ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

April

1,

1982

I1’J THE MATTER OF:

)

AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 35:

ENVIRON-

)

R82—5

MENTAL PROTECTION;

SUBTITLE C:

WATER POLLUTION; CHAPTER

I:

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD;

PARTS 304

)

and 307

)

Proposal

for

Rulemaking

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by J.D. Dumelle):

On December 3,

1981 the Board adopted amendments

to Chapter

3:

Water Pollution,

in docket R76—21 which included Rules

412 and 702,

New Source Performance Standards and Mercury

Discharges to Sewers,

respectively.

By Order of February 17,

1982 the Board denied a motion for reconsideration of those

named rules which was filed by the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency (Agency) on January

6,

1982.

Despite that

denial,

the February

17 Order indicated that the Board would

review those

rules and would propose their deletion or amend-

ment

as

it deemed appropriate.

The Board has now completed

that review and finds that Rules

412 and 702 give rise to

suffic~ientconcerns such that further action concerning them is

appropriate.

For that reason the Board is hereby proposing

the deletion

of Rule 412 and the amendment of Rule 702

i~ri substantial conformity with the Agency’s comments

in R76-21.

The reasons for this proposal are discussed below.

In adopting Rule 412 the Board attempted to set up

a

workable mechanism for dealing with the interrelationship of

federal New Source Performance Standards

(NSPS) and Illinois

effluent standards.

The Board perceived a potential problem

arising from the disparity between the federal system of mass

discharge based limitations and the state system of concentra-

tion based limitations

(see Board Opinion of September 24,

1981 in R76—21,

pp.

13-14).

At the time of adoption of that

rule the Board was not fully aware of its shortcomings as

detailed in the Agency’s November 10,

1981 supplemental comments.

These

include the practical difficulty of

implementing state

standards during appeals of the NSPS and inequities between

new and existing sources.

Given the potential significance

of these problems, which were barely touched on prior to the

second notice period in R76—21, the Board finds that

a more

complete record should be developed on these issues

at a minimum.

Based upon the comments and the further review of the rule,

the Board is no longer convinced that Rule 412 is appropriate.

The Board, therefore, proposes its deletion.

46—81

---

—2—

Rule 702 was adopted based upon the Board’s conclusion

that mercury discharges should be limited as much as is reasonably

possible due to the extreme environmental hazard mercury poses.

Part of the overall strategy was to hold an indirect discharger

to the 0.0005 mg/? standard

if it failed to eliminate unnecessary

uses of mercury, regardless of whether the publicly owned or

regulated sewer system to which it discharged qualified for the

looser 0.003 mg/l standard.

This certainly would serve to

minimize discharges.

Again,

however, based upon the Agency’s

supplemental comments and further review of the rule,

the Board

now questions whether this is reasonable due to the uncertainty

an indirect discharger may face, and the risk he may be exposed

to,

in deciding whether he qualifies for the looser standard

as well as the possible administrative burden upon the Agency.

The Agency contends,

in effect,

that this procedure would

necessarily give rise to an informal permitting system by them.

Therefore, the Board proposes

to amend Rule 702 such

that an indirect discharge would never be subject to a tighter

standard than the sewer system or treatment works to which

it

discharges.

However, the Board proposes to otherwise retain

the exception for an indirect discharger such that he could

qualify for the looser standard despite the fact that the

associated direct discharger is held to the tighter standard.

The Board, despite acting as the proponent in this matter,

notes that both the adopted rules and those proposed herein

have shortcomings and that there may well

be other, and better,

mechanisms for addressing both the Agency’s and the Board’s

concerns about NSPS and mercury.

Therefore,

hearings to he set

in this matter will not necessarily be limited to the proposal

herein.

Alternative proposals are welcome.

Since Chapter

3 will almost certainly be in codified form

prior to final

action in this matter, the Board’s proposal

will be presented in that form.

Under that format,

old Rule

412 is Section 304.142 and old Rule 702 is Section 307.103.

The Board hereby proposes the following amendments

to

TITLE 35:

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION;

SUBTITLE C:

WATER POLLUTION;

CHAPTER I:

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD; PARTS

304 AND 307

(deleted

language is lined through; added language is underlined):

Bee~e~3~4442 New So~eeS~aii~af~s

Pe~?efmafteedeleted

~1~e

~

ef~ei~s~a~~a~s

of ~h~s Pa~ 4e ~

ap~yt~de~

?~tefo~ow~ge~fe~m&eaftees~

a3

~he

~eha~’ge~

a hef~e~by a~NPBES ~

a~d

b~

~he

fae~~y

f~’eii~w1~±e1~

the 44seha~gefeS~~5

~S

b~ee~~e

ftew ~ot~ee peffe~Maftees~a~afds~fem

~

by WSEPA

ra~

~e the e~eaftWa~e~Ae~ ~

e+

~‘heNPBBB pe~~eei~ba4~a

~e~ea~

eff~ei~ ~ae~

~

~S?PA

e f~tiei~ 4~e~ftesa~ s~aft~a~s

re~feseft±~gbes~

46—82

---

ava~e

4effieft9~&~e4

ee~i~e~

~eehi~e~e~y?ef

the ~

~1~t

e9Oft~

Se~eeNe~e~ ~ ~I4~ Req~-

e~?ee~ve

ee~~e4~ ~

Re~

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 Section

304.104(a):

CO~STI

TUENT

STORET

CONCENTRATION

NUMBER

(mg/i)

Mercury

71900

0.0005

h)

It shall bean exception to paragraph

(a)

if the discharge

isto

a publicly owned or publicly regulated sewer system

which

is

required to meet

a

limitation

less strin~~~n

the 0.0005 mg/i mercury concentration in which case the

~T~T~rge

limitation shall be the same as that applFc~ble

to

the

publicly owned or publicly_regulated sewer

~stcm

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,

2)

The discharge mercury concentration is

less than 0.003

mg/i,

as determined by application of the averaging rules

of

Section 304.104(a);

and

3)

The discharger

is providing the best degree of treatment

consistent with technological feasibility, economic rea-

sonableness

and

sound engineering judgment.

This

may

in-

clude 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.

ci) e+The discharge of wastes from medicinal or therapeutic

use of mercury, exclusive of laboratory

use,

shall be exempt

from the

limitation of paragraph

(a)

of this Section if all

the following conditions are met:

46—83

---

—4—

1)

The total plant discharge is less than 227 g

(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 mercury.

e) 4+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 sewer treatment plant discharge of the water quality standard

of Part 302 for rneráury applicable

in the receiving stream.

f)

e+

For purposes of permit issuance the Agency may consider

application of the exception of paragraph

(b) or

(c)

to determine

cornplicance with this Section.

The Agency may impose permit

conditions ncessary 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 allows

discharge of a concentration of mercury greater than 0.0005

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

Source Note:

Filed with Secretary of State January

1,

1978;

amended

3

Ill.

Reg.

45, page 101, November 3,

1978,

effective

November

5,

1978; amended

5

Ill.

Reg.

effective

Codified

IT

IS

SO ORDERED.

I,

Christan

L.

Moffett,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control B2ard, hereby certify that the above Order

was

adopted

on the

1

+

day of

___________

,

1982 by

a vote of~V-O.

~

Christari L.

Moffet

jerk

Illinois Pollution

ontrol Board

46—84