ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March
24,
1988
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
AMENDMENTS TO WATER QUALITY AND
EFFLUENT STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO
)
R87—27
THE CHICAGO RIVER SYSTEM AND
)
CALUMET RIVER SYSTEM.
)
PROPOSED RULE
SECOND NOTICE
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by R.C.
Flemal):
This matter comes before the Boar~upon
a petition
(“Petition”) and accompanying proposal
(“Proposal”)
filed
jointly on August
18, 1987 by the Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago
(“MSDGC”)
and the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
(“Agency”).
Today the Board sends
the proposed rule
to second notice
with certain substantive changes
in response
to comments received
at first notice.
These are:
1)
Elimination of effective date for
the dissolved
oxygen standard applicable
to the Cal-Sag Channel
(see pages 13—14 herein).
2)
Inclusion of
a requirement that MSDGC undertake
a
comprehensive water quality review and report
results of same
to the Board
by January 15,
1992
(see page
24 herein).
Nonsubstantive changes have also been made
in some
of the
language
of the proposed rule
to provide grammatical consistency
and conformity
to the Illinois Administrative Procedures Act.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Public hearings were held October
19,
1987
in Chicago,
and
November
9,
1987 in Joliet; members of the public were
in
attendance,
although all witnesses who testified testified on
behalf of
the Proponents.
Subsequent
to the second hearing
certain amendments
to the original Proposal were filed by the
Joint Proponents on November
30,
1987
(P.C.
#3).
The full title
of this document
is
“Water Quality Proposal”,
June
1987, Revised August
1987,
prepared
by the MSDGC.
87—287
—2—
On December
21,
1987
the Department
of Energy and Natural
Resources
filed
its determination that
an economic
impact study
was not necessary
in this matter.
The Board was informed of the
Economic and Technical Advisory Committee’s concurrence with this
determination on January
22,
1988.
By Order of December
22,
1987 the Board sent the proposal,
as amended
in P.C.
#3,
to first notice.
Publication occurred in
the Illinois
Register Vol.
12 at 2060, January 22,
1988.
Eighteen public comments
(“P.C.”) have been
received in this
matter,
si~cprior
to
first notice and twelve subsequent
to first
notice.
The public comments received prior
to first notice were
considered
by the Board
in the First Notice Opinion of December
22,
1987,
and will not
in general
be reconsidered here.
The
public comments received subsequent
to first notice, which
principally involve the reporting requirements and admendments
to
ammonia standards
as presented at
first notice,
are considered
herein.
RELATIONSHIP TO FEDERAL REGULATIONS
The Federal Clean Water Act
(“CWA”)
(33 USC 1251
et seq.)
requires that all publically owned sewage treatment works
(“POTWs”)
be
in compliance with
final effluent standards by July
1,
1988.
Failure
to meet this deadline constitutes grounds
for
imposition of federal sanctions and monetary penalties
(R.
at
188—9;
Ex.
8 at
16).
In Illinois
it
is the responsibility of
this Board, within federal guidelines,
to determine what are
appropriate
final effluent standards.
This the Board has done,
and accordingly there currently are in place final effluent
standards
for the full State.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”)
assists POTWs,
in part,
by authorizing construction grants
to
assist POTWs
in making the facilities
improvements necessary
to
come into compliance.
Substantial grant funds have been
distributed
to Illinois POTWs,
including grants made
to the
MSDGC.
These grants have enabled
the MSDGC
to effect major
improvements
in the quality of effluent from the various MSDGC
facilities,
as well
as
to improve
the quality of the receiving
waterways.
These grants have also assisted the MSDGC
in bringing
the majority, but not the entirety,
of its facilities
into
compliance with existing final effluent standards.
In 1982 USEPA determined
that
it would not authorize the
additional
grant funding necessary
to bring the remaining MSDGC
facilities
into compliance with existing final effluent standards
87—288
—3—
by the July 1988 deadline
(Ex.
112).
In so determining,
tJSEPA
noted
that,
pursuant to Congressional directives,
“Federal
funding
for all deferred advanced treatment facilities shall not
be provided unless
the Administrator personally determines that
construction and operation of these facilities will definitely
result
in significant water quality improvement”
(Ex.
11
at 6).
No such determination by the USEPA Administrator has been made,
nor
is there reason
to believe that
it will be made.
In 1986 the Joint Proponents entered into an agreement under
which,
among other matters,
Proponents explored the possibility
of modifying the established final
effluent standards
in such
a
manner
as
to have this
be the vehicle for compliance by the July
1988 deadline.
The agreement required that the MSDGC undertake
a
modeling and field study to identify needed revisions
of water
quality and effluent standards,
including revisions not motivated
by the July 1988 deadline.
The agreement further specified
that
the Agency and the MSDGC prepare
a joint proposal for the needed
regulatory revisions;
that the Agency and MSDGC resolve any
issues raised by USEPA review of the proposed regulatory
revisions;
and that the final proposal
be submitted
to the
Board.
The result
is the Petition and Proposal before the Board,
as amended by P.C.
#3.
Although the (JSEPA is not a proponent in the instant matter,
and although
it can not provide formal
approval until
this matter
has been disposed of by the Board,
the USEPA
is on
record as
offering its conceptual support
to all elements of the proposed
amendments
(Ex.
3).
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
The proposed amendments contain five elements.
The first
would change
the dissolved oxygen
(“DO”) water quality standard
applicable
to the Calurnet—Sag Chann~l from its present value of
4.0 mg/i
to
a new value
of 3.0 mg/1’~.
This change would
be
effected by amending 3~Ill. Adm. Code 302.405, as specified
in
the accompanying Order
“Summary of Findings on Advanced Treatment Facilities proposed
for Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago”, prepared
by Environmental Protection Agency,
Advanced Treatment Task
Force, washington,
D.C., August
1982.
Proponents’
original proposal was
to maintain the DO
concentration at
a minimum of 2.0 mg/i.
This was amended
in P.C.
#3
to the 3.0 mg/i minimum considered herein.
The amendment as proposed would additionally delete now
superfluous language relating
to pre—1977 DO standards which no
longer are applicable.
87—289
—4—
The second element
oE the proposed amendments consists
of
up—grading
the use designation of certain portions
of the MSDGC
waterways from their present classification
as Secondary Contact
and Indigenous Aquatic Life waters
to classification
as General
Use waters.
These
waterways are that portion of the Calumet
River
system located between Lake Michigan and the O’Brien
Locks
and Dam,
a distance of 6.8 miles, and
that portion of the North
Shore Channel
located between Lake Michigan and the MSDGC North
Side Sewage Treatment Works,
a distance
of 4.3 miles.
This
change would be effected by amending
35 Ill. Mm.
Code Section
303.441,
as specified
in the accompanying Order.
The third element of the proposed amendments consists of
amendment of certain final effluent standards applicable
to two
MSDGC treatment plants,
the Calumet Treatment Plant and North
Side Sewage Treatment Works.
The revisions would
be effected by
amending
35
Ill. Mm.
Code
304.201,
as specified
in
the
accompanying Order,
and ~ou1d
produce the following changes
in
final effluent standards~:
Calumet STW
North Side STW
Current
Proposed
Current
Proposed
BOD5
(mg/i)
10
10
CBOD5
(mg/i)
24
12
SS
(mg/i)
12
28
12
20
NH4—N
(mg/l)
2.5/4.06
13
2.5/4.0
2.5/4.0
The fourth element of
the
proposed amendments would change
the ammonia water quality standard applicable to Secondary
Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life waters.
The change consists
of replacement of the current total ammonia nitrogen
(“NH4—N”)
standard of
2.5 mg/i during April through October and 4.0 mg/i
during November through March by a standard
for un—ionized
ammonia nitrogen (“NH3—N”)
of
0.1 mg/I applicable
at all times.
This change would be
effected by amending 35 Ill.
Adm. Code
302.407,
as specified
in the accompanying Order.
The final element consists of
a proposed comprehensive water
quality review
to be undertaken by the MSDGC
in cooperation with
the Agency and the USEPA starting
in
1991.
The review
is
intended
to assist
in
the 1992 reissuance of NPDES permits
for
It
is
to be noted that the two plants
in question do not
currently operate under
final effluent standards for BOD,
SS,
or
NH4—N,
but rather under
interim NPDES limits
(see following).
6 2.5/4.0 refers
to
a limitation of 2.5 mg/i during the months
of
April through October and 4.0 mg/l during
the months November
through March.
87—290
—5—
the Calumet STW and the North Side STW, plus the West—Southwest
STW.
it
also
is intended
to allow
a revisitation of
the rule
changes proposed herein.
BACKGROUND
MSDGC collects and treats the wastewater of 125 communities
in Cook County.
It serves
a connected population of 5,100,000
plus
a commercial and industrial
wastewater equivalent of
approximately 4,500,000.
MSDGC operates,
among other
items,
a
network
of
intercepting sewers,
tunnels, and seven wastewater and
sewage treatment works
(“STWs”).
Discharges from the
ST~s
are to
local streams and channels,
all
of which
are ultimately tributary
to the Illinois River.
The three receiving “streams” of interest
in the instant
matter are all artificai channels.
They are
the Sanitary and
Ship Canal
(alternatively as
“Main Channel”),
which connects Lake
Michigan through the Chicago River
system to the Des Plaines
River,
the North
Shore Channel, which connects Lake Michigan to
the North Branch of the Chicago River,
and the Cal—Sag Channel,
which connects
the Calumet River
system to
the Sanitary and Ship
Channel.
All three channels serve
to convey waters away from
Lake Michigan and
the Chicago Metropolitan area via the lower Des
Plaines River
into the Illinois River.
The combined length of
the
three channels
is approximately 80
miles.
The
three channels are currently classified as Secondary
Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life (“Secondary Use”) waters
throughout their entire lengths.
A fourth waterway which is
involved
in the Proposal, and which
is also classified as
a
Secondary Use waterway,
is that reach of
the Des Plaines River
between
its confluence with the Sanitary and Ship Canal and the
1—55 bridge.
The 1—55 bridge marks the downstream
limit of
the
waterways
to which secondary contact standards apply.
Secondary contact
is defined
at 35 Ill.
Adm.
Code 301.380:
Secondary Contact:
Any recreational or other water
use
in which contact with the water
is either
incidental or accidental and
in which the probability
of ingesting appreciable quantities
of water
is
minimal,
such
as fishing, commercial and recreational
boating
and any limited
contact incident
to
shoreline
activity.
The purpose of the Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic
Life standards
is defined
at 35
Ill. Mm. Code
302.402:
Secondary contact and indigenous aquatic life
standards are intended
for those waters not suited
87—29 1
—6--
for general use activities but which will be
appropriate
for
all secondary contact uses and which
will
be capable of supporting
an indigenous aquatic
life limited only by the physical configuration of
the body of water, characteristics and origin of
the
water and the presence
of contaminants
in amounts
that do not exceed the water quality standards listed
in Subpart
D.
Three of the five elements
of the proposed rule change would
modify certain facets of the application of secondary contact
standards and use designations.
These are changing
of the DO
standard applicable
to the Cal—Sag portion of the waterways,
upgrading two reaches
of secondary contact waters
to the General
Use classification,
and replacing the secondary contact NH4—N
standard with an NH3—N standard.
A fourth element of
the
proposed rule change
addresses final effluent standards.
These
final effluent standards are those current rules and regulations
of
the Board
found at 35 Ill.
Mm.
Code,
Part
304.
MSDGC operates
three STW5 which discharge
to the Secondary
Use waterways.
These are the West—Southwest STW, which
discharges to the Sanitary and Ship Channel,
the Caiumet STW,
which discharges
to the Cal—Sag Channel,
and the North Side STW,
which discharges
to the North Shore Channel.
The Calumet and North Side STW5 are currently undergoing
$27
million and $130 million expansions
and modifications,
respectively.
Nevertheless,
they apparently will not be able to
produce an effluent capable of meeting all present final effluent
standards even when the modifications are complete
(R.
at 20—
21).
The five other
MSDGC wastewater treatment plants,
including
the West—Southwest plant,
currently are or will
be
in compliance
with established final effluent standards by the July,
1988 CWA
deadline
(Proposal,
p.
1;
R.
at 21).
JUSTIFICATION FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
The proposed amendments consist of three
types:
(1)
downgrading of standards in circumstances where the existing
standards are unachievable and purportedly not necessary for the
attainment of use goals;
(2) upgrading of standards where
aspirations
for attaining
a quality aquatic environment have been
met and surpassed;
and,
(3)
replacement of a standard where
current knowledge indicates
that an alternative parameter
constitutes a better standard of environmental quality.
Proponents assert that the amendments
as proposed are
premised on four controlling criteria.
These are:
1.
No degradation of waterway usage.
87—292
—7—
2.
No adverse impacts
on the downstream or
surrounding
“General Use” waters.
3.
Upgrading of the MSDGC waterway use designation
wherever possible.
4.
Sidestream Elevated Pool Aeration stations
(“SEPA”).
The Board agrees
that satisfaction of
at least
the first two
of these criteria constitutes
the sine ~
non of the instant
proposal;
the evidence that they will indeed be satisfied
is
presented below.
The Board applauds the third criterion, and
recognizes that the fourth criterion constitutes
a cost—effective
and environmentally
sound measure.
An additional guiding condition emphasized by the Proponents
is that “it
is not cost effective
to expend taxpayers’
money for
major wastewater treatment facilities which result
in marginal
water quality improvements”
(R.
at
13).
The Proponents further
note:
Equivalent benefits will be achieved
under
the
proposed rule changes
with
a small fraction of the
high capital costs necessitated by the present IPCB
standards.
Three hundred million dollars of taxpayers money
remains
to be spent
to achieve full compliance with
the IPCB effluent standards with corresponding
minimal incremental benefits
to water quality.
The
MSD proposes
to achieve benefits consistent with
the
IPCB Water Q~alityStandards for an expenditure of
only
$28.3
‘
million.
(Id.
at
13)
The $300 million cost which MSDGC contends
it would
be
required
to
incur to meet established standards consists
of $110
million for
the Calumet STW
to comply with the BOD
arid SS
standards,
$84 million
for the Calurnet STW to comply with the
ammonia standard, and $106 million for the North Side STW to
comply with the BOD and SS standards
(Ex.
8 at 10).
These costs
/
This figure was $15 million under
the original proposal.
It
was increased to the cited figure
in P.C.
#3, due
to the proposed
increase from three
to five SEPA stations
(see following).
Neither figure includes annual operations costs
of the SEPA
stations, which were $470,000 under
the original proposal
arid are
$700,000 under
the revised proposal (P.C.
#3, Attachment
I
at 2).
87—29 3
—8—
are
in addition
to costs associated with current upgradings
in
progress at these
two plants
(Id.
at
11).
Revision of Cal—Sag Channel Dissolved Oxygen Standard
Current data
indicate that not only
is
the present 4.0 mg/i
minimum DO concentration not consistently met
in the Cal—Sag
Channel, but also that concentrations below 4.0 mg/i are
a
regular occurrence during the summer months.
DO difficulties of
the Cal—Sag Channel are related to several factors,
including the
character of the effluent from the Calumet STW,
the geometry and
flow conditions within the Channel,
and the presence
on the
channel floor
of thick accumulations of sediment
(R.
at
66).
The Calumet STW is currently undergoing
an extensive
modification and upgrading program which,
among other matters,
will allow
it
to produce an effluent of significantly higher
quality than that currently produced (see pages
14-16 herein).
Nevertheless,
even with this upgrading,
the character of
the
expected effluent will not provide for continuous attainment of
a
4.0 mg/i DO level
in the Cal—Sag Channel.
Moreover, even
if the
Calumet STW was meeting the established rather than the proposed
effluent standards,
the dissolved oxygen standards
in
the Cal—Sag
Channel would still not meet the 4.0 mg/i applicable DO standard
CR.
at 29,
66).
The bottom sediments of the Cal—Sag Channel are typically
anaerobic, and therefore they exert a substantial sediment oxygen
demand (“SOD”)
on the overlying water column
(R.
at
80).
Moreover, constant resuspension of the sediments by barges plying
the channel allows the SOD
to exert
a strong control over the DO
in the water.
The bottom sediments have been derived principally
from combined sewer overflows
(R.
at 75).
Efforts
by MSDGC
to
control combined sewer
overflow discharges, particularly through
construction
of the Tunnel and Reservoir Project (“TARP”) have
produced,
and continue to promise,
a significant reduction
in
combined sewer overflow discharges
to the Cal—Sag waterway
CR. at
77).
MSDGC therefore projects that the SOD will decrease
in the
future,
and that
a corresponding improvement in DO concentrations
in the Cal—Sag waterway will occur
at some
time in the future.
This circumstance suggests that dredging of the sediments
from the Cal—Sag Channel would
offer
at least a partial
resolution of the Cal—Sag DO problem.
However,
in view of the
expected stabilization of the sediments following complete
elimination of combined sewer discharges,
this option has been
rejected by the MSDGC as not being cost—effective
(R.
at 83).
Assuming that
a complete upgrading of
the Calumet
STW would
not itself allow consistent attainment of adequate DO
concentrations
in
the Cal—Sag Channel and the alleged non—cost--
effective nature
of dredging
of
the bottom sediments,
the
87—294
—9—
Prooon~r~L~
propose
to maintain
a
minimum
DO
concentration by
directly re—oxygenating
the waterway.
This
is
to
be accomplished
by the use of SEPA stations.
A SEPA station
includes an elevated
channel-side pool
into which water from the channel
is pumped.
The water
is then returned
to the channel by allowing
it to flow
over
a cascade built along
the channel
bank.
The water
incor~orateg atmospheric oxygen in the process of
tumbling over
the cascade
Pilot—scale
tests
of the
SEP.; concept conducted
by MSDGC
indicate
that oxygen—depleted water
can be raised
to
a content
of
approximately 96
of saturation
(Ex.
9 at
3;
R.
at
124).
Five
SEPA stations are proposed to be built at strategic
locations on
the Calumet waterway:
three
on the the Cal—Sag Channel
itself,
a
fourth on the Little Calumet River,
and a fifth on the Calumet
River
(P.C.
#3, Attachment
I
at
5,6).
MSDGC has stipulated
to
beginning construction of
the SEPAS
if and when the Board adopts
these proposed amendments
(R.
at 52).
As originally proposed,
MSDGC
intended
to trigger operation
of the SEPA stations whenever DO concentrations
threatened
to
fall below
2.0 mg/i
(R.
at
101).
USEPA subsequently
recommended
that operation of
the SEPA stations
be triggered by
an upstream
minimum DO concentration of
4.0 mg/l
(Ex.
3 at 2).
At the
November
9,
1987 hearing
the MSDGC stipulated
to acceptance
of
this higher
triggering concentration
(Ex.
9 at
5;
R.
at 125—7).
MSDGC contends that the higher triggering concentration will have
no effect on
the DO concentrations encountered
in the worst—case
scenario
(Ex.
9 at
5;
R.
at 126).
However,
it should decrease
the percentage
of time that
the worst—case condition prevails.
The minimum DO concentration
that the Proponents propose to
maintain
in the Cal—Sag Channel
is 3.0 mg/l.
However,
the design
and operational plan of the SEPA stations
is such as to allow
only reaches immediately upstream from each SEPA station to
experience DO concentrations
as
low as 3.0 mg/l,
and
then only
under
the worst—case
scenario.
Under
the worst—case
scenario
approximately half of the Cal—Sag Channel would experience DO
concentrations above 4.0 mg/l and approximately half would
experience DO concentrations between
3.0 and 4.0 mg/i
(P.C.
#3,
Attachment
I
at 5).
Moreover, due
to aeration at each SEPA
station,
reaches immediately downstream
from each station are
projected
to maintain minimum DO concentrations
of between
4.5
and 6.2 mg/i during all times when the SEPA stations are
in
operation
(Id.).
~
More extensive description
of SEPA station construction and
operation
is contained
in the Proposal
(Appendix
),
Ex.
8 at 11—
12,
Ex.
9,
and R.
at 121—138.
87—295
—10—
While
it
is admitted that the 3.0 mg/i DO proposal
constitutes
a lowering
of the present
4.0 mg/i minimum acceptable
level
of
in—stream DO applicable
to the Cal—Sag waterway
(R.
at
93), Proponents
contend that no degradation of usage
of the Cal--
Sag waterway,
or any downstream waterway,
would be occasioned
by
adoption
of.. the proposal.
The basis
for this contention
is that
a minimum DO
“level of 2.0 mg/I will adequately support the
Secondary Contact and Indigenous Life Use classification”
(R.
at
29).
Moreover,
maintenance of
a minimum DO concentration of 3.0
mg/i would constitute
a very significant improvement over the
existing state, wherein
zero oxygen concentrations
occur
annually.
It may even provide
an improvement over the present
4.0 mg/i
level by providing
reaches below SEPA stations where DO
concentrations are higher than
4.0 mg/i during even the worst--
case conditions.
Instructive are data on existing
fish populations
in
the
affected waterways
(Ex.
7 at
W—3,
W—5, W—7, W—9/W—l4),
as
determined
from electrofishing surveys.
These data indicate that
the number
and diversity of
fish which currently exist
in the
Calumet waterway
is highly variable
in time and place.
Catches
have ranged from a
total of
1157 individuals representing
12
species
at
a site on the Calumnet River upstream from the Calumet
STW (Id.
at W—9)
to several episodes on the Cal—Sag Channel
downstream from the Calumet STW when no fish were collected
(Id.
at W—ll,
w—l2).
The data also indicate that the low fish catches
tend
to coincide with
the occurrence
of low DO.
In particular,
the lowest catches occurred at DO concentrations
of
2.0 mg/i and
less, whereas higher catches occurred
at DO concentations of 3.0
mg/i and more.
Factors other than DO,
including both physical
and other chemical fac~ors, limit
the aquatic habitat potential
of
the Cal—Sag Channel
(R.
at
71).
It would
therefore be
unwarranted
to conclude from the electrofishing data alone
that
maintaining
a minimum
DO concentration of
3.0 mg/i would provide
USEPA concurs
in this finding,
noting:
The necessary physical characteristics for
a
balanced,
diversified fishery are riffles and back
water areas
for spawning,
and vegetation on the
channel bottom for protection
of young
fish.
Physical characteristics
for fish life are good
downstream from confluence
of Des Plaines
River.
However,
based on analyses of US
EPA Research
Laboratory
at Corvallis, Oregon,
the channeiized
waterways do not have
the meanderings,
vegetation
(both
instream and riparian), and variable velocities
that provide
the diversity of habitat required
by
most kinds of fish
to successfully live
and
reproduce.
(Ex.
11
at
3)
87—296
—11—
for rich fish populations.
However,
it
is
reasonable
to conclude
that removing the trauma caused by DO concentrations below
3.0
mg/i would encourage
the expansion of
the indigenous fish
populations.
In agreeing
to maintain
a minimum
3.0 mg/i DO concentration
in the Cal—Sag Channel,
the Proponents
note:
it
is technologically
achievable
to maintain
a
3.0 mg/i
or higher instream concentration and
associated incremental costs
have been estimated
to
be $13.3 million capital investment and $230,000
annual 0
& M
in excess of
the cost associated with
a
2.0 mg/i minimum standard.
While proponents have
reservations that
an increase
of the minimum D.O.
concentration from 2.0 mg/i
to 3.0 mg/i will
result
in any perceptible
improvement in the aquatic
community of the Cal—Sag,
the proposal
is being
modified
to specify the higher standard of 3.0 mg/i
in deference
to
the Board’s concerns and
to avoid
controversy that would delay progress toward
achieving the July
1,
1988
federal compliance date.
(P.C.
#3
at
3)
It
is more difficult
to ascertain whether
an
incremental
increase
to
a minimum DO of 4.0 mg/i would
be justified.
The
costs necessary
for the additional DO elevation would undoubtedly
be significant,
although the record does not expressly identify
these costs.
On the other
hand,
there
is good
reason
to believe
tiLat the additional one mg/l
of DO would
do little
to promote
better aquatic populations in
a waterway which
is
otherwise
physically and chemically limited.
The Proponents contend,
for
their part,
that
the indigenous aquatic
life
is acclimated
to DO
concentrations
as low as 0.4 mg/i
(R.
at 45)
and that 2.0 mg/i
would be sufficient to maintain the indigenous aquatic life
(R.
at 103).
In keeping with their controlling criteria,
as noted above,
the Proponents also present evidence that the proposed DO
modification will have no negative effect on downstream General
Use waterways.
This evidence includes DO data independently
collected from
the Illinois River by both MSDGC and
the Agency.
These data indicate that on all but a single occasion DO
concentrations
in
the Illinois River have been above
6.0 mg/i
at
all
times during
the period 1984—86 when data was collected
by
either of the Proponents
(R.
at
48, 86).
Since
the data were
collected under essentially the status quo condition within the
MSDGC waterways,
and since the proposed
DO rule changes would
constitute
a significant improvement over the status quo within
the MSDGC waterways,
it
is logical
to expect that the proposed
changes would reflect positively on the prospect of
future
downstream DO water quality violations.
87—297
—12—
MSDGC has also conducted DO modeling
of
the Illinois River
mainstem which
indicates that under
the worst—case conditions the
proposal would
cause no downstream violations
of the General Use
DO standard
(R.
at 62).
Finally,
the Proponents also assure
that
the DO of the Des Plaines
River located between the Lockport
Powerhouse
and the 1—55 Bridge will
be elevated as
a
result of
adoption of the proposal
(R.
at
184,
233—4).
In the First Notice Opinion
the Board noted
that the ability
of
the DO levels
in both the Cal—Sag Channel and the downstream
reaches to be maintained
as proposed
is dependent upon the timely
construction and operation
of
the SEPA stations.
Accordingly,
the Board requested
that the Joint Proponents
address within the
first notice period
whether
the MSDGC committment
to construct
and operate
the
SEPP. stations should be
formalized
by the Board
in some manner,
either by writing
the comrnittment
into the
proposed amendments
or by another means.
The Board further
requested
that Proponents address whether
the stipulation to
trigger
SEPA operation
at 4.0 mg/i should be written
into the
proposed amendments,
as opposed
to its proposed inclusion within
the Calumet STW’s NPDES permit
CR.
at 127—8).
Joint Proponents have responded
that
they believe
that the
operational criteria
for the SEPA facilities
lie more
appropriately
in the NPDES operating permit and not as
a specific
element
of the Board regulations
(P.C.
~i5 at
2).
As witness
to
the intent
to impose and abide by the specified operational
criteria,
Proponents have provided as an attachment
to PC #15
a
copy of the proposed NPDES permit which
the Agency
intends
to
issue
and under which
the MSDGC intends
to operate “shortly after
adoption of
the
final Board
ruling and prior
to July
1,
1988”
(Id.
at
1—2).
This proposed permit contains
a special condition
as follows:
SPECIAL CONDITION
16.
The District shall construct
and maintain supplemental stream aeration for
the
Cal—Sag Channel
sufficient
to achieve consistent
compliance with the minimum acceptable Dissolved
Oxygen concentration of 3.0 mg/i.
Design of aeration
stations
shall provide
for multiple operating levels
with varying
oxygen transfer rates consistent with
values
identified
in the preliminary design report.
Operational procedures
shall include continuous
instream D.O.
monitoring during
the period May
1
through September
30.
Individual aeration stations
shall
commence operation when the immediate upstream
monitoring
station drops below 4.0 mg/i.
The
District shall adhere
to the following schedule:
1.
Complete preliminary design
April
1,
1988
87—298
—13—
2.
ward detail design contract
April
15,
1988
3.
Complete design/secure construction permit
Stations
3 and
4
April
1,
1989
Station
1,
2,
and
5
April
1,
1990
4.
Initiate construction
Stations
3
and
4
July
1,
1989
Station
1,
2,
and
5
July
1,
1990
5.
Attain operational
level
Stations
3
and
4
May
15,
1991
Stations
1,
2,
and
5
May
15,
1992
P.C.
*15, Attachment at
14.
The Board agrees with Proponents that imposition
of Special
Condition #16 satisfactorily meets the operational conditions
intended for the SEPA stations,
and
as such provides sufficient
directive that the operational conditions will be followed.
Consistent with
the compliance schedule presented in the
proposed NPDES permit, Joint Proponents have requested
in their
final comment
(P.C.
#15)
that the effective date for the 3.0 mg/i
standard on the Cal—Sag Channel
be changed from the July
1,
1988
date
(as originally proposed)
to May 15,
1992.
This the Board
declines to do based on the record
as
it currently exists.
Joint
Proponent’s justification for pushing the effective date outward
would appear to be entirely based on the appropriateness of the
design, construction,
and operation dates
in the proposed NPDES
permit.
These dates have been introduced into the record only
in
the last of the Public Comments, and therefore have
riot had
opportunity for the scrutiny due them.
Given
this circumstance,
the Board can delay the entirety of
this instant action until the
matter of these dates
is more fully addressed,
or,
in the
alternative, move forward absent
the change requested.
The Board
believes
that the matter
is best served by moving forward.
The
Board does note
that
if,
at
a later
time, Joint Proponents
believe that
the effective date needs reconsideration,
this could
be addressed
in a later proceeding.
The Board does question whether
a May 1992 operational date
for the SEPA stations
is consistent with the stated intent of
conducting
a comprehensive water quality review
to be submitted
by January
15,
1992 (see pages
22—24 herein).
The Board would
encourage the MSDGC
to accelerate
the SEPA implementation
schedule.
In reflecting
further on issue of
the effective date
of the
rule,
the Board
in fact sees no merit
in specifying even the July
1,
1988 effective date.
A purpose
of water quality standards
is
to quantify the level
of environmental protection necessary
to
“restore, maintain and enhance the purity of
the waters of this
State
in order
to protect health, welfare,
property, and the
87—29q
—14—
quality
of
life”
(Environmental
Protection
ct,
Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
ch.
lii
1/2,
Section
11(b)).
In finding
that the 3.0 mg/i DO
level
is
necessary
for the protection
of the Cal—Sag Channel,
as
the Board herein does,
it would
be
arbitrary
for the Board
to
find that this necessity exists only after
a specified date where
there
is no record
to so justify.
Accordingly,
the Board will
delete the July
1,
1988 effective date
for the 3.0 mg/i DO
standard applicable
to
the Cal—Sag Channel as proposed at first
notice.
Reclassification
of Use Designation
Element two of the proposed amendments would upgrade the use
classification
of two segments
of the Chicagoland waterways
from
Secondary Use
to General Use.
The Board applauds
this proposal,
as well as
the substantial
improvement
in water quality manifest
in
it.
Revision of North Side STW and Calumet STW Effluent Standards
As proposed,
the amended effluent standards
for the North
Side and Calumet STWs would differ both from the current interim
limits,
as expressed
in the NPDES permits of the respective
facilities,
and from the existing
final effluent standards.
The
following table summarizes the three sets of numbers:
Interim
Final Standards
Limits
Existing
Proposed.
Calumet STW
BOO5
(mg7l)~~
10
CBOD5 (mg/l)~-”
40
24
SS
(mg/i)
40
12
28
NH4—N
(mg/i)
25
2.5/4.0
13
North Side STW
BOD5
(mg/i)10
10
CBOD5 (mg/i)~°
20
12
SS
(mg/i)
25
12
20
NH4—N
(mg/i)
9
2.5/4.0
2.5/4.0
A further means of comparing
the three sets
of standards
is
in terms
of daily loadings to the receiving waterways.
Expressed
as
lbs/day,
these values are
(Ex.
8
at
8—9):
10
Although
the existing oxygen demand standard
is expressed as
BOD5,
the standard specified
in MSDGC’s current and proposed
NPDES permit
is expressed
as CBOD5.
The proposed amendment would
acknowledge
this distinction by identifying CBOD5 as
the
pertinent parameter.
87—300
—15—
North Side STW
Calumet STW
BOD
NH4-N
BOO
NH4—N
Interim Limits
49,000
22,000
85,000
53,000
Existing Final
Effluent Standards
24,000
6,000
21,000
5,000
Proposed Final
Effluent Standards
29,000
6,000
51,000
28,000
It may thus be concluded
that,
although adoption of
the
proposal would constitute
a tightening
of effluent limitations
over
the status quo as represented by the interim limits,
it
would represent
a loosening
of
standards relative to the existing
final effluent standards.
The exception is
for
the ammonia
effluent standard
for
the North
Side
Plant, which would remain
at
the existing value.
Proponents contend that selection of
the proposed standards
has been guided by several principles.
For both plants the
overriding principles are
the previously
enunciated criteria of
“no degradation of waterway usage” and “no adverse impacts on
the
downstream or surrounding General Use waterways”.
Thus,
the
oxygen demand
limits are proposed consistent with maintaining
a
minimum DO concentration of 3.0 mg/i
in the Cal—Sag Channel and
4.0 mg/l
in the remainder
of the Secondary Use waterways,
and
causing
no violation
of the General Use DO standards
in any
General Use waterway.
Similarly,
the
13 mg/i proposed NH4-N
effluent limitation
for the Calumet STW is derived
as that
quantity necessary
to insure that the in—stream ammonia
concentration
in the Des Plaines River
at the 1—55 bridge
never
exceeds
the General Use NH3—N standard
of 0.04 mg/i
(R.
at 32).
A further guiding criterion concerns the certainty with
which the STWs can be expected
to perform
to the proposed
standards.
In the case of the North
Side STW,
Proponents contend
that the effluent quality which will result when the current
expansion and modification program has been completed
is
readily
predictable,
and that this expected effluent
level
is
integrated
into the proposed effluent standards.
This same condition does
not occur
for
the Calumet STW.
In the latter case the effluent
quality
is not fully predictable,
in part because
of the
magnitude
of the ongoing modification program and
in part because
of uncertainties related
to the high—level of industrial waste
in
the influent
(R.
at
21,
31).
The proposed effluent standards
for
the Calumet STW are therefore set for worst—case conditions
rather
than expected conditions.
Accordingly, Proponents contend
that the Calurnet plant might perform significantly better than
the standards
here proposed
(R.
at
157,
209).
87—301
—16—
Proponents also contend
that
in the absence of
federal
funding
for more advanced
treatment facilities,
the limits
as
proposed constitute
reasonable goals.
The USEP~.itself has
reviewed
the proposed effluent standards,
and concludes:
Region V believes that the proposed effluent limits
for th~
...
Northside
and Caiumet plants will protect
the designated uses and achieve
the proposed water
quality
standards
for
the
Chicago
Waterways.
(Ex.
3
at
1)
However, USEPA cautions that acceptability of the proposed
effluent limits
is tied
to acceptability of the proposed DO and
ammonia water quality proposals:
Please
note,
the water quality standards
for
dissolved oxygen and ammonia must be changed
consistent
with the Proposal
in order
~or the
effluent limitations
in the Proposal
to
be
acceptable.
(Ex.
3 at
1)
Amendment
of Ammonia Water Quality Standard
The next element of the Proposal and the proposed amendments
as
offered at first notice
is replacement
of the existing
Secondary Contact NH4—N standard with
a standard based on NH3—
N.
It
is this element which has been the principal
focus of
comments received during
the first notice comment period.
It is well recognized
that the principal
toxic form of
ammonia is the un—ionized form (Proposal;
P.C.
#5,
#6, #8,
#9,
#10,
#12,
#13,
and #14).
For this reason there
is no opposition
expressed
in the record
to
the concept
of changing the secondary
use ammonia standard
to
standard based on the un—ionized
portion
of the ammonia)-
Rather,
the questions are:
1)
Is the 0.1 mg/i N113—N standard as proposed
at
first notice sufficient
to protect aquatic
life
within
the secondary use waterways?,
and
2)
Is the 0.1 rng/l NH3—N standard sufficient
to
insure protection of
the downstream general use
waterways?
The Board
notes
that recognition of the toxicity of un—ionized
ammonia was also the basis
for replacing
the previously existing
General Use standard
for NH4—N with
a standard
for NH3—N
(See:
In
the Matter
of: Amendments to Title
35: Environmental Protection;
Subtitle
C: Water Pollution;
Chaoter
I:
Pollution Control Board
(Ammonia Nitrogen),
R 81—23,
45 PCB 357,
47 PCB
293, and
47 PCB
467).
87— 302
—17--
The Joint Proponents
contend that
the 0.1 mg/i standard
is
based on consideration
of 96—hour
LC5O values
for fish species
presently found
in the MSDGC waterways,
in such
a manner
as
to
offer
protection of these species
(R.
at
46;
P.C.
*15,
Attachment
at
3—5).
Petitioners note that
in current regulations
the
maximum allàwable concentration for toxic substances
in Secondary
Use wat~ways is set
at 1/2 or less
of the 96—hour toxicity
measure
(R.
at
99).
In the
case
at hand,
the 0.1 mg/l value
is
approximately 1/3
of
the the 96—hour LC5O for the
the yellow
perch,
which has the lowest 96—hour
LC5O
(0.29 mg/i)
of
the
species
for which such data have been presented
(Ex.
7 at W—l6).
On the matter of effect on downstream general use waters,
Joint Proponents contend
that
adoption of the proposed NH3—N
standard,
in company with the proposed effluent limits for the
Calumet
and North Side STWs,
should have
no negative effect on
the downstream General Use waterways.
Proponents present
modeling
results which
indicate that the combination of the two
proposal elements will assure that the maximum
N113—N
concentration at
the 1—55 bridge does not exceed the
0.04 mg/l
General Use standard
(R.
at 98).
Illinois Department
of Conservation Director Mark Frech
originally objected
to the proposed amendment
of the ammonia
standard on the grounds that water quality might be degraded
(P.C.
#8).
This objection was subsequently withdrawn:
According
to IEPA,
if USEPA finds
that MSDGC can not
comply with state water quality standards
in July,
1988,
federal funding
for planned improvements
of
MSDGC facilities
will
be withheld.
After consulting
with staffs from the Illinois Department
of Energy
and Natural Resources
and IEPA,
I concur with
extenuating circumstances and withdraw Department of
Conservation objections
to the proposed ammonia
standard.
Thus,
rather than have MSDGC facility
improvement halted due
to their non—compliance with
existing standards,
we would prefer that the
standards
be revised
so that construction can
continue and ammonia effluent loads eventually be
reduced from present levels.
The alternative of
continued opposition
to the proposed standards and
possible cessation
of planned facility improvements
‘~
35
Ill.
R~dm. Code
302.410, Substances Toxic
to Aquatic Life,
specifies
that:
“Any substance toxic
to aquatic
life not listed
in Section 302.407 shall not exceed one half of
the 96—hour
median tolerance
limit
(96—hour TLM)
for native fish or essential
fish
food organisms”.
87—303
—18—
might
initially be more acceptable
to our
constituents, but the loss would
be
in the resource
we are trying to protect.
(P.C.
#17 at
1)
Concern that the proposal would permit an
increase in
ammonia loadings
to the MSDGC waterways was also expressed by Mr.
Peter Howe
in P.C.
#9.
It
is important
to bear
in mind that what
is proposed here does not constitute
license
to pollute up to and
equal
to
the standard.
A water quality standard
is appropriately
based
on the intended level
of environmental protection;
in the
instant case the record indicates that the proposed 0.1 mg/i
standard constitutes an appropriate
standard.
This
is not to
say,
however,
that the Board
endorses,
or expects,
that the NH3—N
concentrations
in the MSDGC waterways now all increase to 0.1
mg/i.
To the contrary,
the proposal contains provisions,
particularly
a substantial decrease
in the allowable discharge of
ammonia from the STWs, which should work
to decrease NH3—N
concentrations.
Thus the proposal
in
its entirety should work
to
substantially improve water quality.
Mr. Howe
in P.C.
#9 and Dr.
Richard
E.
Sparks of the
Illinois Natural History Survey
in P.C.
#13 also question the
Joint Proponent’s conclusion
that the proposal would not
contribute
to violations
of the general use NH3—N standard
in the
upper Illinois River.
Mr.
Howe points out that average ammonia
loading contributed
from the Des Plaines River,
as provided by
MSDGC,
coupled with
an expected range of ambient conditions
within the Illinois River, could produce NH3—N concentrations
well
in excess of
the 0.04 mg/i general use standard
(P.C.
#9
at
3).
He notes that some observed water temperatures exceed by
several degrees
the highest temperatures assumed by
the Joint
Proponents
in their model
runs; he believes that the “higher
temperatures
can be attributed
to Commonwealth
Edison’s power
plants”
(Id.).
Both Mr. Howe and Dr. Sparks also note that
pH
levels higher than used by the Joint Proponents have been
observed.
At question here
is whether
the ambient conditions
identified by Mr.
Howe and Dr. Sparks occur
in combination such
as to imply that NH3—N violations would
be expected
to occur
in
spite
of the Joint Proponent’s analysis
to the contrary.
The
record does
not allow
a definite answer
to the
this question.
The historical record does indeed show that there have been past
violations
of
the Nt-13—N standard
in the upper Illinois River
(P.C.
#9 at
2;
P.C.
#13
at
1—2).
However,
the substantial
decrease
in total ammonia
loadings entailed
in the instant action
can only work
to reduce such violations.
Whether
the reduction
will be complete,
as suggested by the Joint Proponents,
or
something
less,
as suggested by Mr. Howe and Mr.
Sparks, will
have
to await
further data.
It
is expected by the Board
that the
comprehensive water quality review portion of this proposal will
address
this matter.
87—304
—19—
In
P.C.
#12 Mr. Albert Ettinger
of
the Sierra Club
characterizes
the proposed change
of ammonia standards applicable
to secondary use waterways as
a “lowering”
of standards, and
hence
as
an action contrary to the antibacksliding provision of
the CWA.
The Board notes
that the change
is not a lowering
of
standards,
but rather
a change
to that parameter generally
recognized
as the environmentally detrimental component of
ammonia.
The Board also notes
that
the USEPA has not only
approved
this provision
of
the proposal,
but has conditioned
its
approval
of
the whole of
the the instant proposal on the
promulgation
of the new standard
(Ex.
3
at
1; see also page
16
herein).
The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service
in P.C. #10 and Dr.
Sparks
in P.C.
#13 bring
to the Board’s attention the results
of
a sediment toxicity study undertaken by the U.S.
Fish and
Wildlife Service.
The study was conducted
on sediment from both
the MSDGC waterways and from the Illinois River and
its
backwaters.
Clean water was mixed with the sediment and the
mixture was allowed
to stand
for
24 hours.
The water was then
drawn off and test
fish were placed
in the water.
The results
show 100
fish mortality in some samples, particularly
those
collected
from the MSDGC waterways,
and mortalities over
48 hours
ranging
from zero to 70
in the samples from the general use
waterways
(P.C.
#13,
attachment).
Analysis
of the waters
indicated
that ammonia was elevated
in
them,
in most cases
at
concentrations
in excess
of that
found
to be toxic
in other
studies.
Moreover,
there
is
a strong correlation between the
observed un—ionized ammonia
in the test waters and the observed
fish mortality
(Id.
at
2).
It would appear that the results
of this study allow several
conclusions
to be drawn, among which are that
(a) sediments
found
in the MSDGC/Illinois
River waterways contain leachable/soluble
levels of toxicants,
and
(b) amounts
of ammonia sufficient
to be
toxic can be leached/dissolved
from the sediments.
The study
does
leave open several critical questions.
Among these are the
source of the sediment ammonia
(e.g.,
in situ generation
from
organic matter,
introduction of ammonia—bearing sediment,
desorption from the water column,
etc.)
and the interaction of
the sediment ammonia with the water column under field
conditions.
Given
these types
of uncertainties,
the best that
can
be concluded
at this stage
is that discovery of the sediment
toxicity
is
indeed disturbing,
and that further investigation of
this phenomena
is most warranted
such that
a responsible course
of action can be
charted.
Prior
to first notice,
Joint Proponents were requested by
the Board
to address whether
some
of the concerns
raised
regarding
the ammonia water quality standards would
be answered
by placing
a ceiling
on NH4—N concentrations,
in parailel
to the
87—305
—20—
ceiling
oçi NH4—N concentrations
found
in the general use ammonia
standards-3.
Joint Proponents
responded:
The bases
for limiting ammonia nitrogen
in
the
Chicago River System are two
fold:
a)
to protect
the
indigenous aquatic community from ammonia toxicity,
and b)
to assure compliance with applicable water
quality standards
in downstream general use waters.
Effective protection against aquatic toxicity
necessitates restriction of unionized ammonia since
that
is the toxic portion of the ammonia nitrogen.
As reflected
in the record,
the proposed
0.1 mg/i
unionized ammonia standard will protect against
toxicity.
Total ammonia nitrogen within the
Secondary Contact Waterway will be regulated more
directly under this proposal through effluent
limitations placed upon MSDGC treatment facilities
rather than
a water quality standard
for total
ammonia.
There
is substantial difference between
this situation and general
use waters where most
discharges are not subject
to
a total ammonia
limit.
In general use waters
an upper limit on
total
ammonia was desirable
as the only means
to preclude
discharges
of essentially unlimited ammonia
concentrations.
Such
is clearly not the case in this
proceeding.
Addition of
a
total ammonia water
quality standard to
this proposal would not only
be
duplicative but also arbitrary
in selection of
the
specific numeric value.
While
the proposed unionized
ammonia water quality standard
is based on toxicity
information and the proposed effluent limits
are
based on
treatability and downstream needs,
there
is
no clear
basis from which
to project
a meaningful
total ammonia standard
for the waterway
itself.
(P.C.
#3
at
2)
On the basis
of this response the Board at first notice
declined
to propose simultaneous NH4—N and NH3—N standards for
secondary use waters.
The Board
remains persuaded of the merits
of this position.
In summary,
the Board finds
the matter of
the
appropriateness
of the proposed NH3—N standard
to be
a difficult
call.
Conflicting evidence
exists
in the record regarding
the
adequacy of protection that would be provided under the proposal.
13
~
Ill. Mm.
Code 302.212(a)
provides that total ammonia
nitrogen shall not exceed
15 mg/i
in any general use waterway,
irrespective
of
the concentration of un—ionized ammonia nitrogen.
87—306
—21—
Nevertheless, several
factors persuade the Board
to adopt
the proposal
as offered
by the Joint Proponents.
Among
these are
that the proposal guarantees
(see pages 22—24 herein)
revisitation
of the proposal
in the near future when the data
necessary
to support
a more convincing analysis should
be
available.
These data will
include
a record of performance
of
the Calumet
STW in its reconstructed
form and record of both
water quality and aquatic community as
these exist under
the
proposed amendments.
These data are critically absent
in the
instant record,
and their inclusion should provide
the direction
necessary
for
an ultimate and clear
resolution of
this matter.
A second factor which persuades the Board
to adopt the
proposal
is that
it
at least offers
a significant step forward by
offering
a major improvement
over
the status
~
This fact
is
particularly demonstrated
in the reduction
in total ammonia
loadings at the North Side STW from 22,000
to 6,000 lbs/day and
at the Calumet STW from 53,000
to 28,000 lbs/day.
Thus,
the
proposal provides
for
a reduction
in total
load from these two
facilities
of 41,000 lbs/day, which
is
a
reduction of more than
50.
Additionally, should
the Calumet STW perform better than
the worst case
(see page 15 herein)
the reduction would be even
greater.
This reduction can not but help improve
the quality of
the receiving secondary use waters;
also,
since
the secondary use
waters are ultimately tributary to general
use waters,
the
reduction can not but also help improve
the quality of
the
downstream general use waterways.
A third factor
is assurance offered by the Joint Proponents,
one
of whom is the chief executive agency charged with the
responsiblity for environment protection
and enforcement,
that
adoption
of the proposal will not cause
any violation of
downstream ammonia water quality standards.
It, of course,
must
be kept
in mind that the existing general use ammonia standards
are not altered by the instant proposal.
A fourth factor
is the existence of
law which provides that
violation of water quality standards,
should they exist,
are
subject
to an enforcement action and possible penalty.
Thus,
there
is an
institutional remedy available should the assurance
of no water quality violations not be met.
Reporting Requirement
The Proponents emphasize that because extensive
improvements
in MSDGC facilities are under construction
or planned,
future
upgradings
of waterway use and improvement
in effluent quality
may
be possible
(R.
at 32).
The USEPA has also recognized
the
need
for continuing
review,
noting:
The Chicago Waterway system
is undergoing significant
changes due
to the upgrading of the wastewater
87—307
—22—
treatment
plants,
operation
of
TARP
and
the
stabilization
of
sediments.
We
therefore
believe
a
subsequent
water
quality
study
of
the
waterway
system
is
clearly
needed
to
verify
that
water
quality
standards
and
designated
uses
are
maintained
and
protected after
implementation
of
the necessary
controls.
The
results
of
this
study
may
lead
to
a
requirement
for
additional
controls
at
the
wastewater
treatment
plants.
(Ex.
3 at
1)
In
this
light,
the
Proponents
were
requested
at
the
November
9
hearing
to
comment
on
the
setting
of
an
expiration
date
(“sunsetting”)
for
some
part
of
the
proposed
amendments,
such
that
the
Proponents would be required
to
return
to
the
Board
at
a
future
date
and
to
demonstrate then that
the
proposed
amendments
continue
to
be
justified.
Proponents contend that sunsetting would present
difficulties with Federal regulations,
noting:
The National Municipal Policy specifies
that POTW’s
achieve “final”
effluent standards
consistent with
state discharge and water quality requirements and
does not acknowledge or accept variances or other
temporary delays.
A sunset provision would
be
in
direct contradiction
to this policy and could
potentially negate
this entire undertaking.
A
further drawback
in this particular case related
to
the existence and
applicability of any standard what—
so—ever upon arrival
of the sunset date.
Effluent
and water quality standards
that specifically
terminate on
a fixed date are contrary
to the notion
of
final limits and therefore
in conflict with the
national municipal policy.
(P.C.
#3 at
3—4)
Proponents
further believe
that sufficient mechanism
is
in
place
to provide
for review
of the proposed
amendments
at the
proper
time:
Proponents are opposed
to
a sunset provision
in
the
proposed rules.
The intent and commitment
to
reassess treatment plant performance capabilities,
CSO load reductions
realized through implementation
of TARP,
changes
in sediment characteristics,
instream water quality and biological
conditions
in
1991 have been clearly stated and reiterated numerous
times throughout
this proceeding.
If any necessary
or desirable
regulatory adjustments are identified
through that reassessment,
modifications will be
proposed for
the Board through another
rule making
proceeding.
*
*
*
*
*
87— 308
—23—
Petitioners
believe
the
Board
can
achieve
the
desired
end
of
retaining
options
for
future
action
with
even
more flexibility through a
reporting requirement
rather
than
a
sunset
clause.
Under
this
concept,
a
report
of the previously committed
to 1991
reassessment can be submitted to the Board as an
additional
requirement upon the District;
an approach
that
will
preserve
several
options.
Either
proponent,
MSDGC
or IEPA, can individually or
cooperatively propose further modification
to the
Board
rules
at that time,
the Board
itself can choose
to propose regulatory modification, schedule inquiry
hearings, provide notice and opportunity for public
comment without hearings,
or choose to take no
further action.
This approach has the additional
benefit that all
rules remain
in place and fully
enforceable until
and unless they are specifically
and deliberately modified through subsequent Board
action.
P.C.
#3 at 3—4
In the First Notice Opinion the Board noted that the record
was silent
on the matter of whether the
reporting requirement
referred
to
in this statement should be formalized,
and
if
so,
how.
The
Board further noted
its belief that
it might be
advisable
to formalize the rç~’ortingrequirement by writing
it
into the amended regulationsi’*.
Accordingly,
the Board requested
that the Joint Propoents propose the necessary language,
or
to
provide guidance on how the same end might
be alternatively
achieved.
In response,
the Joint Proponents have recommended
in P.C.
#15 the addition of the following language
to Section 304.201(c):
c)
Chicago Waterway Evaluation
The MSDGC
shall complete and submit
to the Board
a comprehensive water quality evaluation of the
Chicago Waterway System and its influence on the
lower Des Plaines and Upper Illinois Rivers by
January 15,
1992.
Such evaluation shall include
assessment of performance
levels
for North
Side,
Calumet and Stickney wastewater reclamation
plants
and the extent
of sewer overflow reduction
through MSDGC’s Tunnel and Reservoir Plan.
~
The Board notes
that the Northeastern
Illinois Planning
Commission expressed the same view in P.C.
ii.
87—309
—24—
The
Board
believes
that
this additional language
is responsive
to
the expressed concerns regarding
the reporting
requirement,
and
accordingly will adopt the language
as offered.
The Board
further notes
that at such time o~ its review of
the
comprehensive water quality evaluation, opportunity
for
interested persons
to express their views on the study would
be
provided.
CONCLUSION
The
Board
finds
much
empathy
with
the
statement
of
Director
Mark
Frech
of
the
Illinois Department
of Conservation
in his
comment
on
this
matter:
We
are
pleased
to
see
the
elevation
of
standards
on
4.3
miles
of
the
North
Shore
Channel
arid
6.8
miles
of
the
Calumet
River.
Although
certainly
not
pleased
with
the
lowering
of
dissolved
oxygen
standards
on
the
Calumet—Sag
Channel
(from
4
ppm
to
3)
and
the
loosening
of effluent standards
at
the
Calumet
and
North Side sewage treatment works, we can reluctantly
accept these actions recognizing
that the proposed
standards
(if met)
can still provide improvement over
the existing quality
and will probably not worsen
present
water quality.
(P.C.
#
B
at
1).
Moreover,
the
Board
would
add
that
it
is
its
belief,
as
it
is
also
the
Agency’s,
that
the
proposed
actions,
including the
un—ionized
ammonia
provision,
will provide improvement over
the
existing
quality,
and
that
the
regulation
as proposed,
including
the
reporting
requirement,
is
appropriate
to the issues raised
in
this proceeding.
87—3 10
—25—
ORDER
The
Board
directs
that
second
notice
of
the
following
proposed
rule
be
submitted
to
the
Joint
Committee
on
Administrative
Rules.
PART
302
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
SUBPART
D:
SECONDARY
CONTACT
AND
INDIGENOUS
AQUATIC
LIFE
STANDARDS
Section 302.405
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen
(STORET number 00300)
shall
not be
less than
3-~-O
ffig/~
~t~4ng e~~eae~ ~6 heefe 5n any ~4—het~ pe~ed7ne~~ees
~han ~8
mg/i a~any
~±t~&7
end a~e~Beeembe~347 ~
eha9~ne~
be
4ees
than 4.0 mg/i at any
time-i-
except
that
the
Calumet—Sag
Channel
shall
not
be
less
than
3.0
mg/i
at
any
time.
Section
302.407
Chemical Constituents
Concentrations
of
other
chemical
constituents
shall
not
exceed
the following standards:
STORET
CONCENTRATION
CONSTITUENT
NUMBER
(mg/i)
Ammen~a
N~~egert
-‘as
+?‘p~~
ee~ebe~+
fNe~eMbet Mafeh-)-
Ammonia, Un—ionized
(as N)*
_____
___
Arsenic
(total)
Barium (total)
Cadmium (total)
Chromium
(total
hexavalent)
Chromium (total
trivalent)
Copper
(total)
Cyanide
(total)
Fluoride (total)
Iron
(total)
Iron (dissolved)
Lead
(total)
Manganese
(total)
Mercury
(total)
Nickel
(total)
Oil,
fats and
grease
9O6~
00619
01002
01007
01027
01032
4~O
0.1
1.0
5.0
0.15
0.3
01033
1.0
01042
00720
00951
01045
01046
01051
01055
71900
01067
00550,
00556
or
00560
1.0
0.10
15.0
2.0
0.5
0.1
1.0
0.0005
1.0
15
.
0
**
87—3 11
—26--
Phenols
32730
0.3
Selenium
(total)
00147
1.0
Silver
01077
1.1
Zinc (total)
01092
1.0
Total
Dissolved
70300
1500
Solids
*For
purposes
of
this
section
the concentration
of un—ionized
ammonia
shall
be
computed
according
to
the
following
equation:
N
where:
0.94412(1
+
l0~)
+
0.0559
X=
0.09018
+
2729.92
—pH
(T
+
273.16)
U
Concentration
of un-ionized ammonia as N
in mg/i
N
Concentration of ammonia nitrogen
as N
in mg/i
T=Temperature
in
degrees
Celsius
**Oil
shall
be
analytically
separated
into
polar
and
non—polar
components
if
the
total
concentration exceeds
15
mg/i.
In
no
case
shall
either
of
the
components
exceed
15
mg/i
(i.e.,
15
mg/i
polar
materials
and
15 mg/i non—polar materials).
PART
303
WATER
USE
DESIGNATIONS
AND
SITE
SPECIFIC
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
SUBPART
C:
SPECIFIC
USE
DESIGNATIONS AND
SITE SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Section 303.441
Secondary Contact Waters
The following are designated
as secondary contact and
indigenous
aquatic
life
waters
and
must
meet
the
water
quality
standards
of
9ubpa~
B7
Paf~
3G~ 35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 302.Subpart
D:
a)
The
Chicago
Sanitary
and
Ship
Canal;
b)
The
Calumet—Sag Channel;
C)
The
Little
Calumet
River
from
its
junction
with
the
Grand
Calumet
River
to
the
Calumet—Sag Channel;
d)
The
Grand
Calumet
River;
e)
The
Calumet
River,
except
the
6.8
mile
segment
extending
87—3 12
—27—
from
the
O’Brien
Locks
and
Dam
to
Lake
Michigan
f)
Lake Calumet;
g)
The
South
Branch
of
the
Chicago
River;
h)
The
North
Branch
of
the
Chicago
River
from
its
confluence
with
the
North
Shore
Channel
to
its
confluence with the South Branch;
1)
The Des Piaines River
from its confluence with the
Chicago
Sanitary
and
Ship
Canal
to
the
Interstate
55
bridge;
and
j)
The
North
Shore
Channel,
e~eeep~~ha~
excluding
the
segment extending from the North Side Sewage Treatment
Works
to Lake Michigan.
The dissolved oxygen
in said
Channel
shall
be
not
less
than
5
mg/i
during
16
hours
of
any
24
hour
period,
nor
less
than
4
mg/l
at
any
time.
PART
304
EFFLUENT
STANDARDS
SUBPART
B:
SITE
SPECIFIC
RULES
AND
EXCEPTIONS NOT OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY
Section 304.201
e~e~ P~ea~men~
P4an~Gyanide B-ieehafges
Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharges
of the
Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater
cago
a)
Calumet
Treatment
Plant
Discharges:
The gene~a~effluent standards of
Section 304.124
as
applied
to c~ranidedischarges,
Sections 304.120
(b)
and
(c) and Section 304.122 dees do not apply
to eyan~de
d~ieeha~’ged~r~em~he ?e~ime~Pfea~Men~P~an~-BOD5,
total
suspended solids,
cyanide, and ammonia—nitrogen
discharged from the Calumet Sewage Treatment Works
of
the Metropolitan Sanitary 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
(mq/i)
CBOD~
80082
24
SS
00530
28
87—3 13
—28—
Ammonia—Nitrogen
(as N)
00610
13
Cyanide
00720
0.15
b)
North Side Sewage Treatment Works:
The effluent standards
of Section 304.120(b)
and
(c) do
not apply to
BODE,
total suspended solids,
and ammonia—
nitrogen discharged
from the North Side Sewage Treatment
Works
of The Metropolitan Sanitary 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
CONSTITUEN~Z
NUMBER
(mg/l)
CBODç
80082
12
SS
-
00530
20
Ammonia—Nitrogen
(as N)
—
(April—October)
00610
2.5
November—March)
00610
4.0
c)
Chicago Waterway Evaluation
The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago
shall
complete and submit
to the Board
a comprehensive
water quality evaluation of
the Chicago Waterway System
and
its influence
on the
Lower Des Piaines and Upper
Illinois Rivers by January
15,
1992.
Such evaluation
shall
include assessment
of performance levels for North
Side,
Calumet and Stickney wastewater
reclamation plants
and
the extent of sewer overflow
reduction through the
Metropolitan
Sanitary District of Greater Chicago’s
Tunnel and Reservoir
Plan.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn,
Clerk
of
the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the ~ove
Opinion and Order was
adopted
on
the
ct/t~
day of
~7h~~-I-
,
1988,
by
a vote
of
~d
Dorothy
M. Gum,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
87—314
