ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
August 24,
1995
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
PETITION OF THE METROPOLITAN WATER
)
R95-14
RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF GREATER
)
(Site-Specific
CHICAGO FOR SITE-SPECIFIC WATER
)
Rulemaking
Water)
QUALITY REGULATION FOR
CYANIDE
)
(Amendments
to 35 Iii. Adm. Code
)
303. and 304)
)
Proi~osedRule.
First Notice.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by R.C.
Flemal):
This matter comes before the Board upon a proposal to amend
the Board’s water quality regulations for cyanide.
The proposal
was filed by the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of
Greater Chicago (District)
who requests that the existing General
Use chronic standard (CS) for weak acid dissociable
(WAD)
cyanide
be changed from 5.2 ~~g/Lto 10 ~g/L as applied to the West Branch
of the DuPage River, Higgens Creek, Salt Creek, and the Des
Plaines River within Cook County.
The Board’s responsibility in this matter arises from the
Environmental Protection Act
(Act)
(415 ILCS 5/1 et seq.
(1994)).
The Board is charged therein to “determine, define and implement
the environmental control standards applicable in the State of
Illinois”
(415 ILCS 5/5(b)).
More generally, the Board’s
rulemaking charge is based on the system of checks and balances
integral to Illinois environmental governance:
the Board bears
responsibility for the rulemaking and principal adjudicatory
functions; the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)
has primary responsibility for administration of the Act and the
Board’s regulations,
including today’s proposed regulation.
By today’s action the Board adopts the proposed amendments
for the purpose of first notice, pursuant to the Illinois
Administrative Procedure Act
(5 ILCS 100/1-1 et
seq.
(1994)).
Publication in the
Illinois Register
will follow today’s action,
whereupon a 45-day public comment period will begin during which
interested persons may file additional public comment with the
Board.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The District filed its proposal on April 28,
1995.
By order
of May 4,
1995 the Board accepted the proposal for hearing.
—2—
A public hearing was held before hearing officer Audrey
Lozuk—Lawless in Chicago on June 30,
1995.
The District
presented the testimony of Dr. Cecil Lue-Hing, Director of
Research and Development at the District; of Dr. Richard G.
Luthy, Professor and Head of the Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University; and of
Dr. Herbert Allen, Professor of Environmental Engineering at the
University of Delaware.
Dr. Lue-Hing presented an overview of the District’s
petition, including discussion of the existing WAD cyanide
standard and studies the District has undertaken of that
standard.
Dr. Lue-Hing additionally addressed the economic
impact to the District and the water quality of the rivers
impacted by the proposed new standard.
Dr. Luthy addressed the methodology for WAD cyanide
analysis,
including the precision and accuracy of the WAD cyanide
test.
Dr. Allen addressed the methodologies for determining a
WAD cyanide CS.
Public comments have been filed by the following persons:
Chicago Metal Finishers Institute (PC #1), Illinois Association
of Wastewater Agencies
(PC #2), the District (PC #3), and the
Agency
(PC #4).
All comments support the District’s proposal.
The Agency suggests various changes to the proposal which the
Board discusses below.
BACKGROUND
The District is a unit of government with jurisdiction
within part of Cook County,
Illinois.
Among the duties of the
District is operation of water reclamation plants
(WRPs), which,
as part of their normal activities, produce discharges to local
waterways.
The Board has established water quality standards for the
streams of the State, including streams within the area served by
the District.
Among these standards are two standards for
cyanide1 that apply to the General Use Waterways to which the
District discharges.
These are a chronic standard
(CS) with a
value of 5.2
/.Lg/L and an acute standard
(AS)
of
22 ~g\L.
The
parameter to be measured in both cases is WAD cyanide,
identified
by the STORET number 00718.
These standards are found at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.208(d).
They were adopted in Board proceeding R88-21(A)
(In the matter
of: Amendments to Title 35,
Subtitle C
(Toxics Control)),
effective February 13,
1990.
—3—
At issue in the instant proceedings are three of the
District’s seven
WRP5
and the General Use Water Quality streams
to which they discharge.
These are:
WRP
Receiving Stream
ADF*
Hanover Park
West Branch DuPage River
8.87
John E. Egan
Salt Creek
24.5
James
C. Kirie
Higgins Creek
31.8
*(ADF
=
Average 1994 daily flow in million gallons per day)
Each of the three receiving streams has a 7—day,
10—year low
flow of zero at the point of discharge.
The three receiving
streams are tributary to a fourth stream of interest, the Des
Plaines River.
In 1993 the Agency issued renewed National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits for the Hanover Park
and James C. Kirie WRPs.
In these permits the Agency for the
first time included numerical effluent limits based on the
cyanide water quality standards2.
These effluent limits for the
two plants are 5.2 and 5.0 ~g/L, respectively, measured as
monthly average WAD cyanide,
and 22 ~ag/Lmeasured as daily
maximum WAD cyanide.
The NPDES cyanide limits were set equal to the cyanide CS,
in keeping with the permit-writing practice applicable to streams
that have 7-day,
10—year low flows of zero.
Prior to the 1993 issuance of the NPDES permits at issue,
the District had not conducted routine analysis of effluent
cyanide.
However, analyses conducted subsequently at both the
Hanover Park and James C. Kirie WRPs have suggested to the
District that a
5 ~g\L monthly average3 of WAD cyanide would
often be equaled or exceeded.
In this circumstance the District
believes that compliance with the monthly averages currently
expressed in the permits is problematic.
The District believes
that the solution lies in examination of the rationale for the
cyanide General Use CS, and bases the instant petition on that
examination.
2
Upon petition from the District the Agency has set the
effective date for the cyanide limits to October
1,
1996.
~ The District believes that it would have no difficulty
complying with the 22
/.Lg/L daily limits.
—4—
JUSTIFICATION FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
The District has identified four factors that it believes
give technical justification for a CS standard of
10
p.g/L4.
These are:
1.
The indigenous species used in calculating
fish toxicities are not applicable to the
waterways named in the District’s proposal.
2.
Use of WAD cyanide for determining water
quality standards is not directly related to
toxicity as compared to use of free cyanide.
3.
Chlorine interferes with the WAD cyanide
test.
4.
The regulatory limits are at or below the
limit of detection.
The Board will address each of these
in turn.
Use of Indigenous Species
Determination of AS and CS water quality standards is
accomplished by a well—established procedur& that involves
consideration of the toxicity of the substance in question to a
range of aquatic organisms.
In fresh—water environments such as
under concern here,
the procedures and cyanide data base are such
that the four fish species most sensitive to cyanide determine
the calculated standards6.
“
This value is expressed in the record both as
10 Jhg/L and
10.0 ~g/L.
The Agency recommends
(PC #4 at ¶6), and the Board
agrees, that in view of concerns regarding precision of WAD
cyanide analyses,
10 /~Lg/Lis the preferred form.
~ The procedures are given in Guidelines for Deriving
Numerical National Water Ouality Criteria for the Protection of
Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses,
NTIS PB85—227049.
Similar
procedures are present in the Board’s regulations at 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 302.Subpart
F: Procedures
for Determining Water Quality
Criteria.
6
Application of the procedures,
including selection of data
and calculations using the data to produce the CS values
discussed herein,
is detailed in the testimony of Dr. Allen at
Tr.
35-42 and Exh.
2.
The Agency has independently undertaken
the analysis, and confirms the results obtained by Dr. Allen.
(Tr. at
54.)
—5—
The current CS cyanide standard of 5.2 j.~g/Lwas established
based upon a calculation that included toxicities to rainbow
trout, brook trout, yellow perch,
and bluegill as the four
species in question.
However, the District observes that rainbow
trout, which is the most sensitive of the four species to
cyanide, are not indigenous to the District’s waterways.
The District notes that rainbow trout have never been
observed in any of the extensive fish collections made by the
District.
(Proposal at p.
45-51:
Tr.
at 25.)
Moveover, the
District observes that rainbow trout, which are a coidwater fish
species, are intolerant of the warmwater environments at issue
here.
(Proposal at p.
50—54.)
If rainbow trout are not included in the cyanide CS
calculation, the four most sensitive species become the four
fishes: brook trout7, yellow perch,
bluegill, and black crappie.
When these four species are used,
the calculated CS value for
cyanide becomes 9.799 pg/L.
(Tr. at 41—42; Exh.
2 at 6.)
The
District recommends that this value, rounded to 10 ug/L, be the
CS applicable in the District’s waterways.
The Agency agrees that rainbow trout are not a species
indigenous to the District’s waterways.
(Tr. at 62-63.)
The
Agency further observes that excluding rainbow trout from the CS
calculation for the streams at issue is consistent with federal
guidance and that the resultant cyanide CS of 10 j~tg/Lis
protective of existing and expected aquatic life.
(PC #4 at ¶2.)
WAD Cyanide Toxicity
Cyanide occurs in natural aquatic environments in a number
of forms.
Among these are HCN, CM, and complexes of cyanide
with metals
(e.g.,
ferrocyanide).
The WAD cyanide measurement
procedure measures all three of these forms.
However,
it is
generally recognized that only the first two forms,
HCN and
CN
(collectively called free cyanide), significantly contribute to
the toxicity of cyanide.
(Tr. at 44,)
Thus,
analyses of WAD
cyanide overestimates the toxicity of the cyanide in direct
proportion to the amount of metallocyanide complexes present in
any sample.
This problem would be eliminated if free cyanide could be
measured directly.
However, there currently is no approved
method for analysis of free cyanide in natural samples.
(Tr. at
~ At hearing it was noted that brook trout do not occur in the
waterways at issue, and that yellow perch are rare (Tr. at 51—54).
Nevertheless, no suggestion has been made that these species also
be excluded from the CS calculation; if brook trout are excluded,
the calculated CS would be 10.9 pg/L
(Tr. at 54).
—6—
29,
45;
Exh.
3 at 2.)
Thus, analysis of WAD cyanide must be used
in default.
The District observes that for these reasons, WAD cyanide is
a conservative measure of cyanide toxicity.
(Tr.
at 29.)
Nevertheless, at the low levels of metals and cyanide
in the
District’s effluent, there should be little difference between
the expected free cyanide concentrations and measured WAD cyanide
concentrations.
(Tr. at 59.)
Chlorine Interference
The District has completed 16½ months of detailed WAD
cyanide sampling and analysis in effluents from the Hanover Park
and James C. Kirie WRPs.
In both data sets the District observes
that measured WAD cyanide concentrations were higher during the
months of May through October than in November through April8.
The only consistent difference in inflow or operational
parameters between these two time periods is that during May
through October both WRPs employ chlorination/dechlorination
procedures.
The District observes that during the summer of 1994, when
the correlation between chlorination/dechlorination was becoming
evident,
it undertook a study of the fate of WAD cyanide
concentrations during the treatment process,
including sampling
prior to and after chlorination.
(Tr.
at 31-32; Exh.
1 at 11.)
The results verified that chlorination causes an increase in the
reported WAD cyanide concentrations
(u.),
although it remains
uncertain whether the increase is caused by an analytical
interference or by a chemical reaction that produces new cyanide
(Tr. at 55—57).
Detection Limit
The District observes that Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th edition,
lists the
limit of detection for WAD cyanide as
5 to 20 j~g/L, depending
upon the sample matrix.
(Proposal at 57.)
The District
observes, accordingly,
that a standard at 5.2
Jhg/L lies at the
threshold of and “perhaps beyond the limits of existing
laboratory analytical methodology”
(~.).
8
At the Hanover Park WRP, the WAD cyanide concentrations on
the final effluent were 1.0 to 2.0 ~g/L during November through
April, versus 4.0 to 6.0 pg/L during May through October.
(Exh.
1 at Table 1.)
At the James C. Kirie
WRP
WAD cyanide
concentrations were 1.0 to 2.0 j.~g/Lduring November through
April, versus 3.0 to 4.0 ,ag/L during May through October.
(Exh.
1 at Table 2.)
—7—
In addition,
Dr.
Luthy, who chairs the task group that
prepared the section on cyanide for the current edition of
Standard Methods, notes that the single operator precision for
the determination of WAD cyanide is about 8 /Ag/L for samples in
the range 5-10 ~g/L.
(Tr. at 47;
Exh.
3 at 3.)
He concludes
that considerable variation should be expected in such low—level
samples, and that “it would be improper to ascribe great
significance to sample analyses in this range”
(Id.).
ECONOMICS
The District has calculated the cost of replacing the
chlorination/dechlorination system at the Hanover Park and James
C. Kirie WRPs.
(Proposal at 24, Attachment 7.)
The District
calculated estimates of replacing the existing system with
ultraviolet radiation
(UV)
and ozone disinfection.
The
calculations indicate that ozonation would be the least costly
replacement alternative.
The District’s total cost to replace
the current chlorination/dechlorination system with an ozonation
system would be $5,699,728
in construction costs, with an annual
operating cost of $164,200.
(~~)
The total annualized capital
plus operating cost for both WRP5 would be $830,097.
(~~)
These expenses do not include any costs for replacing the
existing chlorination/dechlorination system at the John E.
Egan
WRP.
The District notes that even with this expenditure,
there is
no guarantee that an ozonation system would not produce increases
in WAD cyanide as observed during chlorination/dechlorination.
AGENCY’S RECOMMENDED TEXTURAL MODIFICATIONS
At
¶5
10 and 11 of PC #4 the Agency recommends several
modifications to the text of the proposed site-specific language,
none of which would change the relief requested.
The principal
recommendation is deletion of the District’s request to amend 35
Ill. Adm. Code 302.208.
The Agency observes, and the Board
agrees, that the language proposed for 35 Ill. Adm. Code 303.444
is sufficient to effectuate the relief, and that it is neither
necessary nor consistent with prior practice to repeat that
language at Section 302.208.
Accordingly, the Board does not
today propose to amend Section 302.208.
The Agency suggests that the District’s proposed language at
Section 304.201(d) be modified to “preserve the existing parallel
construction of 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 304.201”
(PC #4 at ¶10),
but
the Agency does not propose specific language to that effect.
The Board has reviewed this Agency’s suggestion and believes that
the no substantive modification is necessary.
The Board does
today change the phrase
“...
to meet a monthly average WAD
cyanide effluent standard
..
.“
to
“...
to meet a weak acid
—8—
dissociable cyanide (STORET number 00718) effluent standard
...“
It is redundant to declare the standard a monthly standard, since
pursuant to Section 304.104(a) (1) the prescribed numeric
standards of Part 304 are monthly averages.
The Board also
believes that it
is advisable to spell out the meaning of WAD.
Lastly, the Agency observes that the existing Section
304.201 uses the District’s former, rather than current,
name.
(PC #4 at ¶10.)
Today’s first notice amends the name.
STATE-WIDE APPLICABILITY
At hearing the Agency postulated that the cyanide CS
standard might be better amended to 10 j~g/Las a state—wide rule
than as a site—specific rule.
(Tr. at 62—63.)
In the Agency’s
opinion, the justification presented by the District applies not
only to the waters to which the District discharges, but to all
General Use waters within the State excluding Lake Michigan.
The
Agency is of the further opinion that other water treatment
districts can be expected to request
arid justify relief similar
to that requested by the District.
It might therefore be most
administratively economical to amend the cyanide standard
generally,
rather than in piecemeal site—specific fashion.
The Agency has further indicated that it is engaged in
discussions with interested persons regarding a state—wide
proposal,
after which a proposal may be filed.
(PC #4 at ¶9.)
CONCLUSION
The Board believes that the District has presented evidence
warranting further consideration of this matter.
Accordingly, we
today find that the record before us justifies adopting the
District’s proposal for first notice.
The Board will again review the record in this matter upon
completion of the first notice period, and determine then whether
the record continues to support moving this matter towards
adoption.
ORDER
The Board hereby proposes for first notice the following
amendments to 35 Ill.
Adju. Code 303 and 304.
The Clerk of the
Board is directed to file these proposed rules with the Secretary
of State.
—9—
TITLE 35:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE C:
WATER POLLUTION
CHAPTER
I:
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PART 303
WATER USE DESIGNATIONS AND SITE SPECIFIC
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
SUBPART A:
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section
303.100
303.101
303.102
Section
303.200
303.201
303.202
303.203
303.204
Scope and Applicability
Multiple Designations
Rulemaking Required
SUBPART B:
NONSPECIFIC WATER USE DESIGNATIONS
Scope and Applicability
General Use Waters
Public and Food Processing Water Supplies
Underground Waters
Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Waters
SUBPART C:
SPECIFIC USE DESIGNATIONS AND SITE SPECIFIC
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Section
303.300
303.301
303.311
303.312
303.321
303.322
303.323
303.331
303.341
303.351
303.352
303.353
303.361
303.400
303.430
303.431
303.441
303.442
303 .443
303.444
Scope and Applicability
Organization
Ohio River Temperature
Waters Receiving Fluorspar Mine Drainage
Wabash River Temperature
Unnamed Tributary of the Vermilion River
Sugar Creek and Its Unnamed Tributary
Mississippi River North Temperature
Mississippi River North Central Temperature
Mississippi River South Central Temperature
Unnamed Tributary of Wood River Creek
Schoenberger Creek; Unnamed Tributary of Cahokia Canal
Mississippi River South Temperature
Bankline Disposal Along the Illinois Waterway Rivers
Unnamed Tributary to Dutch Creek
Long Point Slough and Its Unnamed Tributary
Secondary Contact Waters
Waters Not Designated for Public Water Supply
Lake Michigan
Salt Creek,
Higgins Creek, West Branch of the DuPage
River, Des Plaines River
SUBPART D:
THERMAL
DISCHARGES
—10—
Section
303.500
Scope and Applicability
303.502
Lake Sangchris Thermal Discharges
303.Appendix A References to Previous Rules
3O3.Appendix B Sources of Codified Sections
AUTHORITY:
Implementing Section 13 and authorized by Section 27
of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/13 and 27).
SOURCE:
Filed with the Secretary of State January 1,
1978;
amended at
2
Ill.
Reg.
27,
p.
221, effective July 5,
1978;
amended at
3
Ill.
Reg.
20,
p.
95, effective May 17,
1979; amended
at 5 Ill. Reg.
11592, effective October 19,
1981; codified at 6
Ill. Reg.
7818; amended at
6 Ill.
Reg.
11161, effective September
7,
1982; amended at
7
Ill. Reg.
8111, effective June 23,
1983;
amended in R87—27 at 12
Ill.
Reg.
9917, effective May 27,
1988;
amended in R87—2
at 13
Ill. Reg.
15649, effective September 22,
1989; amended in R87—36 at 14
Ill. Reg.
9460, effective May 31,
1990; amended in R86—14 at 14
Ill. Reg. 20724, effective December
18,
1990; amended in R89—l4(C) at 16
Ill.
Reg.
14684,
effective
September 10,
1992; amended in R92—17 at 18
Ill.
Reg. at 2981
effective February 14,
1994; amended in R91—23 at 18 Ill. Reg.
13457, effective August 19,
1994; amended in R93—l3 at 19 Ill.
Reg. 1310 effective January 30,
1995; amended in R95—14 at 19
Ill. Reg.
_______________
effective
________________
Section 303.444
Salt Creek, Higgins Creek, West Branch of the
DuPacie River,
Des Plaines River
The General Use chronic water quality standard for cyanide
(STORET number 00718)
contained in Section 302.208 does not apply
to Salt Creek, Higgins Creek, the West Branch of the DuPage
River. and the Des Plaines River in Cook County,
Illinois.
Instead, for these waters the chronic cyanide standard is 10
~ci/L.
(Source:
Amended at 19 Ill.
Reg.
__________,
effective
__________
TITLE 35:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE C:
WATER POLLUTION
CHAPTER I:
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PART 304
EFFLUENT STANDARDS
SUBPART A:
GENERAL EFFLUENT STANDARDS
—11—
Preamble
Dilution
Background Concentrations
Averaging
Violation of Water Quality Standards
Offensive Discharges
Deoxygenating Wastes
Bacteria
Nitrogen (STORET number 00610)
Phosphorus
(STORET number 00665)
Additional Contaminants
pH
Mercury
Delays in Upgrading (Repealed)
NPDES Effluent Standards
New Source Performance Standards
(Repealed)
SUBPART B:
SITE SPECIFIC RULES AND
EXCEPTIONS NOT OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY
Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharges of the
Metropolitan Sanitary Water Reclamation District of
Greater Chicago
Chior-alkali Mercury Discharges in St.
Clair County
Copper Discharges by Olin Corporation
Schoenberger Creek:
Groundwater Discharges
John Deere Foundry Discharges
Alton Water Company Treatment Plant Discharges
Galesburg Sanitary District Deoxygenating Wastes
Discharges
City of Lockport Treatment Plant Discharges
Wood River Station Total Suspended Solids Discharges
Alton Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharges
Discharges From Borden Chemicals and Plastics Operating
Limited Partnership Into an Unnamed Tributary of Long
Point Slough
Sanitary District of Decatur Discharges
UNO-VEN Refinery Ammonia Discharge
Mobil Oil Refinery Ammonia Discharge
City of Tuscola Wastewater Treatment Facility
Discharges
Newton Station Suspended Solids Discharges
City of Pana Phosphorus Discharge
North Shore Sanitary District Phosphorus Discharges
East St. Louis Treatment Facility, Illinois—American
Water Company
304.221
Ringwood Drive Manufacturing Facility in McHenry County
304.222
Intermittent Discharge of TRC
Section
304.101
304.102
304.103
304.104
304.105
304.106
304.120
304.121
304.122
304.123
304.124
304.125
304.126
304.140
304.141
304. 142
Section
304.201
304.202
304.203
304.204
304.205
304.206
304.207
304.208
304.209
304.210
304.211
304.212
304 .213
304.214
304.215
304
.
216
304.218
304. 219
304.220
—12—
SUBPART C:
TEMPORARY EFFLUENT STANDARDS
Section
304.301
Exception for Ammonia Nitrogen Water Quality Violations
304.302
City of Joliet East Side Wastewater Treatment Plant
304.303
~AmerockCorporation, Rockford Facility
Appendix A
References to Previous Rules
AUTHORITY:
Implementing Section 13 and authorized by Section 27
of the Environmental Protection Act
(415 ILCS 5/13 and 27).
SOURCE:
Filed with the Secretary of State January
1,
1978;
amended at 2
Ill. Reg.
30,
p.
343, effective July 27,
1978;
amended at 2
Ill. Reg.
44,
p.
151, effective November
2,
1978;
amended at
3
Ill.
Reg.
20, p.
95, effective May 17,
1979; amended
at
3 Ill. Reg.
25,
p.
190, effective June 21,
1979; amended at
4
Ill. Reg.
20,
p.
53 effective May
7,
1980;
amended at
6 Ill. Reg.
563, effective December 24,
1981; codified at 6
Ill. Reg.
7818:
amended at 6
Ill.
Reg.
11161, effective September 7,
1982;
amended at 6 Ill. Reg.
13750,
effective October 26,
1982; amended
at
7 Ill. Reg.
3020, effective March 4,
1983;
amended at
7 Ill.
Reg.
8111, effective June 23,
1983; amended at
7 Ill. Reg. 14515,
effective October
14,
1983;
amended at
7
Ill. Reg.
14910,
effective November 14,
1983; amended at
7 Ill. Reg.
14910,
effective November 14,
1983; amended at
8 Ill. Reg.
1600,
effective January 18,
1984;
amended at
8
Ill.
Reg. 3687,
effective March 14,
1984; amended at
8 Ill. Reg.
8237, effective
June 8,
1984; amended at
9
Iii.
Reg.
1379, effective January 21,
1985; amended at 9
Ill. Reg.
4510, effective March 22,
1985;
peremptory amendment at
10 Ill. Reg.
456, effective December 23,
1985; amended at 11 Iii. Reg.
3117, effective January 28,
1987;
amended in R84-13 at 11 Ill. Reg. 7291 effective April
3,
1987;
amended in R86-17(A) at
11
Ill.
Reg.
14748, effective August 24,
1987; amended in R84—16 at 12
Ill. Reg.
2445, effective January
15,
1988; amended in R83-23 at 12 Iii. Reg.
8658, effective May
10,
1988;
amended in R87—27 at 12 Iii. Reg. 9905,
effective May
27,
1988; amended in R82—7 at 12 Ill. Reg.
10712, effective June
9,
1988;
amended in R85-29 at 12 Ill. Reg.
12064, effective July
12,
1988; amended in R87—22 at 12 Ill. Reg.
13966, effective
August 23,
1988; amended in R86-3 at 12 Ill. Reg.
20126,
effective November 16,
1988;
amended in R84-20 at
13 Iii.
Reg.
851, effective January
9,
1989; amended in R85—11 at 13 Iii. Reg.
2060, effective February 6,
1989; amended in R88—1 at
13 Ill.
Reg. 5976, effective April 18,
1989; amended in R86-17B at 13
Ill.
Reg.
7754, effective May 4,
1989;
amended in R88-22 at 13
Ill.
Reg.
8880, effective May 26,
1989; amended
in R87—6 at 14
Ill. Reg.
6777, effective April
24,
1990;
amended in R87-36 at 14
Ill. Reg.
9437, effective May 31,
1990;
added at 14 Ill. Reg.
11979, effective July 9,
1990; amended in R84—44 at 14 Iii. Reg.
20719, effective December 11,
1990; amended in R86-14 at 15 Ill.
Reg.
241, effective December 18,
1990;
amended in R87-33 at 18
Ill. Reg.
11574, effective July 7,
1994; amended in R94—l at 19
—13—
Ill. Reg.
,
effective ___________________________________
_______________;
amended in R95—14 at 19
Ill.
Reg.
________________,
effective
______________
BOARD NOTE:
This Part implements the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act as of July 1,
1994.
Section 304.201
Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharges of The
Metropolitan Sanitary Water Reclamation
District of Greater Chicago
a)
Calumet Treatment Plant Cyanide Discharges:
The effluent standards of Section 304.124 as applied to
cyanide discharges,
Sections 304.120(b)
and
(c)
and Section
304.122 do not apply to BOD5, total suspended solids,
cyanide,
and ammonia—nitrogen discharged from the Calumet
Sewage Treatment Works of The Metropolitan Sanitary Water
Reclamation District of Greater Chicago.
Instead,
it must
meet the following effluent standard,
subject to the
averaging rule of Section 304.104(a), effective July
1,
1988:
STORET
CONCENTRATION
CONSTITUENT
NUMBER
(mg/i)
CBOD5
80082
24
SS
00530
28
Ammonia Nitrogen
00610
13
(as N)
Cyanide
00720
0.15
b)
North Side Sewage Treatment Works
The effluent standards of Sections 304.120(b)
and
(c) and
304.122 do not apply to BOD5, total suspended solids,
and
ammonia-nitrogen discharged from the North Side Sewage
Treatment Works of The Metropolitan Sanitary Water
Reclamation District of Greater Chicago.
Instead,
it must
meet the following standard, subject to the averaging rule
of Section
304.104(a)
effective July
1,
1988:
STORET
CONCENTRATION
CONSTITUENT
NUMBER
(mg/i)
CBOD5
80082
12
SS
00530
20
Ammonia Nitrogen
(as N)
—14—
April-October
00610
2.5
November—March
00610
4.0
c)
Chicago Waterway Evaluation
The Metropolitan Sanitary Water Reclamation District of
Greater Chicago shall complete and submit to the Board a
comprehensive water quality evaluation of the Chicago
Waterway System and its influence on the lower Des Plaines
and Upper Illinois Rivers by January
15,
1992.
Such
evaluation shall include assessment of performance levels
for North Side,
Calumet and Stickney wastewater reclamation
plants and the extent of sewer overflow reduction through
The Metropolitan Sanitary Water Reclamation
District of
Greater Chicago’s Tunnel and Reservoir Plan.
~
John E.
Ecian, Hanover Park, and James
C. Kirie Water
Reclamation Plants
The discharges of the John E.
Ecian, Hanover Park,
and James
C. Kirie Water Reclamation Plants must meet a weak acid
dissociable cyanide
(STORET 00718) effluent standard of 10
LLg/L, subiect to the averaging rule of Section 304.104(a).
(Source:
Amended at
19 Ill. Reg.
__________,
effective
__________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M.
Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby certify that the abj~veopinion and order was
adopted on the ~ç/~
day of
_______________,
1995, by a vote
of
~
.
l5orothy M. ,~unn,Clerk
Illinois P&1~lutionControl Board
