ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September

23,

)~983

REVERE

COPPER

AND

BRASS

INCORPORATED,

Petitioner,

V.

)

PCB 80—117

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

MR.

S.

H.

KAPRELIAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF

PETITIONER

MR. BRUCE L. CARLSON, ATTORNEY AT LAW, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF

RESPONDENT.

OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by

D.

Anderson):

This matter comes before the Board upon a petition

filed June 16,

1980 by Revere Copper and Brass Incorporated

(Revere) for review of conditions of an NPDES permit for a

manufacturing plant operated by it

in the city of Clinton,

DeWitt County.

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency) appeared as respondent.

A public hearing

was held

on December

1,

1982

at Clinton.

The facility includes two buildings housing three

operations.

The manufacturing plant produces copper-clad

stainless steel kitchen utensils and stampings from various

metals.

The tube mill plant produced seamless copper tubing,

but closed down on December

1,

1981.

Revere is in bankruptcy

reorganization

(Petitioner’s submission of July 11,

1983).

The facility was the subject of an earlier variance from the

copper

water

quality

standard

(PCB

76-246,

26

PCB

25,

June

28,

1977).

This variance expired in 1982.

The facility discharges include process wastewater from

rinses in various plating and metal finishing operations,

cooling

water

and

contaminated

storm

water.

There is

a

wastewater treatment plant inside the tube mill plant.

The

discharges

are

combined

in

the

North

and

South

Tube

Mill

Ponds, which discharge via 001 to an unnamed tributary of

Coon Creek, a tributary of Salt Creek and the Sangamon

River.

The

following

summarizes

the

discharges:

001

Discharge from North Tube Mill Pond to an unnamed

tributary of Coon Creek

54-81

---

—2—

003

Wastewater

treatment

plant,

contact

cooling

water

from a continuous cast furnace* and filter back-

wash water*

004

Non-contact cooling water from old and new anneal-

ing furnaces*

006

Stormwater from roof drains and parking lots

The Tube Mill Ponds were built prior to 1966 by rerout-

ing and damming a natural waterway.

The Tube Mill Ponds

serve as a source of process and cooling water.

They have a

total area of

5 to

10 acres at the maximum

(Resp. Ex.

7).

At the hearing Revere’s witness, who had no personal

knowledge of the drainage basin,

testified that a previous

employee had determined that 5000 acres drained to the Tube

Mill Ponds

(R,

24),

Respondents Exhibits

7 and

B are the 7.5 minute Clinton

Quadrangle

(1979)

topographic

map

published

by

the

U.S.G.S.

and

the

General

Drainage

Map

of

Clinton

County

published

by

the

Illinois

Division

of

Waterways.

From

these

it is pos-

sible to infer that the drainage area is around 640 acres,

consisting of the N 1/2 of Section

2, T19N, R2E and the

S

1/4

of

Section

35,

T2ON,

R2E

of

the

3rd

Principal

Meridian,

together with some adjacent land.

In response to a request for more information from the

Board,

Revere

reviewed

its

files and determined that the

employee

had estimated 300 acres of surface drainage and

1000 acres of field tiles,

instead of the 5000 acres testi-

fied to at the hearing

(Petitioner’s submission of July 11,

1983).

This estimate of 1300 acres

is still too high,

based

on

the

topographic

and

drainage

maps,

and

on

the

expected

flow.

The

Agency

has

indicated

that

it

estimates

the

surface

drainage area as

742

acres,

a

figure

which

the

Board

will

accept as the correct surface drainage

(Agency’s Supple-

mental Information of July

8,

1983).

The Agency suggests that a vast network of subterranean

field

tiles

is capable of encompassing a much

larger

drainage

area than the surface drainage pattern.

Such a reversal of

the surface drainage does not appear on the drainage map,

which is primarily designed to show drainage districts.

*Discontinued by closing of tube mill

54-82

---

—3—

Normal precipitation for the area is 38.7

inches per

year.

Based on 50

runoff, 742 acres would yield an average

flow of about 1,000,000 gallons

per

day.

This is on the

high side of Revere’s estimate of the upstream flow as

380,000 to 640,000 gallons

per

day, which would be more

consistent with a drainage area of 370 acres.

Prior to closing of the

tube

mill, Revere discharged

260,000 to 280,000 gallons

per

day to the

ponds.

rent discharge is 60,000 to 80,000 gallons per day

CR.

21,

DILUTION

Of the issues raised by the petition for review, only

the question of the designation of

tributary

outfalls 003

through 006 in place of 001 remains to

be

decided.

Revere

has

framed

the

issue

in

terms

of

whether

the

Tube

Mill

Ponds

are

waters

of

the

state.

However,

it

is

not

necessary

for

the

Board to

reach

this issue

to

determine

the

correctness

of

the

designation

of

outfalls.

35

Ill.

Mm.

Code

304.102

section 304.102

Dilution

a)

Dilution

of

the

effluent

from a

treatment

works

or

from

any

wastewater

source

is

not

acceptable

as

a

method of

treatment

of

wastes

in

order

to

meet

the

standards

set

forth

in

this

Part.

Rather,

it

shall

be

the

obligation

of

any

person

discharging

contaminants

of

any

kind

to

the

waters

of

the

state

to

provide

the

best

degree

of

treatment

of

wastewater

consistent

with

technological

feasibility,

economic

reasonableness

and

sound

engineering

judgment.

In

making

determinations

as

to

what

kind

of

treatment

is

the

“best

degree

of

treatment”

within

the

meaning

of

this

paragraph,

any

person

shall

consider

the

following:

1)

What

degree

of

waste

reduction

can

be

achieved

by

process

change,

improved

housekeeping

recovery

of

individual

waste

components

for

reuse;

and

2)

Whether

individual

process

wastewater

streams

should

be

segregated

or

combined.

b)

In

any

case,

measurement

of

contaminant

concentra-

tions

to

determine

compliance

with

the

effluent

standards

shall

be

made

at

the

point

immediately

following

the

final

treatment

process

and

before

mixture

with

other

waters,

unless

another

point

is

54-83

---

—4-.

designated by the Agency in an individual permit,

after consideration of the elements contained in

this section.

If necessary the concentrations so

measured shall be recomputed to exclude the effect

of any dilution that

is improper under this Section.

Measurement of contaminant concentrations to determine

compliance

with

the effluent standards

is to be made at

the

point

“immediately following

the final treatment process,”

This is to be before mixture with

other waters,

regardless

of whether the waters are waters of the state.

Revere has

not

identified

the

Tube Mill Ponds as treatment works

in the

application;

nor

has

it

made a showing that combining the

wastewater

sources in the Tube Mill

Ponds

is the ubest

degree

of treatment”,

as opposed to segregation and separate

treatment of each prior to discharge to

the ponds.

Further-

more, the

effluent

is being diluted by upstream sources

between 003

through

006 and 001,

The Board therefore holds

that the Agency was correct in designating outfalls 003

through 006 as the points

f

or determining compliance with

effluent limitations.

WATERS

OF THE STATE

It is not necessary for the Board to determine whether

the Tube Mill Ponds are waters of the State in order to decide

the issue in

this appeal.

However,

since the parties have

fully briefed the question, the Board will address it in order

to give future guidance.

The definition of

waters

of

the State serves two important

purposes:

It sets the downstream limit for application of

the effluent standards;

and,

it determines the point of

application of the water quality standards, subject to the

mixing zone (~302.

102)

The Environmental Protection Act

(Act)

defines “waters”

as follows:

“Waters” means

all accumulations of water, surface and

underground, natural,

and artificial, public and private,

or parts thereof, which are wholly or partially within,

flow through, or

border

upon this State.

The Tube Mill

Ponds clearly fall within this

definition.

The fact that they are on

plant

property is

specifically

addressed by the inclusion of “public and private”.

The

fact that the waterway has been rerouted from the natural

flow is specifically addressed by the inclusion of “natural,

and

artificial”.

54-84

---

There are two major

exceptions

which

operate to move

the point of application of the water quality standards

downstream:

the treatment works exception stated in Section

301.440

(CIPS v.

:EEPA,

PCB

73-~384,

:L1

PCB 677,

March

28,

1974;

Commonwealth Edison v,

IEPA,

PCB

73-~248,

13

PCB

69,

July 18,

1974;

Amax

(Sunspot)

v.

IEPA, PCB 80—63,—64,

40

PCB

175,

505,

December

19,

1980,

February 19, 1981)

and

the

industrial

ditch

exception

created

by

Board

case

law

(Allied

Chemical Corp~v,

IEPA,

PCB

73-382,

11

PC3

379,

February

28,

1973; Armak Ca,

v,

IEPA,

PCB

79—153,

37

PCB

543,

March

20,

1980)

Even at

742

acres

the

watershed

involved

in

this

case

is

much

larger than

the

drainage

area

approved

in Ai:Lied

Chemical,

and much

larcrer

than

the

area

rejected

in

Armak.

The

industrial

ditch

exception

is

clearly

inapplicable.

Revere

relies

primarily

on

the

treatment

works

exception,

claiming

that

the

ponds

al:Low

an

increased

retention

time

in

which additional

metal

hydroxide

precipitation

is

accomplished.

In addition,

when

the

tube

mills

were

operating,

the

ponds

were

part

of

a

process

water

recycling

operation.

However,

Revere

did

not

spec:Lflcally

identify

the

ponds

as

treatment

works

in

any

permit

application,

Section

12(b)

of

the Act

prohibits

the

construction or operation of any facility

designed to prevet~t

water

pollution

without

a

permit.

Natural

depressions

in

the

ground

are

often

utilized

in

the

construction

of

a

treatment

lagoon;

often

there

is

some

small

watershed

which

is

tributary

to

the

lagoon.

However,

there

is

a

limit

to

the

size

of

a

waterway

which

can

be

dammed

to

form

a

treatment

lagoon.

With

742

acres

tributary

to

them,

Revere~s

5

-

~L0 acre

lagoon

sys~cem is

clearly

waters

of

the

State,

The

:Lagooris

must

be

reconfigured

in

some

way

to

be

permittahie

under

the

treatment

works exception.

CHANGE

OF

CLASSIFICATION

Revere

also

complains

that

the

Agency

has

changed

the

designation

with

no

change

in

the

facts

or

Board

regulations.

It should be noted

that

Revere

recognized

that

the

lagoons

were waters of the

State

when

it

requested

a

variance

in

PCB 76-246.

The

Agency

can correct errors

it

has

made

in

previous permits,

and

it

certainly

cannot

dictate

the law to

the Board through

its

errors

(Amax,

supra).

Revere

has

not

shown the type of reliance

found

by

the

Board

in

Dupont

v.

IEPA, PCB 79—106,

39 PCB

348~ August

21,

1980,

Dupont had

completed a costly and highly successful upgrading of its

treatment works,

in close association with the Agency, which

would have been useless

if

the

works

were reclassified.

54-85

---

This Opinion

constitutes the Board~sfindings of fact

and conclusions of

law

in

this matter.

ORDER

The Board

has

reviewed

the

conditions

of

NPDES

Permit

No. 1L0002356

and

affirms

the

permit

as

issued

by

the

Agency,

IT IS SO

ORDERED~

I,

Christan

L.

Moffett,

Clerk

of

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board,

hereby

certify

tj~iat the

above

O~inion

and

Order

were

adopted

o~i the

day

of

___________

1983

by

a

vote

of

______

~rk

:llinois

Pollution

Control

Board

54-86