ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September 13, 1989

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO

)

R87-6

PHOSPHORUS EFFLUENT STANDARD,

)

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 304.123

)

PROPOSED RULE.

SECOND NOTICE

PROPOSED OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J. Anderson):

This rulemaking was initiated by the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency (Agency) on March 20, 1987; the Agency filed an

amended proposal on July 13, 1987. Merit hearings on the

Agency’s proposal were held in Chicago on May 18, 1987 and in

Springfield on July 21, 1987. Participants at those hearings

beside the Agency were the Northeastern Illinois Planning

Commission (NIPC), the Department of Energy and Natural Resources

(DENR), the Urbana and Champaign~SanitaryDistrict (U-C Sanitary

District) and members of the public.

Following completion of the merit hearing, DENR, with the

concurrence of the Economic Technical Advisory Committee (ETAC),

determined that an Economic Impact Study (EcIS) was warranted in

this proceeding. On March 31, 1988, an EcIS report prepared on

behalf of DENR by Blaser, Zeni and Co., a management consulting

firm, was filed with the Board (Exh. 40). On April 7, 1988, the

Board adopted the Agency’s proposal for first notice. This first

notice appeared in the Illinois Register on April 29, 1988.

Upon receipt of the EcIS report, the Board scheduled and

conducted two additional public hearings to consider the EcIS.

Present at these hearings were DENR, the Agency and William L.

Blaser, President of Blaser, Zeni and Co. and the principal

author of the EcIS report. Some other members of the EcIS

drafting team were also present. Hearings were held on June 7,

1988 in Springfield, and on June 21, 1988 in Chicago.

On December 15, 1988, the Board adopted for Second Notice a

Proposed Opinion and Order in the matter. Since the Second

Notice proposal differed in certain respects from the Agency—

drafted First Notice proposal, the Board deferred filing of the

proposal to allow interested participants opportunity to

comment. On January 5, 1989 in order to correct a drafting error

in the December 15, 1988 Order, the Board adopted a Correction of

Proposed Order of the Board.

103—139

---

—2—

Five public comments (Nos. 12—16) were received in response

to the Board’s Second Notice proposal. Public Comment #15 was

filed by the Agency. In response to questions from the Board’s

staff requesting clarification of the intent and effect of

certain of the Agency’s comments, the Agency on March 9, 1989

filed Supplemental Agency Final Comments (Public Comment #17).

Since, pursuant to Section 5.01(d) of the Illinois

Administrative Procedure Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, Ch. 127, par.

1001 et seq., par. 1005.01(d)). no rule can be adopted more than

one year after the date of publication of First Notice, it was

obviously necessary to return this proceeding to First Notice.

On May 11, 1989, the Board adopted a Second First Notice proposed

Opinion and Order, which was subsequently corrected on May 25,

1989. The Board also utilized the necessity for a Second First

Notice period to afford the participants additional time to

consider this rulemaking in light of the changes proposed by the

Board (see following). Additionally, the Board concluded that at

least one more hearing in this docket would be advisable in view

of the continuing problems posed by the record.

The Second First Notice embodied the Agency’s original

proposal together with the modifications proposed by the Board in

its deferred Second Notice proposal of December 15, 1988 as more

fully set forth below. A merit hearing to consider the modified

proposal was held in Chicago on June 23, 1989. Participants at

this third merit hearing (fifth overall), besides the Agency were

DENR, the City of Charleston (Charleston), Dr. Harish Rao, Chief

of the Board’s Scientific and Technical Section (STS), and Mr.

Robert Kirschner, Manager of the NIPC lakes program, who appeared

on behalf of the Illinois Lake Management Association (ILMA) as

its vice—president and the North American Lake Management Society

(NALMS) as its secretary. At the hearing, ten additional

exhibits (Exhs. 50-58 and 60) were received into evidence.*

The Board’s Modified Proposal (Second First Notice)

As more fully described in the Board’s Opinion of May 11,

1989, the Board, after consideration of the record then available

to it, found sufficient support for the Agency’s proposal to the

extent that it would impose a 1.0 mg/l effluent phosphorus as P

standard upon all point sources of 2500 population equivalents

(P.E.) or more located within 25 miles of a 20-acre or larger

lake or reservoir. Current requirements impose this effluent

standard upon somewhat smaller (1500 P.E. or larger) sources

which discharge within the Fox River Basin or which (without

utilizing a third-stage lagoon treatment system) discharge

*

One other exhibits (Exh. 59), consisting of the Illinois Water

Quality Report for 1980—1987 (also known as the 305B report) was

to have been submitted, but has not been received.

103—140

---

—3—

directly to a lake or reservoir which does not comply with the

general use water quality standard for phosphorus (35 Ill. Adm.

Code 302.205), and to somewhat larger (5000 P.E. or larger)

sources elsewhere (separate standards for the Lake Michigan basin

are not affected). The Board also accepted the Agency’s proposal

to the extent that the effluent phosphorus standard would not

apply to sources tributary to so—called “riverine” lakes or

reservoirs (e.g., Lake Decatur) whose very low retention times

appear to limit growth of nuisance plants and algae regardless of

phosphorus concentrations. However, the Board noted (on page 13)

that it was not satisfied that the record supported that aspect

of the Agency’s proposal that removed control requirements from

all point sources of phosphorus which happen to be located more

than 25 miles from a lake. The Board noted that some of the

lakes and reservoirs potentially impacted by the Agency’s 25 mile

cut—off were, according to the EcIS, in a transitional or

balancing condition between mesotrophy and eutrophy. Finally, in

this regard, the Board noted that the Agency, DENR and other

commenters agreed that internal regeneration of phosphorus into

the dissolved form from lake sediments can be a “significant

factor” in lake eutrophication (Id., citing Exh. 1, pgs. 6—8, 34—

38 and 54).

The Board’s Second First Notice proposal (which was

identical to its December 15, 1988 deferred Second Notice

proposal as corrected) attempted to supply the element it viewed

as missing from the Agency’s proposal, namely, a measure of

control over those point sources of phosphorus located more than

25 miles upstream from the receiving lake or reservoir. The

proposal approached the problem by, in effect, defining what

constituted a “significant” source. Based on testimony and

exhibits in the record, particularly the EcIS, the Board’s

proposal exempted from the effluent phosphorus standard only such

point sources whose effluent, if untreated for removal of

phosphorus, would contribute less than 3 of the point and non—

point source phosphorus loading of all tributaries to the

receiving lake or reservoir. Phosphorus loading was to be

estimated utilizing the National Eutrophication Surveys, Working

Paper Series, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 1975

(NES).

At the June 23, 1989, hearing and in comments and exhibits

submitted by various participants, the Board’s choice of the 3

cutoff, as well as the use of the NES, were attacked as

unreliable and founded upon suspect dated methodology (R. 81—82,

85—87, 101—102, lsl_l52)*. The Agency submitted an exhibit (Exh.

57) suggesting that there was very little (3.3 on average)

difference in sedimentary phosphorus levels as between lakes

*

All references to transcript pages relate to the hearing of

June 23, 1989, unless otherwise noted.

103—14 1

---

—4—

with, and lakes without, upstream point sources of phosphorus (R.

113—114). The Agency essentially urged the Board to ignore point

sources of sedimentary phosphorus as being insignificant or

negligible when compared to non—point sources (R. 82—83, 114—115

and 117). The Agency suggested that the NES data was dated and

unreliable (R. 152). The Agency stated that there was not enough

data presently available upon which to base a statewide rule (R.

86—88), and that diagnosis of lake problems would be necessarily

lake—specific (R. 90). Further, although the Agency and other

participants indicated that specific studies are underway in some

areas of the State (e.g., Lake Charleston

—

see R. 15, 25—26, 45—

46, and Exh. 51), the Agency suggested that future research

dollars would likely be directed at toxins rather than phosphorus

(R. 90—91).

The foregoing Agency views were generally endorsed or

accepted by other participants; however, no other participants

were willing to accept the Agency’s premise that point source

contributions of sedimentary phosphorus were insignificant or

negligible (R. 50, 123, 139—140). Mr. Kirschner of ILMA and

NALMS, while stating that a case—by-case analysis would be

required to confirm or refute the Agency’s position (R. 143—145),

pointedly disagreed with the concept of deregulation of point

sources of sedimentary phosphorus CR. 147—149). Even the Agency

conceded that the studies upon which it based its conclusions in

this regard could be easily faulted or “ripped apart” (R. 98 and

120).

The other major point of contention at the June 23, 1989

hearing was whether the “riverine” exemption should be extended

to sources tributary to Lake Charleston. Mr. Alan Alford

testified on behalf of Charleston. Mr. Alford testified that the

basic difference between Lake Charleston and Lake Decatur (which

is also a “riverine” lake) is that the former has a side channel

reservoir having a hydraulic retention time approaching two

years, in sharp contrast to Lake Charleston’s retention time of a

few days (R. 22). He expressed concern that an addition to the

already “large amount” of phosphorus in Lake Charleston might

detrimentally affect the side channel reservoir, which serves as

Charleston’s potable water supply; he indicated that studies of

the phosphorus/nitrogen ratios in the lake indicate that

phosphorus may be a limiting factor in terms of causing or

contributing to eutrophication in either the lake or the side

channel reservoir; tests are presently underway to determine

whether phosphorus or nitrogen is the limiting factor (R. 25—

26). Under questioning from the Agency, Mr. Alford agreed that

his purpose regarding the side channel reservoir would be

accomplished if the “riverine” exemption were amended to apply

only “where the lake and any side channel reservoir on an annual

basis exhibits a mean hydraulic retention time of 18 days or

less” (IL 38).

103—142

---

—5—

Board Conclusions and Further Modifications (Second Notice)

The Board is persuaded that the “riverine” exemption should

not be extended to lakes having side channel reservoirs where the

side channel reservoirs do not otherwise qualify for the

exemption. Given a chance in the June

23, 1989, hearing to

address

the obvious confusion in the record regarding the

hydraulic retention time of Lake Charleston and its side—channel

reservoir, Charleston has made its point in this regard. It is

now clear that the side—channel reservoir, which receives some

70 of its influent from the lake, has a retention time

approaching two years, rather than a few days. Accordingly,

subsections (b) and (c)(l) of Section 304.123 of the Second First

Notice proposal will be amended for second notice purposes to

include the phrase “,including any side channel reservoir or

other portion thereof,” immediately preceeding the words “on an

annual basis”. The additional reference to “or other portion

thereof” has been inserted to make clear that the principle

applies irrespective of whether a segment of a lake is

denominated a “side channel reservoir”.

As to the troubling issue of point sources of phosphorus

which are at least 25 miles upstream, the Board remains

unpersuaded that the Agency has made out a case for blanket

deregulation. No participant or comnienter, including the Agency,

argues that such phosphorus discharges will not eventually reach

the receiving lake or reservoir. No participant or commenter,

including the Agency, suggests that such phosphorus as reaches

the receiving lake or reservoir, albeit in sedimentary form,

cannot be a significant factor in cultural eutrophication* of the

receiving lake or reservoir by virtue of internal regeneration of

the phosphorus into its dissolved form and subsequent return to

the euphotic zone wherein it is again readily available for

uptake by biota. Even if one were to accept the Agency’s data

suggesting that, for most Illinois lakes and reservoirs, internal

regeneration of phosphorus is generally not a critical factor in

cultural eutrophication, the record has certainly not shown that

internal regeneration of phosphorus is not a critical factor for

two of the lakes of concern identified in the EcIS, Lakes

Shelbyville and Carlyle. This is no small matter: Lake

Shelbyville is described by the EcIS as a “major recreational

center in downstate Illinois” (p. 63); Lake Carlyle (to which

Lake Shelbyville waters are tributary) is also described by the

EcIS as “part of a major recreational area in downstate Illinois

(p. 75). The combined angler-days for these two lakes (a measure

of their recreational value) is 2,715,486.

*

Cultural eutrophication refers to those eutrophication

processes accelerated by human activities.

103— 143

---

—6—

By the same token, the Board agrees that the 3 cutoff

figure may be irrelevent to a given lake and is based on dated

information which may be of doubtful reliability and relevance at

the present time. The Board is therefore faced with a dilemma:

either it may fashion yet another attempt to deal, with point

sources of phosphorus 25 miles or more upstream of a receiving

lake, or it may, as the Agency has proposed, rely on the presumed

general nature of Illinois lakes and watersheds and provide

regulatory relief generally for the more distant dischargers

until the resource intensive data, gathered on a lake—by—lake

basis, indicates a need for further point source controls.

The Board chooses the former. The Board is simply unwilling

at this juncture to provide regulatory relief, including the

shutdown of several existing phosphorus control facilities and

the termination of a number of phosphorus control construction

projects, where the impact on the State’s valuable water

resources is speculative at best. It agrees with all

participants that further research is needed on a lake and

watershed-specific basis, such as is currently underway at Lake

Charleston. Nevertheless, it recognizes that regulatory relief

for some point sources of phosphorus may be appropriate,

particularly where the phosphorus arrives at the receiving lake

or reservoir in the sedimentary form or where such phosphorus

plays no material role in cultural eutrophication of that lake or

reservoir.

The Board, therefore, proposes for Second Notice a modified

proposal which does not grant outright relief, but rather

provides for adjusted standard (AS) relief pursuant to Section

28.1 of the Act. It conditions regulatory relief for point

sources of phosphorus on the specific dynamics of the affected

watershed and the receiving lake or reservoir. Rather than

resort to the 3 cutoff and the NES study, both of which have

been questioned by commenters, the Board will, in keeping with

the tenor of comments, generally require that justification for

relief from the 1.0 mg/l effluent phosphorus standard be

predicated upon a demonstration that phosphorus is not the

limiting nutrient for purposes of stimulating biological growth

in the receiving lake or reservoir. However, for point sources

at least 25 miles upstream of a eutrophic lake, the Board will

require only that phosphorus from internal regeneration be ruled

out as a limiting nutrient. Thus the AS showing for the more

distant point sources which are tributary to lakes which are

already eutrophic have a somewhat reduced hurdle to overcome to

qualify for relief from the standard. This reduction reflects

the presumption that phosphorus from such sources arrives at the

receiving lake or reservoir in sedimentary form, and is of

negligible concern where internal regeneration of phosphorus

plays no substantial role in keeping the lake or reservoir

eutrophic. In addition, the Board has added definitions of the

key terms, such as “euphotic zone”, “eutrophication” and

103—144

---

—7—

“internal regeneration”. Finally, the Board has clarified its

intent that distances between a point source and the receiving

lake or reservoir are to be determined at the normal pool level,

rather than at some seasonal extreme.

The Board recognizes that the near—term effect of these

regulatory changes may be small. Some very small sources

(certain of those between 1500 P.E. and 2500 P.E.) may obtain

relief. Some others sources (certain of those between 2500 P.E.

and 5000 P.E.) will be made subject to the standard for the first

time. Many sources will be unaffected. Yet the possibility of

relief first raised by the Agency remains and the incentive to

truly understand the location—specific dynamics of eutrophication

is, in many cases, enhanced. The Board would expect that owners

and operators of point sources of phosphorus, particularly those

which are more distant from the receiving lake or reservoir, may

wish to enter into cooperative efforts to study the receiving

lake and watershed system as a necessary prerequisite to

regulatory relief.

It should be remembered that when the Agency’s proposal was

first filed, the adjusted standards mechanism in Section 28.1 was

in its infancy. Also, in 1988 there were major revisions and

additions to the section, and only recently (in 1989) has the

Board adopted general procedural rules to implement it. We

believe that this more efficient mechanism is particularly

appropriate for providing situation—specific relief from the

phosphorus regulatory requirements. The Board’s revised proposal

invokes this relatively new mechanism and specifies the level of

justification required of a petitioner pursuant to Section

28.1(b). Absent such specification, there would be no criteria

provided in the rule by which to determine the appropriate level

of justification for an adjusted standard; there would also be no

distinction between near point sources and more distant point

sources.

Most importantly, this proposal will protect the environment

and the public welfare by assuring that any relief from the

phosphorus effluent standard will not result in the cultural

eutrophication of Illinois lakes and reservoirs. As a related

benefit, this proposal places a premium on possessing knowledge

of the specific dynamics of eutrophication of a given lake or

reservoir. If nothing else, the record of this protracted

proceeding has abundantly demonstrated the need for such

knowledge.

Due to the aforementioned changes made in the proposal, the

filing of Second Notice with the Joint Committee will be deferred

for 14 days to allow participants opportunity to comment on the

changes. Such comments should be directed to the Board in

writing and must be received by the Board no later than Monday,

September 25, 1989.

103—145

---

—8—

ORDER

The Board hereby proposes the following revised proposed

amendment for Second Notice, which is to be filed with the Joint

Committee on Administrative Rules. Such filing shall be deferred

for receipt and consideration of additional comments until no

sooner than September 29, 1989.

TITLE 35: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SUBTITLE C: WATER POLLUTION

CHAPTER I: POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PART 304

EFFLUENT STANDARDS

SUBPART A: GENERAL EFFLUENT STANDARDS

Section

304. 101

304. 102

304. 103

304.104

304.105

304.106

304.120

304.121

304.122

304.123

304.124

304.125

304.126

304.140

304.141

304.142

Section

304 .201

304.202

304.203

304.204

304.205

304.206

304

.

207

304. 208

304. 209

Preamble

Dilution

Background Concentrations

Averaging

Violation of Water Quality Standards

Offensive Discharges

Deoxygenating Wastes

Bacteria

Nitrogen (STORET number 00610)

Phosphorus (STORET number 00665)

Additional Contaminants

pH

Mercury

Delays in Upgrading (Repealed)

NPDES Effluent Standards

New Source Performance Standards (Repealed)

SUBPART B: SITE SPECIFIC RULES AND EXCEPTIONS

NOT OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY

Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharges of the

Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago

Chlor—alkali Mercury Discharges in St. Clair County

Copper Discharges by Olin Corporation

Schoenberger Creek: Groundwater Discharges

John Deere Foundry Discharges

Alton Water Company Treatment Plant Discharges

Galesburg Sanitary District Deoxygenating Wastes

Discharges

City of Lockport Treatment Plant Discharges

Wood River Station Total Suspended Solids

Discharges

103—146

---

—9—

304.210

Alton Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharges

304.212

Sanitary District of Decatur Discharges

304.213

Union Oil Refinery Ammonia Discharge

304.214

Mobil Oil Refinery Ammonia Discharge

304.215

City of Tuscola Wastewater Treatmeat Facility

Discharges

304.216

Newton Station Suspended Solids Discharges

304.219

North Shore Sanitary District Phosphorus Discharges

304.220

East St. Louis Treatment Facility, Illinois—

American Water Company

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

APPENDIX A References to Previous Rules

AUTHORITY: Implementing Section 13 and authorized by Section 27

of the Environmental Protection Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch.

111 1/2 pars. 1013 and 1027).

SOURCE: Filed with the Secretary of State January 1, 1978;

amended at 2 Ill. Reg. 30, p. 343, effective July 27, 1978;

amended at 2 Ill. Reg. 44, p. 151, effective November 2, 1978;

amended at 3 Ill. Reg. 20, p. 95, effective May 17, 1979; amended

at 3 Ill. Reg. 25, p. 190, effective June 21, 1979; amended at 4

Ill. Reg. 20, p. 53, effective May 7, 1980; amended at 6 Ill.

Reg. 563, effective December 24, 1981; codified at 6 Ill. Reg.

7818; amended at 6 Ill. Reg. 11161, effective September 7, 1982;

amended at 6 Ill. Reg. 13750, effective October 26, 1982; amended

at 7 Ill. Reg. 3020, effective March 4, 1983; amended at 7 Iii.

Reg. 8111, effective June 23, 1983~ amended at 7 Ill. Reg. 14515,

effective October 14, 1983; amended at 7 Ill. Reg. 14910,

effective November 14, 1983; amended at 8 Ill. Reg. 1600,

effective January 18, 1984; amended at 8 Ill. Reg. 3687,

effective March 14, 1984; amended at 8 Ill. Reg. 8237, effective

June 8, 1984; amended at 9 Ill. Reg. 1379, effective January 21,

1985; amended at 9 Ill. Reg. 4510, effective March 22, 1985;

peremptory amendment at 10 Ill. Reg. 456, effective December 23,

1985; amended at 11 Ill. Reg. 3117, effective January 28, 1987;

amended in R84—l3 at 11 Ill. Reg. 7291, effective April 3, 1987;

amended in R86—l7(A) at 11 Ill. Reg. 14748, effective August 24,

1987; amended in R84—l6 at 12 Ill. Reg. 2445, effective January

15, 1988; amended in R83—23 at 12 Ill. Reg. 8658, effective May

10, 1988; amended in R87—27 at 12 Ill. Reg. 9905, effective May

27, 1988; amended in R82—7 at 12 Ill. Reg. 10712, effective June

9, 1988; amended in R85—29 at 12 Ill. Reg. 12064, effective July

12, 1988; amended in R87—22 at 12 Ill. Reg. 13966, effective

August 23, 1988; amended in R86—3 at 12 Ill. Reg. 20126,

103—147

---

—10—

effective November 16, 1988; amended in R84—20 at 13 Ill. Reg.

851, effective January 9, 1989; amended in R85—il at 13 Ill. Reg.

2060, effective February 6, 1989, amended in R88—l at 13 Ill.

Reg. 5976, effective April 18, 19897; amended in R86—l7B at 13

Ill. Reg. 7754, effective May 4, 1989; amended in R87—6 at

Ill. Reg.

________ ,

effective __________________________

Section 304.123 Phosphorus (STORET number 00665)

a) No effluent discharge within the Lake Michigan Basin

shall contain more than 1.0 mg/i of phosphorus as P.

b~ No eff~ttentfrom any aot~reewhi~eh diaehargea within the

Fox River Baa~n above and e~t2ding P~takee I~ake and

whoae t~ntreatedwaate ‘oad ~a ~S98 or more

po~atiert

eqva3ent~ ahaU eontain more than 1’~8mg/i

of

phosphert~a aa

e’)’ No eff3~entfrom any aot~ree wh4eh d4aehargea to a ~a~e

or reservoir with a attrfaee area of 8~’i heetarea ~ê

aerea~or more or to any tr~btttaryto aueh a ‘ake or

reaervo4r and whose entreated waate 3oad ia 5988 or more

po~atien e~ttiva3ents ahafl eonta4n more than

~79

mg/i

of pho~phort~aa P--

dl- No eff3:uent from any aot~reewh4eh diaeharge to a 3:&te or

reaervo~rw4th a atirfaee area of 873: heetarea ~-~8aereal-

or more wh’3:eh does not eomp3:y w4th Seetion 392~8S or to

any tr~butaryto atteh a 3:ake or reaervoir and wheae

t1ntreated waate 3:oad ~ 3:589 or more popt~3:ation

etiiva3:enta arid whieh ~a not governed by Seetiona

3847 Bt-al- or 384--3:2e~-el- aha3:3: eonta~nmore than ~9

mg/3: of phoaphorti~aa P7

~J

No effluent from any source which discharges to a lake

or reservoir with a surface area of 8.1 hectares (20

acres) or more, or to any tributary of such a lake or

reservoir whose untreated waste load is 2500 or more

population equivalents, and which does not utilize a

third—stage lagoon treatment system as specified in

Sections 304.120(a) and

(C),

shall exceed 1.0 mg/i of

phosphorus as P; however, this subsection (b) shall not

apply where the lake or reservoir, including any side

channel reservoir or other portion thereof, on an annual

basis exhibits a mean hydraulic retention time of 0.05

years (18 days) or less.

jç~J

Pursuant to Section 28.1 of the Act, the owner or

operator of any source subject to paragraph (b) may

apply for an adjusted standard. Such application shall,

at a minimum, contain adequate proof that the effluent

103—148

---

—11—

resulting from grant of the adjusted standard will not

contribute to cultural eutrophication, unnatural plant

or algal growth or dissolved oxygen deficiencies in the

receiving lake or reservoir. For purposes of this

subsection, such effluent shall be deemed to contribute

to such conditions if phosphorus is the limiting

nutrient for biological growth in the lake or reservoir,

taking into account the lake or reservoir limnology,

morphological, physical and chemical characteristics,

and sediment transport. However, if the effluent

discharge enters a tributary at least 40.25 kilometers

(25 miles) upstream of the point at which the tributary

enters the lake or reservoir at normal pool level, such

effluent shall not be deemed to contribute to such

conditions if the receiving lake or reservoir is

eutrophic and phosphorus from internal regeneration is

not a limiting nutrient.

el-d) For the purpose of this Section the term “lake or

reservoir” shall not include low level pools constructed

in free flowing streams or any body of water which is an

integral part of an operation which includes the

application of sludge on land.

fl-

eomp3:ianee with the 3:~m4tat4on~of paragraph fel- ~ha3:3:

be aeh~eved by the fo3:3:ewing datea~

~l-

New aetireea aha3:3: eomp3:y on the effeetive date of

th~a regtt3:at~onT and

2l- Ex~at~ngaotireea aha3:3: eomp~y by Beeember 93:’r 3:9897

or atteh other date a~reqtiired by NPBES permit7 or

aa ordered by the Board under P~t3:eV~3:3: or P~t3:e

of the Aet7

g,). eemp3:~anee

with the 34m~tat~enaof paragraph ‘(‘dl- ~ha3:+

be aeh~evedby December 33:~3:9857 or atieh other date aa

reqttired by NPBES permit7 or aa ordered by the Board

tinder

Tit3:e V3:~or T~t3:e ~X of the Aet7

de) Compliance with the limitations of paragraph (b) shall

be achieved by the following dates:

~J

Sources with the present capability to comply shall

do so on the effective date of this regulation

~J

All other sources shall comply as required by NPDES

permit.

,~J,

For purposes of this Section, the following terms shall

have the meanings specified:

103—149

---

—12—

fl

“Dissolved oxygen deficiencies” means the

occurrence of a violation of the dissolved oxygen

standard applicable to a lake or reservoir.

(BOARD NOTE: Dissolved Oxygen standards for general

use waters are set forth at 35 Iii. Adm. Code

302.206; Dissolved Oxygen standards for secondary

contact or indigenous aquatic life waters are set

forth at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.405.)

II “Euphotic

zone” means that region of a lake or

reservoir extending from the water surface to a

depth at which 99 of the surface light has

disappeared or such lesser depth below which

photosynthesis does not occur.

3) “Eutrophic” means a condition of a lake or

reservoir in which there is an abundant supply of

nutrients, including phosphorus, accounting for a

high concentration of Biomass.

~j “Eutrophication” means the process of increasing or

accumulating plant nutrients in the water of a lake

or reservoir. Cultural eutrophication is

eutrophication attributable to human activities.

5) “Internal regeneration” means the process of

conversion of phosphorus or other nutrients in

sediments of a lake or reservoir from the

particulate to the dissolved form and the

subsequent return of such dissolved forms to the

euphotic zone.

6) “Limiting nutrient” means a substance which is

limiting to biological growth in a lake or

reservoir due to its short supply or unavailability

with respect to other substances necessary for the

growth of organisms.

fl,

“Unnatural plant or algal growth” means the

occurrence of a violation of the unnatural sludge

standard applicable to a lake or reservoir with

respect to such growth.

(BOARD NOTE: Unnatural sludge standards for general

use waters are set forth at 35 Ill. Adm. Code

302.203; unnatural sludge standards for secondary

and indigenous aquatic life waters are set forth at

35 Ill. Mm. Code 302.403.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

103—150

---

—13—

B. Forcade dissented.

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the above Correction to Pr~osed

Opinion and Order was adopted on the

/i~ day of

~

1989, by a vote of

C.~—/

.

~2~2t~J~z7

~

Dorothy M. G)a/ln, Clerk

Illinois Pol~utionControl Board

103—15 1