NOTICE OF FILING
ALSO SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

EXhIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 2

RECE~VE

CLERK S OFFICE

DEC 2 1 2004

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARDSTATEt-’oIIut~onOFControlILLINOISBoard

~THE~TTEROF:

NOTICE OF FILING

Dorothy Gurm, Clerk

Pollution Control Board

100 West Randolph Street

Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Mathew Dunn

Illinois Attorney General’s Office

Environmental Control Division

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph Street

Chicago, illinois 60601

ALSO SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

John Knittle

Hearing Officer

Pollution Control Board

2125 South First Street

Champaign, Illinois 61820

Jonathan Furr

Illinois Department ofNatural Resources

One Natural Resources Way

Springfield, Illinois 62702-1271

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filedwith the Office ofthe Clerk ofthe Pollution Control

Board the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency COMMENTS, a copy ofwhich is herewith

served upon you.

~LLLINOISENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

By:

Sanjay K Sofat

Assistant Counsel

Division of Legal Counsel

Dated: December 20, 2004

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021 North Grand Avenue East

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

(217) 782-5544

THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

PROPOSED

Ill. Adm. Code 304.123(g),

304.123(h), 304.123(i), 304.123(j), and 304.123(k)

)

R04-26

)

(Rulemaking

Water)

CLERK’$ OFFICE

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PojIut~onSTATE

DECOFControl

212004

ILLINOISBoard

IN THE MATTER OF:

PROPOSED 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.123(g),

)

R04-26

304.123(h), 304.123(i), 304.123(j), and 304.123(k)

)

(Rulemaking

Water)

AGENCY COMMENTS

THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCY (“Agency”) respectfully

submits its comments in the above-entitled matter to the Illinois Pollution Control Board

(“Board”). The Agency appreciates this opportunity to supplement the testimony it presented

during the two public hearings. The Agency believes that the following comments along with the

original petition and the subsequent testimony and comments provided by the Agency at the two

public hearings address all ofthe major comments made by the Board and the stakeholders at

these hearings. These comments also address the request for additional information made during

the first public hearing.

- -

The Agency sincerely appreciates the efforts made by other stakeholders’ in providing their

comments and testimony at the two public hearings. Because ofthese group efforts, the Agency

believes that the rulemakingrecord contains all the pertinent and necessary information that the

Board may need to make its fmal decision on this matter. As a large number ofstakeholders

either testified or provided written comments at the hearings, some ofthe information in the

hearing record may not only be irrelevant but confusing. Thus, through these written comments,

the Agency attempts to clarif~’the rulemaking record in that regard. The Agency believes that it

would be prudent to restate the goals and scope ofthe Agency’s proposal to diffuse any

confusion that the other stakeholders may have; discuss how the Agency’s effluent standard

proposal is based on the mandates of the Clean Water Act and the Illinois Environmental

Protection Act; and how the Agency proposal satisfies the requisite burden.

THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF THE AGENCY’S PROPOSAL IS TO REDUCE

THE LOADING OF PHOSPHORUS FROM MAJOR SOURCES

The Agency’s proposal is ofa very limited scope. Simply put it requires a small number of

dischargers to reduce the net amount ofphosphorus loading into receiving streams. Not all point

sources that have phosphorus in their effluents are required to control phosphorus under this

proposal. Only new or expanded sources that have a certain capacity are required to control

phosphorus in their effluents. Under this proposal, the Agency is recommending that new or

expanded treatment works (POTWs) that have a design average flow of1 million gallons per day or

more, ornew orexpanded treatment works (industrial) that have a total phosphorus of25 pounds or

more in their effluent b&subject to the requirements of this proposal. The Agency is intentionally

leaving out any other point source that is not covered by the proposed language. This is consistent

with the primary objective ofthis proposal, which is to reducenet loading ofphosphorus from major

sources into waters ofthe State.

This proposal is a step towards rational nutrient management fro the State’s streams and

rivers. The Agency believes that adoption of the numeric nutrient water quality standards will

facilitate a more comprehensive nutrient management program in the future. In the interim, the

Agency is attempting to reduce phosphorus loading from both point and non-point sources. The

Agency has, in the past, spent Section 319 ofthe Clean Water Act monies on projects that have the

potential to reduce the loading ofphosphorus from non-point sources. The Agency has found this

approach to be effective and continues focus on nutrients in its non-point source management

program. Some point sources have also been subject to phosphorus controls in the past.

See 35111.

Adm. Code 304.123(a)-(,i9.

Under these regulations, the Board has required certain kind of point

sources to reduce phosphorus loading into lakes. The Agency’s current proposal is just an extension

to the existing regulations.

II. TIlE AGENCY IS PROPOSING AN EFFLUENT STANDARD NOT A. WATER

QUALITY STANDARD

A considerable amount ofcomment and testimony exist in the Board record to suggest that

the Agency’s proposed standard is not based on sound science or that the proposed standard is

unnecessarybecause the existing Board regulations allow the Agency to impose phosphorus effluent

limits where receiving waters are impaired. These comments are based on the misunderstanding of

the Agency’s proposal. The Agency’s proposal seeks protection ofall GeneralUse waters, not just

impairedones. The scientific information necessary to proposean effluent standard is already par-t of

the Board’s hearing record. In order to show that the Agency proposal is consistent with the

requirements ofthe Clean Water Act, the Agency considers it prudent to provide a briefsynopsis on

the roles ofwater quality standards and effluent standards in protecting waters ofthe State.

Water Quality Standards:

The Clean Water Act goals are:

achieve a level ofwater quality that provides the protection and propagation offish,

shellfish, and wildlife, and for recreation in and on the water, where attainable.

restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity ofthe Nation’s

waters. 33 U.S.C.

1251.

To achieve these goals, the Clean Water Act provides the basis for two different kinds of

pollution control programs. Water quality standards are the basis ofthe water quality-based control

program. The Clean Water Act also provides for technology-based limits knows as best available

treatment technology economically achievable for point sources. 33 U.S.C.

1311 and

1313.

A water quality standard defmes the water quality goals ofa water body, by designating the

use oruses to be made ofthe water, by setting criterianecessary to protect the uses, and byprotecting

waterquality through antidegradation provisions. 33 U.S.C.

1313. Water quality standards serve

dual purposes: (1) Establish the water quality goals for a specific waterbody, and (2) Serve as the.

regulatory basis for establishing water quality based treatment controls and strategies beyond the

technology-based levels oftreatment required by Sections 301(b) and 306 ofthe Clean Water Act.

When states adopt newor revised water quality standards, the state is required under Section

3 03(c) ofthe Clean Water Act to submit such standards to U.S. EPA for review and approval or

disapproval. The following elements must be included in each state’s water quality standards

submittal to U.S. EPA forreview:

use designation consistent with the provisions ofSections 1O1(a)(2) and 303(c) ofthe

CWA;

methods used and analyses conducted to support water quality standards revisions;

water quality criteria sufficient to protect the designated uses, including criteria for

priority toxic pollutants and biological criteria;

an anti-degradation policy and implementation methods consistent with Section

131.12 ofthe federal regulations;

certification by the State Attorney General or other appropriate legal authority within

the State that the water quality standards were duly adopted pursuant to State law;, and

general information to aid the Agency in determining the adequacy ofthe scientific

bases ofthe standards that do not include the uses specified in Section l0l(a)(2) of

the Act as well as information on general policies applicable to State standards that

may affect their application and implementation.

Effluent Standards:

Section 502 ofthe Clean Water Act defines Effluent limitations as “any restriction

established by a State or the Administrator on quantities, rates, and concentrations ofchemical,

physical, biological, and other constituents which are discharged from point sources into

navigable waters....”

33 US.C. §1362(11).

The basis of establishing effluent standards is quite

different from those ofwater quality standards. Section 301(b) requires EPA to promulgate

effluent limitations on the dischargers ofpollutants into the waters of the United States.

US.C. §1311.

The effluent limitations are based on the discharge levels achievable by what EPA

determines to be the “best available technology economically achievable” (know as the “BAT”)

for existing discharging sources.

Id. §1311(b)(2)(A), (C), (D), and (F).

The statutory approach is

that over the course of years point sources are to achieve increasingly stringent levels of

technological control ofdischarges.

Section 301 ofthe Clean Water Act requires EPA to.develop list of conventional, non-

conventional, and toxic pollutants. BOD, SS, pH, and fecal coliforms are classified asconventional

pollutants under Sections 301(b)(2)(E) and 304(b)(2)(F).

33 US. C.

1311(b)(2)(E).

U.S. EPAhad

to set best conventional controltechnology (BCT) standards forthese substances and industry had to

comply with those standards by July 1, 1984. Non-conventional pollutants are all those substances

not defined as either conventional or toxic. BAT standards are required for non-conventional

pollutants such as phosphorus, nitrogen, and ammonia. BAT is defined the “very best control and

treatment measures that have been or are capable ofbeing achieved.” Consideration was to be given

to cost and technology limitations when industries complied with those standards, but in no case

could compliance be delayed beyond July 1, 1987. The Clean Water Act provides statutory

variances from effluent standards only for non-conventionalpollutants, based on economic hardship

as covered in Section 30 1(c) orenvironmental considerations as covered in Section 301(g). Section

301(g) allows a waiver from BAT requirements for non-conventional pollutants where an industrial

discharge bore the burden ofproofto show compliance with BPT, water quality standards, and the

Clean Water Act goal.

It is clear from the above discussion that effluent standards are established based-en-the type

ofpollutant and type of discharger. Each discharger is subject to effluent limitations based on

technology feasibility and the costs ofthe technology. The Agency’sproposal does exactly that. The

Agency determinedthat a considerable amount ofphosphorus loadingis contributedby certain point

sources. Since viable technologies exist and the cost of providing this technology is reasonable,

these point sources be subjectto the technologicallyachievable limits of 1 mg/l total phosphorus in

their effluents.

ifi. THE AGENCY PROPOSAL MEETS THE REQUISITE BURDEN

To accomplish the Clean Water Act goals, Section 27 of the Illinois Environmental

Protection Act (“Act”) gives the Board authority to adopt substantive regulations. In promulgating

these regulations, along with other hosts of factors, the Act requires the Board to consider “the

technical feasibility and economic reasonableness of... reducing the particular type ofpollution.”

.415 LS 5/27

(emphasis added).

The Board regulations at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.202 also identif~’

the elements that need to be addressed by a proponent of a proposal. Section 102.202 requires that

the statement ofreasons supporting the proposal must include, among other things, “environmental,

technical, and economic justification.” The Agency’s original petition thoroughly addressed these

elements. However, in responseto the comments made by other stakeholders, the Agency provides

the following discussion to addresses these comments:

Environmental Benefit:

It is a well established fact that the primary nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus, are

generally plentiful in surface waters and that elevated concentrations ofthese elements can lead

to problematic algal growth and eutrophic conditions, including depressed orwidely fluctuating

dissolved oxygen levels, in water bodies. Scientific literature typically also indicates that

phosphorus is most often the limiting nutrient in most surface water bodies, including lotic

systems (USDA 1999) American Public Health Association (1998), USDA (2003), Allen

(1995).

Accordingly, the control ofphosphorus in surface water bodies is often considered to be “of

prime importance in reducing the accelerated eutrophication offresh waters” (USDA, 2003).

Phosphorus is found in the environment in various forms; the oxidized phosphate form is

most readily available forbiological uptake and is commonly referred to as soluble reactive

phosphorus (SRP) or bioavailable phosphorus. Most ofthe phosphorus conveyed to surface

water bodies from non-point sources (principally agricultural areas in Illinois) is absorbed to

particulate matter and is not readily available to biological organisms. Phosphorus contributions

from wastewater treatment plants, however, is typically in a form which is more bioavailable.

than non-point source phosphorus, as determined in a commissioned by the Minnesota Pollution

Control Agency and the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (MPCA, 2004). The

impacts ofpoint-source phosphorus inputs are increased during dry or low-flow conditions when

point sources contribute a greater portion ofthe flow in streams and when biological

communities are under increased stress from warmer temperatures and reduced stream flows

(MPCA, 2004).

The concentrations oftotal phosphorus which promote excessive algal growth or other

problematic conditions in streams is indefmite and depends to some extent on the local

hydrologic, land-use, and biological habitat conditions. However, scientific literature indicates

that total phosphorus concentrations in streams ranging from 0.02

0.10 mg/L can cai~se

nuisance levels ofalgal growth and associated impediments to in-stream biological health

(Chetelat et. a!, 1999, Correll, D.L., 1998, Danial et. al, 1998, Dodds and Welch, 2000, Dodds et.

al, 2002, Xue et. at, 1998, Sheeder et. al, 2004).

Short (1999) analyzed streamwater quality data collected by the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency’s Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Program from 1980 to 1996. The

following table constructed from data in the Short report provides a comparison ofaverage

Illinois stream concentrations compared to average Illinois waste-watertreatment plant effluent

concentrations and documents that effluent concentrations are generally an order ofmagnitude

larger than stream concentrations. Implementation ofthe proposed standard would reduce

effluent concentrations ofphosphorus to less than one-third ofthe current average effluent

concentration at wastewatertreatment facilities and would result in a significant reduction in

phosphorus loading (or a restriction on the amount ofadditional loading) to receiving streams

and water bodies in Illinois.

Total Phosphorus Concentration

Streams

Treatment Facilities

Mean

0.379 1 mg/L

3.53 rng/L

Median

0.2000mg/L

3.10 mg/L

Number ofanalyses

26,224

665

Reference: Short 1999

The same reference includes eight graphs depicting total phosphorus yields at The

Agency’s Ambient Water Quality Monitoring sites throughout the State (Exhibit 1). For

reference, I Kg/HectarelYear is equivalent to 1.564 Pounds/Square Mile/Day. In each ofthe

eight graphs depicting total phosphorus yields at selected sites in major river basins throughout

the State, those sites having the largestbars and highest yields oftotal phosphorus were

determined to typically be sites with majorwastewater treatment plants located upstream.

Location maps are provided in Exhibit 2 for several ofthese sites.

The bar graph in Exhibit 1 showing phosphorus yields in the Kaskaskia River Basin

presents an informative example of how an effluent phosphorus limit of 1 mgIL can be effective

in limiting in-streani phosphorus. The monitoring site 0-02 is located on the Kaskaskia River

below the Urbana-Champaign Sanitary District’s Southwest treatment plant (5.9 million gallons

per day), which incorporates phosphorus removal, as well as several smaller treatment faèilities,

which are subject to the current phosphorus effluent standard in Section 304.123. It can be

readily seen that phosphorus yields in the Kaskaskia River at site 0-02 have remainedrelatively

small, despite downstream of several wastewater treatment plants, including a major facility, that

incorporate phosphorus removal.

The bar graphs for sites E-09 and E-05 provide a comparison ofphosphorus yieldsin a

water body, which receives wastewater effluent,input. These sites are located on the Sangamon

River a short distance from each other; E-09 is located upstream of a major wastewater treatment

effluent discharge and E-05 is located downstream ofthe wastewater discharge. The graph

depicts an approximate 5-fold increase in the phosphorus yield ofthe Sangamon River below the

discharge ofthe wastewater treatment facility.

The data presented in this table and in these figures illustrate the magnitudes and

observed effects ofwastewater effluent phosphorus loads on receiving streams. The conclusions

from this Illinois data correspond well with conclusions from the Minnesota phosphorus study

(MPCA 2004), which stated that “the largest source ofphosphorus from POTWs is from large

(1.0 million gallons per day) facilities” and “phosphorus reduction efforts should begin at these

facilities”.

Technical Justification:

Phosphorus removal in the wastewater treatment process can be accomplished through

either biological or chemical processes. There is debate as to which process might be

incorporated by most facilities, should phosphorus removal be Eequired. Initial construction and

capital costs are generally larger for biological treatment, but continuing operational costs

(principally chemical procurement) is usually higher for chemical phosphorus removal.

Chemical addition might still be required following biological treatment to ensure that

phosphorus removal is accomplished consistently. Large treatment plants are typically better

suited, both physically and economically, to incorporation ofphosphorus removal processes.

Both biological and chemical treatment systems have been identified as being capable of

achieving phosphorus removal to the 1 mg/L level, or lower (Water Environment Federation,

1998, Zenz, 2003, Kang et al., 2001). The IAWA concluded that effluents having total

phosphorus levels of0.5 mg/L “can be achieved using currently available chemical and

biological processes”, although achieving removal levels as low as 0.5 mg/L may require

additional chemical treatment (Zenz, 2003). An effluent limit of 1.0 mg/L is stated by the IAWA

to be a “relatively high effluent phosphorus discharge limit” (Zenz, 2003, p.6).

Some form ofphosphorus removal to the level of 1.0 mg/L is currently practiced by

numerous facilities in many states, including Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Kentucky.

Minnesota currently has a pending revision to incorporate such a standard. More than a dozen

facilities in Illinois (design average flows ranging from 0.095

—

5.9 millions gallons per day

(“MGD”) currently practice phosphorus removal to 1.0 mg/L.

A variety of treatment technologies are available to achieve effluent levels of 1.0 mg/L

total phosphorus. Many treatment facilities have been achieving phosphorus removal to this

level for many years.

Economic Justification:

It is difficult to determine exact economic implications ofthis interim effluent

phosphorus regulation because ofthe various types, designs, and sizes oftreatment facilities

presently in service and undergoing design. The Water Environment Federation (WEF)

acknowledged this conclusion in its publication “Biological and Chemical Systems for Nutrient

Removal” (WEF 1998) in which the following statement is made: “The costs to implement

nutrient control have been found to be highly variable and dependent on the influent wastewater

characteristics”. Several references to the costs for facility upgrades or costs to incorporate

phosphorus removal have been presented during the testimony phase of this rulemaking,

however, none have been able to satisfactorily estimate the economic costs and benefits ofthe

proposed regulation.

The IAWA commissioned a report by Consoer Townsend Envirodyne Engineers,

Inc.(Zenz, 2003), which provided estimated costs of$5.3 billion in capital construction costs and

$500 million per year fornutrient removal at 814 municipal treatment plants in Illinois.

However this estimate included costs for both phosphorus and nitrogen removal and included

municipal facilities ofall sizes and configurations, not only those facilities with capacities of 1

MGD or greater which would be affected by this standard. The Water Environment Federation

found that the greatest costs for nutrient removal were associated with the need for nitrification

and that “the capital costs for both chemical and biological phosphorus removal are relatively

small” (WEF 1998). Consequently, the costs to implement phosphorus removal alone at the

major facilities in Illinois would be significantly lower than the total cost estimates for nitrogen

and phosphorus removal provided in the Zenz report. The economic impact ofthe proposed

regulation would pertain to only a small fraction ofthe 814 facilities in Illinois and only to large

facilities, which could likely incorporate capital and operational improvements more easily.

Written testimony ofBeth Wentzel provided during the hearing process forthis petition

included information on costs to implement phosphorus removal for the Fox River Water

Reclamation District’s West wastewater treatment plant. The estimated operational costs were

approximately $50.00 per million gallons treated and the capital improvement costs amounted to

approximately $35,000 per million gallons per day capacity. Therefore, for a

MGD treatment

facility, approximately $175,000 in capital improvements and approximately $90,000 in annual

operational costs would be required to implement phosphorus removal.

Previous testimony by the Agency included cost estimates obtained from design engineers

and operators of existing wastewater treatment facilities, which incorporate chemical phosphorus

removal. It was estimated that treatment plants with capacities between 1 MGD and 5 MGD

design average flow would incur capital improvement costs between $50,000 to $60,000 if

existing facilities could incorporate the necessary equipment, and an additional $200,000 to

$300,000 if new construction is required. The annual chemical cost is estimated to be

approximately $45,000 for a

MGD facility.

Dependent upon the facility’s capability and chemical treatment used, some additional

costs

maybe incurred to process additional sludge produced by chemical phosphorus removal.

The costs associated with this additional sludge production and its disposal will vary due to the

method ofdisposition and the options available to each ‘specific facility, therefore, it is not

practical to provide any estimates here.

The Agency has made a practical effort to obtain estimates ofthe costs associated with

the implementation ofthis standard through consultation with existing facilities, engineers and a

literature search. Because ofthe variety in sizes, types, and processes ofwastewatertreatment

plants in use, it is not possible to provide a more precise accounting ofthe costs for

implementation of the standard. It should be noted, however, that numerous facilities throughout

the country currently providephosphorus removal to levels at or below 1 mgfL and remain

economically viable.

The Agency has requested assistance from the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

(OEPA) to compile more accurate and specific information regarding the costs for phosphorus

removal at wastewater treatment facilities. OEPA requires phosphorus removal from a

significant portion ofthe facilities within the state. OEPA staffhas indicated they may have

actual operating cost data from numerous such facilities and have agreed to review their records

and provide such cost information to IEPA. Once this information is obtained, the Agency will

forward the information to all ofthe interested parties ofthe interim phosphorus effluent

rulemaking.

IV. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

The following is the information in response to the request made the first hearing:

Page 37 of the transcript:

USEPA. 1978. The Selenastrum capricornutum Printz algal assaybottle test. Miller,

W.E., J.C. Greene, and T. Shiroyama (eds.). Environmental Research Laboratory

—

Cincinnati. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon 97333. EPA-

600/9-78-018.

USEPA. 2002. Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity ofEffluents and

Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Fourth Edition.. EPA-821-R-02-0l3.

The 1978 paper iTs the original test method that describes using the test to determine

whether phosphorus or nitrogen is the limiting nutrient in a solution. The 2002 paper is

the updated method that also mentions solutions that stimulate algal growth.

Page 38 ofthe first hearing Transcript:

Water treatment additives intended to be added to finished drinking water in order to prevent

orretard the mobilization ofmetals like copper and lead in the system are sold by several

companies. Community water supplies add these products to. coat the insides ofdistribution lines

throughout the system in order to comply with end-of-tap metals standards for drinking water.

There are also industrial applications that employ similar phosphorus-containing products to

maintain pipe quality in cooling water systems and other applications. At the August 30, 2004

hearing, IEPA promised to provide concentration data forthe phosphorus in these type products

as it would be found in drinking waterprior to use by the consumer. According to Mr. Bill Utley

ofNALCO Chemical Company, the NALCO product for this purpose would be applied at a

maximum total phosphorus (as P) concentration of 3.0 mg/L in the finished drinking water

supplied to consumers. The City ofChicago adds phosphorus at a level ofabout 0.33 mg/L total

phosphorus according to measurements obtained from the South and Jardine Water Purification

Plants. Before addition of the phosphorus product at the purification plants, the raw Lake

Michigan water phosphorus concentration is negligible.

V. CHANGES TO THE AGENCY’S ORIGINALLY PROPOSED LANGUAGE

The Agency is proposing to modify the original language in order to incorporate the comments

and suggestions made at the two public hearings. The changes are intended only to clarify the

originally proposed language. It is not the Agency’s intention to expand the scope ofthe

originally proposed language. In the interest ofcompleteness, the Agency is providing the

complete text ofthe originally proposed language along with the suggested changes. Any.

additions to the original language are marked with double underline, whereas the deletions are

marked with strikethrough. The Agency’sreasons for each proposed change are provided at the

‘

end ofthat subsection.

Except as provided in Section 304.123(h) below, the following new or expanded

discharges into General Use waters, not covered by subsections (b) through (f)of

this Section, are subject to monthly average permit limits for total phosphorus of 1

mgi!:

Treatment works with a Design Average Flow of 1.0 million gallpns per

day or more receivi~gprimarilymunicipal or domestic wastewater; or

Any treatment works, other than those treating primarily municipal or

domestic wastewater, with a total phosphorus effluent load of25 pounds

per day or more.

~g~ncy Recommendation:

In response to the comments made at the hearings, the Agency is adding clarifying

language to subsections (g)(l) and (g)(2).

Discharges qualifying under subsections (g)(1) and (g)(2) may not be subject to

the Section 304.123(g) requirements provided the discharger demonstrate that

phosphorus from treatment works is not the limiting nutrient in the receiving

water. The Agency may impose alternative phosphorus effluent limits where the

supporting information shows that alternative limits are warranted by the aquatic

environment in the receiving stream. Treatment works guali~ngunder

subsections (g)(1) and (g)(2) may demonstrate that phosphorus from treatment

wnrk.9 i~net the 1imitin~nutrient in the

reeeiv~rv~

wnter er that alternative

phosphorus effluent limits are warranted by the aquatic environment in the

receiving water.

Agency Recommendation:

The Agency is rephrasing the originally proposed language to address the comments and

suggestions made at the two public hearings. Note, however, that the Agency is not proposing to

change the scope ofthe originally proposed language. The first sentence provides that discharges

that are otherwise stibjec~to the Section 304.123(g) requirements may choose to demonstrate that

the treatment works in question is not causing the phosphorus problems in the receiving water

and therefore should not be subject to monthly average permit limit for total phosphorus of 1

mg/i. The second sentence allows the Agency to consider site-specific information in deciding

whether alternative phosphorus effluent limits are more appropriate than the generic limit of 1

mg/l.

The following facilities discharges are not subject to the requirements ofSection

304.123(g):

Existing treatment works operating at or below existing permitted

flowrates

2) New or expanded treatment works with a Design Average Flow of less than

1.0 million gallons per day; or

3) New or expanded treatment works with a total phosphorus effluent load of

less than 25 pounds per day.

Agency Recommendation:

The use ofword “facilities” is more appropriate for this sentence.

No additional phosphorus limitations are required pursuant to Sections 304.105

and 302.203 for the discharues that comply with the requirements of Sections

304.123(g) or (h). Compliance with the provisions of Section 304.123 meets the

applicable requirements of Sections 304.105 and 302.203.

Agency Recommendation:

The Agency is rephrasing the originallyproposed language to address the comments and

suggestions made at the two public hearings. Note, however, that the Agency is not proposing to

change the scope ofthe originally proposed language. The proposed language provides that

discharges that comply with the requirements of subsections 304.123(g) or (h) are not -subject to

additional phosphorus limitations that may be otherwise required by Sections 304.105 and

302.203 ofthe Board regulations.

The provisions ofsubsections (g), (h), (i), and

(I)

ofthis Section apply until such

time as the Board adopts a numeric water quality standard for phosphorus and the

adonted standard is approved by U.S. EPA.

Agency Recommendation:

The Agency agrees with the ELPC/Sierra Club’s suggested change for this subsection.

As state water quality standards are not effective until the U.S. EPA approves them, the Agency

is adding the language to-reflect this legal requirement.

Respectfully Submitted,

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMEN

ROTECTIONAGENCY

Sanjay K. Sofat

Assistant Counsel

Division of Legal Counsel

DATED: December 20, 2004

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021 North Grand Avenue East

‘

Post Office Box 19276

Springfield, illinois 62794-9276

(217)782-5544

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

References:

Short, M., 1999,

Baseline Loadings ofNitrogen, Phosphorus, and Sedimentsfrom Illinois

Watersheds, October 1980— September 1996;

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,

IEPA/BOW/99-020, 106 p.

Allen, J.D., 1995,

Stream Ecology;

London.

United States Department ofAgriculture, October 1999,

A Procedure to Estimate the

Response ofAquatic Systems to ‘Changes in Phosphorus and Nitrogen Inputs,

National

Water and Climate Center, 37 p.

Sharpley, A.N., Daniel, T., Sims, T., Lemunyon, J., Stevens, R., and Parry, R., September

2003,

Agricultural Phosphorus and Eutrophication,

2~Edition, United States

Department ofAgriculture, Agricultural Research Service, ARS-149, 38 p.

American Public Health Association, 1998,

Standard Methodsfor the Examination of

Water and Wastewater,

~ Edition, Washington, D.C., variously paged.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, February 2004,

Detailed Assessment of

Phosphorus Sources to Minnesota Watersheds,

prepared by Barr Engineering Company.

Chetelat, J., Pick, F.R., Morn, A., and Hamilton, P.B., 1999,

Periphyton Biomass and

Community Composition in RiverofDifferent Nutrient Status,

Canadian Journal of

Aquatic Sciences,

56:

560-569.

Correll, D.L., 1998,

The Role ofPhosphorus in the Eutrophication ofReceiving Waters:

A Review,

Journal ofEnvironmental Quality, 27:26 1-266.

Daniel, T.C., Sharpley, A.N., and Lemunyon, J.L., 1998,

Agricultural Phosphorus and

Eutrophication: A Symposium Overview,

Journal ofEnvironmental Quality 27: 25 1-257.

Dodds, W.K. and Welch, E.B., 2000,

Establishing Nutrient Criteria in Streams,

Journal

ofthe North American Benthological Society, 19(1): 186-196.

Dodds, W.K., Smith, V.H., and Lóhman, K., 2002,

Nitrogen and Phosphorus

Relationshzps to BenthicAlgal Biomass in Temperate Streams,

Canadian Journal ofFish

and Aquatic Sciences

59”

865-874.

Xue, Y., David, M.B., Gentry, L.E., and Kovacic, D.A., 1998,

Kinetics and Modeling of

Dissolved Phosphorus Exportfrom a Tile-Drained Agricultural Wetland,

Journal of:

Environmental Quality, Vol. 27, no. 4.

Sheeder, S.A. and Evans, B.M., 2004,

Estimating Nutrient and Sediment Threshold

Criteria for Biological Impairment in Pennsylvania Watersheds,

Journal of the American

Water Resources Association.

EXhIBIT 1

Figure 4-4. Comparisons of baseline yields oftotal phosphorus(KgfHectarc/Ycar).

Illinois EPA AWQMN data October 1980

September 1996.

JO 05

KCA 01

LD 02

Mi 01

MN 03

N 08

N 11

N 12

‘ND 02

NO 04

NE 05

‘NC 02

NJ 07

NK 01

M O4~

____

l04

____

=1’

~••~

.I.~

‘

008

OC 04

OD 07

OD 06

‘OH 01

Cl 08

01 00

OJ 08

0J 07

OK 01

OL 02

0N 01

01 02

OZZTO1

P04

P06

P 20

P 14

P 15

PB 04

PH 16

PL 03

P0 02

PQ 10

PQ 12

PQB 02

POC 06

PQF 07

PW 01

Kaskaskia River Basin

‘

~1TThI

-I

—I

1234

Rock RI

ver

Basin

3.4

indicates tess than 16 years of flow data

Ohio River Basin

Mississippi River Direct

C’1N~r~N

OOO—-C’4OO—OO~OOOo~OeO

.- --1~ii

Aa a

I-

I’,

c..1

——

—

It~

O~ ~

C~ ~

—

ô~o

Cd~

1’,

— —~

—U—— —

1)~

~ C4~

—

C4 ~ C~l 0 Q CM C~1000

000

0 0

- --

n~nnr1

ix:

I—

I-

EXHIBIT 2

E09

7’

r1~

E05

~ONTfto4~

~‘

‘(~

(

~EANA

‘-‘

WARRE~sjsBUR~

YTH

)~ECA~U~~’

DECAT~ç~&AT1JR ~

~ 1

)

~RRISTOWN

DECATUR

~~Er05

DECATUR LO

CREEK

MaJOrNPDES

NPDES

MC~ULT~E~

Monitoring Station

L~i

;:~b0

Watershed~/~L’

002

Major NPDES

NPDES

Monitoring

Station

Towns

HBD 04

Miles

EID 04

-~ ~---

r-~-~--~-.-

Major NPDES

NPDES

Monitoring Station

Towns

DGO4

SERVICE LIST.

Albert F. Ettinger

Environmental Law & Policy Center

East Wacker Drive, Suite 1300

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Dennis Streicher

Director of Water & Wastewater

City ofElmhurst 209 N. York Street

Elmhurst, IL 60126

Ross Sweeney

Earth Tec/CWP

1000 E. Ohio Street, Rm.307

Chicago, IL 60611

Philip Twomey, President

Admiral Environmental Services, Inc.

2025 5. Arlington Hts. Road, Ste. 103

Arlington Heights, IL 60005

Lisa Frede

CICI

2250E. Devon Avenue, Suite 239

Des Plaines, IL 60071

David Zenz

CTE Engineers, Inc.

303 East Wacker Drive, Suite 600

Chicago, IL 60601

Robert Clavel

Engineer-Manager

Wheaton SanitaryDistrict

P.O. Box 626

Wheaton, IL 60189

Roy. M. Harsch

Gardner, Carton

Douglas

191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 3700

Chicago, IL 60606-1698

Dennis L. Duffield

Director ofPublic Works & Utilities

City ofJoliet 921 E. Washington St.

Joliet, IL 604

John McMahon

Attorney at Law

Wilkie & McMahon

8 East Main Street Champaign, IL

61820

David Rosen

Beveridge & Diamond

1350

IStreet,NW

Washington, DC 2005

Cindy Skrukrud

4209 W. Solon Road

Richmond, IL 60071

Susan Adams

Regulatory Counsel

Stateside Associates

2300 Clarendon Blvd., Ste.407

Arlington, VA 22201

Michael D. Marchi, Director

Village Services Department

Village ofBloomingdale

201 South Bloomingdale, Road

Bloomingdale, IL 60108

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

Carl Fisher

Baxter & Woodman Associates

1788 Sycamore Road

DeKalb, IL 60115

Bernard 

Sawyer

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District

6001 W. Pershing Road

Cicero, IL 60650-4112

Betty Harrison

Department of Public Works

Village ofWauconda

302 Slocum Lake Road

Wauconda, IL 60084

Marc Miller

Senior Policy Advisor

Office ofthe Lt. Governor

Rm. 214 State House

Springfield, IL 62706

Dave Kitzmiller

Village ofEast Dundee

120 Barrington Avenue

East Dundee, IL 60118

DarinBoyer

City ofPlano

17 E. Main Street

Plano, IL

60545-152

Karen D’Arcy

Thorn Creek Ecosystem Partnership

Governors State University

1 University Parkway

University Park, IL 60466

John M. Heyde

Sidley, Austin, Brown & Wood, LLP

10 South Dearborn

Chicago, IL 60603

Michael G. Rosenberg

MWRDGC

100 E. Erie

Chicago, IL 60611

Elizabeth Steinhour

Weaver Boos Consultants, Inc.

2021 Timberbrook Lane

Springfield, IL 62702

Richard Lanyon

Director of Research & Development

Metropolitan Water Reclamation

District 100 East Erie

Chicago,IL 60611

Paul 

Terrio,

Hydrologist

U.S. Geological Survey

221 N. Broadway

Urbana, IL 60118

Don Kowalczyk

City ofPeru

Illinois Valley Regional Airport

Plank

Road 7 180

Peru, IL61354

Alec Messina

Illinois Environmental Regulatory

Group 3150 Roland Avenue 

Springfield, IL 62701

Jane M. Carlson

Strand Associates

Environmental Science

910 West Wingra Drive

Madison, WI 53715

Santa Muley

5454 South Shore Drive

Apt. 1136

Chicago, IL 60615

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

Pavel Hajda

Beth Wentzel

8678 Ridgefield Road

Prairie Rivers Network

Crystal Lake, IL 60012

809 5. Fifth Street

Champaign, IL 61820

Michael G. Rosenberg

Brenda Schoiy

MWRDGC

Kane County Chronicle

100 E. Erie Chicago, L 60611

1000 Randall Rd. Geneva, IL 60134

David Horn

Assistant Professor ofBiology

Aurora University

347 Gladstone Avenue

Aurora, IL 60506

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

STATE OF ILLINOIS)

COUNTY OF

SANGAMON)

)

SS

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, on oath state that I have served the attached the

AGENCY’S

COMMENTS upon the persons to whom it is directed, by placing a copy in an envelope

addressed to:

Dorothy Gunn, Clerk

Pollution Control Board

100 West Randolph Street

Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(OVERNIGHT

MAIL)

Mathew Dunn

Illinois Attorney General’s Office

Environmental Control Division

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph Street

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(OVERNIGHT MAIL)

ALSO SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

(FIRST CLASS)

John Knittle

Hearing Officer

Pollution Control Board

2125 South First Street

Champaign, Illinois

61820

(OVERNIGHT MAIL)

Jonathan Fun

Illinois Department ofNatural Resources

One Natural Resources Way

Springfield, Illinois 62702-1271

SUBSCRIBED AND 

SWORN BEFORE ME

THIS 20t~~DAY OF DECEMBER 2004.

616/

,.~

BRENDA

OFFICIAL

BOEHNER

SEAL

STATE OF ILLINOIs

PRINTED ON REC

•~~MY

COMMISSION EXPIRES )I.J4.2~Q5::.

(OVERNIGHT MAIL)

:~2)1~Ub\~