ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

June 30,

1988

IN THE MATTER OF:

AMENDMENTS TO

)

SUBTITLE

C:

~7ATER POLLUTION.

)

R85—29

FECAL COLIFOPII AND

SEASONAL DISINFECTION

ADOPTED RULE

FINAL ORDER

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by R.

C. Flemal):

The Board has long been grappling with

the problem of

chlorination of sewage treatment plant effluents.

The problem

occurs because chlorination of effluents, which

is

a nearly

universal practice

in Illinois, has a

negative impact on the

aquatic community

of the streams and lakes

to which the

chlorinated effluents are discharged.

For this reason prudent

environmental management demands that chlorination should at

least be selectively discontinued.

However, chlorination also constitutes

a mechanism for

the

removal

of pathogenic organisms from effluents.

Hence,

chlorination decreases

the possibility of waterborne

infections

and disease.

For this reason prudent environmental management

demands that chlorination should at least be selectively

continued

in those circumstances where water—borne infections

or

disease are possible.

The principal difficulty facing the Board has been

in

delineating

those circumstances under which chlorination should

be discontinued,

and those circumstances under which chlorination

should

be retained.

Further compounding

the issue are multiple

questions of how the selective discontinuance

of chlorination

should be effectuated,

which includes such matters as: Should

chlorination

be replaced by

an alternative disinfection

process?

How does one determine circumstances under which

risk

to human health outweigh environmental damage?

Can a general

rule suffice

to cover

all possible contingencies?

Etc.

Today

the Board adopts amendments which,

the Board believes,

answers the deficiencies found

in previous efforts

to address the

effluent chlorination problem.

90—635

---

—2—

ADOPTED AMENDMENTS

The instant amendments have three elements, which

respectively amend the fecal coliform sections

of the Board’s

General Use Water Quality Standards

at

35

Ill.

Adm. Code Part

302, Subpart B;

the Public and Food Processing Water Supply

Standards

at

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code Part

302,

Subpart

C; and the

Effluent Standards at

35 Ill.

Adm. Code Part

304.

The first element, which addresses

Part

302,

Subpart

B,

limits aQplicability of the present fecal coliforni water quality

standard-’~ to those general

use waters defined as protected

waters,

and then only during

the months May through October.

Protected waters are defined within the amendments

to include

waters which,

“due

to natural characteristics,

aesthetic value,

or environmental significance, are deserving

of protection from

pathogenic organisms”.

Explicitly included within the definition

are all waters which “presently

support

or have the physical

characteristics

to support primary contact

or which

“flow through

or adjacent

to parks or residential areas”.

Primary contact is

itself defined at 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 301.355 as “Any recreational

or other water

use

in which

there

is prolonged and intimate

contact with the water involving considerable

risk

of

ingesting

water

in quantities sufficient

to pose a significant health

hazard,

such

as swimming and water

skiing”.

The Part

302, Subpart B,

amendments additionally exempt from

the general use fecal coliform standards,

on a year—round basis,

“waters unsuited to support. primary contact uses because of

physical,

hydrologic

or geographic configuration and are located

in areas unlikely to be frequented

by the public on a routine

basis”.

The second element, which addresses Part

302, Subpart

C,

provides an exception

to the conditions

of the Subpart B

amendments.

Specifically,

it imposes

a water quality standard

applicable

at any point where water is withdrawn for public and

food processing purposes.

The standard is

a geometric mean of

2000 per 100 ml,

based on

a m~nimumof five samples taken over

not more than

a

30 day period

,

applicable

at all times.

The

The geometric mean,

based on a minimum of five samples taken

over not more than

a

30 day period,

shall not exceed 200 per ml,

nor shall more than 10

of the samples during

a

30 day period

exceed 400 per ml.

35. Ill.

Adm. Code 302.202.

For purpose

of

simplicity,

this standard

is hereinafter

referred to

as the

“200/100 ml” standard.

2 For purpose

of simplicity,

this standard

is hereinafter

referred

to as

the “2000/100 ml” standard.

90—636

---

—3--

2000 per 100 ml

standard here identified

is the same

as the

standard applicable

to raw water supplies,

as found at

35.

Ill

Adrn.

Code 604.501(c).

The net result of the Part 302 amendments sets

up several

classes of waters with respect to fecal coliforin standards,

based

on the use of the water and the time of year:

Applicable Standard

May—October

November—April

Protected Waters

200/100 ml

None

P&FP Water Supply

in

a Protected Water

200/100

nil

2000/100 ml

P&FP Water Supply

in other waters3

2000/100 ml

2000/100 ml

Other waters

None

None

The third element

of the amendments addresses

the fecal

coliform effluent standard.

Specifically,

the amendments retain

the current requirement that all effluents governed by Part 304

contain no more than 400 fecal colifqrms

per 100 ml, but provide

for the first

time that an exemption’* can be obtained.

To obtain

the exemption,

a discharger

must demonstrate to the Agency that

the receiving water

is not a protected water or a Public and Food

Processing Water Supply,

and that the discharge will not cause a

violation of any General Use or Public and

Food Processing Water

Supply standard at

a downstream point.

The exemptions,

which are

to be granted

by the Agency,

may be on

a year—round

basis or

a

seasonal basis, depending upon the individual circumstances.

The

exemption process would be carried out as part

of the NPDES

permitting process and would be governed by rules and appeal

processes

therein.

Additionally,

the Agency has entered

into the

record

(P.C.

#27,

attachment)

a copy

of proposed guidelines

for

review of exemption petitions.

It proposes

to promulgate

these

guidelines upon completion of the instant action.

The Board notes

that since

raw water supplies are by necessity

located

on bodies

of water

of substantial

size,

these bodies of

waters

in almost all cases are likely to be protected waters.

Thus,

it

is unlikely that public and food processing water

supplies will

be located on other than protected waters.

The exemption

is characterized

in the amendments

as an

“alternative effluent standard”, per

a suggestion

to this end by

the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules

(“JCAR”).

See

discussion following.

90—637

---

—4--

HISTORY

Institution

of Fecal Coliform Standards

Widespread municipal wastewater disinfection via

chlorination is

a relatively recent phenomenon,

dating only

to

the

1960’s

(.47 PCB 554).

Its intent is

to kill disease—causing

organisms which may have survived other steps

in the effluent

treatment process.

In 1972,

shortly after

the organization of the Board,

the

Board adopted ambient water quality standards and effluent

standards wh~chhad the effect of requiring effluent

disinfection~. The standards did not specifically identify that

disinfection had to take place,

but rather limited the number of

fecal colifori~bacteria,

an indicator

of microbial

contamination~,which could be discharged and which

could be

present

in the ambient aquatic environment.

However,

since

almost all undisinfected municipal wastewater effluents contain

fecal

coliforrn bacteria

in numbers greater

than the standards,

the effect was

to require essentially universal disinfection.

In its 1972 action the Board was following

the best

scientific information of

the times.

In this context,

it is

to

be noted that the United States Environmental Protection Agency

(“USEPA”)

adopted

a similar fecal coliform standard

in 1973.

However, conventional wisdom began

to change very rapidly,

occasioned

by accumulating evidence that chlorination was causing

more problems than it was solving.

One of the consequences was

that

in 1976 the USEPA reversed itself and deleted the fecal

coliform standards

it had adopted only three years previously.

Moreover,

other states began

to change or repeal their previously

adopted

fecal coliform standards,

or

to adopt none

if they had

not reacted

to

the earlier trend to universal chlorination.

In the Matter of: Effluent Criteria,

R70—8, In the Matter of:

Water Quality Standards R7l—14,

and In the Matter

of: Water

Quality Standards Revisions for Interstate Waters

(SWB—l4), R7l—

20.

See Board Opinions and Orders at

3 PCB 755—76 and

4

PCR

3—

40.

6 Direct detection of disease—causing organisms is difficult.

Therefore,

standard practice

is to set limits on, and monitor

for, more easily detectable surrogate organisms whose presence

indicates the possible presence

of disease—causing organisms.

Fecal coliform bacteria are ubiquitous inhabitants of the

intestinal tract of warm—blooded animals and are not usually

themselves the cause of disease.

90—638

---

—5—

R77—l2D Proceeding

Illinois firs~readdressed effluent chlorination

in the

proceeding R77—12D

.

The R77—l2D proceeding produced

a

voluminous record,

including transcripts

of eight merit hearings

and three economic impact hearings,

64 exhibits, and 105 public

comments.

The Board found that the record clearly showed that

chlorination caused significant aquatic environmental damage.

Among

the observations weighed by the Board were:

that residual

chlorine stunts

the growth

of fish, halts or

reduces spawning,

and

is lethal at concentrations of less than 0.1

rng/l;

that fish

avoid levels

of residual chlorine as low as 0.01 mg/l;

that

estimated value of lost angling days

in Illinois was then from

$2,000,000 to $4,400,000;

that chlorinated hydrocarbons produced

as

a result

of chlorination are hazardous materials whose toxic

effects are

of uncertain,

but likely real concern;

and that

chlorination may negatively impact other

effluent parameters,

including ammonia and dissolved oxygen

(47 PCB 570—2).

The Board also reviewed

an extensive record contesting

the

efficacy of chlorination

in preventing waterborne disease

(47 PCB

561—4).

The Board pointed out that the record indicated that

effluent chlorination

is

of dubious value in killing intestinal

parasites and deactivating viruses.

It also pointed out that

there were no studies of human disease which showed that

disinfection of sewage produces any measurable public health

benefits related

to reduction of disease.

In summary, the Board concluded:

If disinfection were first proposed for adoption

today,

it

is quite clear that the

record would not

support

its widespread use.

Now, however, available

evidence of the harmful effects and limited,

at best,

health benefits has greatly increased.

47 PCB 574.

In response

to its findings

in R77—l2D,

the Board on October

14,

1982 issued

a final ruling encompassing these actions:

1)

Repeal

of the fecal coliform water quality

standard applicable to secondary contact waters;

2)

Repeal of the fecal coliform water quality

standard applicable

to general

use waters;

and

3)

Repeal of

the fecal coliform effluent standard

In the Matter of: Amendments

to Chapter

3:

Water Pollition

(Effluent Disinfection).

See Board Opinions and Orders at

43 PCB

479—80,

47 PCB 549—83,

and 49 PCB

183—4.

90—639

---

—6--

except

for

those dischargers situated within

20

stream miles from

a public bathing beach or

a

water

intake used

for public and food processing

water

supply.

The reason

for addressing action to the fecal coliform

bacterial standards rather than directly

to chlorination

is that

chlorination

is the accepted practice

by which compliance with a

fecal coliform standard

is achieved.

Thus,

removal

of the

standard obviates the need to continue

the offending chlorination

practice.

The Board’s action

in R77—12D was appealed though the State

Court system by the Illinois Attorney General.

The First

District Appellate Court upheld

the Board’s

repeal of the fecal

coliform water quality standard

for secondary use waters,

but

overturned

the Board’s actions with respect

to the

fecal

coliforrn

standards for general use waters and effluent discharges.

People

of the State

of

Illinois v.

Pollution Control Board,

119 Ill.

App.

3d

561,

456 N.E.

2d 909 (1983)).

The Illinois Supreme Court

upheld

the appellate court’s actions

in People of

the State of

Illinois

v.

Illinois Pollution Control Board,

103 Ill.

2d. 441,

469 N.E.

2d 1102

(1984).

The higher

courts’

decisions were based not on any one facet

of the Board’s decision,

but rather on

a combination of

facets,

including but not limited

to:

(a) arbitrariness of

the 20—mile

limit;

(b)

failure

to provide adequate protection

to primary

contact waters;

(C)

failure

to fully consider possible microbial

standards

other than fecal coliform bacteria;

and,

(d) failure

to

adequately consider alternative means of disinfection.

Instant Proceeding

The instant proceeding

conies before the Board as an

outgrowth of

a motion filed on November

8,

1985 by the

Bloomington and Normal Sanitary District (“BNSD”)

and the

Illinois Association

of sanitary Districts

(“IASD”) which

requested

that the Board adopt an Emergency Rule providing for

seasonal

disinfection.

Although

the

Board

denied

the

motion

based

on

failure

to find that an emergeny existed

(67 P08 55),

the Board

opened the present docket

in the same Order on the

prospect that the proposed BNSD/IASD rule might have merit as

a

permanent rule.

Following two public hearings and receipt of post—hearing

comments,

the Board on November

6,

1986

(74 PCB

73)

sent a

slightly modified version of the BNSD/IASD proposal

to first

notice; publication occurred at 10

Ill.

Reg.

19647, November

21,

1986.

An additional hearing on the BNSD/IASD proposal was held

on June

4,

1987 in response

to

a request from BNSD.

90—641)

---

—7—

Concurrently with these activities,

the Illinois Department

of Energy and Natural Resources undertook

a study expressly

targeted to

this docket and titled Assessment of Wastewater

Disinfection Technologies

(“AWDT Study”).

This study was filed

with

the Board on September

1,

1987 as

P.

C.

#22.

It considers

many facets of disinfection, including the rationale for

wastewater disinfection,

different disinfection technologies,

costs of

disinfection, public health and environmental benefits

and costs,

and a discussion of regulatory strategies.

By Order

of September 10,

1987 the Hearing Officer set a special comment

period on the AWDT Study.

Four comments were received

(P.C.

#23—

#26).

On February

4,

1988 the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency

(“Agency”)

filed

an alternative proposal, which forms the

framework

for today’s adopted rules.

The Agency had not

previously been

a proponent

in the instant matter,

but had

actively participated

in the hearings.

The Agency

filed

the

proposal

in

the spirit of offering

a cure

to some o~the

objections

raised to the earlier BNSD/IASD proposal

.

The

Agency’s proposal was sent

to first notice pursuant to an Order

of

the Board of February

4,

1988, with publication occurring at

12

Ill. Reg.

4305, February

26,

1988.

On May

5, 1988 the Board adopted the Agency proposal for

second notice

after consideration of additional public comment

received.

On June

14,

1988 JCAR issued

a certification of

no

objection to the proposed amendments.

However, JCAR made certain

recommendations

for changes

in the regulatory language; these are

discussed later

in this Opinion.

In total,

forty-two public comments and two supplemental

public comments, representing 23 different individuals,

organizations, or governmental entities, have been received

in

this matter.

Of these,

the latter fifteen

(P.C.

#28—#42) have

been filed

in response

to first notice of

the Agency proposal.

With

two exceptions, both filed by Illinois American

(P.C.

#33

and #41),

the public comments express

support for the Agency

proposal.

Professor Charles Hass,

who had earlier expressed

objection to the BNSD/IASD proposal

(P.C.

#2,

#3, #14),

endorses

8 The Agency’s proposal differs from the BNSD/IASD proposal

principally

in that the BNSD/IASD proposal would

have retained

the 200/100 ml fecal coliform standard during May through October

for all general use waters irrespective of whether primary use

was likely

to occur.

Additionally, the earlier proposal would

have granted

a blanket exemption

to the 400/100 ml effluent

standard during

the months of May

through October,

rather than

providing for the site—specific exemption demonstration required

by the current rule.

90—641

---

—8—

the Agency proposal

(P.C.

#29).

The AG, who had also expressed

objection to the BNSD/IASD proposal

(P.C. #11; S.P.C.

#2),

has

not commented on the Agency proposal.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

Aquatic Life

The principal argument presented in favor of discontinuing

universal disinfection by chlorination

is that chlorination

causes significant environmental damage.

The damage

is largely

focused on the aquatic community,

which suffers as

a consequence

of exposure to residual chlorine and

to

a variety of chlorine

reaction products, many

of which are toxic organochlorine

compounds.

Total residual chlorine

(“TRC”)

refers

to the sum of

unreacted

free chlorine plus chlorine which has reacted with

ammonia

to produce chloramines

(NH2C1,

NHC12, and NC13).

It

is

well established through laboratory studies that TRC

is toxic

to

a wide variety of aquatic organisms at relatively low

concentrations.

The literature on TRC toxicity, plus its

cor~ponents, is extensively summarized

in Exhibit

22, pages 6—

18

.

It

is also noted that chloramines have been discharged from

Illinois sewage treatment facilities at concentrations as high

as

1.05

to 5.17 mg/l; many fish species cannot tolerate chloramine

levels above

0.1 mg/l,

and even wore tolerant fish species are

killed at

levels above

1.2 mg/lb.

In addition to chboramines,

reaction products are produced

when chlorine reacts with organic substances in the wastewater

stream or

the receiving body of water.

These include such

recognized toxicants as methyl chloride, chloroform,

trichioroethylene,

tetrachloroethylene,

and dichlorobenzenes

(Ex.

22).

Field demonstrations of environmental damage to aquatic life

due

to chlorination are many.

Among

these are a three—year study

conducted on Sugar

Creek below the BNSD outfall, which showed

a

marked decline

in intolerant fish species, fish species

“Environmental Impact and Health Effects of Wastewater

Chlorination”,

by Gary R. Brenniman,

ENR Document 81/27,

July,

1981.

10

“Wastewater Disinfection: A Review of the Technical

and Legal

Aspects

in Illinois”, The Metropolitan Sanitary District

of

Greater Chicago,

Report No.

84—17.

This document has been

admitted into the record

as Exhibit

6.

9fl—642

---

—9—

diversity,

and total number

of

individual

fish within the zone of

total residual chlorine persistence downstream from the BNSD

outfall

CR.

at

22—3;

Exh.

19).

One

of the more extreme cases presented

in this record

concerns the East Branch of the DuPage River.

The Northeastern

Illinois Planning Commission

(“NIPC”) notes that the East Branch

“once supported

a game fishery, including large mouth bass and

northern pike”,

but

is now characterized “as very poor,

being

dominated by carp and suckers”

(P.C.

#7,

p.

1).

Modeling studies

of the effect

of various toxicants

in the East Branch indicate

that residual chlorine

is

a major ççntributor

to the poor

character

of the aquatic community-~. Based on these results,

NIPC has concluded that even with the advent of advanced

wastewater

treatment at all East Branch treatment plants,

“fish

toxicity will still be

a problem due

to the presence

of residual

chlorine”

and that it

is only when chlorine

is eliminated

that

“toxicity drops

to tolerable levels throughout much of the river”

(Id.

at

5).

In summary, NIPC notes that

“if present chlorination

practices continue,

it will be impossible to achieve

a high

quality fish community

in much

of the East Branch even when

advanced wastewater treatment

is implemented”

(Id.

at

6).

Field studies have also demonstrated that the elimination of

chlorination can lead

to

a restoration

of the health

of

an

aquatic community.

A particularly pertinent study,

carried out

in Ilj~noisin 1983 by Drs.

Roy C. Heidinger and William M.

Lewis

,

found

that

in three central Illinois streams temporary

discontinuation of chlorination by sewage treatment plants

resulted

in the rapid restoration of what had been extremely poor

fish communities.

Restoration was to the level characteristic of

ambient areas

above the outfalls,

and could

be directly

attributed

to reductions

in residual chlorine

(Exh.

3 at

88).

As

a general conclusion, Heidinger and Lewis determined that “the

elimination

of residual chlorine from good quality secondary

sewage

effluents derived primarily from domestic wastes will

result

in quantitative and qualitative improvement

of the fish

communities

in most Illinois streams”

(Id.

at 88—9).

11 Dennis

W. Dreher,

“Study of Fish Toxicity

in the East Branch

DuPage River”, Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission Staff

Paper, June 1981.

This document has been admitted into the

record as part of P.C.

#7.

12 Heidinger and Lewis,

“Relative Effects of Chlorine and Ammonia

from Wastewater Treatment Facilities on Stream Biota”.

This

document has been admitted into the record as Exhibit

3.

90—643

---

—10—

In

a separate submission

to the record Professor Heidinger

points out that many fish species,

including endangered and

threatened species,

live or spawn

in headwater streams where they

are subject to TRC toxicity.

He concludes that he wishes

to

“make

it very clear that from the fisheries standpoint the best

solution

is

to stop chlorination altogether or

to dechlorinate”

(P.C.

#8 at

2).

The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago

(“MSDGC”) has also undertaken

a study

of comparative fish

populations under chlorination/non—chlorination regimes.

In

April,

1984,

MSDGC ceased chlorinating effluent discharged from

its North Side Sewage Treatment Works pursuant to deletion of

the

secondary use fecal coliform standard.

The effluent had received

continuous chlorination prior

to that time.

During fish sampling

conducted in each

of the seven preceding years and carried out

0.7 to 1.7 miles downstream from the outfall,

a total of

20

individual fish representing six species had been collected.

In

contrast,

a collection made in that same area on November

5,

1984,

seven months

after cessation of chlorination,

totalled 115

individual

fish representing

9 species

(R.

at 112—3).

Concerns over environmental damage associated with

chlorination have persuaded other states

to reduce

requirements

for chlorination.

Among these are the neighboring states

of

Ohio,

Indiana, Minnesota,

Iowa,

and Missouri,

each of which has

instituted seasonal chlorination

(R.

at

14; Ex.

1).

Wisconsin

recently adopted a program similar

to the instant proposal

in

that

it provides for year—round disinfection where protection of

public drinking water supplies

is required, seasonal disinfection

where only protection

of recreational uses

is required, and

elimination

of disinfection

in other circumstances

(AWDT Study at

94).

A Wisconsin official has estimated that under

this program

about half of the municipal dischargers are not required

to

disinfect at all,

about

40 percent are required

to seasonally

disinfect,

and about 10 percent are required to disinfect year—

round

(Id.).

The U.S. Environmental Protection Ageny

(“USEPA”)

is also on

record as endorsing

a reduction in universal wastewater

chlorination.

Commenting

in a letter

written by the chief

of

(JSEPA’s Technical Support Section to an official of the BNSD,

the

USEPA noted that it:

encourages

the reduction

in disinfection by the use

of

chlorine where aquatic life protection is

a

desired use,

and public health requirements do not

outweigh this consideration.

EPA encourages seasonal

disinfection as

a reasonable way

to avoid chlorine

discharges when justified.

(Ex.

2.

90—644

---

—11—

Finally,

the Agency also concludes

that “reduction in the

amount of chlorine released

to the environment

in Illinois can be

expected

to have

a positive impact on the aquatic communities

(R.

at

190).

Human Health

The two long—standing arguments in opposition to any

curtailment

of disinfection concern possible health impacts on

downstream water supplies and human recreational use of waters.

The problem of impact on downstream public water supplies has

been capsulized by Mr. James

Park, representing the Agency:

The Agency

is concerned

...

about the possible impact

of existing and the potential impact of new

discharges

of wastewater containing high counts

of

fecal coliform in the immediate vicinity of public

water supply intakes

...

While public water supply

clarification, filtration and chlorination facilities

can effectively deal with

a relatively wide range

of

raw water quality,

the elevated and fluctuating

bacterial levels associated with unchlorinated

secondary effluent do have the potential to overwhelm

public water supply chlorination facilities

if the

natural mitigating effects of dilution and instrearn

die—off do not have

a chance

to operate.

(R. at 188—

9).

Mr. C.

A. Blanck of Illinois—American Water Company, which

provides public water

supply for one million Illinois residents,

has also noted

the following concerns:

Disinfection at the source

...

provides the initial

barrier

to the transmission of waterborne disease.

The removal of this barrier simply transfers an

additional burden to the potable water perveyor.

.*

*

*

*

*

Disinfection of

the effluent assures some minimal

level

of protection

for downstream users and at least

reduces the levels of microbiological contamination

during periods when plants are not operating

properly.

**

*

*

*

Any quality degradation

in the water

supply caused by

the cessation

in disinfection will probably create

increased chlorine requirements at the downstream

water

treatment plants.

This will increase the

trihalomethane levels formed by chlorination of the

90—645

---

—12—

raw water,

since they are directly related to

chlorine dosage.

R.

at 428—430

Accordingly, Illinois—American Water Company urges

the Board

to allow modification of existing chlorination rules only

to

the

extent that such modification does not increase the health risk

to public water supply users

(P.C.

#41

at

2).

Human health impacts have also been the principal

focus

of

public comments by

the AG and Professor Haas.

The AG points out

that phenomena such as the survival

of viruses and bacteria at

low temperatures and viral shedding during late summer

and early

fall require consideration of year—round disinfection of effluent

discharges located upstream of public water supplies or

recreational areas

(P.C.

#11 at 3—4).

The

AG additionally

contends that treatment

of drinking water

is “an imperfect

process” which

“is not immune from operational problems which

allow bacteria and viruses

to pass through

to the users”

(Id.

at

5).

Given

this circumstance,

the AG urges continued disinfection

where

its absence would otherwise “eliminate

an important barrier

protecting

the health of drinking water users”

(Id.).

Professor Haas emphasizes that:

It

is necessary

for any proposed revisions of

wastewater disinfection regulations

to recognize the

need for year—round disinfection

of those effluents

in proximity to intakes and/or

in low dilution

receiving waters.

Without this recognition, any

relaxation of effluent disinfection

is technically

unsupportable.

(P.C.

#3,

p.

3)

At hearing and in P. C.

#12, BNSD offered rebuttal of the

position that adoption

of uniformly—applicable seasonal

disinfection would adversely impact downstream water supplies.

Among other matters, BNSD notes that existing regulations require

water

suppliers utilizing surface water

as

a raw water source

to

employ coagulation, clarification,

rapid sand filtration,

and

continuous post—chlorination.

BNSD contends

“that each

of these

treatment processes

in themselves are bacterialcidal and

virucidal”

and that when “employed

in

a series treatment scheme

they provide adequate protection

of the public health”

(P.

C.

#12

at 1—2).

BNSD

also provided documentation from other

states

where seasonal chlorination

is the accepted practice which notes

that no known human health problems have been associated with

seasonal chlorination.

Additionally, BNSD contests the

applicability to Illinois of the studies cited by the AG

in

support of his contention

of winter bacterial and viral

survival,

contending that the studies are old and were conducted on Alaskan

streams very different both physically and chemically from those

in Illinois

(Id.

at 8—15).

90—646

---

—13—

ECONOMIC REASONABLENESS

The Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources

(“ENR”)

concluded on September

26,

1986,

that

a formal economic

economic impact study

(“EcIS”)

is not necessary

in the

proceeding, noting that this declaration

is appropriate based on

the statutory criteria

in

Ill. Rev. Stat.,

ch.

96y?

par.

7404(d)(2).

The Economic Technical Advisory Committee

(“ETAC”)

concurred

in this determination on October

10, 1986.

It

is

to be noted

that the proposal before ENR and ETAC was

the BNSD/IASD proposal of May 1986 rather than the Agency—

sponsored proposal which the Board adopts

today.

Section 27(b)

of the Act, however,

in addition

to requiring that economic

impact studies

be prepared,

also allows

the Board

to modify and

subsequently adopt

any proposed regulations without additional

economic study by ENR

if the modification does not significantly

alter

the intent and purpose of the proposed regulation which was

the subject

of ENR’s determination.

The Board finds

that the

proposal considered today

is

not significantly altered

in intent

or

purpose from the May 1986 proposal.

The Board consequently

believes that no additional determination by ENR regarding the

necessity

of an EcIS is required.

The

AG has objected

(P.C.

#11,

p.

9—11)

to this matter

proceeding on the basis

of an alleged necessity

of conducting

a

EcIS pursuant to Section 27(b)

of the Environmental Protection

Act

(Ill.

Rev.

Stat.,

ch. ll~/~par.

1027).

The AG contends that

the record before the Board

is insufficent to allow the Board

to

reach

a determination on the economic reasonableness of the

proposed amendments.

Aside from the determination of ENR and

ETAC that an EcIS

is not necessary, the Board

notes that an EcIS

was conducted

in R77—l2D, and that th~same has been admitted

into the current record as Exhibit

21

~.

Moreover,

the AWDT

Study

(P.C.

#22),

which was filed subsequent to the AG’S

objection, contains substantial new and updated economic

information.

The Board finds

that the significant information

contained

in the R77—12D EcIS remains pertinent, and that this,

in combination with the record developed in the current

proceeding, provides information sufficient

for the Board

to make

its mandatory economic determination.

The record identifies

two economic benefits and three

costs.

The benefits are related

to decrease

in cost associated

with disinfecting wastewaters and increase in quality of the

13 “The Economic Analysis of Health Risks and the Environmental

Assessment of Revised

Fecal Coliform Effluent and Water Quality

Standards”,

Illinois Institute of Natural Resources,

Document No.

81/15,

March

1981.

90—647

---

—14—

aquatic environment.

The costs are related

to possible increased

incidence

of waterborne disease

to

a) primary contact users and

b)

consumers of water withdrawn for human consumption,

and

increased costs

of treatment

of water withdrawn for human

use.

The R77—12D EcIS determined that the more than 1,400

municipal,

industrial,

and commercial treatment facilities

in

Illinois which are required

to disinfect their

final effluents

spend over

$4 million annually doing so

‘~.

These are annual

operational costs,

and do not include amortization of

chlorination equipment

(Ex

21,

p.

158).

Under the assumption

that approximately halving the time period when chlorination

would be required would approximately halve total operational

costs,

the expected savings associated with the current proposal

would be on the order

of

$2 million annually.

This figure is

consistent with a 1985 IASD study, which showed that

22 large

municipal plants serving

a population of

2 million people spend

$960,000 annually

to disinfect final effluents

(R.

at

12).

The AWDT Study provides estimates

of 1987 disinfection costs

based on treatment plant capacity.

For disinfection via

chlorination, expressed

in $1,000s,

these estimates

include

(P.C.

#22 at 28,

31):

Plant Capacity

(mgd)

0.1

1.0

10.0

100.0

Basic Construction

40.0

88.0

340.0

1400.0

Annual Operations

4.6

16.8

78.7

589.5

Those facilities that would

be allowed

to cease chlorination

entirely as

a consequence

of these amendments would

realize

savings for

full operational costs and any

costs associated with

equipment replacement.

Those facilities which would be required

to maintain seasonal chlorination would realize a savings of

a

portion of

their annual operations

costs.

14 The annual cost of disinfection

in Illinois

as cited

in

Exhibit

21 was approximately $6.9 million

(Table 6—3,

p.

159).

Included

in that sum was the amount spent annually by MSDGC,

approximately $2.8 million.

Since MSDGC’s plants discharge only

to secondary contact waters,

the plants are no longer required

to

provide disinfection and MSDGC has ceased the practice of

chlorination.

The best estimate of current disinfection costs

is

therefore the State

total minus

the MSDGC cost,

expressed

in the

dollars current for the Exhibit

21 study.

90—648

---

—15—

The AWDT Study also provides estimates of the marginal

charges

to the user of

a chlorination disinfection system per

1000 gallons

of wastewater

flow

(P.C.

#22

at 40).

For three

different chlorination situations these are:

Plant Capacity

(inyd)

0.1

1.0

10.0

100.0

No Disinfection

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

Six—Month Disinfection

$0.29

$0.07

$0.03

$0.02

Year—Round Disinfection

$0.34

$0.09

$0.03

$0.02

The second principal economic benefit

to be expected as

a

consequence

of

a reduction

in chlorination consists of

improvement

in the aquatic environment.

Unfortunately,

this is

a

historically difficult benefit

to quantify.

One of the methods

which has been used is estimation

of the increase in angling days

occasioned

by

increased fish populations.

This was estimated

in

the R77—l2D EcIS under

the condition

of elimination of all

disinfection.

The magnitude

of the benefit under

the current

proposal

is not likely to be accurately estimated by halving the

R77—l2D figure

of $2.0 to $4.4 million per annum.

Nevertheless,

the determination that seasonal chlorination would contribute

to

the health of

the aquatic community implies

that some benefit

in

angling potential could be expected

to accrue.

The only cost associated with chlorination cessation as

determined

in the R77—12D EcIS was

a small increased risk of

viral disease.

For

a proposal which included protection of

downstream water supplies and recreational areas,

as does

today’s

proposal, the estimated annual cost was $11

to $1200

(Ex.

21,

p.

169).

The AWDT Study concludes that

a reduction in required

chlorination might produce

a greater increase

in the incidence of

gastrointestinal

illness among swimmers than was found

in the

R77—12D EcIS

(P.C.

#22 at 53);

the principal increase

is

associated with swimming during April and November.

However,

this conclusion is challenged by MSDGC

(P.C. #23 at 2—3) and the

Agency

(P.C.

*27 at

2) on the basis of use of

a questionable

model and questionable input data.

The AWDT Study itself

cautions that the model developed therein “is subject to

considerable uncertainty”

(AWDT Study at 51).

The MSDGC contends

that the uncertainties are so large

“that the predictions derived

from the model cannot be meaningful”

(P.C.

#23 at

2).

The Agency

further contends that the contact recreational use rates employed

in the model

“seem far too high” and that the use rates “suggest

bathing beaches”

(P.C.

27 at

2).

The Agency continues with the

observation that “it

would

be highly improbable

to find total

immersion anywhere during April and November”

(Id.)

as postulated

in the AWDT model.

The Board notes that much of the question

of

90—649

---

—16—

the validity of

the AWDT Study’s estimates

of gastrointestinal

illness becomes

irrelevant if,

as

is the case here, reduction in

chlorination

is only permitted upon demonstration that no

significant primary contact use

(swimming included) occurs.

The additional

issue of whether

the amendments would cause

water treatment plants operating downstream

of sewage treatment

plant effluents

to incur increased costs

in chlorinating their

finished water was addressed at hearing.

Dr. Lue—Hing

of the

MSDGC testified that such would

not be expected

to occur,

as

the

processes used prior

to chlorination in the water

treatment

process are effective

in removing particulate material,

including

bacteria.

Therefore,

Dr. Lue—Hing concluded that water treatment

plants would not have

to use additional chlorine during

their

treatment operations as

a result of the proposed regulations.

This issue also becomes

irrelevant

if,

as

is the case here,

upstream effluent dischargers who significantly impact downstream

water supplies are required to maintain continuous chlorination.

CONCLUSIONS

The arguments presented

in favor

of

a reduction in

chlorination, where such can be accomplished without impacting

human health, are similar

to

those presented

to the Board

in R77—

l2D.

The Board

found these arguments compelling

in R77—l2D, and

does so again here.

If

anything,

the passage

of time since

the

Board’s action

in R77—l2D has provided even more compelling

reason to conclude that chlorination as a disinfection process

causes significant environmental damage.

The higher courts found

in R77—12D,

among other matters,

that the Board went too far

in repealing the need

to disinfect in

all circumstances.

In particular,

the higher courts found that

a

bacterial standard,

and thereby disinfection, must remain when

there

is reasonable prospect that there will be primary human

contact with the waters

in question;

under

this circumstance,

the

concern for human healthoutweighs the negative aspects of

chlorination.

The Board believes that the present amendments cute this

aspect

of the higher courts’

concern.

Under the adopted

rule the

present fecal coliform water quality standard would

be retained

for all protected general

use waters during that time

of year

when primary contact can be expected to occur.

Protected waters

are not only those which “presently support or have the physical

characteristics to support primary contact recreation”

(302202(a)(l)),

but also those which otherwise “flow through or

adjacent to parks

or residential areas”

(302.202(a)(2)).

A

protected water

is thus more encompassing than the primary

contact waters.

90—651)

---

—17—

The rationale

for extending the protection afforded

by

a

fecal

coliform standard to streams which flow through

or adjacent

to parks or

residential areas is succinctly expressed by the

Agency:

Year—round relief

from

disinfection) would not be

allowed in streams

that flow through residential

neighborhoods and certain recreational areas.

These

streams may

often invite public contact simply due

to

their

accessible locations without regard

to their

suitability

for primary contact recreation.

Streams

in such locations would be treated as

if primary

contact were possible.

P.C.

#27 at

3.

During

the remaining six months, when human contact

is

expected

to be minimal

or non—existent,

the prime concern would

shift

to addressing

the damaging aspects of chlorination.

The

Board also believes that this perspective

is consistent with the

holding

of the higher courts which upheld the Board’~repeal of

the fecal coliform standard for secondary use waters

The most common objection to earlier efforts

to limit

chlorination was failure

to fully weigh the

impact

of

nondisinfection on downstream water withdrawal uses, particularly

withdrawal

for human consumption.

This

is

a concern that the

Board

itself

has shared throughout both the R77—12D and current

proceedings.

In R77—l2D the Board attempted

to address this

issue by

requiring continuous chlorination at all facilities

located within twenty—miles upstream of

a public water supply

intake.

However,

the higher courts

reversed the Board on this

issue,

finding that the twenty—mile

limit was arbitrary and

capricious since

it was incorporated without any scientific

justification.

Today’s amendments incorporate an alternative remedy, which

consists of maintaining an ambient water quality standard

for

fecal coliform at sites where water

is withdrawn for public and

food processing water supply,

as set forth

in proposed Section

302.306.

The Board believes that this element of the proposal

addresses the concern for downstream public water supplies

expressed in the R77—12D and current records,

and also addresses

the concern expressed by the higher courts.

15 Secondary contact

is defined

in

35

Ill.

Adm. Code 301.380 as

“Any recreational

or other water use

in

which

contact

with

the

water

is either

incidental

or accidental and

in which the

probability of ingesting appreciable quantities of water

is

minimal, such

as fishing, commercial and recreational boating and

any limited contact incident

to shoreline activity.”

90—651

---

—18—

Under

existing regulations,

the raw water used by public and

food processing water

suppliers is subject

to the 200/100 ml

fecal coliform limit on

a year—round basis.

The limit exists

because,

pursuant

to Section 302.301, Public and Food Processing

Water

Supply Standards are cumulative with General Use

Standards.

That

is,

the General Use Standards

apply,

in addition

to the Public and Food Processing Water Supply Standards,

at

all

points where water

is withdrawn for public and food processing

supply purposes.

Under

the adopted

rule,

absent Section 302.306, there would

be

no fecal coliform standard during November

through April

at

points

of water withdrawal

for public and food processing supply

purposes.

The inclusion of Section 302.306 rectifies this matter

by retaining the essential status quo of

a fecal coliform

standard at such points.

The Board believes that retention of

a fecal coliform

standard applicable at points of water withdrawal

for public and

food processing supply addresses much of the concern which has

been expressed,

and which

the Board has shared,

about curtailment

of disinfection.

With the inclusion of Section 302.306, upstream

facilities would

not be permitted

to discontinue disinfection

if

failure

to disinfect caused

the water

at

a downstream withdrawal

point

to exceed

the 2000 per 100 ml

standard.

Although the

number

of

thusly affected effluent dischargers

is expected

to

be

small

(R.

at 189), and the expected human health gain has not

been demonstrated

to be large,

the Board nonetheless believes

that

the substantial expression of concern in this area warrants

prudence at this

time.

Section 302.306 includes the 2000 per 100 ml standard rather

than

the 200/100 ml standard which currently exists

in the

General Use Standards.

The latter number

is inappropriate

because

it is based on protection of

human contact and

recreational uses, which

are not

at issue here.

The selection

of

2000 per 100 ml

is based on the same rationale employed

in the

promulgation of

35 Ill.

Adrn.

Code 604.501(c), which

sets raw

water quality standards for Public Water Supplies.

That

rationale is that 2000 per

100 ml

is “determined

as

a level

required to yield

a safe supply

after

normal treatment”

(In the

Matter

of Public Water Supplies,

R73—13,

15 PCB 103,

146, January

3,

1975).

The Board

is well cognizant of the equation

of disinfection

with chlorination which has permeated both this and

the R77—12D

proceeding.

The Board

is also cognizant

of the prospect that

disinfection might be achievable by means other than

chlorination,

as

is clearly recognized in the AWDT study and has

been pointed out by the AG

(P.C.

#11).

The Board

in fact

strongly encourages STW operators and

their

associations to

continue

to actively explore disinfection alternatives.

It

is

90—652

---

—19—

only when chlorination

is completely replaced

by an

environmentally—sound alternative that the full “chlorination

problem” will have been addressed.

However,

given

the present

de

facto synonymity

of chlorination with disinfection,

the Board

must now address

“the chlorination problem”

by those means

at

hand and

to the degree that technology and economics allow.

Having recognized

the egregious nature of chlorination,

the Board

would be remiss

if

it failed

to do otherwise.

CHANGES FROM FIRST AND SECOND NOTICE

The proposal which

the Board today adopts

is unchanged

in

substance and intent from that proposed at first notice.

However,

at first notice

there were several nonsubstantive

language changes

intended to provide greater clarity to the rule,

as well

as other nonsubstantive language changes

in response

to

JCAR recommendations

at second notice.

The first change consists of

the rewording of Subsection

304.121(b).

At first notice this section read:

b)

The Agency shall exempt

a discharger

from this

standard only in accordance with the protection

status of waters pursuant to Section 302.209.

1)

The discharger must provide documentation

to

show that:

A)

The receiving stream does not meet

the

definition of

a protected water

(Section

302.209),

B)

The discharge will not cause downstream

protected waters

to exceed water

quality standards.

2)

Exemptions

to the standards may be issued on

a year—round or seasonal basis.

As adopted by the Board for

the purposes of second notice,

this subsection included changes proposed by the Agency

in public

comment #29 and read:

b)

The Agency shall exempt

a discharger from this

standard only in accordance with the requirements

of

Sections 302.209 and 302.306.

1)

The discharger must demonstrate and document

the following:

90—653

---

—20--

A)

The character of

the receiving waters

pursuant

to Sections 302.202, 302.209,

and 302.306.

B)

The discharge will not cause downstream

waters

to exceed the applicable fecal

coliforrn water quality standards.

2)

The Agency shall grant exemptions

to the

standards

on

a year—round or seasonal

basis

consistent with

the documentation provided

by the discharger.

In support

of the

these changes the Agency commented:

1.

Section

304.121(b):

The amendment

substitutes

reference to “the requirements

of Sections 302.209 and 302.306”

for “the

protection status

of waters”

to eliminate

possible confusion that

the scope of the

exemption process

is limited

to “protected

waters”

of Section 302.209(a).

The addition

of

the reference to Section

302.306 makes

explicit the Agency’s intention

to provide

protection for public and food processing

water

supplies under this proposed exemption

proceeding.

2.

Section 304.l21(b)(1):

Amendments were made

to stress

the demonstration and

documentation requirements

of

the discharger

and

to modify the language to ensure

grammatical consistency with

the changes

below.

3.

Section 304.12l(b)(l)(A):

The Agency has by

this amendment eliminated

the inference that

all protected waters would be required

to

meet the year—round fecal coliform effluent

limitation of Section 304.121(a),

notwithstanding

the demonstration that the

discharger

is entitled

to seasonal

disinfection.

In addition,

the Agency has

changed

the reference of

“stream”

to

“waters”

to broaden

the scope

of downstram

bodies

to lakes and other

surface waters and

has delineated

the means and methods for

evaluating receiving streams by the addition

of Sections 302.202 and 302.306 water

quality and specific use criteria.

90—654

---

—21—

4.

Section 304.l21(b)(l)(B):

The reference to

“protected”

has been eliminated

to avoid

the

confusion that

this proceeding

is restricted

to “protected water” requirements of Section

302.209(a).

In addition,

the Agency has

included

“fecaj. coliform”

to the water

quality standard reference

to ensure that

the focus

of

this exception proceeding will

be on the applicable

fecal coliform water

quality standard of Subtitle C.

5.

Section 304.l2l(b)(2):

This subparagraph

has been amended

to make explicit the nature

of the Board directive of administrative

responsibilities

to the Agency.

During second notice,

JCAR recommended

further changes

to

Section 304.121

and other sections

in

this rulemaking.

For

Sections 302.209(b)

and 302.121(b), JCAR desires

that the

language parallel and refer

to the NPDES Permit Program of

35

Ill. Adm Code

309,

Subpart

A,

which the Agency will utilize

in

administering the exemption process.

To implement these

suggestions, JCAR requests that the Board insert a reference

to

the NPDES Permit Program with citation

to

35 Ill. Mm.

Code

309,

Subpart

A

in Subsection

302.209(b)

and

to insert

that same

citation

in 304.121(b);

and further

to substitute

“alternative

effluent standard process” for “exemption process”

in Subsections

304.121(b)

and

(B)(2).

These changes were also made

in order

to

clarify

that the Agency

is required to apply

the applicable

fecal

coliform water quality standards and effluent limitations as part

of the NPDES Permit Program.

The discharger has the obligation

of providing information required by Section 304.121(b)

to the

Agency which will

then determine

the appropriate

fecal coliform

water quality standards and effluent limitations.

This permit

determination

is reviewable pursuant

to Section 40 of the Act and

35 Ill. Adm. Code,

Part 105.

The Board accepts these recommended

changes,

such

that Sections 302.209(b)

and 304.121 now read:

Section 302.209

Fecal Coliform

*

*

*

*

b)

Waters unsuited

to support primary contact uses

because of physical, hydrologic

or geographic

configuration and are located

in areas unlikely

to be frequented

by the public on a

routine basis

as determined by the Agency at 35

Ill.

Adm. Code

309.Subpart A,

are exempt from this standard.

90—655

---

—22—

Section 304.121

Bacteria

a)

Effluents discharged

to all general use waters

shall not exceed 400 fecal coliforms per 100 ml

unless

the Illinois Enviromental Protection

Agency determines that

an alternative effluent

standard

is applicable pursuant

to

subsection

(b).

b)

The Agency shall,

as part of

the NPDES Permit

Program under

35 Iii. Mm.

Code 309.Subpart A,

determine

the applicable standard only

in

accordance with the requirements

of

Sections

302.209

and 302.306.

1)

The discharger must demonstrate

and document

the following:

A)

The character

of the receiving waters

pursuant

to Sections 302.202,

302.209,

and 302.306.

B)

The discharge

will not cause downstream

waters

to exceed the applicable

fecal

coliform water quality standards

pursuant to Sections 302.209 and

302. 306.

2)

Alternate effluent standards consistent with

Sections 302.209 and 302.306 shall

be

applied on either a year—round

or seasonal

basis consistent with the documentation

provided by the discharger.

JCAR further requests that the Board insert the full name

of

the Agency

in Subsection 304.121(a),

and

in Subsection

304.l2l(b)(l)(B)

insert

a citation

to Sections 302.209 and

302.306 to clarify

the reference

to the applicable

fecal coliform

standards contained therein.

JCAR also suggests the addition of

a new Subsection 302.209(c)

to further

clarify the Agency’s

role

as indicated

in Section 304.121.

The Board accepts each

of these

suggestions,

with the new subsection

reading:

c)

The Agency shall apply this rule pursuant

to

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 304.121.

The full text of

the amendments as adopted

today by the

Board

is contained

in the Board Order below.

90—656

---

—23—

ORDER

The Clerk

of the Pollution Control Board is directed

to

submit the following adopted

rule

to the Secretary

of State

for

final notice:

PART

302

Water Quality Standards

Subpart

B:

General Use Water Quality Standards

Section 302.202

Purpose

The general

use standards will protect the State’s water

for

aquatic

life, wildlife,

agricultural

use, p~r~ta~y

~rt~

secondary

contact use and most industrial

uses and ensure

the aesthetic

quality

of the State’s aquatic environment.

Primary contact uses

are protected

for all general

use waters whose physical

configuration permits such

use.

Section 302.209

Fecal Coliform

During the months May through October,

Bbased on a

minimum of five samples

taken over not more than a

30

day period,

fecal coliform

(STORET number 31616)

shall

not exceed

a geometric mean

of 200 per 100 ml, nor shall

more than 10

of the samples

during any

30 day period

exceed 400 per 100 m1~-in protected waters.

Protected

waters are defined as waters which,

due to natural

characteristics,

aesthetic value or environmental

significance are deserving of protection

from pathogenic

organisms.

Protected waters will meet one or both of

the following conditions:

1)

presently support or have

the physical

characteristics

to support primary contact;

2)

flow through or adjacent

to parks or

residential

areas.

Waters unsuited

to support primary contact uses because

of physical, hydrologic

or geographic configuration and

are located

in areas unlikely

to be frequented

by the

public on

a routine basis as determined by the Agency at

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 309.Subpart A,

are exempt from this

standard.

c)

The Agency shall apply

this rule pursuant

to

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 304.121.

a)

b)

90—657

---

—24—

SUBPART

C:

PUBLIC AND FOOD PROCESSING WATER

SUPPLY STANDARDS

Section 302.306

Fecal Coliform

Notwithstanding

the provisions

of Section 302.209,

at no

time shall the geometric

mean,

based

on

a minimum

of five

samples

taken over not more than

a

30 day period,

of

fecal

coliform

(STORET number 31616)

exceed 2000 per

100 ml.

PART 304

EFFLUENT STANDARDS

SUBPART

A:

GENERAL EFFLUENT STANDARDS

Section 304.121

Bacteria

No e~e~

~e~e~te&

by ~

Paf~w~4e~

~ebat~ge5 ~o

gener-a3~

~se

wa~e~sba~

e~eeed

409

~eeo3~

eo4~o~rn pe~ ~1O0nt1~

a)

Effluents discharged

to all general use waters shall not

exceed

400 fecal

coliforms per 100 ml

unless the

Illinois Enviromental

Protection Agency determines

that

an alternative effluent standard

is applicable pursuant

to subsection

(b).

b)

The Agency shall,

as part

of

the NPDES Permit Program

under

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 309.Subpart

A, determine

the

appilicable standard only

in accordance with the

requirements

of Sections 302.209 and 302.306.

1)

The discharger must demonstrate and document the

following:

A)

The character

of the receiving waters pursuant

to Sections 302.202,

302.209,

and 302.306.

B)

The discharge

will

not cause downstream waters

to exceed

the applicable

fecal

coliform water

quality standards pursuant

to Sections 302.209

and 302.306.

2)

Alternate effluent standards consistent with

Sections 302.209 and 302.306 shall

be applied

on

either

a year—round or

seasonal basis consistent

with the documentation provided

by the discharger.

IT

IS SO ORDERED.

Chairman Jacob D.

Dumelle concurred.

90—658

---

—25--

I,

Dorothy

M.

Gunn,

Clerk of

the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the

bove Opinion and Order was

adopted on the .‘t-~day of

_______________,

1988,

by

a vote

of

7-c.

Dorothy

M./2tunn, Clerk

Illinois Vollution Control Board

90—659