ILLINOIS POLLUTIOI’1 CONTROL BOARD
February
4,
1982
IN THE MATTER OF:
AMENDMENT OF CFIAPTER
3:
RULE
)
R81—23
203(f), WATER POLLUTION,
AMMONIA
)
NITROGEN WATER QUALITY STANDARD
)
Proposal_for Rulemaking.
PROPOSED OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J.D. Dumelle)~
This matter comes before the Board upon the July
13,
1981
filing of an economic impact study by the Institute of Natural
Resources
(now the Department of Energy and Natural Resources)
entitled “Economic Impact of Existing Ammonia Nitrogen Water
Quality Standard,
Illinois Pollution Control
Board Chapter
3,
Rule 203(f)”
and designated as Document 81/23.
In response to
that filing the Board scheduled three hearings
in the nature oF
“inquiry” hearings to evaluate that study and to gather other
evidence to determine whether sufficient reason exists
to propose
modification or deletion of Rule 203(f).
Those hearings
s~rere
held on October
23,
1981
(in Chicago), November
3,
1981
(in
Springfield), and November 12,
1981
(in Salem).
Notice of
these
hearings was
given in accordance with Section 28 of the Environ-
mental Protection Act
(Act) and appeared
in Environmental Register
#244
(September
21,
1981).
The comment period was held open until
January 18,
1981.
REGULATORY BACKGROUND
Upon a March
7,
1972 Opinion
(R70—8,
R71—14 and R71—20,
3 PCB 755) and an April
4,
1972 Order of the Board
(R71-14,
4 PCB
3), the Board adopted the Rule 203(f)
ammonia nitrogen
water quality standard of
1.5 mg/i based upon the “Green Book”
recommendation for protection of aquatic
life.
This rule was
more stringent than the previous 2.5 mg/i standard under
SWB—8
which had been adopted by the Sanitary Water Board
(one of the
predecessors
of the Pollution Control Board).
On January
7,
1972 the Board adopted Rule 406 of Chapter 3
which imposed an effluent standard for ammonia nitrogen
(R70—8,
R71—14,
R71—20,
3 PCB 401)
for discharges to the Illinois
River,
the Des Plaines River downstream of its confluence with the
Chicago River System,
and the Calumet River system.
Under that
rule discharges to those waters by sources having an untreated
ammonia wasteload of more than 50,000 P.E.
(population
45—357
—2—
equivalent)
shall not contain more than 2.5 mg/i of ammonia
nitrogen
(as N) during April through October or
4 mg/i at
other times.
Other discharges and dischargers were not covered,
since the record was found insufficient to set standards.
Rule 406 was amended on June 28,
1973 by adding
the provision
bhat sources discharging to the
listed waters and having an
untreated waste
load which could not be computed on a P.E.
basis and which discharged greater than 100 lbs/day of ammonia
nitrogen, could not discharge an effluent containing more than
3.0
mg/i
of ammonia nitrogen after December
31,
1974.
Despite these effluent standards,
through the operation of
Rule 402, which makes it a violation for any effluent, either
alone or in combination with other sources,
to cause a violation
of applicable water quality standards regardless of whether the
discharge meets applicable effluent standards, domestic wastewatec
treatment facilities not subject to Rule 406 and which discharge
to intermittent or low flow streams must be designed to meet
the 1.5 mg/i water quality standard of Rule 203(f).
It became increasingly evident that enforcement of
tills
1.5 mg/i standard would force technological and economic hard-
ship on many dischargers throughout the state.
Therefore,
on
June 22,
1978 the Board adopted Rule 402.1 which is an exception
to Rule 402 for certain ammonia nitrogen sources
(R77—6,
30
PCB 579).
In that proceeding the Board determined that the
great economic impact of Rule 203(f) was not justified by
environmental benefits and found “merit in the request for an
interim exception for the existing small sources, not otherwise
requiring upgrading, pending the gathering of appropriate
bioassay data to either verify the existing standard established
by Rule 203(f)
or to establish a more appropriate one”
(30 PCB
601).
The adopted rule exempted those sources which have an
ammonia nitrogen loading of less than sixty lbs/day and were in
existence on April
1,
1977,
and do not otherwise require upgradinj.
If a source fails to meet all three of those requirements,
it must
meet an effluent discharge of 4.0 mg/i during November through
March.
The termination date of the exception was established as
July
1,
1982, which the Board believed to be “the practical
minimum in which to collect the detailed data to support any
necessary regulatory change and to allow for proper hearing and
consideration by the Board”
(30 PCB 602).
The final piece of regulatory background which is directly
applicable to this proceeding concerns Rule 409 which made
effluent limitations inapplicable to those facilities which
were unable to meet them due to inadequacies and untimeliness
of construction grant funding
(R73—3,
R73—4,
8 PCB 591, July
19,
1973).
This was enacted
as an emergency rule and had the effect
of extending the compliance dates for all effluent standards
.qhich were required to be met on December 31,
1973 to December
31,
1974 for the applicable discharger.
45—358
—3—
Rule 409 was
amended on July 19,
1975
(R74—17,
18 PCB 156)
to extend the compliance
date to July
1,
1977 due to similar
grant funding difficulties
and the
August 29 and September 25,
1974 enactment of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination
System regulations which allowed the Agency to extend compliance
to
that date.
The last amendment of that rule expressed compliance dates
in terms relative to the award of the construction grants rather
than any particular calendar date (R75—15,
23 PCB 663,
Septenthex:
30,
1976).
In summary, the present ammonia nitrogen water quality
standard is
1.5 mg/i, but an effluent discharger cannot be
found
to have caused a violation of that standard unless
it fails to
~rieetthe criteria of Rule 402.1(a)
and either causes that
standard
to be exceeded during the period of April through October or
discharges an effluent with an ammonia nitrogen concentration
of
greater than 4.0 mg/i which causes that standard
to be exceeded,
Further,
an
effluent discharger can be found to have violated
the
4 mg/i standard of Rule 402.1 only
if
it discharges
to the
applicable stream segments.
Finally, under existing rules,
a
discharger which is out of compliance with the Rule 402,1
effluent limitation may be required
to
upgrade its facility to
meet that standard despite being exempted from other effluent
limitations by Rule 409.
RULE NUMBERING
The
Board has recently codified Chapter
3:
Water Pollution
Control Regulations, which changed the numbering of the rules which
underlie
this
regulatory proceeding.
Therefore,
the remainder of
this Proposed Opinion and Order will refer to Chapter 3 rules using
their codified numbers rather than their old numbers, despite the
fact that the record
is based upon the old system.
The following
table is provided to aid in referencing old Board rule nuuibers to
section numbers pursuant to codification:
Chapter
3:
Water
35 Ill.
Admin.
Rule Name
Pollution Rule Number
Code Number
*
203(f)
302.208
General Use WQS—
Chemical Constituents
402
304,105
Violation of WQS
402.1
304.301
Temporary Effluent
Standards
406
304.122
General Effluent
Standards
—
Nitrogen
409
304.140
Delays
in Upgrading
*
WQS
=
Water Quality Standards
45—359
—4-.
RESPONSE TO
COMMENTS
Following the conclusion of the first three hearings in
this matter,
a comment period was allowed until January 15,
1982,
However, since that date was a state holiday, the Board accepted
comments through January 18,
1982.
Comments were received from
the Agency,
Illinois Power and Borg-Warner.
The Agency first contended that there
is insufficient
information currently available on which to base statewide
revisions to the ammonia limitations,
Drs. Muchmore, Heidinger
and Sparks and the Agency all expressed the belief that further
study was necessary before
a reasoned revision of the Standards
could be made.
Most notably, the segment specific water quality
standards review in R79—6 and the continuing
studies of Heidinger
and Lewis at Champaign—Urbana
(C-U)
Sanitary District should
provide valuable data based on actual in-stream conditions.
The
latter study will be of particular interest in that the major
interference with the
fish
toxicity studies included
in the EcIS
was associated with chlorination, whereas the C-U study will not
have such interference.
Further, the requirement of
effluent
disinfection is currently under review in R77—12
(Docket D)
and
may well
be relaxed in the near future.
The Agency also argues strongly that the present ammonia
nitrogen standard should not be changed to an un-ionized ammonia
standard due to the complex chemistry associated with the equili-
brium levels of ionized and un-ionized components of ammonia in
Illinois streams.
The Agency further argues that treatment
plants are designed to comply with water quality standards during
worst—case stream conditions and that as a result there would be
no change
in capital costs if the standard were changed to a
reasonably equivalent un—ionized ammonia standard.
Additionally,
the Agency indicates that studies now underway by the Agency and
others along with emerging analytical technology may make
un-ionized standards more feasible in the near future.
The Agency finally argues that ammonia control facilities
should be included in the relief provided under existing Section
304.140
(old Rule 409) which allows delays in upgrading
for
facilities which are eligible for federal or state grant funds.
This
is based upon its contention that requiring dischargers to
construct ammonia control
facilities without the benefit of grant
funds and prior to the construction of other pollution control
facilities which are covered by Section 304.140
may impose an
unfair financial burden and result in inefficient facilities,
The Agency therefore recommends a five—year extension of
Section 304.301 (old Rule 402.1) and amendment of Section
304.140
to allow delays in upgrading for ammonia control
facilities
pending receipt of grant funding.
45-.
360
—5—
Borg—Warner~scomment suggests that
the
Board not
only externi
the Section 304.301 exemption, hut that that section also be
amended to exempt all industrial dischargers regardless of their
ammonia nitrogen influent loading.
In addition it suggests that
the Board repeal section 304.122
(old Rule 406) which sets effluent
standards.
Borg—Warner cites the EcIS prepared for this proceeding
(Ex.
1),
its own cost data, an American Petroleum Institute
study,
Linda Huff’s economic analysis prepared for proceedings
in R77—6, and USEPA’s Notice of withdrawal of Proposal to add
Ammonia to the Toxic Pollutants List
(45 Fed.
Reg.
79692,
Dec.
1,
1980),
among others,
to demonstrate its contentions
that:
1.
The cost/benefit ratio for ammonia nitrogen removal
by industrial dischargers is unfavorable;
2.
There
is no economically reasonable and technologically
feasible technique to consistently meet Section
304.122 effluent standards;
and
3.
There
is no evidence that such removal would produce
any measureable environmental benefit.
Illinois Power,
the third commenter,
also argued that there
is insufficient basis in this proceeding to warrant any new or
revised ammonia nitrogen standards,
It cites difficulties in
accurately determining un—ionized ammonia concentrations,
changes
in infiuent pH,
the lack of sufficient research,
the need for
stream segment classification,
and some studies to
support that
contention.
It, apparently,
simply suggests an extension of the
current section 304.301 exemption.
BOARD ACTION
The Board agrees that an extension of the Section 304,301
exemption is appropriate.
To allow time for the Agency to
complete its stream classification study in R79-6,
the Board
finds that at least a four—year extension is appropriate.
While
the Agency suggests a more liberal five—year extension,
the Board
~iillonly propose a four-year extension or an extension until
such time
as new ammonia standards are adopted, whichever comes
first,
in the hope that the study can be completed expeditiously.
If more time is needed,
that can be dealt with near the end of
the period when the Board should be much better able to determine
how long any further extensions should be.
The Board also agrees with the Agency that
it
would be
appropriate to amend Section 304,140 to insure that no facilities
required to upgrade pursuant to Section 304.301 would have
to
do so prior to other grant eligible upgrading.
45—36 1
—6—
The Board will not, however, propose to amend Section
304.301 to exempt all industrial dischargers, nor will
it propose
repeal of Section 304.122.
While it may be true that industry
contributes only 5
of the ammonia nitrogen stream loading,
5
cannot be said to be insignificant,
Nor is there any showing
that it will remain at that level.
Further, while Borg-Warner
has commented upon its inability to meet present standards,
there
is no showing that this
is generally true for industry.
Therefore,
there is insufficient support to warrant these blanket
changes.
Industry certainly will have an opportunity in future
hearings in this matter to make a more substantial
showing
justifying these changes.
Further, Borg—Warner on its own can
present evidence sufficient to support a site-specific exemption
and also has the right to pursue a variance or appeal
any unjusti-
fied permit conditions.
The Board is well aware that statewide
standards may not be appropriate in every instance, but that does
not necessarily mean that the standards should be dropped
in their
entirety.
That is the major justification of variances and site
specific regulations.
The Board, while respecting the views
of all commenters,
will.
propose to modify the ammonia nitrogen standard of Section 302.208
(old Rule
203(f)) to allow the use of an un-ionized ammonia
standard as an alternative to the present standards.
By proposing
the limitation
as an alternative, the Board hopes that many of
the
concerns presented may be allayed.
Further,
the Board will remove
the ammonia nitrogen water quality standard from Section 302.208
and add new Section 302.212 for that parameter alone.
This is
being done for purposes of administrative convenience in that no
other Section 302.208 standards are alternative standards.
The proposed standard will, in effect, be a relaxation of
present standards.
A given discharger need not meet the present
1.5 mg/i ammonia nitrogen standard if
it meets the proposed 0.04
mg/i un—ionized ammonia standard, and vice versa.
Only
if both
standards are exceeded can a violation be found.
Since
the main
concern in this proceeding
is fish toxicity,
if greater than 1.5
mg/i ammonia nitrogen can be discharged without harm to fish,
that will be permitted.
Further, due to present uncertainties
regarding the proposed un-ionized ammonia standard,
if that
standard is exceeded, the Board cannot find violation unless the
present standard is exceeded as well.
TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION
The Board’s addition of
a 0.04 mg/i un—ionized ammonia
standard as an alternative
to the present 1.5 mg/l ammonia
nitrogen standard is
in recognition of the fact that the toxic
form of ammonia nitrogen is un—ionized ammonia
(R,
17).
The Board
will, retain the present 1.5 mg/i ammonia nitrogen standard to
45—362
—7-.
insure that the proposed standard is no stricter than the present
standard,
However, the relaxation of the present standard may
reduce the dissolved oxygen
(DO)
level
in streams due
to oxidation
of the ammonia by natural stream processes
(R.
13,
18 and 227)
and
could contribute to DO violations,
As a result,
the Agency may
have to set stricter effluent limitations
in some NPDES permits to
avoid this potential problem.
In aqueous solution ammonia assumes two chemical species:
ionized
(NHA+) and un—ionized
(NH
,
also known as molecular
or
undissociat~dammonia),
The equi~ibriumbetween ionized and
un—ionized ammonia is dependent upon both pH and temperature
(R.
94),
As pH and temperature increase, the equilibrium shifts
toward un—ionized ammonia, the toxic form.
This is part
of
the
rationale for allowing higher effluent levels of ammonia nitrogen
during the winter months.
While the Agency has argued in its comment that a change
to
an un—ionized standard is ill—advised
in that factors other than
pH and temperature complicate the calculation of un—ionized ammonia
from total ammonia,
the present record before the Board
does not
substantiate that claim.
Dr. Heidinger testified that calculating
un—ionized ammonia “is relatively easy to do,” that one can “simply
measure
total ammonia and calculate the percent
lun—ionized ammonia\
with knowing pH and temperature”
(R.
94).
Conversion tables exist
and those
of which the Board
is aware seem
to be consistent.
Further, there is no testimony in the record as to significant
inaccuracies
in such conversions.
In proposing an alternate un-ionized ammonia standard the
Board has taken into consideration the levels recommended by
various sources.
In a recent paper by Thurston, it was recom-
mended that water quality criteria be based on total ammonia in
addition to un—ionized ammonia
(Ex,
8),
Dr. Heidinger testified
that un—ionized ammonia concentrations of less than 0.05 mg/I did
not harm low variety fish communities,
i.e.
those communities
for
which samples indicated an average of nine or fewer species
(R.
128 and Ex.
1,
p.
90).
He also testified that a change to an
un—ionized standard would better represent toxicity and “more
accurately reflect the maximum level of ammonia permissable”
to
develop quality fisheries
(R.
26),
A bio-assay study by Roseboon and Richey suggested that
un—ionized ammonia levels in Illinois streams should not exceed
0.04 mg/i
if sensitive fish species are to be protected
(Ex.
1,
p.
21).
This, in conjunction with findings by Ellis that total
ammonia nitrogen levels should not exceed
2
mg/i if desirable
fish communities are to be protected
(Ex,
1,
p.
21), tends
to
indicate that the proposed alternative standard should he
adequate
to protect fish.
Finally, although the “Red Book” recommends a maximum
un—ionized ammonia level of 0.02 mg/i, when asked his opinion of
a 0.04 mg/i standard, Heidinger testified that he was “comfortable”
45—363
—8—
with
it
in
terms
of
what
he
called
low
diversity
(variety)
streams
and “fairly comfortable” with
it for high diversity
(variety)
streams
(R.
90).
He went on to state, however, that the problem
from a biological standpoint is that current information
in terms
of very sensitive species
is incomplete.
The Board hopes that •future hearings will provide more
information on the un—ionized ammonia standard issue.
ORDER
The Board hereby proposed the following amendments to
Chapter 3
(deleted language is lined through;
added language
is underlined):
Section 302.208
Chemical Constituents
The following levels of chemical constituents shall
not he
exceeded
Arsenic
(total)
Barium
(total)
Boron
(total)
Cadmium (total)
Chloride
Chromium (total hexavalent)
Chromium
(total trivalent)
Copper
(total)
Cyanide
Fluoride
Iron (total)
Lead
(total)
Manganese
(total)
Mercury
(total)
Nickel
(total)
Phenols
Selenium (total)
5jiver
Sulfate
Total Dissolved Solids
Zinc
CONSTITUENT
STORET
CONCENTRATION
NUMBER
(mg/i)
O~6~G
01002
1.0
01007
5.0
01022
1.0
01027
0.5
00940
500.
01032
0,05
01033
1.0
01042
0,02
00720
0.025
00951
1.4
01045
1,0
01051
0.1
01055
1.0
71900
0,0005
01067
1.0
32730
0.1
01147
1.0
01077
0,005
00945
500,
70300
1000.
01092
1.0
Source:
Filed with Secretary of State January
1,
1978;
amended
2
Ill.
Reg.
no.
44,
page
151,
November
3,
1978;
effective
November
2,
1978;
amended
3
Ill.
Reg.
no.
20,
page
95,
May
18,
1978, effective
codified
6
Ill,
Reg.
,
amended
6
Ill.
Req.
45—364
—9—
Section
302.
212
Ammonia Nitr,q~_~nd
Un-ionized
Ammonia
Ammonia
n~99,en (as N:
STORET
number
31616)
shall
not
exceed
~
at_the
same
time un-ionized ammonia exceeds 0~O4ma/l.
Source:
6
Ill.
Reg.
SUBPART
(C):
TEMPORARY
EFFLUENT
STANDARDS
Section
304.301
Exception
for
Ammonia Nitrogen Water Quality
Violations
a.
Secion
304.105
shall
not
apply
to
-po~~e~-e~ Section
302.212
~92-pef~a
-~e-ae~1a-n~?fogeI~
for
any
effluent
from
a
source in
existence
on april
1,
1977,
having an untreated ammonia influent 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 ~a~-pef~en-ef
Section
302.212
O~
~
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 pea~~~ng~o
aM~ea—±~fegen~
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
VIII or Title IX of the Environmental Protection Act.
d.
After July 1,
1986, the exemptions provided in this
section shall terminate.
Source:
2 Ill.
Req.
no.
30, page 343,
July
28,
1978,
effective July 27,
1978; codified,
6
Ill.
Reg.
,
amended
6
Ill.
Req.
Section 304.140
Delays in Upgrading
a.
All effluent standards required to be met on December 31,
1973 or December 31,
1974 and in re_~.2pnseto Section
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
and post-grant actions
appropriate
to the specific
grant step for which the discharger
is then
eligible.
45-”365
—10—
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:
Filed with Secretary of State January
1,
1978;
Codified
6
Ill.
Reg.
;
Amended
6
Ill.
Reg.
IT IS SO ORDERED,
I, Christan
L.
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify tI~atthe above Opinion and Order
was adopted on the
~
day of~_~~
,
1982 by a
vote of~L~O
Christan
L.
Mo
f
ler
Illinois Pollution
ntrol Board
45—366
