ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
February 21,
1980
IN THE MATTER OF:
AMENDMENTS TO THE WATER POLLUTION
)
R77-12,
CONTROL REGULATIONS
)
Docket C
PROPOSED OPINION OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Dumelle):
This
proceeding
was
initiated by
a
proposal
from the
Agency
filed with the Board
on May
10,
1977.
The Agency~s
proposal
was published in Environmental Register
#124 dated
June
9,
1977.
On July
5,
1977 the proposal was divided into
four dockets.
Docket C concerns the deletion of Rule 404(f)
of
Chapter
3:
Water
Pollution.
Hearings
were
held
on
September
19
and
20,
1977
in
Springfield
and on September
21,
1977 in Chicago.
On September 28,
1979 the Institute of
Natural
Resources
presented
a
study
entitled
Economic
Impact of Proposed Change
in Illinois Deoxygenating
Regulations R77—12,
Docket C
(Doc,
No.
79/26)
(Ex.C—8).
Hearings
on
the
study
were
held
in
Chicago
on
December
3,
1979
and
in
Springfield
on December
18,
1979.
On
January
10,
1980
the
Board
adopted
a
Proposed
Order
which
called
for
the
deletion
of
Rule
404(f),
This
Proposed Opinion supports the Board~sProposed Order.
RULE 404
The
Board
adopted
the
effluent
standards
for
deoxygenating wastes
in In the Matter
of: Effluent Criteria,
R70—8,
March
7,
1972,
3
PCB
755.
At
3
PCB
766,
the Board
stated that it was retaining the effluent standard of
4 mg/l
BOD5
and
5
mg/l
suspended
solids
(4/5)
for
discharges
to
streams
with
dilution
ratios
of
less
than
1
to
1.
This
standard was originally
adopted by the Sanitary Water Board
and
was preserved
by
Section
49(c)
of
the
Act.
The Board
recognized
the
fact
that
treatment
more
stringent
than
ordinary
good
practices
may
be
necessary
to
assure
that
streams
comply
with
water
quality
standards.
The
Board
relied
heavily
on
the
testimony
of
Dr.
John
Pfeffer
who
suggested
that
the
considerable
costs
to
meet
the
4/5
standard
need
not
be
incurred
in
all
cases
to
meet
water
quality
standards.
Dr.
Pfeffer
suggested
and
the
Board
provided
for
a demonstration by affected dischargers that a
10/12
standard
would
be
adequate.
1n
commenting
on
the
significant
expense
associated
with
meeting
the
4/5
standard,
the Board noted:
37—425
—2—
“There is always the contention that all of the
suggested things
should
he
done,
that
money
is
no
object.
But
in
light
of
the
notorious
difficulties
of
municipalities
in
raising
enough
money
to finance
the
most
necessary
treatment
projects,
as
well
as
the
general undesirability
of wasting
money,
we
think
it
appropriate to reorder our priorities somewhat
along
the lines suggested by Mr. Matchke in order
that
limited funds will provide the maximum benefit in
terms
of actual stream improvement.”
(3
PCB
770).
In
establishing
the ground rules for
a
10/12 exemption
the Board
s.tated as
follows:
“Accordingly,
we
have
provided
an exception
from
the
effluent standard of
4 mg/i BOD and
5 solids upon proof
that
an
effluent of
10 and
12 will suffice to
achieve
compliance with all applicable water quality standards.
The burden
is
on
the
discharger to make that proof
or
to meet the stricter standard.
Other sources
discharging
to
the
same
stream
must
be
taken
into
account,
although
the applicant
is
entitled
to assume
that others will bring
themselves
into compliance with
their own effluent
standards.
We
require
proof
that
undesirable
bottom
deposits
will
not
be
caused,
to
satisfy
the
most serious question raised by Dr.
Pipes;
and that
a program
of ammonia control and of combined—
sewer overflow control, where necessary,
be provided
at
the
time
of
applying
for
an exemption.
What the
new
rule says
is that it
is the discharger~sobligation
to
achieve
satisfactory
stream quality;
he
should demon-
strate to the Agency how that is to be done.”
(3 PCB 770).
NEED FOR THIS RULEMAKING
In
its
Justifications
for
deleting
Rule
404(f),
the
Agency pointed to three problems it has had in administering
this
rule.
The
Agency felt that carbon adsorption was
the
only
known
technique which
could
achieve
a
4/5
effluent.
The
prohibitive
costs
associated with this technology
make
it
difficult,
if
not
impossible,
to
put
in
place.
The
Agency pointed
to the analytical
procedures used
to
measure
compliance with 4/5 and claimed that the margin of error
in
37—426
—3—
tests
at
this
level
approached
100.
In
the
Agency~s
attempts
to
administer
the
Hiagoon
and Pfeffer exemptions”
in
Rule
404(f)(i)
and
(ii),
it
found
that standard
stream
modelling
techniques
were
inappropriate
in
projecting
the
impact
on
certain
categories
of
receiving
waters.
As
a
result,
extraordinary
and perhaps
impossible modelling
was
necessary
in
order
to
avoid
the
application
of
the
4/5
standard.
The Agency stated that carbon adsorption has never been
installed in Illinois
for
the treatment of municipal sewage
(R,lfl.
Carbon adsorption is not reliable when upsets occur
in
activated
sludge
or
tertiary
filtration
(R,26),
Projected
costs
for
the
installation
of
carbon
adsorption
were
drawn
from
the
USEPA
Process
Design Manual
(Ex,C—2),
In
general,
costs
for
carbon adsorption double the capital
and
operating.
costs
associated
with
secondary
treatment
(R,71).
For a sewage treatment plant with a design capacity
of
20
million
gallons
per
day
(MGD),
capital
costs
were
estimated
at
$4
million
and
$190,000/year
additional
operating costs
(R.73).
In Exhibit C-3,
the Agency
surveyed the performance of
125 tertiary
treatment plants
in Illinois.
Only two
could
meet
4/5
(R.320),
At
page
68
of
Exhibit
C—3,
it
was
concluded that activated sludge plants followed by high rate
tertiary filtration could meet 10/12, but not 4/5,
Extended
aeration
plants
followed
by
tertiary
filtration
probably
cannot meet
10/12,
according
to Exhibit C-3.
Exhibit C-12
provided
a
summary
of
the
performance
of
the
John
Egan
Plant,
which
is
operated
by
the
Metropolitan
Sanitary
District
of
Greater
Chicago.
This
plant
is
presently
required
to
meet
4/5
under
its
NPDES
permit
and
uses
multimedia
(sand
and
anthracite)
tertiary
filtration
(December
18,
1979,
p.18).
From
October,
1978
until
October,
1979,
the
plant
complied
in
all
but
four months
with
4/5 with
a high
monthly
average
for BOD5
of
12
mg/i.
While
this
performance
approaches
4/5,
the Agency
pointed
out
that
the plant
is operating
at 80
of its design flow,
and it
is not subject to unexpected high flows
(December 18,
1979,
p.12).
Exhibit C—13 provided
a
similar analysis
of
the
performance
of
the
Downers
Grove
Sanitary
District
Plant.
This
plant
is
required
to
meet
10/12,
employs
microstrainer
filtration
and
met
4/5
in
seven
months with
high
monthly
averages
of
6.8
mg/l
BaD5
and
8.7
mg/i
suspended
solids,
Exhibit
C-7
analyzed
the
performance
of
various
methods
of
wastewater
filtration
employed
in
the
United
States
and Great
Britain,
In Appendix
A,
only
two
plants
in the United States
(Cleveland, Ohio and Philowith,
Oregon)
showed performance at or near 4/5.
Neither of these
plants uses carbon adsorption.
Based
on
this evidence,
the Board concludes that while
37—427
—4—
compliance
with
the
4/5
standard
may
not
require
carbon
adsorption,
most
of
the
sewage
plants
approaching
4/5
are
large
and
employ
highly qualified operators.
Many
of
the
Illinois dischargers
who
would
be required
to
meet
4/5
if
Rule
404(f) were retained cannot
be expected to achieve the
same efficiencies without carbon adsorption.
The
Agency
felt that the BOD5 test was
not
a reliable
analytical
technique
(R.48),
While USEPA has
stated
that
a
COD
(chemical oxygen demand)
test can be used,
it cannot he
substituted for the BOD5 test
(R,67),
The Agency feels
that
there
is
little
correlation
between
the
HOD5
test
and
dissolved oxygen
(R.66). When these shortcomings
are viewed
together with the 4/5 standard,
other problems emerge.
The
testing
errors
at
4
mg/i
for
BOD5
reach
100
amd
can
be
affected by
low
(1
mg/l)
nitrogen concentrations.
Some
of
these problems
may be resolved through
a recently published
proposal
by
USEPA
to
approve
a
new
testing
procedure
for
carbonaceous
BOD5
(44
Federal Register
69464,
December
3,
1979).
The
proposed procedure involves
the addition of
a
reagent
to
act
as
a
nitrogen
oxygen
demand
suppressant.
USEPA
reviewed
data
from
86
analysts
in
58
laboratories
which analyzed natural water samples plus an exact increment
of
biodegradable
organic
compounds.
USEPA
estimated
a
standard
deviation
of ÷ 0,7
rng/l
at
2.1
mg/I.
Since
compliance with the
4/5 standard
is based on averaging,
the
Agency
feels
that
some highly
suspect
low measurements will
have
to be used to determine compliance
(R.86).
This leaves
no
room
for
the upsets which will
inevitably occur
(R,11).
The Agency
is not
in
a
position
to verify the accuracy
of
all
of
the tests
results
it
receives.
The accuracy of the
suspended solids test at
5 mg/i
is affected by the
fact that
there
may
not be
enough solids
present
to obtain
a uniform
mix when a sample bottle is shaken
(December 18,
1979
p.20).
The Board concludes that many of the weaknesses in HOD
and suspended
solids
testing
can be overcome
in
a properly
run laboratory which analyzes a large number
of samples of
a
given effluent
stream.
Once again,
many of the plants that
would
be
required
to
meet
4/5
if Rule 404(f)
were retained
are
not
subject
to
sufficiently
frequent
sampling
requirements
to
obtain
a
reliable
data
base
to
show
compliance with these stringent standards.
On
March
1,
1976 the Agency
adopted guidelines for the
dischargers
seeking exemptions
under
Rules
404(c)
and
(f),
(Technical
Policy
WPC-i,
Exhibit
C-5).
WPC-1
uses
the
Modified Streeter—Phelps
Equation to predict
the
influence
of
typical domestic sewage effluent
on the dissolved oxygen
profile
of
a
stream.
While
the
equation
is
generally
useful,
it
has
some
shortcomings.
The
equation
assumes
constant stream velocity,
and consequently
it
is not useful
when
a
discharge
enters
still
waters
(lakes
and
pools)
37—428
—5—
(R,15). The dischargers who
are faced with.downstream still
waters
would
have
to
go
through
extensive
additional
modelling
to
make
the
necessary
demonstration
for
an
exemption.
The
Agency
feels
that
neither
it
nor
the
affected
dischargers
have
the
resources
to
make
valid
projections
in these cases
(R.16).
Over 200 exemptions have
been granted under WPC-1
(R.14) but
at
least
15 applications
have been denied
because
of
the
proximity
of
a downstream
lake
(December
3,
1979
p.20).
These
discharges
are
generally
small
involving
communities
under
10,000
population
(December
3,
1979 p.19).
The Board has been advised of this problem in a series
of
variances
and
concludes
that
the
Agency’s
alternative
approach
described
below
will
provide
a
more ~realistic
solution for the affected dischargers.
EFFECT OF THIS RULEMAKING
Deletion
of
Rule
404(f) will not change the fact that
all
dischargers
must
comply
with
the
Board~s dissolved
oxygen water
quality
standards.
The Agency
has proposed a
combination
of
stream
sampling
and
an
assessment
of
alternatives
for
those
dischargers
who
cannot
avail
themselves
of
the
procedures
outlined
in
WPC—1.
These
dischargers will he issued two year NPDES permits with 10/12
limitations
(R.18),
During
this
period,
the
Agency
will
engage in a joint monitoring program with each discharger to
measure
downstream
impacts
(R.19).
The
Agency
will
be
looking
primarily
at
dissolved
oxygen
levels
under
worst
case conditions
(R.330).
Additional
sampling of downstream
lakes
will
also
be performed,
(December
3,
1979 p.17).
If
discharging
at
the
10/12
level
does
not
prove
to
be
sufficient
to protect dissolved oxygen
levels,
the affected
dischargers
would
be
required
to
assess
alternative
techniques.
These
would
include
additional
treatment,
instream
aeration,
diversion,
or
elimination
of
the
discharge
(R.19).
Construction
and
operation
of
any
additional
treatment
facilities
will
require
the necessary
permits
with
the
possibility
of
review
by
the
Board
in
permit appeal proceedings.
The
Board
concludes
that
the
Agency’s
approach
should
provide
a realistic solution
to the problems faced by those
dischargers
unable
to
obtain
exemptions
under
present
circumstances.
The
Agency~s present
permitting
authority
coupled with
the Board’s review
powers
should provide
the
necessary flexibility
to
address
any
unique problems which
may arise.
37—429
—6—
ECONOMIC IMPACT
Exhibit
C—8
(the
Study)
identified
19
dischargers
affected
by
this
rulemaking
(Table
1).
The
study
author
included
five
additional
dischargers
in
later
testimony
(December
3,
1979
p.36),
These dischargers were categorized
as
those
which
had
been denied
“Pfeffer exemptions”
due to
the
nature
of
their
receiving
streams
(Ex.C—8,
p.viii).
These
denials
were
generally
due
to
the
shortcomings
in
WPC—1
described above
(December
3,
1979 p.21).
These
24 dischargers are not necessarily the only ones
that
will
be
affected
by
this.
rulemaking,
but
they
are
representative.
While some of these dischargers will
not be
required to
treat
beyond
10/12,
some
will
have
to
and the
costs
to do
so are not reflected in the study.
Exhibit C—8 designates the foregone costs of additional
treatment
as
benefits
of
this
rulemaking.
Carbon
adsorption,
land
application,
and
rerouting
of
discharges
were
the
methods
of
treatment
analyzed.
Annual
costs
for
the
least
expensive
alternative
for
all
24
dischargers
totaled $1,507,000
(Ex.C—11; December
3,
1979 p.45)
Costs
of
this
rulemaking were divided into monitoring
costs
and
environmental
costs
(Ex.
C—8,p.31).
Monitoring
costs
cover
the
two
year
program
discussed
above,
and
environmental costs are those attributable to degradation of
water quality from higher permitted effluent levels.
Monitoring costs were estimated at $37,500 per year for
2 years
(Ex, C—9,
p.8).
Environmental costs were discussed from two views.
The
first
was
that water
quality
standards
will
be
maintained
through
monitoring
and
additional
sewage
treatment
if
necessary.
Under
this
view,
there
is no environmental cost
(Ex,
C—9,
p.6).
This approach effectively assumes that the
water
quality
standards
are
a
threshold
below
which
no
damage occurs.
The
second
view
was
that
permitted
effluent
levels
above 4/5 have
an
incremental
effect on receiving bodies
of
water.
This
effect
was
analyzed
by
examining
incremental
BOD5
loading
to
affected
lakes.
Individual
lake
characteristics were used to calculate the area of each
lake
which
would
experience
a
1
mg/i
net
increase
in
ultimate
HOD.
A
previous
estimate
of
the public willingness to pay
for recreation at Lake Carlyle and Lake Shelbyville provided
an
estimate
of
the
value
of
recreation
per
acre
of
lake
37—430
—7—
surface.
Combining the recreation
value
with the estimate
of
the
area
affected
produced
an
estimate
of
$4500/year
for
reduced recreational
benefits
(December
18,
1979,
p. 7).
This
was described
as
an underestimate
due
to
theoretical
limitations
inherent
in
the
travel
cost method
used
to estimate willingness
to pay.
The
cost estimate of
$4500/year
reflects
the
small
changes
anticipated
in
ultimate BOD.
Adoption of
this rulemaking was described
as having no
direct
impacts
on
the
agricultural,
commercial,
or
manufacturing sectors of the Illinois economy (Ex,C-9, p.8).
Ten
municipalities
were
identified
which
would
experience
increased
operating
costs
to
cover
temporary
monitoring
expenses.
These
increases
ranged
from
$0.04
to
$2.07
per
capita.
Based
on
this evidence,
the Board
concludes that
this
rulemaking will have no significant adverse economic impact
on the people of the State of Illinois.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan L.
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, here~ycertify the
hove Proposed Opinion was
adopted on the
~1’~
day of
____
.
,
1980
by a vote of
4’-~
.
Christan
L.
~
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
37—43 1