ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

May 15, 1980

ILLINOIS

ENVrR0NMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY)

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 79—44

CITY

OF MOUNT CARMEL

Respondent.

CONCURRING OPI1JION

(by

Chairman Dumelle):

My

reason for concurring

lies

in the allegations of

Count II.

The maximum chlorine residual concentration set

in the NPDES Permit

is not a Board rule.

It

is a permit

condition set by the Agency.

The possible

formation of chioramines and/or chlorinated

hydrocarbons

in the receiving stream because of this chlorine

residual

requirement are of concern to me.

The Board’s

fecal coliform standard by itself should he

sufficient to protect public healt’i. without a chlorine

residual necessarily being present

in the effluent.

And if

the

discharger

chooses

to

achieve

that

fecal

coliform

standard

by

other

forms of disinfection including ultra—violet, ozone,

bromine,

iodine, or gamma

ray, then that should be possible.

One can argue that a chlorine residual requirement placed

into

a great many NPDL~Spermits amounts to Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency rulemaking without authority,

without notice,

and without an economic impact study.

This record, being

a

single case, does not tell

us the extent of the imposition

of

the

chlorine

residual

concentration

requirement

by

the

Agency.

I

would

urge

tbe

Agency

to

re—examine

its

policy

in

this

regard.

I

;-

~

)~.

~

J/~O ~

//

‘Jacob

0.

Dumelle

(.

/

---

—2—

I,

Christan L.

Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certif~that the above Concurring

Opinion was

filed on the

______

day of

,

1980.

Ch

ristanf~p~T~~

Illinois Pollution ~ntrol

Board