ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

January

9,

1985

IN

RE:

SITE—SPECIFIC

RULEMAKING FOR THE

)

R84-30

CITY OF EAST PEORIA

PROPOSED RULE

SECOND NOTICE

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by B.

Forcade):

On July 16,

1984,

the City

of East Peoria

(“East Peoria”)

filed

a petition for site—specific rulemaking with

the Board.

The petition requests

a rule which would allow East Peoria’s

Sewage Treatment Plant No.

1

to change

the location of

their

sewage effluent discharge point from the Illinois River

to

a

small waterway adjacent

to the Illinois River, known as Ditch

A.

In order

to facilitate this change, East Peoria seeks relief

from the effluent limitation

of

35

Ill. Adm. Code 304.120(c),

which sets maximum contaminant levels at

10 mg/l

of BOD and

12

mg/i

of suspended solids

to waterways

such as Ditch

A.

East

Peoria seeks

to have

its discharges

to Ditch A regulated

at

20

mg/i BOD and

25 mg/i of suspended solids;

that is,

the same

limitations

that presently apply under Section 304.120(b)

to the

facility’s discharges

into the Illinois River.

Hearing was held

in this matter on September 10,

1984.

Thereafter,

the Illinois Department

of Energy and Natural

Resources filed a “Negative Declaration”

of economic impact on

November

29,

1984.

The Economic Technical Advisory Committee

concurred on January

23,

1985.

The Board proposed the site—

specific rule on June 13,

1985.

First notice of

the rulemaking

was published at

9

Ill.

Reg.

12579 on August 16,

1985.

The

first notice comment period expired

on September

30,

1985.

Only

one comment was received,

from the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency

(“Agency”), which opposes

the proposed

rulemaking.

In

its first notice opinion,

the Board found

the

environmental impact

of the change

in discharge location

to be

minimal.

However,

the Board did note that East Peoria would save

approximately $15,000

in operating costs per year

if the

discharge location was changed.

Primarily,

the Board focused on

the environmental impacts on both Ditch A and an adjacent ditch,

Main Ditch.

The Board studied chemical analyses and biological

observation data that were supplied by East Peoria.

While

The Board wishes

to express

its gratitude to Ms. Marili

McFawn for acting

as Hearing Officer and Ms. Ginger Carison for

her assistance

in drafting this Opinion and Order.

67-473

---

—2—

admittedly

sparse,

the data did not reveal any anticipated

adverse environmental impact

to Ditch A should

the discharge

location be changed.

In addition, East Peoria has demonstrated

that some aspects of the change will

be environmentally

beneficial

in that stagnation

and

the likelihood of complete

freezing

in winter would

be reduced.

The Board relied on data

submitted at the public hearing during which East Peoria

established that changing the discharge would produce several

beneficial environmental impacts

to Ditch A and Main Ditch:

1.

Reduced freezing

in winter;

2.

Reduced suspended solids concentrations;

3.

Increased dissolved oxygen concentration;

4.

Increased flows which will improve

scouring,

reduce stagnation and reduce algal growth

(R.

23—24).

The record

has

no indication of

any harmful or adverse

environmental impact.

It appears that the overall environmental

condition in the area will substantially improve with little

or

no risk of harm.

Furthermore, East Peoria appears

to be willing

to bear the consequences should water quality standards be

violated.

The Board also focused on

the unique physical

setting and

set of circumstances presented here.

The receiving waters are

best described as

a long, narrow man—made pond

rather than

a

stream.

There

is

no connection with the Illinois River without

going through pumps.

In addition,

the ditch has little,

if

any

recreational value and its utility

to fish and wildlife

is

extremely limited.

Therefore, given the nature

of the receiving

waters and the unlikelihood

of environmental harm,

the Board

granted the relief requested by East Peoria.

The comments submitted by the Agency stress caution and

advise the Board

to withhold

a decision until extensive

environmental impact data can be collected.

The Agency cites

a

lack

of factual

support for the Board’s determination.

The

comments allege

that the evidence submitted

to the Board fails

to

support East Peoria’s claims

of environmental benefits which

would result from the discharge change.

In addition,

the Agency

maintains that much of

the evidence,

since

it was not collected

over an extended time period,

is too speculative;

especially

the

evidence regarding stagnation and winter freezing.

Finally,

the

Agency maintains that since

the economic impact

is slight,

there

is no

reason for

the Board

to decide

this matter prior

to

extensive data collection.

The Agency

is correct that East Peoria has not submitted

evidence

to the Board which thoroughly and completely quantifies

the environmental impact which would result.

However,

the

67-474

---

evidence

that was presented

to the Board indicates only

beneficial

results,

not adverse results,

and

is sufficient

to

allow the Board

to reasonably conclude that the environmental

impact resulting from the discharge change would be beneficial.

A regulation will

be deemed valid unless shown to

be arbitrary,

capricious,

unreasonable or otherwise not

in accordance with

the

law.

Commonwealth Edison Company

v.

Pollution Control

Board

25

Ill. App.

3d

271,

323 N.E.

2d 84,90—91

(1st Dist.

1974).

Here,

all

of the evidence before

the Board

is

that the change

in

discharge location will improve water quality in Ditch A and Nain

Ditch

as measured by the common pollution indicators

(dissolved

oxygen,

suspended

solids, stagnation,

algae).

The Agency has

presented no evidence

to the contrary,

nor has

it shown

inaccuracies

in the testing

or calculations presented by East

Peoria

in support

of the rule change.

While

the record

is

limited,

it

is sufficient

to allow the Board

to reasonably

conclude

that the discharge change would

be beneficial to the

environment.

The Agency

has alleged

in

its comments that the Board is

consciously disregarding the issue of

likely water quality

violations.

Contrary to the Agency’s allegations,

the Board has

considered

this issue but has not found any evidence within

the

confines

of

the record which would indicate

a possible water

quality degradation.

All

of the evidence indicates that only

beneficial changes would result.

The evidence and the expert opinion

relied upon by the Board

were properly collected and well—reasoned.

Chemical data,

as

well

as

biological observation data were collected by a biologist

and were relied upon by him in making his analysis regarding

Ditch A

(Exhibit 2,

pp.

2—8, Appendix B).

Testimony on the

environmental impact of the discharge location change was based

upon these various forms

of data and,

therefore, was not

speculative

in nature.

As stated above, after

considering the evidence submitted by

East Peoria,

the Board finds

no adverse environmental impact and

further finds

that some environmental benefits may well derive

from the discharge location change.

It should also

be noted

that

whereas $15,000 may be

a comparatively insignificant amount in

East Peoria’s municipal budget,

any savings are important to

a

community which

is facing

a declining tax base

(R.

9—10).

Should any adverse environmental impact occur

in the future

as

a

result of the discharge change,

the problem could be easily

remedied by East Peoria;

the effluent flow can simply be

discharged back into the Illinois River

as was originally done by

East Peoria.

Given

the probable beneficial environmental impact

to Ditch

A,

the Board grants East Peoria’s requested relief.

The Board

does not believe that any harm to the environment

or public

interest would occur in granting the requested relief.

However,

in granting this relief,

the Board recognizes

that water

quality

67-475

---

—4—

standards will continue

to be applicable to Ditch

A.

Because of

the admitted lack of extensive data in the record

regarding the proposed change,

the Board includes

a few caveats

in

its decision and order.

First,

the Board requires East Peoria

to monitor five—day biochemical oxygen demand

(SOD5), Dissolved

Oxygen,

total

suspended solids

(TSS)

and ammonia nitrogen levels

in Ditch A and Main Ditch

at periods of once

a month

for six

months prior

to the change and once

a month for one year

subsequent

to the change.

The monitoring

is

to be conducted at

a

total

of five locations throughout Ditch A and Main Ditch.

Second,

the Board will withhold submission of this decision and

order

to the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules

for thirty

(30) days

to allow

the parties

to comment on the feasibility of

the sampling.

ORDER

The Board hereby adopts the following rule for Second Notice

and instructs the Clerk of

the Board

to

submit this

rule to the

Joint Committee on Administrative Rules thirty days subsequent

to

the date of this Order:

TITLE

35:

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SUBTITLE

C:

WATER POLLUTION

CHAPTER

I:

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PART 304

SITE-SPECIFIC RULES AND EXCEPTIONS

NOT OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY

Section 304.211

City

of East Peoria Discharges

a)

This Section applies only to effluent discharges from

the City of East Peoria’s Sewage Treatment Plant No.

1

into Ditch A in Tazewell 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/i of

five day biochemical oxygen demand

(BOD5)

(STORET number 00310)

and

25 mg/i of total

suspended solids

(STORET number 00530).

C)

The City of East Peoria shall monitor biochemical oxygen

demand

(BOD5), Dissolved Oxygen,

total suspended solids

(TSS)

and ammonia nitrogen levels for periods of once

a

month

for

six months prior

to the discharge change and

once

a month

for one year subsequent

to the discharge

change at five

(5) locations throughout Ditch A and Main

Ditch.

This information shall

be submitted to the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency quarterly~

67-4 76

---

—5—

IT

IS

SO

ORDERED.

I Dorothy

M.

Gunn,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the above Proposed Ru1e/~econdNotice

Opinion and Order was adopted

on

the

~

day of

~

1986, by

a vote of

7-c)

.

~

/~

~Dorothy M. G~nn,Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board