addressed only average stream

conditions, giving the model

limited utility

in

a low flow situation where

adverse impacts are more likely

to occur.

(P.C. ~6 at

3.)

The

Board

notes that the Des Plaines River

is

part of the Illinois

&

Michigan

(I&M)

National

Heritage Corridor.

The hearing officer specifically

solicited comments on whether that status should

have any bearing

on the

proposed regulation.

Responses to this request were received from the Agency

95—207

---

-8-

(P.C.

#6), the

I&M National

Heritage Corridor Commission

(P.C.

#2), the

Illinois Department

of Conservation (P.C.

#3), the United

States Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA)

(P.C.

#4), and

Joliet

(P.C.

#5).

These

comments

agree that the Des

Plaines’

status

as

part of

the Corridor should have little

impact

on the Board’s consideration of Joliet’s proposal.

The Agency and

Joliet

state that they believe approval

of the rule would not adversely affect

the character of the

river.

Additionally, both

the Corridor Commission and

the Department

of Conservation point

out that the

federal legislation which

created the Corridor specifically states

that such status

is

not to change

existing environmental

standards.

(Public Law

98-398,

Sec.

115(a).)

The comments submitted by the Department

of Conservation and USEPA also

addressed

the merits

of the proposal.

The Department

of

Conservation opposes

Joliet’s request, based

upon its

concern that

a greater

BOO load

in

the lower

stretches

of Hickory Creek would adversely impact the area’s fish.

The

Department states

that

a

1983 fisheries sample below Brandon Dam included

12

species of fish,

a

substantial

improvement over the 4 species collected

in

1974.

The Department

feels

that granting Joliet’s petition would

he

in direct

opposition

to the Department’s efforts

to

improve the DO

situation and the

fisheries.

(P.C. #3.)

On the other hand, by

a

letter from Valdas Adamkus,

Regional

Administrator, USEPA states that overall, Joliet’s proposal appears

appropriate.

USEPA feels that the petition is not contradictory to

federal

or

state antidegradation provisions,

and appears consistent with

federal

antibacksliding provisions.

USEPA concurs with Joliet’s contention the

expenditures

to relocate the outfall

to the river

do not

appear justified at

this time.

However, USEPA does note the concerns with assuring protection of

water quality

in Hickory Creek

in the future.

USEPA believes that as

a

condition of approval, adequate monitoring

be

required downstream

from the

EWTP to characterize both average and potential

low flow conditions

in the

creek.

USEPP, concludes that granting temporary relief should recognize the

potential need

for additional

treatment

in

the future,

if necessary

to protect

water quality or

potential

uses.

(P.C.

#4.)

Concl usions

After considering

the record

in this case, the Board concludes that

Joliet has demonstrated that relief

is warranted.

Therefore,

the

Board will

adopt

a regulation exempting Joliet’s EWTP from the SOD and SS

limitations

applicable to Hickory Creek.

Instead,

the SOD and

SS limitations applicable

to the Des

Plaines

River will

apply

to the EWTP.

The Board believes that the

cost of relocating the outfall

to the Des

Plairies

is

not justified by any

predicted environmental benefits at this time.

The Board also notes

that

Joliet

is

spending significant

sums to upgrade

its wastewater collection

and

treatment system by carrying out the municipal

compliance plan, with resulting

environmental

benefits.

Further, the Board

notes that Joliet’s chosen

compliance

alternative

(relocating the outfall) would

not reduce the

levels

of

BOO and

SS discharged from the EWTP, but simply discharge the effluent

directly to the Des Plaines.

Thus, the denial

of Joliet’s petition would,

at

95—208

---

—9.-

best,

improve the water quality of only the

450 feet

of Hickory Creek between

the present location of the outfall

and the creek’s confluence with the Des

Plaines.

However, the

Board shares the concerns

voiced by the Agency, the

Department of Conservation,

and USEPA about the effect of the proposal

on

water quality standards, especially levels

of DO and ammonia nitrogen.

The

little information

in the record on water quality

is either outdated

or

speculative.

Therefore, the regulation adopted today will

be

temporary, and

will

expire

on January

1,

1994.

This period will allow Joliet

to conduct

water quality monitoring for approximately three years, and

still

have time to

petition the Board for permanent relief

if the monitoring results are

positive.

Joliet should

work with the Agency to develop

a monitoring

program.

That program shall

include

information on, among other things,

average and low flow conditions

in Hickory Creek downstream from the EWTP,

especially levels of DO and ammonia nitrogen.

The program shall

also address

the effects

of the

EWTP discharge on the area

fish and

their ability to move

between the Des Plaines and the upstream portion of Hickory Creek.

By

promulgating

a temporary regulation the

Board

is able to grant

relief to

Joliet while addressing the water quality concerns raised

in this proceeding.

ORDER

The Board

hereby adopts,

as final,

the following amendment

to be

filed

with

the Secretary of

State.

TITLE

35:

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SUBTITLE

C:

WATER

POLLUTION

CHAPTER

1:

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PART 304

EFFLUENT STANDARDS

SUBPART C:

TEMPORARY EFFLUENT STANDARDS

Section

304.302

City of Joliet

East Side

Wastewater Treatment

Plant

This Section

applies only to the

City of Joliet’s East Side Wastewater

Treatment

Plant which discharges

into Hickory Creek

in Will County,

Illinois.

The discharges of that plant

shall

not be

subject to the standards

of Section

304.120(c), provided that those discharges meet the five day

biochemical

oxygen demand (SOD)

and suspended solids limitations of

Section

304.120(b).

This Section will expire

on January

1,

1994.

(Source:

Added

at

13 Ill. Reg.

,

effective

________________

IT

IS

SO ORDERED.

95—209

---

-10-

1, Dorothy M.

Gunn, Clerk

of the

Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby

certify that the abov

Proposed Opinion and Order was adopted

on

the

51~ day of

______________,

1989,

by

a vote of

7

~

Dorothy M.

Gun

Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

95—210