ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March

 7, 1972

In the Matter of

#R 70—8

EFFLUENT CRITERIA

In the Matter of

#R 71—14

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS REVISIONS

In the Matter of

)

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS REVISIONS

)

 #R 71-20

FOR INTRASTATE WATERS

 (SWB-14)

)

Opinion of the Board

 (by Mr. Currie):

On May 12,

 1971,

 we published a proposed Chapter IV of

the Rules and Regulations of the Pollution Control Board, comprising

a complete recodification and revision of all existing regulations

respecting water pollution.

 Extensive hearings were held

throughout the State, from June

 to October.

 Upon studying the

transcripts and exhibits, we published a partial proposed final

draft on November 11, including principally those provisions,

many of them originally proposed in #R 70-8 and the subject

of separate hearings last winter, respecting effluent standards,

permits, and control of storm overflows.

 On December 21 we

published a second proposed final draft containing additional

provisions considered at the hearings.

 On January

6,

 1972,

we adopted many of the provisions in the November

 11 draft

 (see

opinion and order of that date), postponing effluent standards

for deoxygenating wastes and for bacteria,

 as well as permit and

overflow provisions.

 Final hearings were held on these subjects

and on the December 21 draft,

 and we today adopt final provisions

as to all remaining matters.

 Today’s regulations supplement

and do not repeal those adopted January

6.

 This opinion explains

todayrs

 action.

In large part today’s draft is simply

 a codification

of

existing water quality standards and associated provisions that

are now scattered throughout a number of separate regulations

that we inherited from the Sanitary Water Board.

 The new

regulations, when adopted, will supersede the old except for

determining violations alleged to have occurred prior to the

effective date of the new regulations.

 In addition, today’s

new regulations contain the following changes, among others:

1)

 A more stringent dissolved-oxygen requirement for better

protection of aquatic life.

2)

 The.designatio~nof additional waters, such as the~‘remaining

portions of the Illinois River, to be protected for aquatic

—2—

life and bodily contact.

3)

 Additional communities required to go beyond traditional

secondary sewage treatment.

4)

 Limited relief from the highest degree of tertiary treatment

for communities that can prove a more economical means

of

tertiary treatment sufficient to assure satisfactory water

 quality and compliance with water quality standards.

5)

 Compliance programs required in certain cases to assure

compliance with stream standards for ammonia and phosphorus.

6)

 A two year acceleration of the deadline in most communities

for control of pollution from combined sewer overflows,

one of the State’s most serious water pollution problems.

7)

 The highest degree of treatment required for sewage or

similar wastes discharged to Lake Michigan.

8)

 Allowance for treatment lagoons that small communities

can afford and can operate successfully, provided water

quality standards can be met.

9)

 A December, 1973 deadline for treatment beyond secondary,

based on recent changes

 in applicable laws.

 We have

allowed up to one year in past cases for compliance with

the Agency’s revised criteria respecting algae from

effluent polishing lagoons.

 An additional six months

seems

 a reasonable price for saving millions of dollars

under today’s new standard.

 In addition, adherence to the

existing paper deadline would not assure compliance by

that date; most communities cannot meet that date in any

event.

10)

 Year-round disinfection of sewage

 treatment plant

effluents.

11)

 A prohibition of discharges

 to sewers that interfere

with the operation of treatment plants.

12)

 A comprehensive permit requirement for new and existing

 sources.

13)

 Protection for underground waters.

A section—by—section discussion follows.

Rules

 101-103 are standard statements of the Board!s authority

and policy, substantially as in present regulations, and a re-

pealer of obsolete provisions.

 Rule 104 contains definitions

in addition to those adopted January

6.

 The definitions

largely speak for themselves.

 Since the preceding drafts we

have added an Agency—suggested definition of “Modification”

—3—

and revised the definitions of dilution ratio and population

equivalent as urged by the Institute and by the Agency respective-

ly.

 Our earlier definition

 of one P.E.

 as 0.2 pounds

 of BOD5

per day was based on a misunderstanding of an Agency guide-

line.

Part II is the heart of the water quality standards and

constitutes an updated version of the criteria now found in

regulations SWB-7 through SWB-15:

201

 Mixing Zones.

 Existing standards by and large provide

for “reasonable admixture”

 of effluents in a mixing zone that

is not subject to the water quality standards.

 This is necessary

unless effluent standards are to be as stringent as water

quality standards, which in some cases

 (e.g., temperature,

see #R 70-16, Mississippi Thermal Standards, November 15,

 1971)

would impose an unreasonable cost burden.

 At the same time,

if the water quality standards are not to be undermined,

 the.

area within mixing zones must be kept relatively small.

Technical Release 20-22

 of the Sanitary Water Board,

 long used

as

 a guideline without the force of a regulation, provided

that reasonable mixing would be deemed to occur within 600 feet

from the point of discharge.

 We have held that this figure

represents the understanding of the Sanitary Water Board in

adopting the reasonable mixture standard, at least with regard

to the larger rivers, and therefore have required that on the

Illinois, Wabash,

 Ohio,

 and Mississippi Rivers the standards

be met outside

 a zone 600 feet in its greatest dimension.

See

Application of Commonwealth Edison Co.

 (Dresden #3),

 70-21

(March 3, 1971); Mississippi Thermal Standards,

R 70-16,

supra; Ohio-Wabash Thermal Standards,

R 71-12, June 28, 1971.

On the other hand, we have expressed doubt that such

 a large

mixing zone could have been intended on small streams, since

a few 600—foot zones on such streams would undermine

 the stream

quality standards altogether.

 See EPA v. City of Champaign,

# 7l—51C, September 16, 1971.

The May 12 draft incorporated the 600-foot standard across

the board, but consideration of the Champaign case,

 just cited,

suggests a more flexible test is desirable.

 The basic standard

•today adopted, therefore,

 is expressed in terms of the

principle that mixing zones must be kept very small in proportion

to stream volume.

 Although the application of this principle

must be determined on a case—by-case basis, this approach appears

to be more.’ responsive

 to the competing policy considerations

underlying the mixing zone provisions than does any rigid size

requirement.

 In response to other testimony received,

 today’s regula—

tion

 alters the 600-foot linear zone—-here preserved as a

maximum-—to a zone no larger than the area of a circle with 600-foot

radius, by analogy to the Lake Michigan standard

 (#R 70-2, June

9,

1971), recognizing that in flowing streams the shape of a plume

is likely to be long and thin in a downstream direction.

—4—

The earlier provision intended to prevent increasing the

size of the mixing zone by multiplication

 of discharge points

has been reworded to avoid unintended restrictions.

The

formerly rigid provision requiring a fixed proportion

 of the

stream as a zone of passage for fish has been made more flexible

in order to leave details to individual cases while preserving

the principle that thermal or other pollution blocks’must be

avoided.

 This provision applies only to waters protected for:

 aquatic

 life.

202 Stream Flows.

 This Rule provides that water quality standards

are to be met at all times except extreme

low

flows,

 This provision

is the equivalent of that in existing regulations.

 An exception

is provided,

 as in the Ohio—Wabash and Mississippi thermal

standards,

 for brief excursions of temperature that are not

likely to be harmful and that are the result of natural conditions

peculiar to temperature.

 It is recognized that it may be

necessary in the future to provide some type of episode control

at times

 of extreme low flow in order to avoid harm to aquatic

populations.

203 General Standards.

 Today’s revision ~

principle that all waters should be protected against nuisances

and against health hazards to those near them;

 that all waters

naturally capable of supporting aquatic life, with the exception

of a few highly industrialized streams consisting primarily

of effluents

 in the Chicago area,

 should be protected to support

such life; and that waters that are used for public water supply

should be clean enough that ordinary treatment processes will

assure their potability.

 Consequently general standards for

water quality

 are set that will protect most uses except public

water supply; more stringent standards are set for places where

water

 is withdrawn for public supply; and more lenient standards

 are set for those streams classified for restricted use.

The

general standards are found in Rule 203 and their discussion

follows.

 They are taken largely from existing criteria for

aquatic life.

 Stream use designations are found in Part III.

203

 (a) preserves the existing requirements

 for freedom from

nuisance.

203

 (b) retains the existing

 values for aquatic

life.

203

 (c) provides a phosphorus limit for reservoirs and lakes and for

streams tributary to them.

 The evidence is strong that phosphorus

above this level in relatively still water can give rise

to

obnoxious algae blooms.

 The evidence does not support

the

need for a phosphorus standard in other situations, and the proposal

for such a standard is here omitted.

 •So is the earlier proposal

for an algae limit, which was too stringent to indicate the

—5—

presence of

 a nuisance.

 The evidence does not support any

numerical standard for algae, and we rely upon the nuisance

standard of 203

 (a).

 We have not defined “reservoir” or

“lake” for want of an adequate definition.

 This will have to

be worked out on a case-by-case basis

 in light of the policy

here expressed.

 Not every navigation

dam

will be held to create

 a lake for this purpose.

 Despite the uncertainty,

 it does not

seem appropriate to postpone necessary regulation for lack of

a perfect definition.

203

(d)

 adopts the May 12 proposal

 (6.0 mg/i for 16 hours

and 5.0 minimum)

 for dissolved oxygen requirements for aquatic

life.

 The present standard (5.0 and 4.0)

 is not optimum

according to the Green Book of the National Technical Advisory

Committee on Water Quality Criteria.

 The testimony of Dr.

 John

Pfeffer of the Institute for Environmental Quality, discussed

in more detail below, strongly supports ‘the achievability of

this revised standard, often without the highest degree of treat-

ment that is feasible.

203

Ce)

 retains existing radioactivity levels.

203

(f)

 lists a number of important contaminants

 as follows.

“Dissolved” values have been changed to “total” for reasons

given in the explanation of the proposed final draft of Nov.

11.

P~mmoniaNitrogen.

 The present SWB-8 standard is 2.5 mg/i,

which the Green Book (supra)

 says is acutely toxic to fish.

The earlier 1.0 proposal was based upon a Minnesota standard.

While the toxicity of ammonia is pH dependent, the Green Book

recommends a limit of 1.5 mg/l,

 and that is here adopted.

Arsenic.

 The May 12 proposed level of 1.0 mg/i was based

upon existing

SWB-8

 standards and the recommendation of McKee

 and Wolf, Water Quality Criteria, which is a well-respected

literature survey,

 for protection of aquatic

 life.

 It is

adopted today.

Barium.

 The May 12 proposal, adopted here, of

 5.0 mg/i for

aquatic life was based upon existing SWB-8 standards and the

recommendation of McKee and Wolf.

BOD.

 The May 12 draft proposed a stream standard of 7.0 for

biochemical oxygen demand

 (5-day).

 Thjs was intended to facilitate

determination of the degree of treatment required of dischargers

without resort to complex formulas for computing oxygen sag and

recovery.

 The evidence is that the effect of a given level

of BOD on a stream

 is too dependent upon reaeration rates to

make any prescribed standard meaningful.

 We have omitted it

and will rely on the dilution ratios of Rule 404, together

with proof of violation of dissolved oxygen levels by stream

studies or otherwise, until more adequate proof is presented

to support a BOD standard.

—6—

Boron.

 The May

 12 and today adopted level of 1.0 mg/l is

based on evidence that higher levels can harm irrigated crops.

While 100

 irrigation is unlikely in Illinois, the uncontrolled

discharge of large quantities of boron is clearly undesirable.

We have proposed no effluent standard because of the lack of

evidence as to treatment methods.

 The testimony suggests that

compliance with the stream standard should not be very difficult.

Cadmium.

 The 0.05 value proposed on May 12 and adopted today

is the same as the present SWB-8 for aquatic life.

 McKee and

Wolf suggest that an even lower value might be appropriate to

protect some fish.

Chloride.

 Chlorides are tolerated by aquatic life in relatively

high concentrations; Professor Lackey, a recognized expert

in fish biology, testified that 500 mg/i would be a safe limit,

and there was no substantial dispute.

 This value will also,

according to the evidence, protect against any serious problems

in drinking water.

 The undesirability of an overly tight chloride

standard is underlined by the high cost of chloride removal

as well as the relatively innocuous nature of the material.

Chromium.

 There is a dispute in the evidence as to tht toxicity

of chromium.

 McKee and Wolf support the testimony that the

toxicity of chromium toward fish and man has been exaggerated,

but stress

 the toxicity of small amounts of hexavalent chromium

to daphnia and other important fish foods.

 The values

here adopted preserve the existing SWB-8 aquatic standards

for hexavalent

 (0.05 mg/i)

 and trivalent

 (1.0)

 chromium since

McKee and Wolf appear to justify the distinction with regard

to effects on fish foods.

 The May 12 proposal was a single

standard of 0.05.

 The federal government asks that we adopt

a single strict standard since trivalent chromium may be

converted to hexavalent after discharge.

 If it does the

hexàvalent standard will apply,

 and we see no reason for a

change.

Copper.

 Existing copper standards vary:

 SWB-8’s

 is 0.04

mg/i, while SWB—l2’s

 (Mississippi River)

 is the same

 (0.02)

as

 that proposed May 12 and adopted today.

 This figure is based

on McKee and Wolf’s recommendation for fish and aquatic

 life.

Important fish foods

 are,readily killed by low concentrations

of copper, and McKee and Wolf say 0.025 mg/i has been found to

kill most fish in

 8 hours

 in the presence of 1.0 mg/i of zinc.

Cyanide.

 The present SWB-8 standard of 0.025 mg/i, here adopted,

is that recommended by Orsanco.

 Twice that concentration,

say McKee and Wolf,

 has killed fish in a short time, while

trout were found to survive

 27 days

 at 0.02 mg/i.

 The May

12

draft proposed 0.01 based upon the fact that such a level,

not treatability,

 is the goal in setting water quality standards

for general uses.

—7—

Fluoride.

 Fluoride can delay the hatching of fish eggs and has

been reported by McKee and Wolf to kill trout at concentrations

ranging from 2.3 to 7.2 mg/i.

 They recommend a standard of 1.5

mg/i.

 The figure of 1.4, here repeated from the May 12 draft,

is in line with that recommendation and also should assure a

potable supply.

Iron.

 The 1.0 mg/l standard proposed May 12 and adopted today is taken

from the existing SWB—8.

 McKee and Wolf make no

firm

recommendation

but report that dogfish survived a week’s exposure to

 1 to

2

mg/i of iron.

 Other species are said to have shown a lower toxic

threshold.

Lead.

 0.1 mg/i, proposed May 12 and adopted today,

 is the present

SWB-8 aquatic standard and supported by McKee and Wolf’s recommendation

of 0.1,

 a level above which lead is

 lethal to some fish and begins

to interfere with the breakdown of oxygen—demanding materials.

Manganese.

 There

 is no existing aquatic standard.

 The standard of

1.0

 (May

 12 and today)

 is based upon McKee and Wolf’s report

as to fish toxicity anddshould be easy to meet.

Nickel.

 There is no existing standard.

 McKee and Wolf report

one study finding that sticklabacks die as low as 0.8 mg/i,

but that others find nickel less toxic than iron or zinc.

Today’s rule,

 like that proposed

 May, 12,

 is ‘1.0 mg/i.

Phenols.

 There is conflicting evidence as to the harmful level

of phenols.

 The limiting value, according to the Green Book,

 is that concentrations above 0.1 mg/i impart a bad taste to

fish.

 The May 12 draft and today’s rule substitute 0.1 in place of the

present SWB-8 standard of 0.2.

Selenium.

 No present aquatic standard exists,

 bu.t McKee and

Wolf say 2.0 mg/i kill goldfish in eight days.

 The May 12 proposal of

~2.0therefore seems” too high, and 1.0

 is here adopted,

as

in the

proposecffinal

d~äft,

in order to keep the water below the harmful level.

Silver.

 The present

SWB-8

standard is 0.05 mg/i, but McKee

and Wolf report lethal doses to some fish at levels an order of

magnitude lower.

 Accordingly,as proposed ~May12., we adopt

0.005 mg/I.

Sulfates.

As

 in the case of chlorides, some limit seems desirable

to protect stock watering and fish~Dr. Lackey suggested that

500 mg/i would afford adequate protection for fish;

 McKee and

Wolf give the same figure for stock watering; and this level

should avoid serious adverse effects on public water supplies as well

according to McKee and Wolf.

—8—

Total Dissolved Solids.

 This level

 of 1000 mg/i too is based

largely on Dr. Lackey’s testimony, confirmed by other witnesses

and by McKee and Wolf,

 that aquatic life should not be harmed.

Zinc.

1.0

 is the present SWB-8 aquatic standard proposed May

 12 and adopted here.

 McKee and Wolf suggest that this is a safe

ievel if the water is not particularly soft.

Additional chemicals were suggested by various witnesses

for inclusion in the table, such as antimony, cobalt,

 and tin.

We recognize the desirability of adding more parameters and will

welcome specific suggestions for future additions, but codification

of the present standards should not be delayed while new parameters

are explored.

The May 12 draft contained a limit of 2.0 mg/i

 for the

aggregate of toxic substances indicated by an asterisk in the

above

 table.

 While the synergistic effect of various heavy

metals or other toxics

is

 a matter of considerable concern,

we have insufficient basis for setting any particular number

and therefore omitted this provision from the proposed final

draft,

 leaving the question of synergism to be dealt with by

general provisions such as paragraph

(h)

 of Rule 203, below.

The federal government calls our attention to a synergism

formula in the NTAC Green Book, but we think opportunity for

hearing should be afforded prior to the adoption of such a

provision.

203

(g)

 tightens the bacterial limit from that designed for

secondary contact to that described as safe for primary contact.

This has the same effect

 as the May 12 draft, which provided

a separate category of waters designated for primary contact

but which designated all general waters for this use.

 Since

disinfection is required of all relevant effluents, achieving

the lower level should pose no great additional difficulty.

Even if waters are not recommended for swimming because of other

problems such as turbidity, barge traffic,

 or dangerous currents,

they should not pose a health hazard to those who do use them.

203

 (h) retains the present SWB-8 general provision that no

~u’bs~t’an~es

 shall be present in amounts representing a stated

percentage of their toxic value to fish.

 This is most necessary

because no regulation can possibly list all contaminants that

are of concern.

The May 12 list of pesticides

 is omitted.

 It was obviously

incomplete and seems better left to the general toxicity provisions

of Rule 203

 (h).

—9—

203

(i)

 has been amended to incorporate the newly adopted

temperature standards for the Mississippi, Ohio,

 and Wabash

Rivers and to preserve the existing maximum values for other

streams

 (except to substitute 90°for

 93 on the former industrial

sector of the Illinois) pending further evidence

 as to actual

temperature.

 The federal EPA urges us to adopt monthly

maxima for other streams, which we shall be happy to do when

we

receive the necessary evidence.

 We are indebted to Mr.

Clarence Stuebe for certain data from the water intake at

 Peoria that suggest the standard perhaps can be significantly

tightened for some portions of the Illinois River.

The separate criterion for primary contact

 (formerly

Rule 204)

 is omitted for reasons given under Rule 203

(g)

 above.

Rule 204 states standards for public water supplies.

Despite the conclusion of McKee and Wolf that the recommended

Public Health Service standards for chlorides, sulfates,

and

total dissolved solids

 in desirable drinking water

 are. tighter

than necessary as

 a regulatory matter, we have put back into

today’s regulation the existing requirement that all Public

Health Service standards be met, on the recommendation of

both federal and state EPA’s and evidence that most Illinois

waters are safely within these standards.

 Further proof of

hardship is necessary to modify

 these existing standards.

We have also reinstated the provision that the public supply

standards need be met only where water is withdrawn for public

supply.

 This provision will assure that water is satisfactory

wherever it is taken, without requiring expensive cleanups

of effluents where

 the water is not used for public supply.

The construction of new public supply intakes will in some cases

therefore require additional treatment of effluents upstream.

Since general criteria apply to all waters designated for

public supply, the present regulation omits separate requirements

for those parameters whose general standards are tight enough

 to protect public supplies; boron, chromium, copper,

 fluoride,

mercury, silver, and zinc.

 The remaining standards are

based largely upon the Public Health Service standards,

as

amplified by the Green Book and by McKee and Wolf.

 While

the PHS explicitly states that its standards are intended to

prescribe the quality of finished rather than of raw water,

it is clear from the evidence that many of the metals

and

other contaminants here listed are not substantially affected

by ordinary water supply treatment,

 and therefore,

 as the Green

Book recommends, the raw water must itself meet the standard

to assure satisfactory finished water.

The standards for barium, cadmium,

 lead, and selenium--

together with chromium and silver, which are covered by

general standards——are taken from the Public Health Service

—10—

standards whose violation in finished water results in rejection

of the supply.

 These are toxic materials not removed by ordinary

treatment of raw water.

 These numbers represent existing SWB-8

standards.

 ~Forarsenic, the present standard, taken from the

PHS rejection standard,

 is 0.05;. as proposed May~i2, we have

‘tightened this to 0.01, which the PHS gives as the level that

should not be exceeded if better supplies are available.

It

seems reasonable to require that supplies be made to meet that

 recommended standard.

 The standard for nitrates and nitrites

is an important one.based upon health dangers to infants, and

these ions are not removed by standard treatment.

Other existing SWB-8 standards preserved in today’s list

include carbon chloroform extract

 (CCE)

 a measure of objectionable

organic material; iron, which like the additional parameter of

manganese for which there has been no standard causes problems

of taste and of laundry color; methylene blue active substances,

which cause taste problems and indicate recent sewage pollution;

and phenols, which also cause taste problems.

 Cyanide

 (SWB-8

prescribes the same value of 0.025 mg/i as for aquatic life)

is reduced,as proposed in May;.~to0.01 mg/i on

the basis of the recommended PHS standard.

 The existing oil

standard has been quantified.

 The other concentrations discussed

in this paragraph are based on PHS standards.

 ~Theextent to

which these parameters are reduced by ordinary treatment is

dispu”tèd

 The PHS says at least

some

of them are, and there-

fore fth~Ii~sthat raw water need not meet such strict standards;

the Green Book says otherwise, and for safety’s sake these

standards, mostly taken from present law,

 are here preserved.

As

 in the general standards,

 specific pesticide numbers

are omitted.

 A new paragraph

(c)

 is intended to guard against

the presence of toxic substances, for which numerical standards

are not provided.

205

 Restricted Use Standards.

 This Rule has been substantially

revised to provide that aquatic life standards for various toxic

materials need not be met since these waters are not protected

for aquatic life.

 The standards are intended to assure against

nuisance conditions,and,

 to protect other waters downstream,

the water quality in restricted waters is required to meet the

applicable effluent standards.

 The temperature standard has

been modified in response to a suggestion, from Commonwealth

Edison Company,

 in order to avoid expensive cooling devices

that are not necessary to the avoidance of nuisances

 or’ safety

hazards.

206 Lake Michigan.

 Certain parameters taken from existing

standards are preserved to require this high-quality lake to remain

especially clean for esthetic and recreational purposes, in

accordance with the important non-degradation policy.

 Similar

provisions

 to protect other waters of unusually high quality have

been omitted from the present draft for lack of evidence as to

which waters are entitled to such protection.

 The Lake Michigan

provisions establishthe principle of special protection for

—11—

high-quality waters,

 and additional waters may be added in the

future when the evidence so demands.

The Lake Michigan temperature standard recently adopted

has been inserted.

207

 Underground Waters.

 Protection of groundwater is of paramount

importance.

 The provision has been amended to make clear it

does not protect natural brines or deal with the problem of

deep—well disposal except to assure protection of present or

potential water supplies.

208 Nondegradation.

 This preserves the present prohibition of

unnecessary degradation of waters presently of better quality

than that required by the standards, recognizing that the

standards represent not optimum water quality but the worst

we are prepared to tolerate

 if economic considerations so

require.

Part III contains water use designations.

 All waters are

designated for general use except those in the restricted

category, which has here been broadened in response to testimony

to include waters whose flow is too low to ‘support aquatic

life.

 This should relieve the burden of treatment beyond the

effluent standards for discharges to intermittent streams.

Such extra effort is difficult to justify when it will not

result in a satisfactory ~quatic life because of insufficient

flow.

 Since the publication of the proposed final draft

we have also designated as restricted certain additional

heavily industrial channels’ in the Chicago area.

 The evidence

establishes that even with the most advanced treatment and with

stormwater overflow control aquatic life standards for dissolved

 oxygen

 (and perhaps also ammonia) cannotbe met in portions of

the Chicago River System, and that meeting the aquatic

temperature standards in these same areas,

 as well as in

the adjacent section of the Des Plaines River, would require

cooling towers costing tens of millions of dollars and produce

doubtful benefits in terms of stream improvements.

 In the case

of the North Shore Channel, where the evidence is that an

intermediate oxygen level

 is achievable, we have prescribed

it.

 We urge the Metropolitan Sanitary District to give serious

consideration to such further measures, including in—stream

aeration, as many offer promise of improving the quality of

its restricted use waters.

Part IV.

 Several Rules

 in this Part were adopted January

6.

Rules 404 and 405, earlier postponed, are adopted today.

404 Deoxygenating Wastes.

 This important section is an attempt,

much modified in wording from that originally proposed, to

restate the existing treatment requirements for BOD and suspended

solids in a single document, with several deliberate changes.

Th’e task

 is unfortunately compliôated by the fact that several

different levels of secondary treatment are presently required

for different waters and that new compliance dates must be set

for any new requirements

 in order to allow time to build treatment

works.

—12—

The basic requirement, which is close to that of existing

law,

 is that all oxygen—demanding wastes shall meet standards

of

 20 mg/i of BOD and 25 of suspended solids.

 As we said in

our January

 6 opinion, prescribing the uniform use of readily

available technology as a minimum serves to prevent local

nuisances, to avoid premature exhaustion of assimilative

capacity,

and

to further the established federal and state

policy against degradation of clean water.

As proposed by the Agency

 (#R7l-20), the July,

 1972 date

for compliance on intrastate streams

 (SWB-l4)

 is made applicable

to industry, as it was generally assumed to be before our

decision in Borden Co.

v.

 EPA, PCB 71-23

 (May 24,

 1971).

Additional time

 is allowed for sources on certain rivers, in-

cluding the Illinois and the Wabash, where present secondary

requirements are somewhat more lenient,

 and for sources affected

by the new dilution standard of Rule 401(a), but as in the

case of the Mississippi River

 (#R 70—3, Jan.

6,

 1971)

 the 20

and 25 standards appear readily attainable and represent the

minimum of acceptable treatment.

 An exception, however,

 allows

slightly less efficient treatment for smaller fac~Llities in

order to permit the use of trickling filters, which are relatively

economical and efficient in the absence of sophisticated operation,

except within the Metropolitan Sanitary District, where present

law prescribes the 20 and 25 standard for all sources, presumably

for the good reason that the density of sources

 is great enough

to make large combined treatment facilities practicable and to

discourage the use of less effective trickling filters.

 This

exception also has precedent in our revised Mississippi River standard.

The secondary treatment requirement,

 as noted above,

 is a

minimum standard representing ordinary good practice.

 In some

cases,

 as we said in our January 6 opinion,

because of the low volume of the receiving stream or the

large quantities of treated wastes discharged, meeting

these

 (minimum)

 standards may not suffice to assure that

the stream complies with water quaiity standards set on

the basis of what is necessary to support various water

uses.

 In such cases the very nature of water quality standards

requires that additional measures be taken beyond those

required by ordinary good practice to reduce further the

discharge of contaminants to the stream.

Treatment requirements beyond secondary are

 ‘based in

substantial part upon this principle.

 Sanitary Water Board

regulations, preserved by the Environmental Protection Act,

require additional treatment as the ratio between stream flow

and effluent volume

 (dilution ratio)

 becomes smaller.

 In general,

BOD and solids effluent standards were set at 10 and

12,

respectively, for dilution ratios of less than

 2 to

 1 and at

4 and

 5 for less than

 1 to

1.

—13—

The basic principle of this scheme is preserved in the

revised regulations, with several important changes.

 First,

we require the best available treatment

 (BOD 4, solids

5)

for discharges to Lake Michigan, a high-quality body of water

with low outflow rate that deserves maximum protection from

possible contamination.

 The principal discharger to the

Lake, the North Shore Sanitary District,

 is already committed

to removing its effluents from the Lake altogether

 (see League

of Women Voters v. NSSD,

 70-7, March31 and June 26,

 1971).

The additional requirement of similar treatment before discharge

to other high—quality waters, proposed May

 12, is omitted

for the time being pending identification of other waters

entitled to such special protection.

The other changes we have made in this Rule are based

primarily upon careful testimony presented by Dr. John Pfeffer

of the Institute for Environmental Quality with respect to the

need for and costs

 of treatment beyond secondary.

 Dr. Pfeffer’s

first point is that, given a base of secondary treatment,

the increased capital and operating and maintenance costs

for achieving the next level of treatment with polishing

 ponds or microstrainers are not significant.

 Therefore,

the requirement for effluent from an activated sludge

process to satisfy the BOD5 of 10 mg/l and organic suspended

solids of 12 mg/i adds a relatively insignificant cost

to wastewater treatment.

This testimony is supported by the testimony of consulting

engineer Hjalmar Sundin that tertiary filtration will achieve

an effluent meeting the 10-12 standard, that the cost of such

treatment is quite “reasonable”

 as compared with that necessary

to meet 4—5,

 and that “the economic breakpoint favors

a

 10 mg/i

standard for BOD5”.

 See also the testimony of consulting

engineer John Cormack with respect to the plants of the North

Shore Sanitary District and filtration.

 With respect to the

desirability of such treatment,

 Dr. Wesley Pipes urged the

Board

 to extend the effluent requirements of 10 mg/l BOD and

12 mg/i solids to all discharges having a dilution ratio

of less than five to one in order to reduce the stream BOD

and protect against alterations

 in stream biota toward

species more tolerant of pollution.

 As in the proposed final

draft, we accept Dr.

 Pipes’s suggestion because we believe

the added protection worth the relatively small incremental

cost of reducing effluents

 to this level when less than five

volumes of dilution water are available.

 This revision did

not raise much controversy.

—14—

Dr. Pfeffer’s second point, supported once again by

Sundin and Cormack and by numerous representatives of municipal

treatment works,

 is that the incremental cost of reducing effluents

beyond the 10-12 standard to meet 4 mg/i of BOD and

 5 of solids

is considerably greater.

 Moreover, he argues, in many cases

these costs need not be incurred in order to maintain satisfactory

stream quality.

 Using a modified from of the Streeter-Phelps

equation, he demonstrates that, given certain conditions

 including

a stream reaeration rate he says is not atypical for small streams

with low dilution ratios, the dissolved oxygen standards we today

set for aquatic life can often be met with effluents of

10

rather than

 4 mg/l of BUD even in the total absence of dilution.

The large sums spent for the last drop of removal, he concludes,

may be spent for no apparent benefit.

 That substantial sums

may be at stake is clear from Cormack’s testimony that the North

Shore Sanitary District can cut tertiary treatment costs at

three plants

 from $11,000,000 to $3,000,000 by substituting

filters under the Pfeffer proposal for the carbon absorption

columns planned to meet the existing standard.

This argument stands uncontradicted on the record insofar

as it pertains to dissolved oxygen.

 Dr. Pipes correctly

points out that oxygen is not the sole purpose of the effluent

 standards,

 as sludge banks can cause a shift toward more pollution—

tolerant life forms.

 Dr. Pfeffer responds that an effluent

containing as

 little as 12 mg/i of suspended solids, finely

divided and not readily settleable,

 should not result in sludge

banks detrimental to aquatic life.

Dr. Pfeffer’s recommendation, based on his above testimony,

is that relief from the dilution-ratio requirement of

 4 mg/i

BUD and

 5 of solids be provided upon proof in the indiv’thdual

case that stream standards for oxygen will not be violated.

The

Agency agrees.

 With modifications noted below, we adopt this

recommendation.

 The purpose of treatment requirements beyond

secondary is to assure satisfactory stream quality, not to impose an

acceptable minimum of uniform treatment.

 The dilution ratio is a

very rough guide to the necessity for such treatment.

 Based as

it

is upon the single relevant factor of available dilution water,

it overlooks both the critical rate at which the stream

accepts additional oxygen from the air and the important question

of BUD concentration in. the water that is to be used for dilution.

For the relatively inexpensive increment to a 10-12 standard,

and as

 an indicator of the need for proof that stream standards

can be met without the expense of a 4-5 effluent, the dilution

ratio is

 a useful tool.

 But, like standard emission factors

in proof of air contaminant emissions, the naked dilution ratio

 should not automatically result in enormous expenditures for

the best level of treatment if it can be shown that the water

quality standards can be met at considerably less cost.

—15—

This conclusion is the more compelling in light of the

fact that for many communities completion of facilities to

achieve the 4-5 standard will by no means exhaust the need for

water pollution control spending or assure that water quality

standards will be met.

 As Dr. Pfeffer points out, the BUD5

test principally measures the carbonaceous BUD and ignores

the often delayed but eventual oxygen dernend exerted by ammonia,

to which we have directed

our

attention in the regulations

adopted January

6.

 The ultimate nitrogenous oxygen demand of

a waste containing a normal 20 mg/i of ammonia

 (measured as

nitrogen)

 is 91 mg/i, nine times the carbonaceous BUD remaining

after treatment to an effluent of

 10 mg/i.

 We agree with Dr.

Pfeffer that it makes little sense to

 spend money reducing

carbonaceous BUD from 10

to

 4 if the much greater nitrogenous

demand is ignored.

 The State Water Survey has already found

that oxygen standards in the Illinois River will not be met,

even with advanced treatment, unless ammonia is oxidized be-

fore discharge in the largest plants.

 The same may be true

in other streams.

 Inherent in Dr. Pfeffer’s proposal,

as

several witnesses representing municipal dischargers expressly

agreed,

 is that a considerable number of plants may be required

to do something about ammonia in addition to those already subject

to the January

 6 effluent standards.

 Moreover, even if

ammonia’s oxygen demand is not exerted until sufficient

dilution water downstream is available to protect stream oxygen,

the ammonia itself may be toxic to fish and require treatment

on that basis.

 Further, it is clear from the evidence that

discharges from combined sewer overflows in many parts of the

State may make it impossible to achieve the water quality standards

even with the best available treatment at the plant.

In short, there may be higher priorities for water pollution

control

 in many communities than the need for an effluent of

4 mg/i of BUD and

 5 of suspended solids.

 Donald Matchke of the

Cook County Clean Streams Committee and the Izaak Walton League,

voicing the thoughts of a conservationist, expressed in an

early hearing a concern over exactly this question of priorities,

fearing lest the existing Sanitary Water Board requirements

leave us with many expensive treatment plants and unsatisfactory

waters:

We have to grapple with the gross problems that are

contributing gross problems to the stream.

 These

are the combined storm water and combined sewer overflows,

and also the solids that escape from a treatment plant.

These are two main significant problems which seems to me

they ought to be tops with us

 as far

 as solving rather

than going for 98 percent treatment or four or five parts

BUD as ultimate treatment in small receiving water courses.

—16—

My one recommendation for tertiary treatment, outside of

your own, which is nitrogen and phosphorus removal, plus

chlorination, would be filtration of effluent because

this contributes to a bottom sedimentation problem that

is

 a common problem from one end of the state to the other.

It is something that we can do relatively economically.

We will take a BUD credit for doing it.

 We have

to

grapple with the main problem, uncontrolled discharges

of storm water and combined sewer overflows.

 Otherwise

we are going to spend a great deal of money in the next five

years and the tertiary treatment,

 and the comment made

earlier, going to apply, there is going to be no benefit

seen.

 The rivers are going to look just as bad unless we

choose the priorities.

 They will look just as bad after

tertiary treatment goes

in.

There

 is always the contention that all of the suggested things

should be done, that money is

 no’,

 object.

 But in light of the

notorious difficulties of municipalities in raisins

 enough

money to finance the most necessary treatment projects,

 as well

as the general undesirability of wasting money, we think it

appropriate to reorder our priorities somewhat along the lines

suggested by Mr. Matchke in order that limited funds will provide

the maximum benefit in terms of actual stream improvement.

Accordingly, we have provided an exception from the effluent

standard of

 4 mg/i BUD and

5

 solids, upon proof that an effluent

of 10 and 12 will suffice to achieve compliance with all

applicable water quality standards.

 The burden is on the

discharger to make that proof or to meet the stricter standard.

Other sources discharging to the same stream must be taken

into account, although the applicant is entitled to assume

that others will bring themselves into compliance with their

own effluent standards.

 We require proof that undesirable

bottom deposits will not be caused, to satisfy the most serious

question raised by Dr. Pipes; and that~aprogra ~of ammo~•~niacontrol

and of combined—sewer overflow control, where necessary, be

provided at the time of applying for an exemption.

 What the

new rule says

 is that it is the discharger’s obligation to

achieve satisfactory stream’ quality; he should demonstrate

to the Agency how that is

 to be done.

The exemption does not apply to the three huge plants of

the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago.

Dr.

Pfeffer and his committee agreed it should not; the District

itself testified to the enormous population equivalent load

—17—

discharged from those plants even after a high level of treat-

ment; and sophisticated models presented by the District and

others demonstrate that dissolved oxygen in the receiving

streams cannot meet the

 6 mg/i level even if the best treat-

ment

 is provided.

 We cannot under the circumstances be content

with less than the best in hopes that someday these channels

may be upgraded to the status of an asset rather than a

liability.

 Nor does the exception apply to Lake Michigan,

where the high treatment requirement is imposed to protect

the pristine esthetic quality of a special body of water.

An additional revision is based upon testimony that the

present effluent requirements for low—flow streams

 (less than

to

 ratio) effectivelyprohibit use of three—stage lagoons,

which

according

‘the

Institute

are

the

most

dependable,

economically

reasonable

method

.advanced

treatment

for

small

communities that cannot afford expensive operators.

 Moreover,

the lagoons

 are said to achieve a satisfactory reduction of

the original sewage contaminants; mudh of what goes into the

stre:axn is likely to be algae.

 We have agreed’ to allow such

lagoons ‘in small communities

 to exceed

 th’e tighter effluent

standards so long as water quality standards are met.

The timetables for compliance with this Rule are necessarily

somewhat complex,

 as they attempt to adopt some existing dead-

lines and to prescribe new ones where new treatment require-

ments’ are imposed.

 No simplification appears practicable

without either relaxing existing deadlines or giving

insufficient time to meet new requirements.

 Individual time-

tables in the present regulations, many of which required compliance

before now, are preserved by reference as the basis for en—

forcement purposes.

 The July,

 1972 date set for secondary

treatment on intrastate streams jrest~ted~

The

December,

 1973 ~.aterecently set for

secondary treatment on the M~ssassippi~Rive~ris rata~ned,

as is the 1977 date for advanced treatment ~inthe ~la-rg~

plants of the Metropolitan Sanitary i~astrict

 2Yhree years,

a re~asonab1~

 ‘pei’iod accoid.ng to ~therecord in the

Mississippi ~,ivercase

 (R 70-3), i~~alibwediformeeting all

new

requir~meflt$

•

We

have

allowed

until

December

31,

1973

for

compliance

with

most existing requirements for treatment beyond secondary.

In

many cases the original deadline was July, 1972, but according

 to Director Blaser of the Agency most communities have fallen

behind that schedule, in large part because of the unavailability

of federal aid funds.

 We have held that the absence of federal

money is no excuse for disobeying the law, and we would not

extend the deadline merely because people have missed it.

—18—

But we have already had several occasions, e.g., EPA v. City

Marion,

#71-25

(Oct.

28,

1971),

observe

that

new

EPA

technical

release

issue

the

summer

1971,

just

number

of communities had prepared their plant for supplemental

treatment,

 took many people by surprise in requirment the removal

of algae from polishing lagoon effluent in order to assure

meeting

the

effluent

standards.

the

basis

this

surprise

have

granted

variances

permitting

six

months’

year’s

extension

the

1972

deadline

for

communities

forced

draft

new

plans

midstream

this

new

policy,

the

Marion

case

itself.

Moreover,

our

acceptance

Dr.

Pfeffer’s

revised

effluent

standard

permitting

individual

evaluation

the

need

beyond

mg/i

BUD

and

solids,

meaningful,

must

include

brief

period

time

 which communities

affected

may

find

out

and

demonstrate

whether

not

they

can

take

advantage

the

revised

standard.

therefore

allow

until

Sept.

1972

for

the

submission

program

for

achieving

compliance,

which

must

approved

the

Agency,

and

until

the

end

1973

complete

construction.

Because

the

communities

affected

are

those

previously

under

1972

deadline,

not

believe

much

lead

time

required

the

case

starting

from

scratch

with

stringent

requirement,

for

which

financial

arrangements

must

made.

The

Marion

case

gives

some

indication

the

time

that

may

required

adjust

some

the

changes

made.

The

fact

that

six

months’

delay

treatment

plant

completion

may

result

from

adoption

the

Pfeffer

proposal

not

be-

lieve

reason

enough

for

blazing

full

stream

ahead

what

may

wrong

course.

The

saving

money

for

important

uses,

the

rapid

attention

the

critical

problems

combined

sewers

and

ammonia,

and

the

fact

that

most

communities

were

default

the

old

deadlines

all

militate

against

keeping

the

old

rules.

fact

suspect

the

December

1973

date

not

far

from

when

many

cummunities

would

actually

have

complied

with

the

old

rules;

retaining

the

paper

requirement

July

1972

would

not

mean

compliance

that

date.

substantial

delay

were

issue,

should

likely

reject

the

Pfeffer

proposal.

Better

plant

that

costly

than

necessary

than

continued

pollution.

Six

months’

delay

can

justify.

But

anyone

who

cannot

prove

his

case

for

exemption

that

time

should

ahead

and

build

meet

the

stringent

standard.

need

hardly

say

that

the

slippage

this

program

that

makes

that

statement

possible

cause

for

grave

concern,

have

pointed

out

numerous

opinions,

e.g.,

City

Mattoon

EPA,

#71-8

(April

14,

1971),

and

that

must

not

permitted

happen

again.

set

new

dates

because

have

set

new

requirements,

not

because

local

officials

have

chosen

disobey

the

law.

will

not

tolerate

similar

slippage

—19—

under the revised program.

 Substantial money penalties,

 as well

prohibition

additional

connections,

are

distinct

possibility

for communities that do not make diligent efforts to meet the new

deadlines.

Paragraph

(c)

 provides for averaging in accordance with the

suggestion of the State Water Survey, based upon actual treatment

plant observations under good operation.

405 Bacteria.

 Summer disinfection of bacterially contaminated

effluents by various dates no later than July 1,

 1972, has been

required by the regulations

 for some time, with varying compliance

dates and with more stringent requirements for discharges to

waters designated for primary contact

 (swimming).

 The dangers

of germs are also present to those who go to the waters

for various purposes in winter, and the lower level prescribed

for primary contact should be readily achievable wherever

disinfection is practiced.

 The additional safety seems well

worth the additional cost in chemicals.

Part V imposes reporting requirements similar to those of

 present

law (SWB-6).

 Small changes have been made to provide that expensive

monitoring need not be done for contaminants not likely to be found

in an effluent.

 Access for Agency testing

 is requ±r~ed.The Agency

asks us to add

 a requirement that records be kept.

 We invite a

proposal for amendment to this effect on which a hearing may be

held,

 as the suggestion was received too late to allow public comment.

Part VI.

 Rule 601, dealing with breakdowns and spills, was a

adopted

January

602 Combined Sewers and Treatment Plant Bypasses.

 It is

generally acknowledged that one of the most serious water

pollution

problems

throughout

Illinois

that

resulting

from

sewage flows far in excess of treatment or even sewer capacity

during wet weather.

 Solution of this problem is necessary if

all our other regulations are to result in visible improve-

ment of water quality.

 Methods exist for capturing various

levels of storm flows and of giving them various levels of

storm

flows

and

giving

 them various levels of treatment,

some of the more sophisticated of which were described by Mr.

Bryan of Rex Chainbelt at our Alton hearing.

 One plainly avail-

able solution, which

 is being put into effect by the North Shore

Sanitary District,

 is retention of overflows for later routing

through the regular treatment plant for complete treatment to meet

the effluent standards.

 Occasional flows too large to be held al-

 together will be given primary treatment and disinfection before

discharge.

 See League of Women Voters v. North Shore Sanitary Dis-

trict,

 #70—7, March 31 and June

26,

 1971).

 A number of wet—weather

control programs of other communities, many of them quite im-

pressive, were described at length in the record.

Our

initial

proposal

would

have

required

that

all

such

flows

be treated to meet the effluent standards.

 The evidence is

 strong

that the costs of complete treatment climb sharply and the benefits

—20—

fall off rapidly if control of the hundred-year storm is

contemplated.

 Both the degree of treatment and the percentage

of flow that should be treated are matters that we cannot

determine across the board on the present record without

regard to the needs of individual streams,

 and therefore we

have

modified

the

proposal.

What we adopt today is

 a restatement of existing law, which

requires control of pollution from combined sewer overflows

and treatment plant bypasses.

 The degree of treatment required

and the amount of flow that must be captured are left to case-

by-case determination by the Agency subject to certain guide-

lines

 based largely upon prior Agency interpretation of present

law.

The

very

poliutionai

“first

flush,”

which

the

Agency

to define in each case according to the facts, must be given

full treatment; at least ten times the dry weather flow must

receive primary treatment and disinfection; and the Agency

is to require such further treatment as may be necessary to

prevent violation of water quality standards.

 Since this

is

essentially what was required by existing law to be done as

to bypasses at the treatment plant itself at the same time

the plant is upgraded to meet the BUD and solids effluent

standards, we retain the requirement that treatment plant

bypasses be corrected at the same time the plant itself is

improved under Rule 404.

 Our original reading of the old

regulations was that this same deadline applied to combined

sewer overflow points distant from the treatment plant, but the

Agency’s interpretation, confirmed by a Sanitary Water Board

communication to affected communities when the rules were first

adopted, was that sewer overflows away from the plant were to

be corrected “within ten years,” or about 1977 or 1978.

The

Agency asks us to keep that distant date.

We recognize that those who relied in good faith on the more

distant official interpretation cannot be penalized or expected

to manage this difficult construction job within the next

year and a half, much less by July 1972,

 as would be required

 if we adhered to our initial interpretation.

 We recognize

the necessity to arrange for new financing in many cases and

the logistic problems of constructing control facilities at

numerous overflow points,

 some of them in highly congested

areas, as was illustrated by the testimony of the City of Joliet.

We also are aware that until the combined sewer problem is

solved the waters will not be fit to use.

 There are several

instances in the record of communities

 that, despite the late

deadline, are already well on their way toward solution of

their combined sewer problem.

 Our adoption of the Pfeffer

standard for plant effluents should free up some funds already

budgeted for use in dealing with overflows.

 We believe on

the whole we can expect communities

 to achieve this control by

the end of 1975, which allows over three and a half years.

The

—21—

Metropolitan

Sanitary

 District of Greater Chicago, which has

a very large. and very special problem, has demonstrated its

need for somewhat longer period, but even as to that District

we do not think it proper to extend the deadline beyond that

originally set by the Sanitary Water Board.

 Four years have

passed since the ten—year deadline was set, and the District

is still

 in the planning stage.

 It is time something happened.

Rule 603 requires new sources to exercise care to limit

 damage to organisms that might otherwise be drawn into its

intakes.

 An earlier provision limiting the percentage of a

body of water that may be drawn through the condensers of

new power plants or other

 like installations, in order to pro-

tect small aquatic life, has been deleted for want of evidence

in the present record as to its reasonableness,

 as the Agency

recoinntends.

Rule 604 on new connections to overloaded plants

 is being

considered separately in #R 71-19.

Part VII contains minimum limits on discharges to sewers,

designed to protect treatment works against harm that might

cause violations of the effluent or water quality standards.

We have added language suggested by Dr.

 Pipes to protect

against hazards to sewage plant personnel and against the

discharge of materials that will go through the plant without

treatment and cause effluent violations.

 While local ordinances

often provide for similar protection,

 one Sanitary District

official pointed to the ineffectiveness of local enforcement

and to the need for a state regulation.

The ~tercurylimits of existing law (#R 70—5)

 are also in-

cluded in this Part.

 We have also, with the concurrence of

the Agency, modified the existing limit for cyanide discharges to

sewers

 (SWB-5)

 to conform with the applicable ordinance of the

Metropolitan Sanitary District.

 The limit of

 2 mg/i of free

cyanide is adequate on the record to protect sewer workmen;

 the requirement of proof that the treatment plant can handle

the discharge

 is necessary and adequate to protect the receiving

stream.

 We are asked to allow the permit to be sought by the

discharger rather than by the local government, but the consent

of the plant operator is essential.

 The evidence regarding

Rockford shows this safeguard is workable in practice.

Part VIII incorporates existing requirements

 (SWB—i9)

 for dis-

charges of wastes from watercraft, with a new section requir-

ing bilge or ballast discharges to meet general effluent

standards.

 Special new provisions for better enforcement of

the boating regulation are omitted for lack of adequate support-

ing evidence at present and may be considered separately in

further hearings.

—22—

Part

IX:

 Permits.

 As in earlier drafts,

 this part requires

permits for existing and proposed effluent sources, both as

an enforcement device and as a source of necessary information

on which to base such important matters as future basin studies.

Permits are to be issued only upon a showing of compliance with

the law or the existence of a variance.

 Compliance with the law

requires not only meeting the effluent standards but also a

showing that the water quality standards of the receiving

stream will not be jeopardized and that the nondegradation policy

of federal and state law is not impaired.

We have accepted in large part the detailed language

submitted by the Agency, which as administrator of the permit

program has

 an intimate view of its own procedural needs.

This language closely resembles that proposed for air pollution

in #R 7i-23.

 We have revised the Agency version to allow

for limited testing under a construction permit;

 to require

Agency notification if an application is incomplete; to allow

permits where

 a varinace has been granted; to omit the require-

ment of a bond;

 to leave the question of action under a permit

pending appeal of a condition to individual cases; to require

publication of new as well as revised design criteria;

to

provide for revocation by complaint rather than by Agency

notice alone; and to eliminate the requirement of Board

approval for Agency procedural rules.

Part X.

 Implementation Plan.

 This part requires the submission

of programs for compliance by individual sources subject to

new effluent limitations, by analogy to the practice of the old

Air Pollution Control Board.

 This proposal has been generally

applauded.

 Schedules may be approved by the Agency only

 if they

conform to the timetables specified in the regulations and if

the program appears adequate to achieve compliance.

Programs must be filed by July 1,

 1972 to meet certain

effluent standards adopted January

 6; by September

1,

 1972,

other

cases

which

compliance

due

the

end

1973;

and by December 31, 1972 for later compliance dates.

 Interim

dates

for

progress

toward

compliance

are

left

the

individual

case.

Failure

adhere

 an approved program is a violation

for

which

penalties

may

imposed.

Rule

1001

the

requirement

annual

status

report

from

the

 Agency as proposed May 12.

 The extensive list of individual

compliance

dates,

taken

from

existing

regulations,

omitted.

most

cases

those

dates

are

past;

for

enforcement

purposes

the

original

regulations

may

used,

and

the

presently

applicable

dates

are

concisely

stated

Part

IV.

ORDER

1.

 CHAPTER

 4 of the Rules

 and Regulations of the Pollution

Control

Board,

entitled

“Water

Pollution,”

hereby

designated

 as Chapter

3.

2.

 The following new provisions are hereby added to the Rules

and Regulations of the Illinois Pollution Control Board:

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL’ BOARD

RULES AND REGULATIONS

CHAPTER 3:

 WATER POLLUTION

PART

INTRODUCTION

101

 Authority.

Pursuant

the

authority

contained

Section

the

Environmental Protection Act, which authorizes the Board

to issue regulations “to restore, maintain, and enhance

the purity of the waters of this State in order to protect

health, welfare,

 property, and the quality of

 life, and to

assure that no contaminants

 ar,e discharged into the waters

without

 being given the degree of treatment or control

necessary to prevent pollution”,

 and to adopt water quality

standards, effluent standards, standards for the issuance

of permits, standards for the certification of sewage

works operators, standards relating to water pollution

episodes or emergencies, and requirements for the inspection

of pollution sources and for monitoring the aquatic

 environment, the Board adopts the following rules and

regulations.

102

Policy.

The

General

Assembly

has

found

that

water

pollution

“constitutes

 a menace to public health and welfare,

 creates

public nuisances,

 is harmful to wildlife,

 fish, and aquatic

life, impairs domestic,

 agricultural,’ industrial,

recreational, and other legitimate beneficial uses of water,

depresses property values,

 and offends the senses.”

—2—

It is the purpose of these rules and regulations to designate

the

uses

for

which

the

various

waters

the

State

shall be maintained and protected; to prescribe the

water

quality

standards

required

sustain

the

designated

uses; to establish effluent standards to limit the con-

taminants discharged to the waters;

 and to prescribe

additional regulations necessary for implementing,

achieving and maintaining the prescribed water quality.

These

regulations

were

developed

cooperation

with

the

Federal

Environmental

Protection

Agency

order

that, consistent with Illinois law, they may also serve

the

purposes

the

Federal

Water

Pollution

Control

Act.

103

 Repeais.

These rules and regulations replace and supersede Rules

and Regulations SWB-l, SWB-5 through SWB-l5, and SWB-l9,

adopted by the Illinois Sanitary Water Board and continued

in effect by Section 49

(c)

 of the Environmental Protection

Act “Until repealed, amended,

 or superseded

 by’ regulations

under this Act.”

 Accordingly Rules and Regulations SWB-l,

SWB-5 through SWB-15,a~ndSWB-l9 are hereby repealed,

except that any proceeding arising from any act committed

before the effective date of the applicable provision of

this Chapter shall be governed by the above listed

regulations.

104

 Definitions.

 As used in this Chapter, the following

terms shall have the meanings specified

See

 additional

definitions adopted Jan.

6,

 1972:

“Aquatic Life” means native populations of fish and other

aquatic life;

JLDj1utjoflRatjo~~meaflstheratio of the seven-day,

 once

in”ten.years low flow of the receiving stream to the

average dry weather flow of,the treatment works

 for the

desi~n‘year.

“Institute” means the Illinois Institute for Environmental

Quality.;

“Jnterstate Waters” are all waters which cross or form

part of’the~borderbetweenIllinois and other states;

“Intrastate Waters” are au

 the waters of Illinois which

are not interstate waters;

“Marine Toilet” means any toilet on or within any water-

craft;

—3—

“Modification” means

1)

 Any physical change

 in a treatment works which

involves

different

additional

processes

equipment

which

increases

decreases

the

capacity or efficiency of the treatment works;

any

change

the

number

location

points

where effluent is discharged, directly or indirect-

ly, to the waters; or

any

change

any

components

sewer

system

which alters the quantity of wastewater capable of

being

conveyed,

which

increases

decreases

the

quantity

wastewater

capable

being

discharged

overflow

bypass

structures;

4)

 any increase in quantity or strength of a dis-

charge from any wastewater source, unless such

increase does not exceed an upper limit

specifically allowed by an existing Permit granted

by the Agency and does not involve any additional

contaminants contained in standards set by this

Chapter that are not itemized and approved in

existing

Agency

permit.

“Population Equivalent”

 is a term used to evaluate the

impact of industrial or other waste on

 a treatment works

or stream.

 One population equivalent is

 1,00 gallons of sewage

per

day,

containing

0.17

pounds

BOD5

and

0.20:pounds

suspended solids.

 The impact on a treatment works

is

evaluated

the

equivalent

the

highest

the

three

parameters.

 Impact on a stream is the higher of the BUD5

and suspended solids parameters;

“Primary

Contact”

means

any

recreational

other

water

use

which

there

prolonged

and

intimate

contact

with the water involving considerable risk of ingesting

water

 in quantities sufficient to pose

 a significant

health hazard,

 such as swimming and water skiing;

“Public

and

Food

Processing

Water

Supply”

means

any

water

use

which

water

withdrawn

from

surface

waters

the State for human consumption or for processing of

food

products

intended

for

human

consumption;

—4—

“Restricted Use” means certain designated waters which

are not protected for aquatic life;

“Secondary Contact” means any recreational or other

water use in which contact with the water is either

incidental

 or accidental and in which the probability

of ingesting appreciable quantities of water is minimal,

such as fishing, commercial and recreational boating and,

any limited contact incident to shoreline activity;

“Underground Waters” means any waters of the State

located beneath the surface of the earth;

“Watercraft” means every type of boat, ship:or barge

used or capable of being used as

 a means of transportation

on water.

105

 Analytical Testing

 (:~‘optedJanuary 6,

 1972)’.

PART

II.

 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

This part of the rules and regulations concerning water pollution

 describes the water quality standards that must be met to

maintain the specified beneficial uses.

 References

 to STORET

numbers

identify

the

specific

parameter

defined

in

the

STORET

system Handbook published by the Federal Environmental Protection

Agency.

201

 Mixing Zones.

(a)

 In the application of any of the rulesand regulations

in this Chapter, whenever a water quality standard

is more restrictive than its corresponding effluent

standard then an opportunity shall be allowed £or

the mixture of an effluent with its receiving waters.

Water quality standards must be met at every point

outside of the mixing

 zone.

 The size of the mixing

zone cannot be uniformly prescribed.

 The governing

principle

 is that the proportion of any body of water

or segment thereof within mixing zones must be quite

small if the water quality standards are to have any

meaning.

 This principle shall be applied on a case—

by—case basis to ensure that neither any individual

—5—

source nor the aggregate of sources

 shall cause

excessive

 zones

to exceed the standards.

 The water

quality standards must be met in the bulk of the

body

water,

and

body

water

may

used

totally

mixing

zone

for

single

outfall

combination

of outfails.

 Moreover,

 except as otherwise provided

in

 thdLs Chapter, no single mixing zone shall ex-

ceed the area of a circle with a radius of 600

feet.

 Single sources of effluents which have more

than one outfall shall be limited to a total mixing

area no larger than that allowable if

 a single out-

fall were used.

In determining the size of the mixing zone

for any ~ischarge,

 the following must be considered:

1.

 The character of the body of water,

the~presentand

anticipated

future

use

body

water,

3

 the present and anticipated water quality of

the body of water,

4.

 the effect of the discharge on the pre-

sent and anticipated future water quality,

5.

 the dilution ratio,

and

6.

 the nature

 of the contaminant.

(b)

 In addition to the above, for waters designated

for aquatic life

 (General Standards)

the mixing zone

shall be so designed as

 to assure a reasonable zone

of passage fOr aquatic life in which the water quality

standards are met.

 The mixing zone shall not inter-

sect any area of any such waters

 in such a manner

that the maintenance of aquatic life in the

body of water as.a whole would be adversely

affected.

—6—

202

Stream

Flows.

Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter with respect

to temperature, the water quality standards in this Part

shall apply at all times except during periods when flows

are

less

than

the

average

minimum

seven

day

low

flow

which occurs once

 in ten years.

203

 General Standards.

The General Standards listed below will protect the State’s

water for aquatic life,

 agricultural use, primary and

secondary contact use, and most industrial uses, and en-

sure the aesthetic quality of the State’s aquatic environment.

Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, all waters

of the State shall meet the following standards:

(a)

 Freedom frOm unnatural sludge or bottom deposits,

floating debris, visible oil, odor, unnatural

plant or algal growth, unnatural color or turbidity,

or matter in concentrations

 or combinations toxic

or harmful to human, animal, plant or aquatic life

 of other than natural origin.

(b)

 pH (STURET number

 00400)

 shall be within the range

of 6.5

 to 9.0 except for natural causes.

Cc)

 Phosphorus

 (STURET number

 00665):

 Phosphorus as

P shall not exceed 0.05 mg/i in any reservoir or

 lake,

 or in

any stream at the point.where it enters any reservoir or lake.

(d)

 Dissolved oxygen

 (STORET number

 00300)

 shall not

be less than 6.0 mg/l during at least 16 hours of

any 24 hour period, nor less than 5.0 mg/i at any

time.

(e)

 Radioactivity:

Cl)

 Gross beta

 (STORET number

—

 03501) concentration

shall not exceed 100 pico curies per liter

 (pCi/l).

(2)

 Concentrations of radium 226

 (STORET number

—

09501)

 and strontium 90

 (STORET number

—

 13501)

 shall

not exceed

 1 and 2 pica curies per liter respectiv’~

(f)

 The following levels of chemical constituents

sL~i

not be exceeded:

—7—

CONSTITUENT

 STORET NUMBER

 CONCENTRATION

 (mg/i)

P~nimonia Nitrogen

(as

 Arsenic

 (total)

Barium

(total)

Boron

(total)

Cadmium

(total)

Chloride

Chromium

 (total hexavalent)

Chromium

 (total trivalent)

Copper

 (total)

Cyanide

Fluoride

Iron

 (total)

Lead

 (total)

Manganese

(total)

Mercury

Nickel

(total)

Phenols

Selenium

(total)

Silver

 (total)

Sulfate

Total Dissolved Solids

Zinc

00610

01000

01005

01020

01025

00940

01040

00720

00950

01046

01049

01055

71900

01065

32730

01145

01075

00945

00515

01090

1.5

1.0

5.0

1.0

0.05

500.

0.05

1.0

0.02

0.025

1.4

1.0

0.1

1.0

0.0005

1.0

0.1

1.0

005

500.

1000.

1.0

(g)

 Based on a minimum of five samples taken over not more than a 30-day

 period, fecal coliforms

 (STORET number

31616)

shall

not

 exceed

a geometric mean of

 200 per 100 ml, nor shall more than 10

of the samples during any 30-day period,exceed 400 per 100 ml.

(h)

Any

 substance toxic to aquatic life shall not exceed one-tenth

of the 48-hour median tolerance limit

 (48-hr.

 TLm)

 for native

fish or essentiai,fish food organisms.

(i)

 Temperature

 (STORET numbers (F°) 00011 and (C°)00010):

(1)

 There shall be no abnormal temperature changes that may

adversely affect aquatic’ life unless caused by natural

conditions.

(2)

 The normal daily and seasonal temperature fluctuations

that existed before the addition of heat due to other

than

natural

causes

shall

maintained.

(3)

 The maximum temperature rise above natural temperatures

shall not exceed 5°F.

—8—

(4)

 In addition, the water temperature at representative

locations in the main river shall not exceed the

maximum limits in the following table during

more than one percent of

 the hours in the 12—

month period ending with any month.

 Moreover,

at

no time shall the water temperature at such

locations exceed the maximum limits in the follow-

 ing table by more than 3°F.

JAN.

 FEB. MAR.

APR.

 MAY JUNE JULY AUG.

 SEPT. OCT._NOV. DEC

Mississip-

pi River

 (Wisc.

Border to Iowa

Border)

 (°F)

Mississippi

River

 (Iowa

Border to Alton

Lock and Dam)

 (°F)

Mississippi

River

 (So.

of

Alton Lock

 & Dam) (°F)

45° 45° 57° 68° 78°85° 86° 86°

850

 75° 65° 52°

45°

57°

68°

780

86°

880

 88° 86°

750

65°

52°

500

 50° 60° 70°

800

870

89°

87°

78°

70°

570

Ohio River

(°F)

50° 50° 60° 70° 80°8~°

890

89°

870

78°

700

570

Wabash River

& Its in-

terstate

Tributaries

 (°F)

50° 50° 60° 70° 80°90~ 90°

900

90°

78°

70°

57°

Other Waters (°F)

 60°

600

600

90°

900

90°

9(~0

90°

60°

Main river temperatures are temperatures

 of those portions

river essentially similar to and following the same thermal

regime as the temperatures

 of the main flow of the river.

of the

(5)

 The owner or operator of

 a source of heated

effluent which discharges 0.5 billion British

thermal units per hour or more shall demonstrate

in a hearing before this Board not less than

5

nor more than

 6 years

 after the effective date

of these regulations or, in the case of new sources,

after the commencement of operation,

 that discharges

from that source have not caused and cannot be

reasonably expected to cause significant ecological

—9—

damage to the receiving waters.

 If such proof

is not made

 to the satisfaction of the Board

appropriate corrective measures shall be ordered

to be taken within

 a reasonable time as deter-

mined by the Board.

(6)

 Permits for heated effluent discharges, whether

issued by the Board or the Environmental Protection

Agency, shall be subject to revision in the event

that reasonable future development creates

a

need for reallocation

 of the assimilative capacity

 of the receiving stream as defined in the regulation

above.

(7)

 The owner or operator of a source of heated

effluent shall maintain such records and conduct

such studies of the effluents from such source

and of their effects

 as may be required by the

Environmental Protection Agency or in any permit

granted under the Environmental Protection Act.

(8)

 Appropriate corrective measures will be required

if, upon complaint filed

 in accordance with Board

rules,

 it is found at any time that any heated

effluent causes significant ecological damage

to the receiving stream.

204

 Public and Food Processing Water

 Supply.

In addition to the General Standards, waters designated

in Part III of this Chapter for public and food processing

water supply shall meet the following standards at any

point at which water is withdrawn for treatment and

distribution as a potable supply or for food processing:

(a)

 Waters shall be of such quality that with treatment

consisting ‘of coagulation, sedimentation, filtration,

storage and chlorination, or other equivalent treat-

ment processes, the ‘treated water shall meet in all

respects both the mandatory and the recommended

requirements of the Public Health Service Drinking

Water Standards

 1962.

(b)

 The following levels of chemical constituents shall

not

exceeded:

-10—

CONSTITUENT

 STORET NUMBER

 CONCENTRATION

 (mg/i)

Arsenic

 (total)

01000

 0.01

Barium

 (total)

01005

1.0

Cadmium

 (total)

01025

 0.01

Chlorides

00940

250

Carbon Chloroform Extract

(CCE)

32005

0.2

Cyanide

00720

0.01

Iron

 (total)

01046

0.3

Lead

 (total)

01049

 0.05

Manganese

 (total)

01055

 0.05

Nethylene Blue Active

Substance

 (MBAS)

38260

0.5

Nitrates plus Nitrites as N

00630

 10.0

Ull

(Hexane—solubles

equivalent)

00550

0.1

Phenols

32730

 0.001

Selenium

 (total)

01145

 0.01

Sulfates

00945

 250.

Total Dissolved Solids

00515

 500.

(c)

Other

contaminants

that

will

not

adequately

re-

duced

the

treatment

processes

noted

paragraph

(a)

this

Rule

shall

not

present

concentrations

hazardous

 to human health.

205

 Restricted Use Standards

Waters designated in Part III of

this Chapter for

Restricted

 Use shall meet the following standards:

(a)

 Freedom from unnatural sludge or bottom deppsits,

floating debris, visible oil, odor, unnatural plant or

algal growth, or unnatural color or turbidity.

(b)

(STORET

number

 00400)

 shall be within the range

6.0

9.0

except

for

natural

causes.

(c)

 Dissolved oxygen

 (STORET number

00300)

shall

not

be less than 3.0 mg/l during at least 16 hours in

any 24-hour period, nor less than 2.0 mg/l at any time.

(d)

 Based on a minimum of five samples taken over not

more than a 30-day period,

 fecal coliforms

 (STORET

number —31616)

 shall not exceed a geometric mean of

1,000 per 100 ml, nor shall more than 10

 of the samples

during any 30-day period exceed

 2,00,0 per 100 ml.

—11-

(e)

 Concentrations

 of other substances

 shall not exceed

the applicable effluent standards prescribed in

Part IV of this Chapter.

(f)

 Temperature (STORET numbers

 (°F) 00011 and (°C)

00010)

 shall not exceed

930

(34°C)

 more than 5

of the time,

 or 100°F (37.8°C) at any time.

206

 Lake Michigan.

The Waters of Lake Michigan shall meet the following

standards

 in addition to the General and Public and Food

Processing Water Supply Standards:

(a)

 Dissolved oxygen

 (STORET number

 00300)

 shall not be

less than 90

 of saturation except due to natural

causes.

(b)

(STORET

number

-00400)

shall

within

the

range

7.0

9.0

except

for

natural

causes.

(c)

 The following levels of chemical constituents shall not be

exceeded.

CONSTITUENT

 STURET NUMBER

 CONCENTRATION (mg/l)

~xnmonia

Nitrogen

00610

0.02

Chloride

00540

 12.0

Sulfate

00945

 24.0

Phosphorus

(as

P)

00665

 0.007

Total

Solids

(Dissolved)

00515

‘

180.

(d)

Based

minimum

five

samples

taken’ over

not

than

30-day

period,

fecal

coliforms

(STORET

number

—

31616)

shall

not

exceed

geometric

mean

per

100

ml.

(e)

 Temperature

 (STURET numbers

(°F)

00011

and

(°C)

00010)

(1)

(A)

All

sources

heated

effluents

existence

as of January

 1, 1971 shall meet the following

restrictions outside of a mixing zone which

shall be no greater than a circle with a

radius of 1000 feet or an equal fixed

area

simple

form.

—12-

(i)

 There shall be no abnormal temperature

changes that may affect aquatic life.

(ii)

 The normal daily and seasonal

temperature fluctuations that

existed before the addition of

heat shall be maintained.

(iii)

 The maximum temperature rise at

any time above natural temperatures

shall not exceed 3°F.

 In addition,

the water temperature shall not

exceed the maximum limits

 (°F.)

indicated in the following table:

Jan.

 Feb.

 Mar.

 Apr.

May

 June

 July

 Aug.

 Sept.

 Oct.

 Nov.

 Dec.

(B)

 The owner or operator of a source of heated

effluent which discharges 0.5 billion British

Thermal Units per hour

 (BTU/HR.)

 or more

shall demonstrate

 in a hearing before this

Board not less than

 5 nor more than six

years after the adoption of this regulation,

that discharges from that source have not

caused

 and’ cannot be reasonably expected

in future to cause significant ecological

‘damage to the Lake.

 If ~such proof is not

made to the satisfaction of the Board,

backfitting of alternative cooling devices

shall be accomplished within a reasonable

time as determined by the Board.

(C)

 The owner or operator of a source of heated

effluent shall maintain such records and

conduct such studies of the effluents from

such source~!afidof their effects as may

be required by the Environmental Protection

 Agency or in any permit granted under the

Environmental Protection Act.

CD)

Backfitting

alternative

cooling

facilities

will be required if, upon complaint filed

accordance

wth

Board

rules,

found

at any time that any heated effluent causes

significant

ecological

damage

the

Lake.

—13—

(2)

 Any effluent source under construction as

of

January

1,

 1971, but not

 in operation,

 shall meet

all the requirements of Section

 1 of this regulation

and in addition shall meet the following restrictions:

(A)

 Neither the bottom,

 the shore,

the

hypolimnion,

 nor the thermocline shall

be affected by any heated effluent.

(B)

heated

effluent

shall

affect

spawning

grounds or fish migration routes.

(C)

Discharge

structures

shall

designed

maximize

short-term

mixing

and

thus

to reduce the area significantly raised

in temperature.

CD)

discharge

shall

exceed

ambient

temperatures

than

20°

(E)

 Heated effluents from more than one source

shall not interact.

(F)

 All reasonable steps shall be taken

to reduce the number of organisms drawn

into or against the intakes.

(G)

 Cleaning of condensers shall be accomplished

mechanical

devices.

chemicals

must be used to supplement mechanical

devices, the concentration at the point

of discharge shall not exceed the 96-hour

TLm for

fresh water organisms.

(3)

(A)

 No source of heated effluent which was

not in operation or under construction

as of January 1, 1971 shall discharge

than

daily

average

0.1

billion

BTU/Hr.

(B)

 Sources of heated effluents which discharge

less than a daily average of 0.1 billion

BTU/Hr.

 not in operation or under

construction as of January

 1, 1971

shall meet all requirements of sections

1 and

 2 of this regulation.

—14—

207

 Underground Waters.

The underground waters of Illinois which are a present or

 potential source of water for public or food processing

supply shall meet the General and Public and Food Processing

Water Supply standards except due to natural causes.

208

 Nondegradat±on.

Waters whose existing quality is better than the established

standards at the date of their adoption will be maintained

in their present high quality.

 Such waters will not be

lowered in quality unless and until it is affirmatively

demonstrated that such change will not interfere with or

become injurious to any appropriate beneficial uses made

of,

 or presently possible in such waters and that such change

is justifiable as

 a result of necessary economic or social

development.

PART III:

 WATER USE DESIGNATIONS

This part of the rules and regulations concerning water pollution

designates the water uses for which particular waters of the State

are to be protected.

 Waters designated for specific uses must

meet the most restrictive standards listed in Part II of this

Chapter for any specified use,

 in addition to meeting the

General Standards.

301

 General Use Waters.

All waters of the State of Illinois are designated for

general use except those designated as Restricted Use Waters.

302

 Restricted Use Waters.

The following are designated as restricted use waters:

(a)

 The Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal;

(b)

 The Calumet—Sag Channel;

(c)

 The Little Calumet River from its junction with the

Grand Calumet River to the

Calumet—Sag

Channel;

—15—

(d)

 The Grand Calumet River;

(e)

 The Calumet River;

(f)

 Lake Calumet;

(g)

 The South Branch of the Chicago River;

(h)

 The North Branch of the Chicago River

from its confluence with the North ShOre

Channel to its confluence with the South

Branch;

(i)

 The Des Plaines River from its confluence

with the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal to the

Interstate 55 bridge;

(j)

 The North Shore Channel,

 except that dissolved

oxygen in said Channel shall be not less

than

 5 mg/I during 16 hours of any 24

hour period, nor less than 4 mg/i at any time;

(k)

 All waters in which, by reason of low flow

or other conditions,

 a diversified aquatic

biota cannot be satisfactorily maintained

even in the absence of contaminants.

303

 Public and Food Processing Water

 Supply.

All waters of Illinois are designated for Public

and Food Processing Water Supply use except those

designated

 as Restricted Use Waters, and except for the

following:

(a)

 The Chicago River;

(b)

 The Little Calumet River.

PART IV:

 EFFLUENT STANDARDS

(see additional provisions

adopted Jan.

6,

 1972)

404

 Deoxygenating Wastes.

—16—

Except as provided in Rule 602

of this Chapter, all effluents

containing deoxygenating wastes shall meet the following

standards:

(a)

and

after

July

1972,

such

earlier

date

may

have

been

specified

Rules

and

Regulations

SWB—7

through SWB-i5, no effluent shall exceed 30 mg/l of

five-day biochemical oxygen demand

 (BOD5)

 (STORET

number 00310)

 or 37 mg/i of suspended solids

 (STORET

number

)

except

follows:

(1)

 sources discharging to the Mississippi or Ohio

Rivers

shall

comply

with

this

paragraph

(a)

December

31,

1973;

and

(ii)

 sources discharging to the Wabash River may dis-

charge up to

 40 mg/l of BaD5 and 45 mg/i of

suspended solids until December 31,

 1974.

(b)

and

after

July

1972,

such

earlier

date

may

have

been

specified

Rules

 and Regulati~:ns

SWB-7 throught SWB—15, no effluent from any source

whose

untreated

waste

load

10,000

population

equivalents or more,

 or from any source discharging

into the Chicago River System or into the Calumet

River

System,

shall

exceed

mg/i

BOD5

mg/i

of suspended solids, except as follows:

(i)

 sources discharging to the Mississippi or Ohio

Rivers shall comply with this paragraph

 (b) by

December

31,

1973;

and

(ii)

 Sources discharging to the Illinois or Wabash

Rivers,

 or to the DesPlaines River downstream

from

its

confluence

with

 the Chicago Sanitary

and

Ship

Canal,

shall

comply

with

this

paragraph

 (b) by December 31, 1974.

(c)

after

December

31,

1973,

effluent

whose

dilution

ratio is less than five to one shall exceed 10 mg/i

BUD5

mg/i

suspended

solids,

except

follows:

—17—

(1)

 sources within the Metropolitan Sanitary

District of Greater Chicago whose untreated

waste load is 500,000 population equivalents

shall

comply

with

this

paragraph

(c)

December

31,

1977;

(ii)

 sources whose dilution ratio is two to one

but

less

than

five

one

shall

comply

with

this

paragraph

Cc)

 by December

31,

1974;

(iii)

 sources employing third—stage treatment lagoons

shall be exempt from this paragraph

 (c), provided

all of the following conditions are met:

(A)

 the untreated waste load

is

 less than

2500

population

equivalents;

and

(B)

the

source

sufficiently

isolated

that

combining with other sources to aggregate

2500 population equivalents or more is not

practicable; and

(C)

 the lagoons are properly constructed,

 maintained, and operated;

and

(D)

 the effluent does not, alone or in

combination with other sources, cause a

violation of applicable water quality

standards.

(d)

 On or after December

 31, 1974, no effluent discharged

the

Lake

Michigan

basin

shall

exceed

mg/l

BUD5

mg/i

suspended

solids.

(e)

after

December

31,

1977,

effluent

from

any

source

whose

untreated

waste

load

500,000

population

equivalents or more shall exceed

 4 mg/i of BaD5 or

 5 mg/i

suspended

solids.

(f)

Except

provided

paragraphs

Cd)

and

(e)

this

Rule

404,

after

December

31,

1973,

effluent

whose dilution ratio is less than one to one shall

exceed

 4 mg/i of BOD5 or

 5 mg/i of suspended solids,

except as follows:

(i)

sources

expioying

third—stage

treatment

lagoons

shall

exempt

from

this

paragraph

(f),

provided

all of the conditions

 of subparagraph

(C)(ii3~)

of this Rule 404

are

met.

(ii)

Other

sources

not

within

paragraphs

(d)

and

(e)

of this Rule 404 shall be exempt from this paragraph

—18—

(f)

 provided all of the following conditions

are

met:

(A)

 the effluent shall,,not, alone or

 in combination

with other sources, cause a violation of

any

applicable

water

quality

standard;

and

(B)

the

effluent

shall

not,

alone

combination

with other sources, cause dissolved oxygen

the

waters

the

State

fall

below

6.0

mg/l during at least 16 hours

 of any 24-hour

period,

 or below 5.0 mg/i at any time; and

(C)

 the effluent shall not exceed 10 mg/l of

BUD5 or 12 mg/i of suspended solids;

and

(D)

 on or before Sept.

1,

 1972, the owner or

operator of such source shall file with the

Agency the Project Completion Schedule re-

quired by Rule 1002 of this Chapter.

In

addition to the requirements of Rule 1002,

such schedule shall include a program for

achieving compliance with the above con-

ditions and

with’

 applicable water quality

standards, including, but not limited to,

dissolved

oxygen,

bottom

deposits,

ammonia

nitrogen, and phosphorus, with particular

reference

nitrogenous

oxygen

demand

and

the

control

stormwater

overflows;

and

CE)

the

Agency

finds

that

the

program

will

within

the compliance dates otherwise applicable

assure

compliance

with

the

conditions

this subparagraph.

(g)

Notwithstanding

any

other

provision

this

Rule,

any

source

affected by this

 Rule 404 and relying in good faith upon the

dilution rules of Rules and Regulations SWB-7 through SWB-15

comply

with

applicable

effluent

standards

need

not

comply

with the dilution standard of Rule 401(a)

 until Dec.

31,

 1974.

(h)

 Compliance with the numerical standards in this Rule 404 shall

be determined on the basis of 24-hour composite samples

averaged over any consecutive 30—day period.

 In addition,

no more than

5

 of the samples collected shall exceed 2.5

times the numerical limits prescribed by this Rule.

405

 Bacteria.

No effluent shall exceed 400 fecal coliforms per 100 ml after

July

 31, 1972,

 or such concentrations

 as may have been

presecibed for earlier dates by SWB—7 through SWB—l5.

—19—

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.

(a)

 Every person discharging effluents to the ‘waters of

Illinois shall submit operating reports to the Agency

at a frequency to be determined by the Agency.

 Such

reports shall contain information regarding the

quantity of influent and of effluent discharged,

of wastes bypassed, and of combined sewer overflows;

the concentrations of those physical, chemical,

 bacteriological and radiological parameters which

shall

specified

the

Agency;

and

any

additional

information

the

Agency

may

reasonably

require.

(b)

 Every person within this State who utilizes mercury

or any of its compounds in excess of 15 pounds per

year as Hg shall file with the Agency, on or before

June

 1, 1971 and annually thereafter,

 a report setting

forth

the

nature

the

enterprise;

list,

type

and by quantity of mercury products and mercury

derivatives produced, use in, and incidental to

its processes,

 including by-products and waste products;

the estimated concentrations and annual total

number

pounds

mercury

that

will

discharged

into

the

waters of the State or that will be discharged ‘into

any sewer system; and what measures are taken or

proposed to be taken to reduce or to eliminate

such

discharges.

70-5

adopted

March

31,

1971).

502

 Effluent Measurement.

In order to facilitate the ability of the Agency to

conduct

its

inspecting

and

investigating

responsibilities

as described in Section

4

 (d) of the Act, all effluent

discharged sewers, pipes or outfails shall be designed or

modified so that a sample of the effluent can be obtained

at a point after the final treatment process and before

discharge

mixing

with

any

waters

the

State.

All treatment works shall include such devices for taking

samples and for measuring and recording effluent flow as

the Agency may reasonably require.

PART VI:

PERFORMANCE

 CRITERIA

601

 (adopted Jan.

6,

 1972)

602

 Combined Sewers and Treatment Plant’ Bypasses.

(a)

 The installation of new combined sewers

 is prohibited,

except where sufficient retention or treatment capacity

is provided to ensure that no violation of the effluent

standards

Part

this

Chapter

occurs.

—20—

(b)

 Excess infiltration into sewers shall be eliminated,

and the maximum practicable flow shall be conveyed

to treatment facilities.

 Overflows from sanitary

sewers are expressly prohibited.

(c)

 All combined sewer overflows and treatment plant

bypasses

shall

given

sufficient

treatment

prevent

pollution

the

violation

applicable

water quality standards.

 Sufficient treat-

ment shall consist of the following:

(1)

 All dry weather flows, and the first flush

of storm flows as determined by the Agency,

 shall

meet the applicable effluent standards;

(2)

 Additional flows,

 as determined by the Agency

but not less than ten times the average dry

weather flow for the design year,

 shall receive

a minimum of primary treatment and disinfection

with adequate retention time;

(3)

 Additional treatment, through retention and re-

turn of excess flows

 to the treatment plant or

otherwise,

 shall be provided when required to

achieve compliance with”water quality standards.

Cd)

 Compliance with paragraph

Cc)

of

 this Rule 602 shall

be achieved on or before the following dates:

(1)

 All treatment plant bypasses, by the applicable

date for improvement of treatment works under

Part IV of this Chapter;

(2)

 All combined sewer overflows within the Metropolitan

Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, by December

31,

1977;

(3)

 All other combined sewer overflows, by December

31,

 1975.

603

 Intake Structures.

New water intake structures

 on waters designated for General

use, whose construction begins

 after the effective date

of this Chapter, shall be so designed as to minimize harm

to fish and to other aquatic organisms.

604

 New’Connections.

 (to be published separately)

—21—

PART VII:

 SEWER DISCHARGE CRITERIA

This part of the rules and regulations concerning water, pollution

places certain restrictions on the types

concentrations

and

quantities of contaminants which can be discharged into sewer

systems

 in the State.

701

 General Requirements.

Any wastes discharged to any sewer owned by any municipality,

any county, or any sanitary district in the State of

Illinois shall meet the following criteria in addition to

any established by the municipality, county, or sanitary

district itself:

(a)

 liquids, solids,

 or gases which by reason of their

nature or quantity may cause fire or explosion;

or

be injurious in any other way to sewers,

treatment

works structures or to the operation of the treat-

ment works; or cause a safety hazard to the personnel

operating the treatment works, or cause the effluent

from the treatment works

 to violate applicable

effluent standards are prohibited;

(b)

 solid or viscous wastes which cause obstruction

to the flow in sewers or other interference with the

proper operation of any sewer or treatment works are

prohibited.

702

 Mercury

 (STORET number

 71900)

 CR 70-5 adopted March 31,

1971)

Ca)

 No effluent to any public sewer system shall include

mercury or any of its compounds in excess of 0.0005

mg/i as Hg at any time.

—22—

(b)

 The discharge of mercury shall be exempt from the

limitations of paragraph

 (a) of this section if it

meets all the following conditions:

Ci)

 The total plant discharge totals less than

five pounds as Hg in any year;

(ii)

 The discharge is to a public sewer served

by a sewage treatment facility handling

no less than 25,000 population equivalents;

(iii)

 The discharge does not alone,

 or in conjunction

with other sources, cause the effluent from

the sewage treatment plant to exceed 0.0005

mg/l as Hg;

and

(iv)

 At least 95

 of the mercury that would be

discharged in the absence of control is removed

from the effluent by December

 1, 1971;

(v)

 After June 1,

 1974 the exemptions provided

in this subsection

(b)

 shall terminate.

Cc)

 The discharge of wastes from medicinal

 or therapeutic

use of mercury,

 exclusive of laboratory use,

 shall

be exempt from the limitations of paragraphs

(a)

and

(b)

 of this section if all the following conditions

are met:

(i)

 The total plant discharge

 is less than one

half pound as Hg in any year;

(ii)

 The discharge

 is to a public sewer system;

and

(iii)

 The discharge

 does’ not, alone or in conjunction

with other sources, cause the effluent from

the sewer system or treatment plant to exceed

0.0005 mg/i of Hg.

—23—

Cd)

 No discharge of mercury shall be permitted which,

alone or in combination with other sources,

 causes

a violation of the water quality standard of 0.0005

mg/i of Hg.

703

 Cyanide

(STORET

number

—

 00720).

(a)

waste

discharge

any

public

sewer

system

shall

contain detectable levels of cyanide at any time

except as permitted by Rule 703

 (b).

(b)

 Upon application by a county, municipality, sanitary district,

or public utility and approval by the Agency,

 limited

amounts of cyanide or cyanogen compounds may be

permitted to be discharged to a county, municipal, sanitary

district or public utility’s sewer works.

 Total cyanide

shall not exceed 10 mg/i provided an~sampletasted shall

not’,release more ‘than

 2 mg/i of cyanide when. tested at

a

pH of 4~5and,at a temperature ‘of~l50°”f’or~a

 period of

30’minutes.

 Suchdisc’h’arges shall be permitted only when

the Agency has determined that no violation of the effluent

criteria of this Chapter will result from such discharge.

PART VIII:

 DISPOSAL OF WASTES FROM WATERCRAFT

This part of the rules and regulations concerning water pollution

regulates the disposal of wastes from watercraft.

801

 Marine Toilets.

(a)

 No person owning or operating a watercraft with a

marine toilet shall use, or permit the use of,

 such

toilet on the waters of this State’, unless the

toilet is equipped with facilities that will treat,

hold,

 incinerate or otherwise handle the waste

in

a manner capable of preventing water pollution

as

described in paragraphs

Cc)

and

 Cd) of this section.

(b)

No’

person

shall

dispose

any

sewage

waste

water accumulated in a holding tank or any other

container on a watercraft,

 in such a manner that

the

sewage

waste

water

reaches

may

reach

the

waters

the

State,

except

pumpout

operating

sewage

works

which

has

 been approved by the Agency

or which operates under a permit issued by the Agency.

Cc)

 Acceptable pollution control devices

 are:

(1)

 Holding tanks which retain wastes from marine

toilets for proper disposal pursuant to

paragraph

(b)

 of this Rule.

(2)

 Incinerating devices which will reduce to ash

all

sewage

and

toilet

wastes

produced

the

watercraft.

 The ash from such devices

 is not

‘:to be disposed of in the waters of Illinois.

—24—

(3)

 Any other device determined by the Agency to

provide an effluent which meets the effluent

criteria

of this Chapter.

802

 Contaminated Bilge or Ballast Waters.

No bilge or ballast water which fails

 to meet the effluent

 standards of this Chapter shall be discharged to the

waters of the State.

—25—

PART IX:

 PERMITS

This part establishes basic rules fortheissuance of permits

for the construction, modification, and operation of treatment

works, sewers, wastewater sources and other discharges.

901

 Construction Permits

(a)

 No person shall cause or allow the construction of

any new treatment works,

 sewer,

 or wastewater source

or cause or allow the modification of any existing

treatment works, sewer,

 or wastewater source without

a Construction Permit issued bythe Agency, except

as provided in paragraph

 (b).

(b)

 Construction Permits shall not be required for the

following:

Cl)

 storm sewers that transport only land runoff;

or

(2)

 any treatment works,

 sewer,

 or wastewater source

that is designed and intended to serve

 a single

building and eventually transport,

 treat, or dis-

charge the sewage of 15 or less persons; or

(3)

 any treatment works, sewer, or wastewater source

that, on

the

effective date of this Part,

is

being constructed or will be constructed under

the authorization of a Permit already issued

by the Agency or its predecessors; provided

 however, that all construction must be completed

within three years from the effective date of

this Part.

902

 Operating Permits:

New

 o,r Modified Treatment Works,

Sewers and Wastewater Sources.

No person shall cause or allow the use or operation of

any treatment works, sewer,

 or wastewater source forwhich

a Construction Permit

 is required under Rule 901 without

an Operating Permit issued by the Agency, except for such

testing operations as may be authorized by the Construction

Permit.

903

 Operating Permits:

 Existing Treatment Works and Wastewater

Sources

(a)

 No person shall cause or allow the use or operation

of any treatment works

 or wastewater source after

December 31, 1972 without an Operating Permit issued

by the Agency, except as provided in paragraphs

 (b),

(c)

and

 (d).

—26—

(b)

 Operating Permits are not required for treatment

works

and

wastewater sources that are designed and

intended to serve a single building and eventually

treat or discharge the sewage of 15 or less persons.

Cc)

Operating

Permits

for

the

following

classes

treatment

 works and wastewater sources will be

required by the following dates:

Ci)

 Any wastewater source consisting solely of

non—contact cooling water, by June 30, 1973;

and

(2)

 Treatment works receiving wastewater with a

population

equivalent

10,000

with

at least 60

 of the loading being sewage, by

December 31,

 1973;

and

(3)

 Treatment works receiving wastewater with a

population equivalent of under iO,000,with

at least

60

 of the loading being sewage,

by June

 30, 1974.

(d)

 If necessary to prevent

anunmanageable

workload,

the

Agency may extend the dates by which Operating Permits

are required under paragraphs

(a)

and

(c)

for

 a period

not to”,exceed four months.

 The Agency must notify

the persons affected and the Board of the extension

at least four months before the dates set forth in

paragraphs

(a)

and

 (c).

904

 Operating Permits:

 Existing Sewer Systems

(a)

 No person who owns and operates an interconnected

system of sanitary sewers and/or combined sewers con-

sisting of more than one mile of pipe shall cause

allow

the

use

operation

part

all

that

system

sewers

after

December

31,

1974,

without

Operating Permit issued by the Agency, except as

provided in paragraph

 (b).

(b)

 Operating Permits for any system of sewers tributary

to treatment works designed to treat wastewater having

a. population equivalent of 25,000 or

 less will not

be required until March 31, 1975.

905

 Operating Permits:

 Existing Discharges to Sewers

Reserved

 for use in connection with Part VII

—27—

906

 Joint Construction and Operating Permits

In cases where the Agency determines that a proposed

treatment works, sewer, or wastewater source is sufficiently

standard so as to obviate the need for separate Construction

and Operating Permits, the Agency may issue a Joint Construction

and Operating Permit.

907

 Experimental Permits

(a)

 In order to promote the development of water pollu-

tion control technology, the Agency may issue Experi-

mental Permits for treatment processes or techniques

that do not satisfy the Standards for Issuance set

forth in Rule 921, provided that the applicant submits

clear, cogent and convincing proof that the process

or technique has a reasonable and substantial chance

for success.

(b)

 The existence of

 a valid Experximental Permit shall

constitute a prima facie defense to any action brought

against the Permittee for a violation of this Chapter,

but only to the extent that such action is based on

the failure of the process or technique, during the

period

validity

the

Permit,

meet

the

effluent

limitations

 or water quality standards of this Chapter.

908

 Former Permits

The issuance of any Permit by the Agency or any predecessor

prior to the effective date of this Part will not excuse

compliance with the requirements for obtaining Operating

Permits

set

forth

Rules

903,

904

and

905.

911

 Applications

 Contents

(a)

 All applications for any Permit required under this

Part shall contain, where appropriate, the following

information and documents:

(1)

 a complete description of the volume and nature

of the wastewater influent and effluent to be

transported, treated or discharged,

 including

a statement as to the presence or absence of all

contaminants for which effluent or water quality

standards are set by this Chapter; and

(2)

 a description of the present condition of the

receiving

body

water

and

the

effect

the

waste—

water on such receiving body of water; and

(3)

 a statement as to any projected changes in the

—28—

volume or nature of the wastewater which the

applicant desires to have included within the

terms of the Permit;

and

(4)

 a description of the geographic location of the

facility or source, and its interrelation with

any existing or proposed treatment works, sewer,

orwastewater source which will transport,

 treat,

or discharge the same wastewater; and

(5)

 plans and specifications,

 prepared by

 a registered

professional engineer,

 fully describing the design,

nature, function and interrelationship of each

individual component of the facility or source;

and

(6)

 a statement identifying and justifying any de-

parture from current design criteria promulgated

by the Agency.

Cb)

 The Agency may adopt procedures requiring such additional

information as

 is necessary to determine whether the

treatment works, sewer,

 or wastewater source will

meet the requirements of the Act and this Chapter.

Cc)

 The Agency may prescribe the form in which all information

 required under this Rule shall be submitted.

912

 Applications

 Signatures

 and Authorizations

(a)

 All Permits applications shall be signed by the owner

of the treatment works, sewer, or wastewater source

or the owner’s duly authorized agent, and shall be

accompanied by evidence of authority to sign the

application.

(b)

 Permit applications for :sewer construction or modi-

fication shall be accompanied by signed statements

from the owners of all intermediate receiving sewers

and the receiving treatment works certifying that

their facilities have adequate capacity to transport

and/or treat the wastewater that will be added through

the proposed sewer without violating any provisions

of the Act and this Chapter.

913

 Applications

 Registered or Certified Mail

All Permit:’~applicationsshall be mailed or delivered

 to the

appropriate address designated by the Agency.

 Any applica-

tion or revised application sent by mail shall be sent by

registered or certified mail, return receipt requested.

—

29

Applications which are hand-delivered shall be delivered

to and receipted for by any authorized person employed

in the Permit Section of the Agency’s Division of Water

Pollution Control.

914

 ~pplications

 Time to Apply

Any person required to have a Permit must file an application

with the Agency at least 90 days before the date on which the

Permit is required.

915

 Applications

 Filing and Final Action by Agency

(a)

 An application for Permit shall not be deemed to be

filed until the Agency has received, at the designated

address, all information, documents, and authorizations

in the form and with the content required by Rules

911-913 and related Agency procedures.

 Provided,

however, that if the Agency fails

 to notify the

applicant within 30 days after the filing of a purported

application that the application is incomplete and

of the reason the Agency deems it incthnplete, the

application shall ‘be deemed to have been filed as

of the date of such purported filing.

 The applicant

may treat the Agency’s notification that an application

is incomplete as a denial of the application for

purposes of review.

(b)

 If the Agency fails to take final action, by granting

or denying the Permit as requested or with conditions,

within 90 days from the filing of the application,

the applicant may deem the Permit granted for a one-

year period commencing on the 91st day after the application

was filed.

Cc)

 Any applicant for a Permit may waive the requirement

that the Agency must take final action within 90

days from the filing of the application

(d)

 The Agency shall send all notices of final action

by registered or certified mail,

 return receipt re-

quested.

(e)

 The Agency shall be deemed to have taken final action

on the date that the notice is mailed.

—30—

921

 Standards for Issuance

The Agency shall not grant any Permit required by this

Part, except an Experimental Permit under Rule 907, unless

the applicant submits adequate proof that the treatment

works,

 sewer,

 or wastewater source:

(a)

 will be constructed, modified,

 or operated so

as

not to cause a violation of the Act or of this Chapter,

or has been granted a variance under Title IX of the

Act; and

(b)

 either conforms to the design criteria promulgated

by the Agency under Rule 931,

 or is based on such

other criteria which the applicant proves will

produce consistently satisfactory results;

and

Cc)

 conforms to all conditions contained in the Construc-

tion Permit, where applicable; and

Cd)

if

subject to a future compliance date, the applicant

has an approved Project Completion S~dhedulein accor-

dance with the provisions of Rule 1002.

922

 Duration of Permits

Ca)

 Construction Permits:

 Construction Permits for sewers

 and wastewater sources

 shall require that construction

be completed within two years.

 Construction Permits

for treatment works shall require that construction

be completed within three years.

 In situations

where the magnitude and complexity of the project

require it,

 the Agency may issue

 a Construction Permit

requiring completion within a period not to exceed

five years.

(b)

 Operating Per’mits:

 All Operating Permits other than

those issued under Rule 902 for newly constructed

sewers shall have a duration not to exceed five

years.

 The Agency may issue Operating Permits having

a duration as short as one year in order to facilitate

basin planning, to coordinate Operating Permits

with future compliance deadlines and to maintain

intensive control over new or experimental processes.

-31—

923

 Conditions

In addition to specific conditions’ authorized under this

Part, the Agency may impose such conditions in any Permit

issued pursuant to this Part as may be necessary to

accomplish the purposes of the Act or this Chapter, provided

such conditions are not inconsistent with this Chapter.

924

 Appeals from Conditions

 in Permits

An applicant may consider any condition imposed by the

Agency in

 a Permit as a refusal by the Agency to grant

a Permit, which shall entitle the applicant to appeal the

 Agency’s decision to the Board pursuant to Section 40 of

the Act.

925

 Permit No Defense

Except as provided in Rule 907, the issuance and possession

of a Permit under this Part shall not constitute a defense

to a violation of the Act or this Chapter, except for

construction or operation without a permit.

931

 Design, Operation and Maintenance Criteria

(a)

 The Agency may adopt procedures which set forth criteria

for the design,’operation, and maintenance of treatment

works, sewers, and wastewater sources.

 These procedures

shall be revised from time to time

 to”reflect current

engineering judgment and advances in the state of the

art.

(b)

 Before adopting new criteria or making substantive changes

to’any criteria adopted by’the Agency, theAgency shall:

(1)

 publish a summary of the proposed changes in

the Board Newsletter or a comparable publica-

tion, at the AgencyT s expense; and

(2)

 provide

 a copy of the full text of the proposed

changes to any person who in writing so requests;

and

(3)

 defer adoption of the changes for

 45 days from

the date of publication to allow submission and

consideration of written comments on the proposed

changes.

—32—

941

 Modification of Permits

Any permit issued by the Agency may be modified to make

 its provisions compatible with any new regulations adopted

by the Board.

942

 Permit Revocation

Violation of the conditions of a Permit issued under

the provisions of this Part shall be grounds for revocation

by the Agency of the Permit, in addition to other sanctions

provided by the Act.

 Such sanctions shall be sought

by filing a complaint with the Board.

951

 Approval of Federal Permits

The Agency shall not approve any effluent discharge for

the purposes of any federal permit unless that discharge is

in compliance with all provisions of the Act and this Chapter,

or has been granted a variance under Title IX of the Act.

961

 Hearings

(a)

 The Agency may conduct hearings,

 prior to issuing

a Permit pursuant to this Part, to determine whether

an applicant has submitted proof that the treatment

works,

 sewer, or wastewater source is or will be in

compliance with the Act and this Chapter.

(b)

 The Agency shall adopt procedural regulations for the

conduct of such hearings, which regulations

 shall be

effective upon filing with the Secretary of State.

Revisions to such procedural regulations adopted by

the Agency pursuant to this paragraph shall take effect

in like manner.

971

 Procedures

In addition to procedures specifically authorized under

this Part, the Agency may adopt and promulgate all

procedures reasonably necessary to perform its duties

 and responsibilities under this Chapter.

 Such procedures,

and revisions thereto, shall not become effective until

filed with the Index Division of the Office of the Secretary

of State

 as required by

 “An Act concerning Administrative

Rules,” approved June 14,

 1951,

 as amended.

—33—

PART

X:

 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

This part requires an annual waste discharges report to be

prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency and provides for

the filing and approval of programs to meet future deadlines.

1001

 Waste Discharge Report.

The Agency shall annually prepare and submit to the Board

a Waste Discharge Report which lists the waste discharges

in the State, describes the type, quantity and concentrations

of the various contaminants being discharged, and describes

the existing and planned treatment controls and the

scheduled dates for completion of treatment improvements.

1002

 Project Completion Schedule.

(a)

 Any person who owns or operates any sewer treatment

works or wastewater source that requires modification

or additional controls to meet any applicable effluent

standard contained within this Part shall file

a

Project Completion Schedule with the Agency.

The

Project Completion Schedule shall include

 a’ description

of the wastewater source,

 t1~xe~

contaminants to be con-

trolled, the additional controls or treatment required,

and a time schedule for the project’s completion which

must meet the applicable deadlines,

 as well as interim

dates by which various

 increments of the proposed

compliance program shall be completed, such as dates

when plans and specifications shall be completed, dates

when contracts will be awarded, dates for equipment

delivery, and dates for the commencement of construction.

The approval by the Agency of a Project Completion

Schedule and compliance therewith shall constitute

a prima facie defense to any enforcement action

respecting the requirements whose compliance the

program is designed to achieve, during the period

of the program.

(b)

 Project Completion Schedules shall be filed in accord-

ance with the following timetable:

Ci)

 For compliance wi,th Rules

 407 and 408, the schedule

shall be filed no later than July 1,

 1972;

(ii)

 In other cases in which compliance with effluent

standards is required by December 31,

 1973,

the schedule shall be filed no later than Sept.

1,

1972;

—34—

(iii)

 Where compliance with effluent standards is

required at a date later than December 31,

1973, the schedule shall be filed no later

than December 31,

 1972.

(c)

 Failure to adhere to an approved compliance schedule

shall constitute

 a violation of this Part for which

appropriate sanctions may be sought in accordance

with the Act.

I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board, certify

that the Board adopted the above Opinion and Order this

day of

~

 1972, by a vote of

q-0