Section 302.1 05(b)(4)

Section 302.1 05(c)(2)
Section 302.105(0
• a now or increased permit limit subject to review pursuant to
Code 302.l05this Section.
limited to:
Recommended language:
Recommended language:
I)....
PROOF OF SERVICE

BEFORE

THE

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTEROF:

)

REVISIONS TOANTIDEGRADATION

)

R01-13

RULES:

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 302.105,

)

(Rulemaking-Water)

303.205, 303.206, and 102.800-102.830

)

NOTICE OF

FILING

Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk

illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100

West Randolph Street, Suite.

11-500

Chicago, illinois 60601

Marie E. Tipsord

Hearing Officer

illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph Street

Suite 11-500

Chicago, illinois 60601

And

the Attached Service List

PLEASE

TAKE

NOTICE

that I have today filed

with

the Office ofthe Clerk ofthe Pollution Control

Board the Comment of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, acopy ofwhich is herewith served upon you.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OF THE STATE

OF ILLINOIS

By:

~‘

Connie L. Tonsor

Associate Counsel

Division of Legal Counsel

DATED: October 5, 2001

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021 North Grand Avenue East

Post Office Box

19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

(217)782-5544

THIS FILING

SUBMITTED

ON RECYCLED PAPER

Service List

October

2001

Kay Anderson

American Bottoms RWTF

One American Bottoms Road

Sauget, Illinois

62201

Fredric P. Andes

Barnes & Thomburg

2600 Chase Plaza,

S. LaSalle Street

Chicago, Illinois

60603

KarenL. Bernoteit

IL Environmental Regulatory Group

215 E. Adams

St.

Springfield, Illinois

62701-1199

Chris Bianco

Chemical Industry Council

9801

W. Higgins Road, Suite 515

Rosemont, Illinois

60018

Christine Bucko

AAG

188

W. Randolph, 20th Floor

Chicago, Illinois

60601

Jack Darin

SierraClub, illinois Chapter

200 N. Michigan, Suite

505

Chicago, Illinois

60601

Albert Ettinger

Environmental Law & Policy Center

35E. Wacker Drive, Suite 1300

Chicago,illinois

60601-2110

Susan M. Franzetti

Sonnensehein Nath & Rosenthal

8000 Sears Tower, 233

South WackerDrive

Chicago, Illinois

60606

James T. Harrington

Ross & Hardies

150 North Michigan, Suite 2500

Chicago, Illinois

60601

John M. Heyde

Sidley & Austin

Bank

One Plaza, 10

So. Dearborn St.

Chicago, illinois

60603

Katherine Hodge

Hodge &Dwyer

3150 RolandAve., P0 Box 5776

Springfield, illinois

62705-5776

Richard J. Kissel

Gardner, Carton

&Douglas

321

N. Clark Street, Suite 3400

Chicago, Illinois

60610

Robert Messina

Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group

215

East Adams

Street

Springfield, illinois

62701

Sharon Neal

CornEd

Unicorn

LawDept.

125

S. Clark St.

Chicago, Illinois

60603

Jerry Paulson

McHenry

County

Defenders

804 Reginact

Woodstock, illinois

60098

Irwin Polls

Metropolitan Water Reclamation

Environmental Monitoring,

6001W. Pershing Road

Cicero, Illinois

60804-4112

Thomas

Safley

Hodge Dwyer Zeman

3150 RolandAvenue

Springfield, Illinois 62705

Cindy Skrudkrud

4209 W. Solon Road

Richmond,

Illinois

60071

Georgia Vlahos

Dept ofthe Navy

Naval Training Center, 2601A Paul Jones Street

Great Lakes, Illinois

60088-2845

Charles Wesselhoft

Ross & Hardies

150 NorthMichigan, Suite 2500

Chicago,

Illinois

60601

Stanley Yonkauski

IL. Department of

Natural

Resources

524

South Second Street

Springfield, illinos

62701

THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON

RECYCI~ED

PAPER

BEFORE THE

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

THE MATTER OF:

)

REVISIONS TO ANTIDEGRADATION

)

R01-13

RULES:

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 302.105,

)

(Rulemaking-Water)

303.205, 303.206, andlO2.800-102.830

)

COMMENT

NOW COMES the ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.

(“Illinois

EPA”), by its attorney, Connie

L. Tonsor, and hereby submits comments

in the above

rulemaking.

The Illinois EPA appreciates the Illinois Pollution Control

Board’s (“Board”)

efforts in this rulemaking to amend the water quality standard, Section 302.105,

antidegradation, formulate a mechanism for the designation of waters as

Outstanding Resource Waters and provide guidance on the implementation

process.

The

Board’s attention and efforts have facilitated an amended

antidegradation standard that the Illinois EPA believes will meet federal

requirements and will continue to assure protection of the water resources of the

State of Illinois, while recognizing the need for continued development and

utilization of the water resources ofthe State of Illinois.

The Illinois EPA welcomes the opportunity to make these supplemental

comments, which will focus on further refining the water quality standard and

implementation process proposed for first notice.

On June 21, 2001, the Board issued an opinion and order proposing the

revisions to the antidegradation

rules for first notice.

On July 13, 2001, the

amendments were published in the Illinois Register.1

On August 10, 2001,

the

Illinois EPA submitted a comment and testimony prior to the Board’s fourth

hearing, held on August 24, 2001.

The

Illinois EPA specifically incorporates the

comments dated August 10, 20012 into this comment (Attachment A) and

supplements the August 10, 2001

comments with the following:

GENERAL COMMENTS

The

Board in its

opinion

and order,

In the Matter

of:

Revisions to

Antidegradation Rules:

35!!!.

Adm.

Code 302.105,

303.205, 303.206,

and

102.800-102.830,

(R01-13, June 21, 2001),

incorporated the Illinois EPA’s,

Exhibit B, Part 354, Implementation Rules, into the amendment of Section

302.105 as Section 302.105(f).

The Illinois Environmental

Regulatory Group

(“ERG”) in its comments had requested that the Board

incorporate the procedural

rules because they were “inextricably” linked to achieving the goals of the

antidegradation standard.3

Several concerns arose when the Board proposed

inclusion of Exhibit B

into the water quality standard.

First, as previously

discussed

in August and

specifically incorporated into this comment, the

Illinois EPA proposes deletion of

reference to implementation of the antidegradation

standard

in the Section 401

the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1341, (“Section 401

of the CWA”) certification

Ill. Reg. 8739,

8750

(July

13,

2ó01).

2postmarked August 13,

2001.

~ See Public Comment 44 at page

10.

process.

The Illinois EPA

reiterates the need for further coordination of the

antidegradation review process with the federal permitting programs for which

the Illinois EPA will complete a certification of compliance with water quality

standards pursuant to Section 401

of the CWA.

Various portions of the

implementation process may confliát with federal permitting processes, and the

Illinois EPA must

coOrdinate its process with the primary permitting agencies.

Additionally,

Illinois EPA

rules, adopted pursuant to the authority of Section 4(m)

of the Illinois Environmental

Protection Act (“Act”), 415 ILCS 5/4(m), address the

Section 401 water quality certification process.

Therefore, references to the

implementation of the antidegradation

standard

in the Section 401 water quality

certification process should

be deleted from the first notice proposal as was•

indicated in the August 10, 2001

comment.

The Illinois EPA restates its

commitment to a timely review of 35

III. Adm. Code 395 and initiation of a

rulemaking to address the incorporation ofany needed amendments to

implementthe antidegradation

standard

in the Section 401

of the CWA process.

Second, as indicated

in paragraph 2 ofthe August 10,

2001

comment, a

portion of the proposed

part 354 should not be Board regulations.

The

ERG

comment and the Board’s first notice opinion noted that the manner in which the

Illinois

EPA received information from

applicant, revised that information and

made

known to the public were “inextricably linked to achieving the

antidegradation standard.” ~First notice proposal subsections 302.105(f)(2)(A)(i),

(f)(2)(B) and (f)(2)(C) simply addressed the Illinois EPA’s commitment to the

~ROl -13 at 24; Comment 44 at 10.

regulated

community to interact with

it in

a preliminary

fashion

prior to an

application

for a NPDES

permit or a Section 401

of the CWA water quality

certification request.

The

preliminary review does not result

a permit and

not

subject to appeal

outside of the formal NPDES application and denial process.

was basically a commitment to communicate with the

regulated community in a

timely fashion that would facilitate long-range planning by the regulated

community.

This communication

process does not in itself result in a permit.

not mandatory upon any applicant and is a primary example of an optional

procedure that might be utilized to facilitate a pre-permitting review.

Although

the Illinois EPA remains committed to proposing a pre-application review as

Illinois EPA rules, the Illinois EPA urges

the Board to delete these subsections

from the implementation

rules.

Additionally, the Illinois Environmental

Protection Act (“Act”) states the

basic authority of the Board to adopt water quality standards, effluent standards,

standards for the issuance of permits and standards and

procedures

necessary

to enable the State to implement the

NPDES program

and substantive

regulations as described in the Act, 415 ILCS 5/1,5/13, 5/27.

The Board may

adopt implementation directives for the Illinois EPA.5

Section 39 of the Act, 415

ILCS

5/39, provides that the Illinois EPA shall adopt such procedures

as are

necessary to carry out

its permitting responsibilities.

The pre-application process

is not

a water quality standard, effluent standard, standard for the issuance of a

~See generally,

In the Matter ofPermitting Proceduresfor the Lake Michigan Basin,

R99-8 (March 4, 1999);

Granite City Division ofNational Steel Company v. Illinois

Pollution Control Board,

155

111. 2d 149,

613 N.E. 2d 719 (1993).

permit or a procedure necessary to implement the NPDES permit program.

It is

not required to obtain federal approval for the antidegradation program revisions.

It was simply and remains a commitment from the Illinois EPA to interact with the

regulated community at a time and through a process that will facilitate

its long-

range planning.

Thus, the pre-application process, in which the Illinois EPA

committed to respond

in writing if the preliminary inquiry were in writing and to

respond verbally

the preliminary inquiry was averbal one, should

not be giving

the status of a sUbstantive environmental regulation or directive from the Board

placed upon the Illinois EPA in the implementation process.

The Illinois EPA has discussed

its concerns about the inclusion of the pre-

application process within first notice Section 302.105(f) with ERG.

ERG

indicated

its agreement that proposed subsections 302.105(f)(2)(A)(i), (f)(2)(B)

and (f)(2)(C). should remain Illinois EPA rules.

Third, under the organizational pattern set forth

in Subtitle C ofthe Illinois

Administrative ProcedureAct, 35 Ill. Adm. Code Subtitle C, the requirements for

permitting are set forth

in Part 309.

The

Illinois EPA reviewed first notice 35

Ill.

Adm. Code 302.105(f) and 35 III. Adm. Code 309.

Since the codification of the

environmental regulations, the Board has followed the practice of centrally

locating permit regulations by media.

Part 309, Subpart A contains the NPDES

permit requirements.

Centrally

loàating the Board’s regulations forthe permitting

process decreases the potential for confusion among the regulated community

and facilitates the permitting process.

The applicant need look in only one Part in

the regulations to find the requirements for the application, tentative

determination, notice,

and conditions of the permit.6

The Illinois EPA urges the

Board to continue its process of centrally locating permit requirements in Part

309 and relocate first notice subsection 302.105(f) to the applicable sections of

Part 309.

The Illinois EPA has provided complete text of its

proposal as an

Attachment B to this document.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

Specific comments on a section-by-section basis and suggested language

changes follow.

Section

302.1 05(b)(4)

The Illinois EPA notes that the deletion of the implementation of the

Section 401

oftheCWA certification process from the Board’s first notice

proposal, for the reasons stated above and in the August 10,

2001

comment, will

require an

adjustment as follows in the language of first notice subsection

302.105(b)~4).

Any proposed increase in pollutant loading

requiring an

NPDES permit toor a CWA 101

certification fof an ORW

must be assessed pursuant toa 35

Ill. Adm. Code 309.141(i)

subsection (f) to determine compliance with this Section.

Any activity requiring a CWA Section 401

certification for an

ORW must be assessed during the Section 401

certification

process to determine compliance with this section.

The Board followed this practice during its recent amendments to the water quality

standard and permitting process for the Great Lakes Initiative.

Section 302.1 05(c)(2)

At the August 24, 2001, hearing ERG presented testimony requesting that

the Board include a concept that the Illinois EPA’s assessment must be made on

a case-by-case

basis.

October 2, 2001, the

Illinois EPA, ERG, and the

Environmental Groups indicated that they would jointly propose the addition of

this concept to the Board regulations.

The Illinois EPA proposes adding a

sentence to subsection 302.105(c) and subsection 309.141(i) to indicate that the

assessments must be conducted on a case-by-case basis.

The Illinois EPA does

not support the addition of any other provisional or restricting language to first

notice Section 302.105.

Provisional or restricting

language would tend to make

less clear the water quality protection provided by the Board’s first notice

subsection 302.105(c).

Recommended language:

The Agency must assess any proposed increase in pollutant

loading that necessitates a new, renewed or modified

NPDES permit or any activityrequiring a CWA Section 401

certification to determine compliance with this Section

302.105.

The assessment to determine compliance with

this Section 302.1 05 must be made on a case-by-case

basis.

In making this assessment, the Agency must....

Section

302.1

05(d)(5)

During the August 24, 2001

hearing ERG

proposed that the

Board

add a

limited exception to first notice subsection 302.105(d) for new or increased

discharges of non-contact cooling water with chlorine as an additive

in those

circumstances when the non-contact cooling water is returned to the same

body

of water from which

it was taken,

is treated to remove residual chlorine levels and

complies with applicable

thermal standards.

The Illinois EPA clarified that this

limited

proposed exception was for increases in non-contact cooling water

situations in which the chlorine

had

been previously approved as an additive.

The Illinois EPA indicated that

thought this goal could be achieved

and may or

may not .require a change to the language of the proposal.7

The

Illinois EPA has

reviewed language and notes that the following language would present minimal

environmental impact,

due to the technical reliability of de-chlorination processes,

and provide a benefit to the regulated community:

Section

302.105(d)(5)

New or increased discharges of non-contact cooling water:

without additives, except as provided in subsection (d)(5)(B),

and returned to the same body of water from which

it was

taken as defined by 35

IlL Adm.

Code 352.104, provided that

the discharge complies with applicable Illinois thermal

standards; or

•

containing chlorine when the non-contact cooling water is

treated to remove residual chlorine, and returned to the

same

body of water from which

it was taken, as defined in

Ill. Adm. Code 352.104,

provided that the discharge

‘~

Transcript August 24, 2001, pp.

33-36,

complies with applicable Illinois thermal and effluent

standards.

Section 302.1 05(d)(6)

•

The Section 401

certification process does not use the phrase “general”

Section 401

certification.

In order to eliminate any potentialconfusion, the

Illinois EPA suggests that the phrase “general

CWA, Section 401

certification” be

replaced with the phrase:

“for nationwide or regional Section 404 of the CWA

permit.”

The Agency, the ERG, and the Environmental Groups also suggest that

the language be clarified

to better reflect the certification process when an

activity is subject to a nationwide permit.

That process will not involve an

individual certification, once the

Illinois EPA has agreed to the nationwide or

regional

permit.

Recommended language:

Discharges~permitted

under a current general NPDES permit as provided

by 415 ILCS 5/39(b) or a general CWA, Section 101

certification

nationwide

or regional Section 404 of the CWA permit are not subject

•

to facility-specific antidegradation

review; however, the Agency must

assure that individual permits or certifications are required

prior to all new

• pollutant loadings or hydrological

modifications that necessitate a new,”

renewed or modified NPDES permit or CWA, Section 401

certification that

affect waters of particular biological significance; or...

•

Section 302.105(0

In first notice subsection 302.105(f)(1), the phrase “for any proposed

increase in pollutant loading that necessitates a new,

renewed, or modified

NPDES permit

with a newor increased permit limit”

is utilized

by the Board.

The

Illinois EPA urges

the Board to delete the phrase “with a new or increased permit

limit” from the implementation rules.

The phrase restricts the antidegradation

assessment to a subset of parameters that may have a degrading

impact on the

receiving

stream and which are covered by the language of the antidegradation

standard

in first notice Section 302.105(a) through

(e).

Throughout this rulemaking the Illinois EPA has testified that it is the

increased pollutant loading that triggers the antidegradation

review.

Limits are

•not placed

permits for many parameters when the Illinois EPA has determined

that no reasonable potential to exceed a water quality standard exists.8

•

Nevertheless, an

increase in pollutant loading, over the loading that authorized

•

a prior permit,

may have

an impact on the receiving stream and should

assessed to determine

compliance with 35

Ill.

Adm. Code 302.105.

Thus,the

phrase, “with a new or increased permit limit,” reduces the scope of first notice

Section 302.105(a) through (e) by restricting an antidegradation assessment to

increases in pollutant loading only for parameters that have permit limits.

The

Illinois EPA notes that ERG and the Environmental Groups discussed the

deletion of this phrase.

ERG and the Environmental Groups agreed to the

Ammonia is an example ofa parameter for which an effluent limit would not be placed

in a permit once the illinois EPA has determined that no reasonable potential to exceed a

water quality standard existed.

deletion of the phrase with the understanding that the Illinois EPA clarify that it

the increase in pollutant loading that triggers the antidegradation assessment.

the Illinois EPA

has authorized a pollutant loading

in a prior permit, whether or

not the loading

is reflected in

a permit limit, but the applicant

has not discharged

up to that loading,

an antidegradation assessment would not be triggered by

increasing the loading to the

previously permitted

level.

When a limit is in

existing permit, increasing the pollutant loading to a level that does not cause

exceedence ofthe permit limit will not result in an antidegradation assessment.

Section 309.103 addresses applications for NPDES

permits.

It contains

requirements that are common to all permits and individual requirements for

specific activities.

First

notice subsection 302.105(f)(1) states the application

requirements for any proposed increase in pollutant loading that necessitates a

new, renewed or modified NPDES permit.

The Illinois EPA urges

the Board to

•

move first notice subsection 302.1 05(f)(1) to new Section 309.103(a)(5).

Please

note that first notice subsection 302.105(f)(1)(F) was deleted from the proposed

subsection 309.1 03(a)(5), application requirements.

This subsection in essence

•

required the applicant to provide any of the information sources identified

•

subsection 302.105(d)(3).

Initially, the Illinois EPA notes that the cross-reference

should have

been to subsection 302.105(c)(2)(C) of the first notice document.9

Although the Illinois EPA agrees that the applicant should provide additional

information if the Illinois EPA needs the

information, the references was to

~See August 10, 2001

comment.

information sources that the Board required the Illinois EPA consider in

completing the antidegradation assessment.

10)

Section 309.108

provides that the Illinois EPA will make tentative

determinations on permits that are subject to the public notice requirements.

That a determination would be made after an antidegradation

review and the

results placed

in a fact sheet in compliance with the public notice requirements of

Part 309 was part of the first notice subsections 302.105(f)(2)(D) and

302.105(f)(3).

The

Illinois EPA suggests adding

the following language to

Section 309.108:

For

any

proposed increase in pollutant loading that

•

necessitates

a new, renewed, or modified

NPDES

permit,

•

subject to review

pursuant

35 III. Adm.

Code 302.105,

the

tentative determination

of the

Agency

with regard to 35 III.

Adm. Code 302.1 05.

After its assessment pursuant

Section 309.141(i)

•

(f)(2)(A)(ii)review, the Agency must produce a written

analysis addressing the

requirements of 35 Ill. Adm.

Code

302.1 05 this Section and provide a

decision yielding one of

the following

results.

Ifthe

proposed activitydemonstration

meets the

requirements of 35 Ill. Adni.

Code 302.1 OSthis

Section, then the

Agency must proceed

with public

notice of the

NPDES

permit or CWA Section

101

certification and include the written

analysis as a part

of the fact sheet accompanying the public notice;

Ifthe proposed activitydemonstration-does not meet

the

requirements of 35 III. Adm. Code

302.1O5this

Section, then the Agency must provide a written

•

analysis to the applicant and must

be available to

discuss the deficiencies that led to the disapproval.

The Agency may suggest methods to remedy the

•

conflicts with the requirements of 35 Ill. Adm. Code

302.105th is

Section.

If the ~ro~osed

activitydemonstration does not meet

the requirements of 35 III. Adm. Code 302.lO5this

Section, but some lowering of water quality is

•

allowable, then the Agency will contact the applicant

with the results of the review.

Ifthe reduced loading

•

increase is acceptable to the applicant, upon the

receipt of an amended applicationdemonstration, the

Agency will proceed to public notice.j-oc

the reduced loading increase is not acceptable to the

applicant, the Agency will transmit its written analysisreview

•

to the applicant

in the context of a NPDES permit denial ec-a

•

CWA Section 401

certification denial.

11)

Section 309.113 addresses fact sheets.

First notice subsection

302.105(f)(3) states the contents of fact sheets specific to the antidegradation

analysis.

The

Illinois EPA proposes that the Board

shift first notice subsection

302.105(f)(3) into subsection 309.1 13(a)(6).

The substantive language has not

changed.

However, the Illinois EPA made citation form

adjustments.

12)

First notice subsection 302.105(f)(2) essentially states the permitting

procedures for discharges that propose an increase in pollutant loading

necessitating a new, renewed, or modified NPDES

permit, subject to the

provisions of 35

III. Adm. Code 302.105(a) through

(e).

The IllinoisEPA’s

completion of an assessment of the proposed discharge and determination of

compliance with the 35

Ill. Adm. Code 302.105(a) through (e) is,

in essence, a

term for issuance of an NPDES permit.

Section 309.141

states the terms of

issuance of NPDES

permits.

The special requirements of an antidegradation

assessment, similar to the procedures for permitting discharges in the Lake

Michigan

Basin, are more appropriately housed in a new subsection to Section

309.141.

The Illinois EPA proposes moving first notice subsection

302.T05(f)(2)(A), the requirement that the Illinois EPA conduct an antidegradation

assessment, to proposed Section 309.141(i).

The Illinois EPA

proposes moving

the contents of the written analysis to proposed Section 309.108(d), as the

contents of the written analysis and the process involved are part ofthe steps

necessary for the Illinois EPA to make a tentative determination regarding the

permit.

13)

The Illinois EPA

believes that relocating the portions of first notice Section

302.105(f) to 35

Ill. Adm. Code 309

not a substantive change in the proposal,

but is a structural change that will maintain a consistent

regulatory format.

The

Illinois EPA did

not propose the implementation rules as a portion of this

rulemaking but would have initiated agency rulemaking to keep the

antidegradation assessment procedures

in a separate part of the administrative

code.

Nevertheless, the Illinois EPA does not object to the regulatory

community’s expressed desire that the appropriate implementation regulations

be Board rules.

However, the

Illinois EPA feels strongly that the permitting

procedures should

be in the most appropriate part of the administrative code, 35

Ill.

Adm. Code 309.

•

However, a concern may exist due to the fact that Part 309 has not been

opened in this rulemaking.

The

Illinois EPA notes that the rulemaking is

still

First Notice and although the comment period will close on October 4, 2001, the

Board may reopen the first notice comment period for a limited time to allow

further comments on the appropriate placement of the implementation

regulations.

The Illinois EPA has been

in contact with the ERG and the

Environmental

Groups.

Both have indicated that they support the placement of

first notice Section 302.105(f) in the appropriate sections of 35

Ill.

Adm. Code

309, as suggested in this comment.

A complete text of the recommended

relocation follows in Attachment B.

Respectfully submitted,

October 5, 2001

Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency

1021

North

Grand Ave. East

P.O.

Box

19276

Springfield,

Illinois 62794-9276

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

By:

Connie

L. Tonsor

~1~

ATTACHMENT

•

Section

302.1

05(b)(4)

Recommended language:

13)Any proposed increase in pollutant loading

requiring

an NPDES permit

toor a-CWA 401

certificationfec an ORW

must be assessed

pursuant to a

III. Adm.

Code 309.141(i) subsection (f)to determine compliance with

this Section.

•

14) Any activity requiring a CWA Section 401

certification for an ORW must

be assessed during the Section 401

certification process to determine

compliance with this section.

Section 302.1 05(c)(2)

Recommended language:

•

The Agency must assess any proposed

increase in pollutant

loading that necessitates a new, renewed or modified

NPDES permit or any activity requiring a

CWA Section 401

certification to determine compliance with this Section

302.105.

The assessment to determine compliance with

this Section 302.105 must be made on a case.~by-case

•

basis.

In making this assessment, the Agency must....

Section 302.1 05(d)(6)

Recommended language:

Discharges

permitted undera current general NPDES

permit as provided

by 415 ILCS 5/39(b) or

a general CWA, Section 401

certification

nationwide or regional Section 404 of the CWA permit are not subject

•

to facility-specific antidegradation review;

however, the Agency must

assure

that individual permits or certifications are

required

prior to all new

pollutant loadings or hydrological modifications that necessitate a new,

renewed or modified NPDES permit or CWA, Section 401

certification that

affect waters of particular biological significance;

Section 302.1 05(d)(5)

Recommended language:

••

New or increased discharges of non-contact cooling water:

without additives, except as provided

in subsection (d)(5)(B)~

returned to the same body of water from which

it was taken

as defined by 35111. Adm. Code 352.104, provided that the

discharge complies with applicable Illinois thermal

standards: or

•

containing chlorine when the non-contact coolinawater is

treated to remove residual chlorine, returned to thesame

body of water from which it was taken, as defined in

35111.

Adm. Code 352.104. provided that the discharge complies

with applicable Illinois thermal and effluent standards.

Section 302.105(0(1) Recommended language:

(Note: smaller typeface

denotes existing regulatory language;

bold type face denotes new language.)

Section 309.103

Application

General

Application Forms

An applicant for a National Pollution Discharge Elimination

System (NPDBS) Permit shall file an application, in accordance

with Section 309.223 hereof, on forms provided by the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency (Agency).

Such forms shall

comprise the NPDES application forms promulgatedbythe U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency for the type ofdischarge for

which an NPDES Permit is being sought and such additional

information as the Agencymay reasonablyrequire in order to

determine that the discharge orproposed discharge will be in

compliance with applicable state and federal requirements.

In addition to the above application forms, the Agency may require

the submission ofplans

and specifications fortreatment works and

summaries ofdesign criteria.

Effluent toxicitymonitoring

In addition to the above application forms, the Agency may

require, pursuant to Section 39 ofthe Act, the installation,

use, maintenance and reporting ofresults from monitoring

equipment and methods, including biological monitoring.

The Agency may require, pursuant to Section

39 ofthe Act,

effluent toxicity testing to

show compliance with 35

111.

Adm. Code 302.621

and 302.630.

Ifthis toxicity testing

shows the effluent to be toxic, the Agencymay require

pursuant to Section 39 of the Act further testing and

identification ofthe toxicant(s) pursuant to 35 ill. Adm.

Code 302.210(a).

The following POTWs shall provide the results of valid

whole effluent biological toxicitytesting to the Agency:

AllPOTWs with design influent flows equal to or

greater thanone million gallons per day;

ii)

All POTWswith approved pretreatment programs

or POTWs required to develop a pretreatment

program pursuant

 to 35 Iii. Adm. Code 310.Subpart

In addition to the POTWs listed in (a)(3)(B), the Agency

may require other POTWs to submit the result oftoxicity

tests with their permit applications, based on consideration

of the following factors.

The variability ofthe pollutants or pollutant.

parameters in the POTW effluent (based on

chemical-specific information,,the type oftreatment

facility, and types of industrial contributors);

ii)

The dilution ofthe effluent in the receiving water

(ratio ofeffluent flowto receiving stream flow);

iii)

Existing controls on point ornonpoint sources,

including total maximum daily load calculations for

the waterbody segment and the relative contribution

•

ofthePOTW;

iv)

Receiving stream characteristics, including possible

orknown

 water quality

impairment, and whether

the POTW discharges to a coastal water, one ofthe

Great Lakes, or a water designated as an

outstanding

natural resource; or

Other considerations (including but not limited to

the

history oftoxic impact and compliance

problems at the POTW), which the Agency

determines could cause or contribute to adverse

water quality impacts.

The POTWs required under subsections (a)(3)(B) or

(a)(3)(C) to conduct toxicity testing shall use the methods

prescribed at 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 302.Subpart F.

Such

testingmusthave

been conducted since the later ofthe last

NPDES

permit

 reissuance or permit modificationpursuant

to Section 309.182, 309.183 or 309.184 for anyofthe

reasons listed at 40 CFR 122.62(a) (1994), as amended at

60 Fed. Reg. 33926 effective June 29,

1995,

 herein

incorporatedby reference (including no later amendments

or editions).

•

All POTWs with approved pretreatment programs

 shall provide the

followinginformation to the Agency: a

written technical

evaluation ofthe need to revise local limits pursuant to 35 Ill.

Adm.

Code 3 10.210.

BOARD

NOTE:

Subsections

(a)(3)(B) through (a)(4) are derived

from 40 CFR 122.21(j) (19944).

A permit application for any proposed

increase in

pollutant

loading that necessitates a new, renewed, or modified

NPDES permit, with a new or increased

permit limitoc-a

CWA Section 101

certification, must include, to the extent

necessary for the Agency to determine that the proposed

activitypermit application meets the

requirements of Section

35 III. Adm. Code 302.105, the following information:

Identification and characterization of the waters

affected by the proposed

load increase or proposed

activity and their existing uses.

Characterization must

address

physical, biological

and chemical conditions

ofthe waters

Identification

and quantification of the proposed

load

increases for the applicable parameters and of the

potential impacts of the

proposed activity on the

affected waters

The purpose and anticipated benefits of the proposed

activity.

Such benefits may include, but are not

limited to:

Providing a centralized wastewater collection

and treatment system for a previously

unsewered community

ii)

Expansion to provide service for anticipated

residential or industrial

growth consistent with a

community’s long range urban planning:

iii)

•

Addition of a new product line or production

increase or modification at an industrial facility:

iv)

An increase or the retention of current

employment levels at

a facility.

Assessments of alternatives to proposed

increases in

pollutant loading or activities subject to Agency

certification pursuant to Section 401

of the CWA that

result

in less of a load increase, no load increase or

minimal environmental degradation. Such

alternatives

include, but are not limited to:

Additional treatment levels including no

discharge alternatives

ii)

Discharge of waste to alternate locations

including publicly-owned treatment works and

streams with greater assimilative capacity; or

iii)

Manufacturing

practices that incorporate

pollution prevention techniques.

Any additional information that the Agency may

request.

Animal

Waste Facilities

An applicant for an NPDES Permit in connection with the operation ofan

animal waste facility shall complete, sign, and submit an NPDES

application in accordance with the provisions of35

111. Adm. Code:

Subtitle E, Chapter I.

Mining Activities

If, as defmed by 35

111. Adm. Code 402.101, mining activities are

to be carried out on a facility forwhich an NPDES Permit is held

orrequired, the applicant must submit a permit application as

required by35 ill. Adm. Code 403.103, 403.104 and 405.104.

the facilitywill have a discharge other than a mine discharge or

non-point source mine discharge as defined by

35 Ill. Adm. Code

402.101, the applicant shall also submit anNPDES Permit

application in accordance with Section 309.223 on forms supplied

by the Agency..

•

As provided by 35

111. Adm.

Code 403.101, except to the extent

contradicted in 35 Ill. Adm. Code:

Subtitle D, Chapter I, the rules

contained in this Subpart apply only to

35 Ill. Adm. Code:

Subtitle

D, Chapter I NPDES Permits.

As provided by 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 406.100, except to the extent

provided in 35 III. Adm.

Code:

Subtitle D, Chapter I, the effluent

and water quality standards of35 ill. Adm. Code 302, 303 and 304

are inapplicable to mine discharges and non-point source mine

discharges.

New Discharges

Anyperson whose discharge will begin after the effective date ofthis

Subpart A or any person having an NPDES Permit issued by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency for an existing discharge which will

substantially change in nature, or increase in volume or frequency, must

apply for an NPDES Pennit either:

No later than 180 days in advance ofthe date on which such

NPDES Permit will be required; or

In sufficient time prior to the anticipated commencementofthe

discharge to insure compliance with the requirements ofSection

306 ofthe Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C.

1251

et seq), or

with any other applicable water quality standards and applicable

effluent standards and limitations.

Signatures

An application submitted by a corporation shall be signed by a principal

executive officer of at least the level ofvice president, or his duly

authorized representative, if suchrepresentative is responsible for the

overall operation ofthe facility from which the discharge described in the

application form originates.

In the case of a partnership or a sole

proprietorship, the application shall be signed by a general partner or the

proprietor, respectively.

In the case ofa publicly owned facility,.the

application shall be signed by either the principal executive officer,

ranking elected official, or other duly authorized employee.

(Source:

Amended at 20

111. Reg.

5526,

effective April

1996; Amended at

Ill.

Reg.

effective

•

200fl

Section 309.108

Tentative Determination and Draft Permit

Following the receipt ofa complete, application for an NPDES Permit, the Agency shall

prepare a tentative determination.

Such determination shall include at least the

following:

A Statement regarding whether an NPDES Permit is to be issued or

denied; and

Ifthe determination is to issue the permit, a draft permit containing:

Proposed effluent limitations, consistent with federal and state

requirements;

A proposed schedule ofcompliance, jf the applicant is not in

compliance with applicable requirements, including interim dates

and requirements consistent with the CWA and applicable

regulations, for meeting theproposed effluent limitations;

A brief description of any other proposed special conditions which

will have a significant impact upon the discharge.

A statement ofthe basis for each ofthe permit conditions listed in Section

309.108(b).

For any proposed

increase

pollutant loading

that

necessitates a new,

renewed, or modified

NPDES permit, with

•

now or increased permit limit subject to review pursuant to

III.

Adm.

Code

302.105, the tentative

determination of

the

Agency with regard to 35

III.

Adm. Code 302.105.

After

its

assessment pursuant

to Section 309.141(i)

(f)(2)(A)(ii)review, the Agency must produce a written

analysis addressing the requirements of

35 III. Adm. Code

302.1

05 this Section and provide a decision yielding one of

the following results.

If the proposed activitydemonstration meets the

requirements of 35 III. Adm. Code 302.l05this Section, then

the Agency must proceed with public notice of the NPDES

permit or CWA Section 101

certification and include the

written analysis as a part of the fact sheet accompanying the

public notice;

If the proposed activitydemonetration does not meet the

requirements of35

III. Adm. Code 302.l05this Section, then

the Agency must provide a written analysis to the applicant

and must be available to discuss the deficiencies that led to

the disapproval.

The Agency may suggest methods to

remedy the conflicts with the requirements of 35

III. Adm.

Code 302.l05this

Section.

If the proposed activitydemonstration

does not meet the

requirements of 35 III. Adm. Code 302.1O5this Section, but

some lowering of water quality is allowable, then the Agency

will contact the applicant with the results of the

review.

If the

reduced loading

increase is acceptable to the applicant,

upon the receipt of an amended applicationdemonstration,

the Agency.will

proceed to public noticej-ei~

If the reduced loading increase is not acceptable to the applicant,’

the Agency will transmit its written analysisreview to the applicant in

•

the context of a NPDES permit denial or a CWA Section 101

certification

denial.

~d)

Upon tentative determination to issue or deny an NPDES Permit:

Ifthe determination is to issue the permit the Agency shall notify

the applicant in writing ofthe content ofthe tentative

determination and draft permit and of its intent to circulate public

notice ofissuance in accordance with Sections 309.108 through

309.112;

Ifthe determination is to deny the permit, the Agency shall notify

the applicant in writing ofthe tentative determination and ofits

intent to circulate public notice ofdenial, in accordance with

Sections 309.108 through 309.112.

In the case ofdenial, notice to

the applicant shall include a statement of thereasons for denial, as

required by Section 39(a) ofthe Act.

(Source:

Amendedat

ill. Reg.

,effective

2001

Section 309.113

Fact Sheets

For every discharge which has a total volume ofmore than 500,000

gallons (1.9 megaliters) on any day ofthe year, the Agency shall prepare

and,

following public notice, shall sendupon request to any person a fact

sheet with respect to the application described in the public notice.

The

contents ofsuch fact sheets shall include at least the following

information:

A sketch or detailed description ofthe location ofthe discharge

described in the application;

A quantitative description ofthe discharge described in the

application which includes at least the following:

The rate or frequency ofthe proposed discharge; if the

discharge is continuous, the average daily flow;

For thermal discharges subject to limitation under the Act,

the average monthly temperatures for the discharge;

The average daily mass discharged and average

concentration in milligrams per liter, or other applicable

limitations orprohibitions under applicable provisions of

the CWA or the Act or regulations adopted thereunder;

• 3)

 The tentative determinations requiredunder Section 309.108;

• 4)

Abrief citation, including an identification ofthe uses for which

the receiving waters have been classified, ofthe water quality

standards and effluent standards and limitations applicable to the

proposed discharge; and

Amore detailed description ofthe procedures for the formulation

offmal determinations than that given in the public notice,

including:

The 30-day comment period;

Procedures forrequesting a public hearing and thenature

thereof

and

.C)

Any otherprocedures by which the public may participate

in the formulation ofthe final determination.

For any proposed

increase ‘in pollutant loading that

necessitates a new, renewed, or modified NPDES

permit,

with a new or increased

permit limit subject to review

pursuant to 35

Ill. Adm. Code 302.105, the following

information:

A description of the activity, including identification of

water quality

parameters for which there will be

anwhich

will experience the increased

pollutant

loading;

Identification of the affected water segment, any

downstream water segment also expected to

experience a lowering of water quality,

characterization ofthe designated and current uses of

the affected segments and identification of which uses

are most sensitive to the proposed

load increase;

A summary of any review comments and

recommendations provided by the Illinois Department

of Natural

Resources, local or regional planning

commissions, zoning boards and any other entities

the Agency consults regarding the proposal

An overview of alternatives considered by the

applicant

and identification of any provisions or

alternatives imposed ‘to lessen the load increase

associated with the proposed

activity; and

The

name

and telephone number of a contact person

at the Agencywho can provide additional information.

b)

 TheAgency shall add

the name ofany person or group, upon request, to a

mailing list to

receive copies offact sheets.

(Source:

Amended at

•

Ill. Reg.

effective

‘

200l.~

Section 309.141

Terms and

Conditions ofNPDES Permits

SUBPART A: NPDES PERMITS

Section 309.141

•

Terms and Conditions ofNPDES Permits

In establishing the terms and conditions ofeach issued NPDES Permit, the Agency shall

apply and ensure compliance with all ofthe following, whenever applicable:

•

Effluent limitations under Sections 301

and 302 ofthe CWA;

Standards ofperformance for new sources under Section 306 ofthe CWA;

Effluent

standards, effluent prohibitions, and pretreatment standards under~

Section 307 ofthe CWA;

Any more stringent limitation, including those:

necessary to meet water quality standards, treatment standards, or

schedules ofcompliance, established pursuant to any Illinois

statute orregulation (under authority preserved by Section 510 of

the CWA),

necessary to meet any other federal law or regulation, or

required to implement any applicable water quality standards; such

liiñitations to include any legally applicable requirements

necessary to implement total maximum daily loads established

pursuant to

Section 303(d) ofthe CWA and incorporated in the

continuing planning process.approved under Section 303(e) ofthe

CWA and any regulations or guidelines issued pursuant thereto;

Any more stringent legally applicable requirements necessaryto comply

with a plan approved pursuant to Section 208(b) ofthe CWA;

Prior to promulgation by the Administrator ofthe U.S.

Environmental

Protection Agency of applicable effluent standards and limitations

pursuant to Sections 301,302,, 306

and 307 ofthe CWA, such conditions

as the Agency determines are necessary to carry out the provisions ofthe

CWA;

•

Ifthe NPDES Permit is

for the discharge ofpollutants into navigable

waters from a vessel or other floating craft (except that no NPDES Permit

shall be issued for the discharge ofpollutants from a vessel or other

floating craftinto Lake Michigan) any applicable regulations promulgated

by the Secretary ofthe Department in which the Coast Guard is operating,

establishing specifications for safe transportation, handling, carriage,

storage and stowage ofpollutants; and

Ifthe NPDES Permit is for the discharge ofpollutants from other than wet

weather point sources into the Lake Michigan Basin as defined at 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 303 .443:

•

1)

 Total

Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL5) and Waste Load

Allocation

(WLA)

 willbe established

through

 either the

LaJ~~W

 or a

RAP for an

 AreaofConcern. Ifa

LaMP

 orRAP

has

not been

completed and adopted, effluent limits shall be established

•

consistent with the other provisions ofthis Section, including, but

not limited to, Additivity, Intake Pollutants,

Loading Limits, Level

ofDetection/Level ofQuantification and Compliance Schedules.

When calculation ofTMDLs or a Waste Load Allocation is

•incomplete

and

 it is expected that limits established through other

provisions willbe supersededuponcompletion of the

TMDL

or

Waste Load

Allocationprocess, those limits shall be identified as

interimand the permit shall include areopener clause triggeredby

completion ofa TMDL orWLA determination. Any new limits

brought about through exercise ofthe reopener clause shall be

eligible for delayed compliance dates and compliance schedules

consistent with Section 39(~b)

ofthe Act 415

ILCS 5/39(b),

35 Ill.

Adm. Code 309.148, and

35111. Adm. Code 352.SubpartH.

35 Ill. Adm. Code

 302.590 establishes

an acceptable additive risk

level ofone

in 100,000 (lO(-5)) for establishing Tier I criteria and

Tier II values for combinations ofsubstances exhibiting a

carcinogenic or other nonthresholdtoxic mechanism. For those

discharges containing multiple nonthreshold substances application

ofthis additive standard shallbe consistent with this subsection.

For discharges in the LakeMichigan basin containing one

•

ormore 2,3,7,8-substituted chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins

or 2,3,7,8-substituted dibeazofurans, the tetrachioro

dibônzo-p-dioxin 2,3,7,8-(TCDD) toxicity equivalence

concentration

(TECTCDD)

shall be determined as outlined in

subsection (h)(2)(B).

•

The values listed in the following Table shall be used to

determine the 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity equivalence

•

concentrations using the following equation:

(TEC)TCDD

Sigma(C)~

(TEF)~

(BEF)~

WHERE:

(TEC)TCDD

2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity equivalence

concentration in effluent

(C)~

Concentration oftotal chemical x in effluent

(TEF)~

TCDD toxicity equivalency factor for x

(BEF)~

TCDDbio accumulation equivalency factor

forx

30

TABLE

Congener

•

TEF

BEF

2,3,7,8-TCDD

1.0

1.0

l,2,3,7,8-PeCdd

0.5

0.9

l,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD

0.1

0.3

l,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD

0.1

l,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD

0.1

0.1

l,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD

 0.01

0.0

OCDD

0.001

0.0

2,3,7,8-TCDF

•

0.1

0.8

l,2,3,7,8-PeCDF

0.05

0.2

2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF

0.5

1.6

l,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF

•

0.1

0.0

l,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF

0.1

0.2

2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF

0.1

0.7

l,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF

0.1

0.6

l,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF

0.01

0.0

l,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF

 0.01

0.4

OCDF

 0.001

0.0

C)

Any

 combination ofcarcinogenic or otherwise

•

 nonthreshold toxic substances shall be assessed on a case

by casebasis~TheAgency shall onlyconsidersuch

additivity forchemicals that exhibit the same

type

 ofeffect

and

 the same mechanism oftoxicity,based on available

scientific information that supports a reasonable

assumptionof additive effects.

3)

 Conversion factors fordetermining the dissolved concentrationof

metals fromthe total recoverable concentration.

A)

 The numeric standards for certain metal

parameters in 35

Ill.

Adm.

 Code 302.504 are established as dissolvedforms

ofthe substance since the dissolved formmore closely

relates to the toxicology literature utilized in derivingthe

 standard. However,mostdischarge

monitoring data used in

deriving aPEQ willbefrom a total recoverable analytical

method

and

 permit limits ifandwhen

established will be

set at total recoverable to accommodate the

total

recoverable analytical

method. The Agency will use a

•

 conversion factor to determine the amountoftotal metal

corresponding to dissolved metal foreachmetal with a

water quality standard set at dissolvedconcentration.

the

absence offacility specific data the following default

conversion factors will be used forboth PEQ derivation

and establishing WQBELs. The conversion factor

31

represents the portion ofthe total recoverable metal

presumed to be in dissolved form.

The conversion values

given

in the following table

are multiplied by the

appropriate total recoverable metal concentration to obtain

a corresponding dissolved concentrationthat then may be

compared to the acute or chronic standard.

A dissolved

metal concentrationmay be divided bythe conversion

factor to obtain a corresponding total metal value that will

generally be the metal form regulated in NPDES permits.

Metal

Conversion Factor

Acute Standard

Chronic Standard

Arsenic

•

1.000

Cadmium

0.850

Chromium (Trivalent)

0.3 16

•

0.860

Chromium (Hexavalent)

0.982

0.962

Copper

0.960

Mercury

0.850

Nickel

•

0.998

•

0.997

Selenium

‘

0.922

Zinc

0.978

‘

•

0.986

A permittee maypropose an alternate conversion factor for

•

any particular site specific application.

The request must

•

contain sufficient site specific data, or other data that

•

representative ofthe site, to identify a representative ratio

ofthe dissolved fraction to the total recoverable fraction of

the metal in the receiving waterbody at the edge ofthe

•

mixing zone. Ifa site specific conversion factor is

approved, that factor will be’ used for PEQ derivation and

establishment ofa WQBEL in lieu ofits default counterpart

in subsection (h)(3)(A).

Reasonable potential to exceed.

The first step in determining if a reasonable potential to

exceed the water quality standard exists for any particular

•

pollutant parameter is the estimation ofthe maximum

•

expected effluent concentration for that substance. That

estimation will be completed forboth acute and chronic

exposure periods and is termed the PEQ. The PEQ shall be

derived from representative facility specific data to reflect a

percent confidence level for the 95th percentile value.

No.

Samples

1

16

19

60 or

greater

These data will be presumed to adhere to a lognormal

distribution pattern unless the actual effluent data

demonstrates a different distribution pattern. Iffacility

specific data in excess of 10 data values is

available,

coefficient ofvariationthat is the ratio ofthe standard

deviation to the arithmetic average shall be calculatedby

the Agency. The PEQ is derived as the upper bound ofa

percentconfidence bracket around the 95th percentile value

through a multiplier from the followingtable applied to the

maximumvalue in the data set that has its

quality assured

consistent with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 352.410 as appropriate

for acute and chronic data sets.

•

PEQ

(maximum data point)(statistical multiplier)

Coefficient ofVariation

18.7

22.3

8.5

9.7

5.8

6.5

4.6

5.0

3.9

4.2

3.4

3.7

3.1

3.3

2.8

3.0

2.6

2.8

2.4

2.6

2.3

2.4

2.2

2.3

2.1

2.2

2.0

2.1

1.9

2.0

1.9

1.9

1.8

•

1.9

1;7

1.8

1.7

1.8

1.6

1.7

1.3

•

1.4

1.2

1.2

1.1

1.1

1.0

1.0

26.4

10.9

7.2

5.5

4.5

3.9

3.5

3.2

2.9

2.7

2.5

2.4

2.3

2.2

2.1

2.0

1.9

1.9

1.8

1.7

1.4

1.2

1.1

1.0

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

•

Q.,6

•

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.4

1.9

2.6

3.6

6.2

8.0

10.1

12.6

15.5

1.3

1.6

2.0

2.5

3.1

•

3.8

4.6

5.4

6.4

7.4

1.2

1.5

1.8

2.1

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.6

5.2

1.2

1.4

1.7

1.9

2.2

2.6

2.9

3.3

3.7

4.2

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.1

2.3

2.6

2.9

•

3.2

3.6

1.1

1.3

1.5

1.7

1.9

2.1

2.4

2.6

2.9

3.1

1.1

1.3

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

1.1

1.3

1.4

1.6

1.7

•

1.9

•

2.1

2.3

2.4

2.6

1.1

1.2

1.4

1.5

1.7

1.8

2.0

2.1

2.3

2.4

1.1

‘

1.2

1.3

•

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.9

2.0

2.2

2.3

1.1

•

1.2

 1.3’

1.4

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.1

2.2

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.9

2.0

2.1

1.1

1.2

1.3

•

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

•

1.1

1.2

1.2

•

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

•

1.7

1.8

1.8

1.1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.1

1.1

1.2

•

1.3

1.4

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.7

1.1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.6

1.7

1.1

1.1

1.2

•

1.3

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.5

1.6

1.6

1.1

1.1

1.2

1.2

 1.3’

1.4

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.0

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.0

1.0

1.1

1.1

1.1

•

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.2

1.2

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

•

1.0

1.0

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.O

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

Ifthe PEQ is less than or equal to the water quality

standard,

there is no reasonable potential and no

limit will be established in the permit.

ii)

Ifthe PEQ is more than thewater quality standard,

the Agency will proceed to consideration ofdilution

•

and mixing pursuant to

subsection

(h)(5).

If facility-specific data of 10 or less data values is

•

available, an alternative PEQ shall be derived using the

table in subsection (h)(4)(A) assuming a coefficient of

variation of 0.6, applied to the maximum value in the data

set that has its quality assured consistent with 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 352.410.

Ifthe PEQ is less than or equal to the water quality

standard, there is no reasonable potential and no

limit will be established in the permit.

ii)

Ifthe PEQ exceeds the water quality standard, an

alternative PEQ will be calculated using the

maximum value in the data set and a multiplier of

1.4. Ifthe alternative PEQ also exceeds the water

quality standard, the Agency will proceed to

consider dilution and mixing pursuant to subsection

(h)(5).

iii)

Ifthe PEQ exceeds the water quality standardbut

the alternative PEQ is less thanor equal to the

standard, the Agencywill either proceed to consider

dilution and mixing pursuant to

subsection

(h)(5),

will incorporate a monitoring requirement and

reopenerclause to reassess the potential to exceed,

within a specified time schedule, not to exceed one

year. In

determining

which ofthese options to use

•

in any individual application, the Agency shall

consider the operational and economic impacts

the permittee and the effect, if any, deferral ofa

final decision would have on an ultimate

compliance schedule if a permit limit were

subsequently determined to be necessary.

The Agency shall compare monthly average effluent data

values, when available, with chronic aquatic life, human

health and wildlife standards to evaluate the need for

monthly average WQBELs.

The Agency shall use daily

effluent datavalues to determine whether a potential exists

to exceed acute aquatic life water quality standards.

The Agency may apply other scientifically defensible

statistical methods for calculating PEQ foruse in the

reasonable potential

analysis as provided for in Procedure

5.b.2

 ofAppendix F to40CFR 132, incorporatedby

reference at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 301.106.

Regardless ofthe statistical procedure used, if the PEQ for

theparameter is less than or equal to the waterquality

standard for that parameter, the Agency shall deem the

discharge not to have a reasonable potential to exceed,

and

a water quality based effluent limit (WQBEL) shall not be

required unless otherwise required under 35 Ill. Adm. Code

•

352.430.

 IfthePEQ for a parameter

is greater than the particular water

quality standard, criteriaor value

forthat parameter, the Agency

will assess the level oftreatmentbeing providedby the discharger.

Ifthe discharger is providing (or will be providing) a level of

treatment consistent with the best degree

 of treatment requiredby

35 ill. Adm.

Code

 304.102(a),

the

PEQ derived under subsection

(h)(4) shall be compared to a preliminary effluent limitation (PEL)

determinedby applying an appropriate mixing zone or a default

mixing zone to the discharge. Mixing opportunity and dilution

credit will be considered as follows:

Discharges to tributaries ofthe Lake Michigan

Basin shall be considered to have no available

•

dilution for either acute or chronic exposures, and

the PEL will be set equivalent to the water quality

•

standard unless dilution is documented through a

mixing zone study.

Bioaccumulative chemicals of concern (BCC5):

•

No mixing shall be allowed for new

discharges ofBCCs commencing on or after

December 24,

1997.

The PEL will be set

equivalent to the water quality standard.

ii)

Mixing shall be allowed for discharges of

•

BCCs

which existed as ofDecember 24,

1997 in accordance with the requirements of

111. Adm.

Code 302.530.

C)

 Direct discharges to the Open Waters ofLake

Michigan shall have a default mixing allowance of

2:1 for acute standards, criteria or values and 10:1

for chronic standards, criteria orvalues if the

discharge configuration indicates that the effluent

readily and rapidlymixes with the receiving waters.

Ifready and rapid mixing is in doubt the Agency

shall deny any default dilution ormixing

allowance

and require a mixing or dispersion study to

determine

the proper dilution allowance. Ifthe

discharger applies for more than the default dilution

or mixing allowance, it must submit a mixing or

dispersion study to justify its request. Whenever a

mixing ordispersion study is available, it shall be

usedto determine dilution ormixing allowance in

lieu ofthe default allowance.

Preliminary effluent limitations calculations.

(A)

The

preliminary

effluent limitation (PEL) is

calculated in a

simple massbalance

approach reflecting the dilution

allowance established in

 subsection

(h)(5):

WQS

(Qe)(PEL)+

(Qd)(Cd)

PEL

WQS(Qe

Qd)

(Qd)(Cd)

/ Qe

WHERE:

WQS

applicable water quality standard, criteria or value

effluent flowrate

allowable dilution flowrate

background pollutant concentration in dilution water

The representative background concentration ofpollutants

to develop TMDLs and WLAs calculated in the absence of

a TMDL shall be established as follows:

“Background” represents all pollutant loadings,

•

specifically loadings that flow from upstream

waters into the specified watershed, water body, or

water body segment for which a TMDL or WLA in

the absence ofa TMDL is being developed and

enter the specified watershed, waterbody, or water

body segment through atmospheric deposition,

36

chemical reaction, or sediment release or

resuspension.

(ii)

When determiningwhat available data are

acceptable foruse in

calculating background, the

Agency shall use its best professional judgment,

including consideration ofthe sampling location

and the reliability of the data through comparison,

in part, to detection and quantification levels.

When

data in more than

ofthe data sets or categories

•

described in subsection (h)(6)(B)(iii) exists, best

professionaljudgment shall be used to select the

data that most accurately reflects or estimates

background concentrations.

Pollutant degradation

•

and transport information may be consideredwhen

using pollutantloading data to estimate a water

column concentration.

(iii)

The representative background concentration for a

pollutant in the specified watershed, water body, or

•

water body segment shallbe established on a case-

by-case basis as the geometric mean of:

acceptable

water column data; water column concentrations

estimated through use ofacceptable caged or

•

resident fish tissue data; or water colunm

concentrations estimated throughthe use of

acceptable orprojected pollutant loading data.

•When determining the geometric mean ofthe data

for a pollutant that includes values both above and

below the ‘detection level, commonly accepted

statistical techniques shall be used to evaluate the

data.

Ifall ofthe acceptable datain a data set are

•

below the detection level for a pollutant, then all the

data for the pollutant in that data set shall be

assumed to be zero.

‘

Water quality based effluent limitations.

Ifthe PEQ

is less than or equal to the PEL, it will be

concluded that there is no reasonable potential to exceed.

Under such circumstances a permit limit for that

contaminant will not be

set unless otherwise justified under

one or more provisions of35

Ill,. Adm. Code 352.430.

Ifthe PEQ is equal to or greater than the PEL, and the PEQ

was calculated using a data set ofmore than 10 values, a

•

water quality based effluent limitation (WQBEL) will be

included in the

permit.

If thePEQwas calculated using a

data set of less than or equal to 10 values, and the

alternative PEQ calculated under subsection

(h)(4)(B)

also

exceeds thePEL, aWQBEL willbe included in the permit.

C)

 IfthePEQwas calculated using

a data set ofless than

or

equal to 10 values,

and

 thePEQ is greater thanthePELbut

the alternative PEQ is

less than the PEL, the Agencywill

either establish aWQBEL in thepermit or incorporate a

monitoring requirement andreopenerclause to reassess

potential to exceed within a specified timeschedule, not to

exceedone year. In determining which ofthese

options to

use in any

individual application, the Agency shall consider

the operational and economic impacts on the permittee

and

•

the effect, if any, deferral of a final decision would have on

•

an ultimate compliance schedule if a permit limit were

•

subsequently determined to be necessary.

•

D),

The WQBEL will be set at the PEL, unless the PEL is

appropriately modified to reflect credit for intake pollutants

when the discharged water originates in the same water

•

body to which it is being discharged. Consideration of

intake credit will be limited to the provisions of35 Ill.

Adm. Code 352.425.

The reasonable potential analysis shall be completed

•

separately for acute and chronic’aquatic life effects. When

WQBEL5 are based on’ acute impacts, the limitwill be

expressed as a daily maximum. When the WQBELis based

on chronic effects, the limit willbe expressed as a monthly

average. Human health and wildlife based WQBELs will

be expressed as

monthly

averages. Ifcircumstances

warrant, the Agency shall consider alternatives to daily and

•

‘

monthly limits.

(Source:

Amended at 23

Ill. Reg.

11287, effective August 26,

1999)

If the

NPDES

permit is for a discharge that constitutes an

increase in pollutant loading that necessitates a new,

renewed or modified

NPDES

permit, the Agency must complete an antidegradation assessment

demonstration review in accordance with the provisions of this

&ubcection.to determine compliance with 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 302.105.

The

assessment to determine compliance with 35

III. Adm.

Code

302.105

must be made on a case-by-case basis.

The Agency must consider

the:

criteria

stated

in 35

Ill. Adm.

Code 302.105(c)(2); and

the following

information:

Identification and characterization of the waters

affected by the proposed load increase or ~ro~osed

activity and their existing uses.

Characterization must

address physical, biological and chemical

conditions

of the waters

Identification and quantification of the proposed

load

increases for the applicable

parameters and of the

potential impacts of the proposed activity on the

affected waters

The

purpose and anticipated benefits of the proposed

activity.

Such benefits may include, but are not

limited to:

Providing a centralized wastewater collection

and treatment system for a previously

unsewered community

ii)

Expansion to provide service for anticipated

residential or industrial growth

consistent with a

community’s long range urban planning

39

iii)

Addition of a new product line or production

increase or modification at an industrial facility

iv)

An increase or the retention of current

employment levels at a facility.’

Assessments of alternatives to

proposed increases in

pollutant loading

or activities cubiect to Agency

certification pUrsuant to Section ‘101

of the CWA that

result

in less of a load increase, no load increase or

minimal environmental degradation. Such alternatives

• include,

but are

not limited to:

Additional treatment levels including no

discharge alternatives

• ii)

Discharge of waste to alternate locations

including publicly-owned treatment works and

streams with greater assimilative capacity; or

iii)

Manufacturing practices that incorporate

pollution prevention technigues;and

Any of the information sources identified

in subsection

302.105 (d)(3)35

Ill. Adm. Code 302.105(c)(2)(C).

The Agency will conduct public notice and public participation

through the public notice procedures found

in 35

III. Adm.

Code

309.109 or CWA Section 401

certification denial.

Attachment

BEFORE THE

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL BOARD

•

INTHEMATTEROF:

•

)

REVISIONS TO ANTIDEGRADATION

)

R01-13

RULES:

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 302.105,

)

(Rulemaking-Water)

• 303:205, 303.206,andlO2.800-102.830

)

COMMENT OF ILLINOIS ‘ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

•

NOW COMES the ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

(Illinois EPA), by its attorney,

Connie L. Tonsor, and hereby submits comments in

the above rulemaking.

•

GENERAL COMMENT

•

The Illinois EPA appreciates the Illinois Pollution Control Board’s (“Board”)

efforts in this rulemaking to amend the water quality standard, Section 302.105,

antidegradation.

The Board’s attention and efforts have facilitated

an amended

antidegradation standard that the Illinois EPA believes will continUe to assure

protection of the waters of the State of Illinois while recognizing the need for

continued development and utilization of the water resources of the State.

As a

result, the Illinois EPA has very few substantive comments or concerns with

regard to Section 302.105 (a) through

(e) of the rulemaking.

Although the Illinois

EPA did not propose the Part 354 implementation

regulations to be a part of the Board’s water quality standard but proposed them

as the process that the Illinois EPA would follow in interacting with proposal

applicants, the inclusion of the draft Part 354 agency rules as they relate to the

NPDES permitting process is, as

it testified at hearing,

acceptable to the Illinois

EPA.

‘

However, the new subsection 302.105(f)

is applicable to the permit

process as well as to the review of activities requiring a Section 401 of the ‘Clean

Water Mt (“Section 401”), 33 U.S.C

1341, water quality certification prior to

federal permit issuance.

In contrast to the NPDES permitting program, the

Illinois EPA is not the delegated permitting agency for federal permits but must

workwith several federal permitting agencies inthe Section 401

certification

process.

The Illinois EPA needs tO coordinate the procedural aspects of the

antidegradation

review and the public notice aspects of the review with the

Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and

• Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The review and coordination with the federal

regulatory processes is

not complete.

Therefore,

it is important that the

• implementation procedures for the Section 401

certification remain Agency rules.

• Adoption

by the. Board of Section 401

certification procedures as a part of the

water quality standard

prior to full coordination with the federal agencies may

cause conflicts with the federal

process.

•

The Agency notes that

has developed agency prOcedural rules ‘forthe

Section 401

certification process pursuant to Section 4(m) of the Act, 415 ILCS

5/4(m), and

Section 401(e) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C.

1341.

It will work toward the

adoption of antidegradation assessment rUles as part of the revision of Part 395.

Many of the proposed agency regulations, now Section 302.105(f)

address day-to-day communication between the permit applicant and the Illinois

EPA.

The substantive requirements of the antidegradation water quality

standard are contained within Section 302.105 (a) through (e) ofthe first notice

document.

Several of the aspects of the day-to-day operation,

such as how

the Illinois EPA will respond to informal inquiries, seem inappropriate to be

contained within the water quality standard for the State.

These are the

operational aspects reaching a decision with regard to a permit.

The Illinois

EPA would suggest that the communicational aspects not be a part of the

Board’s regulations.

Additionally, the Illinois EPA, with regard to the National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) portion of Section

302.105(f), urges the Board to place the permitting procedures

in 35

III. Adrn.

Code 309., wh!ch addresses procedures for permit issuance.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

•

Section 302.105(b)(4)

The new subsection reference “must be,assessed pursuant to subsection

(f)”is.

applicable to the permit procOss

as well as to the review of activities requiring a

Section 401, water quality certification prior to federal permit issuance. ‘The

Illinois EPA must work with severai federal agencies in the Section 401

certification process.

The Illinois EPA needsto coordinate the procedural

aspects of the antidegradation review with those agencies.

Therefore,

important that the implementation process of the Section 401

of review remain

Agency rules..

The.Agency notes that his has developed agency procedural rules

for the Section 401

certification process pursuant to Section 4(m) of the Act, 415

ILCS

514(m),

and Section 401(e) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. §1341 for the CWA

certification.

•

‘

Recommended language:

•

“Any proposed increase in pollutant loading

requiring

NPDES permit or a CWA401

certification for an

ORW must

•

be assessed

pursuant to a subsection (f) to determine

compliance with this Section.

“Any activity requiring a CWA Section 401

certification for an

ORW must be assessed during the Section 401

certification

•

process to determine compliance with this section.”

•

Section 302.105(d)(6)

‘

•

The Section 401

certification process does not use the phrase “general”

Section 401

certification.

In order to eliminate any potential confusion, the

Illinois EPA suggests that the term “general” be replaced with the phrase:

“for

nationwide or regional Section 404 permits.”

•

Recommended language:

•

“Discharges permitted under a current general NPDES permit as

provided by 415 ILCS 5139(b) or ~ general ~WA,Section 401 certification

•

fornationwide or regional Section 404 permits are not subject to facility-

specific antidegradation review;

however, the Agency must assure that

individual permits or certifications are required prior to all new pollutant

loadings or hydrological modifications that necessitate a new,

renewed or

modified NPDES permit or CWA, Section 401

certification that affect

waters of particular biological significance; or~’

SectIon 302.105(f)

‘

The Illinois EPA has three overall comments with regard to Section

302.105(f).

•

‘

•

The Illinois ‘EPA strongly urges the Board to delete references to

the Section 401

certification process from the new Section 302.105(f) for the

reasons stated

in the testimony of Toby Frevert and incorporated into this

comment by reference and for the reasons stated

in the General Comments.

The Illinois EPA is currently reviewing the language of first notice

302.105(f) for the purpose of streamlining the language and placing the portions

that concern the substantive review process into

35111. Adm. Code 309.

The

Illinois EPA has not yet completed this process but will have language available

at the hearing

in this matter.

Preliminarily, the Illinois EPA believes that the

communicational aspects of Section 302.105(f), 302.105(f)(2XA) and (C),

should

be removed from

Board regulations.

Therefore, the Board regulations would

address reviews that are a part of the formal permit process.

However, the Illinois EPA notes that a lack of clarity in the’ language may

have occurred in the draft implementation

rules, which are now •Section

302.105(f) of the water quality standard.

It offers language corrections to

address the lack Of clarity in this comment.

The “demonstration review” language

•

developed when the proponent of the activity was required to provide information

thatdemonstrated that its proposal would

meet the requirements of the Section

302.105.

During the rulemaking process

and hearing process, the Illinois EPA

generally agreed that the “demonstration by the proponent” concept should

replaced with an “~ssessment

of the proposed activity” by the Illinois

EPA

concept.

The Part 354 language was not changed to reflect this agreement, and

the language in Section 302.105(f) should

be modified to reflect this change.

During the formulation of the antidegradation regulations, concerns

arose that the Agency not create a situation in which several

appeals of parts of

a permit decision or certification decision could occur.

However, the workgroup

and the Agency agreed that a need existed for the Agency to review projects

in a

preliminary stage and prior to the filing of an application.

This would facilitate

planning for the regulated community.

The Agency made a commitment to the

regulated community to conduct this preliminary review.

Therefore, in the Proposed Part 354 rules, the Agency set out a two-tiered

review and stated that it would initiate the review process

based on an informal

inquiry.

However, the Agency emphasized that no appeal of the decision

on a

preliminary inquiry could occuroutside of the permit denial or certification

process and the formality of its response would depend upon the formality of the

inquiry.

•

‘

•

‘

This two-tiered process

has become mingled

in ‘Section 302.105(f)(2)(B).

Currently, Section 302.1 05~f)(2)(B),

the cross-reference is to subsection

(f)(2)(A)(i).

Therefore, no immediate appeal

is available of the decision after

receipt of an application.

However, an immediate appeal arguably could

brought after the Agency’s assessment of an informal or preliminary inquiry

pursuant to Section 302.105(f)(2)(A)(i).

Originally, the Agency intended that

separate appeal of an assessment decision,

based

on a request for a review of a

project prior to the submission of a permit application or Section 401

certification

application or the formal permit application was available.

The propOnent could

appeal the decision only in the context of a permit denial or certification denial.

This prevented multiple appeals of issues in a permit.

Therefore, the Agency suggests that the Board change the cross-

reference in

Section 302.105(f)(2)(B) to “(f)(2)(A)”~The Agency further suggests

that a cross-reference be added

in Section 302.1 05(f)(2)(D) to subsection

(f)(2)(A)(ii).

The language would read:

“After its ~eview,

pursuant to subsection

(f)(2)(A)(ii), the Agency must produce a written analysis addressing the

requirements ofthis Section and

provide a decision yielding one of the following

results:”

•

‘

•

Recommended language:

In conducting an antidegradation assessm~nt

pursu.ant to this

•

Section, the Agency, must comply with the following procedures.

•

A permit application for any proposed increase in pollutant

•

‘

loading that necessitates a new, renewed, or modified

NPDES permit, with a new or increased permit limit9c-a

CWA Section 101

certification, must include, to the extent

necessary for the Agency to determine that the proposed

•

activitypermit application meets the requirements of Section

•

302.105; the following information:...

•

Assessments of alternatives to proposed increases in

pollutant loading or activities subject to Agency

certification

pursuant to Section 101

of the CWA that

result in less of a load increase, no load

increase or

minimal environmental degradation. Such alternatives

include...

The Agency must cOmplete an antidegradation assessment

demonstration review in accordance with the provisiOns of this

Section.

The antidegradation assessment pursuant to this Section

•

a part of the NPDES permitting process or the CWA Section

101

certification process.

However, applicants may initiate

communication with the Agency, preferably during the

planning stage for any load

increase.

Communication will

help assure the adequacy of information necessary to•

complete anconstitute an antidegradation

assessmentdernonstration and avoid or minimize delays and

requests for supplemental information during the permitting

stage.

The Agency assessrnentreviewprocess must be

initiated by:

I)....

ii)

receipt of application for an NPDES

permit issuance,

renewal or modification

or a CWA Section 401

certification.

A proponent seeking

an immediate review of the results of

the Agen6y’s assessmentrevieWpursuant to subsection

(f)(2)(A) must do so within the NPDES permit process or the

CWA Section 401

certification process.

After an_assessmentreviewpursuant to subsection (f)(2)(A)(i),

the Agency must consult with the proponent and respond:

in writing to written requests.

The written response

will include a statement by the Agency indicating

•

whether the proposed activitydernonstration,

based

upon the information provided or information acquired

by the Agency during the review process, meets the

•

criteria of this Section.

•

iii)~~~

•

After its assessment pursuant to subsection

~fl~)fli~,

the Agency must produce a written

•

analysis addressing the requirements of this Section and

provide a decision yielding one of the following

results.

If the proposed

activitydemonstration meets the

requirements ofthis Section, then the Agency must

proceed with public notice of the NPDES permit-er

CWA Section 101

certification and include the written

analysis as a part of the fact sheet accompanying the

public notice;

ii)

If the proposed activitydemonstration does not meet

the requirements of this Section, then the Agency

•

must provide a written analysis to the applicant and

must be available tO discuss the deficiencies that led

‘to the disapproval.

The Agency may suggest

methods to remedy the conflicts with the requirements

of this Section.

iii)

If the

proposed activitydemonstratioh does not meet

the requirements of this Section, ,but some lowering of

water quality is allowable, then the Agency will

contact the applicant with the results of th~

review.

the reduced loading increase is acceptable to the

• applicant, upon the

receipt of an amended

applicationdemonstration, the Agency will proceed to

public notice; or if the reduced loading increase is not

•

acceptable to the applicant, the Agency will transmit

its written analysisreview to the applicant in the

context of a NPDES permit denial or

a CWA Section

•

401

certification denial.

•

The Agency will conduct public notice and public participation

through the public notice procedures found

in 35

III. Adm. Code

309.109 or CWA Section 101

certification

Respectfully submitted,

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

By:

•

Connie L. Tonsor

August

10, 2001

•

Illinois Environmental ‘Protection Agency

1021

North Grand Ave.

East

P.O.

Box 19276

Springfield,

Illinois 62794-9276

STATE OF

ILLINOIS

COUNTY

OF SANGAMON

)

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, the

undersigned,

on oath state that I have

served

the attached COMMENT upon the person to whom it is

directed, by placing a copy in an envelope

addressed to:

Dorothy (3unn,Clerk

Illinois

Pollution Control Board

James

R. ThompsonCenter

100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500

Chicago,Illinois

60601

(FiRST CLASS

MAIL)

Marie Tipsord, Attorney

Illinois

Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois

60601

(FIRST

CLASS MAlL)

Kay Anderson

American BottomsRWTF

One American Bottoms Road

Sauget, Illinois

62201

(FIRST CLASS MAIL)

Fredric

Andes

Barnes & Thomburg

2600

Chase Plaza

South LaSalle Street

Chicago,

Illinois

60603

(FIRST

CLASS

MAIL)

KarenL.

Bemoteit

IL Environmental Regulatory Group

215

EastAdams

Street

Springfield, Illinois

62701-1199

(FIRST

CLASS MAIL)

Chris Bianco

Chemical Industry

Council

9801

West Higgins Road, Suite 515

Rosemont, Illinois

60018

(FIRST CLASS MAIL)

Page

1 of 2

Christine Bucko

AssitantAttorney General

188 West Randolph, 20thFloor

Chicago, Illinois

60601

(FIRST

CLASS

MAIL)

JackDarin

•

Sierra

Club, Illinois Chapter

200

North.

Michigan, Suite

505

Chicago, Illinois

60601

(FIRST CLASS MAIL)

Albert Ettinger

Environmental Law and Policy Center

East Wacker Drive, Suite 1300

Chicago, Illinois

60601-2110

(FIRST

CLASS MAIL)

Susan M.

Franzetti

Sonnenschein

Nath and Rosenthal

8000 Sears Tower

233

South Wacker Drive

Chicago, Illinois

60606

(FIRST CLASS MAIL)

James T. Harrington

Ross and Hardies

150 North Michigan, Suite 2500

Chicago, Illinois

60601

(FIRST CLASS MAIL)

John M. Heyde

Sidley & Austin

Bank One

Plaza,

South Dearborn Street

Chicago, Illinois

60603

(FIRST

CLASS MAIL)

THIS FILING IS

SUBMIT~TED

ON RECYCLED

PAPER

Katherine Hodge

Hodge Dwyer Zeman

3150

RolandAvenue

Post Office Box 5776

Springfield,

illinois

62705-5776

(FIRST CLASS MAIL)

Richard

J. Kissel

Gardner, Carton

and Douglas

321 North

Clark

Street, Suite 3400

Chicago,

Illinois

60610

(FIRST CLASS MAIL)

Sharon Neal

CornEd

Unicom

Law Department

125 South Clark Street

Chicago, Illinois

60603

(FIRST CLASS MAIL)

Jerry Paulson

McHenry

County

Defenders

804 Reginact

Woodstock, illinois’ 60098

(FIRST CLASS MAIL)

Irwin Polls

Metropolitan Water Reclamation

Environmental Monitoring

600 iWest

Pershing

Road

Cicero, Illinois

60804-4112

(FIRST CLASS MAIL)

Thomas

Safley

Hodge Dwyer Zeman

3150 Roland Avenue

Post Office Box 5776

Springfield,

Illinois

62705-5776

(FIRST CLASS

MAIL)

Cindy Skrudkrud

4209 West Solon Road

Richmond,

Illinois

60071

(FIRST CLASS MAIL)

Georgia Ylahos

Dept of the

Navy

Naval Training Center

2601A Paul Jones

Street

Great Lakes, Illinois

60088-2845

(FIRST CLASS MAIL)

Charles Wesselhoft

Ross and Hardies

150

North

Michigan, Suite 2500

Chicago, Illinois

60601

(FIRST CLASS MAIL)

Stanley Yonkauski

IL. Department of

Natural

Resources

524 South Second Street

Springfield,

illinois

62701

(FIRST CLASS MAIL)

and mailing it from Springfield, Illinois

on October

2001

with

sufficient postage affixed as indicated above.

SUBSCRIBED AN)

SWORN

BEFORE ME

this 5~”day of

October, 2001.

~‘~kg,1~

4)4,~•

Notary

Public

•

PAL”

STEPHEN C.

EWART

Notary

Public, State

Illinois

mission11I16I0~

Page 2 of 2

THIS FILING

SUBMITTED

ON RECYCLED PAPER