ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February
1,
1996
IN THE MATTER OF:
PETITION OF THE METROPOLITAN WATER
)
R95-14
RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF GREATER
)
(Site-Specific
CHICAGO FOR SITE-SPECIFIC WATER
)
Rulemaking
-
Water)
QUALITY REGULATION FOR CYANIDE
(Amendments
to
35
Ill. Adm. Code
303 and 304)
Adopted Rule.
Final Action.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by R.C. Flemal):
This matter comes before the Board upon a proposal to amend
the Board’s water quality regulations
for cyanide filed by the
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
(District)
.
The District requests that the existing General Use
chronic standard
(CS)
for weak acid dissociable
(WAD)
cyanide be
changed from 5.2 ~tg/Lto
10 ~tg/Las applied to the West Branch of
the DuPage River,
Higgins Creek,
Salt Creek,
and the Des Flames
River within Cook County.
The Board’s responsibility in this matter arises from the
Environmental Protection Act
(Act)
(415 ILCS 5/1 et seq.
(1994)).
The Board is charged therein to “determine, define and implement
the environmental control standards applicable in the State of
Illinois”
(415 ILCS 5/5(b)).
More generally,
the Board’s
rulemaking charge is based on the system of checks and balances
integral
to Illinois environmental governance:
the Board bears
responsibility for the rulemaking and principal adjudicatory
functions;
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
has primary responsibility for administration of the Act and the
Board’s regulations,
including today’s proposed regulation.
Today the Board adopts the amendment
as final
and sends the
amendment to the Administrative Code Division of the office of
Secretary of State for publication and assignment of an effective
date pursuant to Section
5 of the
Illinois Administrative
Procedure Act
(5 ILCS 100/5—40(d)
(1994))
2
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The District filed its proposal on April
28,
1995.
By order
of May 4,
1995 the Board accepted the proposal for hearing.
A public hearing was held before hearing officer Audrey
Lozuk-Lawless in Chicago on June 30,
1995.
The District
presented the testimony of Dr. Cecil Lue—Hing, Director of
Research and Development at the District;
Dr. Richard G.
Luthy,
Professor and Head of the Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University;
and Dr. Herbert Allen,
Professor of Environmental Engineering at the University of
Delaware.
Dr. Lue—Hing presented an overview of the District’s
petition,
including discussion of the existing WAD cyanide
standard and studies the District has undertaken of that
standard.
Dr. Lue-Hing additionally addressed the economic
impact to the District and the water quality of the rivers
impacted by the proposed new standard.
Dr. Luthy addressed the methodology for WAD cyanide
analysis,
including the precision and accuracy of the WAD cyanide
test.
Dr. Allen addressed the methodologies
for determining a
WAD cyanide CS.
In addition to the hearing testimony,
seven public comments
(PC)
were filed by Chicago Metal Finishers Institute
(PC #1),
Illinois Association of Wastewater Agencies
(PC #2),
the District
(PC #3,
#5, and #7),
and the Agency
(PC #4 and #6).
All comments
support adoption of the District’s proposal.
By order of August
24,
1995 the Board adopted the District’s
proposal’
for first notice.
First notice publication occurred
at 19
Illinois Register
12583
(September
8,
1995)
By order of December
7,
1995 the Board adopted the
District’s proposal for second notice2
.
The matter was
1
The proposal as adopted for first notice contained several
modifications relative to the proposal as originally filed with
the Board.
The basis for making these modifications
is discussed
in the Board’s
first notice opinion of August 24 at p.
7—8.
2
The second notice proposal contained several
modifications relative to the proposal as presented at first
notice.
These modifications and their justification are
discussed in the Board’s second notice opinion of December
7,
1995 at p.
8-9.
The principal modification was striking of
3
accordingly filed with the Joint Committee on Administrative
Rules
(JCAR)
.
On January 23,
1996 JCAR voted no objection to
adoption of the proposal.
BACKGROUND
The District is a unit of government with jurisdiction
within part of Cook County,
Illinois.
Among the duties of the
District is operation of water reclamation plants
(WRPs),
which,
as part of their normal activities,
produce discharges to local
waterways.
The Board has established water quality standards for the
streams of the State,
including streams within the area served by
the District.
Among these standards are two standards for
cyanide3
that apply to the General Use Waterways to which the
District discharges.
These are a chronic standard
(CS)
with
a
value of 5.2
j.tg/L and an acute standard
(AS)
of 22
p.g\L.
The
parameter to be measured in both cases
is WAD cyanide,
identified
by the STORET number 00718.
At issue
in the instant proceedings are three of the
District’s seven WRPs and the General Use Water Quality streams
to which they discharge.
These are:
t’?RP
Receiving Stream
ADF*
Hanover Park
West Branch DuPage River
8.87
John E. Egan
Salt Creek
24.5
James
C.
Kirie
Higgins Creek
31.8
*
(ADF
=
Average
1994 daily flow in million gallons per day)
Each of the three receiving streams has a 7—day,
10-year low
flow of zero at the point of discharge.
The three receiving
streams are tributary to a fourth stream of interest,
the Des
Flames River.
In 1993 the Agency issued renewed National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES)
permits for the Hanover Park
304.201(c),
a subsection observed by the Agency to be obsolete
(PC #6)
*
~ These standards are found at
35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.208(d).
They were adopted in Board proceeding R88-21(A)
(In the matter
of: Amendments to Title
35,
Subtitle C
(Toxics Control)),
effective February 13,
1990.
4
and James C. Kirie WRPs.
In these permits the Agency for the
first time included numerical effluent limits based on the
cyanide water quality standards4
.
These effluent limits for the
two plants
are 5.2 and 5.0 ~tg/L,respectively, measured as
monthly average WAD cyanide,
and 22 ~tg/Lmeasured as daily
maximum WAD cyanide.
The NPDES cyanide limits were set equal to the cyanide CS,
in keeping with the permit-writing practice applicable to streams
that have 7—day,
10-year low flows of zero.
Prior
to the 1993 issuance of the NPDES permits at issue,
the District had not conducted routine analysis of effluent
cyanide.
However, analyses conducted subsequently at both the
Hanover Park and James C. Kirie WRPs have suggested to the
District that
a
5
jtg\L monthly average5
of WAD cyanide would
often be equaled or exceeded.
In this circumstance the District
believes that compliance with the monthly averages currently
expressed in the permits
is problematic.
The District believes
that the solution lies in examination of the rationale for the
cyanide General Use CS, and bases the instant petition on that
examination.
JUSTIFICATION FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
The District has identified four factors that it believes
give technical justification for
a CS standard of
10
,.lg/Lb
These
are:
1.
The indigenous species used in calculating
fish toxicities are not applicable to the
waterways named in the District’s proposal.
~ Upon petition from the District the Agency has set the
effective date for the cyanide limits
to October
1,
1996.
~ The District believes that
it would have no difficulty
complying with the
22 ~ig/Ldaily limits.
6
This value is expressed in the record both as
10 ~tg/Land
10.0 ~tg/L. The Agency recommends
(PC #4 at ¶6),
and the Board
agrees,
that in view of concerns regarding precision of
WAD
cyanide analyses,
10
jig/L is the preferred form.
5
2.
Use of
WAD
cyanide for determining water
quality standards is not directly related to
toxicity as compared to use of free cyanide.
3.
Chlorine interferes with the WAD cyanide
test.
4.
The regulatory limits are at or below the
limit of detection.
The Board will address each of these
in turn.
Use of Indigenous Species
Determination of AS and CS water quality standards is
accomplished by a well-established procedure7
that involves
consideration of the toxicity of the substance in question to
a
range of aquatic organisms.
In fresh—water environments such as
those of concern here,
the procedures and cyanide data base are
such that the four fish species most sensitive to cyanide
determine the calculated standards8
The current cyanide CS standard of 5.2 ~.xg/Lwas established
based upon a calculation that included toxicities to rainbow
trout,
brook trout,
yellow perch,
and bluegill as the four
species in question.
However,
the District observes that rainbow
trout, which
is the most sensitive of the four species to
cyanide,
are not indigenous
to the District’s waterways.
The District notes that rainbow trout have never been
observed in any of the extensive fish collections made by the
District.
(Proposal at p.
45—51:
Tr.
at 25.)
~Moreover, the
District observes that rainbow trout,
which are
a coldwater fish
~ The procedures are given
in Guidelines
for Deriving
Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of
Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses,
NTIS PB85—227049.
Similar
procedures are present in the Board’s regulations
at 35 Ill.
Adm.
Code 302.Subpart
F:
Procedures
for Determining Water Quality
Criteria.
8
Application of the procedures,
including selection of data
and calculations using the data to produce the CS values
discussed herein,
is detailed in the testimony of Dr. Allen at
Tr.
35-42 and Exh.
2.
The Agency has independently undertaken
the, analysis,
and confirms the results obtained by Dr. Allen.
(Tr.
at 54.)
6
species,
are intolerant of the warmwater environments at issue
here.
(Proposal at p. 50-54.)
If rainbow trout are not included in the cyanide CS
calculation,
the four most sensitive species become the
four
fishes: brook trout9
,
yellow perch,
bluegill, and black crappie.
When these four species are used,
the calculated CS value for
cyanide becomes
9.799
j.tg/L.
(Tr.
at 41-42; Exh.
2 at
6.)
The
District recommends that this value,
rounded to
10 ~g/L, be the
CS applicable in the District’s waterways.
The Agency agrees that rainbow trout are not a species
indigenous to the District’s waterways.
(Tr.
at 62—63.)
The
Agency further observes that excluding rainbow trout from the CS
calculation for the streams at issue is consistent with federal
guidance and that the resultant cyanide CS of
10 ~tg/Lis
protective of existing and expected aquatic life.
(PC
#4 at ¶2.)
WAD Cyanide Toxicity
Cyanide occurs in natural aquatic environments in a number
of forms.
Among these are HCN, CN, and complexes of cyanide
with metals
(e.g.,
ferrocyanide).
The WAD cyanide measurement
procedure measures all three of these
forms.
However,
it is
generally recognized that only the first two forms,
HCN and CN
(collectively called free cyanide),
significantly contribute
to
the toxicity of cyanide.
(Tr.
at 44.)
Thus,
analyses of WAD
cyanide overestimates the toxicity of the cyanide in direct
proportion to the amount of metallocyanide complexes present in
any sample.
This problem would be eliminated if free cyanide could be
measured directly.
However,
there currently is no approved
method for analysis of free cyanide in natural samples.
(Tr. at
29,
45; Exh.
3 at 2.)
Thus,
analysis of WAD cyanide must be used
in default.
The District observes that for these reasons, WAD cyanide
is
a conservative measure of cyanide toxicity.
(Tr.
at 29.)
Nevertheless,
at the low levels of metals and cyanide in the
District’s effluent,
there should be little difference between
~ At hearing it was noted that brook trout do not occur
in the
waterways at issue,
and that yellow perch are rare
(Tr.
at
51—54).
Nevertheless,
no suggestion has been made that these
species
also
be excluded from the
CS calculation;
if brook trout are
excluded,
the calculated CS would be 10.9 ~tg/L (Tr.
at 54).
7
the expected free cyanide concentrations and measured WAD cyanide
concentrations.
(Tr.
at
59.)
Chlorine Interference
The District has completed l6~months of detailed WAD
cyanide sampling and analysis in effluents from the Hanover Park
and James C. Kirie WRPs.
In both data sets the District observes
that measured WAD cyanide concentrations were higher during the
months of May through October than in November through April10
The only consistent difference in inflow or operational
parameters between these two time periods is that during May
through October both WRPs employ chlorination/dechlorination
procedures.
The District observes that during the summer of 1994, when
the correlation between chlorination/dechlorination was becoming
evident,
it undertook a study of the fate of WAD cyanide
concentrations during the treatment process,
including sampling
prior
to and after chlorination.
(Tr.
at 31—32;
Exh.
1 at 11.)
The results verified that chlorination causes an increase in the
reported WAD cyanide concentrations
(Id.),
although it remains
uncertain whether the increase
is caused by an analytical
interference or by a chemical reaction that produces new cyanide
(Tr. at 55—57)
Detection Limit
The District observes that Standard Methods
for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater,
18th edition,
lists the
limit of detection for WAD cyanide as
5 to
20 ~tg/L,depending
upon the sample matrix.
(Proposal
at
57.)
The District
observes, accordingly,
that
a standard at 5.2 ~tg/Llies at the
threshold of and “perhaps beyond the limits of existing
laboratory analytical methodology”
(Id.).
In addition,
Dr.
Luthy,
who chairs the task group that
prepared the section on cyanide for the current edition of
Standard Methods,
notes that the single operator precision for
~°
At the Hanover Park WRP,
the WAD cyanide concentrations on
the final effluent were 1.0 to 2.0
j.tg/L during November through
April,
versus 4.0 to 6.0 p~g/Lduring May through October.
(Exh.
1
at Table
1.)
At the James C.
Kirie WRP WAD cyanide
concentrations were 1.0 to 2.0 ~.tg/Lduring November through
April, versus
3.0 to
4.0 ~tg/Lduring May through October.
(Exh.
1 at Table
2.)
8
the determination of WAD cyanide is about
8 ~ig/Lfor samples in
the range 5-10 ~.Lg/L.(Tr.
at
47; Exh.
3
at 3.)
He concludes
that considerable variation should be expected in such low—level
samples,
and that “it would be improper to ascribe great
significance to sample analyses in this range”
(Id.).
ECONOMICS
The District has calculated the cost of replacing the
chlorination/dechlorination system at the Hanover Park and James
C. Kirie WRPs.
(Proposal at
24, Attachment
7.)
The District
calculated estimates of replacing the existing system with
ultraviolet radiation
(UV) and ozone disinfection.
The
calculations indicate that ozonation would be the least costly
replacement alternative.
The District’s total cost to replace
the current chlorination/dechlorination system with an ozonation
system would be $5,699,728 in construction costs,
with an annual
operating cost of $164,200.
(Id.)
The total annualized capital
plus operating cost for both WRPs would be $830,097.
(Id.)
These expenses do not include any costs for replacing the
existing chlorination/dechlorination system at the John E. Egan
WRP.
The District notes that even with this expenditure,
there
is
no guarantee that an ozonation system would not produce increases
in WAD cyanide as observed during chlorination/dechlorination.
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that the record before us justifies adoption
of the District’s proposed site—specific cyanide rule.
Accordingly,
we today adopt that rule.
ORDER
The Board directs that the following amendments be submitted
to the Secretary of State for
final notice pursuant to Section 5-
40 of the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act.
TITLE 35:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE C:
WATER POLLUTION
CHAPTER
I:
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PART 303
WATER USE DESIGNATIONS
AND
SITE SPECIFIC
9
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
SUBPART A:
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section
303.100
303.101
303.102
Section
303.200
303.201
303.202
303.203
303.204
Scope and Applicability
Multiple Designations
Rulemaking Required
SUBPART
B:
NONSPECIFIC WATER USE DESIGNATIONS
Scope and Applicability
General Use Waters
Public and Food Processing Water Supplies
Underground Waters
Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Waters
SUBPART
C:
SPECIFIC USE DESIGNATIONS
AND
SITE SPECIFIC
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Section
303.300
303.301
303.311
303.312
303.321
303.322
303.323
303.331
303.341
303.351
303.352
303.353
303
.
361
303.400
303
.
430
303.431
303.441
303.442
303.443
303.444
Scope and Applicability
Organization
Ohio River Temperature
Waters Receiving Fluorspar Mine Drainage
Wabash River Temperature
Unnamed Tributary of the Vermilion River
Sugar Creek and Its Unnamed Tributary
Mississippi River North Temperature
Mississippi River North Central Temperature
Mississippi River South Central Temperature
Unnamed Tributary of Wood River Creek
Schoenberger Creek;
Unnamed Tributary of Cahokia Canal
Mississippi River South Temperature
Bankline Disposal Along the Illinois Waterway Rivers
Unnamed Tributary to Dutch Creek
Long Point Slough and Its Unnamed Tributary
Secondary Contact Waters
Waters Not Designated for Public Water Supply
Lake Michigan
Salt Creek,
Higgins Creek,
West Branch of the DuPage
River,
Des Plaines River
SUBPART
D:
THERMAL DISCHARGES
Section
10
303.500
Scope and Applicability
303.502
Lake Sangchris Thermal Discharges
303.Appendix A References to Previous Rules
303.Appendix B Sources of Codified Sections
AUTHORITY:
Implementing Section 13 and authorized by Section 27
of the Environmental Protection Act
(415 ILCS 5/13 and
27)
SOURCE:
Filed with the Secretary of State January
1,
1978;
amended at
2
Ill. Reg.
27,
p.
221,
effective July
5,
1978;
amended at
3
Ill. Reg.
20,
p.
95,
effective May 17,
1979;
amended
at
5 Ill.
Reg.
11592,
effective October 19,
1981;
codified at
6
Ill.
Reg.
7818;
amended at
6 Iii.
Reg.
11161,
effective September
7,
1982; amended at
7 Ill.
Reg.
8111,
effective June 23,
1983;
amended in R87—27
at
12
Ill. Reg.
9917,
effective May 27,
1988;
amended in R87—2
at
13 Ill.
Reg.
15649,
effective September 22,
1989;
amended in R87—36 at
14 Ill. Reg.
9460,
effective May 31,
1990;
amended in R86-14
at
14 Ill. Reg.
20724,
effective December
18,
1990; amended in R89—14(C)
at
16
Ill.
Reg.
14684,
effective
September
10,
1992;
amended in R92—17 at
18
Ill.
Reg.
at 2981
effective February 14,
1994;
amended in R91-23
at
18
Iii.
Reg.
13457,
effective August
19,
1994;
amended in R93—13
at
19
Ill.
Reg.
1310 effective January 30,
1995;
amended in R95—14
at
19
Ill.
Reg.
_______________
effective
________________
SUBPART
C:
SPECIFIC USE DESIGNATIONS
AND
SITE SPECIFIC WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS
Section 303.444
Salt Creek,
Higgins Creek,
West Branch of the
DuPage River,
Des Plaines River
The General Use chronic water quality standard for cyanide
(STORET number 00718)
contained in Section 302.208 does not apply
to Salt Creek,
Higgins Creek,
the West Branch of the DuPage
River,
and the Des Plaines River
in Cook County,
Illinois.
Instead,
for these waters the chronic cyanide standard is
10
~.tg/L.
(Source:
Amended at
19 Ill. Reg.
__________,
effective
TITLE
35:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE
C:
WATER POLLUTION
CHAPTER
I:
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
11
PART 304
EFFLUENT STANDARDS
SUBPART A:
GENERAL EFFLUENT STANDARDS
Section
304.101
Preamble
304.102
Dilution
304.103
Background Concentrations
304.104
Averaging
304.105
Violation of Water Quality Standards
304.106
Offensive Discharges
304.120
Deoxygenating Wastes
304.121
Bacteria
304.122
Nitrogen
(STORET number 00610)
304.123
Phosphorus
(STORET number 00665)
304.124
Additional Contaminants
304.125
pH
304.126
Mercury
304.140
Delays in Upgrading
(Repealed)
304.141
NPDES Effluent Standards
304.142
New Source Performance Standards
(Repealed)
SUBPART
B:
SITE SPECIFIC RULES
AND
EXCEPTIONS NOT OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY
Section
304.201
Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharges of the
Metropolitan Sanitary Water Reclamation District of
Greater Chicago
304.202
Chlor-alkali Mercury Discharges
in St. Clair County
304.203
Copper Discharges by Olin Corporation
304.204
Schoenberger Creek:
Groundwater Discharges
304.205
John Deere Foundry Discharges
304.206
Alton Water Company Treatment Plant Discharges
304.207
Galesburg Sanitary District Deoxygenating Wastes
Discharges
304.208
City of Lockport Treatment Plant Discharges
304.209
Wood River Station Total Suspended Solids Discharges
304.210
Alton Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharges
304.211
Discharges From Borden Chemicals and Plastics Operating
Limited Partnership Into an Unnamed Tributary of Long
Point Slough
304.212
Sanitary District of Decatur Discharges
304.213
UNO-VEN Refinery Ammonia Discharge
304.214
Mobil Oil Refinery Ammonia Discharge
304.215
City of Tuscola Wastewater Treatment Facility
Discharges
304.216
Newton Station Suspended Solids Discharges
12
304.218
City of Pana Phosphorus Discharge
304.219
North
Shore
Sanitary
District
Phosphorus
Discharges
304.220
East
St.
Louis
Treatment
Facility,
Illinois—American
Water Company
304.221
Ringwood Drive Manufacturing Facility in McHenry County
304.222
Intermittent Discharge of TRC
SUBPART
C:
TEMPORARY
EFFLUENT
STANDARDS
Section
304.301
Exception
for
Ammonia
Nitrogen
Water
Quality
Violations
304.302
City
of
Joliet
East
Side
Wastewater
Treatment
Plant
304.303
Amerock
Corporation,
Rockford
Facility
Appendix A
References to Previous Rules
AUTHORITY:
Implementing Section
13 and authorized by Section 27
of the Environmental Protection Act
(415 ILCS 5/13 and 27).
SOURCE:
Filed with the Secretary of State January
1,
1978;
amended at
2
Ill.
Reg.
30,
p.
343,
effective July 27,
1978;
amended at
2
Ill.
Reg.
44,
p.
151,
effective November 2,
1978;
amended at
3
Ill.
Reg.
20,
p.
95,
effective May 17,
1979;
amended
at
3
Ill.
Reg.
25,
p.
190,
effective June
21,
1979; amended at
4
Ill. Reg.
20,
p.
53 effective May
7,
1980; amended at
6
Ill.
Reg.
563, effective December 24,
1981;
codified at
6
Ill.
Req.
7818:
amended at
6
Ill. Reg.
11161, effective September
7,
1982;
amended at
6
Ill. Reg.
13750, effective October 26,
1982;
amended
at
7 Ill.
Reg.
3020,
effective March
4,
1983; amended at
7
Ill.
Req.
8111,
effective June 23,
1983;
amended at
7 Ill. Req.
14515,
effective October 14,
1983; amended at
7
Ill.
Reg.
14910,
effective November 14,
1983;
amended at
7
Ill.
Req.
14910,
effective November 14,
1983;
amended at
8
Ill.
Req.
1600,
effective January 18,
1984; amended at
8
Ill. Reg.
3687,
effective March
14,
1984;
amended at
8
Ill.
Reg.
8237,
effective
June
8,
1984;
amended at
9 Ill.
Reg.
1379,
effective January 21,
1985;
amended at
9
Ill. Reg.
4510, effective March 22,
1985;
peremptory amendment at
10
Ill.
Reg.
456,
effective December 23,
1985;
amended at 11
Ill. Reg.
3117,
effective January 28,
1987;
amended in R84—l3
at
11
Ill.
Reg. 7291 effective April
3,
1987;
amended in R86—17(A)
at
11
Ill. Reg.
14748, effective August 24,
1987;
amended in R84-16 at
12
Ill. Reg.
2445, effective January
15,
1988;
amended in R83—23 at
12
Ill.
Reg.
8658,
effective May
10,
1988;
amended in R87-27 at
12
Ill.
Reg.
9905,
effective May
27,
1988;
amended in R82—7
at
12
Ill. Req.
10712, effective June
9,
1988;
amended in R85—29 at
12
Ill. Req.
12064, effective July
12,
1988;
amended in R87—22 at
12
Ill.
Req.
13966, effective
August
23,
1988;
amended in R86—3 at
12
Ill.
Reg.
20126,
effective November 16,
1988;
amended in R84—20
at
13 Ill.
Reg.
13
851,
effective January 9,
1989;
amended in R85—l1 at
13
Ill.
Reg.
2060,
effective February
6,
1989;
amended in R88-1
at
13
Ill.
Reg.
5976,
effective April
18,
1989;
amended in R86-17B
at
13
Ill. Reg.
7754,
effective May
4,
1989;
amended in R88—22
at
13
Ill. Req.
8880,
effective May 26,
1989;
amended in R87—6
at
14
Ill. Reg.
6777,
effective April 24,
1990;
amended in R87—36 at
14
Ill.
Reg.
9437,
effective May 31,
1990;
amended in R88—21(B)
at
14
Ill. Req.
12538,
effective July 18,
1990;
amended in R84—44
at
14
Iii. Req.
20719,
effective December 11,
1990;
amended in R86—
14
at
15
Ill.
Req. 241,
effective December
18,
1990;
amended in
R87—33 at
18
Ill. Reg.
11574, effective July
7,
1994; amended in
R94—1
at 19
Ill. Req.
_______,
effective
________________________
______________________________;
amended in R95-14 at 19
Ill.
Req.
________________,
effective
_______________
BOARD NOTE:
This Part implements the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act
as of July
1,
1994.
SUBPART
B:
SITE SPECIFIC RULES
AND
EXCEPTIONS NOT OF GENERAL
APPLICABILITY
Section 304.201
Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharges of The
Metropolitan Sanitary Water Reclamation
District of Greater Chicago
a)
Calumet Treatment Plant Cyanide Discharges:
The effluent standards of Section 304.124
as applied to
cyanide discharges,
Sections 304.120(b)
and
(c) and Section
304.122 do not apply to BOD5,
total suspended solids,
cyanide, and ammonia-nitrogen discharged from the Calumet
Sewage Treatment Works of The Metropolitan Sanitary Water
Reclamation District of Greater Chicago.
Instead,
it must
meet the following effluent standard,
subject to the
averaging rule of Section 304.104(a),
effective July
1,
1988:
STORET
CONCENTRATION
CONSTITUENT
NUMBER
(mg/I)
CBOD5
80082
24
SS
00530
28
Ammonia Nitrogen
00610
13
(as N)
Cyanide
00720
0.15
b)
North
Side
Sewage
Treatment
Works
14
The effluent standards of Sections 304.120(b)
and
(c) and
304.122 do not apply to
BOD5,
total suspended solids,
and
ammonia-nitrogen discharged from the North Side Sewage
Treatment Works
of The Metropolitan Sanitary Water
Reclamation District of Greater Chicago.
Instead,
it must
meet the following standard, subject
to the averaging rule
of Section
304.104(a)
effective July 1,
1988:
STORET
CONCENTRATION
CONSTITUENT
NUMBER
(mg/l)
CBOD5
80082
12
SS
00530
20
Ammonia
Nitrogen
(as
N)
April-October
00610
2.5
November—March
00610
4.0
C)
Chicago Watorway Evaluation
Thc Metropolitan Sanitary Diotrict of Greater Chicago chall
complete and 3ubmit
to the Board a comprehenoive water
quality evaluation of thc Chicago Waterway Syctcm and it~
influence on the lower Dcc Plainco and 1Tr~r~prIllinoig Rivcr3
by January 15,
1992.
Such evaluation chall include
accecoment of performance levelo for North Side,
Calumet and
Stickney wactewater reclamation planto and the extent of
cewer
overflow
reduction
through
The
Metropolitan
Sanitary
-D-i-s-trict of Greater
Chirnru-~’~
Tunnel
and
Recervoir
Plan.
(Source:
Amended at
19
Ill. Req.
__________,
effective
IT
IS
SO
ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M.
Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby certify that the abQ
opinion and order was
adopted on the
/44-
day of
_________________,
1996,
by
a vote
of
~O.
Dorothy
M.
G~n,
Clerk
Illinois Pol~e’utionControl Board
