I LLINOI

P~LLOT::

C~

C( NT?~OL BOARD

:rrne

1~

~9~2

IN

THE

MATTER

OF

AMENDMENTS

TO

TITLE

35:

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

R

81~

23

SUBTITLE C:

WATER

POLLUTION,

CHAPTER

1:

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

(Aismonia

Nitro-~en)

~p~edRulG

Eeoc ad

Mothc s.

OPINION

AND

ORDEP

OF

TEE

BOARD

(hv

T~D~

Dumelie):

On

February

4,

i,

12

~

~.

Rc~rd

:ssued

a

Proposed

Opinion

and

Order

in

this

matter

baseC

i~r~n

ire~,

~1nqniry~

hearings

which

had

been

held

in

response

Lo

tNe

Department

of

Energy

and

Natural

Resources

having

submitted

its

review

of

existing

Rule

203(f)

of

Chapter

3:

Water

Poli~tion

as

it

relates

to

ammonia

nitrogen

(Doc.

8:L/23)~

On March 19, 191~ :hs 303rd

entered

a

Proposed

Rule/First

Notice

Order.

First~Notce was published

in

the

Illinois

Register on April

3Q, i912~ Thereafter,

two

additional

hearings

were held to consider the 13oard~sproposal.

The first

was held April

30,

1981 at the Board Meeting Room in

Chicago.

The other

was held May

4

~98

at the Peoria

Public

Library.

The Board s

comment period and 8th First

Notice

period

both

expired

on

June

14,

1912~

As

noted

in

the

Febrvavy

4,

1982

Proposed

Opiniori~

the

Board

has

codified

Chapter

3

during

the

pendancy

of

this proceeding.

Since

the

Board

expects

State

Library

certification

of

that

Codi-

fication

prior to the close ml the Jecond

Notice

period,

all

references

in this Order ~J

me to Lao codified rules.

The

following

table

is

provided

to

aid

in

referencing

old

Board

rule

numbers

to

section

numbers

pursuant

to

codification:

Chapter

3:

Water

35 111,

Admin.

Rule

Name

pollution

Rule

Number

Code Number

*

203(f)

302~2O8

General Use WQS—

Chemical

Constituents

402

3O4~i35

Violation of WQS

402~l

304 .~3O1

Temporary Effluent

Standards

406

304.122

General

Effluent

Standards

-

Nitrogen

409

304.140

Delayá

in

Upgrading

*WQS

=

Water Quality Standards

47-293

---

—2—

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

On April

21, 1982 the Agency filed a “recommendation”

which was entered as Exhibit 12 at the April

30,

1982 hearing.

Final

Agency

comments were filed on June 14,

1982 which reiterated

the Agency’s position presented in the recommendation:

first,

that the termination date for the Section 304.301(d) exemption

be extended to July 1,

1988 rather than July

1,

1986 and, second,

that the un—ionized ammonia alternative water quality standard

be removed or at least that an upper limit be set on the ammonia

nitrogen standard regardless of the calculated un—ionized level.

The Agency’s rationale for extending the termination date

to 1988 is based upon the

“Municipal Wastewater Treatment Con-

struction Grant Amendments

of

1981” which extended the compliance

date for municipalities to meet secondary treatment requirements

or more stringent state requirements from July 1, 1983 to July

1,

1988.

Therefore,

municipalities required

to meet ammonia limits

could be issued NPDES permits

which

expire July 1,

1988 if the

Board’s termination date were set

in

accordance with the federal

date.

The shorter term permits allowed by the Board’s proposed

1986 date are argued to cause increased costs to the applicant

and the Agency due

to

an increase in permit renewals, review and

issuance.

Part of the Agencyus rationale for deletion of the un-

ionized ammonia alternative water quality standard is the diffi-

culty of monitoring since

there

is not yet any reliable, easily

accomplished method of direct measurement of un—ionized ammonia

concentrations.

Further,

the Agency argues that mathematical

conversion of ammonia nitrogen concentrations to un—ionized

ammonia nitrogen concentrations using pH and temperature fails

to take into consideration other significant factors that affect

the conversion.

Also,

fluctuations of pH can be sufficiently

large and difficult to predict that the discharger would generally

have to overcontrol to assure compliance with the water quality

standard such that the discharger would not be able to rely on

the proposed, relaxed alternative standard.

The Agency finally argues that the Board’s proposed standard

would allow ammonia nitrogen levels at least as high as 325 mg/i

to be discharged and that such discharges could lead to unaccept-

able oxygen depletion and fish toxicity.

Based on this the

Agency recommends that at a minimum the Board impose an upper

limit on the ammonia nitrogen discharge regardless of the un-

ionized ammonia concentration.

Linda Huff of Huff & Huff,

Inc., an environmental consulting

firm, testified that the proposed un-ionized ammonia standard is

a

positive step “to prioritize the pollution expenditures and reduce

the cost of providing acceptable

levels of wastewater treatment,”

despite the more complex determination of compliance

47-294

---

—3—

She

also testified that some treatment works may be able to

eliminate nitrificatiori,

and therefore reduce costs under the

Board’s proposal on a sophisticated site—specific basis

(R.394—

395),

Finally, she supported the Agency~srecommendation of an

upper limit on ammonia nitrogen levels,

although she was

uncertain as to what that level should be (R,395).

Drs,

Muchmore

and Heidinger,

authors of the economic impact

study

in this matter,

commented on June 14,

1982,

that they

supported the alternative standard with a 10 mg/i ammonia nitrogen

concentration limitation and that they saw little real difficulty

with the mathematical conversion method of monitoring un—ionized

ammonia

concentrations.

Also, on June

14,

1982,

Borg-Warner

commented

that the Board’s

proposal “would make the existing water quality standard more

reasonable” and that it

is fully supported by the

record,

However,

Borg—Warner contends that the same rationale for the water quality

standard supports the deletion of the effluent standards of

Section

304,122 which are applicable to dischargers to the Illinois River,

Des Plaines River, Chicago River System,

and the Calumet River

System.

The

Galesburg Sanitary District filed comments on June

15,

1982,

a

day after the close of the comment period, but the Board

will

consider them,

The District generally supports the Board’s

proposal

as cost saving while adequately protecting the

environment.

However,

it supports a higher un—ionized ammonia standard for

those streams which support a low variety of fish, perhaps up

to

0,07 to 0,10 mg/i.

In effect

it supports an even more site—

specific

approach to this regulatory

scheme.

The City of Lockport also filed

late comments on June 16,

1982

which will be considered,

The City

is supportive

of

the

Board’s

proposal,

citing

potential

cost

savings

of

$800,000

in

construction

costs for the upgrading of its facility.

BOARD ACTION

Based upon the hearings and the comments during the First

Notice

period,

the

Board

has

determined

that

an

upper

limit

should be placed upon the ammonia nitrogen concentration,

The

Board will

set that upper limit at 15 mg/I

as part of new

Section

302,212,

The Board will also modify the language establishing

the alternative standard for nurposes of clarity

(Section

302,212(a),

(b) and

(c),

inc’ude an equation for the mathematical

conversion of ammonia nitrogen concentrations to un—ionized

ammonia

concentrations

(Section

302,212(d),

and

include

a

table

of acceptable

levels of ammonia nitrogen under various pH and temperature

conditions

(Section 302,212(e).

The Board has also extended the

Section 304.301 compliance date until July 1,

1988.

Otherwise,

the Board’s

proposal

remains

unchanged.

47-295

---

—4—

JUSTIFICATION

The Board

has followed the Agency’s

recommendation that

the compliance

date of Section 304.301

be extended to July 1,

1988.

The

Agency states that there

is

considerable pressure

upon it from regulations

other than

Section 304.301 to insure

that appropriate

ammonia control will

be required at the earliest

possible time.

The Board has extended

the date with the under-

standing that

stream studies under R79—6

will proceed as expedi-

tiously as possible.

The Board has declined

to follow

the suggestion of the City

of Galesburg to raise

the proposed

un—ionized ammonia alternative

standard.

The

proposed standard

is

an interim standard pending

the completion of studies which

may

allow for ammonia standards

on a stream—specific

basis,

which

is

essentially what Galesburg

is suggesting be

done

in this

proceeding

for streams which do

not support a

high variety of fish.

In setting the 0.04 mg/l

standard the

Board

has loosened the

ammonia limitations as much

as is supportable

generally

throughout the State.

The present

record is inadequate to

support greater

specificity in terms of

stream use.

The

Board expects that to

be accomplished sometime

prior to 1986.

The Board

has further declined to follow

Borg-Warner’s

suggestion that

the Section 304,122

standards be deleted.

As

noted by other

commenters,

the

alternative standard proposed

allows considerably

higher ammonia

nitrogen discharges which

could have an

effect upon the

dissolved oxygen levels down-

stream of the discharge.

When the Board adopted

old

Rule 406

(Section 304.122),

the Board in fact found that

the

river systems covered suffered

from a unique dissolved

oxygen problem.

Deletion of that Section

could, therefore,

exacerbate

an

existing problem.

Borg—Warner

itself acknowledges that no testimony in this record is directed

specifically at these river systems

to show that there has been

significant enough improvement in dissolved oxygen levels to

warrant such deletion,

If

such evidence exists,

or if an alter-

native strategy for dissolved oxygen control can be shown to

remedy that problem, e.g.

through the

use of in—stream aeration,

that evidence could be presented

in

a future regulatory proceed-

ing directed at Section

304.122,

This record, however,

fails

to support such deletion.

The Board has also declined

to follow the Agency’s recom-

mendation that the un—ionized ammonia alternative standard be

dropped.

The Agency’s concerns over

the

difficulty of monitoring,

possible problems

with

dissolved oxygen levels and ammonia nitrogen

toxicity, and a lack

of cost savings have not been adequately

47-296

---

—5—

The

Agency

was the only participant

at the hearing to ques-

tion the

mathematical conversion technique

to

determine

the

un—ionized ammonia

concentration, citing

interference factors

of turbidity and

heavy metals

(R.387-388),

However, neither

interference could

be quantified,

and the heavy metal inter-

ference is offset

by the fact that

ammonia complexed with heavy

metals is less toxic

than the un-ionized

form

(R.388—389).

Further, several

conversion tables

exist and are

in close

agreement,

and Drs,

Muchrnore and

Heidinger did not feel that

the conversion

suffered from significant

infirmities.

The

Board has determined

that the table

generated by the Agency

and appearing

in Exhibit 12 is in general

agreement with other

tables, as

is the

equation on which

it

is based

see

Emerson,

Kenneth;

R.C.

Russo;

R.E.

Lund; and

R.V,

Thurston;

“Aqueous

Ammonia Equalibrium

Calculations:

Effects of pH and Temperature,”

Journal Fisheries

Research Board of

Canada, Vol.

32,

No,

12,

pp. 2379—2383

(1~75),

The Board has

included both the equation

and a table

in

Section 302,212 to give both an

easy reference

to the water

quality standard at typical

pH and temperature

levels and a means

for calculating

values which do not appear

in the table.

The

only

evidence presented regarding

ammonia nitrogen

toxicity is based

upon a 1962 study by

Tabata and a 1978 study

by Armstrong,

et al.

(R61-362),

However,

the applicability of

these studies to

Illinois fish is

undetermined and the conclu-

sions are quite

general.

Further, the

imposition of an upper

limit on ammonia

nitrogen should help

avoid any potential problems

and the economic

impact study

(Ex,1)

clearly indicates that the

focus of the

regulation should be on

un—ionized ammonia toxicity

rather than on

ammonia nitrogen.

The

Agency itself admitted

that there

“is very

limited information

on the toxicity of

combined forms of

ammonia”

(R,374).

Finally,

the Board is modifying its

proposal to establish

an upper

limit on the

ammonia

nitrogen concentration regardless

of the un—ionized ammonia concentration.

The Board has set that

limit at 15 mg/i, which

is higher

than the 10 mg/i limitation

recommended by the

Agency and supported

by Drs. Heidinger and

Muchmore, but somewhat

less than the

normal influent loading

to municipal treatment

plants.

The Board

has set that level

in

order to relieve municipal-

ities from the burden

of ammonia control

where such control does

not appear necessary

to protect the

environment.

James Park,

Manager of Technical

Standar~.s,

Division of Water Pollution

Control for the Agency,

testified that

some municipal plants

without ammonia controls

may discharge

up

to 30 mg/i of ammonia

nitrogen, but that

most fail

in the 15—20

mg/I range

(R.377).

In its comments Galesburg

states that

20 mg/i

is “generally

acceptable”

as the concentration found

in untreated wastewater

47-297

---

—6—

Setting

an upper

limit at this time is somewhat

difficult.

If the

Board were to rely on the Tabata data which

indicates

that ammonia

nitrogen is somewhat less than one—fiftieth

as toxic

to fish

as un—ionized ammonia, the upper limit would be set at

somewhat higher

than 2,0 mg/l,

If,

however, the Board were to

conclude

that the present state of

knowledge regarding ammonia

nitrogen toxicity

is insufficient to

necessitate control,

a

standard of

30 mg/i would be

appropriate

to allow most,

if not

all, municipal plants

to be uncontrolled,

Given the burdensome costs associated with

controls to

reach the lower end

of

that

range

and

the sparse evidence of

toxicity, a standard

as

low

as

2.0

mg/i

is

unjustifiable at this

time.

On the other

hand, allowing a total

absence of control

in

light of suspected

environmental harm is

equally unsupportable.

The Board has,

therefore,

concluded that

a middle ground of 15

mg/i

is

appropriate at this time.

Since

most municipal plants

are exempted

under Section 304.301,

in

any case,

this standard

is currently

one more of form than of substance.

Only after

July 1,

1988 would

it have general

applicability.

During the

interim studies can proceed

and data can be

collected to estab-

lish a more

meaningful standard,

If future

studies show that

ammonia

nitrogen toxicity at that level

is

a real problem or that

the 15 mg/i

standard can be raised without

causing significant

toxicity

problems, that can be addressed in

future regulatory

proceedings.

Based

on the record in this

proceeding a 15 mg/i

limitation seems adequate

to protect

the environment.

ORDER

The Board

hereby directs the Clerk to

proceed to Second

Notice in this matter,

and proposes the

following amendments

to Title

35:

Environmental Protection;

Subtitle C:

Water

Pollution; Chapter

I:

Pollution Control

Board (deleted

language is lined through;

added language is

Section 302.208

Chemical Constituents

The following levels

of chemical constituents

shall not be

exceeded:

STORET

CONCENTRATION

CONSTITUENT

NUMBER

(mg/i)

AMMeI~4~

N~foge~(e~

N)

~98~Q

Arsenic

(totai)

01002

1.0

Barium

(total)

01007

5.0

Boron

(total)

01022

1.0

Cadmium

(total)

01027

0.05

Chloride

00940

500.

Chromium

(total hexavalent)

01032

0.05

Chromium (total trivalent)

01033

1.0

Copper

(total)

01042

0.02

47-298

---

—7—

STORET

CONCENTRATION

CONSTITUENT

NUMBER

(mg/i)

Cyanide

00720

0.025

Fluoride

00951

1.4

Iron (total)

01045

1.0

Lead (total)

01051

0.1

Manganese

(total)

01055

1.0

Mercury

(total)

71900

0.0005

Nickel

(total)

01067

1.0

Phenols

32730

0.1

Selenium

(total)

01147

1.0

Silver

01077

0.005

Sulfate

00945

500.

Total Dissolved

Solids

70300

1000.

Zinc

01092

1,0

Source:

6

Ill,

Reg,

,

effective

Section

302,212

Ammonia Nitrogen and Un-ionized Ammonia

a)

Ammonia

nitrogen

(as

N:

Storet Number 31616)

shall

in

no

case

exceed

15

mg/i.

b)

If ammonia nitrogen is less than 15 mg/i

and greater

than or equal

to 1.5 mg/I, then un—ionized

ammonia

(as N) shall not exceed 0,04 mg/i.

c)

Ammonia nitrogen concentrations

of

less than 1.5 mg/i

are lawful regardless of un—ionized

ammonia concentration.

d)

For

purposes of this section the concentration

of

un—ionized ammonia shall be computed

according to the

£01lowing equation:

N

where:

12 (1+

10

)+

0. 05 59

X

=

0.09018

+

2729.92

—

pH

(T

+

273,16)

U

=

Concentration of un—ionized ammonia

as

N

in

mg/l

N

=

Concentration

of

ammonia

nitrogen

as

N

in

mg/i

T

=

Temperature in

degrees

Celsius

e)

The following table indicates the maximum

ammonia

nitrogen concentrations allowable for

certain

combinations of pH and temperature:

47-299

---

—8—

AMMONIA NITROGEN

WATER QUALITY STANDARD

(mg/l)

TEMP.

pH

°C(°F)

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

5

(41)

15

15

15

9.6

3.1

1.5

1.5

10

(50)

15

15

15

6.5

2.1

1.5

15

(59)

15

15

13.9

4.4

1.5

1,5

1.5

20

(68)

15

15

9,6

3.1

1.5

1.5

25

(77)

15

15

6.7

2.1

1.5

1.5

1.5

30

(86)

15

14.9

4.7

1,5

1.5

1,5

1.5

35

(95)

15

10.7

3.4

1,5

1.5

1.5

1.5

Source:

6 Iii.

Reg.

,

effective

SUBPART

(C);

TEMPORARY

EFFLUENT STANDARDS

Section 304.301

Exception

for

Ammonia Nitrogen Water Quality

Violations

a.

Section 304.105

shall not apply to

a~-pe~~on-e~

Section 302.212

~

for any effluent from a source in existence on April

1,

1977, having an

untreated ammonia

infiuent loading not

exceeding 60 pounds per day and not otherwise needing

upgrading to meet the requirements of this chapter.

b.

Section 304.105 shall not apply to tha~-pef~oft-o?Section

302.212 ~O

~9~-~ea

g-te-ammo~a-~~fe~en

for any

source during the months

of

November through March;

except

that during the months

of

November through March no source

not exempt under paragraph

(a)

shall discharge an effluent

containing a concentration of ammonia nitrogen greater than

4.0 mg/i

if the discharge, alone or in combination with

other discharges, causes

or

contributes to a violation of

that portion of Section ~

302.121 pef~a~n4~g—~e

ae~a—n~~ege~.

c.

Compliance with the provisions of paragraph

(b)

shall be

achieved by March 31, 1979,

or such other date as required

by NPDES permit,

or as ordered by the Board under Title

d.

After July 1,

1988, the exemptions provided in this section

shall terminate,

Source:

6 Iii. Reg.

,

47-300

---

Section 304.140

Delays

in Upgrading

a.

All effluent

standards required to be met on December 31,

1973 or December 31,

304.301 shall be met unless:

1.

The discharger

is eligible for a construction grant

under Section 201(g)

of the Clean Water Act;

and,

2.

The discharger has filed an application for a construction

grant on or before December 31, 1975;

and,

3.

The discharger has timely taken all necessary pre—grant

grant step for which the discharger is then eligible.

4.

The exemption provided in

(a)

(1),

(a) (2) and

(a) (3)

above shall terminate upon completion of construction

under the grant provided and compliance with the

provisions of this Section shall thereafter be required.

Source:

6 Ill. Reg.

,

I, Christan L.

Moffett,

Control Board,

hereby ~ertify that the above Opinion and Order

was adopted on the

/~1~ day of ~

,

1982 by a

vote of

~-O

Christan L. MofW~’)Clerk

Illinois PoliutidT1’’Control Board

47-301