ILLINOIS

 POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

February 17,

1977

EAST ST. LOUIS AND INTERURBAN WATER

COMPANY,

Petitioners,

)

 PCB 76—297

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

and

ALTON WATER COMPANY,

)

Pet

 loner,

v.

)

 PCB 76—298

(Consolidated)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Res~ndent,

Mr.

 Eugene Bernstein of Isham, Lincoln

 & Beale, appeared on behalf

of Petitioners;

Ms. Barbara Sidler and Mr.

 Stephen W.

 Gunning, appeared on behalf

of Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

 (by Mr. Goodman):

On November 12,

 1976,

 Petitioners East St. Louis and Interurban

Water Company

 (Interurban)

 and Alton Water Company

 (Alton)

 each

filed before the Pollution Control Board a Petition for Review of

Denial of an Operating Permit.

 Interurban’s petition appealed the

Environmental Protection Agency’s

 (Agency) denial of an operating

permit for discharges

 to the Mississippi River from its water puri-

fication plant in East

 St. Louis,

 St. Clair County,

 Illinois.

 Alton

24

—

801

—2—

appealed the Agency~s

denial of an operating pc~rri~t

wate~ater

discharges to the

 Mississippi

 Rivei

 frori

its

 JaLc~r

 i101

 ion plant

in Alton,

 Madison

 County,

 Illinois.

 The cas~

ere

 c ~~niiatec. by

the Board,

and

 hearings were held in thesa mat

 rs o

 ~anuary

 4 and

5,

 1977,

 in Alton

 and East St~Louis

 re$~cct

imly~

At the hearing,

 the parties

 subrri ~ted ar

C

 t. ar~ tipuletior

and several stipulation

 exhibits

 The s~io~

~a

i

r

c3

 ca~es hat

Alton is a public

 utility providing ptab~ew

Le~

t

 ~6,7OO cr~stomer~

in Alton and Godfrey,

 Illinois.

 At its water

~

 iai plant which

is the subject of this

 proceeding, Alto

 ~it1

~

 er f~ ~t~e

Mississippi River,

 purifies the raw rive

 watsr

f

 bli~c

a

 mption

and pumps the water

 to and through the Comna y

a ~

 ft disrribu~

ting water to the homes

 and businesses of Its cu’~ton~rs

 iton

 s plant

houses a two-fold

 treatment

 systeir wh~

‘i

both

i

a

 ard softens

the water.

Interurban provides a

 similar sEa ice

64

 ~-trca.

in

t

e

East St.

 Louis

 area,

The

 Interurban piart

 nyc. ed

 Eifl

performs

essentially the same function

 as the ~lt

 r plarL

~

 t tiat it

clarifies but does not

 soften the water

On April l~,

 1974,

 both

 Petitioner~

 r g a

 b~u.

 appli-

cations for an operating

 permit

tc

 cove

i,

a

to

t

e

M1t~s~3~1P1

River.

 Subsequent

 to several resuai~trln, t

a

 ~tior

crc

finally denied by

the

 Agency on March

19

 19~ be

a

 the ~o~certra

tions of total suspended

 solids

 (TSS)

 diac ~atg

Ct

art

exceeded the limits

 of Rule 408 of the Board~s

W~t~ri

La

 lutia

 R’~gu~

lations

 (Chapter

 3 of

 the Board~sRules

 arc REaulatioi~.

The uncontroverted

 eiidence indica es tia~

t1~

co~centrat1oL of

TSS in Petitioners~

 effluent does

 excoed. tIe

R

o

40

 lim~tations~

However,

 the evidence also

 indicates

 that the amourt,

 rather than

concentration, of TSS that

 Petitioners discharge Ts significantly

less than the amount of TSS

 in the water they ~rithdrawfrom the

Mississippi River.

 Therefore, Petitioners contend tlat the Rule

401(b)

 exception

 to the

 numerical effluent stirdards for concentra-

tions caused by influent

 contamination should apply

 to them.

 Rule

401(b)

 of Chapter

 3 reads:

(b)

 Background

 Concentrations.

Because the effluent

 standards in this Part are based

upon concentrations

 achievable with convertiona

 ~reat-

ment technology that

 is largely unaffectod by or~inary

levels of contaminants

 in intake water,

 they are

 abso-

lute standards that

 must be met vittout subtracting

24

—

802

—3—

background concentrations.

 However,

 it is not the in-

tent of these

regulations to require

users

 to clean up

contamination caused esse~.iallyby

upstream sources or

to require treatment

 whcr.i

only traces of contaminants

are added

to the

background.

 Compliance with the numerical

effluent standards is therefore not

 required when effluent

concentrations

 in excess of the

standards result entirely

from influent contamination,

evaporation, and/or

the

incidental addition of

 traces of materials not utilized

or produced in the activity that

is the source of the

waste.

The

Board,

however,

 finds

no merit

 to Petitioners~contention.

Rule 401(b)

 clearly exempts

effluent concentrations which are

a

result

of influent

contamination.

 In the present

case, Petitioners deliber-

ately

concentrate the suspended

solids

 in their effluent by removing

the water.

 For example,

 in Exhibit

 3 of Joint Exhibit A Alton reports

an

 ~Teraga

of 68 mg/l of

 suspended

 solids

in its influent for March

 1974,

 and. an average

 concentration in its discharge of 11,060

mg/l.

The

Board

 finds

that

the

 concentration of suspended solids in

Peitioners’

 effluent

is not a result of either

influent contamination,

evaporatior:: or

the

addit~nnof

 trace amounts

of materials and that

Rule

401(b) did~notinte~

 to exempt effluents in which contaminants

were deliberately concent~

ed.

 Therefore,

 Rule 401(b)

 does not apply.

Furthermore,

the Board notes that

 401(b)

 refers to “users” of

water.

 However,

 in the

pres~nt

case Petitioners do not “use” waters,

as, for example,

 would. a fac~1ity

which uses water for cooling

purposes and then discharges

it.

 Petitioners’

 herein are consumers

of the water; the water itsef

 is the commodity which they market.

The Board finds that the e~ception

granted in Rule 401(b) was not

in-

tended to apply in this t1pe of

situation.

At the hearing, Petitioners

focused on questions of economic

reasonableness and technical feasibility of complying with the Rule

408 limitation.

 Such questions are relevant to a variance petition

or to

 a regulatory proposal, but are not relevant to a permit appeal.

Having found that the

Rule 401(b) exception to the effluent

limitations does not

 apply to Petitioners’

 discharges, the Board

finds that the Agency properly denied Petitioners’ applications

for operating permits.

 Petitioners’ permit appeals are, therefore,

dismissed.

This Opinion constitutes the finding of facts and conclusions

of

 law of

 the Board in this

matter.

24

—

803

7:

 ~L~a

o~ oncral Board that the

 ~iffli

‘~

~

~

 and. Alton on November 12

 ~)76,

~ni a:e

I

 ~...hiis

 b1cr~c~.fthe Illinois

Pollution Control

Board, beaeby

 .a~ :~

~

i.

dpinion and Order were

 adopted on the

a:

1977

by a vote

 of~/..-C

~stanL.Moffe,~lerk

Illinois

Pollution

Control Board