ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
January 22,
1987
IN
THE
MATTER OF:
)
)
SITE- SPECIFIC
RULEMAKING
)
R8 5-15
FOR
THE
SANITARY
DISTRICT
OF DECATUR, ILLINOIS
)
ADOPTED RULE.
FINAL ORDER.
FINAL OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by
J.
Anderson):
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On
May 31,
1985,
the
Sanitary District of Decatur
(“District”) filed
a petition for site-specific rulemaking with
the Board.
Specifically, the District requests that
it
be
granted exception from
35
Ill. Adm.
Code 304.120(c),
which
presently limits discharges from the District’s sewage treatment
works to
10 mg/i
of five-day biochemical oxygen demand
(BODs)
(STORET number 00310) and
12 mg/i of suspended solids
(STOR~T
number 00530).
In place of these limits, the District proposes
that its discharge be subject to BOD5 not to exceed
20 mg/i and
suspended solids not
to exceed
25 mg/i.
Hearing was held
in this matter September
9,
1985,
at the
Decatur Public Library.
At hearing the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (“Agency”)
indicated its support for the
District’s request, and presented testimony to that effect.
A
statement favoring the District’s request was also made by
Richard
J.
Lutovsky, President of the Metro Decatur Chamber of
Commerce.
No objections
to the District’s request have been
received by the Board, either at hearing or through filings.
The Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources made
a “Negative Declaration” of economic impact
in this matter on
December
5,
1985, noting the declaration is appropriate based on
the statutory criteria in Ill. Rev.
Stat.,
Ch.
92 1/2, par.
7404(d)(2).
The Economic Technical Advisory Committee concurred
in this determination on December
6,
1985.
The Board adopted
a first notice proposed Opinion and Order
on January
23,
1986,
notice of which was published
in 10 Illinois
Register
3746,
February
21,
1986.
The rules as proposed by the
Board would have granted the requested relief, but would also
have imposed restrictions on ammonia-nitrogen concentrations, and
would have provided for termination or “sunset” of the rule
in
the year
2000.
75.126
-2-
On March
17,
1986,
the Board received written comments from
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency), which also
contain submissions from the District.
On March 25,
1986, the
District submitted an independent filing
in which it adopts and
supports the Agency’s comments; no other comment was received.
The Agency comments specifically addressed these and other
issues,
as requested in the First Notice Opinion.
Based on
review of these
comments,
as well as the prior record in its
second notice Opinion and Order of April
10,
1986 the Board
deleted both of these limitations.
As its January
13,
1987 meeting, the Joint Committee on
Administrative Rules issued
a certificate
of no objection to the
proposed rules.
The Board accordingly adopts
as final rules the
BOD5 and TSS limits
as originally requested by Decatur, as
set
forth in the Order below.
BACKGROUND
The
Sanitary
District
of
Decatur is located
in Decatur in
Macon County,
Illinois,
at the address of 501 Dipper Lane,
Decatur,
Illinois
62522.
The
wastewater
treatment
facility
is
located
at
mile
point
126.4
on
the
Sangamon
River
on
the
southwest
side
of
the
City
of
Decatur,
Illinois.
The
District
provides
sewage treatment service to approximately 136,700
residents
in the City of Decatur and adjoining areas, and to
industrial
customers
which
contribute
49.5
of
the
total
flow
and
59.3
of the total organic loading.
The City of Decatur
is
served primarily by a combined sewer system;
however, more recent
additions and expansions are serviced by separate sanitary and
storm sewer systems.
The District
is presently engaged
in
a large-scale
facilities improvement program.
Approximately $25 million of
construction was
in progress
at
the time of filing of the
petition.
The entire program, absent the requested relief,
is
estimated to cost approximately $147 million and
is scheduled for
completion by December 1990.
Planned facilities include:
bar
screens,
grit chambers, circular primary clarifiers,
secondary
fine-bubble aeration basins, circular secondary clarifiers,
nitrification fine-bubble aeration basins, circular nitrification
clarifiers,
effluent pumps, chlorination facilities,
sludge
return facilities,
digested sludge storage, sludge land-
application equipment, and tertiary filters.
The District also
plans
to provide treatment of the first
flush pollutants
at five
combined sewer overflow locations
(Petition,
p.
10).
The
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(“USEPA”)
has
reviewed
the
construction
program
and
has
approved
and
75.127
—3—
committed
to
participating
in
funding
all
major
elements
of
the
program except
the tertiary filters.
The USEPA position
is that
tertiary
filtration
is
not
necessary
to
achieve
Illinois’
water
quality
standards,
and
hence
it
has
deferred
funding
on
this
matter
(R.
at
135).
Accordingly,
if
the
filters
were
to
be
emplaced
under
present
circumstances,
the
cost
would
have
to
be
borne in full by the State and the District,
in approximately
equal shares
(R.
at
136)
Granting
of
the requested relief would
in fact allow the
District
to exclude the proposed tertiary filters from its
construction program,
as well
as allow alternate design of the
overall effluent pumping system.
In combination it
is asserted
that these would entail a construction cost reduction of
approximately $9.2 million (Petition at
4;
R.
at 93,
100,
122),
S4.7 million of which would be savings directly to the residents
of the District and the rest
savings
to the State
(R.
at
122)
The District would also realize an annual operations
savings of
approximately $87,000 (Petition p. at
4;
R.
at 93).
The saving
of these sums constitutes Petitioner’s principal purpose for
requesting the desired relief
(R.
at
93).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Under normal conditions, effluent discharge from the
District’s treatment facilities constitutes the primary flow in
the Sangamon River
at and below the District’s outfall.
This
condition exists
in part due to the location of the outfall with
respect to Lake Decatur, which is located approximately four
miles upstream from the outfall.
During prolonged dry weather
water
is retained in the lake to maintain pool elevation,
with
a
corresponding loss to downstream flow.
Thus,
the
30-day 10-year
low-flow downstreams from the Lake Decatur dam is 0 cubic feet
per second
(cfs)
during all months except April, May,
and June,
when it is
75,
95,
and 63 cfs, respectively
(Ex.
5, Table
1).
Interest
in quality water
in the Sangamon River
below the
District’s outfall extends
beyond the mandate of protecting the
integrity of instream uses.
The Sangamon River also offers the
potential
for
withdrawal
uses,
including
use
as
a
raw
source
for
domestic water.
At present,
the City of Springfield, which
is
located approximately
48 miles downstream,
is considering the use
of the Sangamon River as an emergency supplementary source of
water
(Petition,
p.
8),
and other similar withdrawal uses are
possible.
The District asserts, and the Agency concurs, that granting
of the requested relief will not prevent Petitioner from
complying with present water quality standards
in
the
Sangamon
River.
75.128
-4—
In 1982 the Agency, along with the Illinois Department of
Conservation and the United States Geological Survey, conducted
an intensive field
study and stream modeling of the Sangamon
River
in
the
reach
between
Decatur
and
Springfield.
Results
have
been published by the Agency
in a three volume report titled
Water Quality Assessment of
a Major Portion of Sangamon River
Basin,
dated March 31,
1983,
and presented
as Joint Agency and
Petitioner’s Exhibit
1.
A part of this study addresses the
impact of the District’s outfall on instream dissolved oxygen
(DO).
Specifically considered are six scenarios of varying
carbonaceous BOD5 (CBOD5)
and ammonia nitrogen
(NH3-N) discharge
concentrations and their impact on stream DO concentrations under
low flow conditions.
Three of the scenarios are not germane to
the instant matter because they consider NH3-N concentrations
substantially in excess of that anticipated for the new District
facility.
The remaining scenarios consider three
levels of CBOD5
in accompaniment with an NH~-Ndischarge of 15 mg/i.
The latter
is the intended design ievel of NH3—N discharge under the
proposed facilities improvement program.
The three CBOD5
concentrations are 10,
15,
and 20 mg/l.
Modeling of
instream DO concentrations at the three specific
CBOD~concentrations was accomplished using Qual II,
a computer-
based model developed by Water Resources Engineers and available
on the USEPA TYMNET system.
Model calibration was accomplished
using two sets of field data collected during intensive diel
sampling periods in mid-August and mid-September of 1982.
In
addition, various other field studies conducted between June and
November 1982 were relied upon to estimate time-of-travel and
reaeration values.
Sensitivity analysis, combined with model
calibration, verification, and recalibration, suggested to the
Agency that the model “could be used with a very high degree of
confidence to predict DO profiles within the study
area,
downstream from the DSD discharge,
for
a wide range of flow
conditions
(40 to 400 cfs)”
(Joint Exhibit
1, Vol.
I,
p.
3).
Field conditions
at the time of the two calibration studies
were significantly different.
Several days prior to and during
the August calibration period there was
a
sustained release of
water
of approximately 100 to
110 cfs over the Lake Decatur
dam.
Several days prior to and during the September
sampling
there was
no release other than leakage
at approximately 2.2
cfs.
Thus,
the
September sampling approximates
the worst case
condition regarding the ability of the District’s discharge to be
assimilated by flows
in the Sangamon River
(R.
at 22).
Model results
indicate only small differences
in instream DO
concentrations at the three differing levels of CBOD5.
In
particular,
using the August
1982 calibration the maximum
difference in DO concentrations between
a
10 mg/i CBOD5 discharge
and
a
20 mg/i CBOD5 discharge
is 0.2 mg/l, with most differences
being 0.1 mg/i or less
(Joint Exhibit
i,
Vol.
III,
Figure
32);
75.129
—5—
all
absolute
values
are
greater
than
or
equal
to
7.2
mg/l
DO.
Using the September 1982 calibration the maximum difference was
0.7 mg/l with no absolute values below the District’s outfall
tess than 6.3 mg/l DO (Joint Exhibit
1, Vol.
III, Figure 33).
On
this
basis
the
District,
with
the
concurrence
of
the
Agency,
has
asserted that no violations of DO water quality standards* would
be occasioned by limiting the District’s effluent
to 20 mg/i BOD5
(R. at 40).
The USEPA has contracted an outside review of the Agency’s
modeling effort
(Ex.
5, Attachment 1), which review is generally
critical of the modeling.
Notwithstanding this fact,
the USEPA
has drawn conclusions which support those of the Agency and the
District.
Specifically,
the USEPA concludes that during the
summer** an effluent discharge of
20.0 mg/i CBOD~and 1.5 mg/i
NH~-Nis adequate to maintain instrearn DO criteria
(Ex.
5,
p.
1OJ.
They further conclude that tertiary filtration,
given the
presence of nitrification,
is not necessary to achieve
a CBOD~of
20 mg/i
(Ex.
5,
p.
10),
and that therefore the “proposed tertiary
filtration following nitrification is not supported by the DO
water quality analyses as necessary to meet the DO and ammonia
criteria and to result in significant DO improvement”
(Ex.
5,
p.
ii).
It
is noteworthy that the assertion of no violation of
instream
standards
is
based
upon
NH~-Neffluent
concentrations
not exceeding 1.5 mg/l;
at higher Nfl3-N discharges modeling
indicates below-standard DO concentrations
at both calibrations
for CBOD5 concentrations
above
10 mg/i (Joint Exhibit
1, Vol.
III,
Figures
32 and 33).
This
is consistent with ammonia
concentrations exerting a major control on instream DO.
The
Board also notes that USEPA’s conclusion that tertiary filtration
is
not necessary for the District to meet water quality standards
is
predicated on the assumption that the District will achieve
a
design effluent limitation of 1.5 mg/i of NH.~-N (Ex.
5,
p.
7).
For its part,
the District asserts,
and the Agency concurs,
that
it will meet the 1.5 mg/i NH3-N discharge condition upon
completion of its plant improvements
(R.
at
39;
54)
Of further note
is that the District does not propose to
operate at
a full 20 mg/i BOD5 discharge all of the time.
*Dissolved Oxygen
(STORET number 00300)
shall not be less than
6.0 mg/i during at least
16 hours
of any
24 hour period,
nor less
than 5.0 mg/i
at any time
(35 Ill. Adm. Code
302.206).
**The USEPA
is silent on the matter of recommending an exact
CBOD5 effluent limitation for the winter,
noting only that
“this
value should be based on the expected CBOD5 removal capability of
facilities designed to achieve
20 mg/i CBOD5 during warm weather”
(Ex.
5,
p.
10).
75.130
—6—
Rather, under normal operating conditions the BOD5 would be at
some lesser value
(R.
at
109).
This position
is supported by the
conclusion of the USEPA that nitrification plants
(as the
District’s
is proposed
to be)
in Illinois and other States
consistently produce effluents with
a CBOD5 less than
10 mg/l,
and typically within the range of
4-6 mg/l
(Ex.
5,
p.
10)
IMPACT OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS
The
Board
noted
in
the
First
Notice
Opinion
that
the
record
as then developed contained minimal information concerning the
impact of the proposed increase in effluent TSS.
While
recognizing that the proposed increase in the BOD~limitation
required an attendant increase
in the TSS limitation due to
interrelationships between these two parameters, the Board
believed that further exposition of the environmental impact of
TSS
should
be
presented
before
this
matter
proceeded
further.
The Agency comments provide excerpts from the United
States
Environmental Protection Agency’s “Quality Criteria for Water”
and the American Fisheries Society’s “A Review of the EPA Red
Book: Quality Criteria for Water”
(Comments, Exh.
1 and
2).
These excerpts present,
inter alia,
the effects
of TSS on aquatic
communities, and conclude that TSS concentrations under 25 mg/l
provide a
“high level of protection” and that concentrations
under
80 mg/l provide a
“moderate level of protection”.
The
Agency further notes
that TSS concentrations above
80 mg/i do
occur at water quality stations located downstream from Decatur,
associated principally with high flow events.
The Agency thereby
concludes that
“the District’s discharge,
at 25 mg/i
TSS, will
not cause or contribute to excessive suspended solids levels in
the river”.
The Agency also concludes that the District’s
discharge
should not result in any identifiable bottom deposits.
With the addition of these observations, the Board
determines that the matter of environmental impact of the
proposed TSS effluent limitation is now adequately addressed
in
the record
and that the requested TSS limit
is warranted.
INSTREAM
MONITORING
The second issue raised by the Board
in the First Notice
Opinion and addressed
in the Agency’s comments relates to the
appropriateness of requiring the District,
as
a provision of the
proposed rule,
to conduct instream monitoring of dissolved oxygen
(DO) concentrations.
The concern of the Board on this issue
stemmed from the District’s contention,
based
on computer
modeling,
that the proposed relief would not occasion violations
of the instream DO water quality standard.
The Board
asked
whether addition monitoring would be necessary to enable
verification of this contention.
75-131
—7—
Both
the
Agency
and
the
District
(Comments,
Exh
4)
believe
that monitoring requirements specified as part of the rule would
not provide any meaningful benefit over existing program
authority.
They point out that it is the Agency’s prerogative
through the NPDES permitting process to impose any necessary
requirement
as to monitoring, pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code
309.146 and Section 301(b)(1)(C)
of the Clean Water Act; that the
District already conducts monitoring of instream DO; and that the
Agency already monitors DO at three downstream ambient water
quality stations.
Thus,
the Agency and District contend that
adequate monitoring safeguards already exist, and further that
adding
a specific monitoring provision in the rule would restrict
any flexibility
in future monitoring.
Based
on these observations,
the Board affirms its
determination
in
the
First Notice Opinion that it would be
unwarranted
to specify instream monitoring provisions
in the
adopted rule.
AMMONIA NITROGEN LIMITATION
In the First Notice Opinion the Board proposed that the
District’s relief
be limited to
such times
as when the NH3-N
effluent discharge is less than or equal to 1.5 mg/l.
This
proposal was based on demonstration by the District that at an
NH3-N discharge of 1.5 mg/l no violations of instream DO are
projected by the modeling studies, but an absence
of
demonstration of the same condition at higher NH3-N discharges.
The Board specifically asked that comments address whether the
1.5 mg/l restriction is necessary,
and, if necessary, whether it
should apply under both warm and cold weather conditions.
In response the Agency and the District
suggest that the
ammonia provisions of
35 Iii.
Adm. Code
302.212, which place
limitations
on instream ammonia levels,
are sufficient safeguard
to assure that the District’s facilities perform
in accordance
with the modeling results.
The District has further affirmed its
previous contention, and the Agency agrees
(Comments,
p.4),
that
the design of the plant will allow treatment adequate to meet the
water quality limitations
of Section 302.212.
On this basis,
it
is asserted that an additional limitation on NH3-N in the site-
specific rule
is unnecessary.
The Board notes that
it
is explicit in 35 Ill.
Adm. Code
304.105 that an exception to an effluent regulation,
as
is the
issue here,
does not remove the burden of meeting water quality
standards.
The Board,
in fact,
so emphasized
in the First Notice
Opinion.
Accordingly,
the existence of a water quality rule on
the same parameter,
which
in this case
is Section 302.212, could
be viewed as an effective limitation on effluent discharges.
While
the Board
does not find this position broadly compelling,
in that its logical extension
is that the existence of water
75-132
—8—
quality
standards negates the need for any parallel effluent
standards,
the Board nonetheless does determine that there
is
merit in allowing the water quality standards to control in this
case.
The Board does not at present have
a generally applicable
effluent standard for ammonia.
Moreover,
in promulgating Section
302.212,
the Board noted, inter alia,
that it was
so doing
“in
order to relieve municipalities from the burden of ammonia
control where such control does not appear necessary to protect
the environment”
(In the matter of:
Amendments to Title
35:
Environmental Protection;
Subtitle C:
Water Pollution;
Chapter
I:
Pollution Control Board
(Ammonia Nitrogen), R81-23,
49 ?CB
297).
Implicit
in this determination is that, for the case of
ammonia, performance
to water quality standards is an acceptable
determinant
of the appropriate level of ammonia effluent
discharge.
The Board sees
no reason why this strategy is any
less appropriately applied to the District’s discharge than
it is
to other discharges across the State.
Based on the above,
the Board determines that the inclusion
of
an NH3-N limitation in the Decatur site-specific proposed rule
is unnecessary.
Accordingly, the Board has deleted the NH3-N
limitation provisions
as proposed under First Notice.
This
determination makes irrelevant the matter of whether such a
limitation should differ depending upon the temperature of the
receiving water.
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
The fourth issue requested to be addressed is
the matter of
the relationship between carbonaceous five-day biochemical oxygen
demand
(CBOD5) and five-day biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD5).
This request was occasioned by the Board’s note that the
District’s modeling was based upon various scenarios of CBOD5
discharge, but that the proposed rule is presented
as
a limit on
BOD5.
The Agency responded
in its comments that,
as the Board
had noted
in the First Notice Opinion,
presenting the proposed
rule in terms
of BOD~introduces
a safety factor into the
modeling results.
This condition stems from the fact that CBOD5
is
a component of the more general BOD5*.
Thus,
since the
modeling results indicate that 20 mg/i of CBOD5 produces minimal
environmental impact,
setting of the proposed rule with
a 20 mg/i
BOD5 limitation restricts the District to
a lower CBOD5 output
than demonstrably produces minimal environmental impact.
*In the District’s current effluent CBOD5 comprises approximately
61
of the BOD5
(Comments,
p.5).
75-133
—9—
Based
on
this
additional
perspective,
the
Board will make no
modification in the BOD5 provision of the proposed rule.
LIMITED
DURATION
(“SUNSET”)
PROVISION
The final issue addressed by the Agency is the matter of the
Board’s proposal to limit the requested relief to
10 years
beginning from completion of the District’s improvements.
This
is the “sunset” proposal.
The Board asked that two aspects of
this proposal be addressed:
the impact such proposals might have
on procurement of funding, and the general appropriateness of
such proposals in certain site-specific rulemakings.
It is the Agency’s belief that
a sunset provision should
have no effect on federal funding, since the purpose of the
federal program is
to enable
a facility to meet final effluent
limits
at the time of completion
(Comments,
p.12).
The matter of
whether the procurement of other capital funding would be
affected
is less certain.
Since this funding is typically
achieved through the issuance of twenty-year bonds,
the Agency
speculates that
a ten-year limit “could conflict” with this
issuance (Comments,
p.12).
No more substantial perspective
is
offered.
At the outset, the Board
notes that
it
is persuaded by the
Agency arguments,
at least
in part, against including a “sunset”
provision
in this particular site-specific.
The following
concerns, taken together, weigh against the inclusion.
The
implications
of,
and
rationale
for,
a
10 year sunset
provision as it would relate to Decatur’s circumstances would
better have been raised earlier and aired
at hearing.
However,
this
statement
is
not
intended to imply that
in other
circumstances airing
at hearing is
a
necessary
prerequisite
to
establishing sunset provisions.
Additionally,
the Board’s
rationale
supporting
“sunset”
in
large
measure
focused
on
concerns applicable generally to site-specific
regulations
(and
arguably to general regulations), rather than concerns special to
the Decatur situation.*
Next,
the effect of specific sunset
language on local bond issues
is
a matter that needs further
consideration.
Finally,
the Board, on balance, does not feel
that
a sunset provision
is
so essential in Decatur’s
case, given
other review benchmarks,
as
to warrant delaying the decision in
order to hold further hearings.
*The Board recognized this in asking for general comments on the
concept.
These general comments on the policy aspects will be
further considered in R82-36,
the generally applicable regulatory
proceeding.
75-134
-10-
In
so holding, however,
the Board wishes to emphasize its
areas of disagreement with the Agency’s comments,
as follows.
In addressing the general merits of sunsetting certain site-
specific rules,
the Agency first questions whether the Board
presently possesses authority to do so.
The Agency points out
that both the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (Act) and the
Board’s procedural rules are silent on the matter of limiting the
duration of rules.
The Agency concedes that the Act does provide
the Board authority to adopt procedural rules which could include
provisions for sunsetting site-specific rules
(Comments, p.7-
8).
However,
the Agency believes that the Board may not impose
sunset provisions without first promulgating an enabling
procedural rule;
to do otherwise, the Agency argues,
would cause
the Board to exceed its authority.
The Agency additionally notes that
a higher court may
invalidate
a Board regulation if
it
is clearly arbitrary,
unreasonable,
or capricious, and believes that it may “be” argued
that
in the absence of
a procedural rule setting forth criteria
for the imposition of
a limited duration provision in
a site-
specific rule the Board’s action in doing so would
be arbitrary
and capricious”
(Comments,
p.
10).
The Board does not find compelling the argument that there
must be underlying procedural rules before sunsetting on
a site-
specific basis,
although this route might
be more desirable.
Section 27(a) of the Act delegates
a broad rulemaking authority
to the Board and authorizes,
inter aiia,
that
“any such
regulations
may’ make different provisions as required by
circumstances for different contaminant sources and for different
geographical areas”.
The
same section concludes with the
statement that
“the generality of this grant of authority shall
only be limited by the specifications of particular classes of
regulations elsewhere
in this Act”.
No restriction on sunsetting
exist elsewhere in the Act.
Moreover, sunsetting may prudently
be viewed
as within the scope of Board authority to make
different provisions as
required by circumstances
for different
contaminant sources and for different geographical areas.
Therefore,
the Board determines that
it presently does have
authority to promulgate sunset provisions
in rulemakings, as
circumstances
may
warrant.
While
the Board allows that a
procedural rule specifying procedures for sunsetting may have
merit*,
it does not believe its existence
is a necessary
condition to
a determination that sunsetting is appropriate
in
any specific case.
*However,
the
Board
notes
that
the
instant
matter
is
not
the
proper forum within which such merits might
be debated.
75-135
—11—
The Agency also argues that
a sunset provision is
unnecessary because;
there
is
no
substantial
benefit
in
requiring
the
Board
to re-evaluate
the proposed relief after
ten
years.
Since
no water
quality standards
would
be
relaxed,
the
Agency
has
the
capability
to modify
permit
requirements
at
any
time
to
eliminate
violations.
In addition, permits may be issued for
a maximum of
five years.
The renewal process will
allow
the
assessment
of
water
quality
in
the
Sangamon
River
and
any
conflict
between
the
operations
of
the
District
and
downstream
dischargers.
Agency review will be more timely and
efficient
in this matter.
(Comments,
p.12)
In
a larger sense,
the Agency’s argument fails to recognize the
sharp distinction
in responsibilities delegated to the Board and
the Agency by the Act.
Section
5(b) of the Act plainly states:
The Board
shall determine,
define and implement the
environmental
control
standards
applicable
in
the
State
of
Illinois
and
may
adopt
rules
and
regulations
in
accordance
with
Title
VII
of
this
Act.
Though the functions performed by the Agency are crucial to
the State and multivariate
in nature,
they are primarily
administrative in character.
The Board is the entity in
Illinois
created to “determine, define and implement” environmental
control regulations.
Exercise of this authority necessarily
involves
a certain amount of judgment and discretion and the
Board must assume responsibility, both concurrently and in the
future, for the decisions
it reaches.
Based on the foregoing,
the Board deleted the provision
in
its First Notice proposal that the rule be of
a defined duration.
OR
DER
The Board hereby directs the Clerk to cause the filing of
the following final, adopted rules within the Secretary of State.
TITLE
35:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE
C:
WATER POLLUTION
CHAPTER
I:
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PART 304
SUBPART
B:
SITE-SPECIFIC
RULES
AND
EXCEPTIONS
NOT
OF
GENERAL
APPLICABILITY
75-136
-12-
Section
304.212
Sanitary District
of Decatur Discharges
a)
This Section applies only to effluent discharges from
the Sanitary District of Decatur’s Sewage Treatment
Plant into the Sangamon River, Macon County, Illinois.
b)
The provisions of Section 304.120(c)
shall not apply to
said discharges, provided that said discharges shall not
exceed
20 mg/l of five day biochemical oxygen demand
(BODç)
(STORET number 00310) and 25 mg/l of total
suspended solids (STORET number 00530).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
J.
D. Dumelle concurred.
I,
Dorothy M.
Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby certify/that the above Final Opinion and Order was
adopted on the
~
day ~
1987, by
a vote
of
________
/7
&
1~
•
~
f’•~-~~~
_~)•/~,
~
Dorothy M.
Githn,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
75-137
