ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March
5,
1987
IN THE MATTER OF:
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
TO
35 ILL.
ADM.
CODE
)
R 86—17
304.120, DEOXYGENATING
)
Docket
A
& B
WASTES STANDARDS
PROPOSED RULE.
FIRST NOTICE.
PROPOSED OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J.
Marlin):
This matter comes before
the Board upon
a proposal by the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)
to amend
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 304.120, Deoxygenating Wastes,
filed with the
Board
on April
23,
1986.
Hearings on this proposal were held by
the Board
on June
24,
1986 at Peoria
(generating a transcript
hereinafter referred
to as
RI)
and June
27,
1986
at
Effingharn
(generating a transcript hereinafter referred to as RII).
On
January
5,
1987,
the Department of Energy and Natural Resources
(DENR)
filed with the Board
its negative declaration.
The DENR
stated
the “the
net economic impact of the regulation
is
favorable and the costs of compliance
are small
or are borne
entirely by the proponent of the regulation.”
The Economic and
Technical Advisory Committee concurred with DENR’s
finding that
economic
impact studies were not necessary
in this matter.
By
a
letter dated December
15, 1986, DENR requested that the record
in
this matter
remain open until January 23,
1987 so
that DENR could
submit two exhibits which would “aid the Board
in its
deliberations.”
By
a Hearing Officer Order dated December
19,
1986,
the record was held open until February
25, 1987
to allow
interested persons
to comment upon
the two DENR exhibits which
were filed with the Board on January 23,
1987.
The Agency proposal essentially requests that the Board
expand the lagoon exemption of Section 304.120
to include
publicly owned treatment works
(POTW) whose untreated waste load
is less than or equal
to 5000 population equivalents (pe.).
The
current regulation allows
an exemption
for any waste treatment
facility whose untreated waste load
is less than 2,500 p.e.
provided other
exemption requirements are satisfied.
The current
and proposed lagoon exemption applies only
to effluents whose
dilution ratio
is less than five to
one.
If
a facility qualifies
for
an exemption,
it
is exempt from the requirements that the
effluent not exceed 10 milligrams per
liter
(mg/I)
biochemical
oxygen demand
(BODS)
as well
as
12
tng/l suspended solids.
Instead,
the exempted facility would
be subject
to limits of 30
mg/l BODs and
37 mg/l suspended solids.
The Agency proposal changes
the requirements for
a source
to
qualify
for such
an exemption.
Under
the proposal, several of
76-183
2
the current exemption requirements are unaltered.
First,
a
source must employ third—stage treatment lagoons
Secondly, the
lagoons must be properly constructed, maintained
and operated.
Also,
in order
to qualify
for
an exemption,
an effluent’s
deoxygenating constituents must not, alone or
in combination with
other
sources,
cause
a violation of the applicable dissolved
oxygen
standard.
The Agency’s proposal changes the requisite
factors dealing with population equivalents.
The language of the
proposal requires that the source qualify under
one of the
following three categories.
1)
Any wastewater
treatment works
whose untreated waste
load
is less than 2500 p.e.
and
is sufficiently isolated
that combining with other sources
to aggregate 2500 p.e.
or more
is
not practicable.
2)
Any publicly owned treatment works
in existence on
January
1,
1986 whose untreated waste
load is 5000 p.e.
or
less and sufficiently isolated that combining
to
aggregate 5000 p.e. or more
is not practicable.
3)
Any publicly owned treatment works whose untreated waste
load is 5000 p..e.
or
less which has reached the end of
its useful life and
is sufficiently isolated that
combining to aggregate 5000 p.e.
or more is not
practicable.
The current regulation contains only the first category.
It is the ,Agency’s position that a p.e. maximum of 5000
equates with the concept
of
a small town lagoon exemption better
than the current maximum of a 2500 p.e..
According
to
the
Agency, POTW’s serving
communities with
a population greater
than
5000 generally do not utilize lagoons.
(R II.
5,
48).
The Agency asserts that the alternative to lagoon
use
is the
employment
of
mechanical
treatment
systems,
such
as
an
activated
sludge
filter
system.
Mechanical
treatment
systems
have
the
ability
to
produce
an
effluent
that
is
within
10
mg/l
BODs
and
12
mg/l suspended solids.
However, the Agency states that small
towns often do not operate these systems properly and that as
a
result performance levels decline.
(R II.
13).
On the other
hand,
the Agency asserts that lagoon systems,
although often not
capable of maintaining 10/12 standard, are more forgiving when
subject
to less than adequate operational attention.
That
is,
the lagoon system provides a more consistent and
stable
performance with
a less than sophisticated operator.
(R II.
24—
5)
The mechanical
treatment systems are generally more
expensive to build
and operate than lagoon systems.
The Agency
claims that the current exemption limitation of 2500 p.e. does
not take into account the economic hardship of small communities
which are faced with utilizing
the more costly mechanical
76-184
3
treatment systems
in order
to achieve the
10/12 standard.
According
to
the Agency,
the communities between
a 2500 and 5000
p.e. level were once able
to take advantage of federal
and state
grants.
However,
the Agency states that suchgrants have dried
up and
that only low interest loans are available for
these
communities.
As
a consequence, communities within the 2500
to
5000 p.e.
level must now •bear
the full capital and operational
costs of their wastewater treatment systems
(R
I.
6).
It
is the
Agency’s position that the economic burden of requiring
communities of 5000 p.e.
and under
to utilize mechanical
treatment facilities
is unjustified.
The Agency believes that
5000 p.e.
is
a logical
upper limit
for the lagoon exemption since
almost all POTW’s treating more waste have chosen mechanical
systems, probably due
to economies of scale.
(R II.
48).
The Board notes that the Agency’s proposal would
not exempt
private wastewater
treatment works which operate at levels
between 2500 and
5000 p.e.
The current regulation allows
an
exemption
for private facilities that operate below 2500 p.e.
It
is the Agency’s position that an exansion of the exemption for
private facilities
is unnecessary.
According
to the Agency,
the
private
facilities have had
a better compliance record when
compared with POTW’s of similar
size.
The Agency also states
that the technical ability of the private operators as well
as
the private facilities’
ability
to pass cost on
to the customer
are important factors which distinguish private wastewater
treatment works from POTW’s.
Therefore,
private facilities are
not included
in
the Agency’s proposed expansion of the
lagoon
exemption.
(R
I.
21—2).
The Board welcomes comment on this
aspect of
the proposal during
first
notice.
The Agency
filed with the Board
a United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
response
to the Agency’s
proposal
In
a
letter
to the Agency dated August
12,
1986,
the
USEPA states, “Our review of
the prepared amendments indicated
that overall,
the changes should not result
in any conflicts with
applicable
Federal
regulations.”
(P.C.
#9).
Economic Impact
At hearing,
the Agency stated
that there were 15 communities
presently utilizing lagoon systems which would immediately
benefit from
the proposed
rule change.
(RI.l6; RII.ll~Ag
Exh.
*8).
After
the hearing,
the Agency submitted data
to the Board
which indicates
that 21
communities
would
be “eligible to apply
to a lagoon exemption immediately upon the adoption of the
proposal.”
The Agency indicated
that two of these communities
are currently using mechanical treatment systems
(P.C
#2,
Attachment
1).
By including
these
two communities on such a
list,
the Agency implies that the mechanical treatment systems
of
these
two communities are currently at the end
of
their useful
lives.
Other
data
presented
by
the
Agency
indicates
that
approximately 144 other communities, currently using mechanical
treatment
systems,
would
qualify
for
an
exemption
under
the
76-185
4
Agency proposal once the systems reach
the end of their useful
life
The Agency notes that some of these facilities may be
consolidated with other plants or expanded
so as to
remove them
from exemption eligibility.
(P.C.
*2, Attachment 2).
The
following economic data comparing
the cost of compliance with and
without the proposal was also supplied by the Agency as well as
by testimony at
the hearing.
Compliance Cost
Compliance Cost
Without the Proposed Exemption
With the Proposed Exemption
POTW
Monthly House
Monthly House
Discharger
Capital
OM&R
Hold Cost
Capital
OM&R
Hold Cost
Aledo
$2,509,000
108,000
1,910,000
50,000
Christopher 2,800,000
————
16.78
800,000
9.55
(Would receive
$1.4 million
grant
from EPA)
Coal City
3,206,000
166,700
68.95*
757,000
62,400
31.23*
Gillespie
2,991,000
826,000
110,000
Johnston
City
2,500,000
800,000
Kincaid
3,000,000
703,000
45,000
McLeans—
boro
**
1,500,000
41,500
16.50
1,000,000
25,800
11.00
New Baden
1,500,000
141,000
260,000
71,000
Staunton
3,800,000
192,000
2,000,000
79,000
Virden
**
5,012,000
2,840,000
*
:
(for
20 years)
**
:
Denotes current mechanical plant.
:
Denotes Data Not Presented.
(P.C.
#2 Attachment
1;
RI.
29; Rh.
31
Rh.
38; Rh.
43)
It
is clear
that the communities listed above would save
a
considerable amount of money
if the Agency’s proposal
is
adopted.
If such costs are representative, the proposal,
if
adopted, would eventually result
in a savings
to over one hundred
communities.
As previously stated, DENR has concluded that
the
net
economic
impact
of
the
proposed
amendeinent
would
be
favorable.
76-186
5
Environmental
Impact
It
is
the Agency’s position that mechanical systems, such as
activated sludge systems and trickling filters, generally show
“more
identifiable impact and detriment than properly designed
and operated lagoon systems.”
According
to the Agency, this poor
performance level
of mechanical
systems is primarily due
to plant
upsets,
solids washout, and difficulties
in achieving stable and
consistent ammonia reduction.
(Rh.
10).
Consequently,
the
Agency concludes that “lagoons may be more protective of
receiving stream water quality than mechanical facilities.”
In
support of this conclusion,
the Agency refers the Board to Stream
Surveys
it has provided.
(P.C.
*4).
Attached
to the
stream surveys are NPDES monitoring data
reports
for the years
1983 through 1985.
These reports present
data on the quality of the POTW effluents over three years.
On
the other
hand,
the
stream
surveys
of
the
same
POTW’s
did not
always sample the effluent
for BOD and suspended
solids.
Even
when the effluents were sampled, the
results merely represent the
quality of the effluent at one point
in
time.
Consequently, the
data shown below
is taken from the NPDES monitoring reports.
The
figures presented are averages of the yearly average
for the
years 1983,
1984
and 1985.
Flow
BOD
Suspended Solids
Discharger
(MGD)
(mg/l)
(mg/i)
Mechanical
Systems
Walnut
0.20
15.0
18.0
Lake County,
Sylvan—Diamond
Lake
0.26
18.7
14.3
Red Bud
0.51
5.7
9.0
Bushnell
0.57
11.3
7.0
Lagoon
Systems
Greenfield
0.21
8~7
13.0
Mount Sterling
0.47
11.3
21.7
Breese
0.53
2.3
9.7
(P.C.
#2)
A
flow
rate
range
from
.25
to
.50
million
gallons
per
day
(MGD)
roughly represents
a population range of 2500 to
5000.
(P.C.
#2).
The Board
notes that at
hearing the Breese facility’s
near—compliance performance level
was classified as
an
exceptional
case
among
lagoon
systems.
(Rh.
45).
76-187
6
The Record does not indicate how or why the seven plants and
the associated stream surveys were selected from the universe of
available
facilities.
The Board does not know if these are
representative of the facilities
and streams that may fall
under
the
proposed
rule.
The
record
would
also
have
benefited
from
a
more
complete
discussion
of
the
various
design
configurations
that
lagoon
and
mechanical
plants
may
use
and
the
capabilities
and
costs
of
each.
The
information
provided
does
not
conclusively support the Agency’s contention that lagoons
generally have less adverse impact on receiving streams or that
lagoons cannot produce effluent of
a better quality than 30/37
on
a
consistent
basis.
Agency
data
show
that
the
performance
levels
vary
considerably
between
POTW’s
of
the
same
system
type
and
size,
as
well
as
across
system
types.
It
is
also
apparent
that
with
regard
to
these
facilities
neither
system
type
consistently
out
performs
the
other,
The proposed rule,
as well
as the current regulation,
provides that no exemption may be granted
to a facility if the
discharge from that facility,
alone or
in combination with other
discharges will cause
a violation of the applicable dissolved
oxygen
water
quality
standard.
DENR
points
out
that
the
environmental impact of
a lagoon exemption will vary from site to
site.
(DENP
Exh.
#1,
p.3).
DENR
asserts
that
the
Agency’s
modeling techniques do not adequately take into account such
factors as sediment oxygen demand
and algal
respiration.
Consequently, DENR concludes that the Agency will
always
overestimate
the existing
dissolved oxygen content of
a stream.
Such
a situation would
lead to an
inaccurate evaluation of
whether
water quality standards will
be violated by a POTW
exemption,
according to DENR.
DENR requests that the proposed
regulation include methods of calculation
to ensure that
dissolved oxygen standards are not violated by POTW exemptions.
(DENR
Exh.
#1,
p.
Il).
The foundation
for the proposal
is the Agency’s view that
POTW’s treating
a load less than 5000 p.e. can neither afford
to
utilize nor properly operate mechanical
systems
to meet the 10/12
standard.
Therefore,
the
Agency concludes that these POTW’s
should
be
allowed
to
utilize
lagoon
exemptions.
The
Agency
presumes that the only viable option
for these POTW’s is
a lagoon
system
and
less
stringent
effluent
limitations.
DENR
submitted
a
report which concluded
that land treatment systems could provide
an
alternative
for
wastewater
treatment.
The
report
states
that
any point discharge from
a land treatment system would be well
within the 10/12 standard.
In many instances,
a land treatment
system would have no point discharge.
(DENR Exh.
#2,
p.
1—2,
3—
2,
3—20).
The
report
makes
a
strong
case
for
land
treatment
systems.
Such systems would store effluent
in lagoons
for later
application
to
land.
It
is
also
possible
to
develop
a
hybrid
system
which
would
discharge
to
streams
during
high
flow
and
76-188
7
irrigate
land
during
the
growing
season.
The
effluent
can
be
spread
by
a
number
of
methods
including
standard
agricultural
irrigation systems.
The table below given approximate lagoon
size
and
the
land
required
for
slow
rate
application.
The
information
is
derived
from
DENR
Exh.
#2,
pp.
3—27
and
4—6.
Wastewater
Flow Rate
(MGD)
Storage Lagoon
Land
for Application
0.1
2.18 acres
38.4 acres
02
436
“
768
“
0
3
6
54
“
115
04
870
“
154
0.5
10.9
192
The Agency responded
to this report
in
a cursory fashion,
characterizing
land treatment as
a technology that has
consistently failed
to be adopted by consulting engineers and
their
clients.
The
DENR
report
raises
issues
which
the
Board
would like
see expanded upon
Specifically, what economically
reasonable
alternatives
are
available
for
POTW’s
to
treat
wastewater
and what standard could they meet.
Summary
It
is
clear
that
the
net
economic
effect
of
expanding
the
lagoon exemption would be positive.
Many communities would save
considerable amounts of money by being allowed
to utilize lagoons
to meet a 30/37
rather than
a 10/12 standard.
However, the Board
is disappointed by the quantity and quality of data presented by
the Agency concerning the costs and capabilities of various
treatment alternatives and
the environmental
impact of the
proposal.
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 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 proposal
is written
so that no exemption will
be
granted
which
would
result
in
a
violation
of
dissolved
oxygen
standard,
the 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.
The Clean Water Act requires
all
POTW’s
to be
in compliance
with
effluent
limitations
by
July
1,
1988.
The
Board
recognizes
the
urgent
need
for
a
number
of
POTW’s
to
ascertain
whether
or
not they will qualify for
an exemption
so that they may alter
their
operations
accordingly
in
order
to
achieve compliance by
the
deadline.
It
is
apparent
that
many
communities
presently
need
relief
so
that
their
compliance
will
be
assured
by
July
1,
1988.
However, the
record
is insufficient
to support the full
extent
of
the
exemption
proposal
requested
by
the
Agency.
As
a
76-189
8
result,
the Board
will propose
to allow lagoon exemptions
for
those POTW’s treating
a load of less than 5000 p.e.,
which are
presently utilizing lagoon systems or which have
a system that
has reached the end of its useful life by January
1,
1987.
Such
action will essentially preserve the status quo
regarding impact
on streams while allowing communities
to take advantage of the
coming construction season.
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 will allow 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
feasibility
of
using land treatment
in Illinois alone
or
in combination with
other methods; and the impact of various systems on streams.
In P.C.
#6,
the Agency questioned
the propriety of DENR
filing
its exhibits #1 and *2 after
issuing
a negative
declaration.
The concern would appear to be that the exhibits
could
lead to
a modified proposal with altered economic impact.
In this matter,
the Board has already determined
to open docket
B
based on
a desire
for
an expanded record.
The stated concern
will,
therefore, not impact docket
A.
The type of information
contained
in
the
two exhibits
is most helpful
to the Board
in
reaching
informal decisions on complex rules.
The Board
encourages DENR and other
knowledgeable persons or entities
to
participate
in the regulatory process.
The Board specifically
notes that DENR’S ability to participate
is by no means limited
to
its
EcIS function.
That function is separate from its right
to provide such technical input
to
the process as
it deems
appropriate.
DENR
is
diverse
and
includes
the
Scientific
Surveys
as
well
as
the
remnants
of the Institute for Environmental
Quality which was originally mandated to among other
things “give
expert guidance
to
the Agency and
to the Board
in the formulation
of regulations”
(IRS Chapter
1111/2, paragraph 1006
(1975).
Technical
input
to
a proceeding, such as that contained
in the
two exhibits, is appropriately introduced at hearing and may be
considered
in
the EcIS process.
Such information
is generally
presented by DENR personnel while the EcIS
is often prepared by
outside consultants under contract.
The Board
recognizes the
potential problems associated with the timing of the filing
in
question and the fact that the exhibits were not discussed
at
hearing.
However, the Agency and other participants did have 30
days
to comment on the two exhibits.
The coming hearings
in
docket
B will provide the opportunity
to correct any problems
that would otherwise exist because of the lateness of the
f ii ings.
As stated earlier, DENR requests that the Board include
in
the regulation modeling methods
to ensure that dissolved oxygen
76.190
9
water quality standards are not violated by the
lagoon
exemptions.
DENR claims
that
the
modeling
methods
used
by
the
Agency overestimate the dissolved oxygen content of the
streams.
Such modeling
techniques
are certainly within the field
of the Agency’s expertise.
The Board will defer
to
the Agency’s
technical expertise
in choosing the proper modeling method
in
Docket
A.
The issue can be explored on the record
by all
participants
in Docket
B.
In February,
1987,
Congress passed
the Clean Water Act
Amendments,
P.L. 100—4.
Section 404 of this law specifically
provides prohibition against
“backsliding”.
The Board invites
all interested persons
to comment upon whether this rule
is
consistent with the Clean Water Act Amendments and the provisions
of 40 CFR
122.44 and
122.62.
ORDER
The
Board
hereby
directs
the Clerk of the Board
to classify
the
instant
proposed
amendment
as
R86—l7,
Docket A, and
to open
Docket
B
so
that the Board may consider further
the proposal
for
expanding the lagoon exemption
to non—lagoon facilities which
have not reached the end
of their
useful lives by January
1,
1987.
The
record
in
Docket
A
is
incorporated
in
Docket
B.
The Board hereby proposes
to adopt
the following amendment
and instructs the Clerk of
the Board
to cause
its publication
for
First Notice
in the Illinois Register.
TITLE
35:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE
C:
WATER POLLUTION
CHAPTER
I:
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PART
304
EFFLUENT STANDARDS
SUBPART
A:
GENERAL 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/l 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
(C)
shall not exceed
37
ing/l of
suspended solids.
b)
No effluent from any source whose untreated waste
load
is 10,000 population equivalents
or more,
or
from
any
76-191
10
source
discharging
into the Chicago River
System or
into
the
Calumet
River
System,
shall
exceed
20
ing/l
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/l
of
BODç
or
12
rng/l
of
suspended
solids, except that sources employing third—stage
treatment
lagoons
shall
be
exempt
from
this
paragraph
(C)
provided
all
of
the
following
conditions
are
met:
~+
The
t~e~ we5~e~oe~ 4~~ess ~hei~~S&6
pop
~4oi~ e
4ve-3et~s snd
1)
The waste source qualifies under one of the
following catagories:
A)
Any wastewater
treatment works whose untreated
waste
load
is
less
than
2500
population
equivalents and
is sufficiently isolated that
combining with other
sources to aggregate 2500
population equivalents or more is not
practicable.
B)
Any publicly owned
treatment works in
existence
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 publicly owned treatment works whose
untreated waste
load
is 5000 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
nior
is
not
practicable.
ff4e4enHy
~sc3e~ed
the~
eon~b4it4i~with ~+he~
~o ~gregste
~5&e
pt~e~4oi~
e
4v
et~kso~
~ore 4s r~o~
p
et4eeHe~et’td
~2)
The
lagoons are properly constructed, maintained
and operated; and
43) The deoxygenating constituents of the effluent do
not,
alone or
in combination with other
sources,
cause
a violation of the applicable dissolved
oxygen water quality standard.
d)
No effluent discharged
to
the
Lake Michigan basin
shall
exceed
4 mg/i
of BOD5
or
5 mg/l of suspended solids.
76.192
11
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.
(Source:
Amended at
11 Iii.
Reg. ______________________________
effective ____________________________________)
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
J.T.
Meyer
and J.D. Dumelle concurred.
I, Dorothy
M.
Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Proposed Opinion and Order
was adopted on the
6~-
day of
h~&ALL~~
,
1987, by a
vote of
~—O
~
~
Dorothy
M. ~unn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control
Board
76.193
