Recommended Regulatory Language and Conclusion

Exhibit A

RECEIVED

CLERK’S OFFT(~

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

AUG

52002

STATE QF

ILLINOIS

Ilution

Control Bocird

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO AMMONIA

)

R02-19

NITROGEN STANDARDS 35111. Adm. Code

)

302.212, 302.213,

and 304.122

)

NOTICE OF

FIIJNG

Please see attached Service List

PLEASE

TAKE

NOTICE

that Ihave today filed with the Office ofthe Clerk ofthe

Pollution

Control Board

the

COMMENTS OF

THE

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY, a

copy ofwhich is herewith

served

upon you.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OF THE STATE OF ILLiNOIS

B~th~~/1C~Q

Deborah J. Wil1ia~~/s

Assistant Counsel

Division of Legal Counsel

DATED:

August

2002

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021

North GrandAvenue East

Post Office Box

19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

(217)

782-5544

THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON

RECYCLED PAPER

RECEiVED

CLERK’S OFF!~E

IWG

20C~

BEFORE THE

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

STATE OF IWNOJS

Pollution Control Board

THE

MATTER

OF:

)

R02-19

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO

)

(Rulemaking-Water)

AMMONIA NITROGEN

STANDARDS

)

ILL. ADM. CODE 302.21 2, 302.213,

)

AND 304.122

)

COMMENTS OF THE

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

NOW

COMES

the

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

(“Illinois EPA”),

its attorney,

Deborah J.

Williams,

and

hereby submits comments

the above captioned

rulemaking proceeding.

The

Illinois EPA

appreciates the

Illinois

Pollution Control Board’s

(“Board”)

efforts

in this rulemaking to amend the ammonia nitrogen water quality standard and welcomes

the opportunity to make these comments.

The

Illinois

EPA

has reviewed

the

Board’s

First Notice Opinion and

Order

this

matter

and

the

comments

submitted

the

proponent,

Illinois

Association

Wastewater

Agencies

(“IAWA”),

and

submits

the

following

comments

response

thereto.

Comments on First Notice Opinion and Order

The Board’s

First Notice Opinion,

large measure, resembles the amended

rulemaking proposal submitted by IAWA on April

3, 2002 and supported by the

Illinois

EPA.

IAWA’s amended proposal incorporated the comments raised by the

Illinois

EPA

in the pre-filed testimony of Bob Mosher and addressed several questions or concerns

raised by the

Board at the first substantive hearing held

in this matter in

Chicago,

Illinois

on March 25,

2002.

These changes included:

changing the

term

Summer and Winter

to Early Life Stages Present and Early Life Stages Absent,

adding the term water before

the word temperature in several places,

adding

a definition of the term

early

life stage

and changing the method for evaluating attainment of the sub-chronic water quality

standard to require that the four samples utilized must be taken on four consecutive

days.

In addition,

its post-hearing comments, IAWA supported one additional change

—

that the word “rather” be deleted from the

definition of early

life stage.

Except for the

language requiring the sub-chronic standard to be determined

by averaging

daily

samples collected

over four consecutive days,

all of these suggestions were

incorporated

by the

Board

its First Notice Opinion.

The Board’s Opinion also takes

into account the typographical suggestions

recommended

by the

Illinois

EPA in

its

Post-Hearing Comments.

These suggestions

included:

adding the term

“water” before the word temperature

a few places missed

in the amended

proposal, creating typographical consistency in the equations, and

correcting the rounding error for five values

in the Appendix listing temperature and pH

dependent values for the chronic standard.

In addition, the

Board made some typographical and substantive changes to the

proposed rule that were

not suggested by the parties to this proceeding.

Comments on Typographical Changes in

First Notice Opinion

The Illinois

EPA would like to provide comments on a few of the minor changes

made by the

Board to the

rulemaking

as proposed

by IAWA.

Throughout the

rulemaking the

Board changed the term

“shall” to “must” in

order

to make the proposal more grammatically correct and or consistent.

In most

places,

including the opening paragraph of 302.212(b) and subsections 302.212(b)(1) and (2),

this change has no substantive

impact on the

rule..

a few places,

it appears this

change has either altered the meaning or highlighted a problem with

the proposed

version.

The Illinois

EPA would like to point out the instances in which “is” or “are”

should

have been

used initially instead of “shall.”

In 302.212(b)(3) instead of “The sub-chronic standard

must equal

2.5 times the

chronic standard,” the rule would be more correct if it read “The sub-chronic standard

equal to

2.5 times the chronic standard.”

As this section

is defining the sub-chronic

standard, rather than the method for evaluating attainment of that standard, this change

makes

the

provision more grammatically accurate.

The same change could

be made to

subsections 302.212(c)(2) and

(3) where the

Board changed the term “shall” to “must”,

but the shall should probably be replaced with

“is” so the sentences would

read

“Attainment of the chronic or

sub-chronic

standard

evaluated pursuant to.

Similarly

in Section 302.212(e),

“The Early Life Stage Present period

must occur

from

March through October” should

be “The Early Life Stage Present period occurs

from March through October.”

The last sentence of that subsection

should

be changed

from “All other periods must

be subject to the Early Life Stage Absent period” should be

“All other period are subject to the

Early Life Stage Absent period.”

In subsections 302.212(c)(2)

and (c)(3), the Board also changed the sentence

structure from the proposal to make the rule more grammatically correct or consistent.

However, this has resulted

in an improper use of one of the terms discussed.

“The total

ammonia nitrogen”

is more accurately

referred to as “Total ammonia nitrogen.”

The

entire phrase “total ammonia nitrogen” is

used as a noun that refers to the pollutant

itself.

The Board’s opinion

instead uses “total” as a modifier of ammonia nitrogen.

In the process of changing the method for determining the chronic and sub-

chronic standards in subsections 302.212(c)(2) and (3), the

Board deletes the phrases

“30 day average concentration

of” and “4 day average concentration of” from these

sections.

This minor change in sentence structure creates some vagueness and

confusion

in the

rule, as it can be

read as changing the sub-chronic and chronic

standards from

a 30 day average or 4 day average into instantaneous or acute

standards.

This potentially changes the

meaning of each

of these sections in a manner

that is inconsistent with

United States

Environmental

Protection Agency’s (“U.S. EPA”)

National Criteria Document (“NCD”) for ammonia.

If interpreted this way, these sections

actually write the acute and sub-chronic standards out of the

rule, as any individual

sample that violates the chronic standard would necessarily violate the sub-chronic and

acute.

This makes the rulemaking much more stringent than the current standard and

the

NCD.

This problem can be resolved by the amendments suggested by IAWA and

discussed fully

below.

Comments on Substantive Changes in

First Notice Opinion

The Board concerns related to the consistency of the

IAWA amended proposal

with the

NCD

resulted in

the key substantive changes between the proposal and the

first notice.

These changes related primarily to the

averaging period of the chronic

standard, the number of samples necessary to determine attainment with the standard,

and the relationship between the chronic and sub-chronic standards.

At both the first and second hearings the

Board raised concerns about whether

the proposal adequately established

a sub-chronic water quality standard that would

address what the

Board termed the “highest four day average within the thirty day

period” concept of the

National Criteria Document.

Transcript of Springfield hearing at

32.

IAWA made changes to its

initial proposal in

an attempt to address this issue

and

the

Illinois EPA stated

its

post hearing comments that “the changes proposed

IAWA are

the best way to ensure that the National Criteria Document’s intent to

establish distinct four day and thirty day chronic toxicity standards is implemented.

In.

addition, this language establishes water quality standards whose attainment can

assessed with the

available or obtainable monitoring data.”

Illinois EPA

Post Hearing

Comments at p. 5.

In its

First Notice Opinion the Board more fully identified

its concerns regarding

the

averaging

period for determining attainment of the chronic standard:

The proposed formulae for determining the total ammonia nitrogen

acute, chronic,

and sub-chronic standards at Section 302.21 2(b) mirror

the standards recommended

in the

1999 NCD.

However, the proposed

attainment requirements at Section 302.212(c)(2) and (c)(3)

deviate

somewhat from the

1999 ammonia

NCD.

While the

1999 ammonia NCD

recommends

using

a 30-day average ammonia concentration to show

compliance with

the ammonia CS, the

IAWA’s proposal

requires a

minimum of four consecutive samples collected over a

period of at least

30 days.

In case sic

of the sub-chronic standard, while the

1999

ammonia

NCD

recommends that the highest four-day average within the

30-day period

be used for demonstrating attainment, proposed Section

302.212(c)(3)

requires daily samples collected over

a period of any four

consecutive days to show compliance.

Slip.

op.

at p. 4.

The Board further states:

While the

Board recognizes the Agency’s desire to fashion an attainment

averaging

period to fit its routine ambient monitoring network sampling

schedule, the

Board continues to be concerned by the substantial

increase in the

averaging

period allowed

by the

IAWA proposal..

Because of the

Board’s concern, today the

Board amends

IAWA’s

proposal at Section 302.212(c)(2) to limit the averaging

period for

showing attainment of the ammonia CS to 30 days.

Slip. op.

at 5.

The Illinois

EPA believes that the

Board’s concerns over the consistency of the

averaging

period between the proposal and the

NCD are

legitimate.

Although several

existing

Board

regulations evaluate attainment of a four day average chronic standard

using samples collected over a

period of

at least

four days,

the

NCD does establish

chronic standard based on a 30 day average and the

rule proposed by IAWA did not

conform to this important provision.

The

Illinois

EPA supports the

Board

in changing the

averaging

periods of the óhronic standard to 30 days and the sub-chronic standard to

four consecutive days and

recognize this as being more consistent with the

1999 NCD.

However, the Board further went on to allow the chronic standard to be evaluated using

as little as one sample.

This change is more.inconsistent with

the

NCD than the original

proposal.

By not

requiring attainment to be determined

using at least four samples

within a

30 averaging period, the Board has changed the chronic water quality standard

from an average to an instantaneous standard.

This change makes the acute and sub-

chronic standards

meaningless and creates a water quality standard that

is much

stricter than that provided

in the

1999 NCD.

Illinois EPA

agrees with the

Board that the chronic standard

is intended to

measure a 30 day period of exposure and it is appropriate to specify the averaging of

samples collected over a

30 day period.

But the chronic and sub-chronic standards

must be an average.

One sample can never be sufficient to assess attainment of these

standards.

The

Illinois EPA has reviewed

the changes IAWA has suggested to address

this issue and

in substantial agreement with

the suggested amendments.

IAWA’s

proposed changes

will be discussed

more detail

below.

The Illinois

EPA agrees that

proposed rule differs from the

NCD in the way it interpreted the chronic standard.

The

initial proposal was a compromise to best meet the available sampling

data so as to

make use of the standard and conform to the

concepts of the

NCD.

The Illinois

EPA

feels the Board’s suggestion for dealing with this issue strays much too far from the

NCD by writing the acute and

sub-chronic standards out of the

rule.

Although not discussed specifically in

the

Board’s opinion, the Board

deleted the

sentence “The samples must be collected

a manner that assures an average

representative sampling

period” from

Sections 302.212(c)(2) and (c)(3);

is not exactly

clear why these sentences were

deleted,

but the

Illinois

EPA maintains that this phrase

a necessary component of this rulemaking to assure that no party will

be able to

use

non-representative data to evaluate attainment with the water quality standard over the

relevant averaging period.

Just as allowing samples to be taken over a six month

period does

not accurately reflect the 30-day average ammonia concentration of a given

waterbody, samples collected daily during a single week would not accurately reflect

what the 30-day concentration of ammonia was for that waterbody. Samples must have

some value

representing the average required in the

regulations.

IAWA’s comments

include a proposal which provides some guidance for a time period that serves as a

useful guideline for a representative sampling

time period that is discussed

below.

The

Illinois

EPA

recommends the

Board include this phrase in the final rule.

The Board also expressed

concern that IAWA’s proposal did not require that:

“Compliance with

the sub-chronic standard

is achieved

by averaging

the four highest

sample results collected

over a four-day period within the 30 day averaging of the

ammonia CS.”

Slip.

op.

at 5.

The Illinois

EPA disagrees with

this characterization of~

the sub-chronic standard by the

Board.

As indicated

in IAWA’s comments, the

sub-

chronic standard must be a stand alone requirement.

Attainment of this standard

based on the chronic standard multiplied by 2.5

as calculated

using

the

pH, temperature

and total ammonia concentration from those four samples being

used to show

compliance with that standard.

In order to assist in explaining the

Illinois EPA’s

interpretation to the

Board, examples have

been provided as an exhibit as to how

attainment with the three standards could

be determined

using various combinations of

available samples.

See

Exhibit A.

In resolving the inconsistency perceived by the Board between Section

302.212(c)(3) of IAWA’s proposal and the

NCD, the

Board deleted “using daily samples

collected over a period of four consecutive days” and

replaced

it with “averaging the

highest sample results collected over four consecutive days within the

30 day period

specified

in subsection

302.212(c)(2).”

The Illinois

EPA is not clear on how the Board

intends this provision to be implemented.

It is not at all clear how the highest sample

results would be determined.

Would these values be temperature and pH dependent?

Would it be necessary to have 30 consecutive days of data to determine attainment of

the sub-chronic standard?

Do you average each four day combination

separately to

figure out the highest or do you take the

highest total?

This particular change seems to

make the

rule weaker than

U.S. EPA’s critieria document intends, even though the

language was taken directly from that document.

It could

not have been U.S. EPA’s

intent that only one four day period per month would be capable of exceeding the sub-

chronic standard.

If the second or third

highest four day periods also violate the sub-

chronic standard for that period,

it does

not make sense that those periods would be

found to attain the sub-chronic standard because only the worst

four day period

represents an exceedance of the standard.

The Illinois EPA urges the

Board to

reconsider the changes made to this portion of IAWA’s proposal.

Comments on IAWA’S Suggested Changes to First Notice Opinion

The Illinois

EPA has reviewed

the comments and suggested changes presented

by IAWA in response to the

Board’s First Notice Opinion and Order

and would

like to

provide the following comments.

Number and

Representativeness of Samples

IAWA proposes to accept the

Board’s change to the sampling

period for the

chronic standard to a strict 30 day averaging

period.

The Illinois

EPA is also in

agreement with this change as an accurate reflection of the recommendations

1999

NCD.

IAWA also proposes a change to the number of samples required for evaluating

attainment of the chronic standard to the

average of at least four samples in a 30 day

period.

In order to be representative of that 30 day period, IAWA suggests that the

Board

require a minimum of four samples collected at weekly intervals or at other

frequency distributions representative of the sampling

period.

The Illinois EPA supports

this language as a reasonable method of obtaining representative

samples.

Four

weekly samples are likely to be a more accurate representation of a 30 day period than

samples taken within only one or two weeks out ofthe

period and the suggested

language retains flexibility, if necessary, for a finding that samples taken at a somewhat

different interval are also representative ofthe chronic averaging

period.

The Illinois

EPA also believes that there may be other concerns that would address the

issue of

representativeness of the samples collected that have

not been addressed by IAWA’s

proposed language including

the time of day the samples were

taken, the type of

samples taken, and the confidence level ofthe

available

data.

As indicated

previously,

the

Illinois

EPA supports the language presented

IAWA’s amended proposal and also

presented

its first notice comments requiring attainment of the sub-chronic standard

to be evaluated

using four daily samples collected over a four day period.

The sub-

chronic standard is intended to apply to a four day exposure period.

The

Illinois EPA

does not agree that the four day period

must be connected to a specific 30 day chronic

period.

See

Exhibit A for Illinois

EPA’s

interpretation of how to evaluate attainment of

the sub-chronic standard.

In order to determine attainment of the sub-chronic standard.

for any four day period, the

pH and temperature for each sample will

be applied to the

formulas given to determine the chronic standard for those samples and then multiplied

by 2.5 to determine the sub-chronic standard for each sample.

The four or more

samples are then evaluated for attainment by using the formula provided in Section

302.21 2(d) to find the quotient.

Linkage Between the Chronic and

Sub-Chronic Standards

In its First Notice Opinion the Board states:

“although IAWA’s proposal

includes

both the chronic and sub-chronic total ammonia standards

recommended by the federal

guidance, there is no linkage between the averaging

period of the two standards.”

Slip.

Op. at 4.

IAWA has attempted to address

the Board’s concerns regarding this

issue.

The Illinois

EPA strongly agrees with

IAWA that the chronic and sub-chronic standards

are stand alone water quality standards.

However,

IAWA recognized problems that

could

result from

use of certain types of sampling

data and has suggested additional

new regulatory language in the form of an equation that attempts to describe the

relationship between the chronic and sub-chronic standards.

The Illinois

EPA has

reviewed this equation and believes

it is

good

method for addressing the problem

identified.

IAWA’s equation provides

a solution to a

potential problem that four samples

collected consecutively during one week could skew the

results of the samples collected

in the other three weeks of the 30 day period

being evaluated to create an average that

is not actually representative of the chronic averaging

period.

In reality, this equation is

actually a method forevaluating attainment of the water quality standards

under a

certain set of circumstances where representative sampling

has been done for both the

sub-chronic and chronic standards, than

it is~a

relationship between the two standards.

The Illinois EPA

has provided an example of how the equation proposed by IAWA can

be used to evaluate attainment under the scenario described by IAWA in

Exhibit A.

Although the

Illinois EPA supports the logic behind the equation identified

by IAWA, it

does not agree that this

methodology for obtaining representative data should

included as part of the Board’s

regulation

establishing ammonia water quality standards

since this equation only addresses one possible concern with

one possible type of data

set and does

not address other similar issues effecting the representativeness of data

that have not yet been

identified or considered.

Illinois

EPA wants to clarify what

is stated

IAWA’s comments but not

necessarily

reflected in the proposed regulatory language.

Each of these standards

(acute, chronic, and sub-chronic) are intended to stand alone.

If four samples have

been taken four days in

a row (any four days in

a row), attainment of the acute and sub-

chronic standards can

be evaluated.

If at least four samples representative of a 30 day

period

have been obtained, attainment of the

acute and chronic standards

(but not the

sub-chronic standard) may be evaluated.

Only if you have sufficient samples (minimum

of 7 samples —4

row and I

per week for

3 other weeks) would you

utilize the

equation proposed by IAWA.

See

Exhibit A.

There is one aspect of IAWA’s proposed

new Section 302.212(c)(4) that requires

clarification.

It is the

Illinois

EPA’s interpretation that IAWA is presenting

a formula for

assigning weighted

value to sub-chronic data when

is utilized to determine attainment

with the chronic standard.

As IAWA indicates

in its testimony, the chronic and sub-

chronic standards are stand alone standards and it is not necessary to have four

consecutive days of data to evaluate attainment with the chronic standard.

Nor is it

necessary to have sufficient data to evaluate attainment with the chronic standard

order to evaluate attainment of the sub-chronic standard.

The language in this

subsection

implies that it is to be used in

every

attainment determination for the chronic

and/or sub-chronic standard.

If IAWA intends that the formula presented

in subsection

(c)(4) must

be used in every case in addition to the requirements of subsections (c)(1),

(2) and (3), then the

acute, chronic and sub-chronic water quality standards are no

longer stand alone water quality standards.

If the Board chooses to adopt the language

suggested by IAWA as part ofthe ammonia water quality standards, the

Illinois EPA

recommends that the

Board clarify this formula is an alternative method for evaluating

attainment of the chronic standard that is used only with

the type of data set required by

the formula.

One possible method for

achieving this clarification might be to

renumber

IAWA’s proposed Section 302.212(c)(4) to 302.212(f) and label the subsection

“Representativeness of Data.”

Recommended

Regulatory Language

and Conclusion

In order to assist the

Board

in development of a Second Notice Opinion and

Order and to clarify the

Illinois

EPA’s comments in this proceeding, suggested

regulatory language for 35

III. Adm. Code 302.212 consistent with the comments

provided above follows.

Section 302.212

Total Ammonia Nitrogen

Total

ammonia nitrogen (as

STORET Number 00610) must in

no case

exceed 15 mg/L.

Total ammonia nitrogen

(as

STORET Number 00610) acute,

chronic

and sub-chronic standards

must be determined by the equations given

below.

Attainment

each

standard must be determined by subsections

in mg/L.

The acute standard

(AS) must be calculated

using the following

equation:

AS=

0.411

58.4

~ +

~7.2O4-Ph

pH-7.204

The chronic standard (CS) must be calculated

using the following

equations:

During the

Early Life Stage Present period, as defined

subsection

(e) of this Section:

When water temperature

is less

than or equal to 14.51°C:

0.0577

2.487

(2.85)

07.688-pH

0PH-7.688

ii)

When water temperature

is above 14.51°C:

0.0577

2.487.

45*

00028*(25T))

07.658-pH

~ +

0PH-7.688

Where T

Temperature, degrees Celsius

During the

Early Life Stage Absent period, as defined

subsection

(e) of this Section:

When water temperature is less than or equal to 7°C:

0.0577

2.487

(1.45

10°~°~)

I076881~

I ÷

10PH-7.688

ii)

When water temperature

is greater than 7°C:

0.0577

2.487

45*

O0028*(25~)

~~7.688-pH

0PH-7.688

Where T

Temperature, degrees Celsius

The sub-chronic standard

is equal to 2.5 times the chronic

standard.

Attainment of the Total Ammonia Nitrogen Water Quality Standards

The acute standard of total ammonia nitrogen (in mg/L) must

not be

exceeded at any time except

in those waters for which the Agency

has approved

a ZID pursuant to Section

302.102 of this Part.

The 30-day average concentration of total ammonia nitrogen (in

mg/L) must not exceed the chronic standard (CS) except in those

waters

in which mixing

is allowed pursuant to Section 302.102 of

this

Part.

Attainment ofthe chronic standard (CS)

is evaluated

pursuant to subsection

(d) ofthis Section by averaging

at least four

samples collected at weekly intervals or at other frequency

distributions

representative of a 30 day sampling

period.

The

samples must be collected

a manner that assures a

representative sampling

period.

The four day average concentration of total ammonia nitrogen (in

mg/L) must not exceed the sub-chronic standard except in those

waters in which mixing

is allowed pursuant to Section 302.102 of

this Part.

Attainment ofthe sub-chronic standard

is evaluated

pursuant to subsection

(d) ofthis Section averaging

daily sample

results collected over a

period

of four consecutive days.

The

samples must be collected

a manner that assures a

representative sampling

period.

The water quality standard for each water body must be calculated based

on the temperature and pH of the water body measured at the time of

each ammonia sample.

The concentration

of total ammonia

in each

sample must be divided

by the calculated water quality standard for the

sample to determine a quotient.

The water quality standard is attained

the mean ofthe sample quotients is less than or equal to one for the

duration of the averaging period.

The Early Life Stage Present period occurs from

March through October.

In addition,

during any other period when

early

life stages are present, and

where the water quality standard does not provide adequate protection

for

these organisms, the water body must meet the

Early Life Stage Present

water quality standard.

All other periods are subject to the Early Life

Stage Absent period.

The

Illinois EPA again thanks the Board for the opportunity to participate in this

rulemaking proceeding and

hopes these comments provide additional clarity on some of

the

concerns raised

by the Board at the two substantive public hearings held

in this

matter.

If the Board has further questions or concerns, the

Illinois EPA will be willing to

submit additional information or participate in additional public hearings if necessary to

develop

a rulemaking that is consistent with the

1999

National Criteria Document and

develops

an ammonia nitrogen water quality standard for the State of Illinois that

protective of the health of early life stages of aquatic life

Illinois without causing

unnecessary economic burdens on the

regulated community.

Respectfully submitted,

Deborah J. Williams

Assistant Counsel

Division of Legal Counsel

Dated:

August 13, 2002

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021 North Grand Avenue

East

P.O.

Box 19276

Springfield,

Illinois 62794-9276

Exhibit A

The following scenarios demonstrate

howattainment ofthe proposed water quality standard is assessed.

All scenarios

assume that earlylife stages are present.

The acute WQS was assessed for each sample collected.

The sub-chronic

WQS was assessed whentherewas one sample collected each-day-forfour-consecutivedays.

The chronicWQS was

assessed when there were at least four samples

collected at weekly intervals or at other

frequency distributions

representative of a30-day sampling period.

Scenario#4 demonstrates howthe chronic WQS was assessed when one

sample was collectedeach dayforfour consecutivedays and weeklysamples

erecollected.

This sampling regime

contains data that would give undue weight to a small portion of the 30-day sampling period and therefore must be

analyzed

according to the method proposed by IAWA in the revised draft regulation.

Scenario 1:

Early life stages are present.

Oniy

sample was collected.

June30

Sample

Temperature °C

21.3

8.16

Ammonia measured (mg/L)

5.8

Acute Standard (mg/L)

6.2

Sub-chronic Standard (mg/L)

3.08

Chronic Standard (mg/L)

1.23

In this example, only the acute WaterQuality Standard (WQS)can be assessed.

Whilethe sub-chronic andchronic

standards can be calculated given this data set, attainment of these standards cannot be assessed.

•

The acute WQS is assessed as follows:

The ammoniaconcentration in sample ~1 is less than the acute WQS,

therefore, the acute WQS was not violated.

•

The sub-chronic WQS cannot be assessed.

•

The chronic WQS cannot be assessed.

Scenario 2:

Early life stages are present.

Four samples were collected.

One sample was collected each dayfor four consecutive

days.

No other samples were collected.

June 30

July

July 2

July 3

Sample

Sample 2

Sample 3

Sample 4

Temperature°C

21.3

22.4

21.1

20.3

8.16

8.25

7.98

7.85

Ammonia measured (mg/L)

5.8

3.0

2.1

1.8

Acute Standard (mgIL)

6.2

5.2

8.7

11.1

Sub-chronic Standard (mgfL)

3.08

2.50

4.10

5.15

Chronic Standard (mg/L)

1.23

1.00

1.64

2.06

In this example, the acute WQS can be assessed for each sample. The sub-chronicWQS can be assessed, since,

one

sample was collected each day for four consecutivedays.

The chronic WQS cannot be assessed, since; the samples

were not collected in away that would be representative ofthe 30-day averaging period.

•

The acute WQS is assessed as follows:

The ammonia concentration in all samples is less thanthe acute WQS

for each

sample; therefore, the acute WQS was not violated.

•

The sub-chronic WQS is assessed

as follows:

Quotient

=((5.8/3.08)+(3.012.5) +(2.114.1)+(1.815.15))14

Quotient=(l.88+

1.2

+0.51 +0.35)14

Quotient

0.99

Since the quotient is less than one, the sub-chronic WQS has been attained.

•

The chronic WQS cannot be assessed.

Scenario 3:

Earlylife stages are present.

Foursamples were collected.

One sample was collected each week forfour weeks.

other samples were collected.

June 28

July 6

July 12

July21

Sample

Sample 6

Sample 7

Sample 8

Temperature °C

21.7

22.2

19.3

20.6

8.15

8.20

7.81

7.79

Ammonia measured (mgfL)

0.96

1.26

1.69

2.71

Acute Standard (mg/L)

6.3

5.7

11.9

12.4

Sub-chronic Standard (mg/L)

3.05

2.73

5.78

5.45

Chronic Standard

(mg/L)

1.22

1.09

2.31

2.18

In thisexample, the acute WQS can be assessed foreach sample.

The sub-chronicWQS cannot be assessed, since,

the samples were not collected on consecutive days.

The chronic WQS can be assessed, since;

the samples were

collected in a way that would be representative of the 30-day averaging period.

•

The acute WQS is assessed as follows:

The ammoniaconcentrationin all samples is less thanthe acuteWQS

for each sample; therefore,the acuteWQS wasnot violated.

•

The sub-chronic WQS cannot be assessed.

•

 The chronicWQS isassessed as follows:

Quotient

((0.96/1.22)

(1.26/1.09)

(1.69/2.31)

(2.71/2.1 8))/4

Quotient

(0.79

1.16

0.73

1.24)/4

Quotient

0.98

Since the quotient is less than one, the chronic WQS has been attained.

Scenario 4:

Earlylife stages are present.

Eight samples were collected.

One sample was collected each week for4 weeks and

one

sample was collected each day for four consecutive days.

No other samples were collected.

June 28

 June 30

 July 1

 July2

 July 3

 July6

 July 12

 July21

Sample

5

Sample

Temperature°C

21.7

21.3

22.4

21.1

20.3

22.2

19.3

20.6

8.15

8.16

8.25

7.98

7.85

8.20

7.81

7.79

Ammonia measured (mg/L)

0.96

5.8

3.0

2.1

1.8

1.26

1.69

2.71

Acute Standard

(mgfL)

6.3

6.2

5.2

8.7

11.1

5.7

11.9

12.4

Sub-chronic Standard

(mgfL)

3.05

3.08

2.50

4.10

5.15

2.73

5.78

 5.45

Chronic Standard

(mg/L)

 1.22

1.23

1.00

1.64

2.06

1.09

2.31

2.18

In thisexample, the acute WQS can be assessed foreach sample.

The sub-chronicWQS can be assessed forthe four

samples that were collected

on consecutive days.

The

chronic WQS

can be

assessed,

since;

the

samples were

collected in away that would be representative ofthe 30-day averaging period.

•

The acute WQS is assessed as follows:

The ammoniaconcentration in all samples is less than the acuteWQS

for each sample; therefore, the acute WQS was not violated.

•

 The sub-chronic

WQS is assessed as follows:

Quotient=((5.8/3.08) +(3.0/2.5)+(2.l/4.1) +(1.8/5.15))/4

Quotient=(1.88+

1.2 +0.51 +0.35)/4

Quotient

0.99

Since the quotient is less than one, the sub-chronic WQS has been attained.

•

Since the samples were not taken

in

 a representative fashion,

the consecutive samples must be accounted

for specially. As proposedby

IAWA

 in the revised draft regulation, the chronicWQS is assessed as

follows:

Quotient

(4/30)*(quotient4

days)

(26/30)*(quotient remaining)

Quotient

((0.133)*((5.8/1.23)+(3.0/1 .0)+(2.1/l .64)+(1.8/2.06)/4)+

((0.867)*((0.96/1.22)-f(1.26/1.09)+(l .69/2.31)+(2.71/2. 18)/4)

Quotient

((0.133)*(2.46)

(0.867)*(0.98)

Quotient

 1.18

Since the quotient is greater than one, the chronic WQS has been exceeded.

Scenario 5:

Earlylifestages are present.

Eight samples were collected.

Two samples were collected each week forfour weeks.

No other samples were collected.

June 24

June 28

July

July 19

Sample

Temperature°C

21.7

21.3

22.4

21.1

20.3

22.2

19.3

20.6

8.15

8.16

8.25

7.98

7.85

8.20

7.81

7.79

Ammonia measured (mg/L)

0.96

2.5

0.8

1.1

1.8

0.36

0.89

2.71

Acute Standard

(mg/L)

6.3

6.2

5.2

8.7

11.1

5.7

11.9

12.4

Sub-chronic Standard (mg/L)

3.05

3.08

2.50

4.10

5.15

2.73

5.78

5.45

Chronic Standard

(mgfL)

 1.22

 1.23

1.00

1.64

2.06

1.09

2.31

2.18

In this example, the acute WQS can be assessed for each sample.

The sub-chronicWQS cannot be assessed,

since,

the samples were not collected on consecutive days.

The chronic WQS can be assessed, since; the samples were

collected in away that would be representative of the 30-day averaging period.

•

The acute WQS is assessed as follows:

The ammoniaconcentrationin all samples is less than the acute WQS

for each sample; therefore, the acute WQS was not violated.

•

The sub-chronic WQS cannot be assessed.

•

The chronic WQS is assessed as follows:

Quotient

((0.96/1 .22)+(2.5/1 .23)+(0.8/1 .0)+(1 .1/1.64)+(1.8/2.06)+(0.36/1.09)+(0.89/2.3 1 )+(2.7 1/2.1 8))/8

Quotient

(0.79

2.03

+ 0.8 + 0.67 +

0.87

0.33

0.39

1 .24)/8

Quotient

0.89

Since the quotient is less than one, the chronic WQS has been attained.

)

STATE OF ILLINOIS

COUNTY OF SANGAMON

)

SS

)

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, on oath state that I have served the attached COMMENTS

THE ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY upon the person to whom it is directed, by placing a

copy in an envelope addressed to:

Please see attached service list.

andmailing it from Springfield, fllinois on

August

L~,

2002 with sufficient postage affixed as indicated

above.

SUBSCRIBED AN)

SWORN

TO BEFORE ME

thisj~dayof August 2002

~,~Pub1ic~’

:.-~—:..:

;.~

OFFICIAL

SEAL

CYNTHIA L. WOLFE

NOTARY

PUBIJC,

STATE

ILLINOIS

COMMISSION

EXPIRES

3402003

THIS FILING

IS SUBMITTED

ON RECYCLED PAPER

SERVICE LIST

R02-l9

Augustj.~,2002

Dorothy Gunn,

Clerk

Illinois

Pollution Control Board

100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois

60601

Catherine Glenn

Illinois Pollution Control

Board

100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500

Chicago,Illinois 60601

Tim

Bachman

Urbana/Champaign Sanitary District

1100 East University Avenue Post

Office Box

669

Urbana,

Illinois

61803

Mike Callahan

Bloomington Normal

WaterReclamation District

Post Office Box 3307

Bloomington, Illinois

61702-3307

LanyCox

Downer’s Grove SanitaryDistrict

2710

Curtiss Street

Downer’s Grove, Illinois

60515

Dennis

Daffield

Department of Public Works City ofJoliet

921 East Washington Street

Joliet, Illinois

60433

JimDaugherty

Thorn Creek Basin Sanitary District

700 West End Avenue

Chicago Heights, illinois

60417

Sheila Deely

Garnder, Cartonand

Douglas

321 North Clark Street,

Suite

3400

Chicago, Illinois

60610-4795

Albert Ettinger

Environmental Law andPolicy Center

East Wacker Drive,

Suite 1300

Chicago, Illinois

60601-2110

Susan M. Franzetti

Sonnenschein Nath andRosenthal

8000

Sears Tower

233

South Wacker Drive

Chicago, Illinois

60606

Lisa Frede

Chemical

Industry

 Council

9801

West Higgins Road, Suite

515

Rosemont, Illinois

60018

James T.

Harrington

Ross andHardies

150 NorthMichigan, Suite 2500

Chicago, Illinois

60601

Katherine Hodge

Hodge, DwyerZeman

3150 RolandAvenue

Post Office Box 5776

Springfield, illinois

62705-5776

Margaret Howard

HedingerandHoward

1225

South Sixth Street

Springfield, Illinois

62703

Richard Lanyon

MetropolitanWater ReclamationDistrict

100 East Erie, Room400

Chicago, Illinois

60611

RobertMessina

Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group

215

East

Adams

Street

Springfield, Illinois

62701

Tom

MuIh

Fox

Metro WalterReclamation District

682 State Route 31

Oswego, Illinois

60543

Irwin

Polls

MetropolitanWater Reclamation

District ofChicago

Environmental Monitoring Division

6001

West Pershing Road

Cicero, Illinois

60804-4112

David

Zenz

CTEEngineers

303 East Wacker Drive, Suite 600

Chicago, Illinois

60601

Michael

Zima

DeKaIb Sanitary District

Post Office Box 624

DeKalb, Illinois

60115

THIS FILING

IS SUBMITTED

RECYCLED PAPER