ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April
26,
1990
IN THE MATTER OF:
PROPOSED PtMENDMENTS TO TITLE
)
R88-21,
DOCKET
B
35, SUBTITLE C (TOXICS CONTROL)
)
(Rulemaking)
PROPOSED RULE.
SECOND NOTICE.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by R.
C. Flemal):
The Board
by Order of December
6,
1989 created this Docket
in the R88-2l proceeding
for the purpose of allowing
further
consideration of certain adjuncts
to the overall water
toxics
control regulations
as adopted
in Docket A of R88—21
(See Final
Opinion and Order, January
25,
1990).
First Notice of Docket B
was adopted by the Board on December
6,
1989;
publication
occurred at
13
Ill.
Reg.
20230 et
seq.
The First Notice Docket B proposal considered amendments
to
seven different Sections
in five separate Parts of
the Board’s
water pollution control regulations.
The general
subject matter
of the six amendments are as follows:
Section 302.208
General Use dissolved
iron water quality
standard
Section 302.211
Mixing zones
for thermal discharges
Section 302.304
Public and Food Processing water
dissolved iron standard
Section 303.354
Horseshoe Lake mixing zone and ZID
Section 304.211
Exception
for intermittent discharges
of
total residual chlorine
Section
305.102
Reporting
requirements
Section
309.152
Compliance schedules and stays
Today the Board sends
certain portions
of the Docket
B
amendments
to Second Notice,
as discussed below.
PUBLIC COMNENTS
The Board has received five Public Comments
(“PC”)
on the
First Notice proposal.
These are as
fo11oc~is:
PC
36
Illinois Steel Group (“Steel Group”)
PC
37
Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group
(“IERG”)
PC 38
Pekin Energy Company
(“Pekin”)
PC 40
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency “(Agency”)
PC
41
United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Region
5
“(USEPA”)
1 1fl—447
—2--
The Board notes
that
a portion
of the IERG Public
Cornnient,
rather than addressing Docket
B,
addresses
itself
to repeal,
reconsideration, and modifications of final actions taken
in
Docket A.
The Board is not persuaded that these portions of the
IERG Public Comment
raise
issues sufficient
to warrant any of the
actions requested by IERG.
GENERAL USE DISSOLVED IRON WATER QUALITY STANDARD
In Docket A the Board deleted the Total
Iron General Use
Water Quality Standard found at Section 302.208(e).
This action
was based upon the conclusion that
the total
iron standard
is
relatively meaningless from all environmental and health
perspectives.
Among other matters,
total
iron
is predominantly
present
under ambient conditions
as particulate
iron compounds
which
are unavailable
to aquatic
life.
However,
the Board continued
to consider whether
there
should be adopted an alternative
to
the total iron standard.
To
that end the Board proposed for First Notice
in Docket B a
General Use Standard for dissolved
iron at
Section 302.208(e).
At First Notice the Board observed:
Whereas
there
is
no known documentation for the
aquatic toxicity of total
iron at ambie~it
concentrations, there
is evidence that dissolved
iron
in concentrations of
less than
1 mg/l
is toxic
to
at
least certain aquatic organisms
(R2.
at
698—700,
759—
60;
Exh.
87).
Additionally, there
is substantive
evidence
that aquatic degradation accompanies even
moderate concentrations of dissolved
iron
(R2.
at
764).
Upon review of these data,
the Board concurs
with the Agency,
for the purpose of First Notice,
that a General Use dissolved
iron standard
is
necessary
for the protection
of
Illinois waters.
The
standard the Board today adopts
for First Notice
is
0.2 mg/i, which
the Board believes comports with the
best available data on iron toxicity and ecological
damage.
(R88—21 Docket
B,
December 6,1989,
p.
2).
The only Public Comment which addresses the merits
of this
matter
is the Steel Group’s comment.
The Steel Group contends
that
(a)
the proposed standard has an inadequate scientific
basis, and
(b) compliance with
the proposed standard will impose
an unreasonable hardship on
Illinois
industries
(PC
36
at
9—
13).
The Steel Group further proposes that
the dissolved iron
standard be 1.0 mg/b
As regards the scientific
basis
for
a 0.2 mg/i dissolved
iron standard,
the Steel Group observes that
the record before
the Board contains only two discussions
of
the toxicity of
110—448
—3—
dissolved
iron.
One of these consists of a 1988 study conducted
in Denmark, the results of which have been questioned
by Mr~
Thomas Simpson, one of
the Steel Group’s witnesses
(see R2.~at
1344—5)
The second of these is contained
in the “Red Book”,
USEPA’s 1976 compendium of
recommend criteria for water, wherein
there
is little relevant data on the toxicity of dissolved
iron.
The Steel Group concludes
that this information
is
collectively old, concerns non—native species, and involves
suspect field procedures
(PC 36 at
10).
The Board believes
that the Steel Group’s observations
regarding
the lack of
technical support
for a 0.2 mg/i dissolved
iron standard are persuasive.
Indeed,
the Board
is impressed
with the apparently very limited data on the toxicity of
dissolved
iron, particularly
in light of the ubiquity of this
substance.
On this basis,
the Board will not proceed with the
numeric limitation proposed at First Notice.
Nevertheless,
the Board continues
to believe
that
environmental protection would not
be adequately served
in the
total absence of
a General Use iron standard.
The Board
accordingly today proposes
a General Use standard of 1.0 mg/i,
measured as dissolved iron,
as recommended by the Steel Group
(PC
36 at
13).
The Board notes
that this value
is also the value
recommended for iron generally
in the “Red Book” and
is same
value previously employed for
total
iron.
The Board
is not necessarily fully comfortable with this
outcome, but it does believe
that
1.0 mg/i presents the only
standard defensible
in the record before the Board.
The Agency
is,
of course, welcome
to institute an amendatory rulemaking
at
any time
ic believes
it has sufficient documentation
to- support
an alternate standard.
As a procedural matter,
the Board notes
that
at First Notice
the dissolved
iron standard was proposed as an amendment
to
the
then current version of Section 302.208.
In the time since First
Notice, Section
302.208 has undergone other amendments
as part
of
the Docket A proceeding.
Today’s proposal
is accordingly
presented as
an amendment of the now current version of Section
302.208 as adopted
in Docket
A.
1 As noted
in the Board’s earlier Opinions
in this matter,
page
numbering of the hearing transcriDts was
reset beginning with the
hearing held on June 13,
1989.
Th conformity with the
previously—used style,
transcripts
of that and subsequent dates
are herein referenced
as
“R2.
at
i10—4”49
—4—
MIXING ZONES FOR THERMAL DISCHARGES
At First Notice the Board had proposed the following
addition at
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 302.211(k):
k)
The temperature standards
of
this Section shall
apply outside
a zone of mixing which shall have
an area no greater
than a circle with
radius
of
183 meters
(600 feet)
or an equal area of simple
form.
This proposal was advanced upon
the recommendation
of IERG
and over the objection of
the Agency.
In making the First Notice
proposal the Board noted that
“~while
the Board
is not yet
convinced of either the need for nor the desirable effect
of the
proposal,
the Board does believe
that further exploration of the
issue
is
justified”
(R88—21 Docket
3,
December
6,
1989,
p.
2)
IERG’s principal concern appears
to be that
the allowed
mixing provisions of Section
302.102,
as adopted
in Docket A,
are
directed toward toxic substances,
and thereby
do not recognize
the special character
of thermal discharges.
As IERG has pointed
out,
“tihe
impact
of heat
...
may
be quite different than that
of
toxic chemicals and may,
in some instances,
even be
beneficial”
(R2.
at
742).
In response
to this
concern,
the Board
observed at First Notice:
While
the Board does not believe
that the Section
302.102(b)
limitations are necessarily tailored
entirely
to limiting the impact
of toxic chemicals,
the Board can nonetheless appreciate
the unique
nature of thermal discharges
in this context.
The
Board does not necessarily see,
however, how IERG’s
proposed language would address
the potential
inapplicability
of any provision of Section
302.102(b)
to thermal discharges.
..
.the Board
questions whether
the proposed language
is
unnecessarily redundant...
(R88—2
Docket
B,
December
6,
1989,
p.
3).
The Agency also now observes,
as
it did prior
to First
Notice
(see PC
25
at
19),
that proposed 302.211(k):
is
rather redundant
in that
it repeats
a
condition of mixing zones stated
in
Section
302.102.
There
is
no provision
in the proposed
302.211(k) 1anguaae~ that would serve to circumvent
any limiting provison of
the mixing zone rule.
As
such,
the Agency believes
that this addition
is
neither beneficial
nor harmful.
(PC 40
at
1—2).
110—450
—5—
IERG now also seems
to agree with
the Agency.
IERG notes:
The Board’s
First
Notice) Opinion seems to
...
not
so much question the justification for Section
301.211(k),
as
it wonders how 302.211(k) prevents
302.102(b)
from being applied
to thermal
discharges.
As a result,
IERG has reeexamined both
302.102(b)
and 302.211(k),
and finds
it must agree
with the Board’s view of the situation.
(PC #37,
Exhibit A).
Based on these perspectives,
the Board believes that
Section
302.211(k)
serves no beneficial purpose,
and accordingly will
today delete
it from the Docket B proposals.
As a final matter,
the Board notes
that IERG now urges
the
addition of
an introductory clause at
Section 302.102(b)
as
follows
(PC 37, Exhibit A):
b)
Except
as otherwise provided
in this Chapter with
respect
to temperature,
rpthe portion, volume and
area of any receiving waters within which mixing
is allowed pursuant
to subsection
(a)
shall
be
limited by the following:
The Board believes that this addition serves marginal,
if
any,
purpose.
Accordingly,
the Board declines
to proceed with
it at
this time.
PUBLIC AND FOOD PROCESSING WATER DISSOLVED IRON STANDARD
At First Notice the Board proposed a Public and Food
Processing Water Supply Standard for dissolved iron of 0.3
mg/l.
The Board noted
that the amendment was occasioned because
the deletion of total
iron
from the General Use Standards was
also an effective deletion of
total iron from the Public and Food
Processing Water Standards,
pursuant
to the cumulative
relationship of
the Public and Food Processing Water Standards
with the General Use Standards found at
35 Ill.
Adm. Code
302.301.
The 0.3 mg/i standard
is that recommended by
the USEPA
in the “Red Book”
as
the limit beyond which conventional
surface
water systems are unable
to consistently
reduce higher levels of
dissolved
iron
to aesthetically acceptable levels
(R2.
at 730—
1).
In this sense,
it
is
not
a health—limited standard.
The only Public Comment addressing
this matter
is the
Agency’s.
The Agency recommends
that the Board
not proceed with
this amendment on the basis
that
it
is unnece~sary under
the
assumption
that the General Use Standard would be set at
0.2 mg/l
as proposed at
First Notice
(PC
40
at
1).
However,
as
noted
above,
the Board today declines
to proceed with the 0.2 mg/i
General Use proposal.
Under
this circumstance,
the Board
110—451
—6—
believes that the Public and Food Processing Water Supply
Standard as proposed at First Notice continues
to constitute
the
proper action.
This proposal will accordingly be moved
to Second
Notice.
HORSESHOE LAKE MIXING ZONE AND ZID
At First Notice of Docket A the Board proposed what
is
in
effect
a site—specific mixing zone rule applicable
to discharge
from Granite City Division of National Steel Corporation
(“GCD”)
to Horseshoe
Lake.
Subsequently,
the Board
transferred
the
proposal
to Docket B and sent
it
to First Notice there.
The
Board now notes
that GCD has filed
an essentially identical
proposal
in an Adjusted Standard proceeding:
In the Matter
of:
Granite City Division
of National Steel Corporation,
AS 90—4.
As the Board noted during
the First Notice
of Docket
B,
“there
is question as
to whether GCD’s concerns are
in fact best
addressed via a site—specific rule”
(P88—21 Docket
B,
December
6,
1989,
p.
4).
The Board now concludes that
the site—specific
mode,
as provided by GCD’s adjusted standard proceeding,
does
in
fact present
the best forum for this matter.
Accordingly,
the
GCD proposal willbe
today deleted
from Docket
B.
EXEMPTION FOR INTERMITTENT DISCHARGES OF TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE
At First Notice
the Board proposed,
on the
joint
recommendation of IERG and the Agency,
a exemption
rule for
intermittent discharges
of
total residual chlorine
(“TRC”).
The
Board accepts now,
as
it did
at First Notice,
that
the proposed
rule
is a necessary adjunct
to
the adoption
in Docket A of
a
General Use Water Quality Standard for
TRC.
The Board will not repeat here the justification for the
exemption
rule;
the intexested person
is directed
to the First
Notice Opinion,
p.
4—5.
Rather,
the Board notes
that
the most-
First Notice Public Comments are generally supportive
of the rule
as proposed at First Notice.
An exception
is
the position
expressed
by the USEPA, which recommends
that each consideration
of
intermittent chlorination
be treated as an
individual
site—
specific determination
(PC
41
at p.3).
Given the degree of
technical and economic support
for
a rule—of—general-
applicability,
the Board
is
convinced that USEPAs
site—specific
strategy would
lead
to an unwarranted drain on
the resources of
the regulated community and the
State.
The Board accordingly
declines
to accept USEPA’s suggestion.
Pekin,
which supports the general
concept
of an exemption
rule,
believes that
the proposed
rule does not go sufficiently
far
(PC #38).
Specifically, Pekin would have the Board add the
following sentence at the end of
the rule as proposed:
11 0—452
—7—
Provided, however,
that this provision shall not
prevent facilities
from receiving greater limits
in
terms of the duration of chlorination
and the amount
of chlorine allowed
in the effluent upon their making
a reasonable showing to the Agency that such greater
limits are required
to prevent biofouling and that
such limits will not produce effects
in the receiving
stream that are appreciably different from the effects
that would
result from chlorination
by the facility
that complied with the proposed exception.
(Id.
at
4).
The Board
notes
that Pekin’s proposed addition constitutes
(with
the salient exception of the roles played by the Board
versus the Agency)
essentially an adjusted standard level
of
justification
in accord with Section
28.1
of
the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act
(“Act”)
and
35
Ill. Adm.
Code
301.108.
While
the Board has
no objection
to specifying levels
of justification within the body of
individual
rules, pursuant
to
Section
28.1(b)
of
the Act,
the Board notes
that the general
level of justification procedures of Section 28.1(c)
would
seemingly cover
the particular justifications
requested by
Pekin.
In addition,
the Board has substantial question as
to
whether
the roles contemplated
by Pekin
for the Agency and the
Board are indeed the proper roles.
For these reasons,
the Board
does not believe
that Pekin’s particular proposal has been
sufficiently explored
to allow
it
to proceed at
this time.
As
a procedural matter,
the Board notes
that the exemption
procedure as proposed at First Notice was placed at
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 304.221.
This section number was at the time unused.
However,
the number
has been subsequently preempted
in another
proceeding.
Accordingly,
today the intermittent chlorination
exemption
is placed
in the next available section, Section
304.222.
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The Board at First Notice proposed amendments recommended by
IERG at
Section 305.102(d) and
(e),
the principal intention of
which was
to clarify
the status
of
a permittee regarding
legal
action by
a third party.
The language as proposed was as
follows:
d)
If the Agency specifies,
as a permit condition,
that information be provided regarding
the
biological
impact of
a discharge,
then such
information shall be provided
in accordance with
a
schedule of compliance pursuant
to Section
309.138.
110—453
—8—
e)
When
a permit
is conditioned pursuant
to
subsection
(d) and the permittee
is
in compliance
with such condition,
there shall be
no cause of
action against
the permittee for violations of
toxicity
in the receiving stream as
a result
of
the permitted discharge.
The Public Comments which address this matter focus
on
proposed subsection
(e),
upon which
they take
rather strongly
divergent views.
The Steel Group,
with IERG support
(PC 37
at
8), contends that
the proposal
is flawed
in not ~oing
far enough
(PC 36 at
5—7).
The Agency and the USEPA contend
that the
concept expressed
in the proposal
is inherently flawed
(PC
40 at
4;
PC
41 at
3—4).
Among
the comments,
the Board believes that
the Agency’s perspective
is particularly
telling:
As proposed,
Section 305.102(e)
would provide an
automatic variance once the permittee met the
conditions
of
Section 305.102(d).
Permit conditions
requiring monitoring
per Section 305.102(d)
could
be
for any number
of concerns
(biological assessment,
chemical analysis, dilutions studies,
etc.).
However,
to allow the permittee protection from
enforcement
of
the toxic water quality standards
insulates the permittee from any number of toxic
water quaity conditions
that may or may not
be
related to the parameters,
concerns and operations
associated with the permit conditions.
This proposal
would also protect the discharger
from toxic spills
and even intentional toxic discharges.
Clearly,
this
proposal
is contrary
to the current effluent and
water quality provisions of Subtitle
C,
the
Environmental Protection Act and Section 301(b)(l)(C)
of
the federal
Clean Water Act;
the latter federal
statutue requires and recognizes continuous
compliance with water quality standards.
Furthermore,
any variance or adjusted standard must
be approved by U.S. EPA pursuant
to Section
303(c)(2)(A).
Section 305.102(e)
as proposed
constitutes an automatic variance which
is -~:ithout
procedures
to generate a record necessary to meet
U.S.
EPA Water Quality Standards regulations.
Although the Board continues
to see that clarification of
the status of a permittee regarding third party challenges may be
desirable,
the Board fails
to see how Section
305.102(e)
can be
successfully remedied
to effectuate
this goal.
Additionally,
the
Board see no particular
need
for Section
305.103(d)
in
the
absence of Section 305.102(e).
Accordingly,
the Board will not
proceed with this matter
at this time.
110—4 54
—9—
COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES AND STAYS
At First Notice of Docket B the Board proposed amendments
to
Section 309.152(b)
intended to clarify an NPDES permit holder’s
rights
to being deemed
in compliance under
the circumstance where
compliance with Sections 302.208 or 302.210 subjects the NPDES
permit
to modification.
A special feature of
the Board’s
proposal was a defined period of stay of
the application of
Sections 302.208 and 302.210 during the period when the permit
was being modified.
The Board’s First Notice proposal
is generally viewed
negatively
by
the public commenters
(see PC
36
at
7—8;
PC
37 at
5—7;
PC 40 at
4—5).
The Board accepts
these comments as
indicative
of the unworkability of
the direction proposed at
First Notice.
Accordingly,
that proposal
is today deleted from
this proceeding.
110—455
—10—
ORDER
The Board hereby proposes for Second Notice the following
amendments to
35
Ill. Adm.
Code,
Subtitle C: Water Pollution,
Chapter
I,
Pollution Control Board, Parts 302,
and
304.
The
Board also hereby directs that Second Notice of the following
proposed amendments be submitted
to the Joint Committee on
Administrative Rules.
TITLE
35:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE
C:
WATER POLLUTION
CHAPTER
I:
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PART 302
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
SUBPART
A:
GENERAL WATER QUALITY PROVISIONS
Section
302.100
Definitions
302.101
Scope and Applicability
302.102
Allowed Mixing,
Mixing Zones and ZIDs
302.103
Stream Flows
302.104
Main River Temperatures
302.105
Nondegradation
SUBPART
B:
GENERAL USE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Section
302.201
Scope and Applicability
302.202
Purpose
302.203
Offensive Conditions
302.204
pH
302.205
Phosphorus
302.206
Dissolved Oxygen
302.207
Radioactivity
302.208
Numeric Standards for Chemical Constituents
302.209
Fecal Coliform
302.210
Other Toxic Substances
302.211
Temperature
302.212
Ammonia Nitrogen and Un—ionized Ammonia
SUBPART
C:
PUBLIC AND FOOD PROCESSING WATER SUPPLY STANDARDS
Section
302.301
Scope and Applicability
302.302
Algicide Permits
302.303
Finished Water Standards
302.304
Chemical Constituents
302.305
Other Contaminants
302.306
Fecal Coliform
110—456
—11—
SUBPART D:
SECONDARY CONTACT AND INDIGENOUS AQUATIC LIFE
STANDARDS
SUBPART
E:
LAKE MICHIGAN WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Scope and Applicability
Dissolved Oxygen
pH
Chemical Constituents
Fecal Coliform
Temperature
Existing Sources on January
1,
1971
Sources under Construction
But Not
in Operation
on January
1,
1971
Other Sources
SUBPART F:
Section
302.601
302. 603
302.604
302.606
302.612
302.615
302.618
302.621
302.627
302.630
302.633
302.642
302.645
302.648
302.651
302.654
302.657
PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
Scope and Applicability
Definitions
Mathematical Abbreviations
Data Requirements
Determining the Acute Aquatic Toxicity Criterion
for an Individual Substance
—
General Procedures
Determining the Acute Aquatic Toxicity Criterion
—
Toxicity Independent
of Water Chemistry
Determining the Acute Aquatic Toxicity Criterion
-
Toxicity Dependent on Water Chemistry
Determining the Acute Aquatic Toxicity Criterion
-
Procedures
for Combinations
of Substances
Determining
the Chronic Aquatic Toxicity Criterion
for an
Individual Substance
—
General Procedures
Determining
the Chronic Aquatic Toxicity Criterion
-
Procedure
for Combination
of Substances
The Wild and Domestic Animal Protection Criterion
The Human Threshold Criterion
Determining
the Acceptable
Dail~’Intake
Determining
the H’~imanThreshold Criterion
The Human Nonthreshold Criterion
Determining
the Risk Associated Intake
Determining
the Human Nonthreshold Criterion
Scope and Applicability
Purpose
Unnatural Sludge
pH
Dissolved Oxygen
Fecal Coliform (Repealed)
Chemical Constituents
Temperature
Cyanide
Substances Toxic
to Aquatic Life
Section
302.401
302.402
302.403
302.404
302.405
302. 406
302.407
302.408
302.409
302.410
Section
302.501
302.502
302.503
302.504
302.505
302.506
302.507
302.508
302.509
110—457
—12—
302.658
Stream Flow for Application of Human Nonthreshold
Criterion
302.660
Bioconcentration Factor
302.663
Determination of Bioconcentration Factor
302.666
Utilizing the Bioconcentration Factor
302.669
Listing of Derived Criteria
APPENDIX A
References
to Previous Rules
APPENDIX B
Sources
of Codified Sections
AUTHORITY:
Implementing Section 1~and authorized by Section
27
of the Environmental Protection Act
(Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1987,
ch.
111 1/2,
pars.
1013 and 1027).
SOURCE:
Filed with the Secretary of
State January
1,
1978;
amended at
2
Ill. Peg.
44,
p.
151,
effective November
2,
1978;
amended at
3
Ill. Peg.
20,
p.
95, effective May 17,
1979; amended
at
3
Ill.
Req.
25,
p.
190,
effective June
21,
1979;
codified at
6
Ill. Req.
7818, effective June
22,
1982;
amended at
6
Ill.
Req.
11161,
effective September
7,
1982;
amended at
6
Ill.
Req.
13750,
effective October
26,
1982;
amended at
8
Ill.
Peg.
1629,
effective January
18,
1984;
peremptory amendments
at
10
Ill. Peg.
461,
effective December
23,
1985;
amended
in P87—27
at
12
Ill.
Peg.
9911,
effective May 27,
1988; amended
in P85—29 at
12
Ill.
Peg.
12082,
effective July
11,
1988;
amended
in P88—1
at
13
Ill.
Peg.
5998,
effective April
18,
1989;
amended
in P88—21(A)
at
14
Ill.
Reg.
2899, effective February 13, 1990;
amended
in P88—21(B)
at
______
Ill.
Req.
_____________
,
effective
___________________
SUBPART
B:
GENERAL USE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Section 302.208
Numeric Standards
for Chemical Constituents
a)
The acute
standard
(AS)
for the chemical constituents
listed
in subsection
(d)
shall
not
be exceeded
at any
time except
as provided
in subsection
(c).
b)
The chronic standard
(CS)
for
the chemical constitutents
listed
in subsection
(d)
shall
not
be exceeded
by the
arithmetic average
of
at
Least
four
consecutive samples
collected over any period of at
least
four days, except
as provided
in subsection
(c).
The samples used
to
demonstrate compliance
or
lack of compliance with
a CS
must
be collected
in
a manner which assures an average
representative
of the sampling period.
c)
In waters where mixing
is allowed pursuant
to Section
302.102,
the following
apply:
)
The AS shall not he exceeded in any waters except
for
those waters
for which the Agency has approved
a ZID pursuant
to Section 302.102;
110—458
—13—
2)
The CS shall
not be exceeded outside of waters
in
which mixing
is allowed pursuant
to Section
302.102.
d)
STORET
AS
CS
Constituent
Number
(ug/L)
(ug/L)
Cadmium
(total)
01027
expA
+
Bln(H),
but not
to exceed
50 ug/L, where
A
=
—2.918 and
B
=
1.128
Chromium
01032
(total
hexavalent)
Copper
(total)
Lead
(total)
01051
expA
+
Bln(H),
but not
to exceed
100 ug/L,
where
A
=
—1.460 and
B
=
1.273
Not Applied
Mercury
71900
0.5
Not Applied
TRC
50060
19
where:
ug/L
=
microgram per liter,
11
expx
=
base of natural logarithms
raised
to the x—power, and
ln(H)
=
natural logarithm of Hardness
(STORET 00900).
Arsenic
01002
360
190
(total)
Chromium
(total)
trivalent)
expA
+
where A
and B
explA
+
where A
and B
=
expA
+
where A
and B
=
16
+
Bln(H),
A
=
3.688
=
0.8190
+
Bln(H),
A
=
—1.464
0.9422
Bln(H)
=
—3.490
0.7852
11
Bln(H),
=
1.561
0.8190
Bln(H)
=
—1.465
0.8545
01033
expA
where
and B
01042
expA
where
and B
Cyanide
00718
22
5.2
110—459
—14—
e)
Concentrations
of the following chemical constituents
shall not be exceeded except
in waters
for which mixing
is allowed pursuant
to Section 302.102.
STORET
Constituent
Units
Number
Standard
Barium
(total)
mq/L
01007
5.0
Boron
(total)
mq/L
01022
1.0
Chloride (total)
mq/L
00940
500.
Fluoride
mq/L
00951
1.4
Iron
(dissolved)
Manganese
(total)
mg/i
mg/L
01046
01055
1.0
1.0
Nickel
(total)
mg/L
01067
1.0
Phenols
mg/L
32730
0.1
Selenium (total)
mq/L
01147
1.0
Silver
(total)
ug/L
01077
5.0
Sulfate
mg/L
00945
500.
Total Dissolved
mg/L
70300
1000.
Solids
Zinc
(total)
mg/L
01092
1.0
where:
mq/L
=
milligram per liter and
ug/L
=
microgram per liter
(Source:
Amended at
Ill.
Req
effective
_______________
SUBPART C:
PUBLIC AND FOOD PROCESSING
WATER SUPPLY STANDARDS
Section 302.304
Chemical Constituents
The following levels of chemical constituents
shall
not be
exceeded:
STORET
CONCENTRATION
CONSTITUENT
NUMBER
(mg/i
)
Arsenic
(total)
01002
0.05
Barium (total)
01007
1.0
Cadmium
(total)
01027
0.010
Chloride
00940
250.
Chromium
01034
0.05
Iron
(dissolved)
01046
0.3
Lead
(total)
01051
0.05
Manganese
(total)
01055
0.15
110—460
—15—
Nitrate—Nitrogen
Oil
(hexane—solubles
or
equivalent)
Organics
Pesticides
Chlorinated Hydro-
carbon Insecticides
Aldrin
Chlordane
DDT
Dieldrin
Endrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Lindane
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
Organophosphate
Insecticides
Parathion
Chlorophenoxy Herbicides
2, 4—Dichlorophenoxy—
acetic acid
(2,4—D)
2—(2,4, 5—Trichloro—
phenoxy) -propionic
acid (2,4,5—TP
or Silvex)
Phenols
Selenium (total)
Suiphates
Total Dissolved Solids
00620
10.
00550,
00556
0.1
or 00560
(Source:
Amended at
effective
)
Ill.
Peg.
_____
39330
39350
39370
39380
39390
39410
39420
39782
39480
39400
0.001
0.003
0.05
0.001
0.0002
0.0001
0.0001
0.004
0.1
0.005
39540
0.1
39730
0.1
39760
32730
01147
00945
70300
0.01
0.001
0.01
250.
500.
i1O—4f,I
—16—
TITLE
35:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE C:
WATER POLLUTION
CHAPTER
I:
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PART
304
EFFLUENT STANDARDS
SUBPART
A:
GENERAL EFFLUENT STANDARDS
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
Preamble
Dilution
Background Concentrations
Averaging
Violation
of Water Quality Standards
Offensive Discharges
Deoxygenating Wastes
Bacteria
Nitrogen (STORET number 00610)
Phosphorus
(STOPET 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
Section
304.201
304.202
304.203
304.204
304.205
304.206
304.207
304.208
304.209
304.210
304.212
304.213
304.214
304. 215
304. 216
304.219
Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharges
of the
Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago
Chlor—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
Gaiesburg Sanitary District Deoxygenatinq Wastes
Discharges
City
of
.ockport Treatment
Plant Discharges
Wood River Station Total Suspended
Solids
Discharges
Alton Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharges
Sanitary District
of Decatur Discharges
Union Oil Refinery Ammonia Discharge
Mobil Oil Refinery Ammonia Discharge
City of
ruscola Wastewater Treatment Facility
Discharges
Newton Station Suspended Solids Discharges
North
Shore Sanitary District Phosphorus Discharges
110—462
—17—
304.220
East
St. Louis Treatment Facility,
Illinois—
American Water Company
304.221
P.ingwood Drive Manufacturing Facility
in McHenry
County
304.222
Intermittent Discharge of TRC
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
APPENDIX A
References
to Previous Rules
AUTHORITY:
Implementing Section
13 and authorized by Section
27
of
the Environmental Protection Act
(Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1987,
ch.
111 1/2 pars.
1013 and 1027).
SOURCE:
Filed with the Secretary of State January
1,
1978;
amended at
2
111.
Req.
30,
p.
343,
effective July
27,
1978;
amended at
2
Ill.
Peg.
44,
p.
151,
effective November
2,
1978;
amended at
3
Iii. Peg.
20,
p.
95, effective May 17,
1979;
amended
at
3
Ill.
Peg.
25,
p.
190,
effective June
21,
1979;
amended at
4
Ill.
Req.
20,
p.
53, effective May 7,
1980;
amended at
6
Ill.
Peg.
563, effective December
24,
1981;
codified at
6
Ill.
Peg.
7818;
amended at
6 Ill.
Peg.
11161, effective September
7,
1982;
amended at
6
Ill.
Peg.
13750, effective October
26,
1982;
amended
at
7
Ill.
Req.
3020, effective March
4,
1983; amended at
7
Ill.
Reg.
8111,
effective June
23,
1983;
amended at
7
Ill.
Peg.
14515,
effective October
14,
1983;
amended at
7
Ill.
Peg.
14910,
effective November
14,
1983;
amended at
8
Ill. Peg.
1600,
effective January 18,
1984;
amended at
8
Ill.
Req.
3687,
effective March
14,
1984;
amended at
8
Ill.
Req.
8237,
effective
June
8,
1984;
amended at
9
Ill.
Peg.
1379,
effective January
21,
1985; amended at
9
Ill.
Peg.
4510,
effective March
22,
1985;
peremptory amendment at
10
Ill. Peg.
456,
effective December
23,
1985;
amended at
11 Ill. Peg.
3117,
effective January
28,
1987;
amended
in P84—13 at
11 Ill.
Req.
7291,
effective April
3,
1987;
amended
in R86—l7(A)
at
11
Ill. Peg.
14748, effective August
24,
1987;
amended
in P84—16
at
12
Iii.
Peg.
2445, effective January
15,
1988;
amended
in P83—23 at
12
Ill. Req.
8658,
effective May
10,
1988;
amended
in P87—27 at
12
Ill. Req.
9905, effective May
27,
1988;
amended
in P82—7
at
12
Ill.
Req.
10712,
effective June
9,
1988;
amended
in P85—29
at 12
Ill.
Req.
12064,
effective July
12,
1988;
amended in P87—22 at
12
Ill. Peg.
13966,
effective
August
23,
1988;
amended
in P86—3
at
12
Ill.
Req.
20126,
effective November
16,
1988;
amended
in P84—20 at
13
Ill.
Req.
851,
effective January
9,
1989;
amended in P85—11
at
13
Ill.
Req.
2060,
effective February
6,
1989;
amended
in P88—i at
13
Iii.
Req.
5976,
effective April
18,
1989;
amended
in P86—17(B)
at
13
Ill.
Req.
7753,
effective May
4,
1989, amended
in P88—22
at
13
110—463
—18—
Ill. Req.
8880,
effective May
26,
1989;
amended in P88—21(B)
at
____
Ill.
Req.
,
effective
___________________
SUBPART
B:
SITE-SPECIFIC RULES AND
EXCEPTIONS NOT OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY
Section 304.222
Intermittent Discharge
of TPC
The acute TRC water quality standard of
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 302.208
by operation
of Section 304.105 shall not apply to any discharge
which contains TPC solely as
the result
of intermittent usage
for
antifouling purposes related
to the operation of condensers and
cooling systems.
For
the purposes
of this Section usage of
chlorine or
related substances measureable as TRC shall
be deemed
to be intermittent
if usaqe
is restricted to a maximum of
two
hours per day per condenser
or
cooling system unit.
Discharge
concentration
of TRC averaged or composited over the discharge
period shall
not exceed 0.2 mg/i
nor shall
the TRC concentration
exceed 0.5 mg/i
at any time.
(Source:
Added at
Ill. Req.
_____
effective
____________________
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
Board Member Joan Anderson concurred.
I,
Dorothy M.
Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby cert~fythat the above Opinion and Order was
adopted on the
~‘
day of
C
“
,
1990,
by
a
vote of
/
~
.
(
/
L
/1
,•
/
Dorothy
M.
G1unn,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
110—464
