ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March
1,
1979
IN THE MATTER OF:
AMENDMENTS TO THE WATER POLLUTION
)
R77-12
REGULATIONS OF THE ILLINOIS
)
DOCKET A
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr.
Young):
(Proposed Final)
This matter comes before the Board on a proposal
filed by the Environmental Protection Agency on May 10,
1977,
to amend numerous provisions
in Chapter
3:
Water
Pollution Regulations.
On July
5, 1977, the Hearing
Officer entered an Order which divided the subject matter
of R77-l2 into four dockets.
The Order stipulated that
Docket A would include the following proposed amendments
to Chapter
3:
Part I:
In Rule 104 to amend the defini-
tions of “Combined Sewer,”
“Combined Sewer
Service Area,”
“Dilution Ratio,”
“Sewage,”
and “Sewer” and to revise “Analytical
Testing” procedures
in Rule
105;
Part II:
To incorporate in Rule 205(e)
specific effluent standards for secondary
contact waters
in this State and to es-
tablish in Rule 205(g)
acute toxicity
levels
in the same waters for toxic sub-
stances not listed in Rule 205(e);
Part V:
To delete the monitoring and
reporting requirements from Rule 501 for
dischargers of mercury to waters of this
State;
Part VI:
To amend Rule 602(a)
to permit
construction, extension and rehabilitation
of combined sewers within existing “Com-
bined Sewer Service Areas;”
Part VIII:
To add Rule 803 to make the
disposal requirements from watercraft con-
sistent with the preemptive directives of
33—7 1
—2—
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
33 U.S.C. par.
1251 et seq.
(Clean Water
Act)
and regulations promulgated by the
Administrator of the USEPA;
Part X:
To delete rules
in Part X which
required the Agency to submit to the Board
an annual report on waste discharges under
Rule 1001 and dischargers to file a project
completion report with the Agency under
Rule 1002.
In the hearings that followed, the Agency also proposed
to revise Proposed Rule 205(e)
to include the revisions
adopted by the Board concerning water quality amendments
for cyanide
in R74-l5, -16 and for hexane solubles in R74—l,
-8,
-9.
The Agency also recommended that the project com-
pletion schedule requirements of Rule 602(d) (6)
be deleted
if the Board were to delete the same requirements in Rule
1002
(R.
203—04)
Notice of the original Agency proposal
was
published
in Environmental Register #124, dated June
9,
1977.
The
Board scheduled public hearings pursuant to Section 28 of
the Environmental Protection Act which were held in Chicago,
Illinois, on August 22,
1977, and in Springfield,
Illinois,
on August
23, 1977.
On June 30,
1978, the Institute for
Environmental Quality filed a study with the Board concerning
the economic impact of the proposed amendments
in Docket A
entitled “Economic Impact of Proposed Amendments to Water
Pollution Regulations,
R77-12, Docket A” IIEQ Document No.
78/23
(Exhibit
#A-’ll) prepared by Harza Engineering Company.
As required by Section
27(b)
of the Act, two economic impact
hearings were held in Springfield,
Illinois, on September
12,
1978, and
in Chicago, Illinois, on September 14,
1978.
At the conclusion of the hearings,
the Hearing Officer
held the record open to accumulate materials pertinent
to
several of the proposed amendments and to receive materials
due from the Agency and other parties
to complete the record.
On December
8, 1978,
the Hearing Officer closed the record
on this Docket.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
The amendments
to Chapter
3:
Water Pollution,
of the
Pollution Control Board Rules and Regulations proposed in
R77-l2, Docket A,
although diverse
in content, are primarily
intended to clarify existing rules,
to make other rules con—
33—72
—3—
sistent with federal guidelines
and
to eliminate reporting
and other requirements which have outlived their useful-
ness.
To facilitate discussion of these amendments,
the
Board will group the proposals in Docket A into six cate-
gories listed below:
1.
Proposed Sewer and Sewage Definition
Changes
2.
Proposed Combined Sewer Regulation
Changes
3.
Proposed Secondary Contact Water Quality
Standard Changes
4.
Proposed Revision to Dilution Ratio
Definition
5.
Proposed Changes
to Meet Federal Guide-
lines
6.
Proposed Deletions of Reporting and
Other Requirements.
PROPOSED
SEWER
AND SEWAGE DEFINITION CHANGES
The Agency has proposed amendments to the definitions
of “sewage” and “sewer” to clarify and limit the scope of
these terms and to avoid possible confusion with other
definitions of this Chapter and the Act.
Proposed definitions for “sewage” and “sewer” read:
“Sewage” means water-carried human and
related wastes from any source.
“Sewer” means a conveyance or system of
conveyances constructed and operated for
the purpose of collecting and transporting
wastewater or land runoff,
or both.
According to the Agency,
revisions in
“sewage” will
eliminate any confusion between the terms
“sewage” and
“wastewater”
in Chapter
3.
By definition,
“wastewater”
includes both sewage and land runoff while
“sewage” as
proposed will he limited to human and related wastes.
33—7 3
—4—
The Agency’s recommended amendment to “sewage” is
intended to clarify and limit the scope of this definition.
The Agency has claimed that a broad interpretation of both
“wastewater” and
“land runoff”
coupled with a liberal
definition of “conduit” could result in the classification
of practically all waters
in this State
as sewers
(R.
73-74).
As presently proposed, the Agency claimed that the definition
of
“sewer” will allow conveyances to be classified
as
sewers
only if designed for the purposes of wastewater and land
runoff.
Any. amendment to “sewer” must also be considered with
the definition of “waters” in Section 3(o) of the Environ-
mental Protection Act which reads:
“Waters” means all accumulations of water,
surface and underground, natural, and arti-
ficial, public and private,
or parts thereof,
which are wholly or partially within,
flow
through, or border upon this State.
Since
its beginning, the Board has utilized the defini-
tion of “waters” of the State
in the manner intended by the
Act,
while making specific provisions
in the Board’s regula-
tions to exempt sewers and treatment works from the water
quality standards of this Chapter.
In early decisions the
Board held:
(I)f the discharge
is to a ditch that is
essentially a part of the treatment or dis-
charge facilities,
it may be unprotected;
the law does not say sewage cannot be dumped
into sewers.
Koppers, PCB 71-365,
1 PCB 579,
580
(1971)
However,
the Board has also found:
We do not think the law allows a stream to be
deprived of all protection against pollution
simply by the construction of concrete beds,
intermittent covers,
and sheet pilings.
If
it did the law would provide no protection
against the transformation of fine streams
into festering open sewers.
City of Urbana,
PCB 71—365,
5 PCB 331,
337
(1972).
In determining a definition for “sewer,” the Board finds
that any stationary conveyance will constitute a sewer if
it has been designed and constructed for the purposes of
wastewater and land runoff.
Where this determination would
3 :3—74
—5—
remove a natural watercourse from the protection of the
water quality standards, the historical drainage patterns
of the area will predominate over the actual purpose of
the construction.
The Board will hereby accept the Agency’s proposed
definition with the following revisions:
“Sewer” means
a stationary means of
transport or stationary system of trans-
port excluding natural waterways, con-
structed and operated for the purpose of
collecting and transporting wastewater or
land runoff,
or both.
The Board revision
is intended to answer concerns that
the Agency proposal could be interpreted to include sludge
conveyances and such rolling stock as trucks,
rail cars,
conveyors and barges in its definition
(R. 158,
174-75).
The Board will
include this addition to correct the ambiguity
and intends that the term “transport or system of transport”
be
limited to stationary facilities such as pipes,
conduits,
open channels and ditches and expressly excluding natural
waterways, however modified.
PROPOSED COMBINED SEWER REGULATION CHANGES
The proposed amendments under this heading include a
change in definition of
“Combined Sewer,” the addition of
“Combined Sewer Service Area,” and the proposed changes to
Rule 602(a).
The definition proposals of “Combined Sewers”
and “Combined Sewer Service Area”
are as follows:
“Combined Sewer” means a sewer designed and
constructed to receive both wastewater and
land runoff.
“Combined Sewer Service Area” means a specific
geographical drainage area served entirely
by a combined sewer system.
Areas served by
separate sewer systems which enter the com-
bined system are not included.
Undeveloped
areas within a combined sewer service area may
be included
in that area if deemed appropriate
by the Agency.
By definition,
“Combined Sewer” will include sewers
designed and constructed to receive wastewater and land
runoff.
Sewers constructed
as sanitary sewers would not be
permitted to receive storm runoff from catch basins or any
other conveyance.
33—7 5
—6—
The definition of “Combined Sewer Service Area”
as
proposed by the Agency would allow the installation of new
combined sewers only
if within the geographical area presently
served by the combined sewer system.
The Board has reviewed all entries and proposed revisions
to these definitions in the record.
“Combined Sewer” will
be adopted as proposed while “Combined Sewer Service Area”
is
accepted with the following revision:
Undeveloped areas within a combined sewer
service area may be included in that area if
deemed appropriate by the Agency pursuant to
the guidelines in Rule
602 (a).
The Agency has also proposed revisions
to Rule 602(a)
as follows:
602
Combined Sewers and Treatment Plant
Bypasses
(a)
The expansion of existing or establish-
ment of new combined sewers service areas
is
prohibited,
except where sufficient retention
or treatment capacity is provided to ensure
that no violation of the effluent standards
in Part IV of this Chapter occurs.
On March
7,
1972, the Board adopted Rule 602(a)
as
proposed by the Agency in R70-8 which imposed a complete
ban on new combined sewer systems and prohibited expansion
of combined systems without a variance granted pursuant
to Section
35 of the Act.
While Rule
602(a)
has effectively
stopped the expansion of combined sewers into new communities
in this State, the Agency claimed that this Rule has seriously
frustrated expeditious efforts
to correct combined sewer
problems and to implement service extensions into previously
unsewered areas within combined sewer service areas.
Under
the proposed amendment to Rule 602(a), the Agency would be
provided the latitude to approve permits
for combined sewer
rehabilitation and construction of extensions
to combined
sewers upon a showing of sufficient retention or treatment
capacity
(R.
17—23,
34—39).
The Board is concerned with the delays faced by owners
and operators of combined systems who wish to extend service
to pockets within their system.
See Mary
Ann
Nowak, PCB
76-193,
24 PCB 245
(1976)
and Springfield Convention Center,
PCB 76—267,
24 PCB 459
(1976).
Rule 602(a) will be revised
to
provide the Agency with criteria necessary to properly evaluate
and approve permit applications for combined sewer rehabilita-
tion and extensions.
Proposed Rule 602(a) will be amended as
follows:
33—76
—7—
602
Combined Sewers and Treatment Plant
Bypasses
(a)
The expansion of existing or establish-
ment of new combined sewer service areas is
prohibited,
except where the Agency has
determined from the permit application the
following:
1.
The combined sewer service area
has adequate treatment or retention
capacity to ensure that the effluent
limitations of Part Iv of this Chapter
and the provisions of the Act are not
violated;
2.
Any anticipated increased flow
will not overload connecting segments
of the combined sewer system;
3.
Increased flow shall not aggravate
combined sewer overflow problems;
including,
hut not limited to, combined sewer sur-
charges, basement back-ups and street flow;
4.
The new combined sewer service area
will be tributary to an existing combined
sewer system.
Under these criteria, the permit would be denied unless
the applicant demonstrates that the increased flow would not
cause pollution problems within its system in addition to a
showing that the flow will receive complete treatment.
Should
dispute arise over an Agency determination, the applicant may
seek relief before the Board pursuant to a Section
40 Petition.
PROPOSED SECONDARY CONTACT WATER QUALITY STANDARD CHANGES
The proposed revisions to Rule 205 are designed to incor-
porate meaningful standards
for secondary contact waters
in
Illinois.
Under this proposal, Rule 205(e) would be amended
to enumerate standards for specific constituents
in secondary
contact waters while
a proposed Rule 205(g) would set acute
toxicity limits for toxic substances not listed in Rule 205(e),
In combination, Rules
205(e)
and 205(g)
are intended to set
standards to minimize acute toxic stresses from chemical con-
stituents and toxic substances for indigenous aquatic life
in secondary contact waters and eliminate any potential impacts
on downstream general use waters.
33—77
—8—
In proposed Rule 205(e), the Agency has incorporated
most of the constituents listed as effluent quality limita-
tions
in Rule 408(a)
of this Chapter.
The Agency has also
proposed an ammonia nitrogen limitation with a 2.5 mg/l and
4.0 mg/l summer/winter standard derived from Rule 406 of
Chapter
3.
Also included are the more lenient arsenic and
barium levels, and the total dissolved solids
(TDS)
require-
ment from the general use standards of Rule 203(f).
The
Agency has omitted the total suspended solids
(TSS) require-
ment for secondary contact waters and has not included boron,
chloride and sulfates because there is no general use
effluent limitation for these constituents.
The Agency claimed that the BOD5/suspended solids require-
ments are inappropriate water quality standards and should
not be included in the Rule 205(e)
table.
The Agency has found
that BODç provides an index for the potential impact of a
particul~rwaste, but is not an indicator of water quality.
According to the Agency,
suspended solids measurements are
quite variable and dependent~upon the fluctuations
in natural
stream velocity and other external conditions
in or on the
waters
(R.
11,
12).
If the Board were to omit BOD /SS require-
ment,
secondary contact water would be protected b~the dis-
solved oxygen standard of Rule 205(c).
While there was general support for most provisions in
Rule 205(e), the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater
Chicago
(MSDGC)
took issue with the proposed level for total
dissolved solids
(TDS).
The Agency proposed the 1,000 mg/I
general use water quality standard as an alternative to the
Rule 408(b) effluent requirement which measures compliance
in terms of background TDS concentration levels.
The Agency
claimed that some TD~ limitation
is necessary to protect
indigenous aquatic life in secondary contact waters from toxic
stress; the MSDGC responded that aquatic life in secondary
contact waters could tolerate higher TDS levels than the
general use standard
(R.
13,
122).
In support of their position, the MSDGC submitted numerous
references
in Exhibit #A-l4 which indicate that fresh water
indigenous aquatic life may withstand resultant osmotic
pressures derived from dissolved solids in excess of 1,000 mg/i.
According to McKee and Wolf in Water Quality Criteria,
Pub.
#3-A, 1963 at page
184,
fresh water fish and aquatic
life would
experience no interference in waters containing 2,000 mg/l
dissolved solids.
In Water Quality Criteria,
a Report to the
Secretary of the Interior,
Fed. Wat.
Poll. Centr.
Admin., dated
April
1,
1968, on pages 39-40, the Report stated that for those
33—78
—9—
dissolved solids which are “relatively innocuous,”
an
equivalent concentration of 1,500 mg/l sodium chloride
should not be exceeded in waters where diversified animal
populations are to be protected.
In the latest edition of
Quality Criteria for Water,
1976 published by the USEPA at
pages 205-209, the criterion for total dissolved solids in
fresh water was omitted thus limiting TDS water quality
criteria to a domestic water supplies standard.
The Board will accept the proposed table in Rule 205(e)
with the following revisions:
1.
The Board will not include BOD5/suspended solids
requirements for secondary contact waters and will
amend the “Total Dissolved Solids” level
to
1,500 mg/l to reflect the weight of evidence in
the record.
2.
The Board will also modify this Table to include
the adopted revisions
in R74-l5, -16
(September
7,
1978)
for cyanide in secondary contact waters and
in R74—l,
—8,
—9
(November 23, 1977)
as follows:
Storet
Constituent
Number
Concentration
(mg/l)
Cyanide
00720
0.10
Oil,
fats and greases
00550,
00556
or 00560
15.0*
*0±1may be analytically separated into polar and non-polar
components.
If such separation
is done,
neither of the com-
ponents may exceed 15 mg/i
(i.e.
15 mg/l polar materials and
15 mg/i non-polar materials).
Compliance with this numerical
standard shall be determined on the basis of
24 hour composite
samples, averaged over any monthly period; provided, however,
that no single 24 hour composite shall be greater than
2 times
the numerical standard and no grab sample shall be greater than
5 times the numerical standard.
33—79
—10—
Proposed Rule 205(g)
is similar in approach to the
acute toxicity limits set for general use waters
in Rule
203(h)
of this Chapter.
Rule
205(g) would establish
a water
quality level
1/2 the 96-hour median tolerance limit for
toxic constituents not listed in Rule 205(e).
The Agency
claimed that the proposed rule is intended to minimize toxic
stress in secondary contact waters which might cause nuisance
fish kills and to eliminate the impact of toxic substances
in downstream general use waters
(R.
206).
The Board will
adopt Rule 205(g)
as proposed.
PROPOSED REVISION TO DILUTION RATIO DEFINITION
The Agency has proposed the following amendment to
“Dilution Ratio:”
“Dilution Ratio” means the ratio of the
seven-day once in ten year low flow of the
receiving stream or the lowest flow of the
receiving stream when effluent discharge
is expected to occur, whichever
is greater,
to the average &~y-weathef flow of the
treatment works for the design year.
Under the existing rule, treatment facilities in Illinois
are designed to treat wastewater based upon the seven—day
low flow event in the receiving stream which occurs at least
once
in the decade.
The Agency stated that the definition
creates problems for dischargers to intermittent streams
in
complying with the deoxygenating waste requirements of Rule
404.
Furthermore,
facilities designed to treat only storm
wastewater must meet the Rule 404 BOD5/suspended solids
requirement based on the seven—day ten year low flow regardless
of the state of the receiving stream when the discharge is
expected to occur
(R.
7,
8).
The proposed changes would allow “Dilution Ratio” to
be based on the ratio of either the seven—day once in ten
year low flow of the receiving stream or the lowest flow
of the receiving stream when the effluent
is expected to be
discharged.
The Agency claimed that this would allow con-
trolled discharges of wastewater from municipal and industrial
facilities, particularly those maintaining lagoons having very
large storage capability compared to the daily inflow.
The Board finds that the proposed addition provides relief
for dischargers
to intermittent streams and for storm waste—
water treatment facilities which
is consistent with the objectives
of the Act and the Board regulations.
The Board will accept
the definition of “Dilution Ratio” as proposed by the Agency.
3 3—80
—11—
PROPOSED CHANGES TO MEET FEDERAL GUIDELINES
In this Docket, the Agency has recommended that the
analytical testing guidelines of Rule 105 and the waste dis-
posal requirements for watercraft in Rule 801 he amended to
comply with federal directives.
As revised, Rule 105 es-
tablishes the USEPA analytical testing practices and proce-
dures for NPDES permit analyses and other testing procedures
required by Chapter
3.
The proposed amendment to Rule 105
is as follows:
105 Analytical Testing
All methods of sample collection, preserva-
tion,
and analysis used in applying any of
the requirements of this Chapter shall be in
accord with USEPA’s current manual of practice
or with other procedures acceptable to USEPA
and the Agency.
The recommended change
in the watercraft waste disposal
requirements
of Part VIII involves the addition of a Rule 803
and is intended to “dove tail” the Rule 301 requirements for
disposal of waste from watercraft with Section
312 of the
Clean Water Act which prohibits the State from regulating
any marine sanitation device or sanitary discharges
to certain
waters of this State.
The federal regulations appearing at
40 CFR Part 140 and at
33 CFR Part 159 were promulgated pursuant
to Section 312 of the Clean Water Act to regulate marine sani-
tation devices and watercraft discharges to navigable waters.
The Agency claimed that under USEPA regulations, states
are preempted from adopting rules to control discharges from
Coast Guard certified marine sanitation devices to coastal
waters and estuaries,
the Great Lakes and interconnected
waterways,
freshwater lakes and impoundments accessible through
locks and other waters which are navigable interstate by vessels
subject to the regulation
(40 CFR 1403) (R.
24—26).
The Board will adopt the proposed rule
as follows:
803 Statewide Application
The Rules in this Part apply to all waters of
the State unless preempted under Section
312
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
33 U.S.C.
par.
1251
(Clean Water Act).
33—8 1
—12—
PROPOSED DELETION OF REPORTING AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS
Lastly, the Agency has proposed in Docket A to remove
the reporting requirements for dischargers of mercury in
Rule
501.
Also recommended for deletion were the Agency
report requirements on waste discharges in Rule 1001, the
dischargers’ project completion report of Rule 1002 and the
time extension provisions
in Rule 602(d) (6)
of this Chapter.
The Agency testified that the annual reporting require-
ment of Rule 501 for mercury dischargers
is not an effective
means of control because the regulation failed to set a limit
on the total loading of mercury to be discharged and did not
provide an effective means for verifying the data.
The Agency
further claimed that the existing effluent limitations and
permit effluent reporting requirements established an effective
means for control of mercury and that the number of users of
mercury have further declined in the past three years
CR. 15,
115—17)
The Agency
ha;3 recommended the deletion of Rule 1001,
requiring submission to the Board of an annual waste discharge
report.
The Agency claimed, and the Board confirms,
that
report is rarely consulted or used and that much of the same
information is also available
in the Phase
I basin plans
required under the Clean Water Act.
Other information in-
cluding discharge inventories, effluent data and NPDES permit
compliance schedule data are also available for retrieval
in
Agency data banks
(R.
24-26).
The Agency has also proposed to delete Rule 1002 require-
ment for dischargers to submit to the Agency a project completion
schedule on upgrading its treatment facilities and meeting
applicable standards.
According to the text of the Rule,
the
deadlines for filing project completion schedules are now past
(R.
24—26).
Since the Agency has proposed the deletion of project
completion schedule reports, it has also recommended the
removal,
in its entirety, of the provision in Rule 602(d) (6)
for time extensions
to the project completion reports.
The
Agency claimed that dischargers once
covered
under project
completion schedule requirements are currently regulated under
the NPDES permit program and the schedules are now covered by
NPDES permit conditions
CR.
95-6,
204).
The Board finds that the requirements of Rules
501,
602 (d) (6),
1001 and 1002 have served their respective purposes
and may be deleted as the Agency has requested.
33—82
—13—
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONS
The Illinois Institute for Environmental Quality
(now Illinois Institute of Natural Resources)
performed a
study on the economic impact of these proposed amendments
to Chapter
3:
Water Pollution Regulations pursuant to
Section 6(d)
of the Act.
This study,
“Economic Impact of
Proposed Amendments to Water Pollution Regulations R77-l2,
Docket A” was prepared by Harza Engineering Company and
entered into the record as Exhibit #A-ll at the September
11,
1978, hearing
in Springfield,
Illinois.
The author
of the study, Dr. Mirza Meghji,
divided the proposed re-
visions into five categories;
the Board will utilize the
same six categories
as before to discuss the economic
impact of these diverse amendments.
1.
Proposed Sewer and Sewage Definition Changes
These changes which clarify the distinction
between sewers and natural watercourses will
impose no changes
in treatment requirements or
water quality.
However, the Board anticipates
that there will be some small savings
in admini-
strative expense since the proposed definitions
were adopted in a manner consistent with the
Agency’s recommendation.
In summary, there
are no adverse economic or environmental impact
from these revisions.
2.
Proposed Combined Sewer Regulations Changes
The Author of the Economic Impact Study
analyzed the impact of these changes primarily
in terms of eliminating the need for a variance
when constructing a combined sewer in a combined
sewer service area
(Exhibit #A—ll, 4—2
—
4—6;
R.
196).
Total annual savings were estimated at
$14,000.
In the study,
two important questions
raised were the size of the combined sewer service
area
(R.
216)
and the potential for development
in these service areas
(R.
32).
The Agency
indicated that these questions would be considered
before issuing the permit
(R.
32-33).
Furthermore,
Agency testimony indicated that catch basins
attached to sanitary sewers would have to be re-
moved.
While tlis matter was not considered in
the Economic Impact Study,
the Agency has claimed
that removal of catch basins would be tied to the
availability of grant funds
(R.
38-39).
33—83
-14—
3.
Proposed Secondary Contact Water Quality
Standard Changes
The Economic Impact Study analyzed a number
of the proposed constituents
in Rule 205(e)
including the barium, arsenic and total dissolved
solids.
According to the study, relaxing the
total barium and arsenic concentrations to the
general use water quality standard will not
result
in stream degradation since effluent
limitations will remain unchanged
(Exhibit
#A—ll,
3~-2—4—6,
R.
199).
Similarly,
the 1500
mg/i TDS standard will not produce any immediate
costs or benefits.
The study indicated that
no present discharge to secondary contact waters
will cause a violation of this proposed TDS
standard adopted by the Board
(Exhibit #A-ll,
5-2
—
5-9).
Rule 205(g)
adds
a general limitation on
toxic substances.
The Agency has indicated that
the proposal will not provide complete protection
to all aquatic organisms found in secondary
contact waters; however,
the proposed limitation
is intended to
“...
assure that no nuisance fish
kills would occur
in these secondary contact
waters, and also assure that the impact of these
waters on general use waters would be minimized”
(R.
206).
There is no quantification of this
benefit
in the study.
Estimating the economic
impact of proposed Rule 205(g)
is difficult since
the proposal covers
a potentially large number
of toxicants.
The Author of the study indicated
that control costs could not be estimated
“...
because the presence and concentrations of these
substances
in the discharges are unknown.”
(Ex-
hibit #A-li,
6-3.)
The Board notes that USEPA is
establishing effluent limits for 65 toxic sub-
stances
(Exhibit #A-llA).
Dischargers will be
required to meet these limits independent of the
proposed Rule
205(g); the costs of meeting those
effluent limitations
is not attributable to this
regulation.
Future control costs of unknown
amounts attributable to this regulation would
be
the control costs required to meet a secondary
water quality standard for a substance that is
not one of the
65 substances for which USEPA has
formulated an effluent limit.
However,
it
is not
anticipated that this regulation would impose
additional control costs for any of the
65 sub-
stances
CR.
214—216)
33—84
—15—
4.
Proposed Revision to Dilution Ratios
This proposed change would result in treat-
ment costs savings for dischargers that could
qualify for less stringent effluent requirements
under current Rule 404 of Chapter
3:
Water
Pollution Regulations.
The study identified
three types of facilities that could benefit
from this type of change:
industrial wastewater
treatment facilities with controlled discharge
capability; domestic wastewater treatment facilities
with controlled discharge capability and treatment
facilities which treat runoff during storm events
(Exhibit #A—ll,
4—7).
One industrial facility was identified and
it was estimated that the facility would save a
capital investment of $3 million under the pro-
posed definition.
An estimate of potential
savings to the second group domestic treatment
facilities, was made by first calculating the
capital and operating costs of replacing 105
domestic treatment facilities with equipment
designed and operated to meet effluent limita-
tions of 10 mg/l BUD5 and
12 mg/i suspended
solids.
These costs were then compared to the
cost of replacement equipment designed and
operated to meet limitations of 30 mg/i BUD5
and 30 mg/i suspended solids.
The difference
was found to be $40 million in capital costs
and $6.7 million in annual operating costs (Ex-
hibit #A—ll, 4—9
—
4—12).
This estimate of
potential savings assumed
“optimum conditions”
(R.
209).
Actual savings would probably be less;
no estimate was made of the number of domestic
treatment facilities that actually could go to
a controlled discharge.
No estimate was made of the potential savings
to the third group, facilities treating storm
runoff.
This was due to the lack of readily
available data concerning the number,
size and
operation of these dischargers
(Exhibit #A-ll,
4—10)
5.
Proposed Changes to Meet Federal Guidelines
Proposed Pule 105, Analytical Testing, will
have little,
if any, economic impact
CR.
234-235).
Similarly,
Rule 803 has no impact.
33—85
—16—
6.
Proposed Deletions of Reporting and Other
Requirements
The proposed deletion of Rule 501(b) would
result in some savings
to those who would normally
file such a report and to the Agency
(R.
234,
236-
237)
;
this
is the only anticipated impact.
The proposed deletion of Rule 1001 would relieve
the Agency of its duty to file an annual waste dis-
charge report.
This is estimated to save the
Agency $15,000 initially and $5,000 annually
(R.
233).
Rule 1002 is obsolete and its deletion will have no
economic impact.
Much of this regulatory change will have little
or no economic impact.
The greatest potential for
savings
in control costs results from the change in
the “Dilution Ratio” definition.
The greatest
potential for increases in control costs results
from the secondary water quality standards;
some
costs also may be incurred if removal
of catch basins
to sanitary sewers is mandated.
These two potential
costs,
if incurred,
would have some adverse economic
impact; however, comparable environmental benefits,
admittedly unquantified, would also accrue.
On
balance,
the rest of the regulation has no adverse
economic impact.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Board has reviewed the record in this proceeding and
finds that the procedural requirements of the Act and the
Board Rules regarding the proposed adoption of the amendments
and additions
in Chapter
3:
Water Pollution Regulations,
have been fulfilled.
PROPOSED FINAL ORDER
The Board hereby proposes to adopt these revisions
to
Chapter
3:
Water Pollution Rules and Regulations and hereby
authorizes that the proposed amendments be submitted
for
publication
in the Illinois Register and Environmental Register
to read as follows:
104
Definitions
“Combined Sewer” means
a sewer designed and constructed
to receive
~eee4v4i’~gboth wastewater and land runoff.
33—86
—17—
“Combined Sewer Service Area” means a specific geo-
graphical drainage area served by a combined sewer system.
Areas
served by
s~p~rate
sewer systems which enter the
combined system are not included.
Undeveloped areas within
a combined sewer service area may he included in that area
if deemed appropriate by the Agency pursuant to the guide-
lines
in Rule
602(a).
“Dilution Ratio” means the ratio of the seven-day
once
in ten year low flow of the receiving stream or the
lowest flow of the receiving stream when effluent discharge
is expected to occur, whichever is greater,
to the average
~ry-wea~he~
flow of the treatment works for
the
design year.
“Sewage” means water—carried human and related wastes
from any source ~
“Sewer” means a stationary means of transport or
stationary system of transport, excluding natural water—
ways, constructed and operated for the purpose of collecting
and transporting ~
e-eeou-fer—earfy+~g--e~thet~waste-
water or land runoff, or both.
105
Analytical Testing
All methods of sample collection,
preservation, and
analysis used in applying any of the requirements ~~e~—ei~
feg~~e1~sof 4~this Chapter shall be ~-aeeo~
consistent
with USEPA’s current manual of practice or with other
procedures acceptable
to USEPA and the Agency.
these
~
~
~eeeed—preee~~es~
PART II:
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
205
Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Standards
Waters designated in Part III of this Chapter for Re-
stricted Use shall meet the following standards:
(e)
Concentrations of other chemical constituents
stths’hariees shall not exceed the following
aea1~e-e~en~
standards:
ese~bed—~
~
33—87
Constituent
Ammonia
Nitrogen
(as N)
Concentration
(mg/i)
2.5 (April-October)
4. 0
(November—March)
—18—
Storet
Number
00610
Arsenic
(total)
01002
Barium
(total)
01007
Cadmium
(total)
01027
Chromium
(total hexavalent)
01032
Chromium
(total trivalent)
01033
Cqpper
(total)
01042
Cyanide
(total)
00720
Fluoride
(total)
00951
Iron
(total)
01045
Iron
(dissolved)
01046
Lead
(total)
01051
Manganese
(total)
01055
Mercury
(total)
71900
Nickel
(total)
01067
Oil,
fats and greases
00550,
00556
or
00560
Phenols
32730
1.0
5.0
0.15
0.3
1.0
~.r
0.10
15.0
2.0
0.5
0.1
1.0
0.0005
1.0
15.0*
0.3
Selenium
(total)
01147
Silver
01077
1.0
0.1
Zinc
(total)
01092
Total Dissolved Solids
70300
1.0
1500
:33—88
—19—
*“Oil may be analytically separated into polar and non-
polar components.
If such separation
is done, neither of
the components may exceed
15 mg/i
(i.e.
15 mg/i polar
materials and 15 mg/i non-polar materials).
Compliance with
this numerical standard shall he determined on the basis
of 24 hour composite samples, averaged over any monthly
period;
provided, however, that no single
24 hour composite
shall be greater than
2 times the numerical standard and no
grab sample shall be greater than
5 times the numerical
standard.”
(g)
Any substance toxic to aquatic life not listed
in Rule 205(e)
shall not exceed one half of the 96—hour
median tolerance limit
(96-hour TLm)
for native fish or
essential fish food organisms.
PART V:
MONITORING AND REPORTING
This part of the rules and regulations concerning water
pollution prescribes requirements for monitoring,
reporting
and measuring contaminant discharges.
501
Reporting Requirements
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
(b)~e~-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.
PART VI:
PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
This part contains specific requirements and prohibitions
concerning existing and potential sources of water pollution.
33—89
—20—
602
Combined Sewers and Treatment Plant Bypasses
(a)
The expansion of existing or establishment of
new combined sewer service areas
is prohibited, except
where the Agency has determined from the permit applica-
tion the following:
1.
The combined sewer service area has adequate
treatment or retention capacity to ensure that the effluent
limitations of Part IV of this Chapter and the provisions
of the Act are not violated;
2.
Any anticipated increased flow will not overload
connecting segments of the combined sewer system;
3.
Increased flow shall not aggravate combined sewer
overflow problems;
including, but not limited to, combined
sewer surcharges, basement back—ups and street flow;
4.
The new combined sewer service area will be tribu-
tary to any existing combined sewer system.
(d)
Compliance with paragraph
(c)
of this Rule 602
shall
be achieved on or before the following dates:
(1)
through
(5)
--
Unchanged
~
~
~
ees~ei~.
(6)~~
The exemption provided by
(d) (4) above shall
terminate upon completion of construction under the grant
provided and compliance with the provisions of this Rule
shall thereafter be required.
PART VIII:
DISPOSAL OF WASTES FROM WATERCRAFT
This part of the rules and regulations concerning water
pollution regu3a~escontrols the disposal of wastes from water—
craft.
803
Statewide Application
The Rules of this Part shall apply to all waters of the
State unless preempted under Section 312 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act,
33 U.S.C.
par.
1251 et seq.
(Clean
Water Act).
33—90
—21—
PART
X:
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Deleted in its entirety.
33—91
