I

LL1NOIS POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

August

22,

1984

DEAN FOODS?

PCB 81—151

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY~

Respondent.

RICHARD

J.

KISSEL

AND THERESA YASDICK (MARTIN,

CRAIG,

CHESTER &

SONNENSCHEIN),

ATTORNEYS-~AT-LAW,

APPEARED

ON

BEHALF

PETITIONER; AND

WAYNE

L.

WIEMERSLAGE,

ATTORNEY-~T-LM~1,

APPEARED

ON

BEHALF

OF

RESPONDENT,

OPINION AND

ORDER

OF

THE BOARD

(by B.

Forcade):

This matter comes before the Board upon a

petition

for

review of

conditions

of

an NPDES permit filed

by

Dean

Foods

(‘Dean’s) on October

1,

1981.

The

Illinois

Environmental

Pro-

tection Agency

(~Agency~)filed the

Agency

Record

on

December 28,

1981.

A

public

hearing was held on March

28,

1984,

in

Chicago.

There is no

indication

in

the

record

of

public

participation.

This

matter

concerns

NPDES

Permit

NO.

IL

0003:395

issued

to

Dean

on

September

2, 1981.

The permit authorized

d:Lscharges

from

Dean~s

Chemung,

Illinois

facility

to

Piscasaw

Creek,

a

tributary

of

the

Kishwaukee

River,

via

a

small drainage dItch~

Dean

challenges the

location at which sampling for

compliance

with

certain effluent

limitations

is

designated

and

the

monitoring

frequency for

fecal coliform.

The facility occupies 2.8

acres on

the

east end

of

a

13-acre

lot,

and

is

the

company~s

largest dairy

processing facility

(R.

43).

It employs approximately 154

people

and processes over

one

million

pounds of

milk

per

day,

as well as

numerous

cultured milk

products,

ice

creani

and

nora—dairy

products.

The

products

from

this

:Eacility

are distributed primarily in

Northern

Illinois

and Wisconsin, with a

portion

going

to

other

Dean

plants

in

four

other states

(R.

43).

Dean~s

wastewater treatment system consists of an

activated

sludge wastewater

treatment

process followed by two polishing

lagoons and a

rock

filter.

The

treatment

facility

occupies

three

acres on the west end

of

the

property.

During

the 1960’s,

Dean

reduced the volume

of contact processing water flowing

through

the plant by creating

a

non—contact

cooling

stream

(R.

45).

This

modification resulted

in a

lower

volume of

wastewater

requiring

59-375

---

treatment.

Dean recombines the treated contact ~ste

stream

and

the non—contact cooling stream immediately prior to discharge

into

the small drainage ditch leading to Piscasaw Creek.

Dean

currently has a petition for site—specific watc~pollution

control

regulations

f’~t the Chemung facility

r.~r.gbefore

the

Board which is docketed as R 82—25.

The first, snd ~o~t eign’ficant, condi~ionof

the 1981

permit

that Dean objects to concerns

the

location of the

sampling

point for

compliancc

~it~

brochcmical

oxygen

de:

nd

(BOD),

total

suspended solids (~SS) chlorine and fecal ccli~u~effluent

limitations.

The permit requires Dean to samp~

for these

before

admixture of the treated contact waste strean ~r

~

non—contact

cooling

water

stream.

Prioi

NPDES

permits

issued

in

1975

(Agency

Rec,

31)

and 1977

(Agency Rec

41 and 43) design~tedthe sampling

point after admixture of the two streams immediately before

final

discharge.

This sampling point had been reques~edby Dean in

1973 in a

letter

to

the

Agency

on

the

theory

tI at

Ia

e

401,

now

recodified

as

35

Ill,

Adm.

Code

304.102,

permitted

such

a

mixing

of waste

streams

if

the

“best

degree

of

treatment

of

wastewater

consistent

with

technological

feasibility,

e’onomic

reasonable-

ness

and

sound engineering judgment~’were provided

(Agency Rec.

1).

The

Agency,

in

a

response

letter,

requested

more

information

concerning

removal

efficiences

(Agency

Rec.

2).

Dean

provided

this information

(Agency Rec.

4)

and,

in a l~tt

~1atedDecember

7,

1973,

the Agency granted Dean’s request (f~cncyItec.

5).

The

first two

drafts

of

Dean’s

1981

NPDES

permit

prvided

for

sampling

at

the point after admixture of the two et~eams

(Agency

Rec.

49

and 57)

lIe third draft and final pev

t designated

the

original sampling p

itt

for

flow,

pH

and

am~oni~ bat

designated

a point before adm xture for BOD

TSS

ch o~~nc erd focal

coliform

(Agency ~Iec

I

ani.

6

)

The second condition that Dean challenges

in rte petition is

the monitoring frequency for fecal coliform

Iae

1981. permit,

as

well as all previous permits, require Dean to monitor for fecal

coliform

on a weekly basis,

However, past permits included a

provision whereby monthly monitoring for fecal coliform would be

permitted if done in conjunction with monitoring for chlorine

residual,

Dean had followed this condition in the past and

monitored on a monthly basis

(R.

321).

The first draft permit

presented to Dean on April

3,

1983, dropped this provision

allowing an alternative to weekly monitoring

Dean personnel met with Agency personnel in Maywood on April

14,

1981, to discuss the monitoring parametsrs,

as

well

as the

monitoring frequency for fecal

coliform

(R.

185

On April

17,

1983,

a second draft permit was issued which r~taned the weekly

monitoring requirement,

as well

as the old samp’rng point

after

admixture.

Dean personnel met again with Agency ~ersonnel

in

Springfield on July 10,

1981,

At that time,

Dean saw the

third

draft permit dated July

7,

1981, which changed tn~sampling

point

from after to before admixtur~(R

186—7). The Agency explained

that the point had been changed because

of

Rule

401(a)

(304.102(a))

and requested

additional

information

regardr1g

Dean’s

treatment

59-376

---

system

(R.

292).

Dean’s consulting engineer resp~~nded

with a

letter exp1aixri~rigthe original

rationale

for

setting

the

sampling

point after

mixture of the two streams and previded

summarized

water treatment data

for 1980 and 1981

(R,

lbI~.

rite

final

permit was issued on September

2,

1981.

In

support of their decision to change

ti e non toring

point

the Agency testified that they needed informat~ on the

basis

of

design

and

the

eff~ciencesof each of the indrv~duaiunits,

an

analysis of whether Dean could provide any addil ore

treatment

that would

significantly improve their effluent

a schedule

of

compliance for TSS eff)u~ntlimitations and ~r

xalnation of

the

water

quality

impact from its discharge

in ord~rto properly

evaluate Dean’s

treatment process

(R.

291-292’

rlIh~~

7~gency

felt that

Dean

had

not

been forthcoming with this informate~aprior to

issuance

of

the permit.

The Agency questioned Dear’s

assertion

that

~best

degree of treatment” was being provided because

recent

discharge

monitoring reports

(DMR’s)

showed that

)ear was

violating both

the 30 day average and the max~mun limitations

for

TSS

on

a consistent basis,

even after dilution with non—contact

cooling

water

(Agency

11cc,

18).

Dean’s Notice or

N ncompliance

(NON) for

May

1,

1981, stated that they would nor L? able

to

meet

TSS

standards

during the coming spring and sumnw

nonths

(Agency

Rec, 19).

The informetion the Agency had on r~

~ basis of

design

for

treatment was out of date.

Some

t~t

th~

~nformation

dated

from

the l960’r,

Since that time, there

th been

treatment

modifications

and the

-naractcristics and qnrtc’.y

f Dean’s

waste had

changed

(11.

492)

Dean

asserts tha

the Agency is estoppe.

changing the

sampling point and th~ a ~a~tD.1ngfrequency

r

.

coliform.

Dean also

argues that they are entitled to sam~l~.after

admixture

under

304,102(a)

because they provide the

“beet 1~reeof treat-

ment of wastewater

consistent with technologia.~~asihi1ity,

economic

reasonableness and sound engineering

~,

lgaeent.”

The

Agency argues that

they are not estopped to cnange these

permit

conditions and

that 304.102 does not allow

.re-monitoring

admixture of a

waste stream and a non-contact cooling stream

prior to monitoring

regardless of what degre~of treatment is

provided.

After prolonged di~covexv,numerous moticiia

to the

Hearing

Officer and appeals to the Board,

tais mstte~ream~te hearing

on

March

28,

1984.

Dean p~senteifour witnessn~,John Hetrick, an

environmental

consultant. to Dean

and

former empioJe~Dennis

Busch,

Dean’s

Director of Nuvironmental Control

aLien B.

Fehr, a

consulting engineer retainea hq Dean;

and Dr

llisor

11. Brigham,

an Associate

Aquatic Biolo4iCt at the illino

s

~atura1 History

Survey,

who was

retained

‘oj Dean to study the

I

w’w.aw Creek,

The Agency

presented one ~iitness,Mark B,

ScholLa b~rger,the

Agency engineer who wrote Dean’s 1981 permit~

)ean

incorporated

portions of this witness’ testimony into their

e~in chief,

The

Hearing

Officer,

in a written statement 07.Juating

the

---

4

credibility of

the

witnesses,

felt

that

credibi1~ty

was

an

issue

regarding witness Schoilenbergor.

The Hearing Officer stated

that while he did not believe Schollenberger was lying, he was

unsure and evasive on cross—examination concerning his reasons

Eor writing

the permit

as

he

did

(Hearing Officer’s Statement

of credibility,

April

10,

1984).

DE NOVO HEARING ISSUE A~DEVIDENTIARY

OBJECTIONS

The Agency,

at hearing,

objected to the

introduction

of

certain evidence presented by

Dean

on the

basis that

the proper

evidentiary scope in a permit appeal was limited

to

the

facts

before the Agency

at

the

time

the permit was

issued.

The Agency

cites both Appellate cases and Board decisions

that have

con-

sistantly defined the scope of a permit appeal

under

Section 40

of the Act as whether or not, based upon the facts

of

the appli-

cation, the applicant has provided proof that

the

activity in

question will not cause a violation of the Act or

of

the

regulations.

The Agency argues, relying on

Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency v.

Illinois

Pollution

Control Board and Album, Inç~74 Ill.

Dec.

158,

455

N.E.

2d 188

(Ill.

App.

1 Dist.

1983), Oscar Mayer &

Co..,

v.

EPA,

PCB 78—14,

30

PCB

397, June 14,

1978, and EPA v. Allaert ~nderiLIn~

PCB 76—80,

35 PCB

281, September

6,

1979, that a petitioner must

show compliance with the Act and regulations

‘based solely

upon

the permit application and supporting

documentation

actually

submitted by the applicant.

The Agency specifically objected to a

1983 report

prepared

by Dr. Allison

R.

Brigham

on the biology of

the !?iscasaw

Creek

watershed

and

the

impact

of

Dean’s

discharger

aneport

dated

September

24,

:1981, by

Fehr,

Graham & Associates evaluating

tertiary

wastewater

treatment alternatives

for

Dean’s

Chemung

facility?

information

and

data

regarding

Flotafilter

nriits

and

microscreeniag;

BAT-BCT

Effluent

Guidelines

adopted

Later

than

September

2,

1981,

and any

other

facts

or

information

not

presented

to

the

Agency

prior

to

September

2,

1981

(Agency

Objection

No.

1).

The

Agency

also

objected

to

the

admission

of

any

evidence

relating

to

Agency

procedures,

criteria

and

activities

pertaining

to the

permit

decision—making

process

relating to Dean’s latest

and

earlier NPDES

permits, or

relating

to USEPA effluent guidelines for the

dairy industry

(gency

Objection No,

2)..

The Hearing Officer received

the

evidence and

deferred the question

of

admissibility to

the

Board.

The

Agency,

in

its

brief,

requests

that

certain

portions

of

the

hearing

transcript

that

relate

to

the

objectionable

evidence

be

stricken.

Dean

relies

on

35

111.

Mm,

Code

l05.l02(a)(8~ as

a

basis

for presenting evidence developed after

the final NPDES

permit

was issued on September 1, 1981,

and not

contained

in

the

Agency

Record,

Section 105.102(b)(8) applies to NPDES

permit

appeals

and

provides

that:

59-378

---

The hearings before the Board shall exten~

all questions

of law and facc presented by the entire ~Ld,

The

Agency’s findi~gsand conclusions on que~t~

~ns of fact

shall

be priwa facie t~e and correct.

If the A~~‘cy’s

conclusions ci fact are disputed by thc p~:t~or if

issues

of fact are rsised in the review proc~e~i~’~

Board

may

make its own ~et~r~ination of fact has~o

~

~e

record.

If

any party deeire~te

introduce evidenre

.~

he Board

with respec~~

~

disputed issue Ci

‘

Board shall

conduc~a de novo hearing and receive ev~.

with respect

to such issue

~i

feat.

This sect~on

~.

n~Lr~’ed

in Olin Con~.

~,

PCB

80—126,

45 PCB 389, Febru~ary1/,

1982,

as follows:

“The hear rj de novo provisions no~

~“~strued

narrowly;

otherwise

permit

applicants

i’

~mpted to

withhold facts at the Agency level in h~

a more

friendly

reception

before

the

Board,

It

encourage

appeals and wou d place the Board in a p

of being

the

first agency to evaluate the factual su

~s.

This

would distort tv. reparation of functi ~

The fourti~~ote~oo

allows a hGCL

‘~

~t’c

only

with

respect to ‘any dt~put~dissues of icc

‘

:e~ersonly

to an Agency factual determination wh1f~

~sputed before

the Agency”

(p.

4)

In the present casc

Dean has submitt~

not in the

Agency Record relat~.d~o whether or not the

~~reeof

treatment of wastewater consistant with to

feasibility, econ nic r~asoaab1enessand

s

‘

earing

judgment “was provided at the Chemung faci1.~t~

~‘nbelieves

that providing this level of treatment entraL~

on to monitor

aftex their waste ~tr~aamhas been diluted

w:3h

‘~‘~‘

c~ntact

cooling water,

After the third draft 1981 per~otwas presented

to

Dean,

Dean re~pondedwith two letters

t

aLe ~pency objecting

to

the changed monitoring point and explainin~aLe original

rationale for allowing this monitoring point

(

~

Rec,

62 and

63).

Dean

also

submitted

a

summary

of

trea4inent

slant

operation

data for 1980 and part of 1981

(Agency Rec,

63).

D~anhas

disputed the factual issue of whether or not

it

r

providing

“best degree of treatment” at the Chemung facC’ty before the

Agency.

According to the Olin standard, a de nov~hearing on

this issue should bo ai1owed~

While the Board may

look at the issue of “best degree of

treatment” in a de rovo manner, the Hearing )ificcr incorrectly

admitted

evidence beyond the proper scope a11we~

ri

a permit

appeal.

The Appellate Court, in IEPA v.

PCB arid

~

455 N.E.

2d at 194, clearly held that:

“The sole question before the Board

i

review

of

the

Agency’s denial of a permit is whether tho

~‘

titioner

can

---

prove that its permit application as

submitted

to

the

Agency

establishes that the facility will not

cause a violation of

the

Act,

(Ill,

Rev,

Stat.

1979,

ch,

111½,

par.

1040).

If

the Agency has granted the permit with

conditions to which

the petitioner objects, the petitioner

must

prove

that

the

conditions

are

not

necessary

to

accomplish

the

purposes

of

the Act and therefore were imposed

unreasonably.

The Board

may not be persuaded by new material not

before the Agency

that the permit should be oranted,

(Soil

Enrichment

~

972),

5

Ill.

P.C,B,

Op.

715.)

When reviewing the

Agency~s

denial

of

a permit or imposition of any conditions,

~the

decision

of

the Board shall be based exclusively on

the record

before

the Agency including the record of the

hearing,

if any

~.“

Ill..

Rev.

Stat,

1979,

ch.

111½, par.

1040; ~1CoalC9~

~

(1979),

35

Ill.

P.C,B.

Op.

380.”

IEPA

v.

PCB and Album,

Inc. deals with

construction

and

operating

permits

for a liquid waste

incinerator.

However,

Section

40

applies to both NPDES and

non—NPDES

permits alike.

In

~

Coal_Co. v,

EPA, ~ra,,

an NPDES permit

appeal,

the

Board

stated that:

“The issue

in a Section

40

petition

is

whether

or not, based upon the facts

of the

application,

the

applicant

has

provided

proof

that

the activity

in question

will

not

cause

a

violation

of

the

Act

or

of

the

regulations.~

The

Board~s scope

of inquiry

is clearly limited in

both

NPDES

and

non-NPDES

permit

appeals.

The Hearing Officer’s admission of

evidence

developed

after

the issuance of the final permit was in error,

The

Board

overturns the Hearing Officer’s admission of the evidence.

However,

Dean’s

attempts

to

focus

on the issue

of

whether

or not

~best

degree

of

treatment”

was

provided

at the chemung facility

are misdirected.

The Board has reviewed the full

record

from the

March 28,

1984, hearing, even including the

evidence

developed after

the final permit was issued, and concludes

that under

the proper

interpretation of 304.102 this excluded evidence

is

irrelevant to

the resolution of this permit appeal.

Dean argues that 35

‘Ill.

Adm. Code 304.102

entitles

them to

monitor after admixture of a treated contact waste stream and a

non—contact cooling stream because they provide

the

‘~bestdegree

of treatment of wastewater consistent with

technological

feasibility, economic reasonableness and sound engineering

judgment.”

This interpretation of the rule

is

not supported

by

the terms of the rule,

the intent of its author,

or Board

opinions on this issue,

35 Ill. Adm. Code

304.102 provides as

follows:

---

Section 304.102 DilutIon

a)

Dilution

of

the

effluent

from

a

treatment

works

or

from any wastewatem source is not acceptable

as

a

method of treatment of

wastes

in

order to meet the

standards set forth in this Part,

Rather,

it

shall be the obligation of any

person

discharging

contaminants of any kind to the waters of the

state

to

provide

the

best

degree

of

treatment

of

wastweatem consistent with technological

feasibility, economic reasonableness and sound

engineering judgment.

In

making

determinations

as

to

what

kind

of

treatment

is the “best degree of

treatment” within the meaning

of

this

paragraph,

any person shall consider the following:

I)

What degree of waste reduction can be

achieved by process

change,

improved

housekeeping and recovery of individual waste

components for reuse; and

2)

Whether individual process wastewater streams

should be segregated

or combined.

b)

In any case, measurement of contaminant concen-

trations to determine compliance with the effluent

standards shall be made

at

the point

immediately

following the final treatment process and before

mixture with other waters, unless another point

is

designated

by

the

Agency

in

an individual permit,

after consideration of the elements contained in

this section,

If necessary the concentrations so

measured shall be recomputed to exclude the effect

of

any

dilution

that

is

improper under this Section.

In the Board Opinion adopting the Dilution Rule,

Mr. Currie

stated that:

“Removal of contaminants from wastewater

is

generally

preferable to dilution to meet standards,

Even if

concentrations

are

diluted

sufficiently

to

avoid

immediate

harm to those using the stream,

excessive

reliance

on

dilution

rapidly

exhausts the assimilative capacity of the

water,

especially

if,

as

is

often the case, the effluent

standard is more lenient than the corresponding standard for

stream quality.

Thus in order to make

room for future

industry and population growth,

as well as to keep the

waters as clean as practicable rather than seeking merely

marginal compliance with stream quality standards,

it

is

desirable

to require the employment

of

readily

available

treatment methods to reduce as much

as

practicable

the

total

quantities

of

contaminants

discharged

to

the

waters

before

resorting to dilution either before or after discharge....

---

.,,On the basis of this policy

the

Board

initially

proposed

that the effluent standards be

met

without

any

allowance for dilution,

Although

some

industry

spokesmen

challenged this in principle, most acknowledged that

intentional dilution in lieu of

treatment should be

forbidden,

There was considerable

controversy,

however,

over

the possibility that the absolute

ban on

dilution

might

be construed to prohibit the mixing of several streams

contaminated with different wastes

before

treatment.

Recognizing that in many cases more

effective

treatment

can

be obtained by separate treatment

of

different waste streams

at their source but that economics

does

not always

permit

such separate treatment,

we published a revised dilution

standard

proposal

leaving some room

for

engineering

judgment

as

to

the desirability of separating

or

combining

waste

streams for

treatment.

That

revised

proposal,

which has

generally

met with acceptance, was

retained

in the proposed

final draft and in today’s regulation

with

the

addition of

one

sentence making it clear that the

provision

for

measurement after treatment does not undermine the general

prohibition against dilution at any stage.~’

It

is

clear

that the Board intended to

prohibit

dilution as

a means

of

complying with effluent limitations.

This general

policy is

clear from both the language of

the regulation

and

the

opinion..

In certain circumstances, however, the Board recognized

that it

may be desirable to combine two

or

more

different

waste

streams

rather than treat these

waste streams

separately.

The purpose

for combining two or more waste streams

is to

increase

the effectiveness of the treatment

or to

treat more

economically.

The choice of whether to combine separate waste

streams for treatment

is left to “engineering judgment.”

It is

clear that

the streams that may be combined

must be

waste

streams

and the

purpose of such admixture is for

effective

and

economic

treatment.

The rule clearly does not create a right to dilute

a

waste stream with a non~wastestream even if “best degree of

treatment” is provided.

Board opinions in this area support this interpretation of

the Dilution Rule.

In Revere &o

eLand Brass_Inc.v,

IEPA,

PCB

80—117,

54 PCB 81, September 23,

1983, the Board upheld NPDES

permit conditions that designated effluent monitoring of

wastewater before mixture with other waters.

The Board found

that Revere had not demonstrated “best degree

of

treatment” to

permit combining of wastewater sources,

Furthermore, the

effluent was impermissibly diluted with non—contact cooling water

and stormwater from roof drains and a parking lot,

54 P,C,B. at

84.

In I11inoisNitr~genCorp~1~EPA,PCB 80-144,

44 PCB 139,

December 3, 1981,

a variance petitioner requested a measuring

point that would allow and encourage the

petitioner

to

mix

a

sanitary

stream with boiler blowdown,

process

water

and

cooling

water

prior

to

treatment.

The Board denied this request because

it

would

result in a lower level of contaminant removal and

undue

dilution in violation of Rule 401(a).

The Board construed Rule

401(a) to proscribe such dilution

44 PCB

at

146.

---

Section 30~

~

ci~he~dilution as a means of complying

with effluent 1~it~c~o~e.

The regulation provides for mixture

of waste streams

I

~rta~r

limited

circumstances.

It clearly

proscribes adsix~rt.o~ien~contactcooling

water

immediately

prior to me~isur~an ~

~~‘ctarge. Dean’s contention that

they

have earned taL

~ J~e as a reward for providing the

“best degree ~

a

n

‘

~sro~supported

by the

facts or law.

The admixture

J1 ~

r ~

j5

unrelated to any type of

treatment proce~

.

~

-rrespondence

in

1973 between the

Agency

and. De~

t

~e

ms

as “waste” streams.

Whether

or not this wa~

~understanding regarding t e

nature of tbe co

~.

c

~ar

n the part of the Agency or a

misrepresentot)c

J

~

r~1evant,

The

overriding

effect

of combining

hE

rc

r

3.

o~utior, Even

with

this dilution,

Dean is unable

1e

e~

~uuert limitations

in it

uermit.

The Agency deci’~aL

t

re

cate the sampling point was reasonable

in

the

circumstar

a

8

r:ect

as

a

matter

of

law.

L~2OPEL ISSUE

Dean argues th

be Agency is estopped from changing the

two

contested

pa mi

nc3

ri5.

The

estoppel

principle has

been

applied to both t~c~crc

and the Pollution

Control

Board in

certain circumstalc

~.

The facts in the

present

case,

however,

do

not

create

a

.

-

n

~~horeostoppel can be properly applied.

The

Board

r

Di.

P

ri.t Dc Nemours

& Co.

V.

EPA,

PCB

79—106,

39

PCB

348

~

21

1980,

outlined the proper

circumstances ~or

a &~p~

~on of estoppel to an Agency

decision.

The B

u ad the Agency from reclassifying an

industrial dit

~

ronmental improvement will result,

where

there

ta

i

he facility or regu~dLins and

where the permit~

-.~

rpanded money in

reliance

on the

previous class

tiCf. i~

3

PCB at 351,

In the present case,

the increased fa~

a

in nonitoring frequency will

potentially imp;~

i?

ti

A en~ys ability to

analyze

Dean’s

treatment process.

hanging the sampling

point

will

precluae

Dean

from

using d1u

a

as

~

treatment

process..

Since

the

original 1973 Agency -~szgn~ionof the monitoring point there

have been change

i.

d-~an’sprocess and treatment operation

(R.

47—48).

Dean was ura~a.

i.ect TSS limitations in the months

prior

to

the

issuance

)f

the

1981

permit. Dean has not expended

money in reliance on

his previous determination.

Dean

may

be

required

to

expend mo

°‘-‘

i-i

tie future as a result of these

conditions but U

~~oe

~.

axoense is clearly within the intent

of the Act and reg~atian~.

Dean has not

met

the

requirements

for application

f

~‘~op~cl tc

either of the contested

conditions,

The burden

apocal

is on the petitioner to prove

that,

in

the

ct~a-

~

s~ecpermit

conditions,

the

conditions

are

Tt.

~c~s3ary to accomplish the purposes of the

Act and therefore

~

iiposed unreasonably..

IEPA v.

PCB and

Album

Inc., 45s

P

23 a: 194.

Dean

has

not

met this burden

~~ffE~of

t~3-~’

i,

d3~iJi~The

Agency

has

the

duty to impose

---

10

conditions in permits that will result in

compliance with

the

Act

and Board regulations,

The permit

conditions on appeal are,

reasonably directed towards this goal.

The conditions are

therefore affirmed.

This Opinion constitutes the Board~s

findings

of

facts and

conclusions of law in this matter.

ORDER

The Board has reviewed the contested

conditions

in

NPDES

permit

No.

IL 0003395 and affirms those

conditions.

IT IS SO ORDERED,

Chairman J.

D.

Dumelle concurred.

I,

Dorothy M.

Gunn, Clerk of the

Illinois Pollution

Control

Board,

hereby certify that the above Opinion

and Order was adopted

on the

~‘day

of

~~l984

by a vote of

4Q~.

Dorothy

M.

unn,

Clerk

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

59~384