BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BO~~CEIVED

CLERK’S OFFICE

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

SEP

)

STATE OF IWNOIS

WATER QUALITY TRIENNIAL REVIEW

)

R02-1 i

Pollution

Control

Board

AMENDMENTS TO

35

ILL. ADM. CODE

)

(Rulemaking-Water)

302.208(e)-(g), 302.504(a),

)

302.575(d),

303.444,

309.141(h);

)

AND PROPOSED

35

ILL. ADM. CODE

)

/? ~-

301.267,301.313,301.413,

)

‘

304.120 AND 309.157

)

COMMENTS OF THE METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT

OF GREATER CHICAGO TO FIRST NOTICE OF OPINION AND ORDER

The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (“District”) has

reviewed the First Notice, Opinion and Order of the Board, for Rulemaking R02-11, and is

submitting the following comments regarding the Board’s decision to reject the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency’s (“Agency”) proposal to revise the General Use Water

Quality Standard for weak acid dissociable (“WAD”) cyanide.

The District supports the Agency’s proposal for the following reasons, and respectftilly

requests that the Board reconsider its rejection of the Agency’s proposal regarding WAD

cyanide, and accept the Agency’s proposal to revise the WAD cyanide standard for General Use

Waters.

The District has been very involved in the study of appropriate WAD cyanide water

quality standards since 1993. In 1995, the District submitted a petition to the Illinois Pollution

Control Board for a site-specific rulemaking regarding WAD cyanide water quality standards,

captioned

In the Matter of Petition of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater

Chicago for Site-Spec?fIc Water Quality Regulation,

Docket No. R95-14 (“Petition”). Prior to

filing its Petition, the District conducted extensive laboratory studies regarding analytical

methodologies for measuring WAD cyanide and retained nationally recognized consultants

familiar with WAD cyanide chemistry and toxicity. In support of its Petition, the District

submitted testimony from these nationally renowned experts in their fields. Attached hereto is a

copy of certain testimony filed by the District as part of the R95-14 proceedings, which

testimony summarizes the maj or issues covered in the District’s voluminous Petition. (See

Attachment 1)

In this testimony the District clearly demonstrated that the existing General Use Chronic

Water Quality Standard for WAD cyanide of

5.2

~.ig/Lwas calculated using approved United

States Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) methodology, but with the goal of

protecting rainbow trout, which was considered the most sensitive species. Ifthe rainbow trout,

a non-indigenous species, is removed from the calculation, and approved USEPA methodology

is utilized, the chronic water quality standard for WAD cyanide becomes 10 ~.ig/L,which is the

---

standard that the Agency is now proposing. This 10 ~tg/Lchronic standard is even protective of

such cold water species as brook trout, which are included in the toxicity database in the USEPA

guidance documents.

The District testimony also discusses the complexity of cyanide speciation and analyses

and clearly points out that WAD cyanide is a conservative surrogate indicator for free cyanide

which is the true toxic form of cyanide. Thus, using WAD cyanide as the constituent to be

regulated, automatically assures that a safety factor is built into the water quality standard. The

District testimony also points out the analytical uncertainties in measuring WAD cyanide

concentration at levels below 10 ~ig/L.

On February 1, 1996, the Board published its Final Action for R95-14 and granted the

District’s request for a site-specific change in the General Use Chronic Water Quality Standard

for WAD cyanide from a value of 5.2 ~tg/Lto a value of 10 ~.tg/L,which is the same value as the

Agency now proposes. A copy ofthe Board’s final action is appended hereto as Attachment II.

In the Opinion and Order ofthe Board in the R95-14 Rulemaking, the Board substantially agreed

with all ofthe District’s testimony. Although the R95-14 Rulemaking only dealt with portions of

the Des Plaines River, it is the District’s contention that the Agency has correctly concluded that

the same justifications presented in the R95- 14 Rulemaking can be applied to the entire state of

Illinois.

The District strongly supports Mr. Mosher’s testimony in R02- 11 regarding his use of

approved USEPA methodology for calculating the appropriate toxicity values for WAD cyanide,

and strongly disagrees with the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (“IDNR”) position in

R02-l 1 that unproven methodologies and/or speculations regarding the toxicity ofWAD cyanide

to freshwater mussels should be used in the R02-l 1 Rulemaking. It is the District’s position that

the Board should support the use of approved USEPA methodologies for determining water

quality standards, and not second-guess the Agency based upon unsupported and unapproved

methodology.

In conclusion, the District respectfully requests that the Board review the record of the

R95-14 Rulemaking, reconsider its decision, and accept the Agency’s proposal for a revised

WAD cyanide General Use Water Quality Standard as it is based on sound science and proven

USEPA methodology.

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District

of Greater Chicago,

By:

September 3, 2002

Richard Lanyon, &ector ofR&D

Metropolitan Water Reclamation

District ofGreater Chicago

100 East Erie

Chicago, Illinois 60611

312.751.5190

THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

2

---

ATTACHMENT I

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOAR

~GE1VED

JUN -91g95

STATE OF ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

In.

the Matter of:

Petition of the Metropolitan Water

Reclamation District of

Greater

Chicago for Site-Specific Water

Quality Regulation:

)

R95—14

(Site-Specific Rule-

making 35 Iii. Adm.

Code 302, 303, 304

TO:

NOTICE OF FILING

Mr. Bruce Carison

Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, IL 62794—9276

Mr. William Seith

Illinois Attorney General

Office

100 West Randolph Street

Chicago, IL 60601

Mr. William Denham

Department of Energy and

Natural Resources

325 West Adams Stree.t

Springfield, IL 62704

Mr. Richard C. Warrington, Jr.

Division of Legal Counsel

Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, IL 62794

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the

Office of the Clerk of the Pollution Control Board testimony

of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater

Chicago and two of its consultants (Dr. Herbert Allen and Dr.

Richard Luthy), a copy of which is herewith served upon you.

June 9, 1995

Michael Rosenberg

Attorney

Metropolitan Water Reclamation

District of Greater Chicago

100 East Erie Street

Chicago, Illinois 60611

(312) 751—6565

S ignaturd~,)

THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

---

PROOF OF SERVICE

Mr. Bruce Carlson

Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, IL 62794—9276

Mr. William Seith

Illinois Attorney General

Office

100 West Randolph Street

Chicago, IL 60601

Bernard Sawyer

Metropolitan Water Reclamation

District of Greater Chicago

100 East Erie Street

Chicago, Illinois 60611

(312) 751—6565

Mr. William Denham

Department of Energy and

Natural Resources

325 West Adams Street

Springfield, IL 62704

Mr. Richard C. Warrington, Jr.

Division of Legal Counsel

Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, IL 62794

Signature

Subscribed and sworn before me this

OFFICIAL SEAL

~

ROSALIE BOTTARI

~ NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF ILLINOIS

MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:04/1O/98

~

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

testimony of the METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF

GREATER CHICAGO and two of its consultants (Dr. Herbert Allen

and Dr. Richard Luthy) by first class mail upon the following

persons:

_________

day of

,

1995.

c

THIs

FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

---

JUN -91995

TESTIMONY OF DR. CECIL LUE—HING

I

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOA ~TE OFILLINOIS

IN THE MATTER OF: PETITION OF THE METROPOLIT~ LLUTI ~CONTROL

RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO FOR

SITE-SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY REGULATION (R95-14)

JUNE 6, 1995

Intro duc t ion

My name is Dr. Cecil Lue-Hing, and I am the Director of

Research and Development at the Metropolitan Water Reclama-

tion District of Greater Chicago (District)

In this petition, the District is asking the Board to

grant a site-specific regulation. The District asks the

Board to do the following:

1. Revise the existing numerical General Use

chronic water quality standard for weak acid

dissociable (WAD) cyanide from 5.2 ~ig/l to 10.0

~ig/1 for the:

a. West Branch of the DuPage River

b. Higgins Creek

c. Salt Creek

d. Des Plaines River (within Cook County)

The existing General Use chronic water quality standard

for WAD cyanide is 5.2 ugh, and was adopted as a result of

the Board’s Hearings in R88-21. The Board’s existing General

Use chronic water quality standard f or cyanide uses the

laboratory analytical test method for WAD Cyanide (Storet

Number 00718) to determine compliance.

1

---

Background

DESCRIPTION OF THE DISTRICT

The District is located within the boundaries of Cook

County Illinois and serves an area of about 872 square miles.

The area served by the District includes the city of Chicago

and 124 suburban communities with a combined residential

population of 5.1 million people and a waste load equivalent

to 4.9 million people contributed by industrial sources. The

District, on a daily basis, treats an average of 1,500 mil-

lion gallons per day of wastewater at its seven water recla-

mation plants (WRPs).

DISTRICT WRPs ON GENERAL USE STREAMS

Three of the District’s seven WRPs discharge to General

Use streams. These WRPs, the

streams

to which they dis-

charge, and their average daily flows, are as follows:

1994 Average

WRP

Daily Flow

Receiving Stream

Hanover Park

8.87 MGD

West Branch DuPage River

John E. Egan

24.5 MGD

Salt Creek

James C. Kirie

31.8 MGD

Higgins Creek

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PERMITS

In 1993, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency) issued renewed National Pollutant Discharge Elimina-

tion (NPDES) permits for the Hanover Park and James C. Kirie

WRPS which,

for

the first time, included numerical.effluent

2

---

limits based upon the General Use Chronic Water Quality Cri-

teria for Cyanide adopted by the Board in R88-21.

following limits in the NPDES

and James C. Kirie WRPs:

Monthly Average

Effluent WAD

WRP

NPDES Permit Number

Cyanide (p.g/1)

Hanover Park

1L0036137

5.2 ~ig/1

James C. Kirie

1L0047741

5.0 ~1g/l

The numerical effluent limits were set equal to the Board’s

General Use chronic water quality standard f or WAD cyanide

since the West Branch of the DuPage River and Higgins Creek

have a 7-day, 10-year low flow of zero. In these NPDES

permits, the District is required to measure the WAD cyanide

concentration in the effluents from these WRPs to determine

compliance. This is in keeping with the Board’s existing

General Use chronic water quality standard for WAD cyanide.

Because the District had never before measured the WAD

cyanide concentration in the effluent from the James C. Kirie

and Hanover Park WRPs, a 12-month delay in the imposition of

the effluent limits fOr cyanide in the new NPDES permits was

requested. The Agency granted the District’s request, and

the effective date for

the new WAD cyanide limits in these

NPDES permits was changed to April 1, 1995.

In anticipation of these Board proceedings, the District

recently requested that the Agency again change the effective

The Agency placed the

permits

for the Hanover Park

3

---

date for the new WAD cyanide limits to October 1, 1996. The

Agency has granted this extension.

DISTRICT STUDIES

During the past 24 months, the District has been con-

ducting routine monitoring of the WAD cyanide level in the

effluents from the James C. Kirie and Hanover Park WRPs.

In addition, the District has conducted studies on the

following topic areas:

1. Inputs of WAD cyanide from industrial sources

to the James C. Kirie and Hanover Park WRPs.

2. Effect

of wastewater treatment on

WAD cyanide

levels.

3. Accuracy and precision of the laboratory ana-

lytical method for WAD cyanide.

4. Chlorine interference in the WAD cyanide analy-

sis.

The District has also investigated the following:

1. Basis for the existing General Use chronic

water quality standard .f or WAD cyanide.

2. Basis for using the WAD cyanide analytical pro-

tocol for determining compliance with the Gen-

eral Use chronic water quality standard for WAD

cyanide.

In the above mentioned studies and investigations, the

District has used the services of two experts. They are:

4

---

1. Dr. Richard Luthy

Professor and Head

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Carnegie Mellon University

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

2. Dr. Herbert E. Allen

Professor

Department of Civil Engineering

University of Delaware

Newark, Delaware

Dr. Luthy is a nationally recognized expert on cyanide

chemistry and analytical measurements, and is currently the

Chairman of the Standard Methods Joint Task Group on Cyanide.

He has published many papers on these topics.

Dr. Herbert Allen is a nationally recognized expert on

speciation chemistry, including chemical analysis. He has

extensively studied the fate of pollutants in receiving

streams and treatment plants, and the effect of pollutants on

aquatic life. He is currently the Principal Investigator on

the following two United States Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA) sponsored research projects.

1. Speciation of Metals in Effluents and Receiving

Waters.

2. Speciation, Bioavailability, and Fate of Con-

taminants in the Aquatic Environment.

Both of these individuals are present and will be testi-

fying today.

5

---

Summary of Site-Specific Relief Sought

The District asks that the Board revise the existing

General Use chronic water quality standard for WAD

cyanide

from 5.2 pg/l to 10.0 ~g/l fior the following streams:

1. West Branch DuPage River

2. Higgins Creek

3. Salt Creek

4. Des Plaines River (in Cook County)

The District

has found that

the existing numerical

chronic

water quality standard of 5.2 ~g/l WAD cyanide assumes that

the receiving stream is capable of supporting a large popula-

tion of the cold water fish species of rainbow trout. These

streams, in fact, do not

support

such populations. Using

USEPA approved procedures, and the fact that rainbow trout

are not indigenous to the waterways in question, a General

Use chronic water quality standard for cyanide of 10.0 ~g/l

WAD cyanide is justified.

With respect to this Petition, three District WRPs will

be directly impacted. They are the John E. Egaa1 James C.

Kirie, and Hanover Park WRPs, all of which discharge to

General Use waters of the state of Illinois. The John E.

Egan WRP discharges to Salt Creek, the James C. Kirie WRP

discharges to Higgins Creek, and the Hanover Park WRP dis-

charges to the West Branch of the DuPage River. All of these

waterways eventually flow into the Des Plaines River.

6

---

Water Reclamation Plant WAD Cyanide Concentrations

Tables 1 and 2 present detailed data on WAD cyanide

concentrations in the raw sewage, and final effluent from the

Hanover Park and James C. Kirie WRPs for 1994 and five months

of 1995. WAD cyanide is the parameter of concern in this

Petition.

As there had been no previous standard for WAD cyanide,

the District had not analyzed the final effluents from its

WRPs for WAD cyanide prior to receiving the new NPDES per-

mits. Therefore, no database was available on WAD cyanide

levels in WRP effluents. It quickly became apparent that

final effluent WAD cyanide concentrations at both WRPs mea-

sured well below 22 ~g/l on a daily basis, but were often

equal to or greater than 5 ~1g/l, making compliance with the

proposed monthly average NPDES permit limits problematic. As

so little information was available on the sources and fate

of WAD cyanide in the wastewater treatment process, discus-

sions were held with the Agency relative to the NPDES permit

limits for WAD cyanide. The Agency stated that the WAD

cyanide effluent limits were water quality driven based upon

the General Use standards f or cyanide, and could not be

changed without Board action. The Agency agreed, however, to

add a Special Condition to the NPDES permits for both WRPs

which changed the effective date for complying with the WAD

cyanide standard from April 1, 1994 to April 1, 1995. This

7

---

METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO

TABLE 1

MONTHLY AVERAGE OF RAW SEWAGE AND FINAL

EFFLUENT WAD CYANIDE AT THE HANOVER PARK WRP

Month

Raw

Sewage

WAD Cyanide

(jig/i)

Final Effluent

WAD Cyanide

(~g/l)

January 1994

1.0

1.0

February

1.0

1.0

March

1.0

1.0

April

1.0

1.0

May

1.0

4.0

June

2.0

5.0

July

2.0

.

6.0°

August

1.0

5.0

September

1.0

5.0

October

1.0

5.0

November

1.0

1.0

December

1.0

1.0

January 1995

1.0

1.0

February

1.0

1.0

March

2.0

2.0

April

2.0

2.0

May 1—18

2.0

5.0

8

---

METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO

TABLE 2

MONTHLY AVERAGES OF RAW SEWAGE AND FINAL

EFFLUENT WAD CYANIDE AT THE JAMES C. KIRIE WRP

.

Month

Raw Sewage

WAD Cyanide

(~g/l)

Final Effluent

WAD Cyanide

(~g/l)

January 1994

2.0

2.0

February

3.0

2.0

March

4.0

.

2.0

April

2.0

2.0

May

1.0

3.0

June.

2.0

°

4.0

July

5.0

4.0

August

.

14.0

.

4.0

September

2.0

3.0

October

1.0

2.0

November

,

2.0

1.0

December

1.0

1.0

January 1995

.

2.0

•

2.0

.

February

3.0

2.0

March

3.0

3.0

April

2.0

.

2.0

May 1-18

3.0

2.0

9

---

was done to allow the District adequate time to assess the

occurrence, fate, treatability, and distribution, of WAD

cyanide throughout the Hanover Park and James C. Kirie WRP

systems.

From September 1993 to the present, the District has

been studying the WAD cyanide issue relative to the Hanover

Park and James C. Kirie WRPs. These studies have involved

the wastewater treatment processes at the WRP5, laboratory

research work, industrial waste monitoring, and literature

searches.

These studies revealed an unexpected result which can be

seen from the WAD cyanide data presented in Tables 1 and 2.

From November through April, when the chlorination/dechlori-

nation system is not in use, the final effluent WAD cyanide

concentrations measured at the Hanover Park WRP (Table 1)

averaged either 1.0

or 2.0 ~g/l each month. The raw sewage

WAD

cyanide

concentrations also averaged either 1.0 or 2.0

~g/l. For May through October when the chlorination/de-

chlorination system is operational, the monthly average final

effluent WAD cyanide concentrations increased to the 4.0-6.0

~g/1 level, even though the raw sewage WAD cyanide concentra-

tions remained at the 1.0 or 2.0 ~g/l level. These monthly

average values were equal to or exceeded the proposed NPDES

permit limit for WAD cyanide of 5.2 ~g/l at the Hanover Park

WRP.

10

---

A similar, though not as pronounced, pattern occurred at

the James C... Kirie WRP (Table 2) where November through April

effluent WAD cyanide concentrations typically averaged either

1.0 or 2.0 ~ig/l versus May through October typical monthly

averages of 3.0 and 4.0 ~g/l.

In the summer of 1994 when the correlation between

chlorination/dechlorination and effluent WAD cyanide concen-

trations was becoming evident, a more comprehensive sampling

program was begun at both WRPs to study the fate of WAD cya-

nide through the wastewater treatment process. This involved

collecting special samples for one month of raw sewage, pri-

mary effluent, secondary effluent, chlorine contact tank

effluent, and dechlorinated effluent, and analyzing them for

WAD cyanide. The results verified that chlorination is

causing an increase in WAD cyanide as measured by the WAD

cyanide analytical methodology.

Efforts Needed to Comply With Existing Board

Regulations, Compliance Alternatives and Costs

As documented above, the District ‘believes that the

Hanover Park and James C. Kirie WRP5 cannot consistently

achieve a monthly average effluent WAD cyanide concentration

of 5.2 and 5.0 ~g/l, respectively, as specified in their

NPDES permits.

In order to reduce effluent WAD cyanide concentrations

to levels which will meet the current standards, three

potential options were identified.

11

---

1. Add an additional treatment process to the WRP

to remove WAD cyanide from the effluent.

2. Reduce the raw sewage loading of WAD cyanide to

each WRP by amending the District’s Industrial

Waste Ordinance relative to cyanide discharges.

3. Replace the existing chlorinatio~i/dech1orina-

tion system with a different disinfection pro-

cess such as ozonation or ultraviolet light.

With

respect

to option 1 above, a review of the techni-

cal literature indicated that no technologically feasible

treatment processes exist for removing WAD cyanide from mu-

nicipal wastewater at the low pg/l levels, which enter these

WRPs.

In respect to option 2, the District has a rigorous

program in place to control discharges from industry in-

cluding those that contain cyanide.

Dedicated continuous monitoring is now being performed

at 69 industries in the north service area. This requires

the District to maintain 83 dedicated automatic samplers in

continuous operation, since some industries have multiple

discharge points.

The District’s dedicated continuous monitoring program

has identified two industrial dischargers of cyanide in the

Hanover Park WRP service area, and six industrial dischargers

of cyanide in the James C. Kirie WRP service area.

12

---

The highest WAD cyanide concentration measured in the

industrial discharges to the Hanover Park WRP tributary

sewers was 4.0 ~g/l, with most values at the 1.0 ~g/l level.

Taking dilution

from the domestic wastewater into’ account,

the industrial contribution of WAD cyanide to the Hanover

Park WRP is insignificant.

For the six companies discharging to the James C. Kirie

WRP, typical WAD cyanide concentrations are in the 0.2 to 0.4

mg/l range, with the highest observed value being 0.76 rng/l.

However, taking flow dilution. into account, the industrial

contribution of WAD cyanide at the James C. Kirie WRP would

only contribute 1.0

to 2.0 ~g/l of WAD’cyanide to the raw

sewage.

Thus, increased industrial waste enforcement activities

would not be a solution to the WAD cyanide problem at these

two WRPs, as maximum effort is currently being expended to

control such discharges

by the District’s Industrial Waste

Division.

With respect to option 3, technically feasible disinfec-

tion alternatives exist as substitutes for chloriñation/de-

chlorination in the wastewater treatment process.

‘

Since Dis-

trict data indicates that the chlorination/dechlorination

process is causing the increase in effluent WAD cyanide, re-

placing this process with an alternate technology may reduce

effluent WAD cyanide concentrations. However, since the

reasons for the increase in WAD cyanide due to chlorination/

13

---

dechlorination are not known, there is no guarantee that an

alternative disinfection process would not also cause similar

increases.

‘

.

The District has developed a cost estimate for replacing

the chlorination/dechlorination system at the Hanover Park

and James C. Kirie WRPs. This cost estimate indicates that

ozonation would be the least costly alternative if the

existing chlorination/dechlorination systems had to be re-

placed. For the Hanover Park WRP an ozone disinfection

system is estimated to have a total construction cost of

$1,294,228, and an annual operating cost of $35,400. The

total annualized construction plus operating cost is

$186,604. For the James C. Kirie WRP an ozone disinfection

system is estimated to have a total construction cost of

$4,405,500, and an annual operating cost of $128,800. The

total annualized capital plus operating cost is $643,493.

Thus, the total cost to the District for replacing the

chlorination/dechlorination system with an ozonation system

would be a construction cost of $5,699,728, and an annual

operating cost of $164,200. The total annualized capital

plus operating cost, for both WRPs would be $830,097. It

should be noted that these costs do not include costs for

replacing the existing chlorination/dechlorination system at

the John E. Egan WRP. However, it is the District’s under-

standing that when the current NPDES permit for the John E.

Egan WRP expires on September 30, 1995, the new permit will

14

---

contain a WAD cyanide effluent limit similar to that of the

Hanover Park and James C. Kirie WRPs. Therefore, the

District anticipates even greater costs than those listed

here f

or

complying

with the existing WAD cyanide standardS.

However, there is no

guarantee that an ozonation system

would not produce increases in WAD cyanide as observed for

chlorination/dechlorination.

The current NPDES permits for the Hanover Park and James

C. Kirie WRPs contain monthly average

WAD cyanide limits

equal to the existing

General Use chronic water quality

stan-

dard, as

no instrearn dilution factor is available. Since the

District anticipates that a similar NPDES permit limit for

WAD cyanide will be imposed at the John E. Egan WRP when its

permit is

renewed, the John E. Egan WRP and Salt Creek are

included in this Petition.

Impact of Site-Specific Rulemaking on the Environment

No qualitative impact on the environment would occur if

the proposed site-specific regulation is adopted since the

waterways in question do not contain rainbow trout. Trout

are not indigenous to these waterways and would not populate

these waterways, even if the existing cyanide standard is

retained. No adverse qualitative effects on the environment

are anticipated if the proposed site-specific regulation is

adopted.

No quantitative impacts on the environment are expected

as a result of adopting

the site-specific regulation as no

15

---

change in District WRP operations would occur. Thus, WRP

effluent quality would remain the same even after the site-

specific regulation is adopted.

Biomonitoring Tests

The District has conducted extensive biomonitoring tests

on WRP effluents as part of an integrated approach consisting

of whole effluent and chemical-specific analyses as a means

of protecting aquatic life and human health. These biomoni-

toring tests give a better picture of the true effect which

effluents. have on the aquatic community than do chemical-

specific data alone. In. 1993 and 1994, 76 biomonitoring

tests were conducted on effluent and upstream receiving water

from the John E. Egan, Hanover Park, and James C. Kirie

WRPs. The data indicate that neither acute nor chronic toxi-

city is associated with the effluents from these three WRP5.

TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR PROPOSED REGULATIONS

The District has identified four factors in its proposal

which it believes

.

significantly distinguishes it from. those

relied on by the Board in the R88-21 rulemaking relative to

WAD cyanide. These are:

1. The indigenous species criteria used in calcu-

lating fish toxicities are not applicable to

the waterways named in the District’s proposal.

16

---

2. Use of WAD cyanide for determining water

quality standards

is not directly related to

toxicity as compared to use of free cyanide.

3. Chlorine interferes with the WAD cyanide test.

4. The regulatory’limits are at or below the limit

of detection.

Each of these factors is discussed in the following

sections.

The Use of Nonindigenous

Species in

Calculating Fish Toxicities

In reviewing the record of the Board’s R88-21 rulemaking

it can be seen that the Board adopted the Agency’s recom-

mendations relative to the General Use water quality stan-

dards for WAD cyanide. The Agency recommendations were based

upon two USEPA documents.

1. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Cyanide

-

1984, EPA—440/5—84—028.

2. Guidelines for Deriving National Water Quality

Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organ-ET?1 w?160 293 m?495 293 l?S?BT?

isms and Their Uses, NTIS, PB85-227049.

Dr. Herbert Allen was retained by the District to review

how the information contained in these two documents was

applied in the R88-21 rulemaking, and how this methodology

relates to the District’s request for an adjusted standard.

Dr. Allen’s findings can be summarized as follows.

Using the cyanide toxicity data presented in the Ambient

17

---

Water Quality Criteria for Cyanide

-

1984, and the

method-

ology specified in

the Guidelines for Deriving National Water

Quality Criteria for the Protection of

Aquatic Organisms and

Their Uses, the Final Chronic Value for cyanide using the

four most sensitive fish species (rainbow trout, brook trout,

yellow perch, and bluegill which are the national default

species) can be calculated to equal 7.32 ~g/1. However, the

Guidelines document states that if the

‘

species Mean Acute

Value of a commercially or recreationally important species

is lower than

the

calculated

Final

Acute

Value, then the

Species Mean Acute

Value can replace the calculated value in

order to provide protection for that one important species.

The R88-21 record indicates that the Agency made the decision

‘to use rainbow trout as the most important species, and

substituted rainbow trout toxicity data for the calculated

Species Mean Acute Value. This Species Mean Acute Value was

then used to calculate a new Final Chronic Value for

cyanide

of 5.2 p.g/l.

The Agency then recommended the 5.2 ~ig/1 value

to the Board, instead of the national default value of 7.32

~g/l contained in the USEPA Guidelines document.

The USEPA Guidelines document allows for the calculation

of

a site-specific toxicity value, if sufficient data exists

for the rivers in

question. The methodology for determining

a site-specific toxicity value is contained in the USEPA

document entitled Guidelines for Deriving Numerical Aquatic

Site-Specific Water Quality Criteria (EPA-600/3-84-099)

.

The

18

---

methodology allows indigenous fish species to be substituted

for the national default four most sensitive species men-

tioned previously. Based upon the allowed USEPA methodology,

the four most sensitive fish species which may actually exist

in the rivers covered

by this Petition are brook trout, black

crappie, bluegill, and yellow perch. Rainbow trout do not

exist in the waters covered by this petition. Using the cya-

nide toxicity data for these four fish species, the calcu-

lated Final Chronic Value for cyanide is 9.799 ~g/l. Thus,

the existing chronic standard for WAD cyanide of 5.2 pg/l is

inappropriate.

It is the position of the District that the use of rain-

bow trout as the sole species for determining a chronic water

quality standard for WAD cyanide in the rivers under question

in this Petition is incorrect due to the fact that rainbow

trout are not indigenous to Salt Creek, Higgins Creek, the

West Branch of the DuPage River, or the Des Plaines River in

Cook County.

For the past 20 years, as part of its environmental

monitoring programs, the District has conducted fish col-

lections in the rivers of Cook County. A total of’18,308

fish composed of 61 species and seven hybrids have been

collected by the District from the Des Plaines River, Salt

Creek, and the DuPage River during the period 1974 through

1994. Fishing gear used included boat and backpack electro-

fishers, 15-foot and 25-foot minnow seines with 3/16-inch

19

---

square mesh, and an electric seine. The results of ‘these

fish collections are summarized as follows:

1. Des Plaines River: 15,392 fish composed of 57

species and 4 hybrids were collected from the

Des Plaines River and its tributaries in Lake,

Cook, DuPage, and Will Counties during 1976,

1977, 1978, 1979, 1992, and 1993.

2. Salt Creek: 865 fish composed of 18 species

and two hybrids were collected from Salt Creek

and its tributaries in eastern DuPage County

and north and central Cook County during 1974,

1975, and 1976.

3. .DuPage River: 2,051 fish composed of 39 spe-

cies and seven hybrids were collected from the

DuPage River, including the east and west

branches, and tributaries

contained

in DuPage

County and northwestern Will County during 1976

and 1994.

Neither rainbow trout, nor, any other species of trout,

were ever present in any of these collections.

The Des Plaines River, Salt Creek, and the DuPage River

are sluggish low gradient warm water streams. Warm water

streams have more severe fluctuations of water temperatu’re,

chemical conditions, water volume, current velocity, and

‘bottom contours than do cold water trout streams. Warm water

20

---

streams are generally more turbid and deeper than cold water

trout streams.

Cold water streams are suitable for trout while warm

water streams are not. Trout require cold water streams con-

taining riffles with good water and oxygen flow through the

gravel on the stream bottom f or embryo survival. Temperature

influences fish

by controlling reproductive cycles, feeding

and metabolic rates, swimming performance, growth rates, and

distribution. Temperatures below or above the general range

of

10°C to 20°C have unfavorable consequences on the de-

velopment and growth of trout.

The Des Plaines River, Salt Creek, and the DuPage River

have summer temperatures exceeding 20°C and contain only warm

water fish species. The silty deposition of sluggish low

gradient streams also prevents good water and oxygen flow for

trout embryo survival. No species of trout was ever found in

any of the collections from the Des Plaines River, Salt

Creek, or the DuPage River. The habitat in these streams and

their tributaries is not suitable for trout to successfully

maintain sustainable populations.

This same general position has recently been affirmed by

the Agency, as evidenced by the Agency’s recent testimony be-

fOre the Board in the R94-1 rulemaking. In the Agency’s tes-

timony, the Agency clearly stated that it is improper to use

cold water species toxicity data

,

in calculating General Use

water quality standards for ammonia nitrogen. The Agency

21

---

also stated that cold water species are not resident in

Illinois waters except for Lake Michigan.

The District believes that the above information clearly

demonstrates that the existing General Use chronic water

quality standard for

WAD

cyanide was based upon factors

significantly different

than those relating to the District’s

situation.

Use of WAD Cyanide Instead of Free Cyanide

for Determining Water Quality Standards

The R88-21 rulemaking established General Use water

quality standards for cyanide based upon the measurement of

WAD cyanide. However, the USEPA AltLbient Water Quality

Criteria for Cyanide

-

1984 states that:

.free cyanide would provide a more scientifi-

cally correct basis upon which to establish cr1-

°

teria for cyanide.”

Free cyanide is defined as HCN

+

CN, whereas WAD cya-

nide is defined as HCN

+

CN

+

weak metal cyanide complexes.

Thus,

it is clear that WAD cyanide is a conservative measure

of

the truly toxic form of cyanide, i.e., free cyanide, and

thus overestimates its presence.

Unfortunately, there is no USEPA-approved method for the

analysis of free cyanide. Therefore, it is understandable

that the Board chose WAD cyanide as a regulatory measure.

However, the District requests that the Board take this added

22

---

measure ‘of conservatism into account when evaluating the

District’s request

for a site-specific rulemaking.

Chlorine Interference in the WAD Cyanide Test

As discussed above, the District believes that chlorina-

tion of WRP effluents causes analytical interferences which

result in increased WAD cyanide concentrations, as determined

by the accepted WAD cyanide analytical method. During 1994

the District conducted a number of bench-scale laboratory

experiments in an attempt to determine whether the chlorine

interference was strictly a methodology related problem, or

if the chlorine was actually affecting the cyanide speciation

in the WRP effluent. The District also retained Dr. Richard

Luthy to visit the District’s laboratory and evaluate the WAD

cyanide analytical procedures.

The data from these laboratory experiments indicates

that chlorination/dechlorination

interferes with

the analyti-

cal test and causes an increase in WAD cyanide concentrations

in some cases, but the magnitude, of the increase

in the

laboratory did not always correspond to the field data ob-

served at the District WRPs. The data also shows that there

wasno cyanide contamination in any of the chemicals being

used at the two WRPs.

The District believes that this unanticipated chlorine

interference at low WAD cyanide concentrations was not known

to the District, the Agency, or the Board during the R88-21

23

---

Rulemaking, and requests that this problem be taken into

account when

the Board reviews this Petition.

Setting Regulatory Limits at or Below the Limit of Detection

The current General Use chronic water quality standard

f or WAD cyanide is 5.2 pg/l. Standard Methods for the

Examination of Water

and Wastewater, 18th Edition, lists the

limit of detection of the WAD

cyanide analysis as 5 to 20

pg/i depending on the sample matrix. Thus, by adopting the

5.2

pg/i limit, the ‘Board unwittingly placed a considerable

burden on the District to accurately analyze WAD cyanide in

the effluents from its WRP5, perhaps beyond the limits of

existing laboratory analytical methodology.

Dr. Richard Luthy, who is the chairman of the Standard

Methods Committee on Cyanide Analysis will be discussing the

difficulties of accurately analyzing WAD cyanide at these low

concentrations. In particular, it should be noted that the

precision of the WAD cyanide analysis at the limit of detec-

tion is

±

8.0 pg/i. Thus, at the lower limit of detection of

5 pg/i, the true value could be between -3.0 and 13.0 pg/i,

and at the upper limit of detection of

20 pg/l, the true

value could be between 12.0 and 28.0

pg/l.

For this reason,

a regulatory limit of 5.2 pg/i is not meaningful.

Indeed, the District believes that a reasonable conclu-

sion here would be that even the more conservative 7.32 pg/i

WAD cyanide value, which is a calculated value designed to

24

---

protect rainbow trout, falls below

the accepted analytical

range of precision of

±

8.0 pg/i.

In early 1994, as the District gained experience with

the Standard Methods WAD cyanide procedure, it became clear

that with our sample matrix, some modifications of the

Standard Methods procedure would be required to allow the

District to analyze for WAD cyanide at concentrations below 5

pg/i. This methodology was reviewed by Dr. Luthy when he

visited our laboratory, and as he will testify, he approves

of our procedures.

It is the District’s understanding that no other munici-

pal wastewater dischargers in the state of Illinois are re-

quired to achieve a detection limit below 10 pg/i for WAD

cyanide. The District believes that requiring the develop-

ment of special analytical methodology to demonstrate com-

pliance with an inappropriate regulatory limit places an

undue burden on its resources as compared to other dis-

chargers in

the state, and is a sign.ificant factor to take

into account.

Also, while the District is disappointed that it is

being singled out to develop methodology to measure WAD cya-

nide concentrations below 10 pg/i, we believe that a WAD

cyanide limit of 10 pg/i would be more meaningful for the

following reasons:

25

---

1. Dr.

Allen’s calculated

chronic value of 9.799

pg/i, which is indistinguishable from 10 pg/i,

will protect

all species except rainbow trout.

2. Dr.

Luthy’s determination that

at the detection

limit (5-20 pg/i) for WAD cyanide the precision

is ±8.0 pg/i.

3. The District’s demonstration, supported by Dr.

Luthy, that chlorine interference is signifi-

cant for WAD cyanide measurements below 10

pg/i.

4. The analytical burden of constantly trying to

measure WAD cyanide concentrations below 10

pg/i.

5. The fallacy that reported WAD cyanide values of

10.0 pg/i, obtained by existing methodology,

provide any meaningful basis for technical

discussions relative to indigenous aquatic

species toxicity.

6. The Agency’s affirmation that cold water spe-

cies such as rainbow trout are not indigenous

to the water bodies in th’is Petition.

7. The value of 10.0 pg/i more properly target,s

the aquatic species of concern in the affected

waterways.

Thus, notwithstanding the fact that the District is

prepared to be

cooperative regarding analytical methodology

26

---

development, the need for a WAD cyanide limit of 10.0 pg/l

is not warranted.

Summary Comments

The District has an outstanding record in providing high.

quality wastewater treatment to the residents of Cook County.

The addition of an’ extremely conservative WAD cyanide limit

to the NPDES permits, for two of the District’s WRPs, has

created

a situation where potential permit violations could

occur even though effluent quality remains high, and reported

WAD cyanide values would not endanger indigenous species.

This could result in an unnecessary expenditure of taxpayer

dollars for unneeded modifications to the WRPs.

The District believes that this Petition clearly demon-

strates that the existing General Use chronic water quality

standard for WAD cyanide was promulgated based upon incom-

plete and overly conservative assumptions which do not relate

to the District’s true situation. The District believes that

it has provided ample justification in its Petition to demon-

strate that it is technically feasible and economically rea-

sonable, for a grant by the Board of a site-specific regula-

tion, and respectfully asks the Board to so grant its

Petition.

27

---

TESTIMONY OF DR. HERBERT E. ALLEN

IN THE MATTER OF

R95-14 (SITE SPECiFIC RULEMAKING)

A PROPOSAL BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

JUNE 6, 1995

My name is Dr. Herbert Allen. I am testifying on behalfof the Metropolitan Water

Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, who have retained me as a consultant on this project. I

am Professor ofEnvironmental Engineering at the University of Delaware. I received my Ph.D.

from the University ofMichigan in 1974. Prior to joining the faculty of the University of

Delaware I served on the faculties of the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago and Drexel

University in Philadelphia. I have an active research program concerned with the fate and effects

of pollutants in water, sediment and soils. A major thrust of my programs has been directed

toward the development ofinformation that can be used to establish appropriate environmental

criteria and standards. My research, and that of many others, has shown that the total or the

dissolved fraction of a pollutant is not equivalent to the fraction which is bioavailable to aquatic

organisms, thus producing a toxic response. My research has been supported by over fifty grants

and has resulted in the publication of over 115 books and papers. Since 1984 I have been a

member of the research team concerned with the development of national sediment quality

criteria. I head a consortium of eight universities in a project titled “Bioavailability, Trophic

Transfer and Fate of Pollutants in the Aquatic Environment” that is funded by the U.S.

Environmental

Protection Agency’s Office ofWater. A principal objective is the development of

the information that can be used to

develop a water quality criteria for copper based on

bioavailable forms of the metal. I have frequently served as a consultant

to industrial and

governmental groups on

water quality issues.

My activities for the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago have

included reviewing the speciation (or chemical form) of cyanide in water and the effects of this

speciation on the toxicity of cyanide to aquatic organisms. I have used the data presented in the

---

Testimony of Herbert E.

Allen

page 2

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Cyanide

-

1984

(EPA-440/5-84-028) and the procedures described in the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency’s Guidelines forDeriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection

of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses which is published as NTIS PB 85-227049 to derive

appropriate water quality standards for cyanide for the protection of aquatic life in the West

Branch of the DuPage River, Higgins Creek, Salt Creek, and the Des Plaines River. This

testimony summarizes the information contained in my report to the Metropolitan Water

Reclamation District ofGreater Chicago which is presented as Attachment 10 in the District’s

Petition.

Cyanide, in the forms of cyanide

ion,

CN, and hydrogen cyanide or hydrocyanic acid,

HCN, is termed free cyanide. Cyanide reacts with metal ions to form complexes, the stability of

which varies with the metal. Some, such as the zinc and cadmium complexes are virtually

completely dissociated in water while the iron complexes are virtually non-dissociated. The

cyanide complexes of other metals, such as nickel, are partly dissociated in natural waters and

the degree of dissociation The toxicity of cyanide species to aquatic organisms has been the

subject of a number of studies. The U.S. EPA has concluded in the Criteria Document that “The

apparent toxicity to aquatic organisms of most simple cyanides and metallocyanide complexes is

due mainly to the presence of HCN

...

Most metallocyanide complexes are not very toxic.” The

Criteria Document states “EPA believes that a measurement such as free cyanide would provide

a more scientifically correct basis upon which to establish criteria for cyanide. The criteria were

developed on this basis.” Because there is no EPA approved method for the measurement of free

cyanide implementation has been on the basis of other measurements of cyanide such as total

cyanide or Weak Acid Dissociable (WAD) cyanide. Because these measurements include forms

other

than free

cyanide, they overestimate the concentration of bioavailable cyanide and thus are

conservative measurements.

In the Criteria Document the National Water Quality Criterion for cyanide was developed

following the Guidelines. All aquatic toxicological data were collected and subjected to a data

---

Testimony of HerbertE. Allen

page 3

quality assurance review. Those which do not meet requirements were not included. The

requirement of a minimum data base in the Genus Mean Acute Values (GMAVs) of at least one

species of freshwater animal in at least eight ofthe required different families was met. GMAVs

for freshwater organisms meeting data quality requirements were computed and listed in rank

order, from high to low, as shown in the following table.

The Final Chronic Value (FCV) is usually based on the acute toxicity data, which are

used to establish the Final Acute Value (FAV). The studies in which both an acute and a chronic

toxicity have been determined are used to establish an acute-chronic ratio. The FCV is

determined by dividing the FAV by the acute-chronic ratio. The acute-chronic ratio for cyanide

is 8.568.

Genus

Species

Rank

Mean Acute

Species

.

Mean Acute

Value

Value

(~.tgIL)

(~LgIL)

15

2,490

Midge,

Tanytarsus dissimilis

2,490

14

2,326

Isopod,Asellus

communis

2,326

13

432

Snail,

Physa heterostropha

432

i2426Stonefly~Pteronarcys

dorsata

426

11

318

,

Goldfish,

Carassius auratus

318

10

,

,

167

,

Amphipod,

Gammarus pseudolimnaeu.s

167

9

147

Guppy,Poecilia reticulata

147

8

125.1

Fathead minnow,

Pimephales promelas

125.1

7

123.6

Cladoceran,

Dàphnia magna

160

ciadoceran,

Daphniapulex

95.55

6

102

Largemouthbass,Micropterussalmoides

102

4

99.28

Bluegill,

Lepomis macrochirus

99.28

3

92.64

Yellow perch,

Percaflaves~ens

,

92.64

2

85.80

Brook

trout,

Salvelinusfontinalis

85.80

1

63.45

Rainbow trout,

Salmo gairdneri

44.73

Atlantic salmon,

Salmo salar

90.00

---

Testimony ofHerbert E. Allen

page

4

The FAV is an estimate of the concentration of the material that corresponds to a

cumulative probability of 0.05 in the acute toxicity values for the genera with which acceptable

acute tests have been conducted on

the material. The FAV is computed in the following manner:

a.

The GMAVs are ordered from high to low.

b. Ranks, R, are assigned to the GMAVs from “1” for the lowest to “N”

for the

highest.

If two

or more GMAVs

are identical, they are arbitrarily assigned

successive ranks.

c. The cumulative probability, P, for each GMAV is calculated as RJ(N+1).

d. The four GMAVs which have cumulative probabilities closest to 0.05 are

selected.

If there are less than 59 GMAVs, these will always be the four lowest

GMAVs.

e. Using the selected GMAVs and Ps, calculate

Z((ln GMAV)2)

—

((~(ln GMAV))2/4)

~(P)

((~(~))2/)

L

=

(~(ln GMAV)

-

s(~(~)))/4

A

=

s(~Jö~ö~)

+

L

FAV=eA

Using this procedure, I have calculated the FAV to be 62.680 j.tg/L as shown in the

following table. Dividing this value by the acute-chronic ratio of 8.568 gives a FCV of 7.316

jig/L, which represents the National Crition that would be obtained by applying the proceduere

described in the Guidelines.

For the development of the Final Acute Value, the Guidelines document states “However,

in some cases, if the Species Mean Acute Value of a commercially or recreationally important

species is lower

than the calculated Final Acute Value, then that Species Mean Acute Value

replaces

the calculated Final Acute Value in order

to provide protection for that important

---

Testimony of

Herbert

E. Allen

page 5

species.” In the case of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s development of a National

Water Quality Criterion for Cyanide for the Protection ofAquatic Life, the FAV of 44.73 p.g/L

for rainbow trout has been used in replacement of the 62.68 ~.tg/Lthat is calculated by the above

procedure. This results in the FCV being lowered from 7.32 to 5.22 p.g/L. The 5.22 value is for

the protection of rainbow trout and other salmonids.

Site-specific criteria can be developed by modification of the National Criteria

(Guidelines for Deriving Numerical Aquatic Site-Specific Water Quality Criteria by Modifying

National Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory

-

Duluth. EPA-600/3-84-099. PB85-121 101). The same procedure described above for the

calculation of National Criterion is followed, but non-resident species are excluded from the

calculation. In the present case, the criterion for cyanide was recalculated excluding rainbow

Bluegill,

Lepomis macrochirus

Yellow perch,

Percaflavescens

Brook trout,

Salvelinusfontinalis

Rainbow

trout,

Salmo gairdneri

N=total number of Mean Acute Values

(MAY) in data set

=

15

Rank

CMAV

4

99.28

3

92.64

2

85.80

1

63.45

(In GMAV)

21. 14109

2

20.5093 1

19.82047

17

.22459

SUM

78.69547

P=Ri(N÷1)

0.25000

0.18750

0.12500

0.06250

0.62500

SQRT (P)

0.50000

0

.43301

0.35355

0.25000

1.53657

s2=

S~

L=

In GMAV

4.5979

4.5287

4.4520

4.1503

17.7289

3.3584

1.8326

3.7283

4.1380

All data

for rank

1 thru4

species

62.680

31.340

8.568

7~316

FAV

=

CMC=

acute/chronic ratio

=

FCV

=

FAV

lowered to

protect

rainbow trout

44.730

22.365

8.568

5.221

---

r.

Testimony ofHerbert E. Allen

page~6

trout from the data base. Black crappie, Pomoxis nigromaculatus, is added as the fourth species

used in the calculation.

Although

neither yellow

perch nor bluegill are present in these receiving

waters, they

were retained in the data base to meet the Guideline’s minimum data base

requirement that at least eight

different families be included. The results of this calculation,

which is presented below shows that the concentration ofcyanide that would be protective of the

fish populations in the receiving waters covered by this Site-specific Rulemaking is 9.799 ~Ig/L,

expressed as free cyanide. Because free cyanide is only a portion of WAD cyanide, use of

WAD, rather than free cyanide provides a conservative safety factor.

Based on my review and calculations, I believe that a

Site-specific Water Quality

Criterion, for the protection of aquatic life in the West Branch of the DuPage River, Higgins

Creek, Salt Creek, and

the

Des Plaines River, should be established forcyanide. Using the

Black crappie,

Pomoxis nigromaculatus

Bluegill,

Lepomis macrochirus

Yellow perch,

Percaflavescens

Brook trout,

Salvelinusfontinalis

N=total number of

Mean Acute Values

(MAY) in data set

=14

Rank

GMAV

4

102.00

3

99.28

2

92.64

1

85.80

(InGMAV)

21.39037

2

21.14109

20.5093 1

19.82047

SUM

82.86125

P=RJ(N+

1)

0.26667

0.20000

0.13333

0.06667

0.66667

SQRT (P)

0.5 1640

0.44721

0.36515

0.25820

1.58696

s=

L=

A=

In GMAV

4.6250

4.5979

4.5287

4.4520

18.2037

0.4849

0.6964

4.2746

4.4304

All data

for rank

1 thru4

species

83.961

41.98

1

8.568

9.799

FAV

=

CMC =

acute/chronic ratio

=

FCV

=

---

Testimony of Herbert E. Allen

page 7

calculation presented above, this value

should be 9.799 p..g/L measured as free cyanide. Because

it is likely that cyanide measurements will be WAD cyanide which represents more cyanide

species than free cyanide, a criterion of 10.0 jtg/L of WAD cyanide will provide an acceptable

margin of safety.

---

Testimony of

Dr. Richard G. Luthy

in the Matter of R95-14 (Site-Specific Rulemaking)

A Proposal Before the Illinois Pollution Control Board

June

5,

1995

My name is Richard G. Luthy. I am testifying on behalf of the Metropolitan Water

Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, who has retained me as a consultant on this project.

Professional Experience and Qualifications

I am an environmental engineering educator and researcherwith more than twenty years

experience. Currently I am Professor and Head of the Department of Civil and Environmental

Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA. In addition to academic

responsibilities, I have consulted on a range ofwaste treatment and remediation issues for both the

public and private sectors. My research interests in environmental engineering include

physicochemical processes for industrial waste treatment, rernediation of contaminated soil using

physicochemical and microbial processes, and applied aquatic chemistiy. My students and I have

received awards for noteworthy research, including that for cyanide measurement and chemistry in

wastewaters. I am a past Chair of the Gordon Research Conference on Environmental Sciences

and a past Pi-esident of the Association of Environmental Engineering Professors. I received a

B.S. in chemical engineering, and M.S. and Ph.D. in environmental engineering, from the

University of California, Berkeley. I am a registered Professional Engineer in Pennsylvania and a

Diplomate of the American Academy of Environmental Engineers. I have several on the Cyanide

Joint Task Group for

Standard Methods for the Examination cmd Wastewater

since 1975, and as

Chairman of the Cyanide Joint Task Group since 1985, including the preparation of the section on

cyanide for the 1992 Eighteenth Edition of

Standard MethotLc.

I have been asked to. provide testimony on cyanide analytical methods including what

species may constitute “free cyanide’, and how this relates to measurement of “weak acid

dissociahie cyanide”, and what are analytical detection limits for cyanide measurement and possible

interferences resulting from chlorination.

Cyanide Speciation and Measurement

“Cyanide” refers to all the cyanide groups in compounds that can be determined as cyanide

(HCN or CN-) by the methods used. The cyanide compound will complex with various metals,

including ferrous and ferric iron, cadmium, copper, lead, zinc, etc. The toxicity to fish to most

---

2

complex cyanides is mainly

attributable to

HCN, not the metallocyanide complexes. Iron cyanide

complexes are very stable and not materially toxic unless subject to photolysis.

Thus, there are different degrees of toxicity among cyanide compounds. As stated in

Standard Methods:

“Regulatory distinction between cyanide complexed

with

iron and that hound

in less stable complexes, as well as between the complexed cyanide and free cyanide or HCN, can,

therefore he justified”

(Standards Methods,

1992, pp. 4-19).

At present, there is no reliable technique to measure free cyanide, i.e., HCN plus CN, in

wastewater. In principle a cyanide-selective electrode could he used, hut the electrode is subject to

many interferences. Thus, for example, the cyanide-selective electrode is recommended only for

use in analyzing the absorption liquid following sample distillation. Further, the cyanide-selective

electrode method is not suitable for samples having less than about 50 ~ig/L CN. My own personal

experience with the cyanide-selective electrode is that it is unreliable in many instances, and may

become contaminated easily in routine analytical work with wastewater samples. In theory, ion

chromatography may also he used to differentiate between free and complexed cyanide. However,

as yet, robust ion chromatographic analytical techniques for cyanide are not available for routine

wastewater monitoring.

For these reasons, the weak acid dissociahie cyanide procedure is often taken as an

alternative to free cyanide measurement. This method reports both free cyanide and potentially

‘dissociahie metallocyanide complexes. The weak acid dissociahie cyanide methodology employs

sample distillation in a slightly acidified medium. The method does not recover cyanide from

strong metallocyanide complexes, such as iron-cyanide complexes. Weak, metal-cyanide

complexes are reported, e.g., cadmium, lead, and zinc.

In summary, weak acid dissociable cyanide reports both certain labile metal-cyanide

complexes, as well as free cyanide. Therefore, the weak acid dissociahie method is a conservative

measure of free cyanide.

Cyanide Detection Limit and Precision

The common procedure for the determination of “weak acid dissociable cyanide” entails the

liberation of HCN from slightly acidified solution with reflux distillation and purging with air,

Standard Methods,

Section 4500-CN I. Cyanide in the absorption solution is then analyzed by

either a titrimetric, colorimetric, or cyanide-selective electrode procedure. The most sensitive of

these analyses is the colorimetric method. “The colorimetric method is suitable for cyanide

concentrations to a lower limit of5 to 20 jig/L”

(Standard Methods,

pg. 4-20).

---

3

The overall precision and single-operator precision for the determination of weak acid

dissociahie cyanide

in

selected water matricies with colorimetric analysis is discussed in

Standard

Methods,

pg. 4-30, wherein the precision is the measure of the degree of agreement among

replicate analyses of a sample. The methodology described in

Standard Methods

(pg. 1-9) for the

determination of precision is referenced to the American Society forTesting and Materials,

“Standard Practice for Determination of Precision and Bias of Methods ofCommittee D- 19 on

Water”, Designation D2777-77, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, 1977. According to these procedures,

the

precision

is computed from the standard deviation of replicate tests obtained by several

cooperating laboratories. The results of a single operator should agree more closely than those

between operators at. laboratories.

The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District ofGreater Chicago has been required to

monitor free cyanide in effluent, for which the discharge limit is

5

~igIL.

The method of analysis is

weak acid dissociahie cyanide, for which

Standards Methods

reports

the single operator precision

for the determination of weak acid dissociahie cyanide to he about 8 jig/L for low-level samples in

the range of 5-10 pg/L.

Thus,

one may expect that the analysis ofsamples in this range may show

cor~siderahlevariability. It would

he improper to ascribe

great significance to sample analyses in

this range. As a general rule, the lower detection limit

of a method is taken at about three times the

standard deviation of low-level samples

(Standard Methods,

pg. 1-11),

which in this case would

be in the range of 20 jig/L or greater.

In summary, it may he expected that the determination ofweak acid dissociahie cyanide

would exhibit considerable variability for measurements in the range of 5 ~g!L. It would be

inappropriate to use such data for strict assessment for purposes of regulation and compliance.

Cyanide Measurement by the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

This confirms that I have visited the District’s laboratory and reviewed the methodology for

analysis of total cyanide and weak acid dissociahie cyanide. In addition, I have reviewed the

District’s data for the determination of both total cyanide and weak acid dissociahie cyanide. I have

concluded that the District is performing the analyses correctly in accordance with accepted

methods.

I

have received the District’s data regarding

the etiects of chlorination and dechlorination on

the determination of weak acid dissociahie cyanide. It is demonstrated that some relationship is

observed between chlorination and weak acid dissociahie cyanide In effluent, but the cause for this

effect is unknown at this time.

---

ATTACHMENT II

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

February 1, 1996

IN THE MP~TTER OF:

PETITION OF THE

METROPOLITAN WATER

)

R95-14

RECL1~MATIONDISTRICT OF GREATER

)

(Site-Specific

CHICAGO FOR SITE-SPECIFIC WATER

)

Rulemaking

-

Water)

QUALITY

REGULATION FOR CYANIDE

(~iaendments to 35 Ill.

Adm. Code

)

303 and 304)

Adopted Rule.

Final Action.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by R.C. Fleinal):

This matter comes before the Board upon a proposal to amend

the Board’s water quality regulations for cyanide filed by the

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

(District)

.

The District requests that the existing General Use

chronic standard (CS) for weak acid dissociable (WAD) cyanide be

changed from 5.2 j.ig/L to 10 ~tg/Las applied to the West Branch of

the DuPage River, Higgins Creek, Salt Creek, and. the Des Plaines

River within Cook County.

The Board’s responsibility in this matter arises from the

Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (1994)

The Board is charged therein to “determine, define and implement

the environmental control standards applicable in the State. of

IllinOis” (415 ILCS 5/5(b))

.

More generally, the Boar.d’s

rulemaking charge is based on the system of checks and balances

integral to Illinois environmental governance: the Board bears

responsibility for the rulemaking and principal adjudicatory

functions; the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)

has primary responsibility for administration of the Act and the

Board’s regulations, including today’s proposed regulation.

Today the Board adopts the amendment as final and sends the

amendment to the Administrative Code Division of the office of

Secretary of State for publication and assignment of an effective

date pursuant to Section 5 of the Illinois Administrative

Procedure Act (5 ILCS 100/5—40(d) (1994)).

---

2

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The District filed its proposal on April 28, 1995. By order

of May 4, 1995 the Board accepted the proposal for hearing.

A public hearing was held before hearing officer Audrey

Lozuk-Lawless in Chicago on June 30, 1995. The District

presented the testimony of Dr. Cecil Lue—Hing, Director of

Research and Development at the District; Dr. Richard G.. Luthy,

Professor and Head of the Department of Civil and Environmental

Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University; and Dr. Herbert Allen,

Professor of Environmental Engineering at the University of

Delaware.

Dr. Lue-Hing presented an overview of the District’s

petition, including discussion of the existing WAD cyanide

standard and studies the District has undertaken of that

standard. Dr. Lue-Hing additionally addressed the economic

impact to the District and the water quality of the rivers

impacted by the proposed new standard.

Dr. Luthy address~edthe methodology for WAD cyanide

analysis, including the precision and accuracy of the WAD cyanide

test. Dr. Allen addressed the methodologies for determining a

WAD cyanide CS.

In addition to the hearing testimony, seven public comments

(PC) were filed by Chicago Metal Finishers Institute (PC #1),

Illinois Association of Wastewater Agencies (PC #2)

,

the District

(PC

#3, #5, and #7), and the Agency (PC #4 and #6)

.

All comments

support adoption of the District’s proposal.

By order of August 24, 1995 the Board adopted the District’s

proposal’ for first notice. First notice publication occurred

at 19

Illinois

Register 12583 (September 8, 1995)

By order of December 7, 1995 the Board adopted the

District’s proposal for second notice2

.

The matter was

The proposal as adopted for first notice contained several

modifications relative to the proposal as originally filed with

the Board. The basis for making these modifications is discussed

in the Board’s first notice opinion of August 24 at p. 7—8.

2

The second notice proposal contained several

modifications

relative to the proposal as presented at first

notice. These modifications and their justification are

discussed in the Board’s second notice opinion of December 7,

1995 at p. 8-9. The principal modification was striking of

---

3

accordingly filed with the Joint Committee on Administrative

Rules (JCAR)

.

On January 23, 1996

JCAR

voted no objection

to

adoption of the proposal.

BACKGROUND

The District is a unit of government with jurisdiction

within part of Cook County, Illinois.

Among the duties of the

District is operation of water reclamation plants (WRPs), which,

as part of their normal activities,

produce discharges to local

waterways.

The Board has established water quality standards for the

streams of the State, including streams within the area served by

the District. Among these standards are two standards for

cyanide3 that apply to the General Use Waterways to which the

District discharges. These are a chronic standard (CS) with a

value of 5.2 p.g/L and an acute standard (AS) of 22 ~tg\L. The

parameter to be measured in both cases is WAD cyanide, identified

by the STORET number 00718.

At issue in the instant proceedings are three of the

District’s seven WRPs and the General Use Water Quality streams

to which they discharge. These are:

WRP

Receiving Stream

ADF*

Hanover Park

West Branch DuPage River

8.87

John E. Egan

Salt Creek

24.5

James C. Kirie Higgins Creek

31.8

*

(ADF

=

Average 1994 daily flow in million gallons per day)

Each of the three receiving streams has a 7—day, 10-year low

flow of zero at the point of discharge. The three receiving

streams are tributary to a fourth stream of interest, the Des

Plaines River.

In 1993 the Agency issued renewed National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for the Hanover Park

304.201(c), a subsection observed by the Agency to be obsolete

(PC #6)

~ These standards are found at 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 302.208 (d)

They were adopted in Board proceeding R88-21(A) (In the matter

of: Amendments to Title 35, Subtitle C (Toxics Control)),

effective February 13, 1990.

---

4

and James C. Kirie WRPs. In these permits the Agency for the

first time included numerical

effluent limits based on the

cyanide water quality standards4

.

These effluent limits for the

two plants are 5.2 and 5.0 ~tg/L, respectively,

measured as

monthly average WAD cyanide, and 22 p.g/L measured as daily

maximum WAD cyanide.

The NPDES cyanide limits were set equal to the cyanide CS,

in keeping with the permit-writing practice applicable to streams

that have 7-day, 10-year low flows of zero.

Prior to the 1993 issuance of the NPDES permits at issue,

the District had not conducted routine analysis of effluent

cyanide.

However, analyses conducted subsequently at both the

Hanover Park and James C. Kirie WRPs have suggested to the

District that a 5 ~tg\Lmonthly average5 of WAD cyanide would

often be equaled or exceeded. In this circumstance the District

believes that compliance with the monthly averages currently

expressed in the permits is problematic. The District believes

that the solution lies in examination of the rationale for the

cyanide General Use CS, and bases the instant petition on that

examination.

JUSTIFICATION FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

The District has identified four factors that it believes

giveThese technicalare:

justification for a CS standard of 10 p.g/L6

1. The indigenous species used in calculating

fish toxicities are not applicable to the

waterways named in the District’s proposal.

~ Upon petition from the District the Agency has set the

effective date for the cyanide limits to October 1, 1996.

~ The District believes that it would have no difficulty

complying with the 22 ~.Lg/Ldaily limits.

6

This value is expressed in the record both as 10 p.g/L and

10.0 ~tg/L. The Agency recommends (PC #4 at ¶6), and the Board

agrees, that in view of concerns regarding precision of WAD

cyanide analyses, 10 p.g/L is the preferred form

---

5

2.

Use of

WAD

cyanide for determining water

quality standards is not directly related to

toxicity as compared to use of free cyanide.

3.

Chlorine interferes with the WAD cyanide

test.

4.

The regulatory limits are at or below the

limit of detection.

The Board will address each of these in turn.

Use of Indigenous Species

Determination of AS and CS water quality standards is

accomplished by a well-established

procedure’ that involves

consideration of the toxicity of the substance in question to a

range of aquatic organisms.

In fresh-water environments such as

those of concern here, the procedures and cyanide data base are

such that the four fish species most sensitive to cyanide

determine the calculated standards~

The current cyanide CS standard of 5.2 p.g/L was established

based upon a calculation that included toxicities

to rainbo~i

trout, brook trout, yellow perch, and bluegill as the four

species in

question. However, the District observes that rainbow

trout, which is the most sensitive of the four species to

cyanide, are not indigenous to the District’s waterways.

The District notes that rainbow trout have never been

observed in any of the extensive fish collections made by the

District. (Proposal at p. 45—51: Tr. at 25.) Moreover, the

District observes that rainbow trout, which are a coldwater fish

The, procedures are given in Guidelines’ for Deriving

Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of

Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses, NTIS PB8S-227049. Similar

procedures are present in the Board’s regulations at 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 302.Subpart F: Procedures for Determining Water Quality

Criteria.

8 Application of the procedures, including selection of data

and calculations using the data to produce the CS values

discussed herein, is detailed in the testimony of Dr. Allen at

Tr. 35-42 and Exh. 2. The Agency has independently undertaken

the analysis, and confirms the results obtained by Dr. Allen.

(Tr. at 54.)

---

6

species, are intolerant of the warmwater environments at issue

here. (Proposal at p. 50-54.)

If rainbow trout are not included in the cyanide CS

calculation, the four most sensitive species become the four

fishes: brook trout9

,

yellow perch, bluegill, and black crappie.

When these four species are used, the calculated CS value for

cyanide becomes 9.799 ~.tg/L.(Tr. at 41-42; Exh. 2 at 6.) The

District recommends that this value, rounded to 10 p.g/L, be the

‘CS applicable in the District’s waterways.

The Agency agrees that rainbow trout are not a species

indigenous to the District’s waterways. (Tr. at 62-63.) The

Agency further observes that excluding rainbow trout from the CS

calculation for the streams at issue is consistent with federal

guidance and that the ‘resultant cyanide CS of 10 p.g/L is

protective of existing and expected aquatic life. (PC #4 at ¶2,.)

WAD Cyanide Toxicity

Cyanide occurs in natural aquatic environments in a number

of forms.. Among these are HCN, CN, and complexes of cyanide

with metals (e.g., ferrocyanide)

.

The WAD cyanide measurement

procedure measures all three of these forms. However, it is

generally recognized that only the first two forms, HCN and CN

(collectively called free cyanide), significantly contribute to

the toxicity of cyanide. (Tr. at 44.) Thus, analyses of WAD

cyanide overestimates the toxicity of the cyanide in direct

proportion to the amount of metallocyanide complexes present in

any sample.

This problem would be eliminated if free cyanide could be

measured directly.: However, there currently is no approved

method for analysis of free cyanide in natural samples. (Tr. at

29, 45; Exh. 3 at 2.) Thus, analysis of WAD cyanide must be used

in default.

The District observes that for these reasor~s, WAD cyanide is

a conservative measure of cyanide toxicity. (Tr. at 29.)

Nevertheless, at the low levels of metals and cyanide in the

District’s effluent, there should be little difference between

~ At hearing it was noted that brook trout do not occur in the

waterways at issue, and that yellow perch are rare (Tr. at 51—54).

Nevertheless, no suggestion has been made that these species also

be excluded from the CS calculation; if brook trout are excluded,

the calculated CS would be 10.9 ~.Lg/L (Tr. at 54)

---

7

the expected free cyanide concentrations and measured WAD cyanide

concentrations.

(Tr. at 59.)’

Chlorine Interference

The District has completed 164 months ‘of detailed ~

cyanide sampling and analysis in effluents from the Hanover Park

and James C. Kirie WRP5. In both data sets the District observes

that measured WAD cyanide concentrations were higher during the

monthsThe

onlyof consistentMay

throughdifferenceOctober thanin

inflowin

Novemberor

operationalthrough

April’0

parameters between these two time periods is that during May

through October both WRP5 employ chlorination/dechlorination

procedures.

The District observes that during the summer of 1994, when

the correlation between chlorination/dechlorination was becoming

evident, it undertook a study of the fate of WAD cyan.ide

concentrations during the treatment process, including sampling

prior to and after chlorination. (Tr. at 31-32; Exh. 1 at 11.)

The results verified that chlorination causes an increase in the

reported WAD cyanide concentrations (Id.), although it remains

uncertain whether the increase is caused by .an analytical

interference or by a chemical reaction that produces new cyanide

(Tr. at 55—57)

.

.

Detection Limit

The District observes that Standard Methods for the

Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th edition, lists the

limit of detection for WAD cyanide as 5 to 20 p.g/L, depending

upon the sample matrix. (Proposal at 57.) The District

observes, accordingly, that a standard at 5.2 ~.1g/Llies a’t the

threshold of and “perhaps beyond the limits of existing

laboratory analytical methodology” (Id.)

In addition, Dr. Luthy, who chairs the task group that

prepared the section on cyanide for the current edition of

Standard Methods, notes that the single operator precision for

10

At the Hanover Park WRP, the WAD cyanide concentrations on

the final effluent were 1.0 to 2.0 p.g/L during November through

April, versus 4.0 to 6.0 ~tg/Lduring May throu’gh October. (Exh.

1 at Table 1.) At the James C. Kirie WRP ‘WAD cyanide

concentrations were 1.0 to 2.0 p.g/L during November through

April, versus 3.0 to 4.0 ~.ig/Lduring May through October. (Exh.

1 at Table 2.)

---

8

the determination of WAD cyanide is about S p.g/L for samples in

the range 5—10 ~.ig/L.

(Tr. at 47; Exh. 3 at 3.)

He concludes

that considerable variation should be expected in such low-level

samples, and that “it would be improper to ascribe great

significance to sample analyses in this range” (Id.).

ECONOMICS

The District has calculated the cost of replacing the

chlorination/dechlorination

system

at

the Hanover Park and James

C. Kirie WRPs.

(Proposal. at 24, Attachment 7.)

The District

calculated estimates of replacing the existing system with

ultraviolet radiation (tJV) and ozone disinfection. The

calculations indicate that ozonation would be the least costly

replacement alternative. The District’s total cost to replace

the current chlorination/dechlorination system with an ozonati’on

system would be $5,699,728 in construction costs, with an annual

operating cost of $164,200. (Id.) The total annualized capital

plus operating cost for both WRP5 would be $830,097. (Id.)

These expenses do not include any costs for replacing the

existing chlorination/dechlorination system at the John E. Egan

WRP.

The District notes that even with this expenditure, there is

no guarantee that an ozonation system would not produce increases

in WAD cyanide as observed during chlorination/dechlorination.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that the record before us justifies. adoption

of the District’s proposed site—specific cyanide rule.

Accordingly, we today adopt that rule.

ORDER

The Board directs that the following amendments be submitted

to the Secretary of State for final, notice pursuant to Section 5—

40 of the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act.

TITLE 35: ENVIRONNENTAL PROTECTION

SUBTITLE C: WATER POLLUTION

CHAPTER I: POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PART

303

WATER USE DESIGNATIONS

AND SITE SPECIFIC

---

9

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

SUBPART A:

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section

303.100

303.101

303.102

Section

303.200

303.201

303.202

303.203

303.204

Scope and Applicability

Multiple Designations

Rulemaking Required

SUBPART B: NONSPECIFIC WATER USE DESIGNATIONS

Scope and Applicability

General Use Waters

Public and Food Processing Water Supplies

Underground Waters

Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Waters

SUBPART C: SPECIFIC USE DESIGNATIONS AND SITE SPECIFIC

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

Section

303.300

303.301

303.311

303.312

303.321

303.322

303.323

303.331

303.341

303.351

303.352

303. 353

303. 361

303.400

303.430

303.431

303.441

303

.

442

303.443

303.444

Scope and Applicability

Organi zation

Ohio River Temperature

Waters Receiving Fluorspar Mine Drainage

Wabash River Temperature

Unnamed Tributary of the Vermilion River

Sugar Creek and Its Unnamed Tributary

Mississippi River North Temperature

Mississippi River North Central Temperature

Mississippi River South Central Temperature

Unnamed Tributary of Wood River Creek

‘Sc’hoenberger Creek; Unnamed Tributary of Cahokia Canal

Mississippi River South Temperature

Bankline Disposal Along the Illinois Waterway Rivers

Unnamed Tributary to Dutch Creek

Long Point Slough and Its Unnamed Tributary

Secondary Contact Waters

Waters Not Designated for Public Water Supply

Lake Michigan

•Salt Creek, Higgins Creek, West Branch of the DuPage

River, Des Plaines River

SUBPART D: THERMAL DISCHARGES

Section

---

10

303.500

Scope and Applicability

303.502 Lake Sangchris Thermal Discharges

303.Appendix A References to Previous Rules

303.Appendix B Sources of Codified Sections

AUTHORITY: Implementing Section 13 and authorized by Section 27

of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/13 and 27)

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

amended at 2 Ill. Reg. 27, p. 221, effective July 5, 1978;

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

at 5 Ill. Rag. 11592, effective October 19, 1981; codified at 6

Ill. Reg. 7818; amended at 6 11.1. Rag. 11161, effective September

7, 1982; amended at 7 Ill. Rag. 8111, effective June 23, 1983;

amended in R87-27 at 12 Ill. Reg. 9917, effective May 27, 1988;

amended in R87—2 at 13 Ill. Reg. 15649, effective September 22,

1989; amended in R87—36 at 14 Ill. Reg. 9460, effective May

31,

1990; amended in R8.6—14 at 14 Ill. Reg. 20724, effective December

18, 1990; amended in R89—14(C) at 16 Ill. Reg. 14684, effective

September 10, 1992; amended in R92—17 at 18 Ill. Reg. at 2981

effective February 14, 1994; amended in R91-23 at 18 Ill. Reg.

13457, effective August 19, 1994; amended in R93—13 at 19 Ill.

Reg. 1310 effective January 30, 1995; amended in R95—14 at 19

Ill. Reg.

_______________

effective

________________

SUBPART C: SPECIFIC USE DESIGNATIONS AND SITE SPECIFIC WATER

QUALITY STANDARDS

Section 303.444

Salt Creek, Higgins Creek, West Branch of the

DuPage River, Des Plaines River

The General Use chronic water quality standard for cyanide

(STORET number 00718) contained in Section 302.208 does not apply

to Salt Creek, Higgins Creek, the West Branch of the DuPage

River, and the Des Plaines River in Cook County, Illinois.

Instead, for these waters the chronic cyanide standard is 10

~tg/L.

•

(Source: Amended at 19 Ill. Reg.

__________,

effective

TITLE 35: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SUBTITLE C: WATER POLLUTION

CHAPTER I: POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

---

11

PART 304

EFFLUENT STANDARDS

SUBPART A:

GENERAL EFFLUENT STANDARDS

Section

304.101

304.102

304.103

304.104

304 .105

304.106

304. 120

304.121

304.122

304.123

304.124

304.125

304.126

304.140

304.141

304.142

Preamble

Dilution

Background Concentrations

Averaging

Violation of Water Quality Standards

Offensive Discharges

Deoxygenating Wastes

Bacteria

Nitrogen (STORET number 00610)

Phosphorus (STORET number 00665)

Additional Contaminants

pH

Mercury

Delays in Upgrading (Repealed)

NPDES Effluent Standards

New Source Performance Standards (Repealed)

SUBPART B:

SITE SPECIFIC RULES AND

EXCEPTIONS NOT OF GENERAL ‘APPLICABILITY

Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharges of the

Metropolitan &anit~ry Water Reclamation District of

Greater Chicago

Chlor-alkali Mercury Discharges in St. Clair County

Copper Discharges by Olin Corporation

Schoenberger Creek: Groundwater Disch,arges

John.Deere Foundry Discharges

Alton Water Company Treatment Plant Discharges

Galesburg Sanitary District Deoxygenating Wastes

Dischrges

City of Lockport Treatment Plant Discharges

Wood River Station Total Suspended Solids Discharges

Alton Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharges

Discharges From Borden Chemicals and Plastics Operating

Limited Partnership Into an Unnamed Tributary of Long

Point Slough

Sanitary District of Decatur Discharges

UNO-VEN Refinery Ammonia Discharge

Mobil Oil Re.finery Ammonia Discharge

City of Tuscola Wastewater Treatment Facility

Discharges

304.216 Newton Station Suspended Solids Discharges

Section

304.201

304.202

304 .203

304.204

304.205

304.206

304. 207

304.208

304.209

304.210

304.211

304.212

304.213

304.214

304.215

---

12

304.218 City of Pana Phosphorus Discharge

304.219

North Shore Sanitary District Phosphorus Discharges

304.220

East St. Louis Treatment Facility, Illinois-American

Water Company

304.221

Ringwood Drive Manufacturing Facility in McHenry County

304.222

Intermittent Discharge of TRC

SUBPART C:

TEMPORARY EFFLUENT STANDARDS

Section

304.301

Exception for Ammonia Nitrogen Water Quality Violations

304.302

City of Joliet East Side Wastewater Treatment Plant

304.303 Amerock Corporation, Rockford Facility

Appendix A

References to Previous Rules

AUTHORITY: Implementing Section 13 and author’ized 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. Rag. 20, p. 95, effective May 17, 1979; amended

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

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

563, effective December 24, 1981; codified at 6 Ill. Reg.. 7818:

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

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

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

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

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

effective November 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. Rag. 3687,

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

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. Rag. 456, effective December 23,

1985; amended at 11 Ill. Rag. 3117, effecti’ve January 28, 1987;

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

amended in R86—17(A) at 11 Ill. Reg. 14748, effective August 24,

1987; amended in R84-l6 at 12 Ill. Rag. 2445, effective January

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

10, 1988; amended in R87-27 at 12 Ill. Reg. 9905, effective Nay

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. Req. 13966, effective

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

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

---

13

851, effective January 9, 1989; amended in R85-ll at 13 Ill. Req.

2060, effective February 6, 1989; amended in R88—1 at 13 Ill.

Rag. 5976, effective April 18, 1989; amended in R86—173 at 13

Ill. Req. 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. Rag. 6777, effective April 24, 1990; amended in R87—36 at 1.4

Ill. Req. 9437, effective May 31, 1990; amended in R88—21(B) at

14 Ill. Req. 12538, effective July 18, 1990; amended in R84—44 at

14 Ill. Rag. 20719, effective December 11, 1990; amended in R86-

14 at 15 Ill. Rag. 241, effective December 18, 1990; amended in

R87—33 at 18 Ill. Reg. 11574, effective July 7, 1994; amended in

R94—l at 19 Ill. Req.

_______,

effective _______________________

______________________________; amended in R95—l4 at 19 Ill. Reg.

effective

_______________

BOARD NOTE:

This Part implements the Illinois Environmental

ProtectionAct

as of July 1, 1994.

SUBPART B:

SITE SPECIFIC RULES AND EXCEPTIONS NOT OF GENERAL

APPLICABILITY

Section,304.201

Wastewater Treatment. Plant

Discharges of The

Metropolitan Spnitary Water Reclamation

District of Greater Chicago

a)

Calumet Treatment Plant Cyanide Discharges:

The effluent standards of Section 304.124 as applied to

cyanide discharges, Sections 304.120(b) and

(C)

and Section

304.122 do not apply to BOD5, total suspended solids,

cyanide, and ammonia-nitrogen discharged from the ~alumet

Sewage Treatment Works of The Metropolitan Sanitar-y Water

Reclamation District of Greater Chicago.

Instead, it must

meet the following effluent standard, subject to the

averaging rule of Section 304.104 (a), effective July 1,

1988:

STORET

CONCENTRATION

CONSTITUENT

NUMBER

(mg/l)

CBOD5

80082

24

SS

00530

28

Ammonia Nitrogen

00610

13

(as N)

Cyanide

00720

.

0.15

b) North Side Sewage Treatment Works

---

14

The effluent standards of Sections 304.120(b) and (c) and

304.122 do not apply to SOD5, total suspended solids, and

ammonia-nitrogen discharged from the North Side Sewage

Treatment Works of The Metropolitan ?-anitary Water

Reclamation District of Greater Chicago. Instead, ‘it must

meet the following standard, subject to the averaging rule

of Section 304.104(a) effective July 1, 1988:

STORET

CONCENTRATION

CONSTITUENT

NUMBER

(mg/l)

CBOD5

80082

12

SS

00530

20

Ammonia Nitrogen

(as N)

April—October

00610

2.5

November—March

00610

4.0

c)

.

Chicago Waterway Evaluation

The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago ohall

complete and cubmit to the Beard a comprehensive water

quality evaluation of the Chicago Wpterway Sy9tem and it~

influence on thc lowcr

Dec Plainec and Upper Illinoic River-c

______________

by Janua~ 15, 19~2. Such ~luati~

~ ~

ohall

Side,

i~

~1fll

iic~r

Ca1~~ ~4

Stickney wastcwater reclamation plants and the extent of

cewer overflow rcduction’through The Metropolitan Sa~-ita-ry

Dictrict of Cre~tcr Chicago’o Tunnel and Recervoir Plan.

(Source.: Amended at 19 Ill. Reg.

__________,

effective

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

Board, hereby certify that the abQ~ opinion and order was

adopted on the

/-~-

day of

~

,

1996, by a vote

of

T ~0.

~.

Dorothy M. Gi~?n, Clerk

Illinois Pol~(ution Control Board