ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

November

18,

1983

IN

THE MATTER

OF:

AMENDMENTS

TO TITLE

35:

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION;

)

R82~5

SUBTITLE C:

WATER POLLUTION;

)

R82~1O

CHAPTER

1:

POLLUTION CONTROL

)

Consolidated

BOARD

(Starcevich,

Effluent

)

Revisions and

NPDES)

ADOPTED_RULE.

FINAL ORDER.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by J,

D. Dumelle):

This

proceeding, while not complex from a

substantive

standpoint, has been complex

in its procedural development.

It

combines elements

of six different regulatory

proceedings:

R76—21,

R77”~12 (Docket A),

R80-~’6, R81-~3, R82~’5and

R82—10,

and

has been

commonly

referred to as the “omnibus rulemaking.”

A

fairly detailed procedural history

is

necessary

to tie

together

the

various components of this rulemaking.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April

7,

1980 the Illinois Environmental

Protection

Agency (Agency)

proposed the amendment of Section 309,202

of

35

Ill.

Adm. Code Subtitle C:

Water Pollution,

and

the additon

of

definitions

of “Publicly Owned Treatment Works”

and

“Publicly

Regulated Treatment

Works”

as Sections 301.365 and 301.370,

respectively,*

In addition,

the Board proposed

other

technical

amendments to clarify the differences between variances

and

permit appeals.

The heart of the

proceeding, however, was

the

amendment to

Section

309,202(b)(2)

dealing with

construction

permit exemptions

for certain treatment works,

sewers,

or waste—

water sources.

On

May

1,

1980 the Board

adopted

a Proposed

Opinion and

Order reflecting those amendments

(38

PCB 231)

and

docketing

the proposal

as R80-6,

The Board

received written comments on

the proposal which

principally

addressed the Board~initiatedamendments,

The

*

To further

complicate matters,

old Chapter

3:

Water

Pollution,

has

been

codified during the course of

these

proceedings.

All references,

however, will be to codified

rules

as they currently exi~t

in 35

Ill,

Adm.

Code Parts 301-312:

Water Pollution,

Als&.,note that Part

306

was amended recently

in

R81—17 and amendments to that Part reflect changes from the

R81—17 amendments,

54~411

---

2

Board

modified

its

proposal

based

upon

those

comments

and

adopted

a

Proposed Rule/First Notice Order on October 30, 1980

(30

PCB

666).

On April 29, 1982 the Department of Energy and

Natural Resources

(DENR) filed an economic impact study with

the Board.

However, no hearings were held.

Instead, the Board

dismissed the regulatory proceeding on April 29,

1982

(46

PCB

251).

The reasons for dismissal were that the definitions

proposed by the Agency were adopted under R77-12, Docket A

(33 PCB 625,

May

24,

1979), the Board-initiated amendments were

determined to be unwise, and the amendments to Sections 306.105

and 309.202 were incorporated into R82—5.

Thus arose one aspect

of this proceeding.

On

December

3, 1981

the Board adopted amendments to its

effluent standards (R76-~41, 44 PCB 203) and also adopted its

Proposed Opinion of September 24, 1981

(43

PCB

367) as its Final

Opinion.

On January 6, 1982 the Agency filed a motion for

reconsideration of Sections 304.142 and 307.103 which concern the

interrelationship of effluent standards with

New

Source

Performance

Standards

and

sewer

discharge

criteria

for

mercury,

respectively.

The

Board

denied that motion on February 17, 1982

in

that

the

rules

had

already

been

filed

with

the

Secretary

of

State’s Office and were law (45

PCB

437).

However, the Board

found

the

Agency’s

reasons

for

reconsideration

otherwise

meritorious

and

indicated

that

it

would

propose

the

amendment

or

deletion

of

those

rules.

It

did

so

by

Board

Order

of

April

1,

1982

(46

PCB

81)

which

opened

docket

R82-5

proposing

the

deletion

of Section 304.142 and the

amendment

of Section 307.103.

A

negative declaration concerning that proposal was filed by the

DENR on February 18,

1983.

Next, on

May

13, 1982, the Board adopted a Proposed Rule/

First Notice Order

(47 PCB 119) opening docket R82—10 which

proposed the amendment of Section 309.102 to avoid the potential

of duplicative

permit

requirements for underground injection

under

both

the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System

(NPDES) and the Undergound Injection Control (UIC) programs.

A

negative declaration concerning this matter

was

filed by the DENR

on February 18, 1983.

Given the apparent reasonableness and simplicity of the

proposal, the Board determined that administrative convenience

would best be served by consolidating R82-10 with R82—5 for

purposes of hearing.

Hearings were held to consider R82—5

and

R82-’lO on July 20, 1982,

in Chicago and August 3,

1982 in

Rockford.

Toby Frevert, an Agency engineer, presented the only

testimony on July 20,

1982, and no one testified at the August 3,

1982 hearing.

Finally, the Board discovered an error in Section 302.407.

Originally, that section simply referred to the limitations set

forth in table format in Section 304.124.

During the course of

54-412

---

3

published the table

in the Illinois Register under Section

302.407 but did not file it with the Secretary of

State.

That

error was corrected during the codification of Chapter

3 in

R81-3.

Unfortunately, when that was done the limitation for

silver was inadvertently changed from 0.1 mg/i to 1.0 mg/i,

and

the rules

filed with the Secretary of State reflect that error,

The Board, therefore, proposed to correct that error in this

proceeding

(as part

of R82-5).

While

the addition of that

amendment

to

this proceeding came after the completion of

hearings, there appeared to be no necessity for hearings.

The

Board fully considered the silver limitation in earlier

proceedings at which evidence was presented supporting the

0.1 mg/l standard and the Board had no intent to alter that

standard during

the

codification process.

Further,

the standard

was inadvertently changed in an adoption of rules

in which it was

specifically

required

that no substantive changes be made and for

which there is

no

evidence in the record to support such a

change.

By following that procedure, notice was given to the

public

of the

intent

to correct the mistake and comments upon the

correction were

aL.owed

during the First Notice period.

First notice was published in the Illinois Register on

June

3,

1983

(Vol.7,

No.

23).

The First Notice period closed on

July 25,

1983.

Two comments were filed during the first notice

period.

Illinois Power Company

(IPC) disagreed with the Board

that the proposed amendment to Section 309.262 was non—substantive

and requested

that

it

not he adopted

(?.C.

3, May

25, 1983),

and the Agency recommended changes to Sections 305.102(a)(1),

309.202(b) and (c~,309,204(c)

and (d)(l)

P.C.

4, June 14,

1983.

Some changes

were

made in the proposal based upon the first

notice comments

and

the Board adopted a Proposed Rule/Second

Notice Order on August 18,

1983.

The second notice period

commenced September

7,

1983, and ended on October

26, 1983,

when

a certification of no objection to the proposed rulemaking was

issued by the

Joint

Committee on Administrative rules.

That

certification was, however, contingent upon certain non—substan-

tive modifications in the rulemaking which are reflected in the

adopted rules.

A section by section analysis follows:

Sections 305,102(a)(1),

309.202(c)

and

309.204(d)(1)

The language originally proposed

to be deleted

in Sections

305.102(a)(1),

309.202(c)

and 309.204(d)(l) will be retained.

The language of these subsections, as

it appears

in the first

54-413

---

4

notice order,

was

proposed by the Agency in its comments of

July 11,

1980.

At that time the Agency felt that the United

States Environmental Protection Agency’s

(USEPA’s) pretreatment

regulatory structure would be more inclusive than it

is

turning

out to be.

The

regulations

in effect at that time identified 21

primary industries

for which categorical pretreatment standards

would he promulgated

(43 Fed. Reg.

2771,

June 26,

1978).

Infor-

mation from

USEPA~s

Effluent Guidelines Division shows that

8 of

the 21 basic

categories

(later expanded by subdivision to 35)

have now been

exempted.

In light

of the

narrowing of the categories to which

standards would

apply,

the Board believes that

it

is preferable

to continue

the

approach envisioned by the existing rule in

addition to

the

modification of the rule.

This will allow the

Agency to

require permits

from pretreatment sources whenever the

discharge

may

interfere with the treatment works process,

Continuing

this

language will not impose

any

hardship on

dischargers

since

it

has been part of the Stat&s

approach

to

pretreatment program since these Sections became effective on

October 24,

1977.

Section 306.405

Section 306.405 requires the Agency to notify any affected

entity of

its determination that restricted status or critical

review be imposed or of its refusal to terminate such status,

As

proposed in the Board’s April

29,

1983 Order,

specific, detailed

written statements supporting the imposition of restricted status

or critical

review were

required,

The rule adopted herein,

however,

had

been

modified slightly to require

such statements

when the Agency refuses to terminate restricted status or

critical review

as

well.

The Board can see no reason to treat

such refusal differently than the imposition.

Sections 309.202(b)

and 309.204(c)

The amendments of Sections 309.202 and 309.204(c) will serve

to avoid further effects of the Appellate Court decision in

Starcevich v.

EPA,

78

Ill.

App.

3d 700,

397 N.E.

2d 870

(1979),

which construed the present rule to allow multiple connections to

the same private sewer connection so

long as each connection was

to a single building and discharged

less than 1500 gallons per

day.

Such was not the Board’s intent

in adopting Sections 309.202

and 309.204.

Under the reasoning of that case

it appears

possible that entire subdivisions could he designed such that

each private sewer connection serving

a single building and

discharging under 1500 gallons per day could be connected to the

adjacent private sewer connection and thereby be exempted from

the permit requirement.

As the Starcevich dissent points out,

F4-41 4

---

5

“the net result of the majority~sopinion is

bo effectively read

out

of the exemption the single building requirement.”

Further,

the

dissent

accurately

stated

that

the

Board

intended

the

single

building

requirenent

~as a limitation upon the

number

of

permit

applications

which

the

Agency

is

required

to

process”

where

such

discharges

are

highly

unlikely

to

cause

any

significant

environmental

impact.

The

maiority~s

opinion,

however,

defeats

that

purpose.

To

remedy

that.

problem

the

Agency

proposed

a

modification

of

Section

309. 202(b’i (2~)

by

adding

the

exemption

requirement

that

the

discharc~

—e

ti’,

o

a

po~1 s~

~,

oinsd

r~i~

puh

i

regulated

sanitary

or

combined

sewer

Thus,

an

.interconnectinq

series

of private sewer connections

would

not

be exempted.

Further,

while

neither

proposed

nor

discussed

at

hearing,

the

Board

has

a,

so

amended

Section

3.09

2(14

(c

)

to

reflect:

the

amendment of Section

3

9

.

2 02 ~b

2

1

.

The

I

aOter

section

concerns

construction

oerT~mtc

,

~ih

i ie

the

In

teen

concerns

onerating

permit

~

‘m

nei

e

ing

pere~

when

no

co~

0

,

r

~

he

failure

to

:.prop~~e

amendments

~,

‘~

9

~

:~

inadvertent.

The

Poach

notes

that:

tç~q~~~’(

~~

tfor

these

exemptions

the

discharger

must.

meet:

all

of

the

requirements

of

Section

309.202(b) (21 and

309,204(c),

i.e.

it

must

serve

a

single

building,

must

be

designed

to

discharge

less

than

1500

gallons

per

day

and

must

discharge

to

a

publicly

owned

or

regulated

sewers

Section

304.

142

The

Board

adopted

Section

304.

142

in

an

attempt

to

reconcile

federal

New

Source

Performance

Standards

(p.~P(~

)

with

the

Board’

s

effluent

standardo

.

In

writino

an

NPDES

nermit

the

Agency

must

incorporate

the

more

s.tr~,nqent.

of

~

state

~r

f~~3jera1

sl:andards

However,

whi

:Le

as

a

class

the

NS PS

are

expected

to

be

more

stringent

than

State

effluent

standards,

comparison

is difficult

in that

dederal

nqdarcls

are

bao~d

on

m~a~

r

ii

at

~..onn

wi’ ate

btate

stan~aies

~o

aced

on

concentrate~

~\a

~ne

ioaiO

eointed

out

in

~ts

R16-

hp

~nion

“~eauo’~ Ill

Lnr)in~ ~d ann

~

q~re

no

credit

for

process

changes

which

result

in

a

lam

mass

discharge

the

Illinois

standards.

could

still

be

viewed

as

the

more

stringent

and

be

incorporated

into

the

permit

instead

of

the

New

Source

Performance

Standards~

(43

PCB

379),

If

that

were

so,

a

new

discharger

would

have

to

meet

both

the

NSPS

(since

it

is

federally

required~

and

the

State

standard~ (as

the

more

stringent),

thus,

in

effect,

requiring

double

control.

---

6

Present

Section

304,142

exempts

disehargers

from

State

effluent

standards

if

the

discharge

is

authorized

by

an

NPDES

permit

which

includes

federal

effluent

limitations

based on

the

best

available

demonstrated

control

technology

for

the

constituent

in

question

and

is

subject

to

NSPS.

This remedies

the

difficulties

perceived

by

the

Board,

However,

the Agency

believes

that

it

gives

rise

to a new set

of

difficulties.

The Agency

argued

that the rule allows new industrial

facilities

locat:Lng

in

Illinois

and

subject

to

NSPS

to

avoid

State

effluent

standards

which

may

be

more

stringent

than

the

NSPS.

That

is

true.

The problem is that existing dischargers

would

riot

cuallfy

for

such an exemption.

The

Agency

further

argued that

such

an

approach runs counter to the basic tenet

of environmenta:L control that new

sources ~should

be required

to meet

the most restrictive environmental standards

because

control

facilitienc

an

be

planned

with

the planning

of

the

facility

and

thus

icatal

led

at.

a

lower

cost”

(Agency

Supplemental

Comments

F~u

I,

~‘

rrh~

‘~ner1c

s~ot~wi

that

there

are

presently

at

:Least

two

instances

where

far

stricter

State

standards

have

been

imosed

upon

discharges

who

qualify

for

the

Secion

304.142

exeeption.

The Board

agrees

that

it

had replaced one

problem with

another,

It~therefore,

will

delete Section 304.142.

‘In so

doing the

above-noted

inequity will be avoided as will any

question of improper delegation

to

the

United

States Environmen-

tal

Protection

Agency

in

deferring

to

the

NSPS,

Of

course,

this

action

reintroduces

the

problem

that

tfle

rule

remedied, i.e.

double

conLrol

However,

there

is

an

existing

mechanism

(e.g.

site-specific:

rulemaking)

which

the

d~scharger

can

make use

of

if it

feels

that

overcontrol

is being required.

Section

307. 103

Present

Section

307.103(a) sets a

mercury

limitation of

0.0005

mg/l

(sublect

to

the averaging rule)

on discharges

to

a publicly

owned

or

regulated sewer

system

unless a

demon-

stration

is

made

that

all

reasonable

steps

are

being

taken

to

minimize mercury discharges, in which case a 0.003 mg/l

standard

is applicable.

Under that

rule

it

is

possible that

an

indirect discharger

(a

discharger

to a

sewer)

could

have a more

stringent

limitation

on

its

mercury

discharge

than

the sewage treatment

plant

(STP)

to which

it

discharges

(which

must

meet

the

limitations

of

Section

304.126 which parallels

Section 307.103).

This situation

would arise if the STP

made

its required demonstration for the

relaxed standard while the

indirect

discharger did not,

---

7

The

Agency

argued

that

‘any

limits

on

the

sewer

discharge

beyond

the

effluent

requirement

applicable

to

the

STP

would

be

unnecessary

given

the

reductions

already

to

be

achieved

by

the

SW’

under

the

Section

304.126

program

(Supp.

Comments,

R76—21),

that

no

environmental

benefit

would

result,

and

that

an

informal

permitting

system

for

indirect

discharges

would

have

to

be

put

in

place

for

the

impacted

sewer

users,

which

it

estimated

to

be

in

the

hundreds

(11.10

and

Ex.

2,

R82—5).

In adopting Section 307.103 the Board included this separate

demonstration for indirect dischargers on the basis that mercury

discharges should be limited as much as is reasonable, and

certainly the requirement of such a demonstration adds another

layer of assurance that

they

will be.

However, the

Board

did not

appreciate the extent of the administrative burden it

was

imposing

upon

the

Agency.

Further,

the

necessity

for

the

indirect discharger to make the requisite demonstration for the

relaxed standards is duplicative in that the indirect discharger

would be required

to

make such a showing to the SW

it

discharges

to

in

order

for

the

STP

to

obtain

the

relaxed

standards

under

Section

304.125.

While

the Board’s rule would specifically allow

enforcement

against

the

indirect

discharger,

the

Agency

accurately

pointed

out

that

such

enforcement

could

be

accomplished

through

Section 304.126 and Section 12(a) of the

Act

in

any

case

(11.

23—25).

Given

the

adminsitrative

burden

and

the

fact

that

alternative enforcement mechanisms exist, the Board adopts the

Agency’s recommended amendment to Section 307. 103 which

establishes a

mercury

limitation on an indirect discharge equal

to the direct discharger’s limitation if the direct discharger’s

limitation is less strict.

Also, at the Agency’s request, the Board

adopts

a slight

amendment to Section 307.103(e)

to replace the phrase ‘sewer

treatment plant’ with ‘wastewater treatment plant’ which is, of

Section 309.103

On May 13,

1982 the Board proposed the modification of the

NPDES rules to properly interface

with

the UIC rules.

The

Board’s present NPDES rules require NPDES permits for well

injection.

Federal rules do not since ‘waters of the United

States’ do not include groundwater (40 CFR 122.3).

The

federal

rules, however, do require a UIC permit for well injection,

and

the Board

has

adopted UIC rules in substance identical to the

federal rules pursuant to Section 11 of the

Act.

Thus, it

may

be

necessary for a person utilizing well injection to obtain

both

an

NPDES and a UIC permit.

To avoid useless paperwork the Board will

add Section 309.102(b) which deems compliance with the UIC

permit

requirement

to be compliance with the

NPDES

permit

requirement.

Nd—ti,

---

8

By so doing, Section 309.153,

which

requires NPDBS permits

to contain such conditions as are necessary to avoid pollution

from well injection, becomes unnecessary

and

the

Board

will

delete

it.

Further,

the

NPDES

permit

requirement should be

retained

until

the

State

has

received primacy for the UIC

permit

program,

and,

therefore,

Section

309.101,

which

establishes

the

effective

date

of

this

regulation

is

proposed

to

be

amended

to

accommodate

that

Section

302.407

and

others

As

noted

above,

the

Board

has

determined

that

this

rulemaking

is

an

appropriate

vehicle

for

the

correction

of

the

error

in

the

Section

302.407

silver

secondary contact and indigenous

aquatic life standard from 1.0 mg/l

to

0.1

mg/l.

Other sections are

amended

in this rulemaking simply for

purposed of clarity and consistency.

substantive.

In its first notice public comment

IPC

states that the

deletion of Section 309.262(b)(1),

(2) and

(3)

represents a

relaxation of an

important

Agency procedure”

(P.C.

3, p.1).

The Board does not agree.

The deleted subsections established a

procedural mechanism for the adoption or amendment of

Agency

design, operation

and

maintenance criteria.

A

mechanism

which is

substantially equivalent to that mechanism has

now

been

mandated

by

the

Administrative Procedure Act.

The Board rule has, there-

The Clerk is directed to file these adopted rules with

the Secretary of State.

ORDER

The

Board

hereby

adopts

the

following.

amendments

to

35 Ill.

Mm.

Code

Parts 302,

304,

305,

306,

307 and 309:

Water

Pollution.

Section 302.407

themical Constituents

Concentrations

of

other

chemical

constituents

shall

pot

exceed

the following standards:

---

9

Ammonia

Nitrogen

(as N)

(April—October)

(November—March)

Arsenic

(total)

Barium

(total)

Cadmium

(total)

Chromium

(total

hexavalent)

Chromium

(total

trivalent)

Copper

(total)

Cyanide

(total)

Fluoride

(total)

Iron

(total)

Iron

(dissolveh)

Lead (total)

Manganese

(total)

Mercury

(total)

Nickel

(total)

Oil,

fats and

grease

Phenols

Selenium (total)

Silver

Zinc

(total)

Total

Disso:Lved

Solids

00610

00610

01002

01007

01027

01032

01033

01042

00720

00951

0:104

5

0:1046

01051

01055

719 ()

0

01067

00550,

00556

or 00560

15,0*

*

Oil

shall be

analytically separated

components

if the total concentration

shall either

of

the components exceed

polar materials

and 15

mg/i non—polar

(Source:

Amended

at

7

Ill.

Reg.

into

polar

and

non—polar

exceeds

15

mg/i.

In no

case

15

mg/I

(i.e.,

15 mg/I

materials),

effective

Section 304.142

New Source

Performance

Standards

(Repealed)

(Source:

Amended at

7 Iii.

Reg.

Section

305.102

Reporting Requirements

,

effective

a)

Every person within

this

State

operating

a

pretreatment

works,

treatment works, or wastewater source shall

STORET

CONCEN-

CONSTITUENT

NUMBER

TRATION

(mg/i)

4.0

1.0

5,0

n

~

0

—~

0.3

1.

0

1.0

0.10

15.0

2. 0

0.5

0.

1

~L,

0

0.0005

1.0

32730

01147

01077

01092

70300

0,3

1.

0

0.1

O

0

1500

54-419

---

10

submit operating reports to the Agency at a frequency

to be determined by the Agency.

Such reports shall

contain information regarding the quantity of influent

and of effluent discharged,

of wastes bypassed and

of combined sewer overflows; the concentrations of

those physical, chemical, bacteriological and radiologi-

cal parameters which shall he specified by the Agency;

and any additional information the Agency may reasonably

require.

This reporting requirement for pretreatment

works

shall only apply to those pretreatment works

which:

1)

Discharge toxic pollutants,

as defined

in Section

502(13)

of the

CWA,

or pollutants which may

interfere with the treatment process,

into the

receiving treatment works or are subject to

regulations promulgated under Section 307 of the

Clean Water Act

(CWA):33

U.S.C.

1251 et seq.);

or

2)

Discharge 15

or more of the total hydraulic flow

received by the treatment works; or

3)

Discharge 15

or more of the total biological

loading received by the treatment works as mea-

sured by 5—day biochemical oxygen demand.

b)

Every holder of an NPDES permit

is required to comply

with the monitoring,

sampling, recording and reporting

requirements set forth

in the permit and this chapter.

(Source:

~mended at

7

Ill.

Reg.

,

effective

.)

Section 306.405

Notification of Restricted Status or

Critical Review.

The Agency shall notify the sanitary district or other wastewater

treatment or transportation authority of its determination

of restricted status or critical review,

or refusal

to terminate

the same, and shall give a specific, detailed written statement

as

to the reasons for such action in conformity with the Agency’s

“Guidelines for Notification of Restricted Status,”

35 Ill. Mm.

Code 390.

(Source:

Former Section 306.405 renumbered to Section 306.406,

new Section 306. 405 added at 7 Ill.

Reg.

,

effective

54-420

---

11

Section 306.406 Appeal

Any sanitary district or other wastewater treatment or transpor-

tation authority responsible for authorizing new sewer connec-

tions, may petition, pursuant to Title X of the Act and

35 Ill.

Adm. Code 105,

for a hearing before the Board to contest

the decision of the Agency to place

it on restricted status.

(Source:

Former Section 306.406 renumbered to Section 306.407,

new Section 306.406 renumbered from Section 306.405 and amended

at

7 Ill.

Reg.

,

effective

Section 306.40~ Effective Date

This Subpart shall become effective on January

1,

1976,

except

for Section 306.405 which shall become effective upon filing.

(Source:

Section 306.407 renumbered from Section 306.406 at

7 Ill.

Reg.

,

effective

Section 307.103

Mercury

a)

Except as provided below, no person shall cause or

allow the concentration of mercury in any discharge

to a publicly owned or publicly regulated sewer system

to exceed the following level,

subject to the averaging

rule contained in 35 Iii. Mm.

Code 304.104(a):

STORET

CONCENTRA-

CONSTITUENT

NUMBER

TION (mg/i)

—

Mercury

71900

0.0005

b)

It shall be an exception to paragraph

(a)

if the

discharge is to a publicly owned or publicly regulated

sewer system which

is required to meet a limitation less

stringent than the 0.0005 mg/i mercury concentration in

which case the discharge limitation shall be the same

as that applicable to the publicly owned or regulated

sewer system to which it discharges.

c)

It shall be an exception to paragraph

(a)

if all

the

following conditions are met:

1)

The discharger does not use mercury; or,

the

discharger uses mercury and this use cannot be

eliminated;

or, the discharger uses mercury only

in chemical analysis or

in laboratory or other

equipment and takes reasonable care to avoid

contamination of wastewater;

and,

54-421

---

12

2)

The discharge mercury concentration is less than

0.003 mg/i,

as determined by application of the

averaging rules of

35 Ill.

Adm. Code 304.104(a);

and,

3)

The discharger

is providing the best degree of

treatment consistent with technological feasibil-

ity, economic reasonableness and sound engineering

judgment.

This may include no treatment for

mercury;

and,

4)

The discharger has an inspection and maintenance

program likely to reduce

or to prevent an increase

in the level of mercury discharges.

d)

The discharge of wastes from medicinal or therapeutic

use of mercury, exclusive of

laboratory use,

shall be

exempt from the limitations of paragraph

(a) of this

section

if all the following conditions are met:

1)

The total plant discharge

is less than 227g

(one half pound)

as

Hg

in any year;

2)

The discharge

is to a public sewer system;

and

3)

The discharge does not,

alone or in conjunction

with other sources, cause the effluent from the

sewer system or treatment plant to exceed 0.0005

mg/i of mercury.

e)

No person shall

cause or allow any discharge of mercury

to a publicly owned or publicly regulated sewer system

which,

alone or in combination with other sources,

causes a violation by the wastewater treatment

plant discharge of the water quality standard of

Part 302 for mercury applicable in the receiving

stream.

f)

For purposes of permit issuance the Agency may consider

application of the exception

of

paragraph

(b) or

(c) to

determine compliance with this Section.

The Agency

may impose permit conditions necessary or required to

assure continued application of the exception.

When

paragraph

(b) or

(c) applies, the Agency may impose an

effluent limitation in the permit which al’ows the

discharge of a concentration of mercury greater than

0.0005 mg/l but not more than 0.003 mg/i.

(Source:

Amended at

7

Ill. Reg.

,

effective

54-422

---

13

Section 309.102

NPDES Permit Requirement

a)

Except as

in compliance with the provisions of the

Act,

Board regulations,

and the

CWA,

and the provisions

and conditions of the NPDES permit issued to the

discharger, the discharge of any contaminant or

pollutant by any person into the waters of the State

from a point source or into a well shall he unlawful.

b)

Neither an NPDES permit nor a state permit

is required

for any discharge into a well which is authorized by

a UIC (Underground Injection Control) permit issued by

the Agency pursuant to 35 Ill. Mm. Code 702 and 704 of

Subtitle G.

For such wells,

compliance with the UIC

permit requirements of Section 12(g)

is deemed oomph—

ance with the NPDES permit requirement of Section 12(f)

of the Act.

(Source:

Amended at

7

Ill.

Reg.

,

effective

Section 309.153

Deep Well Disposal of Pollutants

(Repealed)

Section 309.191

Effective Dates

a)

Except as otherwise provided, Subpart A became effective

on October 24,

1977.

b)

The

UIC

permit

exception of Section 309,102(b)

will

become effective upon filing with the Secretary of

State of

a letter from USEPA approving the UIC program

for the State of Illinois.

(Source:

Amended at 7

Ill.

Reg.

,

effective

Section 309.202

Construction Permits

Except for treatment works

or wastewater sources which have or

will have discharges

for which NPDES Permits are required, and

for which NPDES Permits have been issued by the Agency:

a)

No person shall cause or allow the construction of any

new treatment works,

sewer or wastewater source or

cause or allow the modification of any existing treat-

ment works,

sewer or wastewater source without a con-

struction permit issued by the Agency, except as

provided

in paragraph

(b).

~c4-42~

---

14

b)

Construction permits shall not be required for the

following:

1)

Storm sewers that transport only land runoff; or

2)

Any treatment works,

sewer or wastewater source

designed and intended to serve a single building

and eventually treat or discharge less than an

average

of 1500 gallons per day (5700

1/day)

of domestic sewage and which will discharge,

if

at all, directly to a publicly owned or publicly

regulated sanitary or combined sewer; or

3)

Any sewer required by statute to secure

a permit

pursuant to Section

3 of “An Act to provide

for,

license and regulate mobile homes and mobile home

parks”,

P.A.

77—1472,

(111.

Rev.

Stat,

1981,

ch.

111½, par. 713);

or

4)

Any treatment works, pretreatment works,

sewer or

wastewater source that, on the effective

date

of

this Subpart

B,

is being constructed or will be

constructed under the authorization of a permit

already issued by the Agency or its predecessors;

provided however, that all construction must he

completed within four years from the effective date

of this Subpart B;

or

5)

Privately owned sewers tributary to industrial

treatment works

owned by the same person if the

additional waste load does not exceed the

permitted

design capacity of the industrial treatment works.

c)

No person without a construction permit issued by the

Agency shall cause or allow the construction of any

pretreatment works or cause or allow the modification

of any existing pretreatment works

if such pretreatment

works,

after construction or modification, will:

1)

Discharge toxic pollutants,

as defined

in

Section

02(13)

of the cWA, or pollutants which may Inter-

fere with the treatment process into the receiving

treatment works~or be subject to regulations

promulgated under Section 307 of the Clean Water

Act (CWA);

or

2)

Discharge 15

or more of the total hydraulic flow

received by the treatment works; or

54-424

---

15

3)

Discharge 15

or more of the total biological

loading received by the treatment works as

measured by the 5—day biochemical oxygen demand;

(Source:

Amended at

7

Ill.

Reg.

,

effective

0)

Section 309.203

Operating Permits; New or Modified Treatment

Works, Sewers and Wastewater Sources

No person shall cause or allow the use or operation of any treat—

ment works,

sewer,

or wastewater source for which a construction

permit is required under Section 309.202 without an

operating

permit issued by the Agency, except as may he authorized by the

construction permit.

No operating permit is required under

this Section for any discharge for which an NPDES

permit

is required.

(Source:

Amended at 7

Ill.

Reg.

,

effective

Section 309.204

Operating Permits; Existing Treatment

Works,

Pretreatment Works and Wastewater Sources

a)

No person shall cause or allow the use or operation of

any treatment works, pretreatment works or wastewater

source without an operating permit issued by the Agency,

except as provided in paragraphs

(h),

(c), and

(d).

b)

No operating permit is required under this Section

for any discharge for which an NPDES

permit

is required.

c)

Operating permits are not required for treatment

works

and wastewater sources that are designed and intended

to serve a single building and eventually treat or

discharge less than an average

of 1500 gallons

per day

(5700

1/day)

of domestic sewage and which will

discharge,

if at all, directly to a publicly owned

or

publicly regulated sanitary or combined sewer.

d)

Operating permits are not required for those pretreat-

ment works or wastewater sources discharging

to a sewer tributary to a treatment works

which will

not:

1)

Discharge toxic pollutants,

as defined in Section

502(13) of the

~

or pollutants which may inter-

fere with the treatment

process

into

the

receiving

treatment works or be

subject to regulations

promulgated under Section 307 of the Clean

Water Act

(CWA); or

54-425

---

16

2)

Discharge 15

or more of the total hydraulic flow

received by the treatment works; or

3)

Discharge 15

or more of the total biological

loading received by the treatment works as

measured by the 5-day biochemical oxygen demand.

(Source:

Amended at

7 Ill.

Reg.

,

effective

Section 309.207

Former Permits

(Repealed)

(Source:

Amended at

7 Ill.

Req.

,

effective

Section 309.241

Standards for Issuance

a)

The Agency shall not grant any permit required by

this

Subpart B, except an experimental permit under Section

309.206, unless the applicant submits adequate proof

that the treatment works, pretreatment works,

sewer,

or wastewater source will be constructed, modified,

or operated so

as not to cause

a violation of the Act

or of this Chapter and.

b)

If the Agency has promulgated, pursuant to

Section 309.262, criteria with regard to any part

or condition of

a permit,

then for purposes of

permit issuance proof of conformity with the criteria

shall he prima facie evidence of no violation,

However, non—conformity with the criteria shall

not

be grounds for permit denial

if the condition of

sub—section

(a)

of

this section

is met.

(Source:

Arnemded at 7

Ill.

Req.

,

effective

Section 309.262

Design, Operation and Maintenance Criteria

a)

The Agency may adopt criteria for

the

design, operation,

and maintenance of treatment works,

pretreatment works,

sewers, and wastewater sources.

These criteria shall

be revised from time to time to reflect current engi-

neering judgement and advances in the state of the art.

The Board notes that the Agency has adoptea or is in

the process of adopting “Design Criteria for Pressure

Sewage Systems”

35

Ill.

Adm. Code 374,

“Recommended

Standards for Sewage Works”

35

Iii. Adm,

Code 370,

and “Requirements for Design and Operation Manuals”

35 Ill. Mm.

Code 371.”

54-426

---

17

b)

The Agency shall adopt such procedures as are necessary

for permit issuance under this Subpart B of Part 309.

(Source:

Amended at

7 Ill.

Reg.

,

effective

Section 309.264

Permit Revocation

a)

A permit issued under this Subpart B may be revoked

for cause which includes, but is not limited to, the

following:

1)

Cause as set forth in Rule Section 309,182(b); or

2)

Delinquency

in payment of any charges which may

be required to be paid under Section 204(b)

of the

Clean Water

Act.

b)

Revocation may be sought by filing a complaint with

the Board pursuant to Part 103 of the Procedural

Rules.

(Source:

Amended at 7

Ill.

Reg.

,

effective

.)

IT

IS SO ORDERED.

Board Members Bill Forcade and John Marlin abstained.

I, Christan L.

Moffett,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control

Board hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order

was adopted on the

~-

day of

~

,

1983,

byavoteof

_________.

~

~

~

Illinois Pollution Control

Board

54-427