R94001A.DOC

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July 18, 1996

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

TRIENNIAL WATER QUALITY REVIEW: ) R94-1 (B)

AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE ) (Rulemaking - Water)

302.202, 302.212, 302.213, 304.122 and )

304.301 (Ammonia Nitrogen) )

Proposed Rule. First Notice.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by E. Dunham, C.A. Manning and R.C.

Flemal):

This matter comes before the Board on a regulatory proposal filed on February 24,

1994 by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency). The Agency filed the

proposal as part of its mandatory review of the applicable water quality standards of the State

of Illinois pursuant to 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1387 (1987).

On January 4, 1996, the Board severed the docket into subdockets A & B. Subdocket

(A) contains the amendments proposed by the Agency for lead and mercury (Sections 302.208

and 302.407).

Subdocket (B) contains the amendments proposed by the Agency for ammonia

nitrogen (Sections 302.202, 302.212, 302.213, 304.122 and 304.301). The Board today

proposes the amendments to the ammonia nitrogen standards for first notice.

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) (1994).) More generally, the Board's rulemaking charge is based on the system of

checks and balances integral to the Illinois environmental governance: the Board bears

responsibility for the rulemaking and principal adjudicatory functions; the Agency has primary

responsibility for administration of the Act and the Board's regulations. The latter includes

administering today's proposed amendments.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), §§

101-607 requires the Agency to periodically, but at least every three years, review the water quality

standards applicable in the State. This review is commonly referred to as the "triennial review".

The amendments in Subdocket (A) were adopted by the Board on May 16, 1996 and

published at 20 Ill. Reg. 7682.

The major portion of today's proposed

amendments were filed by the Agency

pursuant to Section 27 of the Environmental Protection Act and the Board's procedural rules at

35 Ill. Adm. Code §§ 102.120 and 102.121.

Pursuant to Section 28.2 of the Act and the Board's procedural rules at 35 Ill. Adm.

Code § 102.121(e), the Agency initially contended that today's rulemaking is needed to fulfill

the requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), and therefore is required pursuant to

federal law. Nevertheless, the Agency's certification regarding the required nature of the

amendments cited to only part of the proposal and, moreover, did not include a written

confirmation letter from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Based

on these deficiencies in the Agency's original certification, the Board by order of March 17,

1994, found that it had not been shown that the amendments as proposed were federally-

required.

On April 11, 1994, the Agency filed a motion requesting that the Board reconsider its

March 17, 1994 order. The Agency certified that the entire rulemaking is federally required.

Additionally, the Agency attached a confirmation letter from USEPA Region V stating that the

proposed changes for the lead, mercury, and ammonia standards would address inconsistencies

between current State law and the CWA. The confirmation letter also observed that the

proposal would be consistent with the CWA and federal regulations. By order of May 5, 1994

the Board granted the Agency's motion for reconsideration and accepted the Agency proposal

as a federally-required rule pursuant to Section 28.2 of the Act.

By order of September 15, 1994, the Board adopted the Agency's proposal for

purposes of first notice, pursuant to Section 5.01 of the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act.

(415 ILCS 100/1005-40). The Board adopted the proposal without making substantive

comment on the merits of the proposal. First notice publication occurred in the Illinois

304). The Illinois Administrative Procedure Act requires that adoption of the rule occur

within one year of the first notice publication. (5 ILCS 5/40(e) (1994).) As the one-year time

period has already elapsed, the Board sends the amendments proposed in this docket back to

first notice.

Three public hearings were held before hearing officer Diane O'Neill on Docket R94-

1: on November 10, 1994 (Tr1.) in Chicago, Illinois; on November 22, 1994 (Tr2.) in

Springfield, Illinois; and on January 26, 1995 (Tr3.) in Chicago, Illinois. Additional hearings

were held in Docket R4-1(B) on February 22 and 23, 1996 (Tr4. and Tr5.) in Chicago,

Illinois. At these hearings the Board received testimony in support of the proposal from the

Agency, as well as testimony on various aspects of the proposal from interested persons.

At the completion of each set of hearings the Board opened a short comment period. In

response to a public comment from the Chemical Industry Council, the Board extended the

comment period to allow participants to comment on the possible effect that an anticipated

paper from USEPA Region VIII concerning ammonia nitrogen could have on this proceeding.

After reviewing those comments the Board

finds no reason to delay the adoption of the

proposed amendments until after the paper on ammonia nitrogen is issued by USEPA Region

VIII.

On June 1, 1995, the Agency filed a "Motion to Correct a Typographical Error". The

Agency requested that the Board correct a typographical error in Section 302.213 of the

proposed regulations and allow a short comment period to allow the regulated community to

respond to this correction. The Board granted the motion and allowed participants to file

comments on the correction until July 7, 1995. The Board allowed the Agency until July 14,

1995 to file a response to any comments. The Board did not receive any comments on the

correction. However, this motion is moot because the Agency has submitted a revised

proposal which further modifies the language of Section 302.213.

OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSAL

The Board today proposes adoption of amendments to the ammonia nitrogen general

use water quality standards as proposed by the Agency. The Board proposes the amendments

as submitted by the Agency in its public comment. (PC #8(B) Exhibit BB). While some of the

language and numbers have been changed from the original proposal the general concepts have

not changed. The following is a summary of the proposed amendments filed by the Agency.

Ammonia: General Use Water Quality Standard

The Board currently has General Use Water Quality Standards for (total) ammonia

nitrogen and un-ionized ammonia nitrogen found at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.212.

By today's action the Board proposes, in agreement with the Agency's

recommendations, to reconstitute much of Section 302.212 for the purposes of adding clarity

to the section and of incorporating up-dated information on the effects of pH and temperature

on ammonia toxicity.

Effluent Modified Waters (Ammonia)

Today's newly proposed Section 302.213 defines and gives the Agency authority to

identify Effluent Modified Waters (EMW). An EMW consists of waters downstream from an

effluent outfall that have the potential to exceed the chronic standard (CS) for ammonia.

Ammonia Effluent Standard Exemption Process

Today's proposal reorganizes that portion of the Board's effluent regulations that

provide for exception from the prohibition against causing or contributing to a violation of the

ammonia water quality standards. The existing exception procedure at 35 Ill. Adm. Code

304.301 is proposed for repeal, and new subsections 304.122(c) and (d) are proposed for

addition.

Conforming and Housekeeping Amendments

There are several places in the sections which are today opened for other purposes

where housekeeping corrections are in order. Among these are updating citations to the

Illinois Compiled Statues to the current (1994) edition and changing the abbreviation of the

word "liter" from "l" to "L".

PROPOSAL OF "THE CITIES"

On December 8, 1994, the Cities of Batavia, Geneva, Moline, St. Charles, Sterling and

Rock Falls (the Cities or Ammonia Group) filed proposed amendments and a statement of

reason. The proposal raises concerns by the Cities on the implementation of the standards and

the arbitrary, calendar cut-off dates for the summer and winter standards. The Cities propose

amendments to the proposal to ensure that the standards are implemented in a manner which

takes actual instream conditions into consideration to the maximum extent practicable. The

proposed amendments require the gathering of monitoring data to determine whether there is a

water quality problem. If a problem is detected, the discharger would be required to remedy

the problem.

The proposal by the Cities recommends that dischargers be allowed a year to upgrade

facilities to ensure that best degree treatment is being provided. The discharger would than

conduct a one year monitoring program to detect possible water violations. If any violations

are detected, the discharger would develop an appropriate compliance schedule to bring the

facility into compliance. Under the Cities’ proposal, existing permit limits would remain in

effect while data is being collected.

The Cities also suggest that the proposal allow for the use of actual data to demonstrate

that an exceedence of the winter water quality standard would not be in violation if the

instream temperature is greater than 12°C at the time of the exceedence. The Cities agree that

it is impractical to base the winter standard solely on temperature since the temperature of

many waterways is not monitored. However, the Cities believe that when temperature data is

available, the temperature should be used to determine the allowable ammonia level.

A response to this proposal was filed on behalf of the Sierra Club, Trout Unlimited,

Citizens for a Better Environment, Lake Michigan Federation and Friends of the Chicago

River on January 13, 1995. The response maintains that the proposal of the Cities should be

rejected because it attempts to carve out special rules for determining effluent limits for

ammonia without any showing that the rules for determining effluent limits for ammonia

should be any weaker. In fact, the response argues, that the current procedures for

determining effluent limits probably is not strict enough to prevent acute and chronic toxicity

under critical conditions. The response also states that the Cities proposal fails to spell out the

details of the monitoring program.

HEARING RECORD

In addition to extensive documentation in support of the proposed amendments, the

Agency has presented the testimony, both in prefiled testimony and at hearing,

of Joel Cross,

Manager of the Planning Section of the Agency's Division of Water Pollution Control; Robert

G. Mosher, Supervisor of the Standards and Monitoring Support Unit, Planning Section of the

Agency's Division of Water Pollution Control; and Dean J. Studer, Environmental Protection

Engineer at the Division of Water Pollution Control.

Agency Witnesses - Cross at November 10, 1994 Hearing

Mr. Cross testified to the general need for the State of Illinois to regularly review its

water quality standards as part of the triennial review process. (Tr1. at 16-17.)

Mr. Cross also testified to the particular need to update the Board's ammonia water

quality standards. He noted that the last update of these standards was undertaken in 1982,

and there have been significant advancements in the derivation of ammonia water quality

standards since that time. (Cross at 1-2.) Among these has been the development of a National

Criteria Document (NCD) for ammonia.

(Cross at 6.) Mr. Cross observed that the Agency

has reviewed this document and later studies in an attempt to determine what levels of

ammonia would be protective of native and aquatic life under stream conditions found in

Illinois. (Id. at 2.) On the basis of this review the Agency has recommended to the Board,

ammonia standards that are less restrictive than the ammonia NCD values, but which the

Agency finds are protective of the native and resident species in Illinois General Use Waters.

(Id. at 3.)

Mr. Cross further testified to the rationale behind the proposed ammonia exemption

process and the EMW concept. Mr. Cross observed:

An additional goal of the standards review process was to identify the

compliance abilities of wastewater plants designed to remove ammonia from

effluent using a nitrification stage of treatment. These treatment plants could

not consistently produce effluents that met existing ammonia water quality

standards during the winter months and were formerly given winter effluent

limitations based on the facility's ability to treat ammonia. Resurrecting an

exemption approach for facilities demonstrating the best degree of treatment

currently recognized as economically reasonable, is necessary to rectify the

disparity between protective water quality standards and technical feasibility.

For the purposes of citation herein, the prefiled testimonies are cited according to author and page

(e.g., Mosher at ___) or to Exhibit number (Exh.) and hearing transcripts are cited according to

hearing number and page (e.g., Tr1. at __).

This document is Exhibit E to the Agency's proposal of February 24, 1994.

Such an exemption must be based on

design standards for nitrification, the

use attainment of receiving waters and the actual performance of individual

facilities. To accommodate the disparity between technical feasibility and the

devised water quality standards, a new regulatory concept for some receiving

streams is proposed. Effluent modified waters would be designated where the

best reasonable treatment has been provided but chronic ammonia standards in

the low dilution receiving stream may not be met. (Cross at 3-4.)

Finally, Mr. Cross observed that prior to approaching the Board with the instant

proposal the Agency had consulted various interested persons regarding the content of the

proposal. Among these was the USEPA, with whom "many hours of negotiation" were spent.

(Cross at 4.) Mr. Cross contends that, although this process "added many months to the time

needed to bring [the Agency's] petition to the Board", it was necessary to insure the eventual

viability of the proposal. (Id. at 4.)

Agency Witnesses - Mosher at November 10, 1994 Hearing

The testimony of Mr. Mosher focused on the technical justification for the proposed

new water quality standards and on the anticipated economic impact of the new water quality

standards. The largest portion of Mr. Mosher's testimony focused on the technical

justification for the proposed ammonia water quality standards. Mr. Mosher characterizes the

central theme of the ammonia standard as a "not to be exceeded" value of 0.04 mg/L un-

ionized ammonia, applicable outside of a designated mixing zone. (Mosher at 1.)

Un-ionized ammonia (NH

) is regulated because it is the toxic component of ammonia

in aqueous solutions where it forms an equilibrium with the relatively non-toxic ammonium

(NH

) ion. (Mosher at 2.) Together un-ionized and ionized ammonia are referred to as total

ammonia. (Mosher at 2.) The Agency recognizes the well documented relationship between

pH, temperature and ammonia. (Mosher at 2.) As pH and temperature increase, the

proportion of un-ionized ammonia also increases. (Mosher at 2.)

The Agency contends that the current standard (no single sample may exceed 0.04

mg/L un-ionized ammonia) results in an over-protective chronic standard because this

concentration of un-ionized ammonia would only be toxic to Illinois organisms over a long

period of exposure. (Mosher at 2.) In addition, the Agency believes that there is a problem

with the current standard of allowing ammonia levels of 1.5 mg/L regardless of the un-ionized

concentration present. (Mosher at 2.) The Agency contends that studies have shown that this

level is not always protective of aquatic life. (Mosher at 2.)

The ammonia NCD provided important toxicology data and concepts used by the

Agency in developing the proposed ammonia water quality standards. (Mosher at 8.) These

contributions include: 1) a two number standard allowing implementation based on exposure

period, 2) a wholly toxicity based approach allowing for protection of aquatic life, and 3) a

comprehensive compilation of ammonia

toxicity literature. (Mosher at 8.) Other

concepts contained in the NCD were determined to be unjustified for use in Illinois. (Mosher

at 8.)

The Agency recognizes that a large number of wastewater treatment plants will be

unable to meet the proposed water quality standards for ammonia even after providing the best

degree of treatment. (Mosher at 15.) These facilities discharge to receiving streams with little

or no permanent upstream flow to provide dilution for ammonia bearing effluents and cannot

be expected to meet the proposed water quality standards. (Mosher at 15.) Proposed Section

302.213 creates a category of waters (effluent modified waters) that would not have an

applicable ammonia standard other than the 15 mg/L total ammonia limit of Section

302.212(a) and the acute standard of subsection (b). (Mosher at 15.) This provision affords

relief to dischargers meeting the Agency's concept of best degree of treatment. (Mosher at 15.)

The Agency sees no alternative but to recognize the limitations of available technologies to

remove ammonia by proposing the subcategory of effluent modified waters. (Mosher at 17.)

The Agency believes that recognition of the ammonia situation will serve to fully inform the

public concerning use attainment; however, it will not cause standards to be exceeded or

degradation to occur from increased loading or new discharges to highly valued waters.

(Mosher at 18.)

Mr. Mosher's final area of testimony was directed to the Agency's analysis of the

probable economic impact of adoption of the proposed new standards. (Mosher at 28-38.) Mr.

Mosher observed that it is the Agency's belief that adoption of the proposed ammonia water

quality standards would carry economic consequences for a number of individual dischargers.

In particular, Mr. Mosher identified a list of major municipal wastewater dischargers that the

Agency believed would need to upgrade existing ammonia treatment so as not to cause or

contribute to a violation of the ammonia standards as proposed. (Exh. 4, Agency Exh. S.)

The Agency maintains that any evaluation of the impact of the proposed ammonia

standards must be done on a facility specific basis. (Mosher at 29.) There are 181 municipal

dischargers with a design average flow of 1 mgd or greater in Illinois. (Mosher at 30.) The

Agency's research found that 115 of the 181 major municipal dischargers have permit limits of

1.5 and 4.0 and would not be impacted by the proposed amendments. (Mosher at 30.)

Dischargers to the Mississippi, Ohio and Wabash Rivers have adequate dilution available to

comply with the new standards and therefore will not be impacted by the proposed

amendments. (Mosher at 31.) The Illinois River has unique ammonia standards that are not

impacted by this rulemaking. (Mosher at 31.) Some smaller major dischargers to the

Kaskaskia, Kankakee and Rock Rivers have not had ammonia limits in their NPDES permits

because of the available dilution and will not be impacted by the proposed standards. (Mosher

at 31.) Five of the 181 facilities discharge to secondary contact waters which are not affected

by the proposed standards. (Mosher at 31.) Nine dischargers were identified that discharge to

low dilution receiving waters but do not have nitrification facilities. (Mosher at 31.) Several

of these facilities are working toward compliance while one has a site-specific exemption from

the Board. (Mosher at 31.) The Agency contends that compliance with the new standard for

these facilities will be no more expensive than

compliance with the existing standards and

therefore did not include these costs in its economic analysis. (Mosher at 31.)

The Agency identified 19 facilities

that were at risk of noncompliance under the

proposed standards. (Mosher at 32.) Nine of the identified facilities cannot meet the 30 day

average ammonia concentrations to allow compliance with the chronic standard. (Mosher at

32.) The Agency contends that an investigation of some of the facilities would find that minor

changes in operation could bring about some degree of nitrification and allow compliance with

the new standards. (Mosher at 32.) However, the Agency is fairly certain that most of the

identified facilities will have to be partially redesigned to meet the proposed standards.

(Mosher at 32.)

The Agency estimated the costs for complete nitrification at the nine facilities identified

as not being able to meet the 30 day ammonia concentrations at $32,420,000.

(Mosher at

34.) The Agency maintains that this represents the worst-case estimate of costs. (Mosher at

34.) The Agency maintains that actual costs could be substantially less because many of the

facilities will not have to institute changes of the magnitude figured into the estimate. (Mosher

at 34.)

The remaining ten facilities can meet thirty day averages, but can not meet daily

maximum limits as required by the acute standards. (Mosher at 36.) Compliance at these

facilities may be possible through advanced modeling of the zone of dilution, the construction

of a high rate diffuser, or changes in management of the process. (Mosher at 36.)

The Agency has not studied the impact of the proposed amendments on minor

municipal dischargers which number approximately 600. (Mosher at 35.) The Agency

believes that a smaller proportion of these facilities will require modifications due to higher

dilution ratios for the smaller facilities. (Mosher at 35.) The Agency also recognizes the

possible impact on industrial dischargers but believes that the incidence of discharges

containing significant ammonia are much less common among industrial dischargers. (Mosher

at 35.)

The Agency maintains that the conclusions of its economic impact study will be

impacted by changing conditions such as population growth and decline, physical and chemical

The Agency originally identified 20 facilities but later removed the Libertyville facility from the

list because the facility had completed construction of an expanded facility which provided more

efficient ammonia removal. (Tr2. at 12.)

The original figure provided by the Agency of $35,720,000 was reduced by 3.3 million to reflect

the removal of the Libertyville facility from the list of impacted facilities. (Tr2. at 12.) This cost

estimate was further reduced by the Agency at subsequent hearings due to additional information

that was obtained about some of the facilities. (Exh. 41 at 38.) The Agency estimates the cost for

compliance for these facilities at $20,000,000.00. (Exh. 41 at 38; See page 14 of this opinion.)

features of the waterbodies, and improvements

in technology. (Mosher at 37.) The Agency

asserts that the need for compliance action by municipal dischargers will be made during the

application process for individual NPDES permits. (Mosher at 37.)

Agency Witnesses - Studer at November 10, 1994 Hearing

The Agency's final witness, Mr. Studer, focused his testimony on the technologies

available for removing ammonia from wastewater. He testified that there are two categories of

treatment technologies for nitrogen; nitrification which is the oxidation of ammonia to form

nitrates and denitrification which is the removal of nitrogen containing components by

conversion to nitrogen gas. (Studer at 1-2.) The technologies reviewed by Mr. Studer include

breakpoint chlorination, ammonia stripping, ion exchange, reverse osmosis, and biological

removal technologies (lagoons, recirculating sand filters, algal harvesting, wetland utilization

and land application). (Studer at 2 -7) He testified that conventional biological treatment, the

treatment of sewage to establish a population of nitrifying bacteria, is capable of achieving

monthly average ammonia concentrations in the effluent for domestic wastewater of 1.5 mg/L

from April through October, and 4.0 mg/L from November through March. (Tr1. at 25.)

Mr. Studer also explained the establishment of effluent modified waters (EMW).

EMWs are waters downstream from a wastewater treatment facility that, at a minimum, can

comply with a summer monthly average of 1.5 mg/L (total ammonia as N) during all months

from April through October and a winter monthly average of 4.0 mg/L (total ammonia as N)

during all months from November through March, yet cannot consistently comply with the

chronic ammonia water quality standard. (Studer at 13.) EMWs will continue downstream of

the facility, the distance that it takes for the chronic ammonia water quality standard to be met

on a consistent basis. (Studer at 13.) Waters showing aquatic life impairment from ammonia

will not be listed as EMWs. (Studer at 14.) Facilities which cannot consistently meet the

monthly averages of 1.5 mg/L or 4.0 mg/L will not be considered for EMW status, but will

generally be required to modify the facility. (Studer at 14.)

Additional Testimony from Hearings on November 10 and 22, 1994

James Daugherty from the Illinois Association of Wastewater Agencies (IAWA)

testified on behalf of the members of that association. IAWA supports the numbers proposed

by the Agency but believes that additional data is needed. (Daugherty at 1.) IAWA urges that

additional studies be performed before the next proposal on ammonia standards. (Daugherty at

1.) In its testimony IAWA stated that it endorsed the need for a study to define the effects of

ammonia, supports the adoption of a factor of three in the averaging rule, and endorses the

setting of higher effluent limits for individual facilities. (Daugherty at 8.) IAWA recommends

the adoption of the proposed regulations with comments on the application of ammonia action

levels for the implementation of effluent modified waters. (Daugherty at 8.) IAWA also

believes that the implementation policy should allow individual dischargers to use models other

than the mass balance calculation. (Tr3. at 262.)

Jim Mick from the Illinois Department

of Conservation (IDOC)

testified that Illinois

anglers spend more than 11,600,000 days annually fishing in Illinois and impact Illinois'

economy by over $870 million. (Mick at 1.) IDOC maintains that protection of Illinois

streams, which provide the last available habitat for some 78 endangered and threatened

aquatic species, is important to preserve the biodiversity of Illinois' natural resources. (Mick at

1.) IDOC believes that removal of the 1.5 mg/L total ammonia floor is an improvement in the

water quality standards for Illinois streams but using the actual un-ionized ammonia levels as

the standard would provide better protection. (Mick at 1.)

IDOC notes that no guidelines or criteria are proposed to protect the highly valued

streams from potential degradation. (Mick at 1.) IDOC contends that the ammonia toxicity

may effect early life stages of fish. (Mick at 1.) IDOC claims that ammonia related toxicity

effects are not always apparent and could be deleterious to native fish populations. (Mick at 1.)

IDOC recommends that stream basins designated as "A" or "B"

be protected from

lower water quality than currently exists. (Mick at 2.) IDOC observes that there is a lack of

warm water stream species toxicity data. (Mick at 2.) IDOC recommends that the Board be

cautious and err in favor of the aquatic natural resources, until more definitive data from

research is collected. (Mick at 2.) IDOC recommends that streams which are annually stocked

with trout be protected from lowered water quality standards. (Mick at 2.)

Bob Evans, the Executive Director of the Water and Sewer Commission in Freeport,

Illinois, testified on the previous expenditures incurred by the City of Freeport due to changes

in chlorination in its permit and changes in sludge regulations. (Tr2. at 118.) He also states

that the lowest ammonia level measured in the Pecatonica River, to which Freeport discharges,

is 0.4 mg/L. (Tr2. at 119.) He contends that the level of ammonia in the River is due to

agricultural runoff. (Tr2. at 120.) He concludes that the proposed regulations would require

Freeport to expend additional money to treat its water for ammonia with no beneficial effect

on the receiving stream. (Tr2. at 120.)

Testimony from Hearing on January 26, 1995

At the third hearing on January 26, 1995, testimony was presented by Mary Ross on

behalf of the Sierra Club. Ms. Ross stated that the Sierra Club believes that the proposed

ammonia standard is not strong enough because it does not consider cold water species. (Ross

The IDOC has been reorganized and is now part of the Department of Natural Resources.

The designation of the stream basins is provided in "Biological Stream Characterization: A

Biological Assessment of Illinois Stream Quality" which was submitted as public comment #5 by

the IDOC.

at 1.) The Sierra Club also supports the

adoption of standards for zinc, selenium,

nickel and phosphorous. (Ross at 3.)

Edward Michael testified on behalf of Trout Unlimited that the underlying assumptions

that prompted the Agency's action are basically invalid. (Michael at 1.) Trout Unlimited

supports adoption of water quality standards consistent with USEPA's national criteria

document. (Michael at 2.) Trout Unlimited contends that an acceptable proposal should

protect the most sensitive species and provide an exemption for waters which cannot contain

those species. (Michael at 2.) Trout Unlimited believes that the proposed rule fails to provide

for the preservation of the integrity of aquatic habitat in Illinois which is known to be or to

have been utilized by salmonids. (Michael at 2.)

Mayors from the cities of St. Charles, Geneva, Batavia, Sterling, Rock Falls, Dixon

and Moline (Mayors) presented statements at the third hearing. The Mayors testified that they

support the use of ammonia standards as a means to protect the quality of the waterways but

object to the limited amount of information used by the Agency in deriving the standards.

(Tr3. at 28.) The Mayors support the alternate proposal submitted by the Cities as a means to

allow dischargers to optimize their ammonia treatment capabilities and determine where the

standards are being achieved. (Tr3. at 26.) The Mayors observe that the Agency has

acknowledged that it does not have any actual water quality data or biological surveys to

demonstrate that current discharges are causing instream exceedences of the proposed

standards or that the receiving streams are suffering any biological damage. (Tr3. at 25.) The

Mayors support the collection of additional data to determine whether a problem actually exists

and to determine the benefits of the proposal. (Tr3. at 26.)

The Mayors also explained the economic impact that the proposed regulations will have

on their communities. The Mayors noted that previously wastewater treatment plants could

receive at least 75% grant funding for improvements to the facilities. (Tr3. at 29.) However,

these grants are no longer available and most of the costs would need to be passed on to the

citizens. (Tr3. at 29.)

Kirby Holland of New Water Development testified on a land treatment system to

manage wastewater. (Tr3. at 84 - 93.)

James Huff of the engineering consulting firm of Huff & Huff testified in support of

the amendments proposed by the Cities. Mr. Huff recognizes that the Agency's proposed

chronic ammonia water quality standards are 50% to 68% more restrictive than the existing

regulations. (Huff at. 4.) He further contends that benefits from the proposed change have not

been identified and the change will result in a large economic burden for some communities.

(Huff at 4.) In support of the recommendation that the parties be allowed to submit

temperature data to prove that there was no actual violation, Mr. Huff testified to the

temperature of two Illinois streams, one in the northern part of the state and one in the

southern part of the state. (Huff at 7.) He found that there were periods in November and

March where the temperature exceeded 12°C. (Huff at 7.) Mr. Huff maintains that the use of

temperatures to determine ammonia levels as

described in the Cities proposal is protective

of the environment. (Huff at 8.) Concerning the number of significant digits of the standard,

he testified that three significant digits is impractical due to confidence levels and accuracy.

(Huff at 10.) Mr. Huff maintains that the approach for deriving effluent limits proposed by

the Cities is consistent with federal regulations and assures that water quality standards will be

achieved. (Huff at 11.) He estimated the cost of once-a-week monitoring to obtain additional

data on ammonia levels in streams at $4,000 per year. (Tr3. at 116.)

Chad Tuttle, Environmental Manager for Indian Refining Limited Partnership

(IRLP),

testified on the impact of the proposed regulation on IRLP. He estimates the cost of adding

the preferred treatment of activated sludge with nitrification at between $10 to $15 million and

would not guarantee consistent compliance with permit limits. (Tr3. at 201.) At the Agency's

recommendation IRLP considered the use of breakpoint chlorination but found that it did not

present a feasible form of treatment.

(Tr3. at 202.)

Testimony from Hearings on February 22 and 23, 1996

On November 8, 1995, the Board held a pre-hearing conference to further define the

issues related to hearing in this rulemaking and as such, presented the Agency and the

participants with various issues which were to be addressed at hearings held on February 22

and 23, 1996.

Agency Comments. The Agency maintains that the proposed standards are consistent

with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C §§1251-1387 (1987), commonly

referred to as the Clean Water Act and the federal regulations. (Exh. 41 at 2.) The Agency asserts

that the USEPA will approve the amendments in the present form but even a slight change may

result in disapproval by the USEPA. (Exh. 41 at 2.) The Agency also indicates that USEPA has

stated that it could not accept the amendments proposed by the Ammonia Group. (Exh. 41 at 2.)

The Agency provided a summary of the positions neighboring states (Indiana, Ohio,

Michigan, Missouri, Kentucky, Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota) have taken with respect to

ammonia nitrogen standards and effluent limits. (Exh. 41 at 3.) Illinois is the first state in

Region V to develop and propose new ammonia nitrogen limits different than those proposed

In November 1995 Indian Refining ceased operation of the refinery. The refinery was

purchased by American Western Refining Limited Partnership which intends to reinitiate

operation of the facility once financing has been obtained. (Tr4. at 175.) On April 4, 1996,

American Western Refining, L.P. filed a motion to incorporate past comments and testimony

of Indian Refining Limited Partnership. The Board granted the motion on May 2, 1996.

See also In the Matter of: Proposal of Mobil Oil Corporation to Amend the Water Pollution

Regulations (January 7, 1988), R84-16 at 3, where the Board acknowledged that the use of

breakpoint chlorination is inappropriate since it would result in the formation of chlorinated

hydrocarbons.

by the NCD. (Exh. 41 at 3.) Other states in

Region 5 are looking to Illinois to the lead

the way with respect to ammonia nitrogen . (Exh. 41 at 3.)

The Agency has not formulated a position on specific facilities being granted adjusted

standards, variances or site specific relief from the proposed ammonia standards. (Exh. 41 at

10.) However, the Agency notes that relief from ammonia nitrogen water quality standards

requires federal approval and the Agency believes that the relief allowed by the proposed

EMW provision is the extent to which the USEPA will grant relief. (Exh. 41 at 10.) With the

exception of waterways that support viable populations of trout, the Agency does not view any

rivers or streams as having unique characteristics such that site specific relief may be

warranted. (Exh. 41 at 10.)

The Agency believes that loan funding will be available for projects necessary to meet

the proposed ammonia nitrogen water quality standards. (Exh. 41 at 12.)

The Agency has specified three reasons why many of the facilities identified as

potentially not meeting the provisions of the proposed amendments are substantially direct

dischargers to the Rock and Fox Rivers:

1. The Rock and Fox River are medium in size and do not provide the

dilution that a larger river would provide.

2. The population density in Northern Illinois is much greater than in

other parts of the state.

3. The pH level, which is the most influential water quality factor in

determining permit limits for ammonia nitrogen, is relatively high in

the Rock and Fox Rivers.

(Exh. 41 at 13-15.)

Despite these characteristics, the aquatic life communities in the Rock and Fox Rivers are not

substantially different from other rivers in the state of Illinois. (Exh. 41 at 15.) With the

exception of salmonid fishes, the Agency finds no valid basis to suggest that any particular

region should have ammonia nitrogen standards different from those proposed. (Exh. 41 at

16.)

The Agency conducted an update of its literature search and found four additional

papers related to ammonia nitrogen. (Exh. 41 at 18-21.) The Agency also provided an update

of the nine facilities that were identified in previous testimony as not meeting existing

ammonia nitrogen standards. (Exh. 41 at 21-26.)

In its prefiled testimony from the November 10, 1994 hearing, the Agency submitted a

list of major municipal treatment plants listed as potentially unable to comply with the

proposed ammonia nitrogen standards and provided a cost estimate for compliance at these

facilities. (See Exh. 2-S.) Based on additional information on several of these facilities, the

Agency updated its cost estimates for compliance. (Exh. 41 at 26.) The Agency calculates that

under the worst case scenario the estimated

cost for compliance with the proposed

ammonia nitrogen standards for major municipal dischargers is $20,034,000. (Exh. 41 at 39.)

The Agency observes that this is more than a 50% reduction from the initial estimated cost.

(Exh. 41 at 26.) In addition, the Agency notes that at least seven facilities have been

identified as being unable to comply with the existing water quality standards that are able to

comply with the proposed standards. (Exh. 41 at 26.)

Under existing standards, the ammonia nitrogen concentration a facility discharges to

its receiving stream must not cause the receiving stream to exceed 0.04 mg/L un-ionized

ammonia nitrogen unless the total ammonia nitrogen concentration is less than 1.5 mg/L.

(Exh. 41 at 40.) As a result, a substantial number of major municipal dischargers will have to

comply with winter monthly average ammonia nitrogen permit limits more stringent than 4.0

mg/L. (Exh. 41 at 40.) Since 1993, the Agency has drafted NPDES permits with winter

ammonia nitrogen effluent limits set at appropriate levels to comply with current ammonia

nitrogen standards. (Exh. 41 at 40.) At least four permits were issued with a three year

compliance plan, which when completed will require compliance with the water quality based

ammonia nitrogen limits. (Exh. 41 at 40.) In addition, four other facilities have such

compliance plans in their draft NPDES permits. (Exh. 41 at 41.) The Agency expects the

number of facilities unable to meet the winter water quality based effluent ammonia nitrogen

limit to double. (Exh. 41 at 41.) The Agency estimates a capital cost of $66 million for these

facilities to comply with the existing ammonia standards. (Tr4. at 13.) If the trend continues,

it is reasonable to assume that these numbers would double when the current five year NPDES

cycle is complete and the cost could exceed $132 million. (Tr4. at 13.) However, these costs

could be avoided if the proposal as amended is adopted within a reasonable time period prior

to the affected facilities having constructed hardware. (Tr.4. at 168.)

The Agency has committed to promulgating a rulemaking implementing EMW

procedures. (Tr4. at 156.)

Borden Chemical. Sailesh Jantrania, technical manager for Borden Chemicals &

Plastics Operating Limited Partnership (BCP) in Illiopolis, Illinois testified that the proposed

ammonia nitrogen standard is too stringent and that the EMW provision will not provide relief

to dischargers to low flow streams. (Exh. 49 at 1.) BCP contends that: 1)exceedences of the

standards by dischargers to low flow streams will not be rare and infrequent; 2)the proposed

standards are not necessary to protect Illinois waters; 3)the EMW provision needs to be

modified to provide the relief intended by the Agency; 4)Section 304.122 should be modified

to make clear that daily variability around monthly average limitations is not precluded by the

regulation; and 5)additional monitoring costs may result from the proposed standards. (Exh.

49 at 1.)

Fox Metro Water Reclamation District. Greg Buchner, special projects coordinator for

the Fox Metro Water Reclamation District (FMWRD)

testified on the impact of the proposed

The Fox Metro Water Reclamation District was formerly know as the Aurora Sanitary

District.

standards on the FMWRD. The FMWRD

submitted a report containing data gathered

on the Fox River. (Exh. 50.) Samples taken over a one year period were analyzed for

dissolved oxygen (DO), temperature, pH and ammonia nitrogen. (Exh. 50 at 5.) The report

supports the Agency’s earlier observation that the Fox River has a naturally occurring high

pH. (Exh 50 at 6.) Using the data, FMWRD calculated water quality based ammonia nitrogen

effluent standards for its facility under different scenarios. (Exh. 50 at 7.) The calculations

show that due to the high pH of the Fox River, FMWRD would be subject to un-ionized

ammonia nitrogen levels far below the proposed water quality standards. (Exh. 50 at 9.)

FMWRD’s main concern is that the proposal will result in effluent limits for its facility

that are more stringent than 1.5 mg/L summer and 4.0 mg/L winter. (Exh. 50 at 10.) While

the facility may currently be able to meet these standards it is doubtful that these levels could

be maintained as community growth increases. (Exh. 50 at 10.) FMWRD is also concerned

that the USEPA could strike down the agreement between the Agency and FMWRD to use

data from the downstream sampling and result in the recalculation of effluent limits. (Exh. 50

at 10.) FMWRD also objects to the use of “Existing Effluent Quality” in determining future

effluent limits because its does not take into account future community growth and it penalizes

well run treatment facilities. (Exh. 50 at 10.)

FMWRD suggests that the proposal be modified to create an exception to the general

rule where there is high naturally occurring pH.

Illinois Association of Wastewater Agencies. James Daugherty testified on behalf of

IAWA. IAWA expressed its concern over the limited amount of toxicity data available to

derive the standards. (Tr5. at 65.) IAWA believes that standards of 1.5/4.0 mg/L are the

lowest effluent levels that should be written because these are levels that are achieved through

present technology. (Tr5. at 266.) IAWA stresses the importance of adopting the proposal

given the expiration of Section 304.301. (Tr5. at 267.) IAWA notes that it did not pursue an

extension of Section 304.301 since this rulemaking was pending. (Tr5. at 267.)

Ammonia Group. James Huff testified on behalf of the Ammonia Group (Cities of

Batavia, Geneva, Rock Falls, St. Charles, Sterling and Galesburg). Mr. Huff provided an

update on what the communities have done since the previous hearing. (Exh. 52 at 1 - 12.)

Mr. Huff notes the excellent fishing conditions on the Fox River and the abundance of fish

near outfalls and in mixing zones and questions the effects of ammonia at existing levels on

aquatic life. (Exh 52 at 13.)

A one year sampling program consisting of weekly samples from nineteen stations on

the Fox River and eight tributaries was developed by a group of dischargers along the Fox

River. (Exh. 52 at 13.) Mr. Huff acted as project manager of the study and submitted a report

of the study “Ammonia Water Quality Study of the Fox River” to the Board. (Exh. 53.)

Based on the data obtained from this study, Mr. Huff concludes that a further tightening of the

effluent limits is not justified. (Exh. 52 at 15.)

The Ammonia Group suggests the following changes to the proposal:

Allow stream temperatures to be measured at discharger’s option to determine

appropriate water quality standard (0.020 or 0.050 mg/L).

Incorporate the extension of time as originally proposed by the six communities

for implementation of the revised effluent limits.

Drop the extra zero in the un-ionized ammonia limits.

Allow scientifically defensible alternatives to the Agency’s mass balance

procedure for deriving effluent ammonia limits.

Adopt the four-sample average concept, as proposed by the Agency.

Adopt a winter un-ionized ammonia limit of 0.03 mg/L and/or consider keeping

the 1.5 mg/L total ammonia “floor” limit.

Effluent modified waters should be tied strictly to NPDES permit limits of 1.5

mg/L summer and/or 4.0 mg/L winter.

Allow seasonal EMW designations.

Ammonia effluent limits should not be set below 1.5/4.0 mg/L.

(Exh. 52 at 20-21.)

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Comments filed in R94-1 relating to ammonia

The Board received 26 public comments on the proposal as originally filed in R94-1.

One comment (PC #12) concerned the portion of the proposal concerning lead and mercury

(Subdocket) and the remaining 25 public comments concerned the proposed amendments to the

ammonia standard, the origin and content of which are summarized in this section.

PC #1:

By Linda Brand, Manager of Regulatory Flexibility Unit, Illinois Department

of Commerce and Community Affairs: a review of the proposed amendments

found no impact on small businesses. Filed 10/5/94.

PC #2:

The City of Sterling, Illinois, by Stephen Berly, City Manager; the community

became aware of the proposed rule on November 10, 1994 and requests more

time to understand the effects of the proposed rulemaking. Filed 11/29/94.

PC #3:

The City of Rock Falls, Illinois, by Glen R. Kuhlmeier, Mayor; requests

additional time to evaluate the proposed rules. Filed 11/29/94.

PC #4:

The City of St. Charles, Illinois; requests a 12-month delay for evaluation of

its wastewater treatment facility. Filed 11/29/94.

PC #5:

The Illinois Department of Conservation (IDOC) by Jim Mick, Streams

Program Manager, Division of Fisheries; copy of a 1989 study "Biological

Stream Characterization: A

Biological Assessment of Illinois Stream

Quality." Filed 12/27/94.

PC #6:

By Arthur R. Allan who opposes the proposed rulemaking. Mr. Allen

expresses concern over the present decline of fish species in the Fox River and

the potential for future degradation. He characterizes the Cities' proposal as a

request to skate up close to the illegal parameters. Filed 1/17/95.

PC #7:

The City of Dixon by Donald E. Sheets, Mayor; a resolution of the City

Council of Dixon passed on January 17, 1995. The resolution requests that

the Board approve the amendments proposed by the Cities. Filed 1/23/95.

PC #8:

By James Warchall on behalf of Borden Chemicals and Plastics Operating

Limited Partnership.

Mr. Warchall suggests that the concept of effluent

modified waters (EMW) be modified. Mr. Warchall suggests that an NPDES

permittee should be able to request that the Agency make a determination as to

whether a stream is an EMW. The modifications suggested by Borden also

include deleting the requirement that EMWs meet the water quality standard

and that the language of Section 302.213(a)(2) be rewritten to avoid

ambiguity. Filed 1/13/95.

PC #9:

Agency Comments and Questions in response to the comments of James

Warchall. The Agency foresees problems in implementing the suggestion

concerning determinations on EMWs. The Agency believes that the

determination of an EMW should be part of the permitting process but that

informal and tentative determinations will be made in some situations. The

Agency maintains that requiring EMWs to meet the water quality standard is

necessary to protect aquatic life and for USEPA approval. The Agency

objects to any change in the language of Section 302.213(a)(2) since this

section was the subject of some rather long and intense discussions with the

USEPA. Filed 1/24/95.

PC #10:

By J. Dennis Hastert, Member of Congress, in support of the Cities' request

for additional time. Mr. Hastert believes that before requiring the expenditure

of millions of dollars every assurance should be made that there is a real

problem. Filed 3/9/95.

PC #11:

The Sierra Club, Illinois Chapter of Trout Unlimited, Citizens for a Better

Environment, Lake Michigan Federation, and Friends of the Chicago River,

by Albert F. Ettinger; This comment recommends adoption of USEPA

This document was originally filed as pre-filed testimony; however, since no-one appeared at

hearing to present the testimony, the hearing officer entered the testimony as well as the questions

of the Agency on the testimony (PC # 9) as public comments.

standards for ammonia. The

commenters assert that the proposed

amendments are requests for site-specific relief and the objection of the Cities

is to the implementation of the standards. The comment also suggests that

standards for zinc, selenium, nickel and phosphorous should be adopted. Filed

3/10/95.

PC #13:

By Cynthia L. Skrukud, McHenry County Defenders; supports adoption of

standards but believes that more stringent USEPA standard for ammonia

should be adopted. In addition, the comment states that effluent modified

waters only serve to protect polluted waters from the possibility of becoming

cleaner. Filed 3/10/95.

PC #14:

By Billita Jacobsen, Fox Path Association; asserts that lower ammonia

standards are needed to protect recreational uses of the Fox River. Filed

3/10/95.

PC #15:

By Barbara Marquardt, President Fox Valley Land Foundation; cites the

effects of sewage discharge on rivers and encourages the investigation of land

application of sewage. Filed 3/10/95.

PC #16:

Fuji Photo Film, Inc. by Nancy Neely; Fuji notes that ammonia compounds

are used extensively in photo imaging processes. Fuji believes that the

proposed limits will place an undue burden on photoprocessors and the cost of

compliance will filter down to small business owners. Filed 3/13/95.

PC #17:

Indian Refining Limited Partnership (IRLP) by Christina Riewer; IRLP asserts

that it will not be able to meet the proposed ammonia standards. IRLP

supports the proposal of the Cities for deriving effluent limits based on actual

stream data. Filed 3/13/95.

PC #18:

The Chemical Industry Council of Illinois (CICI), by Mark Homer. This

comment asserts that sufficient evidence has not been provided by the Agency

to show that the proposed ammonia nitrogen limits are necessary to protect

Illinois waterways. CICI claims that chemical manufacturers will be effected

since their effluent contains ammonia. CICI maintains that any standard above

two significant digits is unjustified. Filed 3/13/95.

PC #19:

The National Photographic Manufacturers, Inc., by Thomas Duffy; expresses

agreement with PC #20 from Eastman Kodak and suggests that USEPA

standards be adopted. Filed 3/13/95.

PC #20:

The Eastman Kodak Company by Linda J. Liszewski; Eastman Kodak

believes that the standards should be consistent with USEPA guidance. Filed

3/15/95.

PC #21:

The Graphic Arts Technical Foundations by Gary A. Jones; suggests the

possible effect on small businesses of the proposal. Filed 3/15/95.

PC #22:

The Cities of Batavia, Geneva, Rock Falls, St. Charles, and Sterling

(Ammonia Group) by Lee Cunningham. The Ammonia Group believes that it

is wrong to require expenditure without any known environmental benefit.

The Ammonia Group maintains that the Agency has no biological survey

reports that show that the discharge of ammonia from any of the affected

facilities has caused instream degradation. The key elements of the Ammonia

Group's proposal include providing an opportunity for dischargers to

determine whether ammonia degradation will occur, dischargers would

maximize the ammonia treatment in light of existing operational conditions,

where temperature data exists it can be used to determine if a violation

occurred and there is no support for adding a zero to the standards. Filed

3/15/95.

PC #23:

Illinois Association of Wastewater Agencies (IAWA) by James L. Daugherty;

supports adoption of the standards as proposed with amendments presented in

their testimony. IAWA believes that the addition of a third decimal place is

inappropriate. Filed 3/22/95.

PC #24:

Agency's Final Comment by Margaret Howard; (This comment addresses

many issues of contention; in view of its length and content, the comment is

summarized in a separate following section.) Filed 4/11/95.

PC #25:

Index Department of the Administrative Code Division of the Office of the

Secretary of State; notes corrections that must be made to the text of the rule

before the rule can be adopted. The Board today makes the suggested

corrections to the text. Filed 11/7/94.

PC #26:

Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group submitted by Katherine Hodge. This

comment expresses concerns on the Board’s scheduling a pre-hearing

conference at this point in the proceeding. Filed 10/31/95.

Summary of Agency's Comment (PC #24). The Agency believes that the limited

criticism of the actual numbers proposed for the water quality standards indicates that the

regulated community concurs with the basic precepts of the rulemaking. The Agency argues

that the addition of the third digit is necessary to ensure that rounding practices would not

compromise the integrity of the standards. The standards are to be considered as "not to

exceed" values. The Agency is agreeable to adopting the standards with three significant digits

Public Comments #22 and #23 were accompanied by motions to file instanter. Those motions

are hereby granted.

or including a narrative on rounding practices

or adopting the three digits from the original

calculations.

The Agency does not support the amendments proposed by the Cities (Ammonia

Group) and notes that the USEPA has also indicated that it does not support the amendments.

The Agency contends that some facilities will need to add nitrification to meet the

proposed standards. For facilities that employ the highest level of ammonia nitrogen removal

but are unable to meet the proposed standards, the regulations include the concept of effluent

modified water. The Agency maintains that the proposed regulations are technically feasible.

The Agency maintains that the proposed regulations are economically reasonable. The

Agency recognizes that the ammonia standards will have a potential effect on approximately 20

major municipal dischargers and one industrial discharger. The Agency has provided worst

case costs for the upgrading of these facilities. The Agency maintains that the proposed

regulations are economically reasonable and from a statewide perspective, the economic impact

for a handful of municipal dischargers will be minimal.

The Agency maintains that implementation is not an issue in the proposed regulation.

However, in recognition of criticisms from potentially affected dischargers, the Agency notes

the proposed regulations will be implemented according to the Agency's existing

implementation procedures. The Agency also recognizes that portions of the implementation

procedures will need to be updated to match portions of the proposed regulations. The Agency

also states that new implementation procedures will be proposed in an Agency rulemaking after

the Board enters its final order in this rulemaking.

The Agency believes that a temperature based water quality standard is inappropriate.

The Agency maintains that the use of 12° is not supported on the record and that the Agency

used 12° as the break between summer and winter based an the lack of toxicity information in

the range between 10° and 14°. The Agency also believes that the use of a temperature based

water quality standard is inappropriate when the standard is implemented as an average. The

Agency contends that the temperature standard will be difficult to implement. Thermal

variations in the stream would result in different standards for different parts of the stream.

The Agency is opposed to allowing time to study compliance with the proposed

ammonia standards. The Agency contends that the "wait and see" monitoring approach is

inconsistent with the intent of the protection principles of the CWA. The Agency maintains

that treatment plants should already be taking measures to minimize ammonia effluent

concentrations. The Agency maintains that data collection should occur simultaneously with

other items in a compliance schedule. The Agency contends that optimization of ammonia

removal at a treatment plant and monitoring programs can be incorporated into the three year

compliance schedule in a NPDES permit.

The Agency agrees that a viable

population of trout exists in one five mile

long reach of a stream in Illinois. The Agency also acknowledges that trout toxicity data was

removed from consideration in deriving the proposed standards. The Agency states that a

special ammonia standard could be derived for this stream segment but there are no point

sources to this segment so no consequences of the special standard would be immediately felt.

The Agency contends that the warm water conditions of Illinois waterbodies rather than

ammonia nitrogen prevent trout from permanently establishing in Illinois waterways.

The Agency believes that the comments from the photographic industry reflect a

misunderstanding of the proposed regulations. The Agency states that the comments of the

photographic industry imply that the proposed limitations apply to effluent dischargers instead

of water quality in the waters of the State. The Agency maintains that the proposed standards

are consistent with current USEPA policies and guidelines. The Agency also maintains that

the proposed standards are not more stringent than USEPA requirements. The Agency

believes that imposing limits on ammonia contributors to pretreatment is not a viable option.

The Agency describes the comments from the Chemical Industry Council of Illinois as

suffering from major misconceptions of the details of the rulemaking. The Agency notes that

only one industrial facility was identified as being potentially impacted. The Agency maintains

that streams will be designated as EMW when NPDES permits are issued and that there is no

reason to pre-designate these streams. The Agency believes that the regulations are clear in

specifying the criteria necessary to designate a water as effluent modified. The Agency

believes that in impacted communities, industrial users will pay only a proportionate share of

costs based on their relative contribution to the system.

The Agency disputes IAWA's contention that the factors used to obtain un-ionized

ammonia values were inaccurate. The Agency supports IAWA's suggestion that the Agency

should be open to other models in its rules of implementation but the Agency maintains that

the proper time for the presentation of these models is in the updating process of the

implementation procedures.

While the Agency does not completely agree with the comments submitted by IRLP,

the Agency and IRLP have continued to discuss the issues regarding IRLP's facility. The

Agency makes the following statement concerning IRLP:

IRLP and the Agency have reached conceptual agreement resolving the chronic water

quality issues. That agreement involves using an effluent design average discharge rate

("Q

") for IRLP of 2.3 million gallons per day ("MGD"). The Agency would also use

monthly ("7Q

") values based upon a June 1993 Illinois State Survey Report for the

Embarras River. The acute water quality issues remain to be solved.

Comments filed in R94-1(B)

PC #1(B)

Granite City Division,

National Steel Corporation (GCD). GCD

contends that the Agency has not shown that the proposed standard is

economically or technically feasible for industrial dischargers. Filed

3/29/96.

PC #2(B)

McHenry County Defenders and the Friends of the Fox River submitted by

Gerald Paulson. The comment objects to the provision that establishes effluent

modified waters and the lack of an ammonia standard that is protective of cold

water fish species. The comment notes that parties who cannot meet the

proposed standards may request an adjusted standard from the Board and a

special procedure is not necessary. The comment notes that streams that flow

into the Kishawaukee River are able to support cold water species not found in

other parts of the state. The comment urges adoption of USEPA standards for

these streams instead of the proposed standards which are not protective of

cold water species. Filed 3/29/96

PC #3(B)

Sierra Club, Illinois Chapter of Trout Unlimited, Citizens for a Better

Environment, Lake Michigan Federation, and Friends of the Chicago River

submitted by Albert Ettinger. This comment contends that the Board must: 1)

eliminate or at least clarify the provision regarding EMW; 2) adopt ammonia

water quality standards consistent with the USEPA national criteria for

ammonia or adopt those criteria for Illinois waters known to have harbored or

to harbor cold water species and 3) reject the arguments which ask the Board

to adopt standards that are wholly inadequate to protect aquatic life. Filed

3/29/96.

PC #4(B)

The Ammonia Group submitted by Lee Cunningham. This comment provides

an overview of the Ammonia Group’s position as presented in testimony and

other filings. The comment explains the differences between the Ammonia

Group’s proposal and the Agency’s proposal. The Ammonia Group supports

the amendments submitted by IAWA clarifying the EMW requirements. The

Ammonia Group withdraws the concept of using actual stream temperature to

determine ammonia standards from its proposal. Filed on 3/29/96.

PC #5(B)

William Leja, member of the Sierra Club. Mr. Leja refers the Board to

several scientific studies and their findings. In addition, he questions whether

the findings of these studies have been considered in the proposed rules. Filed

on 4/1/96.

The public comments filed in Subdocket (B) were entered into the Docket beginning with

number 1, a (B) is added after the public comment number to indicate that the comment was

filed in Subdocket (B).

PC #6(B)

American Western Refining

submitted by Bill Forcade. American

Western Refining suggests that the Board mandate a rational implementation of

the proposed ammonia water quality standard as part of the rulemaking. Such

implementation shall include a provision for an affirmative defense when the

permittee can show that actual stream data shows no violation of the water

quality standard, provide American Western with dry weather discharge levels

and stream low flow levels and provide American Western with a Zone of

Initial Dilution equal to 2% of the Embarras River’s flow. Filed 4/4/96.

PC #7(B)

Chemical Industry Council of Illinois (CICI) by Mark Homer. CICI contends

that further technical support of any adverse impact on Illinois waterways is

necessary before changing the ammonia nitrogen standard especially

considering the cost of compliance. CICI submits that no additional action

should be taken in this matter due to the confusion and controversy

surrounding the federal ammonia nitrogen water quality standards. CICI

reports that USEPA Region VIII is drafting a white paper on ammonia

standards. CICI observes that other states in Region V have not taken any

action but are looking to Illinois to lead the way. CICI also observes that the

EMW provision creates an uncertainty as to which facilities will be effected by

the proposal. Filed 4/5/96.

PC #8(B)

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency submitted by Margaret Howard.

This comment presents a summary of the Agency’s position and responses to

issues and comments. This comment contains a revised proposal consisting of

language agreed to between USEPA and the Agency. (Attachment BB.) The

Agency anticipates that loans will be available to fund some of the

modifications to facilities that will be required by the proposed amendments.

Filed on 4/8/96.

PC#9(B)

Supplemental Comments of the Ammonia Group submitted by Lee

Cunningham. The Ammonia Group provided a copy of the Hall report

providing additional information on the regulatory history of the development

of national ammonia water quality criteria, a summary of post-1984 research

on ammonia toxicity impacts, some additional information on actions by other

states and recommendations for revisions. (Attachment C to PC #9(B).) The

comment also provides a summary of a teleconference with two USEPA

employees concerning this proceeding. Filed on 6/3/96.

PC#10(B)

City of Belleville. Belleville reports that it has received a draft permit

containing more stringent ammonia limits than previous permits and a

The Agency filed a motion to strike this comment. The motion and the response to the

motion are addressed in a section following the discussion of the comments.

compliance schedule.

Belleville moves for the expeditious adoption

of revisions to the ammonia regulations. Filed on 6/3/96

PC#11(B)

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s Comments on “Final Report of

Ammonia Group Prepared by the Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources”.

The Agency distinguishes the findings of the Wisconsin Report

and Illinois regulations and the water quality standards contained in the

proposal. The Agency notes that the Wisconsin Report is a summary of

recommendations with no indication whether the suggestions are workable.

Filed on 6/5/96.

PC#12(B)

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s Additional Supplemental Final

Comments. The Agency maintains that the planned drafting of an issue paper

by USEPA Region VIII on ammonia nitrogen is irrelevant to this proceeding

and therefore, this proceeding should not be delayed in anticipation of that

paper. The Agency urges the Board to review the record in this matter and

adopt the regulation as proposed. Filed on 6/5/96.

PC#13(B)

Supplemental Comments of the Illinois Association of Wastewater Agencies.

IAWA urges the expeditious adoption of the amendments to the ammonia

water quality standards including the language proposed on EMW. IAWA

notes the serious shortage of data on chronic ammonia toxicity and requests

that the Board give full consideration to all information before adopting more

stringent chronic standards. IAWA also suggests that the Board defer all

implementation details to the Agency. Filed on 6/17/96.

Motions concerning PC#9(B)

On June 27, 1996, the Agency filed a motion to strike the supplemental comments of

the Ammonia Group. (PC #9(B)) The Agency contends that the comments contain information

that is outside of the type of information requested by the Board’s order allowing the filing of

additional comments and that the information submitted is irrelevant. The Agency maintains

that the information in the Ammonia Group’s supplemental comment was available prior to the

filing of the supplemental comment. The Agency also maintains that portions of the comments

are hearsay testimony and therefore should be stricken.

On June 3, 1996, the Ammonia Group filed a response to the Agency’s motion. The

Ammonia Group notes that this proceeding is at the pre-First Notice stage and therefore the

record is still open. While the Ammonia Group recognizes that the information regarding the

teleconferences represents hearsay, it argues that the information is admissible in that it is

relevant and non-repetitious. The Ammonia Group also observes that this type of information

This report was attached to the Ammonia Group’s Post-hearing Comments (PC#4(B)). On

May 2, 1996, the Board denied the Agency’s motion to strike the Wisconsin Report.

does not differ in nature from information

concerning USEPA policy submitted in this

proceeding by the Agency.

On July 8, 1996, the Illinois Steel Group (Steel Group) filed a response to the motion

to strike. The Steel Group argues that the conversations between Mr. Cunningham and the

USEPA do not constitute inadmissible hearsay. The Steel Group contends that this is not

hearsay since Mr. Cunningham has personal knowledge of the conversations, and the question

of whether the content of the conversation is fact is an area for further investigation in this

rulemaking. The Steel Group also notes that striking this comment will result in material

prejudice to the dischargers impacted by the rule in that substantial expenditures will be

required to comply with the standard that may not be necessary.

On July 17, 1996, the Agency filed a motion to file a reply along with a reply to the

Ammonia Group’s response. The Board grants the Agency leave to file a reply and accepts

the reply filed by the Agency. The Agency recognizes the fact that these proceedings are not

closed but believes that the comments filed were to summarize the positions of the participants

and not to present new information. The Agency maintains that the summary of the

conversations represents hearsay and should not be allowed in a regulatory proceeding. In

addition the Agency differentiate these conversations from other information on USEPA policy

presented in this proceeding.

The Board denies the Agency’s motion to strike the supplemental comments of the

Ammonia Group. The Board will include the supplemental comments of the Ammonia Group

as filed as part of the record to be considered by the Board in this rulemaking. Section

102.282 allows for all information that is relevant and not repetitious to be entered into the

record of a rulemaking. The Board also notes that the information was submitted in a public

comment and not as sworn testimony. The Board will consider the comment as filed, giving it

the appropriate weight in this matter.

DISCUSSION

The Board recognizes the concern among some of the participants in this matter that for

some special uses, particularly the support of salmonid fish populations, the ammonia

standards herein proposed may not be sufficient to support the special use. However, it must

also be recognized that the General Use Water Quality Standards are intended to apply to

general waters of the State, and are accordingly an inappropriate vehicle to address support of

very special, and geographically-restricted needs. The Board observes that it has long utilized

special standards for special needs,

and that it would always entertain proposals to utilize this

concept to give necessary protection to any Illinois waters.

The Board's observes that it maintains a special section in its water quality rules titled "Water

Use Designations and Site Specific Water Quality Standards" at 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 303. The

Board promulgates the standards that are necessary to support special uses.

Significant Figures

The number of significant digits in the ammonia standards is no longer at issue in this

matter since the new proposal submitted by the Agency did not contain levels to three

significant digits. However, the Board offers the following comments on this issue.

As regards the dispute over the number of significant figures to be used in specifying

the ammonia standards, the Board is convinced that three significant figures is not in the

instant circumstance justified, given the statistical errors of rounding and analysis.

Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (18th ed.) discusses

the relative error and relative standard deviation between laboratories and between method for

-N analysis. Depending on the analytical method and the ammonia nitrogen concentration

present, relative errors to the test range from 0% to 20.0%. Relative standard deviations

ranged from 5.3% to 69.8%. In some cases the low relative error between laboratories is

easily explained by the high relative standard deviation found within laboratories. Given that

standard deviations often exceed 10% of the result, reporting more than two significant figures

cannot be technically justified.

Determination of un-ionized ammonia requires: 1) the collection of a representative

sample; 2) determination of sample temperature in the field; 3) measurement of pH; and 4)

analysis of NH

- N. Errors of sampling and analysis occur at each point. Statistical support

can only begin for the measurement yielding the least number of significant figures.

Measurement of pH is usually carried only to two significant figures. Measurement of

temperatures using field thermometers is seldom accurate to a third significant figure.

Accordingly, the statistical necessity of compounding method errors indicates that a regulatory

requirement for three significant digits is technically infeasible in this instance.

As an alternative to the addition of a third significant digit the Agency requested that

the Board include a narrative on rounding practices. However, the Agency did not specify the

contents of that narrative or include any reference on the standard rounding practices to be

employed by the Board. In addition, the Board recognizes that the rounding of analytical data

is an issue in other areas before the Agency and the Board and therefore any discussion of

rounding practices in this proceeding could have far reaching implications. Therefore, the

Board declines to elaborate on rounding practices concerning the data of the proposed

standards.

Effluent Modified Waters

The Board recognizes that the standard treatment methodology for ammonia N is

nitrification in a biological treatment plant, usually activated sludge. This treatment method

does not assure compliance with the chronic ammonia standards proposed at all times outside

of a mixing zone, especially in small streams. The Board further recognizes that additional

treatment would come at great cost, and with little or no benefit. The concept of effluent

modified waters is proposed to ensure that

well run treatment plants are not found to be

routinely in violation where no harm is done to the aquatic environment.

To obtain the relief intended by this section, a discharger must demonstrate that limits

of 1.5 mg/L in summer and 4.0 mg/L in winter of ammonia can be attained in the discharge,

that the existing level of treatment will be maintained, and that new or increased ammonia

loadings to the stream would meet nondegradation standards in the stream. Further, acute

ammonia standards must be met, and there can be no known uses of the stream that would be

adversely affected by the discharge. Once these demonstrations are made, the Agency may

designate a portion of the stream to be effluent modified waters.

Temperature Based Standards

While the Ammonia Group did not agree with the Agency that a temperature standard

would create an unnecessary burden, it withdrew the provision of its proposal for a

temperature based standard due in part to the confusion as to how the standard would be

implemented. (PC #4(B) at 14.) However, due to the amount of the record that pertains to this

issue the Board will comment on the provision.

The Board agrees that the addition of the temperature provision to the regulation will

result in unnecessary confusion. The Board finds that the use of temperature would be

applicable only in a limited number of incidents due to the limited monitoring of temperature

and the limited number of times that the water temperature would require a different standard

than that imposed by the date. The Board also believes that the use of temperature would

unnecessarily complicate any determinations of compliance with the regulations. The Board is

concerned with the variation in temperature that results from different measuring practices and

the possible use of various methods to obtain a more favorable temperature reading.

Additional Studies

The Board recognizes the utility of additional toxicity studies on ammonia nitrogen,

lead, mercury and other contaminants. The Board notes that these proposed standards are part

of the Agency's triennial review and therefore, the water quality standards in this proposal

may be subject to review in subsequent triennial reviews by the Agency. Information obtained

from any studies would be instrumental in the next review period and other proposals relating

to water quality standards.

The proposal by the Cities and IAWA for additional studies failed to provide sufficient

information on the types of studies to be performed, the parties responsible for the studies and

the use of the studies. The Board believes that it could not allow additional time for studies

without providing specific guidelines on the performance and use of the studies. The record

before the Board was insufficient for the Board to determine an appropriate testing procedure.

In addition, the Board believes that the specific facilities and waterways would require distinct

testing and sampling mechanisms that could

not be adequately addressed in a rule of

general applicability.

In addition, the Board notes that the delays in this rulemaking have provided additional

time for the participants to conduct studies and review compliance options. Several studies

have been undertaken during the course of this rulemaking, in particular the Board notes the

study of the Fox River presented by the Ammonia Group and additional data from dischargers

provided by IAWA. and the study by the Fox Metro Water Reclamation District.

Alternative Relief

The Board recognizes that the proposed standards will adversely affect some facilities.

However, relief for some facilities may be available in the provision of the proposal on

effluent modified waters. Also as noted by the Agency, compliance schedules will be included

in many NPDES permits to allow time for the facilities to implement the necessary

modifications needed to achieve compliance. In addition, the Board notes that relief may also

be available through variance, adjusted standard or site-specific rule from the Board.

In reviewing the petitions of the affected facilities, the Board finds that it is not

appropriate at this time to grant the types of relief requested. The proposal is a rule of general

applicability to the general use waters of the State. Virtually all of the participants in this

rulemaking agree that the rule is appropriate as a water quality standard. The affected

facilities are comprised of municipalities and industrial facilities that the Agency has informed

will be impacted by this rule. The Agency made that determination by calculating theoretical

ammonia limits for a hypothetical permit for these facilities using a draft algorithm, and

comparing the results to performance data from the plant effluents. The Board finds that the

assertion by those facilities identified as being affected by the proposed amendments that

additional relief will be needed is too tenuous a link for the Board to fashion relief for the

affected facilities within this rule.

Other Water Quality Standards

The Sierra Club has urged the Board to adopt water quality standards for zinc,

selenium, nickel and phosphorous. However, the record does not contain any proposed

standards for these elements nor any studies or information concerning the effects of these

elements. The consideration of water quality standards for constituents other than ammonia

nitrogen is not appropriate in this rulemaking. A proposal for rulemaking containing the

required information may be filed by any person pursuant to Section 102.120.

Implementation

While implementation of the proposed standards is not included in the proposal before

the Board, one cannot consider the proposal without considering the effect the standards will

have in determining permit limitations. Permit limits are derived by the Agency through the

use of water quality standards and are imposed

to maintain the quality of the waterway and

protect aquatic life.

In support of the proposal the Agency included the implementation guidelines that the

Agency follows. (Exh. 2L and 2M.) The Agency has asserted that it intends to adopt

regulations concerning the implementation of the water standards.

The Board recognizes that much of the opposition to the regulations by participants

centered around the implementation of the standards and the ultimate effect the standards

would have on ammonia nitrogen levels in permits. The Board believes that implementation

standards should be promptly promulgated by the Agency, allowing for input from the

regulated community. The Board also reminds the participants in this proceeding that any

person may submit a regulatory proposal for adoption of a regulation to the Board pursuant to

35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.120.

ORDER

The Board directs the Clerk to cause publication of the following amendments in the

Illinois Register for first notice:

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

302.205

Phosphorus

302.206

Dissolved Oxygen

302.207

Radioactivity

302.208

Numeric Standards for Chemical Constituents

302.210

Other Toxic Substances

302.211

Temperature

302.212

Ammonia Nitrogen and Un-ionized Ammonia

302.213

Effluent Modified Waters (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

SUBPART D: SECONDARY CONTACT AND

INDIGENOUS AQUATIC LIFE STANDARDS

Section

302.401

Scope and Applicability

302.402

Purpose

302.403

Unnatural Sludge

302.404

302.405

Dissolved Oxygen

302.406

Fecal Coliform (Repealed)

302.407

Chemical Constituents

302.408

Temperature

302.409

Cyanide

302.410

Substances Toxic to Aquatic Life

SUBPART E: LAKE MICHIGAN WATER

QUALITY STANDARDS

Section

302.501

Scope and Applicability

302.502

Dissolved Oxygen

302.503

302.504

Chemical Constituents

302.505

Fecal Coliform

302.506

Temperature

302.507

Existing Sources on January 1, 1971

302.508

Sources under Construction But Not in Operation on January 1, 1971

302.509

Other Sources

SUBPART F: PROCEDURES FOR

DETERMINING WATER QUALITY CRITERIA

Section

302.601

Scope and Applicability

302.603

Definitions

302.604

Mathematical Abbreviations

302.606

Data Requirements

302.612

Determining the Acute Aquatic Toxicity Criterion for an Individual Substance -

General Procedures

302.615

Determining the Acute Aquatic Toxicity Criterion - Toxicity Independent of Water

Chemistry

302.618

Determining the Acute Aquatic Toxicity Criterion - Toxicity Dependent on Water

Chemistry

302.621

Determining the Acute Aquatic Toxicity Criterion - Procedures for Combinations of

Substances

302.627

Determining the Chronic Aquatic Toxicity Criterion for an Individual Substance -

General Procedures

302.630

Determining the Chronic Aquatic Toxicity Criterion - Procedure for Combination of

Substances

302.633

The Wild and Domestic Animal Protection Criterion

302.642

The Human Threshold Criterion

302.645

Determining the Acceptable Daily Intake

302.648

Determining the Human Threshold Criterion

302.651

The Human Nonthreshold Criterion

302.654

Determining the Risk Associated Intake

302.657

Determining the Human Nonthreshold Criterion

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 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. 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; 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;

peremptory amendments at 10 Ill. Reg. 461, effective December 23, 1985; amended in R87-27 at

12 Ill. Reg. 9911, effective May 27, 1988; amended in R85-29 at 12 Ill. Reg. 12082, effective July

11, 1988; amended in R88-1 at 13 Ill. Reg. 5998, effective April 18, 1989; amended in R88-21(A)

at 14 Ill. Reg. 2899, effective February 13, 1990; amended in R88-21(B) at 14 Ill. Reg. 11974,

effective July 9, 1990; amended in R94-1(A) at 20 Ill. Reg. 7682, effective May 24, 1996;

amended in R94-1(B) at ________ Ill. Reg. _____________, effective

__________________________________

BOARD NOTE: This Part implements the Illinois Environmental Protection Act as of July 1,

1994.

Section 302.202 Purpose

The general use standards will protect the State's water for aquatic life (except as provided in

Section 302.213), wildlife, agricultural use, secondary contact use and most industrial uses and

ensure the aesthetic quality of the State's aquatic environment. Primary contact uses are

protected for all general use waters whose physical configuration permits such use.

(Source: Amended at 20 Ill. Reg. , effective )

Section 302.212 Total Ammonia Nitrogen and Un-ionized Ammonia

Total Aammonia nitrogen (as N: STORET Storet Number 3161600610) shall in

no case exceed 15 mg/lL.

b) If ammonia nitrogen is less than 15 mg/1 and greater than or equal to 1.5 mg/1,

then un-ionized ammonia (as N) shall not exceed 0.04 mg/1.

Un-ionized ammonia nitrogen (as N: STORET Number 00612) shall not exceed

the acute and chronic standards given below subject to the provisions of Section

302.208(a) and (b), and 302.213.

From April through October the Acute Standard (AS) shall be 0.33

mg/L and the Chronic Standard (CS) shall be 0.057 mg/L.

From November through March the AS shall be 0.14 mg/L and the CS

shall be 0.025 mg/L.

c) Ammonia nitrogen concentrations of less than 1.5 mg/1 are lawful regardless of

un-ionized ammonia concentration.

cd)

For purposes of this Ssection the concentration of un-ionized ammonia nitrogen

as N and total ammonia nitrogen as N shall be computed according to the

following equations:

U = 1.0013N

(1+10

)

U =

[0.94412(1+10

) + 0.0559]

and N = U [0.94412(1+10

)+0.0559]

where: X = 0.09018 + 2729.92 - pH

(T + 273.16)

U =

Concentration of un-ionized ammonia as N in mg/L

N =

Concentration of ammonia nitrogen as N in mg/lL

T =

Temperature in degrees Celsius

de)

The following tables indicates the maximum total ammonia nitrogen

concentrations (mg/lL as N) allowable pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) for

certain combinations of pH and temperature

AMMONIA NITROGEN

WATER QUALITY STANDARD (mg/l)

TEMP.

(

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

(41)

9.6

3.1

1.5

(50)

6.5

2.1

1.5

(59)

13.9

4.4

1.5

(68)

9.6

3.1

1.5

(77)

6.7

2.1

1.5

(86)

14.9

4.7

1.5

(95)

10.7

3.4

1.5

1) Summer (April through October) Acute- un-ionized ammonia 0.33 mg/L

6.5

7.0

7.5

7.75

8.0

8.25

8.5

9.0

12.8

15.0

13.8

7.9

4.6

1.7

15.6

15.0

11.2

6.5

3.8

1.4

18.3

15.0

9.8

5.3

3.1

1.2

21.1

15.0

13.2

7.6

4.4

2.6

1.1

23.9

15.0

10.9

6.3

3.7

2.2

0.9

26.7

15.0

9.0

5.2

3.1

1.9

0.8

29.4

15.0

13.1

7.5

4.4

2.6

1.6

0.7

32.2

15.0

10.9

6.3

3.7

2.2

1.4

0.7

2) Summer (April through October) Chronic-un-ionized ammonia 0.057 mg/L

6.5

7.0

7.5

7.75

8.0

8.25

8.5

9.0

12.8

15.0

7.4

4.2

2.4

1.4

0.8

0.3

15.6

15.0

7.0

3.4

1.9

1.1

0.7

0.2

18.3

15.0

4.9

2.8

1.6

0.9

0.5

0.2

21.1

15.0

12.6

4.0

2.3

1.3

0.8

0.5

0.2

23.9

15.0

10.3

3.3

1.9

1.1

0.6

0.4

0.2

26.7

15.0

8.6

2.7

1.6

0.9

0.5

0.3

0.1

29.4

15.0

7.8

2.3

1.3

0.8

0.4

0.3

0.1

32.2

15.0

5.8

1.9

1.1

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.1

3) Winter (November through March) Acute un-ionized ammonia 0.14 mg/L

6.5

7.0

7.5

7.75

8.0

8.25

8.5

9.0

0.0

15.0

9.2

5.2

1.7

15.0

14.1

8.0

4.5

1.5

4.4

15.0

11.3

6.4

3.7

1.3

7.2

15.0

9.0

5.1

2.9

1.0

10.0

15.0

12.8

7.3

4.1

2.4

0.9

12.8

15.0

10.3

5.9

3.4

2.0

0.7

15.6

15.0

14.8

8.4

4.8

2.7

1.6

0.6

4) Winter (November through March) Chronic un-ionized ammonia 0.025 mg/L

6.5

7.0

7.5

7.75

8.0

8.25

8.5

9.0

0.0

15.0

9.1

5.1

2.9

1.6

0.9

0.3

1.7

15.0

7.9

4.4

2.5

1.4

0.8

0.3

4.4

15.0

6.3

3.6

2.0

1.1

0.7

0.2

7.2

15.0

5.0

2.8

1.6

0.9

0.5

0.2

10.0

15.0

12.7

4.0

2.3

1.3

0.7

0.4

0.2

12.8

15.0

10.2

3.3

1.8

1.0

0.6

0.3

0.1

15.6

15.0

8.3

2.6

1.5

0.9

0.5

0.3

0.1

(Source: Amended at 20 Ill. Reg. , effective )

Section 302.213 Effluent Modified Waters (Ammonia)

a) Effluent modified waters are those waters or portions of waters that the Agency

has determined pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 309, Subpart A, to have the

potential to exceed, and are therefore not subject to, the chronic ammonia

standards of Section 302.212(b) downstream of an effluent outfall and outside of

any allowable mixing zone. The Agency shall not identify a waterbody as an

effluent modified water if it:

1) has uses known to be adversely impacted by ammonia as designated

under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 303.201 outside of any allowable mixing zone;

exceeds the acute standard of Section 302.212(b).

b) All effluent discharges to an effluent modified water must meet the requirements

of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.122(d) prior to dilution with the receiving water.

(Source: Added at 20 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

Section

304.101

Preamble

304.102

Dilution

304.103

Background Concentrations

304.104

Averaging

304.105

Violation of Water Quality Standards

304.106

Offensive Discharges

304.120

Deoxygenating Wastes

304.121

Bacteria

304.122

Total Ammonia Nitrogen (as N: STORET number 00610)

304.123

Phosphorus (STORET number 00665)

304.124

Additional Contaminants

304.125

304.126

Mercury

304.140

Delays in Upgrading (Repealed)

304.141

NPDES Effluent Standards

304.142

New Source Performance Standards (Repealed)

SUBPART B: SITE SPECIFIC RULES AND

EXCEPTIONS NOT OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY

Section

304.201

Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharges of the Metropolitan Sanitary District of

Greater Chicago

304.202

Chlor-alkali Mercury Discharges in St. Clair County

304.203

Copper Discharges by Olin Corporation

304.204

Schoenberger Creek: Groundwater Discharges

304.205

John Deere Foundry Discharges

304.206

Alton Water Company Treatment Plant Discharges

304.207

Galesburg Sanitary District Deoxygenating Wastes Discharges

304.208

City of Lockport Treatment Plant Discharges

304.209

Wood River Station Total Suspended Solids Discharges

304.210

Alton Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharges

304.211

Discharges From Borden Chemicals and Plastics Operating Limited Partnership

Into an Unnamed Tributary of Long Point Slough

304.212

Sanitary District of Decatur Discharges

304.213

UNO-VEN Refinery Ammonia Discharge

304.214

Mobil Oil Refinery Ammonia Discharge

304.215

City of Tuscola Wastewater Treatment Facility Discharges

304.216

Newton Station Suspended Solids Discharges

304.218

City of Pana Phoshorus Discharge

304.219

North Shore Sanitary District phosphorus Discharges

304.220

East St. Louis Treatment Facility, Illinois-American Water Company

304.221

Ringwood 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 (Repealed)

304.302

City of Joliet East Side Wastewater Treatment Plant

304.303

Amerock Corporation, 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 Ill. 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 Ill. 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 Ill. Reg. 8658, effective May 10, 1988; amended in R87-27 at 12

Ill. 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 Ill. Reg. 851, effective

January 9, 1989; amended in R85-11 at 13 Ill. 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 Ill. 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 R95-14 at 20 Ill. Reg. 3528, effective February 8,

1996; amended in R94-1 (B) at 20 Ill. Reg. , effective

BOARD NOTE: This Part implements the

Illinois Environmental Protection Act as of

July 1, 1994.

Section 304.122 Total Ammonia Nitrogen (as N: STORET number 00610)

No effluent from any source which discharges to the Illinois River, the Des

Plaines River downstream of its confluence with the Chicago River System or

the Calumet River System, and whose untreated waste load is 50,000 or more

population equivalents shall contain more than 2.5 mg/lL of total ammonia

nitrogen as N during the months of April through October, or 4 mg/lL at other

times.

Sources discharging to any of the above waters and whose untreated waste load

cannot be computed on a population equivalent basis comparable to that used for

municipal waste treatment plants and whose total ammonia nitrogen as N

discharge exceeds 45.4 kg/day (100 pounds per day) shall not discharge an

effluent of more than 3.0 mg/lL of total ammonia nitrogen as N.

In addition to the effluent standards set forth in subsections (a) and (b) above,

all sources are subject to Section 304.105 unless the Agency determines as part

of the NPDES Permit Program under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 309, Subpart A that

alternate effluent standards are applicable pursuant to subsection (d) of this

section.

All dischargers to effluent modified waters as defined at 35 Ill. Adm. Code

302.213, except for treatment works qualifying under Section 304.120(c) shall

have an effective NPDES permit with monthly average effluent limits of 1.5

mg/L total ammonia as N during the months of April through October, and 4.0

mg/L total ammonia as N at other times, as well as the following restrictions:

Dischargers achieving lower ammonia concentrations than given above,

yet not meeting the chronic water quality standards of 35 Ill. Adm. Code

302.212(b), shall maintain their existing level of performance consistent

with the facility's expected organic and hydraulic loadings for the

duration of their NPDES permit.

New or expanded discharges that increase ammonia loading to general

use waters and/or create effluent modified waters or portions of waters

must demonstrate compliance to the Agency with the nondegradation

requirements at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.105.

(Source: Amended at 20 Ill. Reg. ____________, effective )

SUBPART C: TEMPORARY EFFLUENT STANDARDS

Section 304.301 Exception for Ammonia Nitrogen Water Quality Violations (Repealed)

a) Section 304.105 shall not apply to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.212 for any source

during the months of November through March; except that during the months

of November through March no source shall discharge an effluent containing a

concentration of ammonia nitrogen greater than 4.0 mg/1 if the discharge, alone

or in combination with other discharges, causes or contributes to a violation of

35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.212.

b) Compliance with the provisions of subsection (a) shall be achieved by March

31, 1979, or such other date as required by NPDES permit, or as ordered by the

Board Under Title VIII or Title IX of the Environmental Protection Act.

c) After July 1, 1991, the exemption provided in this Section shall terminate.

(Source: Repealed at 20 Ill. Reg. ______________, effective )

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, hereby certify that the

above opinion and order was adopted on the day of , 1996, by

a vote of .

Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board