ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

August

29,

1972

R72-4

METROPOLITAN

SANITARY

DISTRICT

)

In the

Matter

of a

Petition

OF

GREATER

CHICAGO

)

for

Amendments

of Certain

Water

Quality

Standards

OPINION

OF

THE

BOARD

(by Mr.

Dumelle)

This

opinion

is

in support

of a motion

by

the

Board

adopted

August

15,

1972

to partially

allow

and partially

reject

portions

of the

Metropolitan

Sanitary

District

of Greater

Chicago

(MSDGC) petition

that we

authorize

hearings

on

a

proposal

for

amendments

to the

Water

Quality

Standards

adopted

March

7,

1972.

The petition was filed on May 3, 1972

by

MSDGC and requested amendments

to

24

sections and subsections of the Water Quality Standards.

It was referred

to both

the

Illinois

and Federal

Environmental

Protection

Agencies

and to the

Institute for

Environmental

Quality for

comments.

Joint

meetings

of these

three

agencies

with

MSDGC

evolved

and

certain

of

the

questions

of interpreta-

tion

of the regulations

were

answered

by

discussion,

On

August

7~1972

a

letter

from

MSDGC

was

filed

with

the

Board

deleting

five

of the

proposals

from the petition.

The

Board

in

adopting

the

Water

Quality

Standards

on

March

7,

1972

held

extensive

hearings

all

over

Illinois.

Any evidence

bearing

upon the

standards should have been presented at those hearings or in written

submissions

to

the

Board

while

the record

was

open.

Unless

new

informa-

tion

is

now available

the

Board

cannot

continue

to reconsider

matters

it

has

just

considered.

To

do

so

would leave

it

with

no time

for

new

matters.

Consequently,

the

Board has

allowed

new

hearings

only

on

the

District

proposal

to

amend

Part

IV,

404(e)

Deoxygenating

Wastes

and has rejected

all

others.

The

reasons

for

the grant

and

denials

are

given

in

detail

below.

Part

II,

203(f).

The

District

requests

that

the

effluent

standard

for

ammonia

govern

where

stream

dilution

is limiting

in

lieu

of the

water

quality

standard

of

1.

5

mg/i.

The District makes it clear that the request

applies to the small plants of the District.

Since there is no ammonia

effluent standard applicable to the District small plants (see Section 406

5

319

---

—2—

of

the

standards)

the request

is

incorrectly

phrased.

What

is

being

requested

is

the

establishment

of

an

ammonia

effluent

standard

(presumably

at

2.

5

mg/i)

for

the

small plants.

We think

the

proper

course

of

action is

to file

variance

requests

for

those

small

plants

the

District

feels

cannot

meet

the

ammonia

water

quality

standard

outside

the

mixing

zone and to

justify

each based

upon

the

conditions

of the

individual

stream

into

which

each

plant

discharges.

If the

stream

is

so

shallow

that

temperatures

lethal

to fish

life

are

attained

naturally

then

it

would

make

little

sense

to insist

upon

a

1.

5

mg/i

ammonia

water

quality

standard.

See

Part

II,

3 02(k) for

recognition

of

this

principle

in the

designation

of Restricted

Use

Waters.

The

Board

also

notes

that

the

District

is

actively

phasing

out

many

of

its

small

plants

(Orland

Park,

East

Chicago

Heights

and Barrington

Woods)

and the problem

may

soon become

moot

in

some

cases.

Part

II,

205(c).

The

District

asks

that

we

insert

a

December

31,

1982

date

for

the

effective

date

of

the

3.0 mg/i

(16

hours)

and

2.

0 mg/i

(8

hour)

dissolved

oxygen

standard

on

restricted

use

waters.

The

District

supporting

material

makes

it

clear

that

the

main

concern

is

with

the

dissolved

oxygen

standards

for

the

North

Shore

Channel

which is

discussed

in

Section

302(j)

below.

Part

III,

302(j).

As

mentioned

above,

the

District

also

asks

a

December

31,

1982

date

for

the

realization

of the

5

mg/i

(16

hour)

and

4

mg/i

(8

hour)

dissolved

oxygen

standard

on

the

North

Shore

Channel.

The

1982

date

request

was

undoubtedly

chosen

to

correspond

with the

same

requested

date

for

combined

sewer

overflow

control

since

the

resulting

bottom

deposits

would

exert

an oxygen

demand

in the

North

Shore

Channel.

The

District1s

statement

mentions

its

Board of

Trustees

action

of

April

20,

1972

authorizing

a

$1,

500,

000 instream

aeration

system

for

the

North

Shore

Channel

to be operative

by Aprill,

1974.

This

action

is

a new

development

since

our

March

7,

1972

enactment

of the

Water

Quality

Standards.

Instream

aeration

has

been

shown

to

be perhaps

three

to five

times

cheaper

than higher

treatment

in

other

places

such

as

on

the

Ruhr

River

in Germany

and

can

be

installed

quickly.

See tInstream

Aeration

an Alternative

to

Advanced

Waste

Treatment?

by

William

Whipple,

Jr.,

Civil

Engineering,

September,

1970.

We

commend

the

District

for this

pioneering

initiative

without

passing

judgment

in advance

on

all

the

effects

of the project.

However,

since

the

aeration

system

is

to be operative

April

1,

1974

and

for the

reasons

given

under

Section

602(d)(2)

it

is

premature

to set

a

deadline

date

now ten

years

into

the

future.

We urge

the instream

aeration

system

be

completed

as

soon

as

possible.

5

—

320

---

-3-

The

Districts

concern

with effective

dates

stems

from

the natural

feeling

to protect

itself

from

prosecution

for water

quality

standards

violation.

In

an

early

case

(Springfield

Sanitary

District

v.

EPA,

PCB

70-32,

January

27,

1971) we

held that

the

deadline

dates

set by

the

old

Sanitary

Water

Board

regulations

for

the

construction

of treatment

works

to

adequately

meet

water

quality

standard

are

equivalent

to variances.

Thus,

to

be

explicit

as

possible

the

District

could

not

be

prosecuted

for

a violation

of water

quality

standards,

whether

oxygen

levels

or

floating

material

or

color,

if a

specific

future

date

is

given

for

the

construction

of

works

to

meet

those

standards.

Conversely,

a required

degree

of treatment,

such

as

secondary,

on

the

same

water

course,

if operated

so

as

to

cause

a violation

of water

quality

standards,

is

not

so

protected

since

proper

operation

is

always re-

quired.

Part

IV,

404(e).

The

District

request,

which we

have

granted,

is

for

additional

hearings

to

substitute

an

effluent

standard

of

10 mg/i

BOD

and

12

mg/i

of suspended

solids

for

the present

requirements

of

4

mg/i

BOD

and

5

mg/i

suspended

solids.

The

District

asserts

that

tertiary

treatment

(to the 4-5

standards)

would

cost

from

$200

to

$250

million

while

the

10-12

standards

would

only

cost

$100

to

$125

million

in

capital

costs.

The

savings,

then,

are

somewhere

between

$75 to

$150

million

which

are

indeed

substantial.

The

District

further

asserts

that

with

a 10-12

standard,

removal

of

combined

sewer

overflows,

maintenance

dredging

and

instream

aeration,

it

will

meet

the

Water

Quality

Standards

for

dissolved

oxygen

in

the

canal

system.

We

give the

District

its

opportunity

to show

that

the

10-12

standard

is

the

better

one.

The

new

facts,

such

as

the

recent

District

commitment

to in-stream

aeration

together

with

technical

comments

by

the

Institute

and

the District

indicate

that the

proposal

has

merit.

But we wish

to point

out

that the

waters

of Illinois

continue

beyond

Lockport

where

the Sanitary

and

Ship

Canal terminates.

We

want

to

know the

effect

of the

looser

effluent

standard

upon the

Des

Flames

River

below

Lockport

and upon

the

Illinois

River,

especially

between

its

formation

and the

Dresden

Dam.

Portions

of these

waters

are

General

Use

Waters

and are

known to be

now below

existing

standards.

It

is

common

knowledge

that

the

oxygen

demand

caused

by the

Districts

ammonia

releases

exerts

a deleterious

effect

upon

the

Illinois

River

even below

Peoria.

Similarly,

we will

look

closely

at the

District

proposal

for

downstream

effects~

Dr.

John

T.

Pfeffer,

Environmental

Scientist

for

the Institute

for

Environmental

Quality,

in his

comments

of

June

21,

1972

on

the

District

proposals

states,

The

downstream

effect

of

the

discharge

from

the

waterways

has

not

been

adequately

documented.

The

MSDGC

developed

5

—

321

---

-4-

a

hypothetical

analysis

based

upon

the

extension

of

the

channel

80 miles

downstream.

The

analysis

has

no

bearing

on the

actual

stream

flow

conditions

downstream

from

Lockport.

The

true

impact

can

only be

evaluated

from

an analysis

of

the

stream

in this

area.

However,

increasing

the

effluent

BOD5 to

10 mg/i

adds

only

approximately

110, 000

pounds

of ultimate

BOD

per

day.

This

additional

oxygen

demand

is

offset

by

the

addition

of

160, 000 pounds

of

oxygen

per

day

by

in-stream

aeration.

Therefore,

the

waterway

will

receive

an

additional

50, 000 pounds

per

day

of oxygen.

Also,

the

MSDGC

model

shows

that

the

BOD5 will

increase

from

3.4

to

5.4

mg/i

at

Lockport

for

the

10 mg/i

BOD5

effluent

condition.

This

additional

2

mg/i

BOD5

in conjunction

with

a proposed

7.

0

mg/i

of dissolved

oxygen

should

not

create

significant

oxygen

problems

downstream

from

Lockport.

One

other

benefit

would

be realized

with

the use

of in-stream

aeration.

The

planning,

design,

and construction

time

associated

with installation

of these

modules

is

considerably

shorter

than the

time

required

for

completion

of the

program

for

water

pollution

control

in

the metropolitan

Chicago

area.

Therefore,

it

is

conceivable

that

the

District

could

have these

systems

operating

and

eliminating

excessively

low

dissolved

oxygen

levels

in the

waterways

system

at a

much

sooner

program.

This

would

be

an advantage

in

showing

a

somewhat

higher

quality

of

water

in the

waterways

prior

to

the

comple-

tion

of

the

construction

of the

entire

pollution

abatement

system.

Part

IV,

406.

The

District

asks

that

we

extend

the

date

of

the

ammonia

effluent

standard

of

2.

5

mg/i

(April

through

October)

and

4.

0 mg/i

(November

through

March) from

December

31,

1977

to December

31,

1982.

The

District

supplied

a great

deal

of technical

material

asserting

the possible

difficulties

using

two-stage

riitrification.

We feel

that

the testimony

of

two

eminent

authorities

Dr.

Edwin~Barth (December

17,

1970

R7.0-8)

and Dr.

Clair

Sawyer

(October

1,

1971,

R70-8,

etc.

)

still

holds

which

is that

two-stage

nitrification

is

entirely

feasible.

The

fact that

the. District

itself

has

the

Salt

Creek

treatment

plant

now

under

construction

at a

cost

of

$43,

259,

000 for

comple-

tion

December

31,

1974

shows

that large

scale

plants

(30

MGD) are

capable

of being

designed

to incorporate

two-stage

nitrification.

The

District

raises

the possibility

of

poisoning

of the

nitrifiers

by

industrial

wastes

but

presents

no

data

showing

influent

levels

of these

metals

in

comparison

to

reported

toxic

levels.

Thus

we

do

not

know if the

possible

problem

even

exists.

We note

as

an example

that

mercury

toxicity

for nitrifiers

is

given

by the

District

as

2.

0 mg/i.

This

level

is

far

above

our

sewer

dis-

charge

regulation

of

0.

0005

mg/I

and

should

not

be

countenanced.

5

—

322

---

-5-

To

grant

another

five

years

now onto

the

December

31,

1977

deadline

is

to

delay

that

much

longer

the

substandard

conditions

caused

by

the

District

in the

Illinois

River

from

its

ammonia

discharges.

What the

District

needs

to

do is

to

accelerate

its

nitrification

research

at each

major

plant.

If

materials

toxic to nitrifiers

are

found,

then the

District

sewer

discharge

ordinance

may

have to be tightened.

The

ammonia

has

to be nitrified

and

that

as

soon as

possible.

Part

IV,

602(d)(2).

The

District

has

requested

another

5-year

extension

from

December

31,

1977

to. December

31,

1982

for

the

solution

to its

combined

sewer

problem.

The

District

in

the table

of costs

puts

the

so-called

Deep

Tunnel

project

as

having

an

ultimate

cost

of

SI. 223

billion

and states

that

the

project

is

so massive

in

scope

that

it

physically

cannot

be built

by

1977.

If the

complete

Deep

Tunnel”

project

is

the

only

solution

then

the District

may be

correct.

The

‘Deep

Tunnel

project

is

both

a pollution

control

and

flood

control

measure.

Water

quality

standards

may be met

at

a

degree

of retention

less

than that

required

for

optimum

flood

control.

The

Board’s

regulations

do

not

necessarily

require

full

retention

of

all

storm

flows.

The

regulation

requires

the

‘first

flush”

as

determined

by the

Agency

be treated

to the

effluent

standards.

Additional

flows

shall

receive

a minimum

of primary

treatment

and

disinfection.

And

everything

over

10 times

average

dry

weather

flow

shall

receive

the treatment

necessary

to

comply

with

water

quality

standards

602(c).

These

regulations

may permit

something

less

than the

complete

Deep

Tunnel

project

and this

lesser

portion

might

be

conceivably

constructed

by

1977.

The

District

should

determine

in

consultation

with the

Agency

as

the

reguiation

states,

exactly

what

degree

of treatment

is

necessary

and proceed

forthwith

to meet

the

regulation.

The

Federal

storm

water

research

program

lists

different

processes

by

which treatment

can

be

achieved.

Some

of these

processes,

such

as

dissolved

air

flotation

or

high rate

filtration

might

be

entirely

suitable

for

installation

now

on streams

designated

General

Use

Waters

such

as

the

Des

Flames

River,

Salt

Creek

or

the North

Branch

of the

Chicago

River

upstream

of Lawrence

Avenue

where

only

a

small

number

of

combined

storm

outlets

exist.

The

Board

opinion

of March

7,

1972

on

the Water

Quality

Standards

states

this

about

the District’s

1977

storm

water

treatment

deadline

we

do

not

think

it proper

to

extend

the

deadline

beyond

that

originally

set

by

the

Sanitary

Water

Board.

Fbur

years

have

passed

since

the ten-year

deadline

was

set,

and the

District

is

still

in the

planning

stage.

It is time

something

happened.

The

Board

is

aware

of

the

District

and

City

of

Chicago

construction

since

1967

of three

‘deep

tunnels

but

none

have

pumping

stations

which

are

yet

operative.

These

projects

ought

to

be finished

and operated

to make

certain

that

ground

water

contamination

can be

avoided,

that

methane

will

not

build

5—

323

---

-6-

up

and that

solids

will

not

accumulate.

The

“Deep

Tunnel”

concept

has

yet

to be proven

and the

District

needs

to

speed

up

its

efforts.

Due

diligence

in

controlling

combined

storm

flows

should

he

shown

and the

instant

request

for five

more years

is

thus

premature.

Part

XI.

The

District

has

requested

changes

in many

of

the

sections

of

the regulations

dealing

with permits.

The

District

cites

its

own need

to

issue

permits,

the

costs

of

a duplicate

system

of permits,

possible

delay to

developers

and to

the

public

as

reasons

for

exempting

District

located

projects

from

the

necessity

for

obtaining

State

permits.

We

agree

that

the

District

should

continue

to issue

permits

if it

desires

and that

right

still

exists.

But

we

also

feel

that

a State

overview

is

requirec

under

the

Environmental

Protection

Act.

We

encourage

any cooperative

permit

program

that

can

he

worked

out

between

the

District

and the

Agency.

For

the

present

we think

it

important

to

retain

the present

permit

regulations

and

accumulate

experience

with

them.

1,

Christan

L.

Moffett,

Clerk

of

the

Illinois

Pol1ut~n Control

Board,

hereby

certify

the

above

Opinion

was

adopted

on thc~f”day of

August,

1972

byavoteof

$—ca

Christan

L.

Moffetf,

rk

Illinois

Pollution

Con

ol Board

5

—