“Rule 402.1 Exceptions to Rule 402 (AmmoniaNitrogen)
to that portionof Rule 203(f) pertaining to ammonia
b) Rule 402 shall not apply to that portionof Rule 203(f) pertaining to ammonia
c) Compliance with the provisions of Rule402 as it applies to ammonia nitrogen
PCB 764) that:

the capital experd t c
ia.ic compoundsr .g the process;

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March

 30, 1978

IN THE

MATTER

OF:

PROPOSED FINAL

AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER

3,

WATER POLLUTION REGULATIONS;

)

 R77-6

Rule

 402,1,

 an Exception

to

Rule 402 for Certain Ammonia

Nitrogen Sources

OPINION OF THE BOARD

 (by Mr. Young):

 (PROPOSED FINAL)

On March

28,

 1977,

 the Pollution Control Board authorized

public hearings on an Environmental Protection Agency proposal

designated

as

 P77-6

 to amend Chapter

 3 of the Board’s Water

Pollution Regulations by the addition of a proposed Rule

 402.1.

The Rule 402.1 would establish an exception

 to Rule

402

 until

December

31,

 1978,

 or at

 a date established by NPDES permit,

for

 ammonia nitrogen discharges

 from small

 facilities having

limited influent ammonia loading and

 for larger sources,

allow the discharge of effluent containing

a

 concentration

of no more than 4.0 mg/l of ammonia nitrogen during

 the months

of November through March.

 The exemption provided by

 proposed

Rule 402,1

would

terminate June

30,

 1981.

Notice of

the

Agency proposal was published

in

 the Environ-

mental

 Register ~145 on April

11,

 1977.

 Public

 hearings

 pur-

suant to Section

 28 of the Environmental Protection Act were

held on the proposed rule in Springfield on May 10,

 1977,

 and.

in Chicago on May 13,

 1977,

 and a study of

the

 economic

 impact

of the Drocosal by the Institute for Environmental

 Quality was

filed with the Board on June

27,

 1977.

 As required

 by Section

27(b)

 of the Act,

 two hearings were held on

 the economic impact

of the proposal;

 on September

9,

 1977,

 in Chicago,

 and in

Soringfield on

September

13,

 1977.

 At the

 final hearing,

the

Hearing Officer ordered the rocord closed

 fifteen

 days

 after

the filing of

the

final transcript;

 final

 transcript was filed

November

17,

 1977,

the

record was closed December

5,

 1977.

There were two principal additions made to the

 record after

the final hearing.

On

October

21,

 1977,

the

 Illinois State

Water Survey submitted

 a Dre-publication

 copy of a

 report

ISWS-77-R185 entitled Acute Toxicity of Residual

 Chlorine and

Ammonia

 to Some

NativeTTIE

Ts

seD

 P. Roseboom

and

 Dorothy

L.

 Richey

 (he±binafter referred to as

 P.oseboom

and

 Richey).

 The Agency submitted operating data in

 the form

of NPDES discharge monitoring reports from the

 MSDGC John E.

Egan water reclamation plant on October

25,

 1977.

29—477

—2—

THE PROPOSED RULE

The language of the Agency’s proposed rule change filed

with the Board on May

3,

1977

 (Exh.

2),

is

 as follows:

“Rule

 402.1

 Exceptions to Rule 402

 (Ammonia

Nitrogen)

a)

 Rule 402 shall not apply

 to that portion

of Rule 203(f) pertaining to ammonia

nitrogen for any effluent from sources

in existence on April

1,

 1977, which

sources have an untreated ammonia load

not exceeding 60 pounds per day and

which sources do not require upgrading

to meet other provisions

of

this Chapter.

b)

 Rule 402 shall not apply

 to that portion

of Rule 203(f) pertaining

 to ammonia

nitrogen for any effluent during the months

of November through March.

 During that

period no effluent which alone

 or in

combination with other sources might cause

a violation of that portion of Rule

 203(f)

pertaining to ammonia nitrogen shall ex-

ceed 4.0 mg/i of ammonia nitrogen.

c)

 Compliance with the provisions of Rule

402

 as it applies to ammonia nitrogen

shall be achieved by December 31,

 1978,

or such other date set forth

 in an Agency

approved NPDES compliance program.

d)

 After July

1,

 1981,

 the exemptions pro-

vided

in

this Section 402.1 shall terminate.

James

 B. Park,

 P.E., Supervisor

of

the Standards Unit, Divi-

sion of Water Pollution Control, presented testimony describing

and explaining the basic elements of Rule 402.1 and the considera-

 tions underlying the Agency proposal

(R.

 9-li;

 59-61).

 (*See Note.)

*Note

There were four hearing transcripts

 taken

 in this proceeding.

In the transcripts of the

 first two

 (May

 10 and 13,

 1977)

 hearings,

the pages are consecutively numbered

 1 through 169.

 The pages

of the third transcript taken September

9,

 1977,

 are numbered 75

through 118;

 in the fourth transcript

 (September

12,

 1977)

the

pages are numbered 40 through 74.

 To avoid confusion, citations

to the May

 10 and May 13 transcripts will be prefixed by

R,

followed by th~page number.

 The page numbers

of

 the transcripts

of September

 9 and September

12

will be preceded by an

 S and

T,

respectively; hence

 a citation S.

—

 will refer

 to the record

taken September

 9 and T.

—

 to September

12.

—

478

—3—

The proposed rule would establish, where none now exists,

an interim ammonia nitrogen effluent limitation until July

1,

1981, of 1.5

mg/i

April through October and 4.0 mg/i November

through March for sources having an influent ammonia nitrogen

loading in excess of

 60 pounds per day, or for any source, not

in existence on April

1,

 1977, irrespective of loading.

 Com-

pliance with the interim effluent limitations

 is proposed to be

achieved by December

31,

 1978, or such other date as established

by NPDES

 (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System)

 permit.

An exemption

until July

1,

 1981,

 is proposed for sources having

a daily infiuent ammonia nitrogen loading of less than 60 pounds

if the source

was in existence on or before April

1,

 1977, pro-

vided that

such

source does not require facilities upgrading

to meet any other requirement of Chapter III.

Existing

sources subject to Rule

 406, which limits ammonia

nitrogen

discharges

 to 2.5 mg/l April through October and 4.0

mg/i November

through

March for domestic wastewater sources and

to

 3.0 mg/I for other sources discharging to the waters named

therein, are

not

included in the proposed rule.

 No discharges

which are or may be subject to the limitations of Rule 406 are

or are intended to be affected by the adoption or the termination

 of the proposed Rule 402.1.

 The proposal does not and

 is not

intended to supercede or

alter Rule

203(f)

 or Rule

 206(c) which

establish ammonia nitrogen water quality standards in General

Use Waters

and Lake

Michigan.

PEGULATORY BACKGROUND

Ammonia Nitrogen Water Quality Standards were added to the

Board’s Water Pollution Regulations on March

7,

1972

 (3 PCB 755)

at which time the Board stated:

“In large part today’s draft is

 simply a

codification of exi.sting water quality

standards and

associated provisions

 that

are now scattered throughout a number of

separate regulations

 that we inherited

from the Sanitary

Water Board.”

Rule 203(f)

 established

 a general water quality standard,

not to be exceeded,

 for ammonia nitrogen

 (as N)

 of 1.5 mg/i.

Rule

 206 established

 a water quality standard

 for Lake Michigan

for ammonia nitrogen of 0.02 mg/i.

In adopting Rule 203(f)

 the Board said

(at

 3 PCB 759) re-

garding ammonia

nitrogen:

“The present SWB-8

 standard is 2.5 mg/i which

the Green

Book

 (supra)

 says

 is acutely toxic

to fish.

 The earlier 1.0 proposal was based

29

—

479

—4—

upon

Minnesota

standard.

While

 the toxicity

ammonia

pH

dependent,

 the Green Book

recommends

 a limit of 1.5

 mq,’l,

 and that is

here adopted,”

In regard tc

the Lake Michigan

ammcnia

nitrogen

standard

0.02 mg/i established

by Rule

206

the

Board

only

stated

(at

3

PCB 764)

 that:

“Certain parameters taken

from

existing

standards

are preserved to require

this

high

quality

lake

to remain especially

clean

for

esthetic

and

recreational purposes,

accordance

with

the

important

non-degradation

policy.

The existing standard

referred

above,

Rule

1.01

SWB—7,

established a

Lake Michigan open

water

ammonia

nitrogen

standard

of

0.02

 mg/i

~

 not to

exceed

 a daily

average of

 0.05

mg/i;

 Rule

 1.02 of SWB-7 set

 a Lake

Michigan shore water standard

of 0.05 mg/l

uaiaverae

 not to

exceed

a

daily

 average

of

0.12

mg/i.

 Since the standard of SWB-7

in

Rule

1.01

was

annual

average,

 the Lake Michigan standard

establisled by Rule

 206 would

appear considerably more than a

preservation

the

SWE

standard..

The relationship between the water quality standards and

effluent limitations of Chapter III is established by Rule 402,

adopted January

6,

 1972, which reads

as

follows:

“In

addition

the

other

requirements

of

this

Part,

effluent

shall,

alone

combination

with

other

 sources, cause

a

violation

any

applicable

 water quality

standard,

 When the

Agency

finds

that

discharge that would. comply with effluent

standards contained in this

Chapter would

cause

 causing a violation of water

quality standards,

 the Agency shall

take

appropriate action under

Section

the

Act

require

the

dis-

charge

meet

whatever

effluent

limits

are

necessary

ensure

compliance

with

the

water quality

standards.

When

such

 viola-

tion

caused

the

cumulative

effect

than

one

source,

several

sources

may

joined

enforcement

variance

oroceeding,

and measures for necessary

effluent

 reductions

will be determined on

the basis of technical

 feasibility, economic reasonableness,

and

fairness

all

dischargers.”

the

adopting

Opinion,

the

Board

said

(at

 3 PCB 405):

“402

 Violation of

 Water Quality Standards.

The

numerical effluent standards adopted today are

29

—

480

—5—

intended

 as basic requirements that should be

met everywhere as representing ordinary good

practice in keeping potentially harmful materials

out of the waters.

 In some cases,

 because of

the low volume of the receiving stream or the

large quantities of treated wasted discharged,

meetinc these standards may not suffice to

assure that the stream complies with water

quality standards set on the basis

 of what is

necessary to support various water uses.

In

such cases the very nature of water quality

standards requires

 that additional measures

be taken beyond those required by ordinary good

practice to reduce further the discharge of

contaminants to the stream.

 This would not

be so if effluents were all required to be

as

 clean as the receiving stream, but in

recognition of economic hardship we have

 refrained from imposing such

 a requirement

across the board.

 What additional measures

are required can be determined only on the

basis of more detailed consideration of each

stream in accordance with the statutory re-

quirement that different needs may dictate

different standards.

 Rule

 402 states the

principle that discharges causing violations

of the water quality standards are forbidden,

as was the case under the earlier regulations,

and states basic considerations for determining

which of a number of contributors to an over-

loaded stream must take measures to abate the

problem.

 At the Agency’s request an additional

sentence has been added to spell out the Agency’s

responsibility.”

Rule

 406, which was adopted January

6,

 1972, established an

ammonia nitrogen effluent limitation for discharges to the

Illinois River, the DesPlaines River downstream of its confluence

with the Chicago River System,

 the Chicago River System,

 and the

Calumet River System.

 Rule 406 provides that discharges

 to those

waters named above by sources having an untreated ammonia waste

load of more than 50,000 P.E. shall not contain more than 2.5

mg/l of ammonia nitrogen

 (as N) April through October or

 4 mg/i

at other

 times.

 No other ammonia nitrogen effluent limitation

has been established for waters other than those listed in Rule

 406 and none were established for sources having an influent

ammonia nitrogen waste load of less than 50,000 P.E.

In the Opinion

 (3 PCB 401)

 adopting the rule,

 the following

comments appear beginning on page 406:

“406

 Nitrogen.

 The evidence is clear that for

too long the oxygen demand exerted

 ammonia

in domestic wastes had been overlooked

 in the

29—481

emphasis on reduction of five-day BOD.

The

State Water Survey has conclusively shown that

reduction

ammonia

from

the

larger

sources

feeding

the

Illinois

River

necessary

existing standards for dissolved oxygen,

essential

 an adequate fish population,

are to be

met.

This

exactly

the

sort

testimony

that

 required,.

 as discussed

connection

with

 Rule 402 above,

 in order to

assure that the water quality standards

are

complied with.

 There was extensive testimony

as to the availability of methods for reducing

 ammonia in effluents,

 and although several

witnesses heJ.ieved the technology was not

sufficiently proven in actual operation, we

are. convinced that nitrification can be

satisfactorily accomplished for a reasonable

price by

 a second stage of biological treat-

ment,

 The testimony of Edwin Barth and of

Dr. Clair Sawyer, both of whom are £ntimately

familiar

with

actual facilities for nitrifica~

tion,

 particularly effective on this point.

The

Metropolitan

Sanitary District, which is

principally affected by our proposal,

is

committed to employi~ignitrification.

Al~

though Dr. Sawyer’s ~estimony establishes

that an effluent of 2.5 mg/i can be achieved

even in winter by constructing a large

enough

tank,

 we have accepted the Sanitary District’s

suggestion of a slightly relaxed winter standard

in order to save costs

 in light of the Water

Survey’s assurance that such an

effluent

will

not

jeopardize

oxygen levels in the

Illinois

River.

We do not

 this record have sufficient

in-

formation

 enable us

 set ammonia effluent

standards

for

other

waters,

although

the

possibility

setting

them

the

basis

dilution

 ratios,

the

case

BOD,

worth

exploring

future

hearings.

likely

that

ammonia

reductions

elsewhere

w:L11

prove necessary

 order to

meet

stream

standards either for oxygen or for ammonia

itself, which in relatively low concentrations

may be toxic

 to fish.

 The Agency should of

course consider such questions in passing on

individual permit applications.

 But we think

it appropriate not to delay adoption of the

standards we know to be necessary in the

Illinois

River while determining what standards are

necessary elsewhere.”

—

482

—7—

Rule 406 was amended on June 28,

 1973,

 in P72-4 by

adding

the provision that sources discharging to any

of the

waters

listed in 406 and having an untreated waste load which

could

 not be computed on a population equivalent basis

and discharging

ammonia nitrogen in excess of 100 pounds per day, could not dis~~

charge an effluent containing more than 3.0

mg/i of ammonia

nitrogen after December

31,

 1974.

 This amendment did nothing

more than provide

additional

clarification

the

definition

of a source subject to the effluent

limitations

Rule

406;

for

either case,

 the threshold for applicability of the rule is

established by a discharge of 100 pounds per day of ammonia

nitrogen, however calculated.

NEED FOR THE PROPOSED REGULATION

Through

the

operation

Rule

402,

domestic

wastewater

treat

ment facilities not subject to Rule 406 and discharging to

inter~

mittent or low flow streams must be designed to provide

for

ammonia

nitrogen reduction to 1.5 mg/ito preclude violation of the

water

quality standard of Rule 203(f).

 The Agency has identified

least 1479 sources which

require

 ammonia nitrogen reduction

under

the present regulations

 (Exh.

 iA3).

 Of this total

of 1479

sources.

976 are facilities designed to serve fewer than 1000 P.E. and 214

serve fewer than 2500 P.E.

 (Exh. lAb,

Table

3).

 In all

instances,

in order to insure compliance with the water quality standard,

breakpoint chlorination of the effluent

is

required,

 a practice

which the Agency believes

 is beyond operational feasibility at the

small facilities, unreasonably expensive,

 and environmentally un~

sound

 (Exh.

 lA6-l2;

R.

 135).

Table

 3-3 of Exhibit

 7 provides

 a breakdown by

discharger

type

of 1489* sources which require further ammonia nitrogen

reduction:

Discharger Type

 Number

Municipalities

647

Schools

221

State Parks

&

Campgrounds

Service Stations

11

Trailer Parks

142

Commercial

Recreational Facilities

101

Nursing Homes

34

Agricultural

11

Municipal Facilities

55

State Highway Dept.

23

Motels

19

Residential

58

Miscellaneous

58

TOTAL

1489

*Note:

 There is an unexplained difference

of

 10 between

the

Agency

total of 1479 and the total of 1489 reported in Exhibit

7.

The

discrepancy occurs in Category #2, Schools

 & Other.

—

483

8—

Table

 3 of Exhibit lA breaks the 1479 sources into two

categories, category

#1

 Municipalities and category #2

Schools

 & Other, by plant design capability in population

equivalents

 (P.EJ.

Plant Design

 Category #1

 Category

#2

P.E.

Municipalities

Schools

Other

less

than

1000

179

797

1000—2499

196

2500—4999

100

5000—9999

10000—99999

86

4

more than 100,000

16

_______

647

832

Based upon this information, approximately 1190 of these 1479

facilities will not receive

 a daily average infiuent loading

of

 60 pounds of ammonia nitrogen.

AMMONIA

 REMOVAL

Ammonia

is

 a colorless gas consisting of nitrogen and hydro-

 gen which reacts with water to form an aqueous solution of ammonium

hydroxide.

When

sufficient

ammonia

dissolved

water,

chemical

equilibrium

results

which

contains

un—ionized

ammonia,

and ammonium and hydroxide ions.

 A simplified expression of the

equilibrium is:

NH3

H20

NH3

H~0

“~“~

 NH4~÷0H

where NH3

 _H2O represents the un-ionized ammonia;

NH4

 aitunonium

ion;

 and OH

 hydroxide ion.

 For the purpose of this opinion,÷

NH3 will be used to indicate dissolved un-ionized ammonia,

 Nft4

to designate the ammonium ion and the sum of the two as

 total

ammonia or ammonia nitrogen.

Ammonia can be found as

 a natural constituent in most waters,

usually

as

 a decomposition product of organic material containing

nitrogen.

 Arrtrnonia

 is a common constituent of domestic sewage;

sources of ammonia may also include rain and dust fall as well

as anthropogenic activity such as agriculture and industry.

 Much

of the ammonia present in surface waters results from the effluent

discharged from wastewater treatment facilities.

 In its several

states,

 and as

 a source of nitrogen,

 ammonia can be toxic, may

cause excessive growth of algae,

 reduce dissolved oxygen and may

react with other elements

 to form other undesirable or

 toxic

 com-

pounds

 in water.

 The nitrogen in ammonia can be substantially re-

moved during wastewater treatment

by

biologic or physical-chemical

processes or combinations

 thereof.

Biologic treatment of domestic wastewater

 is virtually

universally practiced and it has

been

demonstrated that cost-

effective biological treatment processes, such as activated sludge,

—

484

‘-9—

trickling filters, recirculating intermittent sand filters

and natural or aerated stabilization ponds, can be designed

which

are

capable

nitrifying

the

 wastewater and thereby

reducing

effluent

ammonia

nitrogen

concentrations

levels

of

1.5

 mg/i during warm weather.

 The process of nitrification,

however,

temperature

dependent;

the

rate

nitrification

decreases as the temperature decreases.

 It is not cost-effective

 design

biological

processes

capable

 of removing ammonia

nitrogen

1.5

mg/i

from

very

cold

domestic

wastewater.

Illinois,

 facilities

 treating domestic wastewater utilizing the

types of biologic processes which yield effluent concentration

of 1,5 mg/i during the warm months are usually incapable of

consistently reducing ammonia nitrogen concentrations below

4.0

mg/i

 during cold weather

 (Exh.

 lA4;

P.

23,

 45-46,

 66-67,

72—73,

 120—123,

 240—241;

 Exh.

 3 1—13).

As

mentioned above,

 there are physical-chemical processes

for nitrogen removal;

 the three candidate physical—chemical

processes suggested are ammonia stripping,

 selective ion ex-

change

 and breakpoint chlorination.

 Conceptually at least,

these

processes are initially attractive because they remove

the

 ammonia directly, are not subject to the biologic upset

and operational uncertainty of the biologic-treatment processes

and require less tankage and hence less space than biologic

processes

 (Exh.

1H,

1).

Ammonia

stripping

and

selective

ion

exchange

are

not

suitable or cost—effective processes for ammoni.a removal in

Illinois.

 Ammonia stripping is more sensitive to cold tempera-

tures than the biologic-treatment processes.

 Both ammonia

stripping

and

ion

exchange

are

energy

intensive,

both

require

sophisticated

automated

process

control

for

effective

operation;

neither

process

has

been

demonstrated

over

range

treatment

applications,

 and there

is

 a question whether or not either

 could.

consistently meet

 a 1.5 mg/i standard without

 a polishing opera~

tion

following

 the process

 (Exh.

1A,

 5-6;

 Exh.

 lii,

21;

 Exh.

7,

32;

26,

104).

BREAKPOINT CHLORINATION

The breakpoint chlorination process

 for removal of ammonia

nitrogen from water, very generally stated, proceeds as follows:

As

chlorine,

 as chlorine gas

 (C12)

 or as sodium hypochlorite

(NaOC1),

 is added to water, hypochiorous acid

 (HOd)

and

hypochiorite ion

 (OC1

)

 are formed.

If

 the water contains

ammonia nitrogen,

as

is

 the case with domestic wastewater,

the

ammonia reacts

with

the hypochborous acid to form monochioramine

(NH2C1)

 dichloramine

 (NHC12)

 and nitrogen trichicride or

trichioramine

 (NC13), depending upon

the

 amount of chlorine

added and pH, with the monochloramine the most usual formation

 domestic wastewater treatment.

 As additional chlorine

is

added,

 the chioramines are converted

to

nitrogen gas; maximum

—

485

-10-

conversion is achieved,

 and ammonia removed, when the total

chlorine residual is at minimum, or breakpoint; hence the

process name,

 breakpoint chlorination.

The

term

total

residual chlorine is used

 to describe the sum of free chlorine

(chlorine, hypochiorous acid and hypochlorite ions)

 and com-

bined residual chlorine

 (chloramines)

 in water.

 Chboramines

are believed to be slightly

less toxic

to

 fish than free

chlorine, however,

 the difference

 is apparently slight and

water quality criteria,

 such as

 the U.S.

 Environmental Pro-

tection Agency’s Quality Criteria for Water,

 EPA—440/9-76-023,

(the “Red Book”)

suggest

 water quality criterion of 10.0

micrograms per liter

 for total residual chlorine.

 The Illinois

State Water Survey Report ISWS~-77-RI85,Roseboom

 & Richev,

 p19,

concluded that for the protection of the fish investigated

(bluegill,

 iargemouth bass,

 channel catfish)

 residual chlorine

should not be detectable in Illinois streams~the permissible

concentration for residual chlorine for

the protection of

channel catfish determined by them was

 about

 9 micrograms per

liter which closely corresponds

to the Red

Book criterion.

A simplified description of

the breakpoint chlorination

process, together with some functional disadvantages of the

process

were

introduced

into

the

record

 the Agency in

Group Exhibit

I

 (Exh.

1,

 4-6)

1.

 Chlorine, either in the form of chlorine gas

or sodium hypochiorite,

 is introduced into

and thoroughly mixed with ammonia coqtaining

was tewater.

2.

 The chlorine reacts with the ammonia and pro-

 duces,

 under different dosages and pH con-

ditions,

 the end products of monochboramine,

dichboramine, nitrogen trichloride, hydro-

chloric acid,

 and free nitrogen.

3.

 The acid produced by these reactions reacts

with

the

carbonate

alkalinity

normally

nresent

in domestic wastewater

and

 is neutralized.

4.

 Because chioramines are toxic

 to aquatic life,

and because nitrogen trichloride produces un-

pleasant odors,

it

is necessary to dose with

chlorine at fairly high rates

 in order

to

cause the ammonia

to be converted completely

to nitrogen gas.

necessary

carefully

control

the

dosage

rate and the pH of the wastewater in order

to

cause the reaction to go to completion.

—

486

—11—

6.

 Since it is necessary to overdose with chlorine

in excess of the stoichiometric ratio to drive

the chemical reaction,

 a substantial chlorine

residual exists after breakpoint chlorination.

This residual

 is high enough

 to be toxic

to

aquatic life.

7.

 Dechlorination is most practically accomplished

by sulfur dioxide feeding in a suitable reactor,

but it has the disadvantage of producing sul-

furic acid, usually requiring pH correction by

feeding in a base to neutralize the acid.

8.

 The functional disadvantages of the breakpoint

chlorination/dechlorination process are as

follows:

a)

 The process requires the use of

sophisticated automated chemical

feed equipment to assure reasonable

control.

b)

 Failure of any part of this system

may cause the production of chemical

byproducts which are more toxic than

the initial ammonia concentrations.

c)

 The process must be manned and monitored

on a 24-hour a day basis

 in, order

to

assure day—in day-out process reliability.

d)

 The process

 is inherently energy intensive.

In amplification of the disadvantages summarized in paragraph

8 above,

 the Agency concluded that control of the breakpoint

chlorination process for ammonia reduction is not operationally

feasible at most of the 1479 treatment plants

 in categories

1

and

2

 as described on page

 8 above.

 In support of this conclu-

sion,

 the Agency cited the following:

a)

 natural fluctuations of diurnal flow and

of the chlorine demand make it necessary

to install intricate automated flow

 measurement devices with automated re-

sponsive chlorine feed controls to com-

pensate for pH, chlorine residual and

ammonia concentrations;

b)

 lack of demonstrated reliability for such

automated equipment under

 field conditions

is expected to be a major problem, including

downtime and costs;

—

487

c)

 tze~

the pr’e’s

.~.

auwrated

c,j

toasur

s

 ‘a

—

orine trom

~tion

of

ec.

 equipment

r ;tion;

d)

 the c.~

ott

i

-0

tur a

a,

a

ira

L.d

ann

to

Other poter

process revea..eO

total dissolved

 ...olic

potentially ver: h

 -r.c

(organochloram.ir

and

the depresnor

4

result of dec.hl

‘4

Exh.

lE,

 1—5;

 T”xr

The Agency p

the capital experd

t

c

which would resu

a backup process

estimated

utili

‘in

Selection of Cost-L

1975, for the

 and industrial)

c

costs to provid

V

installations

The Agency esti.

 ‘e

costs

 (excludirg

cap’t

is approximately

plants, which they est

t

from $1.40 per cor’nrt

connections)

 to $1 18

pc

plant

 (3333 connectiotte)

e4uipment for

b eakpoint

ecnlorination)

rcently available

cause of the pre—

fling budget faci-

 rg a capacity of

per

day which

e

~otal treatment

lA, 12;

R.

 25—31,

rc~kpointchlorination

tantial.

 increase in

t

the process; the

ia.ic

 compounds

r .g the process;

‘ie

wastewater

(Exh.

1A,

C”t.

lii,

17—21).

end

iS,

estimates

TIa.intenance

costs

i.

t chlorination as

 These costs were

•

 ‘A Guide to the

...r

 ~~tmcnt

 Systems,” July

is

 (excluding

MSDGC

reduction.

 Capital

nnation for the 1479

C,

total $185.6 million.

t

a

t

and

maintenance

 ‘1

‘

t

 ‘the backup processes

MSDGC

and

 industrial

t

 unit costs ranging

i

 ‘lart of 600 P.E.

 (200

e

i

r

 onth for a 10,000 P.E.

-‘

 4ires precise

~ the occurrence

 rt excess sul—

a

I-

3

oond

lit~

—‘

le

c nc.

a..

ta

8’

3

f

b

I

7

Li..

a

SI

—13—

The

breakdown

the

costs

estimated

discharger

Category

 Schools

&

Other

No.

 Plants

0

 & N Costs

Millions

S

Less

 than

1000

 10. 17*

797

2.7

1000—2499

 12. 79

18

.08

2500—4999

 19. 68

6

.04

5000—9999

 20. 78

7

.07

10000—99999

 47. 32

4

.06

100,000

 323.

57

832

 $2 .95

ECONOMIC IMPACT

The Illinois Institute

for Environmental Quality performed

a study on the economic impact of the proposed regulation pursuant

to ~6(d)

of

 the Act.

 This study, “Economic Impact of a Procosed

Change in

Ammonia

Effluent

Standards,

P77-6,”

IIEQ

Doc.

No.

77/18,

was filed with the

Board on June 27,

 1977,

and

was introduced into

evidence

 as Exhibit

 7 at the September

9,

 1977,

 hearing

 in Chicago.

Less than 1000

1000—2499

2500—4999

5000—9999

10000—99999

100,000

+

TOTAL

 Category

#2

Total 0

 & N cost for Categories

 #1 and

#2

 $8.8 million

*Scaled down using a factor of 0.628

From Exh.

1A,

10

 Table

3

29

—

490

—15—

In addition, Exhibit 7A,

 “Points

 for Consideration,”

 was intro-

duced at

the September

12,

 1977, hearing and makes certain

corrections

 to Exhibit

7.

 (*See Note.)

 By the Act,

 the Economic

Technical Advisory Committee reviewed the economic impact study

prior

 to the filing of the study with the Board and, or~review,

found

the

 report

 to be generally responsive

 to the recuirements

of Section

 6 of the Act.

Ms.

Linda

Huff,

Ch.E,

MBA,

the

economic

impact

study

contractor

for

IIEQ

study,

summarized

the

study

(S.81-98)

and

concluded:

“On the basis

 of the economic impact and benefit

cost analysis

 of the proposed IEPA exception to

the existing effluent standards, adoption of

this proposal

 is justified.

 The severe economic

impact on small commercial operations,

 schools,

and municipalities with little gained in terms

environmental

improvement

suggests

exemption

for

dischargers

less

than

2500

cost

effective

policy.

 Additional

 time for

the compliance of

larger facilities removes the potential loss of

federal and state funds for municipal construction

and

provides

for

technological

development.

The

benefits foregone by granting this exception to

regulation are less than the costs incurred by

society and the dischargers.

 Therefore,

the

proposed regulatory exception is an economically

acceptable plan.

*Note

Certain

arithmetic

errors

exist

Exhibit

7A,

The

product

listed

the

first

row

should

$2,440,000

and

the

product listed in the third row should

$712,800.

Hence

the

sum

the

products

should

$8,049,700.

Tables

2-2

and

5-8

Exhibit

should

corrected,

Exhibit

suggests,

but

corrected

using

proper

values.

The

values

parentheses

the

“Annual

Costs”

column

these

tables

should

$26.2

for

row

1

 (biological nitrification, $18.2;

 breakpoint chlorination,

$8.0)

and

$13.9

for

rows

and

(biological

nitrification,

$9.3;

break~ointchlorination,

 $4.6)

The

above

renders

the

cost

columns

Tables

2-3

and

5-9,

“Present

Value

Benefits

and

Costs”

less

useful;

the

present

values

have

 not been recomputed

since

(1),

the

regulation

self-destructs

four

years

and

(2)

 twenty years

is

 a totally arbitrary time period.

29

—

491

—16—

In fact,

 it appears that

 a stronger proposal

may be warranted.

 Unless a water quality

standard modification for intermittent streams

contemplated,

the

smaller

dischargers

 will

be severely impacted

in 1981.

 The incremental

costs

associated

witn

their

compliance

far

exceed the incremental gains achieved.

For

larger treatment plants it may be difficult to

initiate and complete treatment facilities

within the time

frame

outlined

IEPA.

Cer-

tainly

 the exception proposed will alleviate

immediate compliance and funding problems.

Consideration of the practical logistics

in

obtaining

such

significant

auxiliary

treatment

facilities

 is important in the final analysis

of the economic imoact.”

 (S.92-93;

 Exh.

7,

 13).

Review

 of the economic impact study

 (Exh.

7;

 Exh.

 7A),

the

economic analysis presented by the Agency

 (Exh.

1A,

 7-il;

 Exh.

lB,

1-8)

and

the

 testimony

 in the record

 (S.81-206;

 T.67-69)

 reveals

nothing

contradiction

the

 conclusions

the

economic

impact

 study and the economic

impact

study

supports

the

 cost

figures estimated by the Agency.

 It should be noted that the

costs developed were for the cost of providing breakpoint chlori-

nation only

as

 a backup to biological

 removal of ammonia.

The

cost

cf ammonia removal by biologic treatment was not compared

to the cost of ammonia removal by breakpoint crilorination either

by

the economic impact study contractor or by the Agency.

Nor

necessary

since

the

regulation

proposed

does

not

require

judgment

the

relative

economic

performance

of

either

system.

 In view of the large number of small plants within the

lagoon exemption of Rule 404(c)

 and the fact that some 90

of

the treatment facilities

 in the

state

are

designed

serve

capacity of

less

than

0.25

MGD,

there

 little

question that

biologic treatment as the primary means

 for ammonia nitrogen re-

moval

will

 continue.

 Dr. Thomas

E.

 Wilson, who participated in

the EPA technology

 transfer program on nitrogen control

and

has

published

 a number of

papers

nitrogen

control,

stated

that

the

state

 of the art for

nitrogen control

 is biological nitrifi-

cation

(R.

 70).

consideration

the

economic

impact

the

proposal,

the Board notes differences between the estimate provided

Dr. Thomas

 E, Wilson of Greeley

 & Hansen

 (Exh.

 7, Appendix B,

83)

and

the

estimate

provided

the

Agency

(Exh.

lB,

Table

4)

 of the cost of breakpoint chlorination/dechlorination

as

a

backup

 for ammonia nitrogen removal;

 the differences were utilized

in the economic impact study

 to provide

 a range of costs and the

conclusions reached are valid using either estimate of costs.

29

—

492

—17—

WATER

QUALITY

CONSIDERATIONS

The present Rule 203(f) water quality standard of

 1.5 mg/i

was

based,

indicated

previously,

the

recommended

limit

of

the

Green

Book

PCB

759).

The

“Green

Book,”

published

1968

by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,

U.

S.

Department of

 the Interior,

 has been superceded by the “Red Book”

published

the

Environmental

Protection

Agency

and

titled

Quality Criteria for Water.

 The water quality criterion for

ammonia set

forth

page

 16 of the Red Book

 is 0.02 m~/l

(as

un-ionized

 ammonia)

 for freshwater aquatic

 life.

 The Red Book

(at

page

21)

concludes

that:

“Levels

un-ionized

ammonia

the

range

0.20

mg/l

have

been

shown

toxic

to

some

species

freshwater

aquatic

life.

provide

safety

for

those

life

forms

not

examined,

1/10th

the

lower

value

this

toxic

effect

range results

 in a criterion of 0.020 mg/l

of

un-ionized ammonia.

 This criterion is slightly

lower

than

that

recommended

for

European

inland

fisheries

(El

FAC,

1970)

for

temperatures

above

5°Cand pH values below 8.5.

 Measurement of

values

total

ammonia

for

calculation

values

in the range

 of 0.020 mg/i NH3

 is well within

current analytical capability.”

The philosophy of the Red Book

 is that the criteria presented

therein,

anoroeriately

modified

take

account

local

conditions,

form

basis

for

judgment

establishing

water

quality

standards.

The

local

conditions

considered

include

actual

and

projected

uses of

the

water,

natural

background

levels

 of particular con-

stituents,

 the presence or absence of sensitive important species,

characteristics

the

local

biological

community,

temperature

and

weather, flow characteristics,

 and synergistic or antagonistic

effects

 of combination of pollutants

 (Exh.

8,

7).

The

Consulting

Engineers

Council

Illinois,

through

the

testimony and exhibits presented by Mr.

M.D.R.

Riddell

and

Dr.

T.E.

Wilson,

both

 Greeley

&

Hansen,

urued

the

adoution

variable

concentration

arnmoni3

water

qua ii. ty

tcirrdord

such

recommended

for

European

inland

fisheries

which

discussed

the

Red

Book

and which

 the Consulting Engineers Council of Illinois had urged

in 1973

 in P73-3 and 73-4

 and which CEC/I had submitted

 to the

Board

 in November,

1972

(P.

77;

 Exh.

3,

3,

 10—15,

20,

 22—26).

There

wide-spread

agreement

that

the

dissolved

un—ionized

ammonia

(NH3)

the

toxic

constituent

aqueous

solutions

ammonia and that the percentage

 of NH3 increases with increasing

temperature and alkalinity.

 Estimates of the percentage or con-

centration of NH3 and NH4~can be computed

 if pH and temperature

are

known.

Some

calculated

percentages

un—ionized

ammonia

aqueous

ammonia

 solution of zero salinity against varying oH

value and temperature

 is presented in the following

 tabulation:

29

—

493

—18—

TEMP.

(°C)

____________

________

____

________

_______

From Roseboom

 & Richey

 Table

11

In Exhibit

 lC, the Agency presented data concerning water

quality

ammonia

violations

for

samples

exceeding

1.5

mg/i

for

years 1973 through 1976 and detailed reported fish kills caused

by ammonia in

 1976,

 none of which resulted from treatment plaflt

discharges.

Dr.

David

J.

 Schaeffer,

 Science Advisor

 to the

Manager, Division of Water Pollution Control,

 IEPA,

 testified

6.5

Percent

Un-ionized

Ammonia

(NH3)

Aqueous

Ammonia

Solutions

Temperature

pH

Degrees

Centigrade

7.0

(1)

7.5

10

15

20

25

30

0.040

0.059

0.087

0,13

0.18

0.25

8.0

8.5

0.12

0.19

0.27

0.40

0.57

0,80

9.0

0.39

0.59

0.86

1.2

1.8

2.5

1.2

1,8

2.7

3.8

5.4

7.5

3.8

5.6

8.

11.

15.

20.

11.

16.

21.

28.

36.

45.

(1)

 From:

 Emerson, Russo, Lund

 & Thurston

“Aqueous Ammonia Equilibrium Calculations,

Effect of pH and Temperature,”

J.

 Fish.

Res.

Board

Can.

(12)

2379—2383

(1975).

(Exh.

1E,

8

 Bibliography Reference

24)

The Illinois State Water Survey Report ISWS-77-R185, Rose-

boom and Richey, p30, concluded,

 after applying

a

 factor of 1/10

to

 the 96-hour TL

 50 observed in their study,

 that bluegill,

largemouth bass and channel catfish would be protected

 in Illinois

streams when NH3 (un—ionized ammonia) does not exceed 0.04 mg/i.

Their tabulation

 of concentrations of total ammonia which

will produce

 0.04 mg/l of NH3 at various pH and temperature

values

is

 as follows:

pH

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

mg/i

 mg/i

~7i

 mg/i

 mg/l

 mg/1

5

 127.4

 36.0

 11.4

 3.60

 1.18

 0.40

10

 76.3

 24.1

 7.65

 2.45

 0.80

 0.28

15

 52.08

 16.5

 5.24

 1.69

 0.56

 0.20

20

 35.7

 11.3

 3.60

 1.17

 0.40

 0.15

25

 25.0

 7.95

 2.55

 0.83

 0.29

 0.12

30

 17.62

 5.60

 1.80

 0.60

 0.22

 0.10

29

—

494

—19—

concerning

the

significance

the

number

stations

exceeding

1.5 mg/i.

 He stated that

 the exhibit indicated that about

10

percent of

 the stations

 (about

55)

 exceed

the

 1.5 mg/I standard

monthly; that the number

 of stations which

violate

 the standard

is small;

 that

 a small fraction

of

 the total data collected

 shows

water quality violations;

and.

 that the percentage

 violation

 over the standard

 is relatively small

(R.

 163)

 Mr. Park

testified

that while

 these discharges may have localized impacts,

 their

impact on water quality in general will be small

(R.

61)

Mr.

Leonard

Crawford,

Murphy

 & Tilly,

 Inc.,

 Consultino

Engineers,

 who has practiced

as

 a professional consulting engineer

for about

 35 years, gave testimony concerning

 the localized impact

of the discharge

 of ammonia nitrogen

(T.

 47-4 9)

 The Agency stated

that

the

experienced

frequency

ammonia

nitrogen

water

quality

violations will be steadily decreased

 as the over 200 treatment

plant projects currently under construction are completed and

placed

operation

 (Exh.

 1A, 13-14).

Exhibit

1—I

Chapter

3

 (p46—62) excerpted

 from

 a report

May,

 1976,

 entitled

 “A Critical Evaluation of Current Performance

of Some Activated Sludge and Lagoon Systems

 in Illinois”

by

 Eharat Mathur,

 P.E. and Carol Houston, both of the Division of

Water Pollution Control,

 Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.

Table

 11 of Exhibit

 1-i,

 is a summary of ammonia nitrogen

in

lagoon

effluents

Illinois,

follows:

AMMONIA NITROGEN IN LAGOON EFFLUENTS*

Average

N1i3-N

Concentration

rn/I

Three Cell Waste Stabilization Ponds

2.3

Three Cell Aerated Lagoons

2.1

Three Cell Waste Stabilization Ponds Performance by Month

January

6.3

(27)**

February

3.1

(28)

March

3.6

 (21)

April

2.4

 (29)

May

1.7

 (33)

June

 1.43

 (21)

July

 0.38

 (24)

August

 0.76

 (18)

September

1.4

 (29)

October

2.3

 (36)

November

2.3

(24)

December

2.1

 (26)

29

—

49~

—20—

AMMONIA NITROGEN

 IN LAGOON EFFLUENTS*

 (continued)

Average NH3—N

Concentration in

mg/i

Three Cell Waste Stabilization Ponds

Plants North of Highway 116

2.6

 (14)

Plants

Between

 116 and US

50

1.4

 (96)

Plants South of US

50

2.8

 (216)

*(Exh

 1—I,

50)

**Values

(

)

indicate

 number of samples.

Based upon this report,

 it can be concluded

that

existing

three cell waste stabilization ponds and aerated lagoons should

not violate a 1.5 mg/i limitation June through September.

 During

other times

 of the year,

 the amount of flow

 in the receiving

streams will control compliance with the 1.5 mg/I limitation

October

 through

 May.

 The effect of discharges

 from three cell

natural and aerated waste stabilization ponds on water quality

during the winter months

is

expected

to be minimal considering

the data concerning

the decreasing toxicity of ammonia as tempera-

ture

 falls

 (Exh.

 1—I,

 49—51;

1A,

 10).

Exhibit

 l-D presented by the Agency

 is a summary of informa-

tion relative

 to existing regulations in several other states re-

garding ammonia nitrogen standards and practices;

 Mr. Park

 testified

that of

 the six states surveyed, only Pennsylvania

 (1.5 mg/l summer,

4.5 mg/i winter)

 and Wisconsin

 (controlled discharge)

 had standards

for intermittent streams

(P.

 130—133).

NO

CHANGE

WATER

QUALITY

STANDARD

The Agency has not oronosed that

the

 existing ammonia

nitrogen

water quality standard be changed at this time.

Mr.

 Park testified

(P.

9,

 21-22,

 35) that the Agency will propose an appropriate

un-ionized ammonia water quality standard

 as soon as valid toxicity

data for Illinois waters can be developed

 to support

 a revision

to the current standard.

 The Illinois

State Water Survey and the

Illinois Natural History Survey are both doing bioassay work on

ammonia toxicity

 to identify water quality needs specifically for

aquatic soecies present in

 Illinois waters.

 The Agency,

 in con-

junction with their work,

 is attempting

 to tailor water quality

requirements more closely

 to the existing and anticipated uses of

given water segments

(P.

 13—14).

29

—

496

—21—

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED CHANGE

In the hearing of May 10,

 1977,

Mr.

 G. W.

 Henderson,

Superintendent

of

 the Galesburg Sanitary District, presented

a statement prepared by the Board of Trustees and signed

their President requesting a change of regulations.

Mr.

Henderson testified that the ammonia levels

 in the effluent

from their treatment works vary from above

 1 mg/i in warm

weather

high

 5 or

 6 during December, January and

February

when

temperatures

 ranged between zero to

 20 degrees

below

(R..

 45).

 further testified that since the effluent

maintains

the

flow

in

the receiving stream,

 the effluent must

meet the

ammonia

 nitrogen water quality standard

(R.

 43) and

that the cost

 meeting the standard had been estimated at

$4.75

million

(P.

 38).

The Consulting Engineers Council of Illinois,

 through the

testimony of Mr.

 Rid.dell and Dr. Wilson and in a statement entered

into the record as Exhibit

3,

 concurred the Agency exemption

of

small sources and require the minimum use of breakpoint chlorina-~

 tion but

stated

 that the proposal fell short of adequacy in that

it did

not

 include an un-ionized ammonia water quality standard

(Exh.

3,

4—5).

A letter of

agreement

with

the

proposed

regulation,

dated

May

6,

 1977,

and

signed

 Bart T. Lynam,

 General Superintendent

the

Metropolitan

 Sanitary District of Greater Chicago was

placed into the record as Exhibit

6.

Mr. Allen Panek, Superintendent of the Water Supply and

Reclamation Division of the City of Napervilie, testified in

support

the

proposal

and

stated

that

they

were

achieving

effluent concentration of 1.5 mg/i during summer months

but

that the wintertime

 limitation of 4.0 mg/i might not be realistic

based on their experience

 (P. 110-114)

Mr.

L.

K.

 Crawford,

 of Crawford, Murphy

 & Tiiiy,

 Inc.,

Springfield,

testified

behalf

the

proposed

regulation

and

recommended

addition

that

the

Board

delete

ammonia

nitrogen

concentrations

requirements

for

discharges

intermittent

streams

ditches

until

there

was

a

showing

that:

ammonia

troqun

re-

duction

was

necessary

 to protect

 the streams

 or aquatic

 life and

that technology was available

 to safely provide

 the reduction

necessary.

Mr.

 Crawford expressed concern that by adhering

to

current requirements or even the proposed rule change that

a

number of “white elephants” could be constructed which are not

required from an environmental standpoint

(T,

 44-65).

Mr.

A.

 Paul Troemper,

 Executive Director of the Springfield

Sanitary

District,

 concurred in

full with

 the conclusions presented

by

Mr.

Crawford

letter

dated

September

20,

1977,

which

he stated that

distress

situation

 had. been noted

in

 fish below

29

—

497

—22—

their Sugar Creek Plant even though the 1.5 mg/i standard had

been exceeded during periods

 of extreme low flow.

 An earlier

letter dated June

1,

 1977,

 from Mr. Troemper included weekly

readings of

 ammonia nitrogen from January,

 1975,

 through May,

1977,

 taken

 in Sugar Creek downstream of the treatment plant

noting that

 no adverse affect had been noted on the fish life

in the stream.

 He further stated that in his opinion chlorine

carryover in the effluent had adversely affected fish life.

Mr. John Treuthart, District Engineer of the DeKalb Sanitary

District, submitted

 a letter dated May 23,

 1977,

 requesting

favorable consideration of the proposal.

Mr.

 Treuthart stated

that the rotating biological

 contactors

being installed in

their upgraded facilities would provide ammonia nitrogen removal

to

 1.5 mg/i except during the coldest months and that the

effluent discharged during the winter would have no detrimental

effect.

Letters

 in support of the proposed regulation were also

received from the

Illinois

Association

 of Sanitary Districts

on May

17,

 1977,

 and the Southwestern Illinois Metropolitan

and Regional Planning Commission on

June

9,

 1977.

There was no testimony or comment submitted

 in opposition

to the proposed rule except the testimony noted above which

suggested that the Agency

proposal does not go far enough.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Board has reviewed the record

 in this proceeding and

finds that the procedural requirements of the statute and

regulations regarding the adoption of regulations have been

fulfilled.

The proposal

was

originally submitted as

 a variance petition

by the Agency which

 the Board construed as a regulator’i proposal

believing that such

 a variance petition by the Agency was beyond

the

 contemplation

 the Act.

The

Board

finds

merit

the

re-

quest

for

interim

exception

for

the

axis

ting

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.

 It does not appear

 from the record that existing water

quality will be degraded during the period of the proposed ex-

ception to Rule 402 because they will be required by permit

to

provide ammonia reduction consistent with their existing works

and process.

 It appears most likely that water quality will show

constant improvement as new and ungraded treatment plants begin

operation during the period and the effluent limitations proposed

by 402.1(b),

 where none now exist,

 are implemented.

 The Board

is

persuaded that the use of breakpoint chlorination

as

 a backup

to

—

49~

—23—

biological processes may well cause

 a more

significant probic~t

the

aquatic

environment

than

the

remaining

 fraction of

the

ammonia nitrogen removed

 the breakpoint

chlorination,

least

 to the extent that wide—spread implementation of

break--

point chlorination be deferred

oend.ing

thorough

investigation

into the necessity for the use of such

 a process.

The language of the Agency proposal has been siiuhtlv

modified in an attempt

 to insure clarity.

 Rule 402.l(a~ excepts

the

small

sources

 they:

(1)

have

ammonia

nitrogen

 influent

 loedfnq

of less than

pounds

per

day;

and

(2)

were

 existence on April

1,

 1977;

and

(3)

not

require

upgrading

meet

other requirement of Chapter III,

If

 a source does not meet each one of these

 ~hccc-

criteria,

must

comply

with

the

requirement

402.1(b)

and

(c)

 which

provide that such

source meet an effluent discharge

 limitation

of

 4.0 mg/i November through March beginning

March

Il,

 1979,

or

as otherwise required by permit condition or order

of the Board

in

a

variance or enforcement proceeding.

 The compliance date

is

established

 to allow for facilities now planned or

under

 con-

struction

completed

and

achieve

compliance

 accordance

with

the

realities

 the biological processes employed.

The

provision

for

other

 dates will allow

for

earlier dates

 of compliance

because facilities are already under construction or

ocerational

or because unusual circumstance,

 such as

 grant program delays,

dictate later compliance.

 The termination date for Rule

 402.1

is

established

 as July

1,

 1982, which

 the Board believes

is

 the?

practical

minimum

 in which

 to collect the detailed data

 support

any

necessary

regulatory

change

and

allow

for

proper

hearing

and

consideration

 by the Board.

PROPOSED

FINAL

DhDF7

Proposed

 Rule 402.1

Exceptions

Pule

402

 (Ammor

i a

Nitrogen)

a)

 Rule 402 shall not apply

 to that portion

of Rule

203(f) pertaining to ammonia nitrogen for

any

effluent

from

source

 existence on April

1,

1977,

having

untreated

ammonia

 influent

loading not exceeding

 60 pounds per day

and

not

otherwise

needing

uograding

meet

the

requirements

 of this Chapter.

29

—

499

—24—

Rule

402

shall

not

apply

that

portion

Rule

203(f) pertaining

 to ammonia nitrogen for any

source during

 the months of November through

March;

 except that during the months

 of November

through March

no

scu’”n,

 not exempt under 402.1(a),

shall

 discharge

 an effluent containing

 a concentra-

tion of ammonia nitrogeh greater than 4.0 mg/i

if

the discharge,

 alone

 in combination with other

discharges,

causes

 or contributes

to

 a violation of

that portion of Rule 203(f)

 pertaining

 to ammonia

nitrogen.

c)

 Compliance with the provisions of Rule

 402.1(b)

shall be achieved by March

31,

 1979,

 or such

other date as required by NPDES permit, or

as

ordered

the

Board

under

Title

VIII

Title

the

Environmental

Protection

Act.

d)

 After July

1982,

the

exemptions

provided

this

Rule

402.1

shall

terminate.

I, Christan L.

 Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify

 the above Proposed Final Opinion

was approved 5o~publication and public

comment ~n

 the ~

day of

__________________,

1978

by

 a vote of

~-O

Christan

 Mcffet!~~1lerk

Illinois Pollution ~itrol

 Board

29

—

500