ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February 14,
1974
)
IN THE MATTER OF
)
WATER POLLUTION REGULATION
)
R73-1
AMENDMENTS
)
)
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mi-. Dumelle):
This matter concerns amendments to certain rules of the
Illinois Pollution Control Board Rules and Regulations, Chapter 3~
Water Pollution.
Chronology of Events
Amendments
to the Water Regulations were proposed by the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency) on February
20,
1973.
The proposal, published in Board Newsletter #61, with one
exception was “intended to meet objections
to existing Illinois
Water Pollution Regulations raised in the January 16,
1973 letter
from Mr. Francis T. Mayo, Regional Administrator, Region V,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(IJSBPA)
to Governor Daniel
Walker.”
The exception was the additional proposal by the Agency
to revoke Rule 921(d)
of Chapter 3.
Specific amendments proposed
by the Agency were the following:
Amend Rule 104
(Definitions)
as follows:
~
preteeted-fer-aqi~atie-3:ife;
Amend Rule 201(b)
(Mixing Zones)
as follows:
(b)
In addition to the above,
fer-waters-designed-fer-aquatie
Iife-(~enera1-Standards3; the mixing
zone shall be so de-
signed as
to assure
a reasonable
zone
of passage of
aquatic life
in which the water quality standards are met.
The mixing zones shall not intersect any area of any such
waters in such a manner that the maintenance
of aquatic
life in the body of water
as
a whole would be adversely
affected,
nor shall
any mixing
zone contain more than
25
of the cross-sectional area and/or volume of flow of
a
stream.
11
—291
-2-
Amend Rule
203(c)
as
follows:
(c)
Phosphorus
(STORET number
-
00665);
Phosphorus
as
P shall
not exceed 0.1 mg/i in any waters of the State, nor shall
it exceed 0T05 mg/l in
aiiiy reservoir or lake,
or in any
stream a~the point where
it
enters any reservoir or lake.
Amend Rule 203(h)
as
follows:
(h)
Any substance toxic
to aquatic
life shall not exceed one-
tenth of the 48-heur 96-hour median tolerance limit
(48-hr.
96-hr.
TLm) for native fish or essential fish food organisms.
Amend Rule 205
as follows:
205
Restrieted-Use-Standards
Secondary Contact
and Indigenous Aquatic Life Standards
Water designated
in Part
III of this Chapter for-Restrieted
Use
as Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life
Waters
shall meet
the following standards:
(c)
Dissolved oxygen
(STORET number
00300)
shall not be
less than 4.0 mg/i ~
3;8-mg/1--d~ring-at-least
16-he~rs-in-any-24-he~r-peried;-ner-iess--tham-2~9-mg/l
at-any-time;
(g)
Phosphorus
LSTORET number
-
00665~
Phos~phorus as
P
shall
not exceed 0.1
mg/i ~n any
waters
o1
the State, nor
shd11
f?~exceed 0.05
mg/i
in
any reservoir
or lake,
or in any
stream
at
the point where
it enters
~reservoir
or
la1~e.
(h)
Any substance toxic
to
aquatic
life
shall
not exceed one-
tenth of the 96-hour median
tolerance
limit
(96-hr.
TLm)
~ivefis~oraaxiisms.
Amend Rule
301 as
follows:
301
General Use Waters
All waters of
the State
of Illinois
are designated for
general use except those designated as Restrieted-Use
Waters; secondary contact and indigenous aquatic life waters.
Amend Rule
302 as
follows:
302
Restricted-Use--Waters
Secondary Contact
and
Indigenous
Aqpatic
Life Waters
11
--~
292
—3-
Secondary contact and indigenous aquatic life waters
are
those waters which will be appropriate
for all secondary
contact uses and which wTll be capable of supporting
an
i~idigenousaquatic life limited only by the physical con-
figuration of the body of water, characteristics
and
origin of the water and the presence of contaminants in
amounts that do not exceed the applicable standards.
The following
are desi~natedas restricted-use-waters
secondary contact and indigenous aquatic life waters:
Amend Rule 303 ~s follows:
303
Public and Food Processing Water Supply
All waters of IllinOis are designated for Public and Food
Processing Water Supply use except those designated
as Re-
strieted-FJse-Waters,
secondary contact and indigenous
aquatic life waters, and except for the following:
(a)
The Chicago River;
(b)
The Little Calumet River.
Amend Rule 921 as follows:
921
Standards for Issuance
The Agency shall not grant any permit required by this Part,
except an Experimental Permit under Rule 907, unless
the
applicant submits adequate proof that
the treatment works,
sewer,
and wastewater source:
(d)
if-subjeet-to-a-future-eemplianee-date;-the-
ap~lieant-has
-
an-appreVed-Pre~eet—Cempletien-
Sehedule-in-aeeerdanee-with-the-previsiens-ef-
Rule
-
100 2.
Hearings on the proposed amendments were held at the following
locations:
March
27, 1973
Chicago,
Ill.
March
28, 1973 continued to
March
30, 1973
Chicago,
Ill.
April 10, 1973
Carbondale,
Ill.
April
11,
1973
Springfield,
Ill.
May 4,
1973
Chicago,
Ill.
11
—293
-4-
At the hearing on April
10 the Agency presented several revisions
to their original proposal.
These revisions are listed below.
Amend
Rule 201(b)
(Mixing
Zones)
as
follows:
(b)
In addition to
the above,
for-waters-designated-for
aqtiatic-life-f6enerai-Standards~,the mixing zone shall be
so designed as
to assure
a reasonable zone of passage for
aquatic
life in which the water quality standards
are
mete
The mixing
zones shall not intersect any area of any
such waters
in such a manner that the maintenance of aquatic
life in the body of water
as
a whole would be adversely
affected, nor shall
any mixing zone contain more than 25
of
the cross-sectional area and/or volume of flow ot
a
stream.
For contaminants other
than
those for which
numerical standards have been established,
the 9ô-hour
TLm
for
indigenous
fish
or
essential
fishfood
organisms,
whichever
is
more
stringent,
shall
not
be
exceeded
at
any
po:int
in the mixing
zone.
(mean
tolerance
level
(TLm)
is
the
concentration
at
which
there
is
a
50
mortality
rate
to bioassay test organisms)
Amend Rule
203(h)
as
follows:
(h)
Any
.substanee-texie-te-aqttet~
e-iife-s:all-net-exeeed
one-tenth--of-the-48-hour-iedian-te1era~ee-iimit-f48-
hr~-TL-fer--nati-fish-er~es~entiai
--fish-?eod-ergan-
isms;
For
contaminants
other
than
those
for
which
numerical
standards
have
been
established,
one-tenth
of
the
96-hr
ilm
~rn
indigeiwu
~irri
or
essential
fish
food
organisms,
whichever
is
more
stringent,
shall
not
be
exceeded.
(mean
tolerance
level
(TLm)
is
the
concen-
tration
~t
which
there
is
.30
mortality
rate
to
bioassay
test
organisms)
Amend
Rule
205
as
foi1oi~s~
(h)
For
contaminants
other
than
those
for
which
numerical
standards
have
been
established,
one-tenth
of
the
96-
hr.
TLm
for
indigenous
fish
or
essential
fishfood
organ-
isms,
whichever
is
more
stringent,
shall
not
be
exceeded,
(mean
tolerance
level
(TLm)
is
the
concentration
at
which
there
is
50
mortality
rate
to
bioassay
test
organisms)
During
the hearings,
the
USEPA
position
on
phosphorus
(P)
was
clarified.
Exhibit
91,
a
letter
with
enclosures from Adamkus to
Lawton
dated
April
13,
1973
established
Federal
policy:
11
--294
-5-
“during this current revision period, we iiill require
only those phosphorus
amendments defined in the hearing
statement of Mr.
Potos of my staff before the Boa±don
March 28, 1973,
that is 0.2 mg/l as total P for free
flowing streams
and
0.05 mg/l as total P for lakes exclu-
sive of Lake Michigan as a goal to be met in 1983.
In Lake
Michigan,
the present Illinois water quality standard is
adequate to protect against a culturally accelerated
trophic state.”
The letter goes on to urge the adoption of the Federal phosphorus
requirement.
Age icy Role
The
Agency
made it clear from the outset that it
supported, generally, the suggestions made by the USEPA with
the exception of the proposed phosphorus standard in Rule 203(c).
The
Agency
reminded the Board that it, the Board, had considered
a stream standard for phosphorus during the 1971 and 1972 Water
Pollution hearings and had concluded that there was no need for
such a standard.
In addition the Agency during the hearing on
R73-l felt that there was no new evidence that would support the
need for a phosphorus standard
CR. 3/27 p. 8-10).
Therefore,
the bulk of the affirmative testimony, especially in the area
of phosphorus, was presented by USEPA witnesses.
Findings of the Pollution Control Board
A rule by rule discussion of the proposed amendments follows:
1.
Rule 104 Definitions
The proposal was to delete the definition of Restricted Use
Water.
This particular
amendment along with amendments to Rule
205
and
302 proposed by the Agency were:
“intended to bring Illinois standards into as close con-
formance with Federal policy as is possible.
First, it
is proposed that the designation “restricted use” be
replaced with the niore specific and descriptive designa-
tion of “secondary contact
and
indigenous aquatic life
use”.
The Rule 104 definition of restricted use, which
states that these waters are “not protected for aquatic
life”, is eliminated.
These waters presently do support
indigenous aquatic life and the variety and numbers of
the aquatic population will increase as presently required
upgrading takes place.
The new classification more accurately
points out the beneficial uses of secondary contact and
certain aquatic populations for which these waters are
expected to be utilized.”
(Ex.
1 p.
11)
11-fl6
-6-
We support the position of the Agency and adopt this amendment.
2.
Rule 201(b)
This proposed amendment qualifies more precisely the maximum
size of mixing
zones
in relation to the receiving stream and also
sets toxicity limits within the mixing zones.
Much testimony
concerned both the proposed 25
maximum extent
and the 96-hr.
TLm toxicity limit,
One major problem
is what happens
in low dilution receiving
waters.
The proposed rule “nor shall
any mixing
zone contain
more than 25
of
the
cross-sectional area and/or volume of flow
of
a stream”;
on
a flow basis seems
to
set
a lower dilution ratio
between receiving stream and discharge of
3:1.
It
is obvious,
based on testimony from the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater
Chicago
(MSD)
and
others
that
many
discharges
are
to
intermittent
streams
or streams having dilution ratios lower than
3:1.
For
example the North Side Plant of
the MSD discharges
400 MGD to the
North Channel where the dilution during 1971-1972 was never 3:1
(R.
3/30 p.
8,9).
On the cross-sectional area requirement,
the
North Channel
is only 38 feet wide and the MSD “could not conceive
of
a physical structure that would give us
this mixing of this
tremendous volume
in this short
a span.”
(R.
3/31 p.
47).
The
USEPA requirement for
a 25
maximum mixing
zone
is based
on
recommendations
of
the National Technical Advisory Committee as
contained
in
a report called Water Quality Criteria,
1968 also
known
as the Green Book
(R.
3/30 p.
101).
However,
a revised
water quality criteria document prepared by the National Academy
of Science
is being published by the
USEPA.
A
portion of the
final
draft of this document, known
as
the Blue Book,
entered into
the record
as exhibit
80,
contains the following recommendations for
mixing
zones
and zones of passage
(cx.
80(a),
p.
19,
21).
Recommendation
(Mixing
Zones)
“It
is recommended that the total area or volume of a
receiving system assigned to mixing
zones be limited to
that which will:
(1) not interfere with biological
communities or populations
of important species
to
a de-
gree
which
is
damaging
to
the
ecosystem;
(2)
not
diminish
other
beneficial
uses
disproportionately.
Recommendation (Zones of Passage)
“Because of varying
local physical and chemical conditions
and biological phenomena no single-value recommendation can
be made on the percentage
of river width necessary
to allow
passage of critical free-swimming and drifting organisms
11—296
-7-
so
that negligible or no effects
are produced on their
populations.
As
a guideline no more than.2/3 the width of
a water-body should be devoted
to mixing
zones.
Thus
leaving at least
1/3 free as
a zone of passage’t.
The Board was thus faced with changing Federal guidelines
as well
as
problems
in complying with the proposed amendment.
Ralph Evans
of the Illinois State Water Survey had the
following thoughts about
the proposed limits on mixing zones
(R.
4/11 p.
124):
“It is not reasonable to believe, however, that
the
criteria for mixing zones developed
by
the National
Technical
Advisory
Committee
in
1968 and being con-
sidered today, was intended to create adequate
passageways where none exist naturally.
Under 7-day 10-year low flow stream conditions,
the
only flow in many stream beds
in Illinois will be
treated waste effluents.
With these
situations
in
mind any amendment
to Rule
201(b)
incorporating the
U.S.
EPA requirements should be qualified.
As
a
suggestion the following is offered:
In addition to the
above,
(and this
is the
wording
of qualification to any amendment)
except
in waters
where
by reason of low
flow or other conditions
the migration and the
free movement of aquatic biota is not possible
in the absence
of an effluent the mixing
zone shall be limited
to
assure adequate
passageways
for the movement or drift of
aquatic biota.”
The Board believes that mixing
zones should be limited
as
much as possible to avoid circumventing the water quality
standards,
At the same time we understand
the problems of dischargers
on low dilution streams.
Therefore the Board sets
a mixing
zone
limit of 25
on the cross-sectional area or volume of flow for
those discharges where
the dilution ratio is 3:1 or greater.
Discharges
to streams having less than 3:1 dilution,
like everyone else,
already have to meet the applicable water quality standards outside
the mixing zone and thus these discharges
to
low dilution streams
are required to meet
a tighter effluent standard.
On the proposal to require
a toxicity
limit
of
a
96-hour
TLm
(median tolerance limit) concentration in the mixing
zone,
the Board
does not adopt
this amendment.
Dr.
Brungs of the
National
Water
Quality Laboratory testified as
to the need for toxicity limits
within mixing zones because
some aquatic organisms
are attracted
11
—297
-
8-
to lethal conditions.
(R~3/28
p.
103, 104)
The Green Book, however,
does not include recommendations for TLm concentrations within
mixing
zones
(R.
3/28 p~200,
201).
A mixing zone is
an
opportunity
for pollutants
to
disperse.
It
is
a limited region
where pollution controlled by effluent regulations can disperse
to meet the water quality regulations.
Setting toxicity limits
in mixing
zones largely negates the purpose of
a mixing
zone and
a limit of
a
96--hour TLm may or may not be consistent with our
existing effluent and water quality regulations.
3.
Rule 203(c)
The proposal was
to set a phosphorus limit
of 0.1 mg/l as
P
on those waters of the state not already regulated.
As mentioned
previously the USEPA
clarified its requirements during the
hearings.
Chris
Potos’
testimony of March 28 gives
their
position
(R.
3/28 p.
27-29).
“Although
the U.S~Environmental Protection Agency
recognizes
the need for
a phosphorus water quality
standard now, because
of the economics involved,
especially
as
it relates
to future operating costs
and small
communities, we will agree to the adoption
of the standard defined below as
a goal
to be met
in 1983.”
and further:
tiCriteria
equal
to
or
more
stringent
than
the
following
Federal
requirements
are
considered
consistent
with
the Federal requirements and as
such
Federally
approvable.
(1)
Free flowing
200 micrograms
streams
per liter (0.2 mg/l)
(2)
Stream at point
50 micrograms
where
it enters
the
per liter
(0.05 mg/i)
lake or impoundment
(3)
Reservoir or lake
25 micrograms
per liter”
(0.025 mg/i)
The Board already has regulations that meet or exceed the
requirements of
(2) and also
(3)
for Lake Michigan.
Based on the
1983 date for the proposed phosphorus
standard,
the Board will not
adopt
the phosphorus proposal at
this
time.
11
—298
-9-
The hearings did not convince the Board that
a phosphorus
standard of 0.2 mg/i for streams
is necessary.
The reason
for establishing phosphorus
limits
is
to prevent excess nutrient
levels which can cause eutrophication or algal blooms.
There
was question, however,
of the correlation between phosphorus
levels
and excess growths
(R.
4/li
p.
80)
;
as most tests being
performed to assess the role of nutrients on eutrophication
have not isolated phosphorus
as
an independent variable
(R,
3/28,
p.
273,
274)
in order to establish the~effectof
a low phosphorus
level in the presence of other nutrients.
There was also testimony
by the MSD and others that technology for phosphorus
removal
to the
proposed levels (approximately 98~removal)
is not known
to be
consistently possible
(R.
3/30
p.
207, 208),
and
is expensive due
to the costs for chemicals and sludge handling
(R,
4/il p.
210).
In addition, the turbidity of most streams, caused by
silting, barge traffic, stormwater overflows,
and poorly
treated effluents prevents the penetration of
light into the
waters sufficiently to inhibit photosynthesis on most
waters of the State.
The result as explained by Ralph Evans
is that studies of various streams show most phosphorus
concentrations exceeding 0.2 mg/i but an absence of nuisance
algal blooms so that
“it
is our
(State Water
Survey) opinion that
the water
quality of Illinois streams will not suffer from the
absence of regulations
limiting phosphorus concentra-
tions
in them.”
(R.
4/11 p.
117-123)
4.
Rule 203(h)
The proposed amendment would change the toxicity concentra-
tion from 1/10
the
48-hr. TLm to 1/10
the 96-hr. TLm for
general use waters.
This proposal at least during the hearings
did not generate much controversy other than Edison’s concern
with its application to thermal discharges.
The basis
for the proposal
is that toxicity information is often in terms
of 96-hour exposures and that this
amendment further upgrades
the water quality.
It
also reflects past Agency pOlicy
as
contained in TR2O-23.
(R.
3/27
P.
27)
The USEPA in supporting
the change from
a 48-hour TLm-to
a 96-hr.
TLm said that the change
“will result in
a more meaningful number and also one that would,
with proper use, be more protective
of aquatic life”
(R.
3/28
p.
115).
The MSD would not object to this amendment since
the
96-hour TLm value
is utilized in most toxicity work and most
application factors
are based on 96-hr.
TLm values.
11—299
-10-
The MSD and others, however, point out the vagueness
of this rule since “specifics
as
to procedures
and methods
of determining TLm values
are not given.
In particular
values
should be determined with native or indigenous
test
organisms
in a flow through test”
(R,
3/30 p.
11).
The problems
here is the word “indigenous”.
Much of the Chicago waterway
system for example,
is artificial,
being constructed for the
purpose
of moving sewage from the Lake Michigan Basin to the
Mississippi
River.
The indigenous
aquatic organisms in these
waterways
are pollution tolerant organisms.
The USEPA, however,
defines
indigenous
as “those aquatic organisms that would normally
be present in an area based upon temperature
and geography and
geophysics, whatever you have,
and not based upon any polluted
conditions”
(R.
3/28 p.
56).
The Board proposed,
in
a draft regulation published in News-
letter #75,
to delete Rule 203(h)
in its entirety, feeling that
it
was possibly
vague
and unconstitutional since no
contaminants
are listed by name or allowable concentration.
The discharger
would not know what
was
expected
of
him unless he
performed exhaus-
tive
(and continuing)
literature reviews,
A great deal of
correspondence
was
then
generated
by
the
Board’s
deletion
proposal
for this
Rule.
On November 26,
1973 the Regional
Administrator of the U.S.
EPA
stated
that
“the
general toxicity limits within
the water
quality
standard
cannot
be
deemed
unconstitutional.”
The
Board,
in
a
letter
of
December
3,
1973
asked
for
citations
of
actual
court
cases
in
which
TLm
provisions
had
been
upheld
on
constitutional
grounds.
A
reply
on
December
6.
1973
listed
only
16
states
of
the
50
as
now
having
TLm
standards
and
stated
further
To
our
knowledge,
since initiation
of
the water quality standards program in
1965,
and considered on
a national basis,
there
has never been a court
case involving
the constitutionality of any general toxicity
standard (emphasis
added).
A December 19,
1973 letter from the U.S.
EPA Regional Counsel
discussed the vagueness argument and stated that
due process did
not require “absOlute advance and precise certainty” where there
was
no
right
to
use
the
waters
of
the
State
as
the
discharger
saw
fit.
The
Board,
in
this
proceeding, retains
Rule
203(h)
in
its
old
form,
but
retains
strong
doubts
about
its
vagueness.
In
future
proceedings,
the
Illinois
EPA
or
the
U.S.
EPA
should
put
into
a
Board
record
the
contaminants
and
their
allowable
concentrations
and
the
feasibility,
both
economic
and
technological
of
meeting
and
measuring
those
levels.
While we
feel
the record
is not sufficient
to delete
Rule 203(h) we
do not
feel
it adequate
to
delete
the
Rule
or
to
substitute
tables
of
substances
and
concentrations
gleaned
from
the
“Green
Book”
(now
6 years
old)
or the “Blue
Book”
(still
in
the
comment
stage).
I
1
—
300
-11-
The Board
therefore does not adopt the proposed amendment
and recognizes
the problems of a discharger in attempting to
comply with the existing 203(h).
5.
Rule 205
There were several proposed amendments within this rule.
The
Board adopts the change in tille to Secondary
Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Standards.
The
factors in reaching this decision were covered previously
under
item
1.
Rule 205(c):
The Agency states
in its proposal to raise the minimum
dissolved oxygen
(DO) level to 4.0 mg/i that
“The present standard reflects actual existing
conditions.
The proposed standard represents the
dissolved oxygen levels which can reasonably be
anticipated
to
be
maintained
in
these
waters,
once
the
major
upstream
dischargers
have
complied
with
the advanced treatment,
nitrogen removal and storm
overflow requirements
of the Regulations.
Based
upon present technological limitations, the enormous
cos.t of the contemplated improvements necessary
to
meet the proposed standard,
the physical nature
of these specific bodies of water and the fact that
the flows in these bodies
of water
is almost entirely
treated effluent,
the Agency does not believe
that
a
higher dissolved oxygen standard, could be proposed or
justified at this time.”
(ex.
1)
The MSD,
the major discharger into these waters, supports
an increase in DO
as long as
the compliance
date
is delayed in
order for them to get their planned system improvements
on
line.
Specific items
include nitrogen removal facilities,
tertiary
treatment,
storm overflow elimination, and instream aeration.
Because of the magnitude of these projects, the target completion
date
is not until December 31,
1977
(ex.
12).
The USEPA characterizes the proposed
4 mg/i DO standard as
“minimal” since it would be partially lethal
to fish larvae.
They
recognize however, that for the types of water under consideration
“if they (aquatic life)
get a DO
of four,
I imagine they might go
out and celebrate”,
and further,
“I would say it
(a DO of 4.0 mg/i)
is
a good interim minimal condition”
(R.
3/28
p.
183,
194).
11—301
-12-
The Board adopts the proposed DO standard of 4.0 mg/i with
the compliance date of December 31, 1Q77, recognizing the close
connection between discharger improvements
and
water quality
for these particular waters of the state.
Rule 205(g):
The Board does not adopt a phosphorus
standard for the reasons given under Item
3.
Rule 205(h):
The Board does not adopt a 1/10 of the
96-hr
TLm
regulation due to the uncertainties discussed
under Item 4.
6.
Rule 301
The proposal to change the
term
“Restricted Use” to “Secondary
Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Use”
i5
adopted by the Board for
the reasons given in Item 1.
7.
Rule 302
The title and
language
change
are adopted by the Board
for the reasons given in Item
1.
Another point here is that
contaminants not in excess of the water quality standards help
determine the existence of indigenous aquatic life.
As discussed
previously, the USEPA would characterize “indigenous” as those
present if there were not contaminants.
8.
Rule 303
The proposed language change is adopted by the Board for
the reasons given in Item 1.
9.
Rule 921(d)
The Board adopted this proposal to delete Rule 921(d) on
June 28,
1973.
This adoption corrects a situation in which the
Regulations are creating a further delay in compliance with the
upgrading requirements of the Regulations.
It should be noted
that revocation of 921(d) does not relieve dischargers of the
obligation of filing a Project Completion Schedule
(PCS).
This
is still specifically required by Rule 1002.
The purpose of the
amendment is to eliminate the undesirable and unintended impediment
to the goal of eliminating pollution from the waters of Illinois.
11-302
ORDER
OF
THE BOARD_
(Adopted January
31,
1974)
1.
Rule 104 Definitions
Delete the definition of uRestricted Use~’
2,
Rule
201
(b)
shall be
amended
as
follows:
(b)
In
addition to the above for-water-designated
fer-aquatie-life-(General-Standards)~the mixing-zone
shall be
so
designed as
to assure
a reasonable
zone of
passage for aquatic life
in which the water quality
standards are met,
The mixing
zones shall not intersect
any area of any
such waters
in such
a manner that
the
maintenance of aquatic life in the body of water
as
a
whole would be adversely affected, ~
zone contain more than 25
of the cross-sectional area
~umeo
low ofastre am excet
or t~oSestreams
w crc the
ilution ratio is-less
t
an 3:1,
3.
Rule 205 Restricted Use Standards
Change the title of this Rule
to “Secondary Contact
and Indigenous Aquatic Life Standards” and insert “Secondary
Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life” in place of
“Restricted Use” in the forewerd,
4,
Rule
205(c)
shall be amended
as follows:
(c)
Dissolved oxygen
(STORET number
-
00300)
shall
not be
less than 3.0 mg/l during at least
16
hours in any 24-hour period, nor less than 2,0 mg/l
at any time,
and after December 31,
1977 shall not
~essthan~
S.
Rule 301 General Use Waters shall be amended
as
follows:
All waters of the State of Illinois are designated
for general use except those designated as Restricted-
Use-Waters;
~
Life
Waters,
6.
Rule
302
Restricted
Use
Waters
shall
be
amended
as
follows:
302
Restricted-Use-Waters
Wat e~
~ecapa~e
~
the
physical
conti
urati
on
ci
the
body
ci
water
cnaracter~sticsand origin of the water and the
~
exceed
~eappiicalestanars.~eo~owingareesignate
~e~tri~-ese-waters-~arontactann1enous
~fe
Waters:
11
~-3O3
-14-
7.
Rule 303 Public and Food Processing Water Supply shall be
amended
as
follows:
A.
All waters of Illinois
are designated for Public
and Food Processing Water Supply use except those designated
as Restrieted-FJse-Waters,
Secondary Contact and Indigenous
Aquatic Life Waters,
and except for the following.
(a)
The Chicago River;
(b)
The Little Calumet
River.
(T
IS SO ORDERED.
I,
Christan
L.
Moffett,
Clerk
of the Illinois Pollution
C ~trol
Board, hereby certify the
above Opinion was adopted on the
/
‘~
day of February,
1974 by
a vote of
s’..
p
I,
Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, he;eby certify the above
Order was adopted on
the
Qf’~
day of January, 1974 by a vote of
____________________
Christan
L. Moffett,
rk
Illinois Pollution
o
rol Board
11
—304
