ILLINoIS
POLLTJT1ON
CONTROL
BOARD
February
9,
1984
IN
THE
MATTOR
OF:
THE
PETITION
CF
TOE
GALESEFRO
R80—16
SANITARY
DISTRICT
TO
AMEN!)
REGULATIONS
ORDER
OF
THE
BOARD
(by
J,
I),
Dumelle):
This
matter
comes
before
the
Board
upon
a
December
29,
1983
motion
tor
reconsideration,
filed
by
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(Agency),
of
the
Board~s November
18,
1983
Proposed
Rule/Second
Notice
Order
The
Agency
contends
that
changes
made
from
the
first
Notice
Order
of
June
2,
1983
“significantly lessen the
ability
of
the
Board
and
the
Agency
to
enforce
these rules~
The
Galesburg
Sanitary
District
(GSD)
respondee
on January
12, 1984~ Since the
second
notice
period
has
not
commenced,
and
since serious issues
have been raised,
the
Board
can,
and hereby
does,
grant
reconsideration~
The Agency first
argues
that ‘~the
Board changed the language
of
Section
384~,2O7~b)(1)
from
the
First
Notice Order
so that
complicuce
~
a
i
s~lve~ ~“cca
s
andard
was only required
downstream
from
inc.
treatment p1ant~ and
that
the Board has “by
implication~deleted
the
dissolced oxygen
standard
upstream
of
the
plant~
That
is
not trues
Section
3O4~.2O7(h)(1) requires
that
050 assure compliance with
ate
downstream
dissolved
oxygen
limitations
hr November ~l
•
1984,
in
order
to
ualif
for
relax
ed
bLuC
h
cmi
ox
en de nan~~t(Bar)
ansus
en ed soli
ds(SS)
limitations~
It does not exempt GSD
from
the
dissolved oxygen
limitations
of Section 302~2O6
with
regard
to
any
reach
of
Cedar
Creek~~
Rather,
the
rule
is
based upon
the
recognition
that
upstream
dissolved
oxygen
violations
may
result
from
factors
over
which
the
GSD has
no
controL
:t:E,
however,
dissolved
oxygen
violations
can he
found
to
result
from
GSD~s activities,
it
is
subject
to
enforcement.
The Board
notes,
that
there
is
language
in
the
Second Notice
Order
preceecling
the
rule
which
unfortunately
leads
to the 2lqencys
conclusion.
Therefore,
while
Section
304,2O7(b)~i)
w~l~not
be
modiltecl
in response to
the
motion
for
reconsideration,
the Board will clarify
the intent of
the rule in
its
Final
Opinion~
Second,
the
Agency oblects
to
changes
in Section 304.207(h)(2),
apparently
taking
the position
that
under
its
present
wording
the
GSD could
avoid
the finding of a violation
under
Section 306.305(a)
by proving
that there
are
sewer
backups~
Such
is not the intent.
Rather
than establishing basement backups
as
a
defense
to
an
allegation
of a Section 306~3O5(a)vIolation,
basement backups
56493
2
are
specifically
disallowed if the GSD
is to be subject
to
relaxed
deoxygenating waste general effluent
standards.
The
Board did
not conclude, and the proposed
rule does
not state,
that
the 050
should be exempted from Section
306,305(a).
In the
Proposed
Opinion of June
2,
1983,
the Board~s
finding
of
substantial
compliance
was
based
on
the
050’s
own
evidence
that
over
99
compliance
could
he
achieved
and
that
the
degree
of
environmental
harm which could he
expected from
such
minor
non—compliance would not justify the large expenditure
necessary
to
attain 100
compliance.
If the 050’s evidence
is
borne
out,
no
violation of Section 306~305(a) could he found
against
it.
However,
if the modifications do not result in
substantial
compliance,
a violation could
be
proven.
Some
of those
modifications are reflected in the
conditions
of
Section
304,207(b) which are not included as
alternatI~e
combined
sewer
overflow rules,
but rather are intended to
give added
assurance
that the 050 will take the steps which
are
necessary
to achieve
substantial compliance with those rules.
Further,
no relief
has
been granted
to
the GSD
from
the
water
quality standards,
and if overflows from the GSD’s
sewer
system
can he proven to cause
or contribute to a violation
of
those
standards,
an enforcement action
would be appropriate.
The
intent of
Section
304,207(b)(2)
will also be
clarified
in the
Final
Opinion
in this
matter,
Therefore,
the
language of
Section 304,207
as proposed in the
Second
Notice Order
is affirmed,
but
the language of the Proposed Opinion
will be modified
to
clarify the
Board’s intent
in the Final
Opinion.
IT
IS SO ORDERED~
I, Christan L.
Moffett, Clerk of the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board, hereby certif
that the above
Order was
adopted on
the
~~day
of
~
1984 by a
vote of
~
Christan L.
Moffett,
Cler
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
56-i 94