ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October

20, 1988

IN THE MATTER OF:

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

)

TO

35

ILL.

ADM.

CODE

)

R86-17(B)

304.120,DEOXYGENP~TING

WASTES STANDARDS

PROPOSED RULE.

FIRST NOTICE.

PROPOSED OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(By 3.

Marlin):

By

its Order

of March

5,

1987, the Board opened Docket B

of

this proceeding

to consider specific

issues which arose

as the

Board evaluated

a proposal

of

the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency (Agency).

Specifically,

on April

23,

1986 the

Agency filed

a proposal which effectively would have expanded the

so—called

lagoon exemption

to

all publicly owned treatment works

(POTW) which had an

untreated waste load of 5000 population

equivalents

(P.E.,)

or

less.

Under

the Agency’s proposal, any

POTW treating 5000 P.E.

or less which utilized third—stage

treatment lagoons or utilized such lagoons after

its current

facility reached the end of

its useful

life would be subject

to

less stringent effluent standards.

Those less stringent

standards

are

30 milligrams per liter

(mg/i)

for five—day

biochemical oxygen demand

(BOD5) and

37 milligrams

per

liter for

suspended solids

(SS).

The POTW’s would

then be exempt from the

more stringent BOD5 and SS standards

of

10 mg/i and

12 mg/i.

At

the time

of the Agency’s proposal,

this “exemption”,

or loosening

of the standards, was only applicable

to POTW’s which had an

untreated waste load of 2500

P.E.

In response

to the Agency’s proposal,

the Board adopted

a

rule which expanded the lagoon exemption

to POTW’s with

a load

of

5000 P.E.

or

less

if such facilities were already utilizing

lagoons

as

of January

1,

1986 and continued

to treat via third

stage

lagoons.

In

addition,

the Board expanded the lagoon

exemption

to POTW’s treating

5000 P.E.

or

less

for any facility

which had reached

the end of

its useful

life by January

1,

1987

In short,

the Board declined

to expand the lagoon exemption

to

non—lagoon facilities reaching the end of their useful life after

January

1,

1987.

In its Opinion~ofAugust

6,

1987,

the Board

stated:

According

to

the

Agency’s

own figures,

over

150

communities

could

eventually

take

advantage

of

this

proposed

expansion

of

the

lagoon

exemption.

The Agency

has

given

the

Board

effluent

information

on

only

seven

93—255

---

2

POTW’s.

If data presented at hearing by Coal

City

is

counted,

the

Board

has

before

it

effluent

information from eight POTW’s.

Although

the

Agency

proposal

is

written

so

that no exemption will be granted which would

result

in

a

violation

of

dissolved

oxygen

standard,

the

Agency

proposal

could

still

result

in

a

decline

in

the

quality

of

the

receiving

streams.

Given

the

record,

it

is

impossible

for

the

Board

to

assess

the

environmental

impact

that

will

result

if

up

to

150

communities

switch

to

lagoon

systems.

(R86—17(A),

slip

op.

at

8,

August

6,

1987).

The Board

then went

on to explain the purpose

for opening

Docket B

of this proceeding:

Due

to

the

unresolved

questions

in

this

record,

it

is

necessary

for

the

Board

to

consider under

a separate docket the proposal

for

expanding

the

lagoon exemption

to

those

non—lagoon

facilities

which

have

not reached

the

end

of

their

useful

lives

by January

1,

1987.

This docket allows

the Agency and the

public,

including

DENR,

to

provide

information

on

a

number

of

topics

including

whether

well designed

and

run lagoon systems

can produce

an

effluent

of

better

than 30/37

quality;

the

costs

of

various

treatment

alternatives;

the

practical

feasibilty

of

using

land

treatment

in

Illinois

alone

or

in

combination

with

other

methods;

and

the

impact

of various systems on streams.

(R86—17(A),

slip

op.

at

9, August

6,

1987).

In response to

a public comment received from Citizens

Utilities Company

of Illinois,

the Board stated that Docket

B

would also address

the issue of whether privately owned treatment

facilities,

not just POTW’s,

should also qualify for

a lagoon

exemption

if they treat under

5000 P.E.

(R86—l7(A),

slip

op.

at

1,

August

6,

1987).

The current regulations allow lagoon

exemptions for private facilities treating under

2500 P.E.

Also,

the Board provided that two Department

of Energy and

Natural Resource exhibits which were admitted

in Docket A would

be further examined

in Docket B.

DENR Exh.

#1

is

a position

paper concerning dissolved oxygen modeling.

DENR Exh.

#2

is

a

report which discussed various alternatives

for compliance with

93—256

---

3

wastewater treatment standards.

The record

in Docket

(A) has been

incorporated

into the

record of Docket

B.

This docket

is merely a continuation of the

Board’s consideration of the Agency’s proposal.

A hearing was

held

in Docket B on October

7,

1987.

In

a Hearing Officer Order entered August

31,

1987,

the

Hearing Officer

set forth several issues

to be discussed

at the

October

7th hearing.

Mr. Toby Frevert, Manager

of the Planning

Section for

the Agency’s Division of Water

Pollution Control

responded

to each issue.

One issue

to be discussed

was “the quantitative and

qualitative environmental impact of

allowing all POTW’s with an

untreated waste load

of 5000

P.E.

or less to eventually utilize

a

lagoon exemption and be subject

to less stringent effluent

standards”.

(August

31, 1987 Hearing Officer Order).

The

Agency,

through

the testimony of Mr.

Frevert, responded

as

follows:

In

reality

I

don’t

anticipate

that

all

of

those

facilities

ever

would

rely

on

lagoons.

I don’t

anticipate

that all

of any

category of discharger

are going

to uniformly

rely on one single technology.

Those

that

do,

I’m

confident

with

our

experience

in

our monitoring program and our

evaluation

of

systems

over

the

years.

In

these

small

cases

where

good,

bad

or

otherwise,

we

do

have

some

problems

with

operator capabilities

and mechanical problems

and

upsets

of

mechanical

treatment

plants

that

in practice we do see sludge deposits

in

the stream and we

do see greater

impacts upon

the

receiving

stream

in

those

smaller

communities

that

rely

on

mechanical

type

of

treatment versus

a lagoon or land application

process.

That was addressed

at

a little more

detail

or

significantly

more

detailed

by

myself and other witnesses

in Docket

A,

but

I

wanted

to comment

on

it again.

(R.80—8l)

Another

issue

for discussion set forth

by the Hearing

Officer Order was “the

practical feasibility

of using

land

treatment

in Illinois alone

or

in combination with other

methods.”

(August

31,

1987 Hearing OEficer Order).

As

to that

issue,

Mr. Frevert

stated:

I want

to firmly state that

I believe and the

Agency believes

that

there

is

indeed

a place

93—257

---

4

for

land application

technology

in

the State

of

Illinois.

We

have

for

a

long

time

reviewed

and

approved

and overseen operation

of

land

application

systems

and

we

do

not

have any prejudice against them or

any reason

to

discourage

their

use

in

situations

where

it’s warranted.

(R.82)

The Agency also addressed

the issue

of “whether privately

owned treatment

facilities should be

included

in the expansion of

the lagoon exemption.”

(August

31,

1987 Hearing Officer

Order).

Mr.

Frevert testified:

When

we

originally

formulated

the

proposal

there

was

an

extremely

short

time

frame

to

address

national

municipal

compliance policy

requirements

for

a

number

of

publicly owned

wast~ewater treatment

facilities

subject

to

that national municipal

strategy.

That

adds

some

financial

concerns

and

also

adds

some

relatively

adequate

treatment

facilities

at

the time.

Our

Agency

intentionally

restricted

our

proposal

to

publicly

owned

treatment

works

with

the intention

of

narrowing

the

scope

or

the

focus

of

the proceeding

in

an

effort

to

move

it

along

more

rapidly.

With

that

particular

element

resove’5,

and

that

goal

accomplished,

I

think

it

is

perhaps

a

valid

point

to

consider

expansion

to

privately

owned facilities.

I

think

there

are

some

differences

between

public

and

private

facilities

in

terms

of

mechanisms

and

the availability

of

financial

resources

to

accomplish

different

treatment

schemes

and

achieve

compliance

dates.

In

terms

of

potential

operator

problems

with

other

types

of

technology,

perhaps

there

aren’t many major

differences.

I

cannot

address

the entirety

of

the

issues

related

to

the

privately

owned

facilities,

but

I wanted

to clearly state

for

the record

our reliance on the POTW approach only was

to

expedite

the process

and minimize

the

scope

of that first docket.

(R. 79—80)

More detailed testimony concerning land treatment was also

93—258

---

5

received at the October 7th hearing.

The authors of DENR Exhibit

#2, Mr.

Luther Skelton and Mr. Stephen John stated that land

treatment

is one treatment alternative to regulatory relief from

current effluent standards.

(R.l4).

A land treatment system

involves the irrigation of crops

or grass with

treated effluent

from

a wastewater treatment system.

Since

the treated effluent

is not discharged

to waters of the State the effluent standards

of Section 304.120 do not apply.

Mr. John stressed the

importance in reviewing alternative

treatment technologies before

granting sweeping regulatory

relief.

It’s

our

expectations,

for

the

reasons

we

discuss

in

those

sections

of

DENR Exh.

#21

that

the affent

sici

of the adoption

of

the

lagoon exemption proposal,

as

it exists

now,

is likely to be that lagoons

and rock

filters

become

the norm

for communities

in the 2,500

to 5,000

PE range.

Our

reason

for saying

that

is

that we

think

that

it’s common practice

by many engineering

firms

to

design

what

they

see

as

the

least

expensive

and

most

familiar,

at

least

the

innovative,

if

I

may use that

term,

approach

that complied with the regulations.

And

we

think

that

given

the

option

of

a

lagoon exemption

to

the

30/37 standard,

that

many consulting engineers will design

to just

barely

come

into

compliance

with

that

standard.

And as

a practical matter,

I think

what

that

means

is

lagoons

and rock

filters

will

become

the technology

of

choice

if

they

have the option

of meeting

a 30/37 standard.

(R.45—46).

Mr. John also

stated that with respect

to the Great Lakes

region,

the “states with more stringent water quality standards

generally have more land treatment systems because

they

the

land

treatment systemsl are capable

of meeting higher

standards.”

(R. 48).

Dr. John Sheaffer,

a consulting engineer,

testified that

land treatment

of treated wastewater effluent

is well suited

to

Illinois due

to the State’s

soil

composition,

climate

and

terrain.

(R.41).

Dr. Sheaffer also stated that the lagoon

treatment

of

the wastewater

is better suited

to land

treatment

than conventional mechanical facilities such as

an activated

sludge plant.

(R.33).

The lagoon/land treatment system often

recommended

by Dr. Sheaffer has few moving parts and requires

fewer people

to operate when compared with

a mechanical treatment

system.

(R.60—6l).

93—2 59

---

6

According to

Dr. Sheaffer,

the treated effluent which is

applied

to the crops

or grass

is generally of such quality that

it would meet the 10/12 standards for BOD5

and SS.

(R.65).

Dr.

Sheaffer testified that one million gallons

of wastewater contain

$150 worth

of nutrients.

(R.27).

A report submitted

by Dr.

Sheaffer

states that an agricultural community with an average

flow of 600,000 gpd,

if utilizing

land

treatment,

will

apply an

equivalent

of $32,850

of fertilizer each year.

(R86—17(B)

Exh

#2, p.6).

With regard

to the potential

for the spread of

pathogens or viruses

from the applied effluent,

the witnesses

stated that

a land treatment system was relatively low

(R.71—

72).

According

to Mr. John properly designed systems

do not pose

any significant hazard

to crops or

animals which consume the

crops.

(R.72)

Dr. Sheaffer testtfied that the cost of a small

land

treatment system would likely exceed the cost

of

a system which

included lagoon treatment and

a rock

filter.

However, he stated

that larger land treatment systems would actually cost

less.

(R.59).

Dr.

Sheaffer reports that construction costs range from

$2.00

per gallon installed capacity

for large systems

to $4.00

per gallon installed capacity for small

systems.

Dr. Sheaffer’s

October,

1987 report states that there are 20 land treatment

projects

in Illinois that are completed

or

in some stage of

development.

(R86—l7(B),

Exh #2, p.6).

Discussion

The Board held

in its August

6,

1987 Opinion that

it would

not grant relief to POTW’s

to the fullest extent

as requested

by

the Agency due

to the lack

of environmental data

in the record.

That

is,

the record was deficient with respect

to the

environmental impact which could result

if all POTW’s that treat

less than 5000 P.e.

Eventually qualified

for

a

lagoon exemption

and were subject

to less stringent

effluent standards.

The

evidence entered at the October

7,

1987 hearing did not correct

that deficiency.

However,

the record of the October

7th hearing does indicate

that land treatment

is

a viable alternative

for communities which

are not currently meeting the 10/12 80D5 and

SS

standards.

Land

treatment systems are technically feasible and economically

reasonable methods

of wastewater

treatment.

See

In the Matter

Of:

Petition

of the City

of Tuscola

to Amend Regulations

Pertaining

to Water Pollution,

R83—23

(April

21,

1988).

More

importantly,

instead

of discharging effluent

to the waters of the

State,

land treatment systems enable the reuse

of valuable

nutrients.

Such

systems seem particularly well suited

to rural

communities which have readily available cropland that could

benefit from

a land treatment

irrigation system.

Given the continuing uncertainty as

to the environmental

impact of the full Agency proposal

as well

as the availability of

alternative treatment

technologies such

as land treatment,

the

93—260

---

7

Board will not expand the lagoon exemption

to the extent

requested by the Agency.

However,

the Board will amend Section

304.120

to allow any facility, with an untreated waste load of

5000 population equivalents or

less and whose current treatment

system has reached the end of

its useful

life,

to qualify for

a

lagoon exemption

if such a facility can prove,

in an adjusted

standard proceeding,

that the facility is so situated that a land

treatment system is not a suitable treatment alternative.

When

applicable,

the petitioner

in

an adjusted

standard

proceeding

shall address,

at a minimum

,

the following factors:

cost;

influent character;

climate; geographic characteristics;

hydrologic conditions; soil conditions; and the availability of

irrigable land.

If any of the above factors are inapplicable,

the petitioner must explain such inapplicability.

The remaining issue

is whether privately owned wastewater

treatment works should benefit from lagoon exemptions

to the same

extent as publicly owned facilities.

The Board

finds

no reason

to distinguish between wastewater treated by publicly owned

lagoons

as opposed

to privately owned lagoons.

It

is apparent

from the Agency’s testimony that privately owned wastewater

treatment facilities were not excluded from the Agency’s proposal

because

of environmental considerations.

The Board will propose

for First

tqotice amendments to Section 304.120 which would allow

privately owned facilities

to benefit from lagoon exemptions

to

the same extent as POTW’s.

In addition, the Board

is proposing to change the language

of Section 304.120(c)(1)(B)

to more clearly reflect the intent of

the Board.

It has always been the intent of the Board

to expand

the lagoon exemption to 5000 P.E. or less for facilities which

were already utilizing lagoons or other types of facilities which

reached

the end of their useful

lives by January

1,

1987.

By

inserting the phrase “and employing third—stage treatment

lagoons” the Board

is not substantively changing the rule;

rather,

it

is making the meaning of the rule more evident.

ORDER

The Board hereby proposes for First Notice the following

amendments to be published

in the Illinois Register.

93—261

---

8

TITLE

35:

ENVIROt’~MENTALPROTECTION

SUBTITLE C:

WATER POLLUTION

CHAPTER

I:

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PART 304

EFFLUENT STANDARDS

Section 304.120

Deoxygenating Wastes

Except as provided

in Section 306.103,

all effluents containing

deoxygenating wastes shall meet the following standards:

a)

No effluent shall exceed

30 mg/i of five day biochemical

oxygen demand

(BODç)

(STORET number 00310)

or

30 mg/l of

suspended solids (~TORETnumber 00530),

except that

treatment works employing three stage lagoon treatment

systems which are properly designed, maintained

and

operated, and whose effluent has

a dilution ratio no

less than five to one or who qualify for exceptions

under paragraph

Cc)

shall not exceed

37 mg/i of

suspended solids.

b)

No effluent from any source whose untreated waste load

is 10,000 population equivalents or more,

or from any

source discharging into the Chicago River System or

into

the Calumet River System,

shall exceed

20 mg/i of BOD5

or

25 mg/i of suspended solids.

C)

No effluent whose dilution ratio

is less than five to

one shall exceed

10 mg/i

of BOD5 or

12 mg/i

of suspended

solids, except that sources employing third—stage

treatment lagoons shall be exempt from this paragraph

Cc)

provided all of the following conditions

are met:

1)

The waste source qualifies under one of the

following categories:

A)

Any wastewater treatment works with

an

untreated waste load less than 2500 population

equivalents, which

is sufficiently isolated

that combining with other sources

to aggregate

2500 population equivalents or more

is not

practicable.

B)

Any wastewater ptib~e~yow~e~treatment works

in existence and employing third—stage

treatment lagoons on January

1,

1986 whose

untreated waste

load is 5000 population

equivalents or less and sufficiently isolated

that combining to aggregate 5000 population

equivalents or more

is not practicable.

C)

Any wastewater pt~b3~e~y

owned treatment works

with an untreated waste

load of 5000

93—262

---

9

population equivalents or

less, which has

reached the end of

its useful life by January

1, 1987,

and

is sufficiently isolated that

combining

to aggregate 5000 population

equivalents or more

is not practicable.

D)

Any wastewater treatment works with an

untreated waste

load of 5000 population

equivalents or less which has reached

the end

of its useful life and which has received an

adjusted standard determination from the Board

that it qualifies for

a lagoon exemption.

Such

a Board determination will only be made

in an adlusted standard proceeding,

held

in

accordance with Section 28.1

of the

Environmental Protection Act

(Ill.

Rev.

Stat.

1987, ch.

lll~-,~,par.

1001,

et seq.)

and

35

Ill. Mm.

Code 106.

1)

In

an adjusted standard proceeding the

Board may determine

that the petitioning

wastewater treatment source qualifies for

~ lagoon exemption

if the wastewater

treatment works proves that it

is so

situated that

a land treatment system is

not

a suitable treatment alternative.

A

petitioner

for an adjusted standard under

this subdivision

(D)

shall address,

at a

minimum,

the following factors:

cost;

influent character; geographic

characteristics; climate;

soil

conditions; hydrologic conditions; and

the availability

of irrigable land.

Where special circumstances may render

these factors inapplicable for reasons of

irrelevancy

or expense of data collection

in relation

to the relevancy of the data,

the petition shall

include a

justification for such inapplicability.

ii)

For the purposes of this subdivision

(D),

a land treatment system is

a wastewater

treatment system which does not directly

discharge treated effluent to waters of

the State but instead uses the treated

effluent

to irrigate terrestrial

Vegetation.

2)

The

lagoons are properly constructed, maintained

and operated; and

3)

The deoxygenating constituents of the effluent do

not,

alone or

in combination with other sources,

cause

a violation of the applicable dissolved

93—263

---

10

oxygen water quality standard.

d)

No effluent discharged

to the Lake Michigan basin shall

exceed

4 mg/i of BOD5 or

5 mg/i

of suspended solids.

e)

Compliance with the numerical standards in this Section

shall be determined on the basis of the type and

frequency of sampling prescribed by the NPDES permit

for

the discharge at the time of monitoring.

f)

For the purposes of this Section, useful

life

is the

period of time during which

it

is cost effective

to

operate and maintain a particular wastewater treatment

works under consideration.

At

a minimum, the following

factors relating

to a wastewater treatment works shall

be considered

in

a determination of its useful life:

1)

Structural

and operational condition of components;

2)

Past operations and maintenance

record;

3)

Cost

for continued use;

and

4)

Description and costs

for treatment alternatives.

Amended at

Ill.

Reg.

IT

IS SO ORDERED.

J.D. Dumelle concurred.

I, Dorothy M.

Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board,

hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was

adopted on the ~2~rZ~

day

of

________________,

1988, by

a vote

of

7—0

(Source:

effective

Illino

ution Control Board

93—264