•
I.,
.•
2F
St
•
‘I
•ipy..~
~
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
•
December 21, 1971
••
In the Matter of
)
)
)
IR 71—14
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS REVISIONS
)
Explanation of Proposed Final Draft
(by• Mr.
Currie):
On May 12,
1971, we puhlished a proposed chapter IV of
the
Rules
arid 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 ft 70-8 and the subject
of separate hearings last winter, respecting effluent standards, permits,
nd
1-he
rntrol
of
Rtorm
overflors.
The
proposed
finfl
draft
published today contains additional provisions considered at
the
hearings
which,
together
with
the
November
11
draft,
are
intended
to .constitute
a
complete
package
of
revised
water
pollution
regulations.
It
is
our intention that both today’s
draft
and
that of November 11 be adopted, as the subjects
covered, while related, are not overlapping.
This explanation
relates to the draft published today, on which final hearings will
be held and final comments accepted with final action expected
in February.
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.
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 repealer of obsolete provisions.
Rule 104 contains definitions
in addition to those included in the November 11 draft; both
sets will be included in the final regulations.
None of these
provisions, with the exception of certain definitions in the
November 11 draft, has been substantially altered from the
original May 12 proposal.
3C
4’
—2—
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
1.
-~
.-~.----~-~
.--—--,
.-;__
~.-
~.,-
.,.-.---~-.-.-.--~
.~,—
C-~~~_
~
~uflL.
‘..
‘~)
~
~
L~
~
~
L
u~11~J.Ui1
•
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,
#
71—5lC, 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
in the present draft,
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 morel responsive
to the competing policy considerations
underlying the mixing zone provisions than does any rigid size
requirement.
In response to other testimony received, the present
draft 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.
.
-3-
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 e:~ceptextreme 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.
233
ic~.i
3La~~~ai.T~e~
rcvicion
1i
~,cacd
~
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),
as initially and presently proposed, retains the existing
pH values for aquatic life.
203
Cc)
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
alga.e
limit,
which
was
too
stringent
to
indicate
the
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)
repeats
the
May
12
proposal
(6.0
mg/l
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
th~
Green
Book
of
the
National
Technical
Advisory
Committee
on
Water
Quality
Criteria.
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.
I~mmonia Nitrogen.
The
present
SWB-8
standard
is
2.5
mg/l,
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/1,
and
that
is
here
proposed.
Arsenic.
The
May
12
proposed
level
of
1.0
mg/l
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
preserved
in
today’s
draft.
Barium.
The
May
12
proposal,
preserved
here,
of
5.0
mg/l
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).
This
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
in
today’s
draft
and
will
rely
on
the
dilution
ratios
in
the
November
11
draft,
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.
—5—
Boron.
The
May
12
and
presently
proposed
level
of
1.0
mg/l
is
based
on
evidence
t.hat
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
a
stream
standard
should
not
be
very
difficult.
Cadmium.
The
0.05
value
proposed
on
May
12
and
today
is
the
same
as
the
present
SWB-8
for
aquatic
life.
McKee
and
Wolf
suggest
that
an
even
lower
~a1ue
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
mq/l
would
be
a
safe
limit,
and
there
was
no
substantial
dispute.
This
value
will
also,
according
to
the
evidence,
protect
against
any
substantial
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
the
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
proposed
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.
Copper.
Existing
copper
standards
vary:
SWB—8’s
i~
0.04
mg/i,
while
SWB—l2’s
(Mississippi
River)
is
the
same
(0,02)
as
that
proposed
May
12
and
today.
This
figure
is
based
on
McKee
and
Wolf’s
~commendation
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/l,
here
proposed,
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
could
be
achieved
by
filtration.
But
finding
a
safe
level,
not
treatability,
is
the
goal
in
setting
water
quality
standards
for
general
uses.
—6—
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/l.
They
recommend
a
standard
of
1.5
mg/i.
The
figure
of
1.4,
here
repeated
from
the
i~’Iay 12
draft,
is
in
line
with
that
recommendation
and
also
should
assure
a
potable
supply.
Iron.
The
1.0
mg/i
standard
proposed
May
12
and
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/l
of
iron.
Other
species
are
said
to
have
shown
a
lower
toxic
threshold.
Lead.
0.1
mg/i,
proposed
May
12
and
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
proposed
1.0
(May
12
and
today)
is
based
upon
McKee
and
Wolf’s
report
as
to
fish
toxicit.y
and
should
he
easy
to
meet.
Nickel.
There
is
no
existing
standard,
McKee
and
Wolf
report
one
study
finding
that
stickelbacks
die
as
low
as
0,8
mg/i,
but
that
others
find
nickel
less
toxic
than
iron
or
zinc.
Today’s
proposal,
like
that
of
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
propose
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
2.0
therefore
seems
too
high,
and
1.0
is
here
proposed
in
order
to
keep
the
water
below
the
harmful
level.
Silver.
The
present
SWB-8
standard
is
0.05
mg/l,
but
McKee
and
Wolf
report
lethal
doses
to
some
fish
at
levels
an
order
of
magnitude
lower.
Accordingly
the
May
12
and
present
drafts
proposed
0.005
mg/l.
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
adverse
effects
on
public
water
~upp1ies
as
well
according
to
McKee
and
Wolf.
L/
~ç
A.
-
—7—
Total
Dissolved
Solids.
This
proposed
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
he
harmed.
Zinc.
1.0
is
the
present
SWB-8
aquatic
standard
and
proposed
May
12
and
here.
McKee
and
Wolf
suggest
that
this
is
a
safe
level
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
no
basis~~
for
setting
any
particualr
number
and therefore
1~C~V
V~
~LL.
L
~
~.LJ.L
~
~.L
‘~
V
L ~
~L~.L1
L
i
~1Lt
~D
L~J~
a..L
~
j’
J~Q~V
..L.Ai’~
L~i’~
~
LJ-’~)i1
of
synergism
to
be
dealt
with
by
general
provisions
such
as
paragraph
(h)
of
Rule
203,
below.
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
reievant.effiuents,
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
substance
shall
he
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)
-8-
203
Ci)
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
and
lower
Des
Piaines)
,
pending
further
evidence
as
to
actual
temperature.
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.
Agreeing
with
McKee
and
Wolf
that
the
recommended
Public
Health
Service
standards
for
desirable
drinking
water
are
tighter
than
necessary
as
a
regulatory
matter
with
respect
to
such
relatively
innocuous
materials
as
chloride,
sulfate,
and
total
dissolved
solids
in
light
of
the
difficulty
of
removing
such
materials
from
effluents.,
we
have
altered
the
May
12
proposal
by
omitting
these
parameters
and
by
rewording
the
general
statement
in
paragraph
(a).
Comoliance
with
the
general
standards
for
these
parameters
should
suffice.
We
have
also
reinstatcd
hi
~
~
L~ep~ovisio~t~u. ~ho.poblic cu~pi~’ca~’~
~ised ho
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
additiona.l
treatment
of
effluents
upstream.
Since
general
criteria
apply
to
all
waters
designated
for
public
supply,
the
present
draft
omits
separate
requirements
for
those
parameters
whose
general
standards
are
tight
enough
to
protect
public
supplies;
boron,
chloride,
chromium,
copper,
fluoride,
mercury,
silver,
sulfate,
total
dissolved
solids,
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
recomrnneds,
the
raw
water
must
itself
meet
the
standard
to
assure
satisfactory
finished
water.
The
proposed
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
standards whose violation
in finished water results
in rejection
of the supply.
These are toxic materials not removed by ordinary
ill
~?-
C
‘~
—9—
.
treatment
of
raw
water.
These
numbers
represent
existing
SWB-8
standards.
-For
arsenic,
the
present
standard,
taken
from
the
PHS
rejection
standard,
is
0.05;
we
proposed
May
12
and
today
to
tighten
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
mq/l
as
for
aquatic
life)
is
reduced
in
the
May
and
present
drafts
to
0.01
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.
It
is
disputed
the
extent
to
which
these
parameters
are
reduced
by
ordinary
treatment.
The
PHS
says
at
least
some
of
them
are,
and
there-
fore
implies
that
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
Cc)
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
—10—
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
in
the
present
draft.
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
which
has
here
ho an
broadened
in
response
to
testimony
L~
J~1L~A~
~V~W
L~
JL~VV
~
.L-’-~
~--‘-~
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
aquatic
life
because
of
insufficient
flow.
We
have
also
been
urged
to
designate
as
restricted
certain
additional
heavily
industrial
channels
in
the
Chicago
area.
We
find
the
evidence
on
this
issue
more
conclusory
than
convincing,
and
retain
the
general
classification
in
the
present
draft.
The
burden
is
on
those
seeking
to
abandon
a
waterway
to
demonstrate
the
economic
unreasonableness of upgrading
it
to
support
aquatic
life.
We
shall
entertain
such
proof
in
the
coming
hearings.
Part
IV,
which
contains
effluent
standards,
was
published
as
a
proposed
final
draft
November
ii.
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
required.
Part
VI.
Sections
dealing
with
breakdowns,
spills,
and
over-
flows were published November 11.
Rule 603 modifies the proposal
respecting intake structures
by limiting it to aquatic life
sectors,
since
it
is
designed
to
protect
aquatic
life,
and
by
specifying
new
sources
only
in
order
to
avoid
enormous
backfitting
costs.
Rule
604
on
new
connectiox~s
will
be
published
separately
on
the
basis
of,pending
hearings.
(N
-
.
~
-
11—
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
as
well
as
the
mercury
limit
already
adopted.
The
cyanide
sewer
limit
of
SWB-5
is
also
included.
Although
it
has
been
challenged,
revision
can
await
specific
hearings
in
the
future.
Part
VIII
incorporates
existing
requirements
(SWB-19)
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
supporting
evidence
at
present
and
may
he
considered
separately
in
further
hearings.
Part
IX
on
permit?
and
most
of
Part
XI
(compliance
programs)
were
published
November
11.
Rule
1001
is
the
requirement
of
an
annual
status
report
from
the
Agency
as
proposed
May
12.
The
extensive
list
of
individual
compliance
dates,
taken
from
existing
regulations,
is
omitted
here.
In
most
cases
those
dates
are
past;
for
enforcement
ourooses
the
original re~u1ations
may
be
used,
and
the
presently
applicable
dates
are
more
.
concisely
stated
in
the
proposed
Part
~iV as
publithed
November
11.
Further
comment?
on
the
present
draft
are
invited.
