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