R~CEJVED

BEFORE THE

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARDCL~R~5O~1~

W\R

0 4

2002

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

STATE O~

~LL*i~ji~

)

Pollution Control Board

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO

)

AMMONIA NITROGEN STANDARDS

)

35

IlL Adrn. Code

)

NOTICE OF FILING

TO:

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021

North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield,

IL

62794-9276

Office ofthe Attorney General

Division Chief ofEnvironmental Enforcement

188 West Randolph Street

Chicago, IL

60610

See Attached Service List

Dated:

March 4, 2002

Roy M. Harsch

Sheila H. Deely

GARDNER, CARTON & DOUGLAS

321 North Clark Street

-

Suite 3400

Chicago, Illinois

60610-4795

(312) 644-3000

Division ofLegal Counsel

Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency

1021

North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box

19276

Springfield,

IL

62794-9276

R02-19

(Rulemaking

—

Water)

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

today that I have filed with the Clerk ofthe Illinois Pollution

Control Board

Testimony of James L.

and Robert J. Sheehan

a copy ofwhich is herewith served

TIllS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

---

RECEIVED

BEFORE THE

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARfl~.ERK’S

OFFU’?

M14R

0

4

2002

STATE

OFILLIINUIS

IN

THE MATTER OF:

)

Pollution

Control Board

)

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO

)

R02-19

AMMONEA NITROGEN STANDARDS

)

(Rulemaking

-

Water)

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 302.212, 302.2 13,

)

AND

304.122

)

TESTIMONY OF

JAMES

L.

DAUGHERTY

Background:

My name is

James Daugherty.

I

am employed

as District

Manager by the Thom Creek

Basin

Sanitary

District.

The

District

serves

100,000

people

in

six

communities

located

in

southern Cook

and

northeastern

Will

Counties,

Illinois.

The District’s

wastewater treatment

facility

provides

tertiary treatment

and

discharges

to

Thom

Creek,

a

tributary

of the

Little

Calumet River.

The Thorn Creek plant has been producing a nitrified effluent since May of 1977 when a

plant

addition

went

online.

I

have been the

certified

operator of the

facility since November

1976,

holding

an

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(Agency)

Class

I

Wastewater

Treatment Plant Operators License.

I

have

been

employed

by

the

TCB

Sanitary

District

since

1973.

My

educational

background includes both a bachelor’s and

master’s degree in

environmental

engineering

from

the University ofIllinois.

I have authored many technical papers

and presentations.

Two of the

papers

are especially relevant here.

I presented a paper titled “Fundamentals ofNitrification in

Activated Sludge” at the

1986 Conference ofthe Illinois

Association ofWater

Pollution Control

Operators.

In

1987,

I

authored

a paper

for the

Illinois

Association

of Sanitary

Districts

on

1

---

“Development ofEffluent Ammonia Limits for Plants Discharging to Low Flow Streams”.

I am

a member of and have held offices in many professional organizations.

My

professional

involvement

with

ammonia

toxicity

and

ammonia

water

quality

standards coincides with the State of Illinois’ efforts to

limit ammonia discharges.

In 1972, I was

studying under Dr. John Pfeffer at the University of Illinois, while he was actively involved with

the

state

in

the development of the

first

ammonia

water quality

standards.

My

research was

directed

by Dr.

Pfeffer

and

involved

evaluating the

environmental impacts

of a new de-icing

compound that consisted primarily of organic nitrogen compounds.

My research evaluated the

toxicity ofthat de-icing compound to

the aquatic environment.

The results demonstrated that the

primary toxic component was the ammonia nitrogen present in the de-icing compound, as well as

that produced during decomposition of the organic nitrogen compounds.

My research included

review of the literature

on

ammonia toxicity, the

same literature being used at that time by the

state to

propose the first

ammonia toxicity standard.

When I started with

the Thorn Creek Basin

Sanitary

District

in

1973,

the

District

was

conducting

pilot

studies

of

two

processes

for

nitrification.

I was involved in the review of that pilot work

and the recommendation

to install

activated

sludge

for nitrification.

That process

was designed,

constructed

and

went

online

in

1977.

In addition

to

my

experience

operating

a

nitrification system

for 25

years,

I

also

have

been involved in regulatory proceedings before the Board concerning

ammonia for many years.

I testified

on behalf of the Illinois

Association of Sanitary Districts

in the proceeding

R88-22,

(commonly known as the Winter Ammonia Effluent Exception).

My testimony documented the

limits

of biological

treatment

systems

to

achieve

ammonia

removals.

The

data I

presented

2

---

demonstrated that a minimum winter effluent of 4.0

mg/L

was consistent with the performance

ofnitrification technology.

I

was

also

active

before

the

Board

concerning

ammonia

effluent

and

water

quality

standards

in

the

Matter of R94- 1,

which

was

the prior

rulemaking

before

the

Board

for the

ammonia water quality

standard.

Again,

I presented testimony

and

comments

on behalf ofthe

Illinois

Association

of

Wastewater Agencies.

On

six

different

occasions

I

presented

either

testimony

or

comments

before

the

Board.

Part

of

those

comments

included

suggested

amendments

to

the

Agency’s

proposal,

which

were

eventually

accepted

by

the

Agency

and

adopted by the Board.

I welcome

this

opportunity

to

again provide information to

the Board

as it

deliberates

ammonia water quality standards.

I am here today

on behalf of, not

only my

own District, but

also to represent the Illinois Association ofWastewater Agencies.

Review Of Current Limits:

The Illinois Association ofWastewaterAgencies (IAWA) supported the current ammonia

nitrogen standards as they were being deliberated by the Board under R94-1.

IAWA did support

those

standards

as appropriate for adoption based on the fact that they represented the best peer

reviewed

understanding

of

ammonia

toxicity

available

at

the

time

and

that

the

proposal

contained floor

effluent limits of

1.5

mg/L

summer and 4.0 mg/L winter.

R94-l

was supported

even

though

the

understanding

of

ammonia

toxicity

was

incomplete.

First,

the

proposed

mechanism of ammonia toxicity did not

fit all ofthe data.

Secondly, the relative small

amount

of cold

temperature

chronic

test

data

further limited

the

deviations

of accurate

limits.

This

position was stated repeatedly by IAWA before the Board.

For example:

3

---

Daugherty, June

14,

1996, Page 4:

The chronic toxicity database

is

seriously incomplete.

The Agency

was unable

to

find

sufficient

data to

directly

calculate

a

chronic

standard

for

either

the

summer or

winter period.

Instead

they

were

forced to

use

an

acute/chronic

ratio.

The acute/chronic

ratio

was

developed

using

data

reflective of summer

conditions;

however,

the

ratio

was

also

applied

to

the

winter

acute

data

to

calculate

the

proposed

winter

chronic

standard.

The

number

one

recommendation

in

IAWA’s

first

comments

and

repeated

in

subsequent

comments

was

that

every effort

should

be made

to

produce

additional

chronic

toxicity data so that more

accurate chronic

standards

could be

adopted in

the

future.

In spite of the data limitations, IAWA supported revision ofthe ammonia standards

as presented

in R94-

1

as the previous standards were based on much older information.

IAWA

no

longer

supports the

current ammonia

standards

for two

reasons:

First,

the

regulations

have

not been

implemented

as

expected

when the proposal

was

presented to

the

Board.

The effluent modified water (EMW) provision, the key to

the effluent floor limits has not

been implemented for reasons discussed below.

Secondly, the “1999

Update ofAmbient Water

Quality Criteria for Ammonia” contains the most recent peer reviewed science and demonstrates

that the assumed mechanism for ammonia toxicity in the current regulations is incorrect,

as well

as the limits themselves.

IAWA understands its

key role before the Board in presenting information on

treatment

technology and current treatment practice.

Our

members are in a better position than anyone else

to

document

treatment

system

performance

and

treatment

system

construction,

operating

and

maintenance

costs.

We provided

information

on

nitrification

system performance

to

both

the

Agency and the Board in

R94-1.

Our information and the analysis ofthat

information made it

clear that compliance with

the current ammonia water quality standards

would produce effluent

limits

below

the

capabilities of best

available

treatment

technology.

Best

available

treatment

technology for ammonia currently

consists ofbiological nitrification.

The Agency

accepted our

4

---

analysis and agreed that reasonable treatability limits were

1.5

mg/L in the summer and 4.0 mg/L

in

the

winter.

Since

compliance

with

the

water quality

standard

contained

in

R94- 1

would

produce

effluent

limits

below

those

values

in

low

flow

streams,

the

Agency

developed

the

concept

of effluent

modified

waters.

The

effluent

modified

water

concept

was

based

on

the

Agency’s field experience, which showed repeatedly that there were no

indications of ammonia

toxicity

in low

flow streams downstream of facilities that were

operating with permit

limits of

1.5

mg/L in the summer and 4.0 mg/L in the winter.

For example:

Testimony ofRobert G. Mosher in R94-l, Page

17:

“However,

in its many years ofconducting

facility related stream surveys, the

Agency is

unaware of ammonia related toxicity problems causing a measurable

impact in streams receiving effluents from nitrifying treatment plants meeting

1.5 and 4.0

limits.”

IAWA

understood

the

effluent

modified

water

provision

to

be

a

widely

available

exception for stream segments below facilities that were discharging with permit limits of

1.5/4.0

mg/L.

The Agency’s testimony before the Board is

consistent with

that interpretation.

IAWA

repeatedly

expressed

that

understanding

in

comments

and

testimony

before

the

Board.

Two

examples are:

Daugherty, February 23,

1996, Page 2:

In previous

testimony,

IAWA has raised

a

number of implementation

issues,

which will not be

repeated here.

The most

important concept affirmed by

the

Agency’s proposal,

in

IAWA’s

view,

is

the treatability level being defined at

1.5

mg/L

ammonia

nitrogen summer

and

4.0

mg/L

winter.

The

treatability

levels

are

instituted

in

the

Agency’s

proposal

through

an

effluent

modified

waters designation (BMW).

Daugherty, June

14, 1996, Page

3:

IAWA urges adoption of EMW as proposed by the Agency, amended by IAWA

and

approved

by

USEPA.

IAWA has

testified that

EMW,

as

proposed

and

amended by

IAWA, will result in technologically realistic limits for nitrifying

facilities.

The structure of EMW was worked out through

repeated input from

5

---

IAWA,

the

Agency

and

USEPA.

BMW

has

been

designed

to

protect

the

aquatic

environment, comply with

the Clean Water

Act and

meet the needs

of

wastewater agencies.

Following

the Board’s

adoption

of R94-l

was the

implementation of the

EMW.

The

change of interpretation

of EMW

was

forced

on

the

Agency

by

USEPA

after

a

threatened

lawsuit if they approved the Board’s standards.

The implementation ofthe BMW provision was

changed from a straightforward exception process to a process that now parallels what would be

required to obtain an adjusted standard for a stream segment.

The requirements for obtaining an

effluent

modified

water

determination

are

delineated

in

Section

355.301

of

the

Agency’s

implementation rule, which states as follows:

The criteria for designation of an BMW include two

specific provisions:

the water

body

must

have

the potential

to

exceed

the chronic

standard

due

to

a permitted

discharge;

and

the

elevated

chronic

ammonia

nitrogen

concentration

will

not

adversely impact designated uses ofthe affected stretch ofthe water body.

BMW

status

shall be designated in the receiving water body if:

(a)

aquatic

life

expected

to

exist

in

the

receiving

waters

is

known

to

be

tolerant of the projected ammonia nitrogen

concentrations resulting

from

the

treatment

plant

effluent

in

conjunction

with

ambient

conditions.

Determination of the aquatic community expected to

inhabit the receiving

waters

shall be

consistent

with

stream morphology,

particularly

physical

features and hydrologic regimes ofthe waterbody;

(b)

the receiving stream does not exceed

the acute water quality standard of 35

Ill. Adm.

Code

302.212(b); and

(c)

the discharger

demonstrates

a reasonable

potential

to

exceed

the

chronic

ammonia nitrogen standard pursuant to Subpart B ofthis Part.

Paragraph

(a)

ofthis provision is

interpreted as requiring a very detailed analysis

ofthe stream

and its aquatic life.

The discharger is

expected to

prove that the higher ammonia concentrations

allowed by

BMW

status

will not

cause

any

impact

on

expected

aquatic life.

This

analysis

is

basically the same as that used in

establishing a water quality standard.

Putting it another way,

this

language requires the discharger to prove that the existing water quality standard is incorrect.

6

---

This

interpretation along with

the

1999

USBPA ammonia guidance

document,

made it

obvious to the wastewater community that it made more sense to revise the ammonia regulations

statewide than to do

it on a stream segment by stream segment basis using the BMW process.

To

my knowledge, no one has ever attempted

to obtain an

effluent modified water designation since

the promulgation ofPart 355

by the Agency.

Support For R02-19

During my

many years

of participation in the development of ammonia

control regulations,

I

have always

stated

support

for

adoption

of water quality

standards.

Ammonia

is

a

known

toxicant in the aquatic environment.

I have also stressed the critical importance ofusing

the best

available science as the basis for standards.

By best available science I mean the latest ammonia

toxicological research that has been through peer review and public review and comment.

I have studied the “1999 Update ofAmmonia Water Quality Criteria book for Ammonia”

as published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

I believe the proposal presented by

the

Illinois

Association

of

Wastewater

Agencies

under

this

proceeding

is

an

appropriate

implementation of the

criteria presented in

that

document.

Our proposal

is

a

straightforward

application ofbest available science.

I would like to make several points relative to that document.

First of all, the document

presents

ammonia criteria for both warm water

and

cold water species.

I believe Illinois

limits

should be based solely on the warm water species.

There are no indigenous salmonids in Illinois

outside Lake Michigan.

Secondly, it’s

important

to

understand that

the chronic toxicity values

contained in the proposal are 30-day average limits.

To date, all chronic limits have been applied

as

a 4-day

average

limitation.

IAWA’s

proposal

is

unique

in

that

it proposes three

levels of

protection: acute,

sub-chronic and chronic levels ofprotection.

This approach allows the chronic

7

---

limit to

be

developed

to

more truly represent long-term

exposure

to

ammonia toxicity impacts.

A 30-day chronic limit

also

is

more convenient when deriving monthly

average NPDES

Permit

limits.

With

a 30-day

chronic limit it

is

most

appropriate that

effluent

limits

be

derived from

stream flow, pH

and temperature

values representing

long-term

averages.

The appropriate pH

and

temperature would be

the

50th percentile values.

The proposal

is

also

innovative in that

it

contains

sub-chronic limits

as

a

more

convenient tool

for monitoring

and

enforcement of the

stream standards.

The proposed standard is unique in its recognition ofthe increased sensitivity of early life

stages

to ammonia.

The proposed winter standard allow higher concentrations ofammonia since

early life stages

are absent.

In past

regulations,

March has been included in the winter period.

While

it

is

true that

almost

no

early life stages

are present during

March

in most of the

state,

IAWA agreed to move March

from the winter period to the summer period to

eliminate the need

for site-specific evaluation ofthe possible presence ofearly life stages in March.

I believe the “1999 Update ofAmbient Water Quality

Criteria for Ammonia” represents a

significant step forward in the understanding ofammonia aquatic toxicity.

IAWA’s proposal is a

straightforward application ofthe criteria document.

It is

free of the exceptions,

exemptions and

special provisions that plagued previous ammonia standards.

Based on my knowledge of Illinois

streams, the proposed standard will result in effluent limits that are within capabilities ofcurrent

nitrification technologies in most cases.

Ifthere are cases where effluent limits are unachievable,

those dischargers would still have recourse to

a site-specific ammonia standard proceeding.

I

urge

the Board

to

adopt

IAWA’s

proposed ammonia standard.

I

am grateful

to

the

Board for this public

forum to provide for the open discussion ofnew standards.

Thank you for

considering my comments.

CHO2/22175 126.1

8

---

RECEIVED

BEFORE

THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

CLERKS OFr1r~E

MAR

04

2002

IN THE

MATTER OF:

)

)

STATE

OF iWNU~S

PROPOSED

AMENDMENTS

TO

)

R 02-19

PollutIon Control Board

AMMONIA NITROGEN STANDARDS

)

(Rulemaking

-

Water)

35 Iii. Adm. Code

)

)

WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL

CALLAHAN

ON BEHALF OF THE

ILLINOIS ASSOCIATION

Introduction

My name is Michael Callahan.

I am here on behalfofthe Illinois Association of

WastewaterAgencies (IAWA)

to petition the Illinois Pollution Control Board (Board) to

adopt

the

1999 United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) 1999 Update ofAmbient

Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia (1999 USBPA guidance)

(IAWA Exhibit 9 in this

proceeding) published in final form in the Federal Register on December 22,

1999

(Vol. 64, No.

245) as the basis for the ammonia nitrogen water quality standard for Illinois.

I am keenly aware ofthe uniqueness ofthe current position ofJAWA before the Board

advocating such a rulemaking.

Ordinarily this type of advocacy before the Board would be

undertaken by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency).

However, the Agency

was unable to develop this petition in a timely manner due to the severe time demands placed

upon its personnel by the many other issues simultaneously being considered in the area ofwater

pollution control within Illinois.

The IAWA has asked the Agency for advisement on the tenets

ofthis issue as well as approval ofthe petitionpresented to

the Board today.

The Agency has

been very helpful in this

regard, and we understand the Agency will offer supportive testimony

later in this proceeding.

The IAWA has elected to undertake the time commitment and cost of

1

---

approximately $70,000

to prepare the petition for rulemaking before the Board because ofthe

importance the IAWA places upon a protective and economically justifiable ammonia nitrogen

water quality standard for the State.

The importance to IAWA ofthe adoption ofthis USBPA criteria as the Illinois standard

is multi-faceted.

Later in this testimony I will elaborate upon these various facets as well as

explain the recent history ofthe ammonia nitrogen water quality standard rulemaking in Illinois

which has created our current situation.

Further, I will

share with the Board the steps in the

IAWA development ofthe proposed standard as well as justifications for key determinations

made in that development.

The IAWA is petitioning the Board to modif~’

Sections 302.212, 302.2 13

and 304.122. of

Title

35,

Subtitle C ofthe Illinois Administrative Code.

Also included with this action are minor

modifications to

Section

355,

but not submitted to the Board for approval.

Section

355

addresses

the Agency’s implementation procedures for this matter.

The Agency prefers,

and the IAWA

currently agrees, that this implementation procedure should remain within the jurisdiction ofthe

Agency.

However, the IAWA strongly emphasizes that the modifications

to

and ultimate

content ofSection

355

as currently proposed are of absolute essential importance to the

successful resolution ofa protective and equitable ammoniawater quality standard for Illinois.

Should the Board approve this petition absent a successful modification of Section 355, the

IAWA may return to the Board for action on this implementation procedure.

This, however, is

not the desired intent ofIAWA at this time.

My later testimony will illustrate this importance of

this position and elaborate upon the matter.

Following my testimony will be testimony ofDr. Robert Sheehan, Professor ofFisheries

and Zoology, Southern Illinois University;

Dr. David Zenz, consulting engineer with Consoer

2

---

Townsend Bnvirodyne Engineers, Inc., formerly with the Research and Development

Department ofthe Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago; Mr. Tim

Bachman, Director ofWaste Treatment Operations of the Urbana & Champaign, Illinois

Sanitary

District, Mr. Michael Zima Director ofthe Dekaib, Illinois Sanitary District and Mr. James

Daugherty, District Manager ofthe Thorn CreekBasic Sanitary District.

Each ofthese

individuals will provide testimony relevant to their area ofexpertise

and experience in critical

areas ofthis matter.

Background ofJ.

Michael Callahan

I have a Bachelor ofScience Degree in Biological Sciences and Environmental Health

(double major) from Illinois

State University, Normal, Illinois.

I further obtained a Master of

Arts Degree in Biological Sciences from the University ofMissouri, Columbia,

Missouri.

I

pursued Doctoral Studies at Illinois State University in Biological Sciences.

All ofmy graduate

studies involved nutrient cycling in biological systems.

I am a member ofthe Phi Sigma

Biological Sciences Honor Society.

I have been employed by the Bloomington and Normal Water Reclamation District

(BNWRD) ofBloomington, Illinois since 1973.

Since

1988 I have been the Executive Director

of the BNWRD.

The BNWRD and/or I have received awards for operational or program

excellence from USBPA, the Agency and various professional organizations during my tenure as

Executive Director.

I have held an Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Class I Wastewater

Treatment Plant Operator License since 1977.

I have authored and presented many papers on a

variety ofissues concerning municipal sector wastewatertreatment

topics.

I have been a member ofmany professional organizations and have held offices in many

ofthese organizations, including President of the Illinois Association ofWastewater Agencies,

3

---

President of the Illinois Water Pollution Control Operators Association, and Chairman and

Trustee ofthe Illinois Section ofthe Central States Water Environment Association. I have

belonged to

the Water Environment Federation since

Development History of the Current Illinois Ammonia Water Quality Standard

I ask the Board to bear with me in revisiting the complicated sequence ofhistorical

events that have resulted in the present ammonia regulatory picture in Illinois.

This history has

direct bearing on the standard I am advocating to be developed from the

1999 USEPA guidance.

This history is reflective ofthe importance to IAWA ofthe Board’s adoption ofthe proposed

ammonia water quality standard.

This

history also illustrates the overwhelming need, as the

Board is acutely aware, for adoption ofwater quality standards for Illinois that are founded on

complete scientific investigation,

that are economicallyjustifiable and that are technically

attainable.

The present ammonia nitrogen water quality standard forIllinois was developed through

Board Docket R94-1.

The rule was finally adopted in

1996 amidst considerable input and

compromise by all participating parties.

The original proposal ofR94-1

by the Agency was

derived from the 1984 USEPA National Criteria Document for ammonia.

The 1984

guidance

was modified to

consider ammonia toxicity of only warm water species indigenous to Illinois.

The Agency proposal also addressed the fact that the water quality standard derived from that

document would result in effluent NPDES

permit limits that pushed the limit oftechnical

attainability ofmany ofthe treatment facilities in Illinois, particularly in the winter season.

Mr.

Jim Daugherty, representing the IAWA in the R94- 1

proceedings, testified to

that point.

At the

Agency’s request prior to the R94-1

proceedings, the IAWA undertook a member survey for

nitrification capabilities ofexisting treatment facilities.

This survey consisted of two years actual

4

---

daily operating nitrification data collected

from approximately 45 wastewater treatment plants

within Illinois.

This survey, and its subsequent review by the Agency, was the partial basis for

the Agency testimony in R94-1

that

1.5

mg/L and 4.0 mg/L were the existing consistent levels of

treatment attainability for nitrification in Illinois.

The 1984 USEPA guidance

document proposed ammonia toxicity in a manner that has

since been found to

be errant.

The

1999 USEPA guidance subsequently addressed this error and

now considers ammonia toxicity through

a different mechanism than that used by the

1984

document.

Dr. Robert Sheehan will elaborate on this mechanism in his testimony today.

However, at this time I would like

to

offer a brief and simple explanation ofthe two different

toxicity assessments

to illustrate the difference in the subsequently derived water quality

standards resulting from each USEPA guidance document.

Ammonia

exists in aquatic systems in the form ofa dynamic equilibrium between the un-

ionized ammonia molecule form (NH3) and the ammonium ion form (NH4)

This equilibrium

is

very dynamic and is responsive to both temperature and pH.

Essentially, the mechanism

employed in the 1984

guidance document assigned all ofthe ammonia toxicity to the un-ionized

(NH3) ammonia molecule.

The assignment ofall such toxicity to the un-ionized ammonia form

ofthe equilibrium resulted in very low concentrations ofun-ionized ammonia being indicated as

necessary to

protect aquatic life.

The 1999 USEPA guidance assigns toxicity to total ammonia,

not just un-ionized ammonia.

The present water quality

standard in Illinois

is derived from this errant consideration of

the toxicity mechanism.

Since the ammonia equilibrium

is temperature responsive,

both winter

and

summer acute and chronic standards

were developed as a result ofR94-l.

The current

standard, when back calculated into NPDBS permit limits, does not present many difficulties in

5

---

terms oftechnical

attainability and

compliance during warm summer months

even though the

standard for such periods is much lower than that enacted for cold winter months.

Wastewater

treatment processes are much more efficient at the biological oxidation ofammonia at warm

temperatures than they are at cold temperatures.

The current summer standard resulting from the Board’s ruling in R94-1, in many

situations throughout the State, allows for NPPES permits

limits higherthan the monthly average

limit of

1.5

mg/L generally allowed within the State by the standard that preceded it.

Likewise

this proposed standard may allow for NPDES permit limits

for ammonia greater than the

customary

1.5

mg/L summer NPDES permit limit.

However, anti-backsliding constraints

generally result in previous permit limits being retained.

Consequently, these anti-backsliding

requirements will continue to provide a very conservative level of ammonia protection during the

early life stage present period.

The acute winter standard does not present many such compliance difficulties due to the

relatively high acute toxicitytolerance ofammonia as compared to the alleged chronic toxicity

tolerance.

The difficulty experienced with the current ammonia water quality

standard exists

when the winter chronic toxicitywater quality standard is back-calculated into winter NPDES

discharge permit limits.

The chronic toxicity standard is roughly equivalent to the monthly

average

standard contained in such permits.

The consideration by the

1984 guidance document

of all ammonia toxicity resulting from the un-ionized form ofthe ammonia equilibrium resulted

in the development ofunnecessarily low un-ionized ammonia standards.

Even though cold

temperatures drive the ammonia equilibrium toward the ionized (NH4~)

form ofthe equilibrium,

the mistaken assignment of all ammonia toxicity to the un-ionized form resulted in winter

6

---

chronic NPDES permit limits that were at or below the limit of technical

attainability in many

wastewater treatment processes in place throughout Illinois.

In recognition ofthis dilemma, the Agency proposed, and the Board approved, a concept

in R94-1

called effluent modified waters (BMW).

The BMW concept allows for exceedance of

the chronic toxicity water quality standard downstream ofan NPDES permitted discharge to the

distance necessary to achieve compliance

with the chronic toxicity standard by depletion of

ammonia through the natural nitrification capability ofthe receiving stream.

Discharges into

such an

EMW were not allowed to

exceed a monthly average NPDES permit limit of 4.0 mg/i

ammonia during the winter season (November through March) and

1.5

mg/i

during the summer

season (April through October).

An additional condition ofBMW designation required that no

ammonia impairment exist in the water body so designated.

An BMW designation did not allow

dischargers relief from the acute toxicity standard.

As discussed previously, the only reliefreally

needed, and therefore requested, by the regulated community was from the very low winter

chronic standard.

The BMW concept had been approved by USEPA prior to the R94-i proceeding.

The

Board action in R94-i

approved the ammonia nitrogen water quality standard and the concept of

effluent modified waters.

The Board action did not address the implementation policy

concerning either the standard or the BMW designation.

The Agency preferred at that time to

retain development ofthese policies as their own implementation rules and codify them through

the Joint Committee on Administrative Rulemaking (JCAR).

Intestimony during R94-i, the

Agency indicated that no biological sampling in waters thought to qualify for EMW

status had

indicated biological ammonia impairment.

Therefore the interpretation of the Board rule by the

Agency and the regulated community was that BMW designation could be extended state-wide

7

---

in situations where the chronic water quality standard would require NPDES permit limits less

than4.0

mg/L during the winter or

1.5

mg/L during the summer.

Upon issuance ofthe Board rule, the Agency began issuing NPDBS permits using the

BMW designation and

also began codification ofits

implementation policy with JCAR.

At this

time a sixty day notice ofintent to sue was served on USEPA Region V alleging that the BMW

concept in Illinois was not affording adequate protection ofthe State’s waters as required by the

Clean Water Act.

In response to this notice, USEPA advised the Agency that it would not

approve the implementation policy that was being developed for proposal to JCAR.

The result

of the intervention ofUSEPA into development ofthe implementation policy by the Agency was

a significant change in the manner by which EMW relief could be given.

The implementation policy that resulted from this intervention demands that an

exhaustive field evaluation of candidate receiving streams be undertaken which included

hydrologic, physical, chemical, habitat

and biological considerations.

Additionally, submission

of all known existing data relevant to

the stream was required as well as consultation by the

Agency with other natural resource agencies within the State.

The net effect of this modified

implementation policy

is to tremendously complicate both the application for and approval of

BMW designation.

The unfortunate aspect of this existing BMW policy lies in the fact that it

was taken to avoid a lawsuit and in no way allowed for public hearing ofthe issues in an open

forum such as that provided by the Board rulemaking process.

The IAWA had supported the Board’s adoption ofthe new water quality standards in

R94- 1

despite strong reservations about the appropriateness ofthe toxicity mechanism used in

the USEPA

1984 guidance document.

This reservation is stated in Mr. Daugherty’s

testimony in

8

---

R94- 1.

Such

support had, however,

been ultimately extended with the understanding that the

BMW designation would allow assignment ofthe

1.5

mg/L

summer and 4.0 mg/L winter

monthly average NPDES permit limits.

This support was also extended with the understanding

that the Agency’s testimony indicated no ammonia impairment existed within the State that

would prohibit BMW designations.

Such BMW designations

would not, therefore, involve

lengthy and complicated site by site demonstration of the appropriateness ofeach such

designation.

Regrettably, when the Agency finally codified the ammonia implementation procedure in

June, 9 1999,

the JAWA membership

and all other point source dischargers throughout Illinois

were facing the grim prospect ofcomplying with effluent limits which were at or below the edge

oftechnical

attainability with very limited prospects of relief.

Realization ofan BMW

designation had become such a complicated and onerous undertaking, as a result ofthe

implementation procedure eventually codified, that the regulated community saw little chance of

being successful in realizing any such designation. To date, six years after adoption ofthe

Board’s rule, I am not aware ofone BMW application in Illinois that has been attempted.

The

net

effect ofthe procedures by which the current ammonia water quality standard had been

implemented was to

offer the regulated community conditional relief from the chronic winter

standard for which compliance had been determined to be marginal at best and, then, pull that

relief out at the last minute.

The regulated community had been left hanging.

Needless to say there was great relief felt throughout the Illinois regulated community

when, within two months of the codification ofthe existing implementation procedure, the 1999

USEPA guidance was released and indicated that the

1984 guidance was in error.

Further, this

guidance recommended a different mechanism by which to

consider ammonia toxicity.

Of

9

---

greatest irony was the fact that the mechanism advocated by the

1999 USBPA guidance results in

a winter ammonia chronic toxicity standard which is attainable by existing wastewater treatment

processes.

This relief afforded by the

1999 USEPA guidance is the motivation for the JAWA

current petition before the Board to adopt the proposed water quality standard.

Development of the Proposed

Standard

Upon receipt ofthe

1999 USBPA guidance,

the IAWA strongly encouraged the Agency

to immediately undertake a newrulemaking which would result in adoption ofthe criteria

recommended in the guidance as the Illinois water quality standard for ammonia.

The Agency

regrettably told IAWAthat the otherprogram development requirements before it at that time

did not allow enough personnel

to initiate such action.

The IAWA thus

decided in January of

2000 to

undertake the action itself.

The Agency subsequently told IAWA that it would support

such an effort providing that the resulting proposed rule satisfied all Agency concerns regarding

both compliance with the

1999 USEPA guidance

and necessary protection ofIllinois waters.

The

1999 US EPA guidance itself is

a compelling testament for the standard presented to

the Board for consideration today. The IAWA did not revisit any ofthe methodology used in

development ofthe

1999 USEPA guidance, but rather, drafted the proposed standard directly

from the formulae in the document. The IAWA proposal, however, does not contain the

provisions forprotection ofcold water species.

The proposed standard is not applicable to Lake

Michigan.

That portion ofthe regulations is not proposed to be changed by these proceedings.

The generally agreed upon consensus within the State

is that cold water species are not

indigenous to

any ofthe waters of Illinois other than Lake Michigan.

The IAWA subcommittee assigned to the development ofthis proposal initially

canvassed the IAWA membership to determine the capability of existing facilities in Illinois to

10

---

maintain compliance with the NPDBS permit limits which would result from

adoption ofthis

proposal. Many ofthe facilities queried indicated that ammonia limits lower than those in effect

prior to R94-1 would probably be added to NPDES permits as a result ofthis proposal.

However, the membership also determined that existing wastewater technology could

consistently achieve compliance with these limits.

The proposed standard differs from previous attempts to regulate ammonia in Illinois by

recognizing an increased ammonia toxicityby the early life stages offish as compared to

adult

fish individuals.

The

1999 document

also finds that early life stages of fish species are more

sensitive

to ammonia than are invertebrate

species.

To evaluate the correct manner by which to

apply this concept ofearly life stage protection in Illinois,

the IAWA retained Dr. Sheehan as a

consultant. Dr. Sheehan will elaborate upon his developmental work on this issue in later

testimony.

In essence, Dr. Sheehan and JAWA were comfortable initially in advocating an early

life stage present period ofApril through October. This season is the same as the existing

regulation’s summer season.

The early life stage absent period thus becomes November through

March.

Some uncertainty remained with this determination, however, due to

the waters of

southern Illinois warming earlier in the year than those ofnorthern Illinois.

Also, the northern

pike has a life history indicating that it could begin the spawn in March.

The northern pike is

essentially limited

to northern Illinois.

Consequently, the JAWA included a clause in the

proposal which stipulates the Agency is empowered to assign early life stage present protection

to

selected waters on

a site specific basis as may be found appropriate. This clause is found at

Section 302.2 12(e).

Upon review ofthe proposal, Agency biologists indicated that they would

be more comfortable in extending total early life stage protection to the month ofMarch.

The

Agency thus advocated an early life stage present period of March through October and an early

11

---

life stage absent period ofNovember through February.

The IAWA agreed to this request and

such is the format currently before the Board.

The JAWA did, however, retain the clause at

Section 302.212(e) such that the Agency is empowered to extend early life stage protection to

winter months on a site specific basis or to the extent that such protection is

foundto be

warranted in the future.

The language and format ofthe proposed regulation was drafted by Ms. Debra Williams,

counsel

for the Agency and Mr. Roy Harsch, counsel for IAWA.

The language ofthe proposal

thus is such that the Agency is comfortable with the water quality protection extended, the

compatibility ofthe regulation with other Agency regulations and the regulation’s ability to be

enforced.

Dr. Sheehan and various IAWA ammoniaregulation subcommittee members then

attempted to

discuss the newly drafted and Agency approvedproposal with various stakeholders

throughout Illinois.

Dr. Sheehan will elaborate upon his discussions in this regard.

We believe

that all individuals with whom this proposal was discussed were satisfied with the ammonia

protection it affords.

Included in this proceeding as IAWA’s Exhibit 10

are letters

from me to

Mr. Joel Cross, Division ofFisheries, Illinois Department ofNatural Resources (IDNR),

Mr.Glenn Kruse. Division ofNatural History (IDNR) and Mr. Keith Shank, Division of

Endangered Species (I~DNR). These letters formally follow up on verbal discussions of the

proposal between Dr. Sheehan and these gentlemen ofthe Illinois Department ofNatural

Resources.

The proposed regulation accompanied each ofthese letters.

Each letter requests

follow up contact if difficulties with the regulation are foreseen.

The IAWA has not received

any response to these letters.

12

---

The Agency submitted the proposed regulation to USEPA Region V for comment.

Region V responded by raising four issues.

Includedwith Exhibit 10

is a letter from Mr. Tom

Muth,

IAWA President to Mr. David Pfeifer, Region V, USBPA, responding to three of these

comments.

The comment not addressed by Mr. Muth’s letter involved consideration of flows in

determination ofeffluent NPDES

permit limits.

This issue

is addressed by the Agency’s use of

it’s mass balance calculation procedure for determination ofeffluent limits

and also by the

Agency’s allowance for no dilution ofammonia concentrations on zero low flow streams.

The first of the Region V comments concerned the early life stage presence time period.

This issue was discussed among Dr.

Sheehan, Dr. Brooks Burr, Professor ofFisheries and

Zoology, Southern Illinois University and Mr. Brian Thompson ofRegion V USBPA. It is our

understanding that this discussion concluded with agreement that the proposed standard extends

adequate ammonia early life stage protection. Dr.

Sheehan will elaborate on this issue in later

testimony.

The second issue raised by the USEPA Region V comment involved the use ofthe

selected percentile rankings ofpH and temperature for determining the appropriate water quality

standard.

This issue, while of fundamental importance in the successful implementatioiinf this

proposed rule, is listed as a Section

355 modification and is thus not before the Board for action

at this time.

However, prudence and past experience (as discussed above) requires IAWA to

offer a complete explanation ofthis matter to the Board should further action be necessary.

The

procedure used in the proposed regulation is exactly that presently used for the existing ammonia

water quality standard. The

75th

percentile temperature and pH ofthe water body are used for the

determination of the acute and chronic early life stage present and

early life stage absent

standards.

Ifuse ofthe

75th

percentile pH value results in a chronic effluent standard less than

13

---

1.5

mg/L for the early life stage present period or 4.0 mg/L for the early file stage absent period,

the

50th

percentile shall be used to recalculate these chronic standards.

The standards obtained

with the use of the

50th

percentile shall be met.

Under no circumstances shall use ofthe

50th

percentile pH result in standards

greater that

1.5

mg/L

for the early life stage present period or

4.0 mg/L for the early life stage absent period.

The sub-chronic standard is

2.5

times the final

calculated chronic standard.

The chronic standard is a thirty (30) day average.

A monthly average standard assumes

that halfofthe variance can be in excess ofthe standard and halfofthe variance can be less than

the standard.

Consequently, the use ofthe median

(50th

percentile) value for determination of

this standard is mathematically appropriate.

Dr. Sheehan will discuss this issue further in his

testimony.

The fourth issue raised in the USEPA Region V comment addressed protection of

mussels.

The 1999 USDA guidance

considered mussels in the analysis ofinvertebrate species.

The Region V comment states recent research work indicates that the

1999 USBPA guidance

might not provide adequate protection to mussel species.

Dr. Sheehan and I have attempted to review some of this work for this proceeding. I am

not an authority on the Mollusca.

However, I was unable to

find much ofit referenced in the

customary abstract indices.

I was finally able to

obtain some ofthese citation references by

requesting them from the Agency.

A significant portion ofthis research is unpublished.

Some of

the work has been published but, in some ofthe published work, the experimental designs are not

necessarily appropriate for application to

development ofnational criteria guidance.

One ofthe

citations referenced by USEPA

is for a paper publishedjointly by Dr. Sheehan and others which

14

---

Dr. Sheehan indicates might not be appropriate for criteria development purposes, Again, Dr.

Sheehan will address this matter in his testimony.

At this time I would like to address a component of the contemporary rulemaking process

which I find indirectly related to this consideration ofmussel protection.

This issue

is referenced

in Mr. Muth’s letter to Mr. Pfeiffer.

Specifically, none of the data which has been referenced

suggesting potential lack ofmussel protection generated through recent research work northe

peer reviewed or non-peer reviewed articles generated therefrom has been subjected to the

Federal criteria guidance public review process.

I am very concerned with the consideration of

research results for rulemaking purposes which have not yet withstood the rigors ofpublic

review and comment.

Such a rush to

regulate for the sake ofregulation seems to be an

extraordinary opportunity to repeat the error inherent in the 1984 USEPA ammonia guidance

document.

The IAWA objected before the Board to the basic tenants oftoxicity modeling

associated with the

1984 USEPA document. However, those objections were essentially

mollified by the fact that the document had been through the national review process and thus

stood as the basis from which water quality standards should be derived. The IAWA accepted

this situation as the necessary due process in rulemaking. I maintain that the same standard needs

to be held to the 1999 USEPA guidance and action which originates from it.

The Board will shortly hear testimony from representatives of two municipalities in our

State that are potentially facing millions ofdollars ofplant upgrade expense to comply with the

exiting Illinois water quality standard which was derived from the 1984 USEPA criteria

guidance document.

These municipalities, specifically the taxpayers ofthese municipalities, will

not have to face this expense with the proposed water quality standard derived from the

1999

USBPA guidance.

The

1999 USBPA document must stand as the present basis from which cost

15

---

to the public must be considered.

If future scientific investigation and subsequent public review

indicates that additional ammonia treatment and associated expense

is warranted then decisions

on how to

affect such treatment can be made at that time. Iffuture investigation determines that

such additional treatment and expense is not warranted, the cost to these communities, if forced

to

construct facilities now, cannot be recovered. There

is no trade-in or redemption value for

unnecessary capital wastewater treatment facilities.

Conclusion

The Board has historically been very mindful of the economic impact ofthe regulations it

enacts.

The citizens ofIllinois can be very grateful to the Board for demonstrating that wisdom.

Balancing necessary environmental protection with responsible stewardship ofpublic money is a

task ofthe Board which most people find unenviable. A misinterpretation ofthe mechanism of

ammonia toxicity in the 1984 USEPA guidance document has resulted in the Board enacting, in

good faith, an overly protective and

economically unjustifiable water quality

standard for

ammonia, based on that document.

The Board at that time, and rightly so, felt the existing

standard was necessary to protect the waters ofIllinois.

The Board recognized the need to

extend some form ofrelief to

the regulated community from the seemingly unrealistic demands

ofthe winter chronic ammonia standard resulting from the 1984 guidance document and did so.

Regrettably, that relief was virtually eliminated in a venue beyond the Board’sjurisdiction

through threat ofjudicial action against USEPA.

The water quality standard presented to

the

Board todayprovides for adequate water quality protection as recognized by sound and accepted

contemporary science.

The IAWA is

adamantly committed to providing levels ofwastewater treatment

necessary to protect the waters ofour State.

The historic presence of the IAWA before the Board

16

---

is testament to that

commitment.

The IAWA is grateful to

the Board for providing an open

public forum where

such matters can be freely discussed and resolved.

The proposed water

quality standard which the Board is hereby requested to

consider for adoption strikes the

necessary balance between water quality protection

and public cost which the Board and IAWA

have both historically sought.

CHO1/12210923.1

17

---

e

BEFORE

THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

MAR

o

4

2002

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

~j~r~E

O1~L.LLp~UjS

Pollution

Control B

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO

)

R 02-19

Oard

AMMONIA NITROGEN

STANDARDS

)

(Rulemaking

-

Water)

35

Ill. Adm. Code

)

WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF ROBERT J. SHEEHAN

Justification and Approach for Adoption ofthe United States Environmental

Ammonia in Illinois Surface Waters

I am Robert J. Sheehan, Professor ofFisheries

in Zoology and Assistant Director

ofthe Fisheries and Illinois Aquaculture Center, Southern Illinois University Carbondale.

My purpose here

today

is

to

explain

the justification

and

approach for what

I

believe

Illinois

should

use to

establish

water

quality

criteria

for the state’s

surface

waters.

I

believe that recent information indicates that

current ammonia water quality criteria used

by

Illinois

appear to

not

be

protective

enough

under

certain

circumstances

and

they

appear to be

overly protective under

other circumstances.

I believe that Illinois

should

use methods described by the United States Environmental Protection Agency

(USBPA)

in

their latest

National

Criteria Document

for ammonia,

the

1999

Update

of Ambient

Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia (“1999 Ammonia Update”).

I.

Professional Credentials:

I base my testimony on more than

15

years of experience with

ammonia toxicity

issues.

For

example,

colleagues

and

I

published

in

the

international

journal

Hydrobiologia

what is to my knowledge the first paper examining the tolerance oflarval

(glochidia)

unionid

mussels

to

ammonia

(Goudreau

et

al.

1993).

This

paper

was

considered

in

the

1999

Ammonia

Update.

A

colleague

and

I

also

published

in

---

Transactions of the American Fisheries

Society

a

study (Sheehan

and

Lewis

1986) that

was

also

included

as part

of the database

upon which

the

1999

Ammonia

Update was

based.

This

work was

the

basis

for two

best

paper awards

conferred

on

us

by

the

American Fisheries

Society.

I

was

selected by

the

Cadmus

Group,

a

consulting

firm

employed

by USEPA,

to

be

one of the

five national reviewers

for the

1999

Ammonia

Update; I was the only biologist

among the reviewers (Cadmus

1997).

I have

taught

a

graduate

level class

(Zoology

565,

Environmental

Physiology of Fishes)

for more

than

ten years that covers in depth the methods for calculation ofnumeric and narrative water

quality criteria.

I have also

taught these methods in the University ofIllinois’

Envirovet

curriculum; Bnvirovet is

a program for training veterinarians in aquatic

animal health.

I

am the Illinois

Chapter of the American Fisheries Society’s representative to

the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency’s (IBPA)

Total Maximum Daily Load Work

Group.

I

am

a member of IEPA’s

Science

Committee

for developing

water quality

standards for

nutrients.

Other indications ofmy professional stature include the more than $2,000,000 of

funding I have received for research in aquatic

systems.

This

funding was obtained from

approximately

twenty

different

sources.

Most of this

research has

been

directed

at

Illinois

surface

waters,

and

in

particular

rivers

and

streams,

but

some

has

been

international

(e.g., Amazon River) in scope.

I have authored more than twenty-five peer-

reviewed publications on river and stream organisms.

These include:

1) invited author of

the “Large

Rivers” chapter

(Sheehan and

Rasmussen

1993)

in

the

American Fisheries

Society’s

textbook

on

fisheries

management,

Inland

Fisheries

Management

in

North

America—an

updated revision of that work has

recently been completed (Sheehan

and

2

---

Rasmussen

1999);

and

2)

invited

author

of the

chapter

on

“Wetlands

and

Fisheries

Resources

of the

Mississippi

River”

in

the

Pennsylvania

Academy of

Science

book,

Ecology

of

Wetlands

and

Associated

Systems.

I

serve

as

a

member

of

numerous

government

agency

teams

or committees,

such

as

the Mississippi

River

Coordination

Team

and

the

Lower

Platte

River

Task

Force.

I

have been

an

expert witness

for the

Washington University Environmental Law Clinic at a hearing before the Missouri Clean

Water

Commission.

I have

also

been

an

expert witness

in

a hearing before the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

that

concerned

ammonia

in

the

Galesburg

Sanitary

District

discharge.

Lastly, I was appointed to the Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Team by the Director

of the

U.S.

Fish

and Wildlife

Service;

this

is

the only

federally

listed

endangered

fish

species in the Mississippi River.

II.

Justification

As Mr. Callahan testified, ammonia exists in solution in a dynamic

equilibrium in

two forms, as ammonium ion (NH~)

and as an unionized molecule (NH3).

Current water

quality

standards

for

Illinois

are

derived

from

the

U.S.

Environmental

Protection

Agency’s National

Criteria Document,

Ambient

Water

Quality

Criteria for Ammonia—

1984,

which was published in 1985

(hereafter referred to as

“1985

Ammonia

Guidance”).

The

1985

Ammonia Guidance was formulated under the

so-called joint

toxicity theory,

which holds that unionized ammonia is the more toxic form,

but ionized ammonia is

also

toxic.

Further,

as

pH,

temperature

or both

decrease,

the

proportion of the

toxicity

attributable to ionized ammonia will increase,

due to the effects oftemperature

and pH on

the

ammonia

equilibrium.

Toxicity

appears

to

increase

as

pH,

temperature,

or both

decrease if one only considers

unionized ammonia concentrations, because more ionized

3

---

ammonia will be

found in lower pH and/or lower temperature

solutions.

Thus, the

1985

Ammonia Guidance expressed water quality criteria in terms ofunionized ammonia with

corrections

for the

effects oftemperature

and pH on ammonia toxicity.

It was noted in

the 1985 Ammonia Guidance that thejoint toxicity model did not appear to be

consistent

with some data sets that were available at that time.

In

the

1999

Ammonia

Update,

USEPA

concluded

that

a

definitive,

thorough

theoretical

approach for describing pH

effects on

ammonia toxicity is

lacking.

Further,

USEPA

concluded

in

the

1999

Ammonia

Update that

there

is

no

adequate

theoretical

basis or scientific understanding for specifying how temperature adjustments

to unionized

ammonia criteria can be made.

Rather than trying to make “square-peg” data fit into the

“round-hole” joint toxicity theory, the 1999 Ammonia Update took an

empirical approach

to

describe

how pH

and

temperature

affect

ammonia

toxicity.

This

meant

that

in

the

opinion

of

USEPA

in

the

1999

Ammonia

Update,

the

approach

used

in

the

1985

Ammonia Gui4ance was flawed because it was formulated based on the belief in the joint

toxicity theory, a belief that seemed to

be refuted, especially when applied to

temperature

effects on ammonia toxicity.

Application

of

the

1999

Ammonia

Update

to

Illinois

water

quality

laws

is

warranted at this

time.

The

1999

Ammonia Update

is

superior to

the

1985

Ammonia

Guidance approach for a number ofreasons.

First, the 1999 Ammonia Update recognizes

that

the effects of temperature

on

ammonia toxicity

are not

strongly

indicative ofjoint

toxicity.

Second,

models used to

describe

the

effects of pH on

ammonia

toxicity

use

empirical

components

in

recognition

of

the

incomplete

knowledge

of joint

toxicity

effects.

Third, expressing ammonia toxicity on the basis of total ammonia eliminated the

4

---

need

for

a

temperature

correction

for

ammonia

Criterion

Maximum

Concentrations.

Fourth,

using

total

ammonia to

express ammonia toxicity

generally resulted in

reduced

variability

among data sets

and better

fit

to

existing

data sets.

Fifth,

permit

limits

are

usually expressed in

total ammonia, so expressing

criteria on the basis of total

ammonia

would

eliminate

conversions

to

unionized

ammonia.

Sixth,

another

water

quality

criterion that

1999

Ammonia Update believes is

necessary

to

protect aquatic life will be

established, wherein the highest four-day average will not be allowed to exceed

2.5

times

the chronic criterion.

Lastly,

the results of more

than 40

new scientific

studies

with a

number of additional

species were

added

to

the

ammonia

toxicity data base.

Studies

representing

a broad range of species are necessary for developing

adequately protective

water

quality

criteria.

More

data

in

general

reduces

the

risk

of

criteria

being

overprotective as well as under protective.

III.

Proposed changes to Part

302,

Subpart

B, Section 302.212:

Methods

for calculating water quality criteria are taken from the

1999

Ammonia

Update.

All

criteria will be on the basis oftotal

ammonia.

The

1999

Ammonia Update

provides two relationships

for calculating the Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC)

or acute

criterion for ammonia.

One equation is

used when salmonid

fishes are present

and

the

other

when they

are

absent.

Since

no

reproducing salmonid

populations

are

found in Illinois waters that receive NPDBS point source discharges, the salmonid fishes

absent approach is warranted in Illinois.

The

1999

Ammonia

Update

provides

two

relationships

for

calculating

the

Criterion

Continuous

Concentration

(CCC)

or

chronic

criterion

for

ammonia.

One

relationship is

to be used when early life history

stages of fish

are present and the other

5

---

when they are not.

The equation used when early life history stages are present results in

a more

protective

water quality

criterion,

which

is

necessary

to

protect

fishes

during

sensitive developmental stages.

I compiled a list of spawning dates for fish species in Illinois

to

determine when

the “early life history

stages

present” water

quality

criteria

should

be

applied.

These

spawning dates may be found as IAWA’s Exhibit

11.

Spawning dates were derived from

many sources

and

based

on

the best

information

available.

Although

spawning

dates

have been reported for most

species, information specific to

Illinois

is

not

available

for

many species, so professionaljudgment was

also used.

Primary sources ofspawning date

information included

Fishes of Illinois

(Smith

1979),

The

Fishes

of Missouri

(Pflieger

1997), and

Fishes of Wisconsin

(Becker 1983).

I

consulted

with

Dr.

Brooks

Burr,

an

ichthyologist

at

my

institution.

I

also

consulted

with

Mr.

Brian

Thompson

of

the

U.S.

Environmental

Protection

Agency,

Region V.

It is my understanding that Mr. Thompson then consulted with a colleague in

his

office, Mr. Ed Hammer.

Mr.

Hammer is

knowledgeable of fishes in Illinois.

To

the

best

of my

knowledge, the following rationale for determining periods when

early life

history

stages

of fishes

are present in Illinois

waters

is

representative of and

consistent

with the outcome ofthose consultations.

Most Illinois

fish species spawn in the spring and

summer seasons, so the months

of April

through

August are without doubt within the “early life history

stages present”

period.

The

earliest spawning species in

Illinois’

inland

waters

is

the harlequin

darter

Etheostoma

histrio,

which

is

believed

to

spawn

as

early

as

February.

The

harlequin

darter

is

found in

Illinois

in

the Embarras River between

the towns

of Charleston and

6

---

Newton

and

in

the

Wabash

River

between Beall

Woods

State

Park

and

the

town

of

Rising

Sun.

It

is

reasonable

that

the

“early

life

history

stages

present”

should

be

considered to

begin in

February

in

these

two

river reaches

to

afford

protection

to

the

harlequin darter, unless this

species proves to be relatively tolerant to ammonia.

Elsewhere

in

the

waters

of

Illinois,

exclusive

of

Lake

Michigan,

the

earliest

spawning species are most

probably members of the

Esocidae,

the

grass pickeral

Esox

americanus

and the northern pike

E.

lucius.

These two esocids probably typically initiate

spawning in most of their Illinois

range in March.

Consequently, designating

March as

the

beginning

of the

“early

life

history

stages

present”

period

in

waters

where

the

harlequin darter is not found is warranted.

Illinois

fish

species that spawn as late in

the year

as

September include the sand

shiner

Notropis

ludibundus,

banded

killifish

Fundulus

diaphanous,

and

mosquitofish

Gambusia

affinis.

However, time

should be permitted for the young of these species to

grow out of the most

sensitive

developmental

stages,

so it appears justifiable

to

extend

the “early life history stages present” period through October.

Two

species that

reportedly

spawn

in winter were

not used to

determine

when

early life history stages

are present for the following reasons.

The burbot

Lota

lota

has

been found in the Illinois River. It is thought to

spawn during the winter, but it is

doubtful

that this

species reproduces in any

Illinois waters with the exception of Lake Michigan.

The

spring

cavefish

Chologaster

agassizi

may

spawn

at

various

times

of the

year,

including winter, but this

species is

subterranean and unlikely to

be affected by ammonia

in discharges.

7

---

In

summary,

the

“early

life

history

stages

not

present”

period

should

be

considered

to

be November through February

in most of the state.

In waters where the

harlequin darter occurs,

however,

the “early life history

stages present” period should be

considered to

be

November through January unless

it can be

shown that this

species

is

relatively tolerant to ammonia.

The “early life history stages not present” period could be

extended

through February in harlequin darter waters if this species

is not very

sensitive

to ammonia.

The

1999

Ammonia Update suggests the use of a third

criterion, a 4-day average

that

should

not

exceed

2.5

times

the

CCC.

I believe

that there

is

justification for this

“subchronic”

ammonia criterion.

It will

afford

an

additional

level of protection for the

state’s aquatic biota that

is not present

in

the existing law.

IV.

Use

of the

50th

percentile pH to calculate chronic effluent standards:

Stephan et al.

(1984) defined USEPA’s general guidelines for deriving numerical

national water quality criteria for the protection ofaquatic organisms and their uses.

This

document

established

USEPA’s

intent

in

regard

to

water

quality

criteria

development.

The

1999

Ammonia

Update is

an

example

of the mechanics

of water quality

criteria

development for a particular toxic—ammonia.

According to

Stephan et

al. (1984),

“.

.

the concentration ofa pollutant

in

a body ofwater can be above the CCC without causing

an

unacceptable

effect if (a)

the magnitudes

and

durations of the

excursions

above the

CCC

are

appropriately

limited

and

(b) there

are

compensating

periods

of time

during

which

the

concentration

is

below

the

CCC.”

The

1999

Ammonia

Update

approach

establishing

a

subchronic

standard

effectively

accomplishes

(a)

above—it

limits

the

8

---

magnitudes

and

durations of excursions

above the

CCC.

This

protection

is

not

present

under current law.

Since unionized

ammonia

is

considered the more

toxic

form,

solutions

become

more toxic

at elevated

pH values.

This

is

an

important

consideration when protecting

organisms

from

lethal concentrations.

Thus,

a

very

conservative

75th

percentile

pH is

used to calculate effluent standards

to meet acute criteria.

However, chronic effects deal

with important yet

less

harmful responses, such as effects on

growth.

The intent of the

CCC is

to prevent unacceptable

chronic effects, such as unacceptable effects on growth.

By

using

the

~

percentile

pH,

excursions

above

the

CCC

will

be

completely

compensated

for by periods when pH is below the

50th

percentile.

Thus,

a chronic effect,

such as reduced growth, will be no worse on average than is considered acceptable, based

on the CCC.

The establishment

ofthe subchronic criterion will provide the level ofprotection

against extended duration and high magnitude excursions above the

CCC as described by

Stephan

et

al.

(1984)

(see

(a)

above).

The

subchronic

standard

and

the

protection

it

provides

are

not

present under

the

current

law.

This

alone

provides

a great

deal of

justification for modification of the current law.

The ~

percentile pH will ensure that

the

CCC

is

met

on

average,

also

consistent

with the intent of the

CCC

as described by

Stephan et al. (1984) (see (b) above).

Also,

the

overall

approach

used

in

the

1999

Ammonia

Update

for

chronic

ammonia criteria development is

superior to

that

of 1985

Ammonia

Guidance,

In the

1985

Ammonia Guidance, chronic water quality criteria were derived from

estimates of

chronic effects threshold concentrations,

or the geometric mean of the lower

and

upper

9

---

chronic limits; i.e., the highest concentration in a test that did not

cause an unacceptable

adverse

effect

and

the lowest

concentration that

caused an

unacceptable adverse

effect,

respectively.

There

is

a high degree of statistical

and

scientific uncertainty in estimates

of chronic

effects

threshold concentrations

using

this

method.

In the

1999

Ammonia

Update,

chronic

criteria

are

set

by

interpolating

a

single

value

(the

EC2O)

from

a

concentration-toxicity relationship developed

from an

entire data set.

Thus, in the

1985

Ammonia

Guidance

chronic

criteria are

determined using

only

two

data points

taken

from

the

portion of the

concentration-toxicity

relationship

where

statistical

error

and

scientific

uncertainty are

high.

In the

1999

Ammonia Update,

an

entire data set

(that

includes values with lower

statistical error rates and

higher scientific certainty) is

used to

develop chronic criteria.

V.

Mussels

USBPA

Region

V

has provided

a

document

with

a

list

of

studies

examining

ammonia toxicity in

mussels,

due

to

concerns

that

the

1999

Ammonia

Update did

not

adequately address this taxonomic group.

The vast majority ofthe referenced

studies are

not published in the peer-reviewed literature,

and

most

certainly had not been

subjected

to USEPA procedures or public

comment regarding their suitability for inclusion in data

bases

for water

quality

criteria

development.

By

my

count,

13

works

were

referenced

and only two

of those

were published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

I

am a

coauthor (Goudreau

et

a!.

1993) of one

of the

two

published

papers.

Because of my

familiarity with that

work,

I was somewhat surprised that

the

LC5O

value

we obtained

was

included

in

the

proposed

mussel

database

without

any

comment

regarding

its

appropriateness.

Our

study

was

cutting

edge

research

at the

time,

the

first

study

to

10

---

examine ammonia toxicity in larval (glochidia) mussels.

However, the toxic response we

measured,

closure

of the

valves,

occurred

in

up

to

50

of the

control

glochidia,

a

problem we

described

in

the

paper.

According

to

generally

accepted

guidelines

for

toxicity tests

(USBPA 1991), no

more than

10

of control group

animals

should

show

the

toxic

response, if

a

toxicity test

is

to

be

considered

valid.

Some

mention of the

problem we encountered with

control animals

should

at least have been method.

I was

also

surprised to

read

in

the document

provided by Region V USEPA that,

“There were

no

applicable

acute:chronic ratios for sublethal

ammonia impacts to

freshwater mussels”,

because we reported both an EC5O value and an LC5O value from which

an acute-chronic

ratio for mussels could have been

obtained.

It should be mentioned that our Goudreau et

al. (1993) paper was considered in the

1999

Ammonia Update, but

it did not

affect

the

outcome of chronic criteria that were developed.

Given the lack ofboth USBPA and public review, as well as a lack ofpeer review

by

the

scientific community for

most of the mussel

studies

provided in

the

document

from Region V, I do

not believe there is

compelling evidence regarding the tolerance of

mussels to

ammonia to justify. modification of criteria based on

1999 Ammonia Update at

this time.

Summary Conclusions

1.

The

theoretical

framework

used

to

formulate

Illinois’

ammonia

water

quality

criteria was

based

on

USEPA guidelines; USEPA

now questions

the theoretical

basis ofthat

framework.

2.

USBPA now proposes that models developed using empirical methods be

used

to

determine

water

quality

criteria;

these

models

are

the

best

available

for

this

11

---

purpose at this time,

and I believe Illinois’ regulations should be revised according to

the

new models proposed by USBPA.

3.

The method

for calculating chronic criteria that

is

described in USEPA’s

latest

guidance

is

superior

to

the previous

method

and

should

be

adopted in

the state’s

regulations.

4.

I urge

that Illinois

establish another water quality

criterion, the subchronic

criterion described in the latest USEPA guidance,

to

more fully protect the organisms

in

the state’s waters.

5.

The

early

life

history

states

present

period,

used

to

establish

chronic

criteria, should be considered as March through October in most ofthe state.

6.

In waters where the harlequin darter is

found, the early life history stages

present period

should

be

considered

as

February

through

October, unless

this

species

proves to be relatively insensitive to ammonia.

7.

Lastly,

using the

50th

percentile pH for calculating effluent limits to

meet

chronic ammonia criteria

is consistent with current USBPA

guidance.

Robert J. Sheehan

Professor ofFisheries in Zoology

Assistant Director, CFRL

Associate Director, Illinois Aquaculture Research & Demonstration Center

Literature Cited

Goudreau,

S.B., R.J. Neves, and

R.J. Sheehan.

1993.

Effects ofsewage treatment

plant

effluents on

mollusks

in the upper

Clinch

River, Virginia.

Hydrobiologia

252:211-230.

Sheehan, R.J.

and M.

Konikoff.

1998.

Wetlands

and

fisheries resources of the

Mississippi

River. Pages

628-647,

Chapter 40

in

S.K.

Majumdar,

B.W.

Miller,

and

F.P.

Brenner,

Editors;

Wetlands

and

Associated

Systems.

Pennsylvania

Acadamy of Science, Harrisburg, PA.

12

---

Sheehan,

R.J.

and

W.M.

Lewis.

1986.

Relationships

between

the

toxicity

of

aqueous ammonia solutions, pH, ammonia salt formulations,

and water balance in

channel

catfish

fingerlings.

Transactions

of

the

American

Fisheries

Society.

115:891-899.

Sheehan,

R.J. and

J.R. Rasmussen.

1993.

Large Rivers.

Chapter 19,

pages

443-

466

in

C.C.

Kohier

and

W.T.

Huber,

editors,

Inland Fisheries

Management

in

North America.

American Fisheries

Society Special Publication. Bethesda, MD.

Sheehan, R.J.

and J.R. Rasmussen.

1999.

Large Rivers.

Chapter 20,

pages

529-

560 in

C.

Kohier

and W.

Huber, editors, Inland Fisheries

Management

in

North

America;

Second

Edition.

American

Fisheries

Society

Special

Publication.

Bethesda, MD.

USBPA

1991.

Methods

for

measuring

the

acute

toxicity

of

effluents

and

receiving waters

to

freshwater

and marine

organisms.

C.I.

Weber, ed.

Office of

Research and

Development,

U.S.

Environmental Protection

Agency,

Cincinnati,

Ohio.

EPA-600/4-90-027.

CHO2/22 175062.1

13

---

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy ofthe foregoing

Notice ofFiling Testimony of

James L. Daugherty, Michael Callahan and Robert J. Sheehan

were filed by hand delivery with

the Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board and served upon the parties to whom said Notice is

directed by first class mail, postage prepaid, by depositing in the U.S. Mail at 321 North Clark Street,

Chicago, Illinois

on Monday, March 4, 2002.

---

R02-19

Service List

Ammonia Nitrogen Standards

Mike Callahan

Bloomington Normal Water Reclamation District

P.O. Box 3307

Bloomington, IL

61702-3307

Dennis Duffield

Department ofPublic Works City ofJoliet

921 East Washington Street

Joliet, IL

60433

Susan M. Franzetti

Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal

8000

Sears Tower

Chicago, IL

60606

Catherine F. Glenn

Illinois Pollution Control Board

100 W. Randolph Street

-

Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL

60601

James T. Harrington

Ross & Hardies

150 North Michigan Avenue

-

Suite 2500

Chicago, IL

60601

Margaret P. Howard

Hedinger & Howard

1225

S. Sixth Street

Springfield, IL

62703

Tom Muth

Fox Metro Water Reclamation District

682 State Route 31

Oswego, IL

60543

Deborah J. Williams

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021 North Grand Avenue East

Springfield, IL

62794-9276

Lany Cox

Downers

Grove Sanitary District

2710 Curtiss Street

Downers

Grove, IL

60515

Albert Ettinger

Environmental Law & Policy Center

35

East Wacker Drive, Suite

1300

Chicago, IL

60601

Lisa Frede

Chemical Industry Council

9801

W. Higgins Road

-

Suite

515

Rosemont,IL

60018

Dorothy Gunn

Clerk, Pollution Control Board

100 West Randolph

-

Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL

60601

Katherine Hodge

Hodge DwyerZeman

3150 Roland Avenue

Springfield, IL

62705

Robert A. Messina

Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group

215 East Adams Street

Springfield, IL

62701

Irwin Polls

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District OfChicago

6001

West

Cicero, IL

60804

David Zenz

CTE Engineers

303

East Wacker Drive

—

Suite 600

Chicago, IL

60601

CHO 1/122 1191 8.1