NOTICE OF HEARINGS

BACKGROUND
AGENCY PROPOSAL
PUBLIC COMMENTS
DISCUSSION
1. Corrections to GLI
Issues
1. Agency Implementation Procedures
  1. _
    1. _
      - _
ECONOMIC REASONABLENESS AND TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY OF THE PROPOSAL
CONCLUSION
ORDER
TITLE 35: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
1. _
Section 309.157Permit Limits for Total Metals

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

June 20, 2002

IN THE MATTER OF:

WATER QUALITY TRIENNIAL

REVIEW: AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL.

ADM. CODE 302.105, 302.208(e)-(g),

302.504(a), 302.575(d), 309.141(h); and

PROPOSED

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 301.267, 301.313,

301.413, 304.120, and 309.157

)

R02-11

(Rulemaking - Water)

Proposed Rule. First Notice.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by G.T. Girard, R.C. Flemal, M.E. Tristano):

On November 9, 2001, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed a

rulemaking proposal (Prop.) to amend the Board’s water regulations at 35 Ill. Adm. Code

302.208(e)-(g), 302.504(a), 302.575(d), 303.444, 309.141(h) and adding new sections at 35

Ill. Adm. Code 301.267, 301.313, 301.413, 304.120, and 309.157. The proposal will update

the Board’s regulations pursuant to the State’s triennial review of water regulations. On

December 6, 2001, the Board accepted this matter for hearing.

The Board held two hearings on this matter and has received 21 public comments. The

hearings were held before Board Hearing Officer Marie Tipsord on January 29, 2002, in

Chicago, and March 6, 2002, in Springfield.

1 Testimony at the two hearings was heard from

the Agency, Galesburg Sanitary District, the Environmental Groups,

2 Illinois Association of

Wastewater Agencies (IAWA), and Rock River Water Reclamation District.

The Board today proposes for first notice amendments to the Board’s water rules. The

Board’s proposed rule is similar to the Agency’s proposal in many areas, but after

consideration of the record, the Board’s proposal differs from the Agency’s proposal on

several issues. Those differences will be discussed in detail below. The Board will first

discuss the Agency’s proposal and then discuss the remaining issues before the Board. The

testimony and comments will be included where appropriate.

1 The transcript from the January 29, 2002 hearing in Chicago will be cited as “Tr.1” and the

transcript from the March 6, 2002 hearing held in Springfield will be cited as “Tr.2”.

2 Testimony and comments were offered on behalf of the Environmental Law and Policy

Center, Prairie Rivers Network, and Sierra Club. The Board will refer to them as

“Environmental Groups” when discussing the comments and testimony.

BACKGROUND

States are required to revise and update their water quality standards pursuant to the

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1387 (1987)) (Clean Water Act).

Prop. at 7. The update is necessary to ensure that the water quality standards protect public

health and welfare, enhance the quality of water, and promote the purposes of the Clean Water

Act.

. This process is called a triennial water quality standards review.

. citing 33

U.S.C. §1313(c)(1). One element in the triennial water quality standards review is the refining

of numeric standards based on the best available current knowledge.

. The Agency filed a

proposal on November 9, 2001, which revised the water quality standards based on revised

federal policy and new scientific information collected over the years. Prop. at 8.

AGENCY PROPOSAL

As a part of the triennial review, the Agency proposed changes in five areas of the

State’s regulations. First, the Agency proposed new aquatic life acute and chronic numeric

General Use Water Quality Standards and Lake Michigan Water Quality Standards for

benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene, and xylene (BETX). Prop. at 8. Second, the Agency

proposed revised General Use Water Quality Standards for zinc, nickel, and cyanide.

Third, the Agency proposed changing the General Use Water Quality Standards for metals

from total to dissolved form. Prop. at 8-9. Fourth, the Agency proposed corrections to the

Lake Michigan water rules adopted in Conforming Amendments for the Great Lakes Initiative:

35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.101; 302.105; 302.Subpart E; 303.443 And 304.222, R97-25,

(Dec. 18, 1997) (GLI). Prop. at 9. Fifth, the Agency proposed amendments to allow the

Agency to use five-day carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5) instead of five-day

biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) permits.

. The following discussion will detail the Agency’s specific proposals.

BETX

BETX substances are currently regulated using water quality criteria derived from 35

Ill. Adm. Code 302.210 and Subpart F. Prop. at 10. These water quality criteria have

changed over the years due to new toxicity data in literature, recalculations of criteria and

correction of errors in the database.

BETX substances are frequently regulated in NPDES

permits using the derived water quality standards. Therefore, the Agency proposed for

adoption new numeric General Use Water Quality Standards and Lake Michigan Water Quality

Standards for the BETX compounds at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.208(e) and (f) and 302.504(a).

Zinc, Nickel, and Cyanide

The Agency stated that the single number General Use Water Quality Standards for zinc

and nickel “are outdated” and do not conform to the current method of designating acute and

chronic values for protection of aquatic life. Prop. at 10. The Agency proposes revising the

acute and chronic standards for zinc and nickel in this rulemaking. The Agency developed the

revised General Use Water Quality Standards using the United States Environmental Protection

Agency’s (USEPA) national criteria documents and new information.

. The amendments to

the General Use Water Quality Standards can be found at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.208(g).

The Agency also proposes for amendment the acute and chronic General Use Water

Quality Standards for “general use weak acid dissociable cyanide” (cyanide). Prop. at 10.

The Agency indicates that the standard as originally adopted in Amendments to Title 35,

Subtitle C (Toxics Control), R88-21, (Jan. 25, 1990) were derived using cold-water species.

. The Agency maintains that the standards are applied to waters which contain only warm

water or in some cases cool-water species.

. The Agency proposes a standard that “corrects

this error” and is intended to be protective of all species found in General Use waters.

Dissolved Metal Standards

The Agency proposes the conversion of General Use Water Quality Standards for

metals from total to dissolved form found at Section 302.208. Prop. at 11. The Agency

makes this suggestion because of USEPA’s recommendation and the national consensus that

only the dissolved fraction of metal present in a solution is the toxic component.

. The

dissolved metal water quality standards require the use of a metals translator procedure

(attached to the proposal at Exhibit A) to set NPDES permit limits for metal in total form.

The NPDES permit limits for total metals must however ensure protection of the dissolved

metal water quality standard in the stream. The Agency proposes Section 309.157 which will

allow a permit applicant to request that the Agency set permit limits based on site-specific

metal data.

. The Agency indicates that it will draft an implementation rule to allow the

administration for the metals translator process for determining water quality-based permit

limitations for NPDES discharges to general use waters.

Corrections to GLI

The Agency’s proposal amends the Lake Michigan water standards in Section 302.504

for arsenic, cadmium, lead, and other metals to the dissolved conversion factor based on the

previous discussion. Prop. at 11. In addition, the Agency is correcting the calculation of the

total species value (TSV) equation.

. The Agency also “elected” to use a new conversion

factor in some cases rather than the GLI values.

. Finally, the provisions of the new section

309.157 will also apply to Lake Michigan.

CBOD5 instead of BOD5

The Board’s water rules at Section 304.120 provide general effluent standards for

deoxygenating wastes. According to the current rules, effluent limits are stated in numerical

units (mg/l) of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5). BOD5 measures the carbonaceous

demand in a sample to measure the efficiency of a treatment process. Tr.1 at 36-37. The

Agency is proposing additional language at Section 304.120(g) which would require

compliance with the BOD5 numerical standards in Section 304.120 to be determined by

analyzing carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5) in the effluent. The Agency is

proposing changing the rule to allow for the regulation of CBOD5 instead of BOD5 in NPDES

permits. Prop. at 12. The CBOD5 method provides a more direct reliable measure of

carbonaceous oxygen demand according to the Agency and has been allowed by federal

regulations adopted in 1984.

See

40 C.F.R. 133.

. The Agency has used CBOD5 in setting

permit limits for effluent since 1986, but has not updated the Board’s rules until now.

; Tr.

1 at 35.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

The Board received 21 public comments in this matter. The following table lists all the

comments.

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago submitted by Michael

G. Rosenberg

Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group submitted by Robert A. Messina

Wheaton Sanitary District submitted by Robert L. Clavel, P.E. Engineer – Manager

Lake in the Hills Sanitary District submitted by Ross Nelson, District Manager

Greater Peoria Sanitary District submitted by Stanton A. Browning, Executive

Director

Springfield Metro Sanitary District submitted by Robert A. Alvey,

Director/Engineer

Fox Metro Water Reclamation District submitted by Thomas F. Muth, District

Manager

Rock River Water Reclamation District submitted by Dean Faulkner, District

Manager

City of Elmhurst submitted by Dennis Streicher, Director of Water & Wastewater

Urbana & Champaign Sanitary District submitted by Dennis Schmidt, Executive

Director

Glenbard Wastewater Authority submitted by William E. Kuzia, P.E., Utilities

Manager

North Shore Sanitary District submitted by Joseph T. Robinson for Brian Jensen,

General Manager

Rochelle Municipal Utilities submitted by Kathy Cooper Superintendent

Water/Water Reclamation

City of Naperville Department of Public Utilities submitted by Allen F. Panek,

Assistant Director

Downers Grove Sanitary District submitted by Lawrence C. Cox, General Manager

DeKalb Sanitary District submitted by Stephen N. Haughey

Thorn Creek Basin Sanitary District submitted by James L. Daugherty, Plant

Manager

Post Hearing Comments of Environmental Law and Policy Center, Prairie Rivers

Network, and the Sierra Club submitted by Albert F. Ettinger

Dr. Brian D. Anderson of Department of Natural Resources submitted by Stanley

Yonkauski, Jr.

Illinois Association of Wastewater Agencies submitted by Sheila H. Deeley

Environmental Protection Agency submitted by Sanjay K. Sofat

DISCUSSION

The Agency proposed changes in five areas to the Board’s water regulations. Those

areas are: BETX; changes to General Use Water Quality Standards for zinc, nickel and

cyanide; the dissolved metals standard; GLI corrections; and a change from regulating BOD5 to

CBOD5. The following discussion will summarize the support in the record for the addition of

BETX substances, the change to the Zinc and Nickel General Use Water Quality Standards,

and the changes based on GLI. These proposed changes are unopposed by the participants.

Next, the Board will elaborate on the issues surrounding dissolved metals, cyanide and

dissolved oxygen and explain the Board’s decision on each of those issues.

BETX

BETX is an acronym for four volatile organic substances commonly present in

petroleum products. Those four substances are benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene, and xylenes.

BETX substance found in petroleum storage facilities may endanger groundwater supplies.

Prop. at Exh. F at 2. In some cases groundwater can then infiltrate into surface waters to

endanger aquatic life.

. The Agency proposed General Use Water Quality Standards and

Lake Michigan Water Quality Standards for these substances giving both an acute and a

chronic value. Tr.1 at 15. The Agency had in the past derived the standards for the BETX

substances under the Board’s rules at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.210. Tr.1 at 50. Section

302.210 does not contain specific water quality values for each of the BETX compounds, but,

instead delineates procedures for determining acute and chronic toxicity values for “other toxic

substances.” 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.210. However, the Agency found that these four

substances were used over and over again. Tr.1 at 51. Therefore, the Agency proposed the

standards be included in the Board’s rules.

The Agency developed the standards for the BETX substances using the procedures set

forth in

Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection

of Aquatic Organisms and their Uses

, USEPA 1985, NTIS PB85-227049 (Guideline). Prop. at

Exh. E; Tr.1 at 25. The Agency used the Tier II procedure that involved several steps. Tr.1

at 27. First, data was obtained from a USEPA database and other sources on the substance

and the data was verified using the Agency’s library sources.

. Next, the data was tabulated

as required by the Guideline.

. Statistical calculations were made and documents were

prepared for each substance. Tr.1 at 27-28. The Agency provided copies of those documents

to the Board as a part of the Agency’s proposal.

See

Prop. at Exh. J, M, O, and R. The

actual standards proposed by the Agency are similar to the numbers derived under 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 302.210.

The Board finds that the record supports the Agency’s proposed addition of water

quality standards for the BETX substances. Therefore, the Board will propose for first notice

the Agency’s proposed changes Section 302.208(e) and 302.504(a).

Zinc, Nickel and Cyanide

One goal of triennial review is to update and review existing toxic metal standards.

Tr.1 at 15-16. These metals have “one number standards” adopted in the 1970s as opposed to

the “two number standards” that have been preferred method for the last fifteen years. Tr.1 at

16. Nickel and Zinc fall into this category.

. Therefore, using the Guideline and the

procedure discussed above, the Agency developed the proposed acute and chronic General Use

Water Quality Standards for Zinc and Nickel. Tr.1 at 28; Prop. at Exh. S and V. The Board

finds that the record supports the Agency’s proposed addition of acute and chronic standards

for Zinc and Nickel. Therefore, the Board will proceed to first notice with that proposed

change in Section 302.208(e). The Agency’s proposal to change the cyanide standard is more

controversial, and will be discussed in detail in the issues section below.

Corrections to GLI

The Agency testified that the GLI rulemaking (R97-25) intended to list metals in the

dissolved form, but the conversion factors were inadvertently left out. This proposal would

correct that omission at Section 302.504. Tr.1 at 21. In addition, information was left out in

Section 302.575 and that information is added here.

. The Board finds that the record

supports these proposed changes and will proceed to first notice with the changes.

Issues

As discussed above, three areas of concern have been raised. First is whether the

Board should require the Agency to provide implementation rules regarding hardness,

reasonable potential testing, dissolved oxygen and the metals translator prior to proceeding to

first notice with the Agency’s proposal. Second is whether the Board should adopt the cyanide

standard. Third is whether compliance with the BOD5 effluent limits in Section 304.120

should be determined by measuring CBOD5. The public comments and testimony of the

participants will be discussed where appropriate.

Agency Implementation Procedures

The Agency indicated in the proposal that the Agency would draft implementation rules

to allow the administration of the metals translator process for determining water quality based

permit limitations for NPDES permits. Prop. at 11. At hearing, Mr. Robert Mosher testified

on behalf of the Agency that the implementation rules were still under development, and the

rules would be presented at the second hearing. Tr.1 at 41. Mr. Mosher went on to testify

that the Agency needs to provide instructions on several aspects of the proposed Board rules.

Tr.1 at 42. Specifically, Mr. Mosher indicated that the Agency needed to provide information

on where the Agency would get “hardness data” and on how the Agency will do “a reasonable

potential analysis to determine if a certain substance needs to be regulated in the NPDES

permit.” Tr.1 at 42-43. Mr. Mosher also indicated the Agency will have instructions on how

the Agency will do the metals translator. Tr.1 at 43-44.

At the second hearing, the Agency did not provide copies of the draft implementation

rules. Tr.2 at 10. The Agency declined to provide the implementation rules for three reasons.

. First, the Agency indicated that this rulemaking process should concentrate on the process

used by the Agency to develop the standards.

. Second, the Agency rules are still a work in

progress, and third, the Agency will follow a separate public process for development of the

rules.

. In addition, the Agency noted that it intends to follow the procedures outlined in

USEPA guidance documents

3 in developing the implementation procedures. PC 21 at 4.

The Environmental Groups argue that the Board should not proceed with the proposal

absent implementation rules on hardness, reasonable potential testing, dissolved oxygen, and

metals translator. PC 18 at 2. The Environmental Groups argue that it is critical for the Board

to see the implementation rules as such rules often make the difference as to whether the

standard is protective of aquatic life, overly stringent, or useless.

. The Environmental

Groups use hardness as one example and note that where instream hardness is measured and

what figure for hardness is used in calculating permits can make a large difference in permit

limits.

. Dr. Cynthia Skrukrud testified to the importance of seeing the Agency’s

implementation rules. Tr.2 at 90. Dr. Skrukrud indicated that the only way to understand the

proposed changed to the Board’s rules is to understand how the Agency will write the permits.

Discussion.

In general, the Board agrees that seeing implementation procedures for the

water quality standards is important. The Board’s hearing officer strongly urged the Agency to

provide the Board with copies of the implementation rules as a part of the Agency’s comments.

Tr.2 at 149. The Agency chose not to do so. While it would be helpful to know the

implementation procedures in developing comprehensive water quality regulations, in this

proceeding the Board believes that the Agency has sufficient federal guidance and experience

to develop implementation procedures which ensure that water quality standards are protective

of aquatic life.

In this regard, the Board notes that the Agency has been issuing permits implementing

the General Use Water Quality Standards, including standards based on hardness for a number

of years. Further, the Agency has already developed detailed procedures for implementing the

Lake Michigan Basin Water Quality Standards that address reasonable potential determination.

See

35 Ill. Adm. Code 352. The Board expects the Agency to develop similar procedures for

Technical Support Document for Water Quality Based Toxics Control

, EPA/505/2-90-001

(March 1991), and

The Metals Translator: Guidance for Calculating a Total Recoverable

Permit Limit from a Dissolved Criterion

, EPA 823-B-96-007.

the implementing the General Use Water Quality Standards that are consistent with the

USEPA’s guidance.

4 In light of this, the Board believes that it would be prudent to move the

proposed water quality standards, with the exception of cyanide, to first notice and allow the

Agency to develop their own implementation rules in a separate rulemaking.

The Board will also proceed to first notice with proposed Section 309.157. That

section of the proposal addresses permit limits for total metals. Again, while the Board

recognizes the Environmental Groups’ concern regarding the lack of specific Agency

implementation procedures for the calculation of permit limits based on site-specific data, the

Board believes that the USEPA’s metals translator document (Prop. at Exh. A) provides

sufficient guidance for determining site-specific metals translator. In this regard, the Agency

maintains that it will follow the federal guidance in developing the implementation procedures

for calculating permit limits.

See

PC 21 at 4. In view of this, the Board adopts Section

309.157 with some minor clarifying changes that require the Agency to develop

implementation procedures for developing site-specific metals translator that are consistent with

the federal guidance. The Board invites the participants to comment on this change to

proposed Section 309.157.

Cyanide

As indicated above the Agency proposed for amendment the acute and chronic water

quality standards for cyanide in Section 302.208. Prop. at 10. The Agency indicates that

while the standard as originally adopted was derived using cold-water species, the standard is

being applied to Illinois waters that do not support cold water species.

. The Agency

proposes a standard that “corrects this error” and is intended to be protective of all species

found in General Use waters.

The Environmental Groups are joined by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources

(IDNR) in opposition to the change proposed for cyanide. The Environmental Groups point

out that Mr. Mosher testified that the Agency knows of no discharger who will be helped by

adopting the “less protective standard” proposed. PC 18 at 3, citing Tr.2 at 61. The

Environmental Groups agree that adjusting a national criteria to eliminate protection for species

that do not live in Illinois makes sense “when there is relevant data for all of the more sensitive

species in Illinois.” PC 18 at 3. And as long as the relevant data indicates that the resulting

standard will still be protective of the species in Illinois.

. The Environmental Groups point

to the testimony of Agency witness Clark Olsen that there is no data on cyanide toxicity to

mussels, and the Agency is proceeding with the standard without knowing if the standard will

protect endangered and threatened mussels in Illinois.

The Environmental Groups are also concerned that no cool-water fish have been taken

into account, even though the fish may be present in Illinois. PC 18 at 4. The Environmental

The Metals Translator: Guidance for Calculating a Total Recoverable Permit Limit from a

Dissolved Criterion

, EPA 823-B-96-007 (1996).

Groups also feel that the Agency reliance on the antidegradation rules to protect these species

may be misplaced.

IDNR maintains that there is not enough scientific evidence that the proposed cyanide

standard will be protective of all species in General Use Waters, including cool-water fishes,

and unionid mussels. PC 19 at 3. IDNR comments that cool-water species rainbow trout

(

Oncorhynchus

mykiss

) and brown trout (

Salmo

trutta

) have been stocked to maintain

recreational fisheries in Illinois. PC 19 at 1. Rainbow trout have reproduced at a lake in

southern Illinois and brown trout may have reproduced in an Illinois stream. PC 19 at 1.

According to IDNR, there are a number of fish species in northern Illinois that could be

considered cool-water species, and therefore, cyanide toxicity test data on cool-water species,

such as trout, would be more appropriate in developing a protective cyanide standard. PC 19

at 1-2. IDNR also has concerns based on the USEPA document,

Ambient Water Quality

Criteria for Cyanide – 1984

, which is the source of the cyanide standard. PC 19 at 2. First,

no data on cyanide toxicity for unionid mussels was used in setting the cyanide standard, yet,

IDNR notes that Illinois has 27 species of unionid mussels that are listed as state or federal

endangered or threatened species. PC 19 at 2. Second, the USEPA document references a

study which found adverse effects on bluegill (

Lepornis

macrochirus

) spawning for cyanide

concentrations near the range of the proposed standard. PC 19 at 2. For the reasons listed

above, IDNR opposes the change to the cyanide standard.

Mr. Mosher testifying on behalf of the Agency concedes that to the best of the

Agency’s knowledge there are no studies which evaluate the effect of cyanide on mussels.

Tr.2 at 139. Mr. Mosher further testified that “in the science of aquatic life toxicity testing,

studies on mussels are not yet an established and reliable procedure.”

. Mr. Mosher stated

that there is no approved methodology for conducting toxicity tests on mussels, however the

USEPA has been experimenting with mussel toxicity testing.

. The USEPA does not

“require or endorse the use of mussel toxicity data at this time,” according to Mr. Mosher.

Tr.2 at 139-140. Mr. Mosher testified that if toxicity testing for mussels becomes an approved

and standardized process, the USEPA will incorporate mussel data into national criteria and the

states will be “obliged” to use mussel data. Tr.2 at 140. When and if this occurs Mr. Mosher

indicated that Illinois can update the water quality rules in Illinois to reflect the new data.

Mr. Mosher stated that until then, the Agency must use approved data in deriving the water

quality standards.

Discussion.

The Board is convinced by the comments and testimony regarding the

relaxation of the cyanide standard that such a relaxation is not warranted at this time. The

Agency based the proposed amendment of the cyanide standard on the assumption that Illinois

does not have native cold-water species of fish outside of Lake Michigan. However, IDNR

has indicated that stocked cold-water species have reproduced in Illinois. This is information

that the Agency did not have when considering the relaxation of the standard for cyanide (

see

Tr.1 at 62). The Agency also testified that a cool-water species (sculpin) are present in

Illinois, but those streams “are not now thought to contain significant amounts of cyanide,”

and the Board’s antidegradation rules can be used to evaluate the streams. Tr.2 at 141. The

Board notes that while antidegradation evaluations provide additional protection to a water

body in a permitting context, such an evaluation should not be used as a justification to relax

water quality standards.

The Board is also concerned with the lack of information regarding mussels in Illinois.

At this time there are no studies that either the Agency or the participants are aware of which

review the effect of cyanide toxicity on mussels. The Agency relies on the fact that the

USEPA does not use mussel data to support the Agency’s proposal. However, USEPA’s lack

of information is not scientific support for relaxing the standard. There are many endangered

and threatened species of mussels in Illinois and no evidence to establish that relaxation of the

standard will have no effect on those species. Furthermore, the relaxation of the standard will

not help any Illinois dischargers. Therefore, the Board at this time finds that the proposed

cyanide standard is not justified, and the Board will not proceed with the change. In addition,

the Board will not proceed with the Agency’s proposed repeal of Section 303.444, and the

caption will be amended to reflect that change.

CBOD5 Instead of BOD5

The Agency’s proposal amends Section 304.120 of the Board’s regulations to allow the

use of CBOD5 instead of BOD5 in NPDES permits. The Agency asserts that this amendment

will ensure compliance with the effluent limitations provided under Sections 301 and 302 of the

Clean Water Act. Prop at 9. The purpose of the BOD5 test is to measure the efficiency of the

wastewater treatment process. Tr.1 at 36. The Agency argues that the BOD5 test may not

provide useful information on the removal efficiency of the treatment process. Tr.1 at 37.

The testimony of Michael Callahan, on behalf of IAWA (Tr.2 at 114), and the three

attachments to his testimony (Exh. 14, 15, and 16) provide considerable scientific evidence to

support the Agency’s position. The Agency maintains that the most logical way to measure the

quality of the effluent is to assess and control components individually. Therefore the Agency

testified that using the CBOD5 test “to measure carbonaceous demand and where ammonia

nitrogen effluent standards are appropriate[,] use the ammonia nitrogen test to measure

nitrogenous demand” is appropriate. Tr.1 at 38.

The BOD5 test is designed to measure the carbonaceous oxygen demand in a sample

and to measure the efficiency of a treatment process by comparing the carbonaceous oxygen

demand before and after the treatment process. Tr.1 at 36-37. In treatment processes that do

not nitrify or completely nitrify the use of the BOD5 test on both influent and effluent will

provide information on the efficiency of the treatment process. Tr.1 at 37. However, if the

system only partially nitrifies, the use of the BOD5 test will compare the carbonaceous demand

in the influent with both the carbonaceous and nitrogenous oxygen demand in the effluent.

This does not provide useful information on the removal efficiency of the treatment process.

The Agency suggests that the best way to judge the quality of the effluent is to use the

BOD5 test on influent and, on the effluent, the CBOD5 test to measure carbonaceous oxygen

demand and the ammonia nitrogen test to measure nitrogenous demand. Tr.1 at 38. The

Agency also believes this procedure is more logical than trying to measure the combined

carbonaceous oxygen demand and nitrogenous oxygen demand with the BOD5 test which has

proven to provide misleading and inconsistent results. Tr.1 at 38. In 1984, the USEPA

amended the federal regulations to allow for the use of CBOD5 and since 1986 the Agency has

used CBOD5, in lieu of BOD5 in NPDES permits. Tr.1 at 35. The Agency also incorporates

ammonia nitrogen water quality based effluent limits where appropriate. Tr.1 at 35-36.

The Environmental Groups oppose the proposed change to CBOD5 from BOD5 because

they believe CBOD5 does not measure the total oxygen demand of the discharge. PC 18 at 5.

Specifically, the Environmental Groups are concerned that dissolved oxygen standards are

being violated in Illinois and will continue to be violated with this change in standard. PC 18

at 6. The Environmental Groups are also concerned that the proposal ignores nitrogenous

oxygen demand. PC 18 at 7.

The proposal by the Agency to replace the limits for BOD5 with limits for CBOD5 is

supported by IAWA, Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, Wheaton

Sanitary District, Lake in the Hills Sanitary District, Greater Peoria Sanitary District,

Springfield Metro Sanitary District, Fox Metro Water Reclamation, Rock River Water

Reclamation District, City of Elmhurst, Urbana & Champaign Sanitary District, Glenbard

Wastewater Authority, North Shore Sanitary District, Rochelle Municipal Utilities, City of

Naperville Department of Public Utilities, Downers Grove Sanitary District, DeKalb Sanitary

District, and Thorn Creek Basin Sanitary District. Specifically, IAWA comments that the

Agency’s proposal is not a mechanism to relax existing effluent standards. PC 20 at 1.

IAWA opines that the proposed change is an attempt to more clearly define wording and

terminology of the existing rule.

Discussion.

The Environmental Groups primary concern is that using CBOD5 to

measure the efficiency of wastewater treatment facilities may not be fully protective of

dissolved oxygen levels in Illinois waters, because CBOD5 does not measure nitrogenous

oxygen demand. However, the evidence in the record, such as IAWA’s Exhibits 14, 15 and

16, document that the BOD5 test in many cases does not accurately represent wastewater

treatment efficiency or the actual oxygen demand experienced in the receiving stream. The

record supports the Agency’s position that combined effluent testing for CBOD5 and ammonia

nitrogen provides a more representative measure of treatment efficiency. In addition, the

Agency has been using CBOD5 since 1986 in NPDES permits, yet stream studies provided by

the Agency indicate that streams regulated for CBOD5 are “generally not suffering from low

dissolved oxygen problems.” PC 21 at 3. Furthermore, the record demonstrates that public

wastewater treatment facilities throughout Illinois support this change. Therefore, the Board

finds that the record supports proceeding to first notice with the change in Section 304.120

allowing the use of the CBOD5 to determine compliance with the BOD5 numerical standards

found in Section 304.120. Participants are encouraged to provide additional comment on this

change.

SECTION 302.105

The Board is opening this section to correct typographical errors from Revisions to

Antidegradation Rules 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.105, 303.205, 303.206, and 102.800-102.830

R01-13 (Feb. 21, 2002). This section is opened only to address typographical errors and no

substantive changes will be considered in this rulemaking.

ECONOMIC REASONABLENESS AND TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY OF THE

PROPOSAL

The Agency’s proposal also addressed the economic reasonableness and technical

feasibility of the proposal. The Agency indicated that this proposal contains no new regulatory

requirements under the Illinois’ water quality standards. Prop. at 15. The Agency maintains

that the proposal revises and updates existing standards based on new scientific information.

The Agency asserts that the regulated community has been complying with the BETX

standards for some time.

. Other than comments discussed above, the Board has received

no comments which indicate that the proposal is not economically reasonable and technically

feasible. Therefore, the Board finds that the rule is economically reasonable and technically

feasible.

CONCLUSION

The Board today proposes for first notice amendments to the Board’s water rules. The

Board is adopting the proposal as filed by the Agency with minor changes except the Board

will not proceed with the proposed cyanide standard. The Board will schedule an additional

hearing by hearing officer order at a later date.

ORDER

The Board directs the Clerk to cause the publication of the following rule for first

notice in the

Illinois Register

TITLE 35: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SUBTITLE C: WATER POLLUTION

CHAPTER I: POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

301.104 Analytical Testing

301.105 References to Other Sections

301.106

Incorporations by Reference

301.107 Severability

301.108 Adjusted Standards

301.200 Definitions

301.205 Act

301.210 Administrator

Artificial Cooling Lake

301.230 Basin

301.231

Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern

301.255 Combined Sewer

301.260

Combined Sewer Service Area

301.265 Construction

301.267 Conversion Factor

301.270 Dilution Ratio

301.275 Effluent

301.280 Hearing Board

301.285 Industrial Wastes

301.290 Institute

301.295 Interstate Waters

301.300 Intrastate Waters

301.301

Lake Michigan Lakewide Management Plan

301.305 Land Runoff

301.310 Marine Toilet

301.311

Method Detection Level

301.312 Minimum Level

301.313 Metals Translator

Pollutant Minimization Program

301.345 Population

Equivalent

301.346

Preliminary Effluent Limitation

301.350 Pretreatment Works

301.355 Primary Contact

301.356

Projected Effluent Quality

301.360

Public and Food Processing Water Supply

301.365

Publicly Owned Treatment Works

301.370

Publicly Regulated Treatment Works

301.371 Quantification Level

301.372

Reasonable Potential Analysis

301.373

Same Body of Water

301.375 Sanitary Sewer

301.380 Secondary Contact

Standard of Performance

301.405 STORET

301.410 Storm Sewer

301.411

Total Maximum Daily Load

301.413 Total Metal

301.415 Treatment Works

301.420 Underground Waters

301.421 Wasteload Allocation

301.425 Wastewater

301.430 Wastewater Source

301.435 Watercraft

301.440 Waters

301.441

Water Quality Based Effluent Limitation

301.442

Wet Weather Point Source

301.443

Whole Effluent Toxicity

APPENDIX

References to Previous Rules

AUTHORITY: Implementing Section 13 and authorized by Section 27 of the Environmental

Protection Act [415 ILCS 5/13 and 27].

SOURCE: Filed with the Secretary of State January 1, 1978; amended at 3 Ill. Reg. 25, p.

190, effective June 21, 1979; amended at 5 Ill. Reg. 6384, effective May 28, 1981; codified

at 6 Ill. Reg. 7818; amended in R88-1 at 13 Ill. Reg. 5984, effective April 18, 1989;

amended in R88-21(A) at 14 Ill. Reg. 2879, effective February 13, 1990; amended in R99-8

at 23 Ill. Reg. 11277, effective August 26, 1999; amended in R02-11 at Ill. Reg.

, effective .

Section 301.106 Incorporations by Reference

a) Abbreviations. The following abbreviated names are used for materials

incorporated by reference:

"ASTM" means American Society for Testing and Materials

"GPO" means Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

"NTIS" means National Technical Information Service

"Standard Methods" means "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water

and Wastewater", available from the American Public Health Association

"USEPA" means United States Environmental Protection Agency

b) The Board incorporates the following publications by reference:

American Public Health Association et al., 1015 Fifteenth Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20005

Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 16th

Edition, 1985

ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials, 1976 Race Street,

Philadelphia, PA 19013 (215) 299-5400

ASTM Standard E 724-80 "Standard Practice for Conducting Static

Acute Toxicity Tests with Larvae of Four Species of Bivalve Molluscs",

approved 1980.

ASTM Standard E 729-80 "Standard Practice for Conducting Static

Acute Toxicity Tests with Fishes, Macroinvertebrates, and Amphibians",

approved 1980.

ASTM Standard E 857-81 "Standard Practice for Conducting Subacute

Dietary Toxicity Tests with Avian Species", approved 1981.

ASTM Standard E 1023-84 "Standard Guide for Assessing the Hazard of

a Material to Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses", approved 1984.

ASTM Standard E 1103-86 "Method for Determining Subchronic

Dermal Toxicity", approved 1986.

ASTM Standard E 1147-87 "Standard Test Method for Partition

Coefficient (n-Octanol/Water) Estimation by Liquid Chromatography",

approved February 27, 1987.

ASTM Standard E 1192-88 "Standard Guide for Conducting Acute

Toxicity Tests on Aqueous Effluents with Fishes, Macroinvertebrates

and Amphibians", approved 1988.

ASTM Standard E 1193-87 "Standard Guide for Conducting Renewal

Life-Cycle Toxicity Tests with Daphnia Magna", approved 1987.

ASTM Standard E 1241-88 "Standard Guide for Conducting Early Life-

Stage Toxicity Tests with Fishes", approved 1988.

ASTM Standard E 1242-88 "Standard Practice for Using Octanol-Water

Partition Coefficients to Estimate Median Lethal Concentrations for Fish

due to Narcosis", approved 1988.

ASTM Standard E 4429-84 "Standard Practice for Conducting Static

Acute Toxicity Tests on Wastewaters with Daphnia", approved 1984.

NTIS. National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,

Springfield, VA 22161 (703) 487-4600

SIDES: STORET Input Data Editing System, January 1973, Document

Number PB-227 052/8

Water Quality Data Base Management Systems, February 1984,

Document Number AD-P004 768/8

USEPA. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Health and

Environmental Assessment, Washington, D.C. 20460

Mutagenicity and Carcinogenicity Assessment for 1,3-Butadiene,

September 1985, Document Number EPA/600/8-85/004A

c) The Board incorporates the following federal regulations by reference.

Available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. (202) 783-3238:

Procedure 5.b.2 of Appendix F of 40 CFR 132 (1995)

40 CFR 136 (1996)

40 CFR 141 (1988)

40 CFR 302.4 (1988)

The Board incorporates the following federal regulations by reference.

Available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. (202) 783-3238:

USEPA 1996: The Metals Translator: Guidance for Calculating a Total

Recoverable Permit Limit from a Dissolved Criterion. EPA 823-B-96-

007 (1996)

e) This Section incorporates no future editions or amendments.

Section 301.267 Conversion Factor

“Conversion Factor” means the fraction of the total metal found as dissolved in the toxicity

tests used to derive the water quality standards of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302. The conversion

factors are used to convert total metals water quality standards to dissolved standards.

(Source: Added at __________ Ill. Reg. _______________, effective ________________)

Section 301.313 Metals Translator

“Metals Translator” means the fraction of total metal that is dissolved in the effluent or

downstream water. The metals translator calculates a total metal permit limit from a dissolved

metal water quality standard. In the absence of site-specific data for the effluent or receiving

water, the metals translator is the reciprocal of the conversion factor.

(Source: Added at __________ Ill. Reg. _______________, effective ________________)

Section 301.413 Total Metal

“Total Metal” means the dissolved fraction of metal in a solution plus the suspended fraction.

(Source: Added at __________ Ill. Reg. _______________, effective ________________)

TITLE 35: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SUBTITLE C: WATER POLLUTION

CHAPTER I: POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PART 302

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

SUBPART A: GENERAL WATER QUALITY PROVISIONS

Section

302.100 Definitions

302.101 Scope and Applicability

302.102 Allowed Mixing, Mixing Zones and ZIDS

302.103 Stream Flows

302.104 Main River Temperatures

302.105 Antidegradation

SUBPART B: GENERAL USE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

Section

302.201 Scope and Applicability

302.202 Purpose

302.203 Offensive Conditions

302.204 pH

302.205 Phosphorus

302.206 Dissolved Oxygen

302.207 Radioactivity

302.208 Numeric Standards for Chemical Constituents

302.209 Fecal Coliform

302.210 Other Toxic Substances

302.211 Temperature

302.212 Ammonia Nitrogen and Un-ionized Ammonia

302.213 Effluent Modified Waters (Ammonia)

SUBPART C: PUBLIC AND FOOD PROCESSING WATER SUPPLY STANDARDS

Section

302.301 Scope and Applicability

302.302 Algicide Permits

302.303 Finished Water Standards

302.304 Chemical Constituents

302.305 Other Contaminants

302.306 Fecal Coliform

SUBPART D: SECONDARY CONTACT AND INDIGENOUS AQUATIC LIFE

STANDARDS

Section

302.401 Scope and Applicability

302.402 Purpose

302.403 Unnatural Sludge

302.404 pH

302.405 Dissolved Oxygen

302.406 Fecal Coliform (Repealed)

302.407 Chemical Constituents

302.408 Temperature

302.409 Cyanide

302.410 Substances Toxic to Aquatic Life

SUBPART E: LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

Section

302.501 Scope, Applicability, and Definitions

302.502 Dissolved Oxygen

302.503 pH

302.504 Chemical Constituents

302.505 Fecal Coliform

302.506 Temperature

302.507 Thermal Standards for Existing Sources on January 1, 1971

302.508 Thermal Standards for Sources under Construction But Not in Operation on

January 1, 1971

302.509 Other Sources

302.510 Incorporations by Reference

302.515 Offensive Conditions

302.520 Regulation and Designation of Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern (BCCs)

302.521 Supplemental Antidegradation Provisions for BCCs

302.525 Radioactivity

302.530 Supplemental Mixing Provisions for BCCs

302.535 Ammonia Nitrogen

302.540 Other Toxic Substances

302.545 Data Requirements

302.550 Analytical Testing

302.553 Determining the Lake Michigan Aquatic Toxicity Criteria or Values - General

Procedures

302.555 Determining the Tier I Lake Michigan Basin Acute Aquatic Life Toxicity

Criterion (LMAATC): Independent of Water Chemistry

302.560 Determining the Tier I Lake Michigan Basin Acute Aquatic Life Toxicity

Criterion (LMAATC): Dependent on Water Chemistry

302.563 Determining the Tier II Lake Michigan Basin Acute Aquatic Life Toxicity Value

(LMAATV)

302.565 Determining the Lake Michigan Basin Chronic Aquatic Life Toxicity Criterion

(LMCATC) or the Lake Michigan Basin Chronic Aquatic Life Toxicity Value

(LMCATV)

302.570 Procedures for Deriving Bioaccumulation Factors for the Lake Michigan Basin

302.575 Procedures for Deriving Tier I Water Quality Criteria in the Lake Michigan

Basin to Protect Wildlife

302.580 Procedures for Deriving Water Quality Criteria and Values in the Lake

Michigan Basin to Protect Human Health – General

302.585 Procedures for Determining the Lake Michigan Basin Human Health Threshold

Criterion (LMHHTC) and the Lake Michigan Basin Human Health Threshold

Value (LMHHTV)

302.590 Procedures for Determining the Lake Michigan Basin Human Health

Nonthreshold Criterion (LMHHNC) or the Lake Michigan Basin Human Health

Nonthreshold Value (LMHHNV)

302.595 Listing of Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern, Derived Criteria and Values

SUBPART F: PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING WATER QUALITY CRITERIA

Section

302.601 Scope and Applicability

302.603 Definitions

302.604 Mathematical Abbreviations

302.606 Data Requirements

302.612 Determining the Acute Aquatic Toxicity Criterion for an Individual Substance –

General Procedures

302.615 Determining the Acute Aquatic Toxicity Criterion - Toxicity Independent of

Water Chemistry

302.618 Determining the Acute Aquatic Toxicity Criterion - Toxicity Dependent on

Water Chemistry

302.621 Determining the Acute Aquatic Toxicity Criterion - Procedures for

Combinations of Substances

302.627 Determining the Chronic Aquatic Toxicity Criterion for an Individual Substance

- General Procedures

302.630 Determining the Chronic Aquatic Toxicity Criterion - Procedure for

Combination of Substances

302.633 The Wild and Domestic Animal Protection Criterion

302.642 The Human Threshold Criterion

302.645 Determining the Acceptable Daily Intake

302.648 Determining the Human Threshold Criterion

302.651 The Human Nonthreshold Criterion

302.654 Determining the Risk Associated Intake

302.657 Determining the Human Nonthreshold Criterion

302.658 Stream Flow for Application of Human Nonthreshold Criterion

302.660 Bioconcentration Factor

302.663 Determination of Bioconcentration Factor

302.666 Utilizing the Bioconcentration Factor

302.669 Listing of Derived Criteria

APPENDIX A References to Previous Rules

APPENDIX B Sources of Codified Sections

AUTHORITY: Implementing Section 13 and authorized by Sections 11(b) and 27 of the

Environmental Protection Act [415 ILCS 5/13 11(b), and 27]

SOURCE: Filed with the Secretary of State January 1, 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; 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 8 Ill. Reg. 1629, effective January 18, 1984;

peremptory amendments at 10 Ill. Reg. 461, effective December 23, 1985; amended at R87-27

at 12 Ill. Reg. 9911, effective May 27, 1988; amended at R85-29 at 12 Ill. Reg. 12082,

effective July 11, 1988; amended in R88-1 at 13 Ill. Reg. 5998, effective April 18, 1989;

amended in R88-21(A) at 14 Ill. Reg. 2899, effective February 13, 1990; amended in R88-

21(B) at 14 Ill. Reg. 11974, effective July 9, 1990; amended in R94-1(A) at 20 Ill. Reg. 7682,

effective May 24, 1996; amended in R94-1(B) at 21 Ill. Reg. 370, effective December 23,

1996; expedited correction at 21 Ill. Reg. 6273, effective December 23, 1996; amended in

R97-25 at 21 Ill. Reg. 1356, effective December 24, 1997; amended in R99-8 at 23 Ill. Reg.

11249, effective August 26, 1999; amended in R01-13 at 26 Ill. Reg. 3505, effective February

22, 2002; amended in R02-19 at Ill. Reg. , effective ;

amended in R02-11 at Ill. Reg. , effective .

SUBPART A: GENERAL WATER QUALITY PROVISIONS

Section 302.105 Antidegradation

The purpose of this Section is to protect existing uses of all waters of the State of Illinois,

maintain the quality of waters with quality that is better than water quality standards, and

prevent unnecessary deterioration of waters of the State.

a) Existing Uses

Uses actually attained in a surface water body or water body segment on or after

November 28, 1975,

whether or not they are included in the water quality standards,

must be maintained and protected. Examples of degradation of existing uses of the

waters of the State include:

1) an action that would result in the deterioration of the existing aquatic

community, such as a shift from a community of predominantly

pollutant-sensitive species to pollutant-tolerant species or a loss of species

diversity;

2) an action that would result in a loss of a resident or indigenous species

whose presence is necessary to sustain commercial or recreational

activities; or

3) an action that would preclude continued use of a surface water body or

water body segment for a public water supply or for recreational or

commercial fishing, swimming, paddling or boating.

b) Outstanding Resource Waters

1) Waters that are designated as Outstanding Resource Waters (ORWs)

pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 303.205 and listed in 35 Ill. Adm. Code

303.206 must not be lowered in quality except as provided below:

A) Activities that result in short-term, temporary (i.e., weeks or

months) lowering of water quality in an ORW; or

B) Existing site stormwater discharges that comply with applicable

federal and State stormwater management regulations and do not

result in a violation of any water quality standards.

2) Any activity in subsection (b)(1)(A) or (b)(1)(B) that requires a National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) or a Clean Water Act

(CWA) Section 401 certification must also comply with subsection

(c)(2).

3) Any activity listed in subsection (b)(1) or any other proposed increase in

pollutant loading to an ORW must also meet the following requirements:

A) All existing uses of the water will be fully protected; and

B) Except for activities falling under one of the exceptions provided

in subsection (b)(1)(A) or (B) above:,

i) The proposed increase in pollutant loading is necessary for

an activity that will improve water quality in the ORW;

and

ii) The improvement could not be practicably achieved

without the proposed increase in pollutant loading.

4) Any proposed increase in pollutant loading requiring an NPDES permit

or a CWA 401 certification for an ORW must be assessed pursuant to

subsection (f) to determine compliance with this Section.

c) High Quality Waters

1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (d) of this Section, waters of

the State whose existing quality is better than any of the established

standards of this Part must be maintained in their present high quality,

unless the lowering of water quality is necessary to accommodate

important economic or social development.

2) The Agency must assess any proposed increase in pollutant loading that

necessitates a new, renewed or modified NPDES permit or any activity

requiring a CWA Section 401 certification to determine compliance with

this Section. The assessment to determine compliance with this Section

must be made on a case-by-case basis. In making this assessment, the

Agency must:

A) Consider the fate and effect of any parameters proposed for an

increased pollutant loading.

B) Assure the following:

i) The applicable numeric or narrative water quality standard

will not be exceeded as a result of the proposed activity;

ii) All existing uses will be fully protected;

iii All technically and economically reasonable measures to

avoid or minimize the extent of the proposed increase in

pollutant loading have been incorporated into the proposed

activity; and

iv) The activity that results in an increased pollutant loading

will benefit the community at large.

C) Utilize the following information sources, when available:

i) Information, data or reports available to the Agency from

its own sources;

ii) Information, data or reports supplied by the applicant;

iii) Agency experience with factually similar permitting

scenarios; and

iv) Any other valid information available to the Agency.

d) Activities Not Subject to a Further Antidegradation Assessment

The following activities will not be subject to a further antidegradation assessment

pursuant to subsection (c) of this Section.

1) Short-term, temporary (i.e., weeks or months) lowering of water quality;

2) Bypasses that are not prohibited at 40 CFR 122.41(m);

3) Response actions pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended,

corrective actions pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA), as amended, or similar federal or State authority, taken to

alleviate a release into the environment of hazardous substances,

pollutants or contaminants which may pose a danger to public health or

welfare;

4) Thermal discharges that have been approved through a CWA Section

316(a) demonstration;

5) New or increased discharges of a non-contact cooling water:

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

returned to the same body of water from which it was taken, as

defined by 35 Ill. Adm. Code 352.104, provided that the

discharge complies with applicable Illinois thermal standards; or

B) containing chlorine when the non-contact cooling water is treated

to remove residual chlorine, and returned to the same body of

water from which it was taken, as defined in 35 Ill. Adm. Code

352.104, provided that the discharge complies with applicable

Illinois thermal and effluent standards at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302,

303, and 304;

6) Discharges permitted under a current general NPDES permit as provided

by 415 ILCS 5/39(b)

or a nationwide or regional CWA Section 404

permit are not subject to facility-specific antidegradation review;

however, the Agency must assure that individual permits or certifications

are required prior to all new pollutant loadings or hydrological

modifications that necessitate a new, renewed or modified NPDES

permit or CWA Section 401 certification that affects waters of particular

biological significance. Waters of particular biological significance may

include streams listed in a 1991 publication by the Illinois Department of

Conservation entitled “Biologically Significant Illinois Streams; or

Changes to or inclusion of a new permit limitation that does not result in

an actual increase of a pollutant loading, such as those stemming from

improved monitoring data, new analytical testing methods, new or

revised technology or water quality based effluent limits.

e) Lake Michigan Basin

Waters in the Lake Michigan basin as identified in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 303.443 are also

subject to the requirements applicable to bioaccumulative chemicals of concern found at

Section 302.521 of this Part.

f) Antidegradation Assessments

In conducting an antidegradation assessment pursuant to this Section, the Agency must

comply with the following procedures.

1) A permit application for any proposed increase in pollutant loading that

necessitates the issuance of a new, renewed, or modified NPDES permit

or a CWA Section 401 certification must include, to the extent necessary

for the Agency to determine that the permit application meets the

requirements of this Section, the following information:

A) Identification and characterization of the water body affected by

the proposed load increase or proposed activity and the existing

water body’s uses. Characterization must address physical,

biological and chemical conditions of the water body.

B) Identification and quantification of the proposed load increases

for the applicable parameters and of the potential impacts of the

proposed activity on the affected waters.

C) The purpose and anticipated benefits of the proposed activity.

Such benefits may include:

i) Providing a centralized wastewater collection and

treatment system for a previously unsewered community;

ii) Expansion to provide service for anticipated residential or

industrial growth consistent with a community’s long

range urban planning;

iii) Addition of a new product line or production increase or

modification at an industrial facility; or

iv) An increase or the retention of current employment levels

at a facility.

D) Assessments of alternatives to proposed increases in pollutant

loading or activities subject to Agency certification pursuant to

Section 401 of the CWA that result in less of a load increase, no

load increase or minimal environmental degradation. Such

alternatives may include:

i) Additional treatment levels, including no discharge

alternatives;

ii) Discharge of waste to alternate locations, including

publicly-owned treatment works and streams with greater

assimilative capacity; or

iii) Manufacturing practices that incorporate pollution

prevention techniques.

E) Any additional information the Agency may request.

F) Proof that a copy of the application has been provided to the

Illinois Department of Natural Resources.

2) The Agency must complete an antidegradation assessment in accordance

with the provisions of this Section on a case-by-case basis.

A) The Agency must consider the criteria stated in Section

302.105(c)(2).

B) The Agency must consider the information provided by the

applicant pursuant to subsection (f)(1).

C) After its assessment, the Agency must produce a written analysis

addressing the requirements of this Section and provide a decision

yielding one of the following results:

i) If the proposed activity meets the requirements of this

Section, then the Agency must proceed with public notice

of the NPDES permit or CWA Section 401 certification

and include the written analysis as a part of the fact sheet

accompanying the public notice;

ii) If the proposed activity does not meet the requirements of

this Section, then the Agency must provide a written

analysis to the applicant and must be available to discuss

the deficiencies that led to the disapproval. The Agency

may suggest methods to remedy the conflicts with the

requirements of this Section;

iii) If the proposed activity does not meet the requirements of

this Section, but some lowering of water quality is

allowable, then the Agency will contact the applicant with

the results of the review. If the reduced loading increase

is acceptable to the applicant, upon the receipt of an

amended application, the Agency will proceed to public

notice; or if the reduced loading increase is not acceptable

to the applicant, the Agency will transmit its written

review to the applicant in the context of a NPDES permit

denial or a CWA Section 401 certification denial.

3) The Agency will conduct public notice and public participation through

the public notice procedures found in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 309.109 or

CWA Section 401 certifications. The Agency must incorporate the

following information into a fact sheet accompanying the public notice:

A description of the activity, including identification of water

quality parameters for which there will be an increased pollutant

loading;

B) Identification of the affected surface water body or water body

segment, any downstream surface water body or water body

segment also expected to experience a lowering of water quality,

characterization of the designated and current uses of the affected

surface water body or water body segments and identification of

which uses are most sensitive to the proposed load increase;

C) A summary of any review comments and recommendations

provided by Illinois Department of Natural Resources, local or

regional planning commissions, zoning boards and any other

entities the Agency consults regarding the proposal;

D) An overview of alternatives considered by the applicant and

identification of any provisions or alternatives imposed to lessen

the load increase associated with the proposed activity; and

E) The name and telephone number of a contact person at the

Agency who can provide additional information.

(Amended at ____ Ill. Reg. ________, effective ___________________________)

SUBPART B: GENERAL USE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

Section 302.208 Numeric Standards for Chemical Constituents

a) The acute standard (AS) for the chemical constituents listed in subsection (e)

shall not be exceeded at any time except as provided in subsection (d).

b) The chronic standard (CS) for the chemical constituents listed in subsection (e)

shall not be exceeded by the arithmetic average of at least four consecutive

samples collected over any period of at least four days, except as provided in

subsection (d). The samples used to demonstrate attainment compliance or lack

of attainment compliance with a CS must be collected in a manner that which

assures an average representative of the sampling period. For the metals that

have water quality based standards dependent upon hardness, the chronic water

quality standard will be calculated according to subsection (e) using the hardness

of the water body at the time the metals sample was collected. To calculate

attainment status of chronic metals standards, the concentration of the metal in

each sample is divided by the calculated water quality standard for the sample to

determine a quotient. The water quality standard is attained if the mean of the

sample quotients is less than or equal to one for the duration of the averaging

period.

c) The human health standard (HHS) for the chemical constituents listed in

subsection (f) shall not be exceeded when the stream flow is at or above the

harmonic mean flow pursuant to Section 302.658 nor shall an annual average,

based on at least eight samples, collected in a manner representative of the

sampling period, exceed the HHS except as provided in subsection (d).

d) In waters where mixing is allowed pursuant to Section 302.102, the following

apply:

1) The AS shall not be exceeded in any waters except for those waters for

which the Agency has approved a ZID pursuant to Section 302.102.

2) The CS shall not be exceeded outside of waters in which mixing is

allowed pursuant to Section 302.102.

3) The HHS shall not be exceeded outside of waters in which mixing is

allowed pursuant to Section 302.102.

e) Numeric Water Quality Standards for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms

(trivalent, dissolved)

[(lnH)(0.041838)]}*, but

not to exceed 50 ug/L,

Mercury (dissolved) 71890 71900

2.6 X 0.85* = 2.2

1.3 X 0.85* = 1.1

Nickel (dissolved) 01065

Zinc (dissolved) 01090

where: μg/L ug/L = microgram per liter,

exp[x] = base natural neutral logarithms raised to the x- power, and

ln(H) = natural logarithm of Hardness (STORET 00900).

* = conversion factor multiplier for dissolved metals

f) Numeric Water Quality Standard for the Protection of Human Health

Where μg/L ug/L = micrograms per liter

g) Concentrations of the following chemical constituents shall not be exceeded

except in waters for which mixing is allowed pursuant to Section 302.102.

Nickel (total) mg/L 01067

Zinc (total) mg/L 01092

1.0

where: mg/L = milligram per liter and

μg/L ug/L = microgram per liter

(Source: Amended at __________ Ill. Reg. _______________, effective ________________)

SUBPART E: LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

Section 302.504 Chemical Constituents

The following concentrations of chemical constituents must not be exceeded, except as

provided in Sections 302.102 and 302.530:

a) The following standards must be met in all waters of the Lake Michigan Basin.

Acute aquatic life standards (AS) must not be exceeded at any time except for

those waters for which the Agency has approved a zone of initial dilution (ZID)

pursuant to Sections 302.102 and 302.530. Chronic aquatic life standards (CS)

and human health standards (HHS) must not be exceeded outside of waters in

which mixing is allowed pursuant to Section 302.102 and 302.530 by the

arithmetic average of at least four consecutive samples collected over a period of

at least four days. The samples used to demonstrate compliance with the CS or

HHS must be collected in a manner which assures an average representation of

(Trivalent, dissolved)

(Trivalent, dissolved)

(Weak acid dissociable)

Ethylbenzene 78113 μg/L 150 14 NA

Exp[x] = base of natural logarithms

raised to the x-power

ln(H) = natural logarithm of Hardness

(STORET 00900)

* = conversion factor multiplier for dissolved metals

b) The following water quality standards must not be exceeded at any time in any

waters of the Lake Michigan Basin, unless a different standard is specified under

subsection (c) of this Section.

Constituent STORET

Number

Unit

Water Quality Standard

Total Dissolved Solids

70300 mg/L

1000

c) In addition to the standards specified in subsections (a) and (b) of this Section,

the following standards must not be exceeded at any time in the Open Waters of

Lake Michigan as defined in Section 302.501.

Constituent STORET

Number

Unit

Water Quality Standard

Water Quality Standard

Total Dissolved Solids

70300

mg/L

180.0

Oil (hexane solubles or

In addition to the standards specified in subsections (a), (b) and (c) of this

Section, the following human health standards (HHS) must not be exceeded in

the Open Waters of Lake Michigan as defined in Section 302.501 by the

arithmetic average of at least four consecutive samples collected over a period of

at least four days. The samples used to demonstrate compliance with the HHS

must be collected in a manner which assures an average representation of the

Water Quality Standard

Unit Water Quality Standard

e) For the following bioaccumulative chemicals of concern (BCCs), acute aquatic

life standards (AS) must not be exceeded at any time in any waters of the Lake

Michigan Basin and chronic aquatic life standards (CS), human health standards

(HHS), and wildlife standards (WS) must not be exceeded in any waters of the

Lake Michigan Basin by the arithmetic average of at least four consecutive

samples collected over a period of at least four days subject to the limitations of

Sections 302.520 and 302.530. The samples used to demonstrate compliance

with the HHS and WS must be collected in a manner that assures an average

representation of the sampling period.

Where: mg/L = milligrams per liter (10

-3 grams per liter)

g/L = micrograms per liter (10

-6 grams per liter)

ng/L = nanograms per liter (10

-9 grams per liter)

pg/L = picograms per liter (10

-12 grams per liter)

fg/L = femtograms per liter (10

-15 grams per liter)

NA = Not Applied

(Source: Amended at __________ Ill. Reg. _______________, effective ________________)

Section 302.575 Procedures for Deriving Tier I Water Quality Criteria and Values in the

Lake Michigan Basin to Protect Wildlife

The Lake Michigan Basin Wildlife Criterion (LMWC) is the concentration of a substance

which if not exceeded protects Illinois wild mammal and bird populations from adverse effects

resulting from ingestion of surface waters of the Lake Michigan Basin and from ingestion of

aquatic prey organisms taken from surface waters of the Lake Michigan Basin. Wildlife

criteria calculated under this Section protect against long-term effects and are therefore

considered chronic criteria. The methodology involves utilization of data from test animals to

derive criteria to protect representative or target species: bald eagle, herring gull, belted

kingfisher, mink and river otter. The lower of the geometric mean of species specific criteria

for bird species or mammal species is chosen as the LMWC to protect a broad range of

species.

a) This method shall also be used for non-BCCs when appropriately modified to

consider the following factors:

1) Selection of scientifically justified target species;

2) Relevant routes of chemical exposure;

3) Pertinent toxicity endpoints.

b) Minimum data requirements:

1) Test dose (TD). In order to calculate a LMWC the following minimal

data base is required:

A) There must be at least one data set showing dose-response for

oral, subchronic, or chronic exposure of 28 days for one bird

species; and

B) There must be at least one data set showing dose-response for

oral, subchronic, or chronic exposure of 90 days for one mammal

species.

2) Bioaccumulation Factor

(BAF) data requirements:

A) For any chemical with a BAF of less than 125 the BAF may be

obtained by any method; and

B) For chemicals with a BAF of greater than 125 the BAF must

come from a field measured BAF or BSAF.

c) Principles for development of criteria

1) Dose standardization. The data for the test species must be expressed as,

or converted to, the form mg/kg/d utilizing the guidelines for drinking

and feeding rates and other procedures in 40 CFR 132, incorporated by

reference at Section 302.510.

2) Uncertainty factors (UF) for utilizing test dose data in the calculation of

the target species value (TSV).

A) Correction for intermittent exposure. If the animals used in a

study were not exposed to the toxicant each day of the test period,

the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) must be multiplied

by the ratio of days of exposure to the total days in the test

period.

B) Correction from the lowest observed adverse effect level

(LOAEL) to NOAEL (UFl). For those substances for which a

LOAEL has been derived, the UF1 shall not be less than one and

should not exceed 10.

C) Correction for subchronic to chronic extrapolation (UFs). In

instances where only subchronic data are available, the TD may

be derived from subchronic data. The value of the UFs shall not

be less than one and should not exceed 10.

D) Correction for interspecies extrapolations (UFa). For the

derivation of criteria, a UFa shall not be less than one and should

not exceed 100. The UFa shall be used only for extrapolating

toxicity data across species within a taxonomic class. A species

specific UFa shall be selected and applied to each target species,

consistent with the equation below.

d) Calculation of TSV. The TSV, measured in milligrams per liter (mg/L), is

calculated according to the equation:

TSV = { [TD x Wt] / [UFa x UFs x UFl] } / { W +

[FTLi x BAFWLTLi] }

Where:

TSV = target species value in milligrams of substance per liter (mg/L).

TD = test dose that is toxic to the test species, either NOAEL or LOAEL.

UFa = the uncertainty factor for extrapolating toxicity data across species

(unitless). A species-specific UFa shall be selected and applied to each target

species, consistent with the equation

UFs = the uncertainty factor for extrapolating from subchronic to chronic

exposures (unitless)

UFl = the uncertainty factor for extrapolation from LOAEL to NOAEL

(unitless)

Wt = average weight in kilograms (kg) of the target species

W = average daily volume of water in liters consumed per day (L/d) by the

target species

FTLi = average daily amount of food consumed by the target species in

kilograms (kg/d) for trophic level i

BAFWLTLi = aquatic life bioaccumulation factor with units of liter per kilogram

(L/kg), as derived in Section 302.570 for trophic level i

e) Calculation of the Lake Michigan Basin Wildlife Criterion. TSVs are obtained

for each target species. The geometric mean TSVs of all mammal species is

calculated and also of all bird species. The LMWC is the lower of the bird or

mammal geometric mean TSV.

(Source: Amended __________ Ill. Reg. _______________, effective ________________)

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 Preamble

304.102 Dilution

304.103 Background Concentrations

304.104 Averaging

304.105

Violation of Water Quality Standards

304.106 Offensive Discharges

304.120 Deoxygenating Wastes

304.121 Bacteria

304.122

Total Ammonia Nitrogen (as N: STORET number 00610)

304.123

Phosphorus (STORET number 00665)

304.124 Additional Contaminants

304.125 pH

304.126 Mercury

304.140

Delays in Upgrading (Repealed)

304.141

NPDES Effluent Standards

304.142

New Source Performance Standards (Repealed)

SUBPART B: SITE SPECIFIC RULES AND EXCEPTIONS NOT OF GENERAL

APPLICABILITY

Section

304.201

Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharges of the Metropolitan Water

Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

304.202

Chlor-alkali Mercury Discharges in St. Clair County

304.203 Copper Discharges

by Olin Corporation

304.204

Schoenberger Creek: Groundwater Discharges

304.205

John Deere Foundry Discharges

304.206

Alton Water Company Treatment Plant Discharges

304.207

Galesburg Sanitary District Deoxygenating Wastes Discharges

304.208

City of Lockport Treatment Plant Discharges

304.209

Wood River Station Total Suspended Solids Discharges

304.210

Alton Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharges

304.211

Discharges From Borden Chemicals and Plastics Operating Limited

Partnership Into an Unnamed Tributary of Long Point Slough

304.212 Sanitary District

of Decatur Discharges

304.213

PDV Midwest Refining, L.L.C. Refinery Ammonia Discharge

304.214

Mobil Oil Refinery Ammonia Discharge

304.215

City of Tuscola Wastewater Treatment Facility Discharges

304.216

Newton Station Suspended Solids Discharges

304.218

City of Pana Phosphorus Discharge

304.219

North Shore Sanitary District Phosphorus Discharges

304.220

East St. Louis Treatment Facility, Illinois-American Water Company

304.221

Ringwood Drive Manufacturing Facility in McHenry County

304.222

Intermittent Discharge of TRC

SUBPART C: TEMPORARY EFFLUENT STANDARDS

Section

304.301

Exception for Ammonia Nitrogen Water Quality Violations (Repealed)

304.302

City of Joliet East Side Wastewater Treatment Plant

304.303

Amerock Corporation, Rockford Facility

Appendix A

References to Previous Rules

AUTHORITY: Implementing Section 13 and authorized by Section 27 of the Environmental

Protection Act [415 ILCS 5/13 and 27].

SOURCE: Filed with the Secretary of State January 1, 1978; amended at 2 Ill. Reg. 30, p.

343, effective July 27, 1978; amended at 2 Ill. Reg. 44, p. 151, effective November 2, 1978;

amended at 3 Ill. Reg. 20, p. 95, effective May 17, 1979; amended at 3 Ill. Reg. 25, p. 190,

effective June 21, 1979; amended at 4 Ill. Reg. 20, p. 53 effective May 7, 1980; amended at 6

Ill. Reg. 563, effective December 24, 1981; codified at 6 Ill. 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 Ill. 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 R84-13 at 11 Ill. Reg. 7291 effective April 3, 1987; amended in R86-17(A) at 11

Ill. Reg. 14748, effective August 24, 1987; amended in R84-16 at 12 Ill. Reg. 2445, effective

January 15, 1988; amended in R83-23 at 12 Ill. Reg. 8658, effective May 10, 1988; amended

in R87-27 at 12 Ill. Reg. 9905, effective May 27, 1988; amended in R82-7 at 12 Ill. 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, effective November 16, 1988; amended in R84-20 at 13 Ill. Reg. 851,

effective January 9, 1989; amended in R85-11 at 13 Ill. Reg. 2060, effective February 6,

1989; amended in R88-1 at 13 Ill. Reg. 5976, effective April 18, 1989; amended in R86-17(B)

at 13 Ill. Reg. 7754, effective May 4, 1989; amended in R88-22 at 13 Ill. Reg. 8880, effective

May 26, 1989; amended in R87-6 at 14 Ill. Reg. 6777, effective April 24, 1990; amended in

R87-36 at 14 Ill. Reg. 9437, effective May 31, 1990; amended in R88-21(B) at 14 Ill. Reg.

12538, effective July 18, 1990; amended in R84-44 at 14 Ill. Reg. 20719, effective December

11, 1990; amended in R86-14 at 15 Ill. Reg. 241, effective December 18, 1990; amended in

R93-8 at 18 Ill. Reg. 267, effective December 23, 1993; amended in R87-33 at 18 Ill. Reg.

11574, effective July 7, 1994; amended in R95-14 at 20 Ill. Reg. 3528, effective February 8,

1996; amended in R94-1(B) at 21 Ill. Reg. 364, effective December 23, 1996; expedited

correction in R94-1(B) at 21 Ill. Reg. 6269, effective December 23, 1996; amended in R97-25

at 22 Ill. Reg. 1351, effective December 24, 1997; amended in R97-28 at 22 Ill. Reg. 3512,

effective February 3, 1998; amended in R98-14 at 22 Ill. Reg.687, effective December 31,

1998; amended in R02-19 at Ill. Reg. , effective ;

amended in R02-11 at Ill. Reg. , effective .

BOARD NOTE: This Part implements the Illinois Environmental Protection Act of July 1,

1994.

Section 304.120 Deoxygenating Wastes

Except as provided in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 306.SubpartC Section 306.103, all effluents

containing deoxygenating wastes shall meet the following standards:

a) No effluent shall exceed 30 mg/l of five day biochemical oxygen demand

(BOD5) (STORET number 00310) or 30 mg/l of suspended solids (STORET

number 00530), except that treatment works employing three stage lagoon

treatment systems which are properly designed, maintained and operated, and

whose effluent has a dilution ratio no less than five to one or who qualify for

exceptions under subsection (c) shall not exceed 37 mg/l of suspended solids.

b) No effluent from any source whose untreated waste load is 10,000 population

equivalents or more, or from any source discharging into the Chicago River

System or into the Calumet River System, shall exceed 20 mg/l of BOD5 or 25

mg/l of suspended solids.

c) No effluent whose dilution ratio is less than five to one shall exceed 10 mg/l of

BOD5 or 12 mg/l of suspended solids, except that sources employing third-stage

treatment lagoons shall be exempt from this subsection (c) provided all of the

following conditions are met:

1) The waste source qualifies under one of the following categories:

A) Any wastewater treatment works with an untreated waste load

less than 2500 population equivalents, which is sufficiently

isolated that combining with other sources to aggregate 2500

population equivalents or more is not practicable.

B) Any wastewater treatment works in existence and employing

third-stage treatment lagoons on January 1, 1986, whose

untreated waste load is 5000 population equivalents or less and

sufficiently isolated that combining to aggregate 5000 population

equivalents or more is not practicable.

C) Any wastewater treatment works with an untreated waste load of

5000 population equivalents or less, which has reached the end of

its useful life by January 1, 1987, and is sufficiently isolated that

combining to aggregate 5000 population equivalents or more is

not practicable.

D) Any wastewater treatment works with an untreated waste load of

5000 population equivalents or less which has reached the end of

its useful life and which has received an adjusted standard

determination from the Board that it qualifies for a lagoon

exemption. Such a Board determination will only be made in an

adjusted standard proceeding, held in accordance with Section

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

ch. 111 ½, par. 1028.1) and applicable procedures set forth by

35 Ill. Adm. Code 106.

i) In an adjusted standard proceeding the Board may

determine that the petitioning wastewater treatment source

qualifies for a lagoon exemption if the wastewater

treatment works proves that it is so situated that a land

treatment system is not a suitable treatment alternative.

Factors relevant to a suitability finding may include the

following: cost; influent character; geographic

characteristics; climate; soil conditions; hydrologic

conditions; and the availability of irrigable land.

ii) For the purposes of this subsection (D), a land treatment

system is a wastewater treatment system which does not

directly discharge treated effluent to waters of the State

but instead uses the treated effluent to irrigate terrestrial

vegetation

2) The lagoons are properly constructed, maintained and operated; and

3) The deoxygenating constituents of the effluent do not, alone or in

combination with other sources, cause a violation of the applicable

dissolved oxygen water quality standard.

d) No effluent discharged to the Lake Michigan basin shall exceed 4 mg/l of BOD5

or 5 mg/l of suspended solids.

e) Compliance with the numerical standards in this Section shall be determined on

the basis of the type and frequency of sampling prescribed by the NPDES

permit for the discharge at the time of monitoring.

f) For the purposes of this Section, useful life is the period of time during which it

is cost effective to operate and maintain a particular wastewater treatment works

under consideration. At a minimum, the following factors relating to a

wastewater treatment works shall be considered in a determination of its useful

life:

1) Structural and operational condition of components;

2) Past operations and maintenance record;

3) Cost for continued use; and

4) Description and costs for treatment alternatives.

g) Compliance with the 5 day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) numerical

standard in this Part will be determined by the analysis of 5 day carbonaceous

biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5) (STORET number 80082), unless federal

regulations require treatment works treating industrial wastes to comply with

more stringent requirements determined by the analysis of BOD5. Effluent from

the treatment works subject to the requirements of Section 304.120(a) shall not

exceed 25 mg/L CBOD5.

(Source: Amended at __________ Ill. Reg. _______________, effective ________________).

TITLE 35: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SUBTITLE C: WATER POLLUTION

CHAPTER I: POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PART 309

PERMITS

SUBPART A: NPDES PERMITS

Section

309.101 Preamble

309.102

NPDES Permit Required

309.103

Application - General

309.104 Renewal

309.105

Authority to Deny NPDES Permits

309.106

Access to Facilities and Further Information

309.107 Distribution of Applications

309.108 Tentative Determination and Draft Permit

309.109 Public Notice

309.110

Contents of Public Notice of Application

309.111 Combined Notices

309.112

Agency Action After Comment Period

309.113 Fact Sheets

309.114

Notice to Other Governmental Agencies

309.115

Public Hearings on NPDES Permit Applications

309.116

Notice of Agency Hearing

309.117 Agency Hearing

309.118

Agency Hearing File

309.119

Agency Action After Hearing

309.141

Terms and Conditions of NPDES Permits

309.142

Water Quality Standards and Waste Load Allocation

309.143 Effluent Limitations

309.144

Federal New Source Standards of Performance

309.145

Duration of Permits

309.146

Authority to Establish Recording, Reporting, Monitoring and Sampling

Requirements

309.147

Authority to Apply Entry and Inspection Requirements

309.148

Schedules of Compliance

309.149

Authority to Require Notice of Introduction of Pollutants into Publicly

Owned Treatment Works

309.150

Authority to Ensure Compliance by Industrial Users with Sections

204(b), 307 and 308 of the Clean Water Act

309.151

Maintenance and Equipment

309.152 Toxic Pollutants

309.153

Deep Well Disposal of Pollutants (Repealed)

309.154

Authorization to Construct

309.155 Sewage Sludge Disposal

309.156

Total Dissolved Solids Reporting and Monitoring

309.157

Permit Limits for Total Metals

309.181

Appeal of Final Agency Action on a Permit Application

309.182

Authority to Modify, Suspend or Revoke Permits

309.183

Revision of Schedule of Compliance

309.184

Permit Modification Pursuant to Variance

309.185

Public Access to Information

309.191 Effective Date

SUBPART B: OTHER PERMITS

Section

309.201 Preamble

309.202 Construction Permits

309.203

Operating Permits; New or Modified Sources

309.204

Operating Permits; Existing Sources

309.205 Joint Construction

and Operating Permits

309.206 Experimental Permits

309.207

Former Permits (Repealed)

309.208

Permits for Sites Receiving Sludge for Land Application

309.221

Applications - Contents

309.222

Applications - Signatures and Authorizations

309.223

Applications - Registered or Certified Mail

309.224

Applications - Time to Apply

309.225

Applications - Filing and Final Action by Agency

309.241

Standards for Issuance

309.242

Duration of Permits Issued Under Subpart B

309.243 Conditions

309.244

Appeals from Conditions in Permits

309.261

Permit No Defense

309.262

Design, Operation and Maintenance Criteria

309.263

Modification of Permits

309.264 Permit Revocation

309.265

Approval of Federal Permits

309.266 Procedures

309.281 Effective Date

309.282 Severability

Appendix A

References to Previous Rules

AUTHORITY: Implementing Sections 13 and 13.3 and authorized by Section 27 of the

Environmental Protection Act [415 ILCS 5/13, 13.3 and 27].

SOURCE: Adopted in R71-14, at 4 PCB 3, March 7, 1972; amended in R73-11, 12, at 14

PCB 661, December 5, 1974, at 16 PCB 511, April 24, 1975, and at 28 PCB 509, December

20, 1977; amended in R73-11, 12, at 29 PCB 477, at 2 Ill. Reg. 16, p. 20, effective April 20,

1978; amended in R79-13, at 39 PCB 263, at 4 Ill. Reg. 34, p. 159, effective August 7, 1980;

amended in R77-12B, at 41 PCB 369, at 5 Ill. Reg. 6384, effective May 28, 1981; amended in

R76-21, at 44 PCB 203, at 6 Ill. Reg. 563, effective December 24, 1981; codified at 6 Ill.

Reg. 7818; amended in R82-5, 10, at 54 PCB 411, at 8 Ill. Reg. 1612, effective January 18,

1984; amended in R86-44 at 12 Ill. Reg. 2495 effective January 13, 1988; amended in R88-1

at 13 Ill. Reg. 5993, effective April 18, 1989; amended in R88-21(A) at 14 Ill. Reg. 2892,

effective February 13, 1990; amended in R91-5 at 16 Ill. Reg. 7339, effective April 27, 1992;

amended in R95-22 at 20 Ill. Reg. 5526, effective April 1, 1996; amended in R99-8 at 23 Ill.

Reg. 11287, effective August 26, 1999; amended in R02-11 at Ill. Reg.

, effective .

SUBPART A: NPDES PERMITS

Section 309.141 Terms and Conditions of NPDES Permits

In establishing the terms and conditions of each issued NPDES Permit, the Agency shall apply

and ensure compliance with all of the following, whenever applicable:

a) Effluent limitations under Sections 301 and 302 of the CWA;

b) Standards of performance for new sources under Section 306 of the CWA;

c) Effluent standards, effluent prohibitions, and pretreatment standards under

Section 307 of the CWA;

d) Any more stringent limitation, including those:

1) necessary to meet water quality standards, treatment standards, or

schedules of compliance, established pursuant to any Illinois statute or

regulation (under authority preserved by Section 510 of the CWA),

2) necessary to meet any other federal law or regulation, or

3) required to implement any applicable water quality standards; such

limitations to include any legally applicable requirements necessary to

implement total maximum daily loads established pursuant to Section

303(d) of the CWA and incorporated in the continuing planning process

approved under Section 303(e) of the CWA and any regulations or

guidelines issued pursuant thereto;

e) Any more stringent legally applicable requirements necessary to comply with a

plan approved pursuant to Section 208(b) of the CWA;

f) Prior to promulgation by the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency of applicable effluent standards and limitations pursuant to

Sections 301, 302, 306 and 307 of the CWA, such conditions as the Agency

determines are necessary to carry out the provisions of the CWA;

g) If the NPDES Permit is for the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters

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

issued for the discharge of pollutants from a vessel or other floating craft into

Lake Michigan) any applicable regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the

Department in which the Coast Guard is operating, establishing specifications

for safe transportation, handling, carriage, storage and stowage of pollutants;

and

h) If the NPDES Permit is for the discharge of pollutants from other than wet

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

Code 303.443:

1) Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and Waste Load Allocation

(WLA) will be established through either the LaMP or a RAP for an

Area of Concern. If a LaMP or RAP has not been completed and

adopted, effluent limits shall be established consistent with the other

provisions of this Section, including, but not limited to, Additivity,

Intake Pollutants, Loading Limits, Level of Detection/Level of

Quantification and Compliance Schedules. When calculation of TMDLs

or a Waste Load Allocation is incomplete and it is expected that limits

established through other provisions will be superseded upon completion

of the TMDL or Waste Load Allocation process, those limits shall be

identified as interim and the permit shall include a reopener clause

triggered by completion of a TMDL or WLA determination. Any new

limits brought about through exercise of the reopener clause shall be

eligible for delayed compliance dates and compliance schedules

consistent with Section 39(b) of the Act [415 ILCS 5/39(b)], 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 309.148, and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 352.Subpart H.

2) 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.590 establishes an acceptable additive risk level

of one in 100,000 (10(-5)) for establishing Tier I criteria and Tier II

values for combinations of substances exhibiting a carcinogenic or other

nonthreshold toxic mechanism. For those discharges containing multiple

nonthreshold substances application of this additive standard shall be

consistent with this subsection.

A) For discharges in the Lake Michigan basin containing one or

more 2,3,7,8-substituted chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins or

2,3,7,8-substituted dibenzofurans, the tetrachloro dibenzo-p-

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

(TECTCDD) shall be determined as outlined in subsection (h)(2)(B).

B) The values listed in the following Table shall be used to

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

using the following equation:

(TEC)TCDD = Sigma(C)x (TEF)x (BEF)x

WHERE:

(TEC)TCDD = 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity equivalence concentration

in effluent

(C)x = Concentration of total chemical x in effluent

(TEF)x = TCDD toxicity equivalency factor for x

(BEF)x - TCDD bioaccumulation equivalency factor for x

1,2,3,7,8-PeCdd 0.5 0.9

1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1

0.3

1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1

0.1

1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1

0.1

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01

2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.5 1.6

1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1

0.0

1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1

0.2

2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1

0.7

1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1

0.6

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01

0.0

1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01

0.4

OCDF 0.001

0.0

C) Any combination of carcinogenic or otherwise nonthreshold toxic

substances shall be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The Agency

shall only consider such additivity for chemicals that exhibit the

same type of effect and the same mechanism of toxicity, based on

available scientific information that supports a reasonable

assumption of additive effects.

Conversion factors for determining the dissolved concentration of metals

from the total recoverable concentration.

The numeric standards for certain metal parameters in 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 302.504 are established as dissolved forms of the

substance since the dissolved form more closely relates to the

toxicology literature utilized in deriving the standard. However,

most discharge monitoring data used in deriving a PEQ will be

from a total recoverable analytical method and permit limits if

and when established will be set at total recoverable to

accommodate the total recoverable analytical method. The

Agency will use a conversion factor to determine the amount of

total metal corresponding to dissolved metal for each metal with a

water quality standard set at dissolved concentration. In the

absence of facility specific data the following default conversion

factors will be used for both PEQ derivation and establishing

WQBELs. The conversion factor represents the portion of the

total recoverable metal presumed to be in dissolved form. The

conversion values given in the following table are multiplied by

the appropriate total recoverable metal concentration to obtain a

corresponding dissolved concentration that then may be compared

to the acute or chronic standard. A dissolved metal concentration

may be divided by the conversion factor to obtain a

corresponding total metal value that will generally be the metal

form regulated in NPDES permits.

Metal Conversion

Factor

Acute Standard Chronic Standard

Arsenic 1.000 1.000

Cadmium 0.850 0.850

Chromium (Trivalent) 0.316 0.860

Chromium (Hexavalent) 0.982 0.962

A permittee may propose an alternate conversion factor for any

particular site specific application. The request must contain

sufficient site specific data, or other data that is representative of

the site, to identify a representative ratio of the dissolved fraction

to the total recoverable fraction of the metal in the receiving

water body at the edge of the mixing zone. If a site specific

conversion factor is approved, that factor will be used for PEQ

derivation and establishment of a WQBEL in lieu of its default

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

3 4) Reasonable potential to exceed.

A) The first step in determining if a reasonable potential to exceed

the water quality standard exists for any particular pollutant

parameter is the estimation of the maximum expected effluent

concentration for that substance. That estimation will be

completed for both acute and chronic exposure periods and is

termed the PEQ. The PEQ shall be derived from representative

facility specific data to reflect a 95 percent confidence level for

the 95th percentile value. These data will be presumed to adhere

to a lognormal distribution pattern unless the actual effluent data

demonstrates a different distribution pattern. If facility specific

data in excess of 10 data values is available, a coefficient of

variation that is the ratio of the standard deviation to the

arithmetic average shall be calculated by the Agency. The PEQ is

derived as the upper bound of a 95 percent confidence bracket

around the 95th percentile value through a multiplier from the

following table applied to the maximum value in the data set that

has its quality assured consistent with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 352.410

as appropriate for acute and chronic data sets.

PEQ = (maximum data point)(statistical multiplier)

Coefficient of Variation

No.

Samples

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

4.6 5.4 6.4 7.4 8.5 9.7 10.9

3.5 4.0 4.6 5.2 5.8 6.5 7.2

2.9 3.3 3.7 4.2 4.6 5.0 5.5

2.6 2.9 3.2 3.6 3.9 4.2 4.5

2.4 2.6 2.9 3.1 3.4 3.7 3.9

2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.1 3.3 3.5

2.1 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2

2.0 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.8 2.9

1.9 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.7

1.8 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5

1.7 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3

1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2

1.6 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1

1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0

1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9

1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.9

1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.8

1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4

40 1.0

1.0

1.1

1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2

50 1.0

1.0

1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1

60 or

greater

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

i) If the PEQ is less than or equal to the water quality

standard, there is no reasonable potential and no limit will

be established in the permit.

ii) If the PEQ is more than the water quality standard, the

Agency will proceed to consideration of dilution and

mixing pursuant to subsection (h)(5).

B) If facility-specific data of 10 or less data values is available, an

alternative PEQ shall be derived using the table in subsection

(h)(4)(A) assuming a coefficient of variation of 0.6, applied to the

maximum value in the data set that has its quality assured

consistent with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 352.410.

i) If the PEQ is less than or equal to the water quality

standard, there is no reasonable potential and no limit will

be established in the permit.

ii) If the PEQ exceeds the water quality standard, an

alternative PEQ will be calculated using the maximum

value in the data set and a multiplier of 1.4. If the

alternative PEQ also exceeds the water quality standard,

the Agency will proceed to consider dilution and mixing

pursuant to subsection (h)(5).

iii) If the PEQ exceeds the water quality standard but the

alternative PEQ is less than or equal to the standard, the

Agency will either proceed to consider dilution and

mixing pursuant to subsection (h)(5), or will incorporate a

monitoring requirement and reopener clause to reassess

the potential to exceed within a specified time schedule,

not to exceed one year. In determining which of these

options to use in any individual application, the Agency

shall consider the operational and economic impacts on the

permittee and the effect, if any, deferral of a final decision

would have on an ultimate compliance schedule if a permit

limit were subsequently determined to be necessary.

C) The Agency shall compare monthly average effluent data values,

when available, with chronic aquatic life, human health and

wildlife standards to evaluate the need for monthly average

WQBELs. The Agency shall use daily effluent data values to

determine whether a potential exists to exceed acute aquatic life

water quality standards.

D) The Agency may apply other scientifically defensible statistical

methods for calculating PEQ for use in the reasonable potential

analysis as provided for in Procedure 5.b.2 of Appendix F to 40

CFR 132, incorporated by reference at 35 Ill. Adm. Code

301.106.

E) Regardless of the statistical procedure used, if the PEQ for the

parameter is less than or equal to the water quality standard for

that parameter, the Agency shall deem the discharge not to have a

reasonable potential to exceed, and a water quality based effluent

limit (WQBEL) shall not be required unless otherwise required

under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 352.430.

4 5) If the PEQ for a parameter is greater than the particular water quality

standard, criteria or value for that parameter, the Agency will assess the

level of treatment being provided by the discharger. If the discharger is

providing (or will be providing) a level of treatment consistent with the

best degree of treatment required by 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.102(a), the

PEQ derived under subsection (h)(4) shall be compared to a preliminary

effluent limitation (PEL) determined by applying an appropriate mixing

zone or a default mixing zone to the discharge. Mixing opportunity and

dilution credit will be considered as follows:

A) Discharges to tributaries of the Lake Michigan Basin shall be

considered to have no available dilution for either acute or

chronic exposures, and the PEL will be set equivalent to the

water quality standard unless dilution is documented through a

mixing zone study.

B) Bioaccumulative chemicals of concern (BCCs):

i) No mixing shall be allowed for new discharges of BCCs

commencing on or after December 24, 1997. The PEL

will be set equivalent to the water quality standard.

ii) Mixing shall be allowed for discharges of BCCs which

existed as of December 24, 1997 in accordance with the

requirements of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.530.

C) Direct discharges to the Open Waters of Lake Michigan shall

have a default mixing allowance of 2:1 for acute standards,

criteria or values and 10:1 for chronic standards, criteria or

values if the discharge configuration indicates that the effluent

readily and rapidly mixes with the receiving waters. If ready and

rapid mixing is in doubt the Agency shall deny any default

dilution or mixing allowance and require a mixing or dispersion

study to determine the proper dilution allowance. If the

discharger applies for more than the default dilution or mixing

allowance, it must submit a mixing or dispersion study to justify

its request. Whenever a mixing or dispersion study is available, it

shall be used to determine dilution or mixing allowance in lieu of

the default allowance.

5 6) Preliminary effluent limitations calculations.

(A) The preliminary effluent limitation (PEL) is calculated in a simple

mass balance approach reflecting the dilution allowance

established in subsection (h)(5):

WQS = [(Qe)(PEL) + (Qd)(Cd)] / [Qe + Qd] or

PEL = [WQS(Qe + Qd) - (Qd)(Cd)] / Qe

WHERE:

WQS = applicable water quality standard, criteria or value

Qe = effluent flowrate

Qd = allowable dilution flowrate

Cd = background pollutant concentration in dilution water

B) The representative background concentration of pollutants to

develop TMDLs and WLAs calculated in the absence of a TMDL

shall be established as follows:

i) "Background" represents

all pollutant loadings,

specifically loadings that flow from upstream waters into

the specified watershed, water body, or water body

segment for which a TMDL or WLA in the absence of a

TMDL is being developed and enter the specified

watershed, water body, or water body segment through

atmospheric deposition, chemical reaction, or sediment

release or resuspension.

(ii) When determining what available data are acceptable for

use in calculating background, the Agency shall use its

best professional judgment, including consideration of the

sampling location and the reliability of the data through

comparison, in part, to detection and quantification levels.

When data in more than 1 of the data sets or categories

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

professional judgment shall be used to select the data that

most accurately reflects or estimates background

concentrations. Pollutant degradation and transport

information may be considered when using pollutant

loading data to estimate a water column concentration.

(iii) The representative background concentration for a

pollutant in the specified watershed, water body, or water

body segment shall be established on a case-by-case basis

as the geometric mean of: acceptable water column data;

water column concentrations estimated through use of

acceptable caged or resident fish tissue data; or water

column concentrations estimated through the use of

acceptable or projected pollutant loading data. When

determining the geometric mean of the data for a pollutant

that includes values both above and below the detection

level, commonly accepted statistical techniques shall be

used to evaluate the data. If all of the acceptable data in a

data set are below the detection level for a pollutant, then

all the data for the pollutant in that data set shall be

assumed to be zero.

6 7) Water quality based effluent limitations.

A) If the PEQ is less than or equal to the PEL, it will be concluded

that there is no reasonable potential to exceed. Under such

circumstances a permit limit for that contaminant will not be set

unless otherwise justified under one or more provisions of 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 352.430.

B) If the PEQ is equal to or greater than the PEL, and the PEQ was

calculated using a data set of more than 10 values, a water quality

based effluent limitation (WQBEL) will be included in the permit.

If the PEQ was calculated using a data set of less than or equal to

10 values, and the alternative PEQ calculated under subsection

(h)(4)(B) also exceeds the PEL, a WQBEL will be included in the

permit.

C) If the PEQ was calculated using a data set of less than or equal to

10 values, and the PEQ is greater than the PEL but the alternative

PEQ is less than the PEL, the Agency will either establish a

WQBEL in the permit or incorporate a monitoring requirement

and reopener clause to reassess potential to exceed within a

specified time schedule, not to exceed one year. In determining

which of these options to use in any individual application, the

Agency shall consider the operational and economic impacts on

the permittee and the effect, if any, deferral of a final decision

would have on an ultimate compliance schedule if a permit limit

were subsequently determined to be necessary.

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

appropriately modified to reflect credit for intake pollutants when

the discharged water originates in the same water body to which

it is being discharged. Consideration of intake credit will be

limited to the provisions of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 352.425.

E) The reasonable potential analysis shall be completed separately

for acute and chronic aquatic life effects. When WQBELs are

based on acute impacts, the limit will be expressed as a daily

maximum. When the WQBEL is based on chronic effects, the

limit will be expressed as a monthly average. Human health and

wildlife based WQBELs will be expressed as monthly averages.

If circumstances warrant, the Agency shall consider alternatives

to daily and monthly limits.

(Source: Amended at __________ Ill. Reg. _______________, effective ________________)

Section 309.157 Permit Limits for Total Metals

The NPDES permit limits for metals must be expressed in total metal form even

though the water quality standards for metals specified in Sections 302.208(e),

302.504(a), and 304.105 are in their dissolved form. The total metal permit

limit shall be determined by multiplying the dissolved metal concentration and

the appropriate metal translator.

The Agency shall adopt procedures for determining site-specific metals

translator in accordance with “The Metals Translator: Guidance for Calculating

a Total Recoverable Permit Limit from a Dissolved Criterion,” incorporated by

reference at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 301.106.

Except as otherwise specified in subsection (d) of this Section, the reciprocal of

the conversion factor multiplier used for obtaining the dissolved metal standards

at Sections 302.208(e), and 302.504(a) becomes the metals translator and the

resulting total metal value becomes the NPDES permit limit.

A permittee may request the Agency, in accordance with the procedures adopted

pursuant to subsection (b) of this Section, to calculate a total metal permit limit

based on a site-specific metal translator. Upon review and approval of the

information submitted by the permittee, the Agency will calculate a total metal

permit limit that is protective of the dissolved metal water quality standard.

(Source: Added at ________ Ill. Reg. ________________, effective ____________)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

Board adopted the above opinion and order on June 20, 2002, by a vote of 7-0.

Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board