ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 24, 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):
(Final Order)
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 R77-12 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 specific effluent
standards for secondary contact waters
in
this State and to establish acute toxicity
levels in tl~esame waters for toxic sub-
stances not listed in the effluent
standards;
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
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;
33—625
—2—
Part
X:
To delete rules in Part X which
required the Agency to submit to the Board
an annual report on waste dischargers 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 R74-15,
—16 and for hexane solubles in R74-l,
—8,
-9.
The Agency has also recommended that the project
completion schedule requirements
in Rules 404(f) (ii) (D) and
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 the Environmental Register #124 on June
9,
1977.
Public
hearings pursuant to Section
28 of the Environmental Protection
Act were held in the following locations:
August
22,
1977
Chicago,
Illinois
August 23,
1977
Springfield,
Illinois
In accordance with Section
6 of the Environmental Pro-
tection Act,
the ther
Illinois Institute of Environmental
Quality
(now the Illinois Institute of Natural Resources)
submitted
a study to the Board on June 30,
1978, concerning
the economic impact of the proposed amendments in Docket A.
The study entitled,
“Economic Impact of Proposed Amendments
to Water Pollution Regulations, R77-l2, Docket A”, IIEQ
Document No.
78/23
(Exhibit #A-ll) was prepared by Harza
Engineering Company.
As required by Section
27(b)
of the Act, economic impact
hearings were held on the study on the following dates:
September 12,
1978
Springfield,
Illinois
September
14,
1978
Chicago, Illinois
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.
On March
1,
1979,
the Board adopted a proposed final
opinion and order and authorized that the proposed final
order be submitted
to the Secretary of State for publication
in the
Illinois
Register
to provide notice and to initiate
33—626
—3--
a 45—day public comment period as required by the Illinois
Administrative
Procedure Act
(Ill.
Rev. Stat.,
Ch.
127,
§elOOl ~$~j).
Notice of the proposed final order was
published in the Environmental Register #191, March 12,
1979, and in Volume
3, Issue
11 of the Illinois Register,
March 16,
1979, pages 189 through 205.
During the public comment period
(March 16,
1979
through April
30,
1979), the Board received questions and
comments from the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules.
After meeting with the staff,
the Joint Committee received
the proposed amendments in Docket A at hearing on April
24,
1979, without objection or comment.
The Board also
received proposals from the Joint Committee and from the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency to make minor
revisions in the text of the proposed amendments,
After
reviewing the proposals for revision, the Board will make
the appropriate changes as recommended.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
The amendments to Chapter
3:
Water Pollution,
of the
Pollution Control Board Rules and Regulations proposed in
R77-12, Docket A, although diverse in content, are primarily
intended to clarify existing rules, to make other rules con-
sistent with federal guidelines and to eliminate reporting
and other requirements which have outlived their usefulness.
To facilitate discussion of these amendments, the Board will
group the proposals in Docket A into six categories 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 Guidelines
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.
33—627
—4—
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 be limited to human and related wastes.
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)
33—628
—5-.
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
~nd
constructed for the purposes of
wastewater and land runoff.
Where this determination would
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 transport excluding
natural waterways,
constructed 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.
33—629
—6—
“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.
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 sewer 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
33—630
—7—
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 t~provide
the Agency with criteria necessary to properly evaluate
and approve permit applications for combined sewer re-
habilitation and extensions.
Proposed Rule 602(a) will be
amended as follows:
602
Combined Sewers and Treatment Plant Bypasses
(a)
The expansion of existing or establishment
of new combined sewer service areas
is pro-
hibited, except where the Agency has deter-
mined from the permit application the follow-
ing:
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 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.
33—63 1
—8—
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,
the rules are intended to set standards
to
minimize acute toxic stresses from chemical constituents
and toxic substances for indigenous aquatic
life
in secondary
contact waters and eliminate any potential impacts on down-
stream general use waters.
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/i 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 (TS~require-
ment for secondary ccntact 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 BOD~provides an index for the potential impact
of a particula~waste, 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 BOD5/SS require-
ment,
secondary contact water would be protected by 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 TDS 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)
33—632
—9—
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
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 supply 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/i
to reflect the weight of evidence
in
the recori.
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
a modified version of R74-l,
-8,
-9
(November
23,
1977)
.
The amended table will read as follows:
Storet
Constituent
Number
Concentration
(mq/l)
Cyanide
00720
0.10
Oil,
fats,
and greases
00550,
00556
or 00560
15.0*
*Oil shall be analytically separated
into
polar and non-polar
~èomponents
if the total concentration exceeds
15 mg/l.
In
~
~
mg/l non-polar materials).
In this revised table, the asterisked reference
sets
a
maximum concentration for oil, fats and greases.
33—633
—10—
Rule
205(g)
as proposed by the Agency is similar in
approach to the acute toxicity limits set for general use
waters in Rule 203(h)
of this Chapter.
The proposed rule
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 in-
tended 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 the proposed rule and in-
corporate it into Chapter
3 as Rule 205(h)
PROPOSED REVISTON 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 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 regard-
less 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 finIs that the proposed addition provides relief
for dischargers to ir~termittentstreams and for storm waste—
water treatment faciiities 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.
33—634
—11—
PROPOSED CHANGES
TO MEET FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS
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 be amended to
comply with federal directives.
As revised,
Rule 105
establishes the USEPA analytical practices and procedures
for NPDES permit analyses and other testing procedures
required by Chapter
3.
The Board will adopt Rule 105 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
consistent 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 801 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 sanitation
devices and watercraft discharges
to navigatabie 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 navigatable 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—635
—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
other provisions
in Rules
404(f) (ii) (D) and 602(d) (6)
of
this Chapter.
In testimony to the record,
the Agency stated that the
annual reporting requirement 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
(R.
15,
115—17)
The Agency has 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
CR.
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,
404(f)
(ii) (D),
602(d) (6),
1001 and 1002 have served their respective
purpose and may be deleted as the Agency has requested.
33—636
—13—
ECONOIVIC IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONS
The Illinois Institute for Environmental Quality
(now
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 Engineer-
ing 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 pro-
posed revisions into five categories;
the Board will utilize
the same six categories
as before
to discuss the economic
impact of these diverse amendments.
1.
ProRosed 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
CR. 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 wouid have
to be removed.
While this 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—637
—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(1~i) adds
a general limitation on toxic
substances.
Th?
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(h)
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 con-
centrations of these substances
in the discharges
are unknown.”
(Exhibit #A-il,
6-3.)
The Board notes
that USEPA is establishing effluent limits for 65
toxic substances
(Exhibit #A-iiA).
Dischargers
will be required to meet these limits independent
of the proposed Rule 205(h);
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 th? 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
(R.
214—216)
33—638
—15—
4.
Proposed Revision to Dilution Ratios
This proposed change would result in treatment
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 treat-
ment facilities with equipment designed and operated
to meet effluent limitations of 10 mg/l BOD5 and
12 mg/l suspended solids.
These costs were then
compared to the cost of replacement equipment
designed and operated to meet limitations of
30
mg/l BOD5 and 30 mg/l suspended solids.
The
difference was found
to be $40 million in capital
costs and $6.7 million in annual operating costs
(Exhibit #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-li,
4—10)
5.
Proposed
Changes
to Meet Federal Guidelines
Proposed Rule
105, Analytical Testing, will
have little,
if any, economic impact
CR.
234-235).
Similarly, Rule 803 has no impact.
33—639
—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 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 adoption of the amendments and
additions to Chapter
3:
Water Pollution Regulations, have
been fulfilled.
FINAL ORDER
The Board will hereby adopt these revisions to Chapter
3:
Water Pollution Rules and Regulations and hereby authorizes
that the adopted amendments be submitted for publication
in the Illinois Register and Environmental Register to read
as
follows:
33—640
—17—
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
RULES AND REGULATIONS
CHAPTER
3:
WATER POLLUTION
1.
The following Rule 104 definitions of Chapter
3:
Water
Pollution Regulations
shall
be amended to read:
“Combined Sewer” means
a sewer designed and con-
structed to receive both wastewater and land run-
off.
“Combined Sewer Service Area” means a specific geo-
graphical drainage area served by a combined sewer
system.
Areas served by separate sewer systems
which enter the combined system are not included.
Undeveloped areas within a combined sewer service
area may be 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 flow of the treatment
works for the design year.
“Institute” means the Illinois Institute of Natural
Resources.
“Publicly Owned Treatment Works” means
a treatment
works owned by a municipality, sanitary district,
county,
or state or federal agency,
and which treats
domestic and industrial wastes collected by
a publicly
owned or regulated sewer system.
Industrial treatment
works which are publicly owned and financed by bond
issues of public agencies are not included in this
definition.
“Publicly Regulated Treatment Works” means those
otherwise private companies which are regulated
as
public utilities engaged in the disposal of domestic
and industrial wastes and regulated as such by the
Illinois Commerce Commission, pursuant to an Act
concerninq Public Utilities,
Illinois Revised Statutes
~977, Ch.
111 2/3, par.
1 et
seq.
33—64 1
—18—
“Sanitary Sewer” means
a sewer that carries wastewater
together with incidental land runoff.
“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
waterways, constructed and operated for the purpose
of collecting and transporting wastewater or land
runoff,
or both.
2.
Rule 105 of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution Regulations shall
be amended to read:
Analytical Testing
All methods of sample collection, preservation, and
analysis used in applying any of the requirements
of this Chapter shall be consistent with USEPA’s
current manual of practice or with other procedures
acceptable
to USEPA and the Agency.
3.
Rule
205 of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution Regulations shall
be amended by revising subpart
“e” and by the addition
of
a new subpart
“h”.
Ce)
Concentritions of other chemical constituents
shall not exceed the following standards:
Storet
Constituent
Number
Concentration
(mg/i)
Ammonia Nitrogen
(as N)
00610
2.5
(April-October)
4.0
(November
-
March)
Arsenic
(total)
01002
1.0
Barium
(total)
01007
5.0
Cadmium
(total)
01027
0.15
Chromium
(total hexavalent)
01032
0.3
Chromium
(total trivalent)
01033
1.0
Copper
(total)
01042
1.0
Cyanide
(total)
00720
0.10
33—64 2
—19—
Storet
Constituent
__________
Number
Concentration
(m9/1)
Fluoride
(total
00951
15.0
Iron
(total)
01045
2.0
Iron
(dissolved)
01046
0.5
Lead
(total)
01051
0.1
Manganese
(total)
01055
1.0
Mercury
(total)
71900
0.0005
Nickel
(total)
01067
1.0
Oil,
fats and greases
00550,
00556
or 00560
15.0*
Phenols
32730
0.3
Selenium
(total)
01147
1.0
Silver
01077
0.1
Zinc
(total)
01092
1.0
Total Dissolved Solids
70300
1500
*Oil shall be analytically separated into polar and non—polar
components
if the total concentration exceeds
15 mg/l.
In no
case shall either of the components exceed 15 mg/l
(i.e.,
15 mg/i polar materials and
15 mg/l non-polar materials)
(h)
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.
4.
Rule 404(f) (ii) (D)
of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution
Regulations shall be deleted.
5.
Rule 501(b)
of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution Regulations
shall be deleted.
6.
Rule 602 of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution Regulations
shall be amended to read:
33—64 3
—20—
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 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, but not limited
to, combined
sewer surcharges,
basement back—ups
and street flow;
4.
The new combined sewer service area will
be tributary to an
existing combined
sewer system.
7.
Rule
602(d) (6)
of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution Regulations
shall be deleted.
8.
Rule 803 of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution Regulations shall
be added and Part VIII amended to read
as follows:
This part of the rules and regulations concerning
water pollution controls the disposal
of wastes
from watercraft.
Statewide Application
The Rules of this Part shall apply to all waters
of the State uniess preempted under Section 312
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
33
U.S.C.
par.
1251 et seq.
(Clean Water Act)
9.
Rules 1001 and 1002 of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution
Regulations and Part X shall be deleted in its
entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
33—644
—21-
1, Christan
L. Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereb
certify the above Final Order was
adoPtedonth~±
day of
____________,
1979,
xii
,,~-
Christan L.
offet
,
erk
Illinois Pollution
rol Board
33—645
