ILLINOIS
POLLUTIOt’1 CONTROL BOARD
June 2,
1983
IN THE MATTER OF:
THE
PETITION OF THE
)
GALESBURG SANITARY DISTRICT
)
R80-16
TO AMEND REGULATIONS.
)
Proposed Rule.
First Notice.
PROPOSED OPINION AND ORDER
(by JO.
Dumelle):
On August 28,
1980,
the Galesburg Sanitary District filed
a petition for site-specific regulatory relief which was accepted
by the Board and authorized for hearing and publication on September 4,
1980.
Four merit hearings were held on December
9 and 10,
1980;
and June
8 and
9,
1981.
On October 7,
1982, the Department of
Energy and Natural Resources transmitted to the Board copies of
its economic study entitled The Economic Impact of Proposed
Regulation R80-16 Filed by the Galesburg Sanitary District to
Amend Chapter
3, Water Pollution_Regulations.
An economic
fmpact
hearing was held to consider that study on January
14,
1983.
Final comments were received by the Board on March 11, 1983.
FACILITY
The Galesburg Sanitary District owns and operates a sewer
system and sewage treatment plant
in Knox County that services
primarily the City of Galesburg
(R.133).
Galesburg was originally
constructed as a combined sewer community; however,
over 90
of the City is presently served by storm sewers as a result
of sewer separation projects that started in 1967.
The original
44
overflow points have remained in the system
(R.236).
The wastewater treatment facilities provide secondary treatment
by a trickling filter process.
Dry weather flows receive two
stage trickling filter treatment:
first through the 1930 plant,
then recirculation to the plant completed in 1969.
Flows
exceeding dry weather flow are given single stage treatment in the
1969 plant.
There has been no reported bypassing of the plant
since 1970, although combined sewer overflow does occur.
Treatment
plant effluent, combined sewer overflows, and any by-passing
discharge into Cedar Creek (R.160—165).
The Board appreciates the efforts of Lee
R. Cunningham,
who
acted as hearing officer in these proceedings, and Bill
S.
Forcade,
for his assistance
in drafting this Opinion and Order.
52-299
—2—
Cedar Creek begins as
a farm tile northeast of Galesburg and
flows through Galesburg from Northeast to Southwest.
Cedar
Creek becomes a paved channel
inside the City at the Santa Fe
Burlington Northern Viaduct,
and continues through the center
of the city generally parallel
to the main line of the Santa Fe.
Cedar Creek emerges from southwest Galesburg,
flows past the
sewage treatment plant, and continues in a westerly direction
through predominantly agricultural
land.
Ultimately,
Cedar Creek
flows into Henderson Creek which flows into the Mississippi River
(R.132—140)
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Discharges from the Gaiesburg Sanitary District treatment
plant and combined sewer overflows are subject to Board rules and
regulations which establish water quality standards applicable
to Cedar Creek.
To comply with these rules and regulations the
District embarked on
a program to plan, design and engineer,
and
construct improvements to the sewage collection and treatment
facilities.
During the pendency of that program,
the District
has so~ightvariances from certain effluent and water quality
standards in the following proceedings:
PCB 73—86,
74—93, 75—148,
76—154,
76—296,
77—192, and 82—21.
The present variance
(PCB 77—192) grants
the District relief, until June
1,
1982,
from 1977 rules governing ammonia nitrogen discharges,
deoxygenating
wastes discharges, and combined sewers and treatment plant bypasses.
The District has a variance request pending, PCB 82-21,
seeking
similar relief for the future if this site—specific regulatory
request
is denied.
In the present proceeding the District has sought the
following changes
in Board Rules and Regulations:
1.
That the water use designation for Cedar Creek
he
changed from general use to general use with certain limitations
(Section 302.202).
2.
That the current dissolved oxygen standard for Cedar Creek
be deleted if treatment plant effluent meets certain standards.
The
present dissolved oxygen standard requires not less than 6.0 mg/i
during at least 16 hours of any
24 hour period, and not less
than 5.0 mg/i at any time (Section 302.206).
3.
That the treatment plant be required to meet final effluent
standards of
20 mg/i of BODç and
25 mg/i of TSS.
The current
standard is
10 mg/i BOD5,
12 mg/i
of TSS
(Section 304.120(b)).
4.
That water quality standards for Cedar Creek regarding
ammonia nitrogen and un-ionized ammonia he modified to place a
maximum of
15 mg/i of ammonia nitrogen and 0.10 mg/i
of un—ionized
ammonia.
Current standards require, below 15 mg/i ammonia
nitrogen,
a maximum un—ionized ammonia of
0.04 mg/i
(Section 302.212).
52-300
—3—
5.
That the current requirement that discharges not increase
ambient water temperature more than 5°F(2.8°C)he deleted
(Section 302.211(d)).
6.
That the combined sewer overflow requirement that all
of the first flush meet applicable effluent standards be deleted
(Section 206.305(a)).
The Agency has recommended
that the site specific rules not
ho adopted.
PRESENT PROCEEDINGS
During these proceedings individuals appearing in favor of
the Galesburg Sanitary District’s proposal provided testimony
and exhibits that:
1)
described the present and potential uses of Cedar Creek
and surrounding
areas,
2)
described the chemical and biological nature of
Cedar Creek and the impacts caused by sewage discharges
as well as
the urban and agricultural environment,
and
3)
described the Galesburg sewage system and plant,
their
operation,
the proposed construction program, and its cost.
Individuals appearing
in opposition to the proposal
provided testimony and exhibits concerning the nature of Cedar
Creek and impact from District discharges,
as well
as disputing
testimony in favor of the proposal.
A local farmer testified that he had lost several calves
that drank from Cedar Creek,
and presented laboratory results
showing nitrate/nitrite
levels
in Cedar Creek.
He claimed
the District’s discharge partly caused the loss of calves
and high nitrate/nitrite
levels but did not claim to support or
oppose the proposed amendments
(R.
280—284,
Ex.
32).
In
its final brief the District argues
that, at present,
the total District discharges do not impair present or potential
uses of Cedar Creek,
that the proposed amendments would simply
maintain existing conditions, that the anticipated construction
program costs
($40 million) would
far outweigh benefits, and that
the proposal
is reasonable and appropriate.
Final comments submitted
by the Agency dispute the District’s
claims, argue that the level of
control required by Board regulations are technically feasible
and economically reasonable, and claim
that the District has failed
to demonstrate a difference in circumstances for its plant or
Cedar Creek (compared to any other district or creek)
which
is
necessary for site—specific relief.
52-301
—4—
DISCUSSION
The District’s proposal can be broken into three separate
elements:
1.
relief
from deoxygenating wastes effluent standards,
water quality dissolved oxygen and ammonia standards,
and water
use designation changes,
2.
relief from combined sewer overflow regulations, and
3.
relief
trout instrearn temperature increase regulations.
The District’s arguments are conceptually simple.
To achieve
the applicable standards the District planned a construction
program that
is now estimated to cost nearly $40 million.
Recent
studies
indicate the impact of the District’s discharges on
Cedar Creek does not significantly impair any present or potential
use of the Creek,
and water quality improvements from the construction
program would he minimal
compared to the cost.
EFFLUENT CONSIDERATIONS
Effluent from the District’s discharge
is subject
to the
deoxygenating wastes standards of Section 304.120.
Because
the dilution ratio of the District’s discharge
to Cedar Creek
is less
than five to one
(R.t34),
the standards of 304.120(c)
apply;
this requires that effluent not exceed 10 mg/l
of BOD~or 12
mg/i
of TSS except in certain situations not applicah~ehere.
The District requests discharge limitations of
20 mg/i
BOD~and 25 mg/i
of TSS found
in Section 304.i20(h~
—
the
a.ischarge
limitations which would apply to the District were
it not for the low flow characteristics of Cedar Creek.
In Group Exhibit 17 the District introduced results
of
effluent analyses
from January of 1966 through October of 1980.
An examination of the last 36 months of that data shows
the discharge failed to meet the 10
rug/i
of BOD5 standard for
26 months and failed to meet the 12
rug/i of TSS standard
for 18 months.
Results from 1966 to 1976 show even higher
BOD /TSS values.
Clearly the District has had and still has a
pro~lemwith a 10/12 standard.
Closer examination of the discharge
data shows
a seasonal
pattern.
During the warmer months
(July,
August,
September) BODr/TSS values are lowest and usually
comply with a 10/12 standard.~During
the colder months
(January,
February, March) BOD5/TSS values are highest and seldom comply.
To resolve these problems the District, beginning
in 1972,
contracted with Clark, Dietz
& Associates
for a series of reports
and studies identifying the nature of
the problem and making
recommendations
to satisfy existing regulatory requirements
(R.201).
The controlling requirements were effluent characteristics of
4 mg/i BOD5,
5 rug/i
TSS,
and 400 fecal coliform per 100 ml.
The
52-302
—5—
stream standards for Cedar Creek included a maximum 1.5 mg/i
ammonia nitrogen standard*
(R.220).
The report recommended
several
specific changes and additions to the existing system
(R.226—230.
Ex.
25,
31,
33).
The cost of constructing these improvements,
in 1980 dollars,
is estimated at $19,858,000 by Clark—Deitz
(Ex.
31).
Annual
operation and maintenance
(0
&
M)
for the improved facility is likewise
estimated at $1,107,900 per year.
Mr. James Browning, the
District’s Superintendent,
testified that plant improvements would
substantially raise sewage related
fees for area residents
and industries.
Presently the O&M costs are paid by sewer user
charges; plant improvements would increase
that rate from
$1.24 per month and $0.29 per 1000 gallons to the same monthly
fee and $1.10 per 1000 gallons
(R.190,
read together with prepared
testimony p.28, to correct transcription errors).
Construction costs are paid by taxes collected
to pay for
bonds sold to finance the construction.
Although the record
did not report the increase
in tax rate for plant improvements
alone, the current rate of $0.30 per $100 assessed valuation
(R.190) would undoubtedly increase significantly.
With the exception of costs,
the Agency disputes little of the
preceding information.
The Agency provided a
tJSEPA report by the
Advanced Wastewater Task Force which indicated user fees of $163/year/
customer (Ex.33(d),
p.4).
The District claims that is too low and
estimates a rate of $1.24 per month and $1.10 per 1000 gallons.
The same Agency exhibit claims annual capital and O&M costs
for
the entire project are less than 2.5
of median incomes over
$10,000.
The District argues that for a family with a $50,000
market value home and usage
of 10,000 gallons per month total costs
(taxes
& user fees)
would increase 288
from $8.33/month to
$23.90/month (R.190-191).
The Economic Impact Study recounted
the District’s statistics,
but did not resolve the conflict in
terminology with the Agency’s statistics
(Ex.48, pp.44—46).
Since the District
is applying for site specific rules that
would relax effluent limitations
to 20/25
(the limits which apply
to all large sewage treatment plants)
from 10/12
(the limits
to protect streams receiving large percentages of effluent)
the appropriate question is whether the more stringent effluent
standards would improve water quality or water uses.
Such
improvements must then ~bebalanced against the technical feasibility
and economic reasonableness oE reduced contamination.
Since
all participants agree that the proposed construction is technically
feasible,
that ceases to be an issue.
*
The requirements also may have included
a maximum effluent con—
centration of 0.1 mg/i Phosphorus
(R.210)
52-303
—6—
Briefly, the District presented testimony and exhibits to
demonstrate that the plant effluent and combined sewer overflow
have minimal
or no impact on downstream dissolved oxygen levels
and that the aquatic habitat
is not limited by D.O., but is
limited by chioramines and ammonia nitrogen.
Thus,
they argue,
if $19 million is spent on plant improvements, dissolved
oxygen will not increase,
and even if dissolved oxygen increases,
the habitat for aquatic
life will not improve.
The District
believes that, aside from improved aquatic habitat,
Cedar Creek
meets the standards for all other present or potential uses.
The District provided testimony by Dr. Milton L.
Bowman that
Cedar Creek was presently used for frequent and somewhat successful
fishing
(R.47,
48,
488 and 489),
trapping, stock watering
(R.138,
479 and 488) and trapping turtles
(R.489).
After discussing
his evaluation of the aquatic biology of Cedar Creek,
Dr. Bowman
concluded that “in light of the present uses of the upper portion
of
Cedar Creek, the existing water quality
is acceptable for these
uses.”
(R.467,
481).
Several District witnesses testified that
although plant effluent has an adverse impact on the biological
community in Cedar Creek
(1)
the existing biological community
is typical of similar Illinois streams and improvin9
(2) the
adverse effluent impact is predominantly from chlorination,
(3) any impacts rapidly dissipate downstream,
and
(4) factors
other than effluent quality limit diverse biological populations.
Dr. Allison R.
Bringham performed
a 1980 stream study of
benthic macroinvertebrates and evaluated a 1976 study by the
Agency.
Based on this information she concluded,
“that Cedar Creek
is an average low gradient, slowly flowing Illinois stream.”
(P.366)
and that,
“in general, the diversity of aquatic life increased
from 1976 to 1980.”
(R.362).
Or.
Charles
B. Muchmore testified,
based on stream testing and toxicity calculations,
that,
“the
major toxic factor contributed to Cedar Creek by the Galseburg
sewage treatment plant discharge was
total residual chlorine...”
(R.330).
All four District scientists testified that the treatment
plant impacts on Cedar Creek dissipate rapidly:
within
7.7—15.4 km (R.330,332),
within 1.5 miles
(R.362),
within
8 miles
(R.418), and 4.1 miles
(R.467).
Also,
all four testified that,
aside from residual chlorine, factors other than plant effluent
limited improvements
in water quality and diverse biological
community:
substrate,
lack of extensive rocky riffle,
sediment,
and erosion
(R.324,
332,
425,
467).
In total, the District presented a voluminous body of evidence
that, aside
from chlorine, present plant discharges do
not have
a substantial or limiting impact on the biological community or
uses of Cedar Creek.
The Agency did not present evidence to dispute
these claims,
hut did show low dissolved oxygen levels and high
ammonia nitrogen in Cedar Creek.
In Exhibit 33(c)
the Agency
developed a Streeter-Pheips model
for Cedar Creek which
shows
52-304
—7—
effluent controls anticipated
in the proposed construction will
result
in achieving the required dissolved oxygen
levels.
Testimony for the District by James Huff concluded that the
dissolved oxygen sags occur closer to the plant than the Agency model
predicts, and that when the plant effluent achieves characteristics
assumed
in the model, dissolved oxygen sags are lower than predicted
(R.775)
A regression analysis shows little correlation for existing
discharge values of BOD
and ammonia nitrogen relating to 0.0.
values
(R.778).
The Ag~ncy’smodel
is based on low sediment oxygen
demand typical of
a cleaner stream bed
(Ex.
33(c), pp.2
&
6) and would
therefore only he valid
for future conditions.
The evidence presented to the Board is that the expensive
construction to achieve an effluent of
10 mg/i BOD
,
12 m~/lTSS
will not substantially improve dissolved oxygen ie~eis,biological
habitat,
or use characteristics
for Cedar Creek.
Moreover, the
lowest 0.0.
levels occur during periods
(warm weather) when plant
effluent is least contaminated.
For that reason, the Board
proposes to adopt a modified effluent limitation for the
District which allows up to 20 mg/i BOO
and 25 mg/i TSS only
during those periods
(cold weather) of ~educed plant efficiency,
and more stringent limitations when plant operations can be more
efficient.
A review of the District’s effluent data for the
recent past
(Group Ex.
17) shows
some values above the
modified effluent limitations.
However, with careful attention
to operating procedures and some minor improvements, such as
enclosing the trickling filters to retain heat
in winter, these
levels should he achievable.
The Board declines the request to adopt a dissolved oxygen standard
•for Cedar Creek of zero.
None of the hearing participants provided
testimony or exhibits to show such a standard would protect existing
biological communities and uses of Cedar Creek, or he acceptable
to USEPA.
The Board reaffirms that Section 302.206 applies to Cedar Creek
and direct the District in today’s order to achieve that standard
not later than November
1,
1984, by use of effluent aeration,
in—stream aeration, or other methods.
The District has requested that the ammonia nitrogen and
un—ionized ammonia standards be relaxed.
In essence, the District
requests that, below 15 mg/i ammonia nitrogen, maximum un—ionized
ammonia he increased from 0.04
rug/i to 0.10 mg/i.
This presents
a problem.
The testimony of Dr. Muchmore
is that the maximum un—ionized
ammonia observed during his studies was 0.03 mg/i
(R.330),
which is
below the 0.04 mg/i limit established by
35
Ill. Mm. Code
302.212.
Dr. York testified that the District’s discharges
did not appear to increase ammonia nitrogen
in Cedar Creek and
that the highest ambient ammonia nitrogen was 0.77 mg/I.
The
Clark-Dietz water quality survey
(Ex.42)
contains, at Table
3 a
year long sampling program with over 50 samples,
at Table
4 a two
52-305
—8—
month sampling program with nearly 30 samples, and at Table
9 a
two day sampling program with
15 samples.
Although data on pH and
temperature are missing, none of these results are established to be
over 0.04 mg/i un-ionized ammonia and nearly all are clearly below
that level.
Group Exhibit 17 contains a table showing four years
of
downstream ammonia nitrogen levels.
Again, while pH data is lacking and
temperature is not correlated with specific ammonia nitrogen levels,
there
is no clear indication that un-ionized ammonia values
below 0.04 mg/i are not being achieved.
Despite several
hundred samples, the Board has no evidence of an un—ionized ammonia
concentration above 0.04 mg/i,
the current standard.
Non—compliance is a necessary element when seeking site specific
relaxation of a generally applicable standard.
The Board is aware that
should the District select in—stream or effluent aeration to
achieve downstream D,O,
levels,
that may further reduce ammonia
nitrogen concentrations
(R,472).
Also,
should effluent chlorination be
eiiminated,* the nitrification rate might increase
(R.348).
Because of
the lack of present violation and possibility of
a future improvement,
the Board will not adopt a less protective ammonia nitrogen and
un—ionized ammonia standard for Cedar Creek.
Moreover, there was
no evidence presented to show that un-ionized ammonia levels of
0.10 mg/l would protect or harm the present or potential biological
community
of
Cedar
Creek.
COMBINED
SEWER
OVERFLOWS
Overflows
from
the
District’s
combined
sewers
are
subject
to Section 306.305.
The District has requested that the portion
of
the
rule
which
governs
combined
sewer
overflow first flush not
apply to the District.
Specifically, the section requires,
“the
first flush of storm flows,
as determined by the Agency,
shall
meet the applicable effluent standards.”
Galesburg was originally constructed as a combined sewer
community.
However, as
a result of flooding the District began a
sewer separation project in 1967.
Originally over 90
of the city
had combined sewers, now 90
of the city has separate sanitary ana
storm sewers.
The original 44 overflow points have remained in
the system
(R.237).
Historically, overflows were large and frequent,
now they are smaller and less frequent.
See:
R77—12
(October 14,
1982);
appeal pending sub nom Illinois
v. Pollution
Control Board,
82-2728,
Illinois Appell~E~
Court,
First Judicial District.
52-306
—9—
From
October
to
December
1980,
Huff
& Huff,
Inc. conducted a
study
to
determine the characteristics
of first flush and its fate
in
the
sewer
system.
After
two
small
rain
events,
Huff
&
Huff
conducted
tests
and
calculations
on
a
December
6,
1980
storm.
Results of that testing showed that with two minor modifications
to the system the treatment plant could receive 99.8
of the first
flush volume,
and without modifications the plant receives 99.8
of the BOD5 and TSS associated with first flush
(Ex.
38, p.7).
The Agency responds that the two prior rainfall events and
the limited intensity of the December
6 storm render the first
flush
evaluation invalid for determining compliance with Section 306.305.
The Agency introduced “Procedures for determining compliance
with Rule 602(c)
of Chapter 3
(Present Section 306.305(a))”
in support of their arguments
(Ex. 39).
In relevant part, that
document
provides at page 3:
(i)
The
storm
chosen
to
determine
first flush effects must
have
a
minimum
recurrence
interval
of
one
year
(ii) There should
be
sufficient
time
between
the
storm
event
chosen to determine first flush and any previous event,
to allow
for adequate solids deposition in the sewers
and on the streets.
As
a rule of thumb, one month
should be sufficient.
A supplemental statement by Mr. Michael Teirstriep of the Agency
indicates:
(1)
the above procedures require a one year-one hour
storm,
(2) the procedure does not provide a method of determining
inches of rainfall,
(3)
there are only two recognized sources of
such data
(U.S. Weather Bureau Technical Paper 40,
and Illinois
State Water Survey Technical Letter 13),
(4) both give similar
results (1.1 inches,
1.3 inches),
and
(5) the Huff
& Huff report
chose a value of 0.75 inches from a 1979 Agency report on urban
stormwater management,
a result “not intended in the IEPA regulation...”.
(Public Comment #5,
p.
1-2).
Mr. Huff responded for the District stating:
(1)
Mr. Teirstriep admitted
a value of 0.75 inches could be used
(R.738)
(2)
of all the CSO studies to date only one has achieved the higher
value
(Ex.
50,51) and
(3) even
if recalculated for a 1.3 inch
rainfall the CSO capture drops from 99.8
to 99.1
(Ex.
53, p.15).
While the Board has received conflicting testimony on the rainfall
intensity the Agency would
like to receive
in CSO evaluations,
the language of the procedure is not disputed.
That language does
not mention “hourly intensity”, does not mention the only two
sources of data that may be used,
and does not mention whether
the minimum,
average,
or maximum hourly intensity is to be used.
In such circumstances, the event chosen by Huff
& Huff,
Inc.,
seems
in reasonable compliance with the procedures for a one-year
storm.
52-307
—10—
In a similar context the Agency argues that the two rainfall
events
preceding
the
December
6 event render the results invalid
under
Agency
procedures.
In
the
District’s
view,
competent
experts
testified
that
adequate
solids
deposition
had
occurred
(R.
268—
269)
and
one
month
of
dry
weather
would
be
expected
once
every
238
years.
(Ex.
53,
p.10).
The
Board
is
reluctant to dismiss the only current first flush
data
presented
when
competent testimony claims
it
to
be
valid;
there
is
no
testimony that adequate solids deposition did not occur,
and
the
alternative is additional
delay.
The
Board
accepts
the
validity
of
the
District’s
study
which
demonstrates
99
compliance
with
the
first
flush
requirements
of
Section
306.305(a).
Today’s
Board
Order
requires
additional
improvements
to
the
District’s
collection
system.
The
Board
finds
that
this
program, when completed, will result
in substantial
compliance
with
Section
306.305(a).
Accordingly,
the
District’s
request
for
site—specific
regulatory
relief
is
denied.
TEMPERATURE
The
District
has
requested
site-specific relief from the
temperature
requirements
of
Section
302.211(c).
A
reading
of
that
section,
and
its
frequent
references
to
“heated
effluent”,,
shows
the
request
to
he
misdirected.
This section was never
intended
to
apply
to
publicly
owned
sewage
treatment
works
receiving
predominantly
residential
flows.
Therefore,
the
relief is not
needed.
ORDER
The
Board
proposes
to adopt the following rules
for First
Notice, which shall
be published in the Illinois Reg~ister
Title
35:
Environmental Protection
Subtitle C:
Water Pollution
Chapter
1:
Pollution Control Board
PART 304
Effluent Standards
Subpart
B:
Site—Specific Rules and
Exceptions Not of
General Applicability
Section 309.201
Calumet Treatment Plant Cyanide Discharges
(No Change)
Section 304.202
Chloralkali Mercury Discharges
in St. Clair
County
(No Change)
52-308
—11—
Section
304.203
Galesbu~Sanita~District_Deoxngenatin~
—
Wastes_Discha~es
~i
~
304. 120(c)
shall
not ~~to
the Galesbura Sanitary~
District
discha~es
into Cedar Creek.
Such
discha~~
must
meet
the
deo
enating~wastes~eneraleffluent
standards
set
below:
Constituent
___
Storet_Number
Concentration
rn~/1
BODE
0031
—-~
12
December-March
20
Suspended Solids
0053P
June—FebruarI
15
March—M~
b)
The above
s
tandard shall
a
l~
as the
Gaiesburg~
San
i
ta~y_~jictachieves:
1)
~y
Novemberj~
1984,
co~pjiance_with
Section 302.206
th roug~j~ Cedar
Creek,
~y~ffluent
aeration,
in—stream
aeration,
or
other
means,
2)
~yNovemher_1, 198,raisi~~e
dams,
on
all
44overflo~o
mt
s,to
a levelthatsovrflows
p~rior
to interceptor
surciarai~~~
3)
~j~~mber
1
L
a_2iL~tiona1L~rocedure
for
thei
nf 1uent~u~s
whic~p~vents
inte~ç~tor
su
~
4)
~j~vember_1,
1983,
e1iminatin~ai1 down
sout
connections,
and
k~
N2
~LL~
y~ti
ng
inf low
bysea 1 in~
all
1eakij~9catch basins1~~l
ac ing~l1eaki~
manhole
lids
and frames, and sealin~drain
ThTets,
—
c)
If
the
conditions
set
out
in
Section
304.203(b)
are
not
standards
of
304~12Q~
jail
to the Galesburg
~4t~Distr
ict disch~es into_Cedar Creek
IT
IS
SO
ORDERED.
I,
Christan
L,
Moffett,
Clerk
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board,
hereby
ce,~tify
that
the
above
9pinion
and
Order
were
adopted
on
the
~
____
day
of
~A-~L~
,
1983,
by
a
vote
of
±L~~_.
ist~L~~
Illinois
Pollution
~c’ontroi
Board
52-309
