ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
February
22,
1984
IN
THE
MATTER OF:
PETITION
OF
THE
CITY
OF
LOCKPORT
)
R83—19
TO AMEND REGULATIONS PERTAINING
TO
WATER POLLUTION
PROPOSED
RULE,
FIRST
NOTICE.
PROPOSED OPINION OF THE BOARD
(by W.
J.
Nega):
This Proposed Opinion
is
in support of the Proposed Rule in
R83-19 which was adopted
for first notice by the Board
on Decem-
ber 29,
1983.
This matter comes before the Board on the City
of Lockportts
Petition to Amend the Board~sWater Pollution Regulations
(Pet.)
which was
filed on September
14,
1983.
The City of Lockport
(Lockport),
which discharges
its
final
effluent into
a 3.7 mile
long, man—made receiving stream known as
Deep Run Creek,
is requesting
the addition of a new section
designated as
35 Ill.
Adm. Code 304,108
to allow a site—specific
exemption from the existing
10 mg/i BOD~and
12 mg/i total sus-
pended solids
(TSS)
effluent standards
6f
Section 304.120(c)
for
discharges from Lockport~ssewage treatment plant
(STP)
into Deep
Run Creek
in Will County,
Illinois
in order to reduce the cost of
proposed improvements to its STP.
Lockport is requesting a
less
stringent standard of 20 mg/i BOD~and 25 mg/i of TSS to apply to
its discharges
into Deep Run Creek.
Additionally, Lockport
requested that the provisions
of Section 302.206
(General Use
Water Quality Standards for Dissolved Oxygen)
and Section 302.212(b)
(General Use Water Quality Standards for Ammonia Nitrogen and
Un-ionized Ammonia)
~shall not apply to said discharge”, provided
certain conditions are met,
A hearing on the merits of this regulatory proposal was held
in Lockport,
Illinois on November
10,
1983
at
which members
of
the public and the press were present.
Eight witnesses testified
at this hearing and 18 exhibits were admitted into evidence.
The
initial public comment period and record
in the instant proceed—
ing closed on December 12,
1983,
56-255
—2—
On November
30,
1983, Lockport filed
a Motion for Decision
which requested expedited consideration of
its
proposed
site—
specific regulation
to help the
city
in
its
attempt
to
obtain
a
75
Federal grant to fund
improvements in its sanitary sewers and
STP.
The Board has already complied with
Lockport’s request for
expedited action by adopting the Proposed
Order for first notice
on
December 29,
1983.
On December
8,
1983, Lockport filed
its written Comment in
response to the Hearing Officer’s request
for additional inform-
ation on
the applicability of Federal
regulations.
On
December
13,
1983,
the Agency filed
its written
Comments
in
support of the
requested site—specific
amendment
and
suggested various changes
in
the proponent’s proposed order,
On
December
14,
1983,
Lock—
port
submitted
a
letter
to
the
Board
which
indicated
that
Lock-
port had
“no
major
objection
to
the
Agency’s
proposed
language
changes” in
the
suggested order,
The
Illinois
Department
of
Energy
and
Natural
Resources
(DENR)
made
a
finding
that
an
economic
impact
study
on
the
regulatory
proposal
in R83—19
is
not
necessary
and
issued
a
“negative
declaration”
of
economic
impact.
The
Economic
and
Technical
Advisory
Committee
(ETAC)
has
concurred
in the DENR’s
finding
that
no
economic
impact
study
is
necessary.
The
public
hearing
requirements
of
Section
27
of
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act
(Act)
being
satisfied,
the
Board has adopted the
proposed
rule for first notice.
The
City
of
Lockport,
which
has
a
population
of
approxi-
mately
10,000
people,
is
located
near
the
Chicago
Sanitary
and
Ship
(S
& 8) Canal
on the banks
of
the
Illinois
and
Michigan
(I
&
N) Canal
in Will County,
Illinois.
Although
there are separate
sanitary sewers
in the northern and eastern portions
of Lockport,
portions
of the sewer system that
serve
as
combined
sewers
in
the
central part of Lockport were built over 100 years
ago.
(Pet.,
par.2).
Lockport operates a treatment
facility
which was built
in
1970
and
has
a
design capacity of 2.0
million gallons per day
(gpd).
This
treatment
plant,
which
is
located between the I
& N
Canal and
the
S
& S Canal and discharges
into Deep Run Creek,
is
a
contact
stabilization
modification
of
the
activated sludge
secondary
treatment
process.
Comminution,
sewage
pumping,
and
aerated
grit
chamber,
rectangular
primary
settling tanks, dif—
i~usedaeration basins,
retangular
final
settling
tanks,
sludge
drying
beds,
and chlorination aerobic
and
anaerobic
digestion
are
some of the process units included in
this
facility.
Deep
Run
Creek, which drains
a basin of
less
than
I square mile between
the
I
& N
Canal
and the S
& S Canal,
empties
into
the
the
S
&
S
Canal below the Lockport locks
(approximately
I
mile
below
the
treatment plant discharges),
Deep
Run
Creek receives overflow
from the I
& N Canal
at its headwaters and from the S
&
S Canal
56-256
—3—
via several
infiltration points.
flelow the Lockport treatment
plant,
Deep Run Creek
is inaccessible
For
public use and
is
bordered
on one side by the Santa Fe
Railroad’s tracks and on the
other
side
by the
S
&
S Canal embankment.
The stream is
about
80
feet wide and
1 foot deep
downstream of the Lockport plant and
flows over
a limestone bedrock substrate with practically no
canopy cover.
(Pet,,
¶2-4).
The City of Lockport has a history
of environmental problems
reatjnc~
i-n
its
59’P,
Tn
1979,
a group of
concerned
local resi-
dents
filed
a Complaint
with the Board
in PCB 79—28 which alleged
that Lockport’s sewer system was inadequate and
complained about
individual problems
with
sewer and basement hack-ups.
(Ex.
2).
The Board ordered Lockport to
“abate” pollution,
and to proceed
with
the
grant process to
upgrade
its sewage system.
(Citizens
Concerned for the Qualiti of Life
in the
Lo~pprt Area
~
City of
Locku~t, PCB 79—28,
May
15,
1980,
Exhibit 2).
Lockport subse-
quently
issued non—referendum general obligation
bonds to finance
the design work for improvements
at the treatment plant and for
the sanitary
sewers
to
abate
pollution.
(R.
20).
On
June 30,
1983,
the Board granted Lockport
a variance
in
PCB 83-38
until March
1,
1988 from
the water quality standards
of
35
Ill.
Adm,
Code 304,105 pertaining
to dissolved oxygen
(Section
302,206) and ammonia nitrogen
(Section 302.212(h))
subject
to the
CC)flditiOfl
that Lockport
meet
a specified compliance schedule for
completion of design work for
treatment
plant and sewer system
improvements he Fore beginning actual construction by September
1,
1984.
(City
of ~kort
v.
I.E~P.A.,
PCB 83—48, June 30,
1983.).
Lockport
presently
intends
to
expend $2,115,000 in basic
improvements to the treatment plant and
$1,901,000
in sewer
system
improvements.
(Pet,,
¶
6).
However,
to comply with the
deoxygenat~ngwastes
(10/12 mg/i;
E3ODr/TSS)
requirements
of
35
Ill..
Adm. Code 304.120(c),
Lockport
mCIst expend an additional
$775,000 on a filtration
unit,
and
to comply with ammonia
nitrogen discharge requirements, Lockport must expend $890,000
capital cost plus $60,000 per year
in operating costs
for a
nitrification
unit,
(R.
109).
Lockport believes these last two
expenditures
will produce no measurable environmental benefit and
requests site-specific relief,
Because the treatment needs and
environmental controls for deoxygenating wastes are separate from
those for ammonia nitrogen,
they
will be discussed separately.
DEOXYGENATING WASTES
Deoxygenating waste discharges by Lockport are controlled
under
two provisions of
35
Iii.
Adm.
Code:
Section 304.120(c)
and
Section
30~.206. SectLon 304.120(c)
requires Lockport’s
e~luent
to
m~et a
I0/~2
mg/I,
BOD5/TSS
standard.
Section
303L206,
56-257
.-4—
in
conjunction
with
Section 304,105, requires Lockport’s effluent
to not
cause
dissolved
oxygen
(0,0,)
levels to fall below
5.0
mg/i ever,
or fall
below
6.0
mg/I
during 16 hours of any
24
hour
period.
Lockport
is not currently meeting the
10/12 mg/i stan-
dard
(Ex.
10,
p.
69)
and
Deep
Run Creek
is not meeting the 6.0/5.0
mg/i D,O.
minimums.
(Ex.
10,
pp.
33—35),
Despite
the
c.ear
0.0.
violations
on Deep Run Creek,
it does
not appear that Lockport~sdischarge contributes
to the D.O.
violations.
First, there are significant 0.0. violations up-
stream of Lockport’s discharge which are solely attributable to
plant/algal respiration.
(Ex.
10,
p.
32).
Second,
it appears
there
is
no measurable difference
in 0,0.
variation upstream of
Lockport’s discharge
compared to two downstream sampling points.
(Ex.
10,
p.
36).
~nd third,
during
periods
of
lowest upstream
0.0.,
Lockport’s effluent improves the downstream D.O.
levels.
(Ex.
10,
pp.
34-35).
Therefore,
the Board finds that the facts
presented in this proceeding
do
not demonstrate that Lockport is
causing or contributing
to 0.0.
violations
in Deep Run Creek.
Since violation of
a standard is
a prerequisite to seeking site—
specific relief
(In the Matter of:
The Petition of the Calesburg
Sanitarl District to
~
Re~1ations, R80-16,
November 18,
1983), Lockport
is ineligible
for that relief.
Lockport did
withdraw
its
request
for relaxation of the 0,0.
Standard.
(R.
187,
P.C.
#1).
Lockport is violating
the 10/12
mg/i BODr/TSS limitation and
must demonstrate
that no significant environm~ntal impact will
occur
to seek relief from that limitation.
Here, the only facts
show that, during worst case 0.0.
levels
in Deep Run Creek, Lock-
port’s discharges
in fact improve 0.0.
levels,
(Ex,
10,
pp.
34—35),
Additionally, Lockport has
denonstrated
that
compliance
with
the 10/12 mg/i
BOD~,/TSS limitation
will
impose
a
significant
burden.
The
terti~ry
sand
filters
would
cost
around
$775,000
with
estimated
annual
operating
costs
of
$60,000.
(R.
109).
T~ockport is
presently
experiencing
financial
difficulties
in
that
city
revenues
are
all
declining
and
estimated
costs
for
all
sewer
system
and treatment plant improvements are over
twice
Lockport’s
general
obligation
bonding
authority
limit.
(R.
19—20),
For
these
reasons,
the
Board
will
grant
Lockport’s
request
for
a
20/25
mg/l,
B005/TSS,
limitation.
AMMONIA_NITROGEN
Lockport
seeks
relief
from
a
1.5
mg,/I
ammonia
nitrogen
effluent
limitation
(Pet,,
¶
5)
apparently
imposed
by
the
Agency
because
Deep
Run
Creek
violates
the
ammonia
nitrogen
water
qual-
ity
requirements
of
Section.
302.21.2(h).
Lockport’s
discharges
presently
exceed
1,5
mg/i
ammonia
nitrogen
(Ex.
10,
p.
69),
Deep
Run
Creek
presently
violates
the
ammonia
nitrogen
water
quality
standard
of
Section
302.212(b)
(Ex.
10,
p.
3),
and
Lockport’s
56-258
discharges
uause
or
contribute
to those violations.
(Ex.
9,
p.
5).
MLec~’er,
nmo~ia water
q~ality
lovels
would
improve if
Lockport ctdd~d .onplete nitrification.
(Ex.
10,
p.
5).
LocKpOrc haS ~ t requested that the nwiericai
provisions
of
Section 302.212 regarding ammonia ritrogen water quality be
raised
to higher numerical
limits so that Lockport would
not
cause or contribute to violations of these higher numbers,
Rather, Lockport requests that these water quality standards be
made
inapplicable
to
the discharge which causes
them
to
be
vio-
lated.
This
the
Bc ard
cannot
do,
Section
13(a)
of
the
Illinois Environmental Protection
Act
(Act) requires the Board to adopt water quality standards and,
pursuant
to
Section
11(b)
of
the
Act,
to
assure
that no conta~-
inants are
discharged
without
the
degree
of
treatment necessary
to prevent violations
of those standards.
This
process
is
iden-
tical
to
the
process
in Sections 302,
303,
and 402(b)
of
the
Federal Clean
Water
Act,
made
applicable
to
Illinois
dischargers
by
Section
11(b)
of the Act,
While the Board may have discretion
in what
those standards will be, there must be standards,
and
those standards must
be applicable to
discharges which would
cause
their
violation.
Presently,
the
least
protective
ammonia
water quality
stan—
clard
in II.linois
is Section 302.4~)7 (Secondary Contact and Indi-
genous Aquatic Life Standards).
That standard requires ambient
ammonia nItrogen levels
to not exceed 2,5 mg/l
from April
to
October,
nor 4.0 mg/I from November to March.
An
evaluation
of
ammonia nitrogen levels
in Deep Run Creek
(Ex,
9,
p.
13)
shows
even
these
relaxed
standards
would
have been violated five
times
at
sampling site
J
(1000
ft. downstream of discharge, River
Mile
1,05)
from November of
1982 to July
of
1983.
Upstream of Lock-
port~sdischarge,
Deep Run Creek consistently meets the more
protective
standards
of Section 302,212.
Lockport has provided evidence
(Ex.
9,
Ex.
10,
R.
44-84) by
Mr. James
B. Huff
in an attempt
to demonstrate that their present
discharges do not harm aquatic life and that
aquatic
life
would
not improve even
if
the quality of ammonia nitrogen discharges
improved.
The Board need not and does not make any findings of
fact concerning thi~issue,
since the Board cannot by regulation
approve specific
dithcharqe concentrations that cause
violations
of
water
quality standards without revising those standards.
Water quality standard revisions must be based on
evidence that
the requested levels will protect the present
and future uses of
the water body.
Lockport. has not
requested
any
specific
standard
for
ammonia nitrogen in Deep Run Creek and
the
evidence
is
insuf-
ficient
for
the
Board
to
derive
numerical
limits
on
its
own
that
would
both
protect
present
and
future
uses,
and provide relief to
Lockport.
Consequently,
Lockport~s
request
for site—specific
regulatory relief from the ammonia nitrogen standards
of
Section
302.212 on Deep Run Creek must be denied.
56~259
The
Poar
nc to’
witn
some
e
nce
n
the
inconsistency
of
the
Agency
cot
me
~Ytis
matter
fri
rosponse
to Lockport*s
request
that the 0 0
Clat
a
~ for De.p ~un Creek be modified
to
provide
not
less
that ~
mg/i for 16 of
~ny
24 hours,
the Agency
stated:
“~the~gency
agrees that Lookport’s effluent
standards
oughtto be
20 mq’l BOO and
25 mg/i total suspended
solids
2
~
and also ag:ees that some relocation of
the present dissolved oxygen standard could be neces-
sary.
Howev~ Lockport’s
language would leave
the
stream without a dissolved oxygen standard for eight
hours of the day,
a result that would be
incompatible
both with the Environmental Protection Act and the
Clean Wacer Act,
In addition there is nothing in
the
record to support a 0 mg/I dissolved oxygen
standard.”
(Rec,, p.2).
However,
the Agency supported the complete elimination
of ammonia
nitrogen standards for Deep Pun Creek by making them
inapplicable
to
the discharge r~hichcauses their violation.
(Rec.,
p.
4).
In its written Comments
~ilec on December
13,
1983,
the
Agency has suggested modified language in the
proponent’s original-
ly
proposed order
~‘o’
(1)
specifically identify the
Lockport
STP
(to
prevent
inc u~on of other facilities
that might be constructed
later);
(2)
~stchlrsh a dissolved
~xyqen standard in
Deep
Run
Creek to match th~standard for secondary contact waters
con-
tained
in
35
111.
Adm.
Code 302 ~05; and
(3)
eliminate the
inclu-
sion of
the ford “significantly”
in subsection
(c)
of the
pro-
posed order
~
‘o co~sistentwit!i Section
12(a)
of the Act.
In
a
Decemoer ii, L
i3
Wetter rescnding
to the Agency~s
Comments,
Lockport noted
ttht
it
bad “no major objection”
to these
proposed
changes.
Accordingly,
the Board will specifically
identify
the
Lockport STP
in its Proposed Order, hut
finds
the
other suggested
modification~unnecessary
in light o~the current wording of the
Board~s Prnponed D:’der.
In evaluating the City of Lockport’s site-specific
regulatory
proposal,
the Board
finds that tb-~record demonstrates that a
less stringent standard of
20 mg/i BOD~and 25 mg/i total
suspended
solids
t~’app ‘o~oniiteand envi ‘onnerta~lyacceptable for discharges
from Lockpcr~
S1~. into Deco ~lunCreek,
I, Christ~nL.
Moftetu, Clerb of the Illinois
Pollution
Control Board
neresy certify that the above Proposed
Opinion
was
adopted on the
~.
~~jday
~
1984
by a vote
Christan
L,
E4offett, ~‘Wrk
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
56-260