1. NOTICE OF FILING
      2. ON RECYCLED PAPER
      3. POST-HEARING MEMORANDUM OF THE ILLINOIS
      4. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
      5. IV. RELIEF REQUESTED
      6. V. PETITIONER’S MOTION TO’ OVERTURN HEARING OFFICER ORDER
      7. VI. CALCULATION OF NOVEON’S P.E.
      8. Evaluation of Ammonia Treatment Technologies
      9. IX. PETITIONER’S JUSTIFICATION OF PROPOSED ADJUSTED STANDARD
      10. STATE OF ILLINOIS
      11. COUNTY OF SANGAMON
      12. PROOF OF SERVICE

RECE~VED
CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
JUN 1 6 2004
IN THE
MATTER OF:
Petition ofNoveon, Ti-ic. for an
Adjusted Standard from
35
Ill. Adm. Code 304.122
TO:
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 W. Randolph
Suite 11-500
Chicago, illinois 60601
Bradley P. Halloran, Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 W. Randolph, Suite 11-500
Chicago, illinois 60601
NOTICE OF FILING
Mark Latham
Richard Kissel
Sheila Deely
Gardner, Carton, & Douglas
191 North Wacker Drive, Suite 3700
Chicago, illinois 60606
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office ofthe Clerk ofthe
Pollution Control Board the attached Post-Hearing Memorandum ofthe Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency and Documentation ofMixing Zone Guidance Requested by the Board ofthe
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, a copy ofwhich is herewith served upon you.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OF THE
STATE OF ILLiNOIS
~
Deborah J.
hams
Assistant Counsel
Division ofLegal Counsel
DATED: June
15,
2004
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 N. GrandAve. East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, illinois 62794-9276
THIS
FILING
IS SUBMITTED
ON RECYCLED PAPER
)
)
)
)
)
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
PoIlut~onControl Board
AS 02-5
(Adjusted Standard
Water)

RECE
CLERK’S OFFICE
WED
BEFORE
THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
JUN 1 ~
2004
STATE OF ILLINOIS
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
Pollution Control Board
)
PETITION OF NOVEON, iNC. FOR
)
AS 02-5
AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM
)
(Adjusted Standard
-
Water)
35 ILL. ADM. CODE 304.122
)
)
POST-HEARING MEMORANDUM OF THE ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NOW COMES the ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (“Illinois
EPA” or “Agency”), by one ofits attorneys, Deborah J. Williams, and pursuant to the Hearing
Officer’s order ofMarch 17, 2004, submits its Post-Hearing Memorandum in the above-
captioned Petition forAdjusted Standard (“Petition”) ofNoveon, Inc. (“Noveon” or “Petitioner”)
from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.122 and in support ofits Recommendation pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 104.4 16 that the Pollution Control Board (“Board”)
DENY
Noveon’s request foran
Adjusted Standard and states as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
AND PROCEDURAL
HISTORY
On December 28, 1990, the Illinois EPA issued a renewal ofthe National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit number IL000 1392 to Petitioner’s Henry,
Illinois manufacturing facility. At that time, the facility was owned and operated by BF
Goodrich. Currently, the permitted facility is owned and operated by Noveon, Inc. and
hereinafterPetitioner will be referred to as Noveon.
On January 24, 1991, Petitioner filed an appeal with the Board pursuant to Section 40(a)
ofthe Environmental Protection Act (“Act”) ofthe issuance of Noveon’s renewal permit. 415

ILCS
5/40(a). See,
PCB 91-17. While the perniitappeal was pending, Noveon filed a Petition
for Varia-ice on October 30, 1992.
See,
PCB Docket 92-167. After 10 years ofstudy, Noveon
concluded that no affordable compliance options were available and filed the instant Adjusted
Standard petition to obtain permanent relief from the Board’s requirements on May22, 2002. A
motion to voluntarily withdraw Noveon’s Variance Petition was granted by the Board on June
20, 2002.
Noveon’s petition forAdjusted Standard requests relief from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.122
as these regulations apply to the discharge of ammonia nitrogen from Noveon’s Henry, Marshall
County, Illinois facility. Pursuant to Section 28.1(d) of the Act, Petitioner filed a Certificate of
Publication with the Board on June 11, 2002 stating that notice ofthe Adjusted Standard petition
was timely published on May 29, 2002.
415
ILCS 5/28.1(d). On June 20, 2003, the Board
accepted the Petition for hearing. The Illinois EPA’sRecommendation in this matter pursuant to
35 Iii. Adm. Code 104.416 was filed with the Board on June 18, 2003.
As the parties were unable to reach settlement on either the permit appeal or adjusted
standard, hearings were scheduled and held on both matters. The hearing in this matter began on
February 17, 2004 and concluded on February 19, 2004 before Hearing Officer Halloran at the
Marshall County Courthouse in Lacon, Illinois. Several members ofthe public and media
attended the hearing.
Noveon filed a Motion to Incorporate the transcript from the 1991 hearing in PCB 9 1-17
with the Board on February 6, 2004. Illinois EPA filed a Response on February 9, 2004.
Hearing Officer Halloran denied the Motion by written order dated February 10, 2004. Petitioner
made the same motion orallyon February 19, 2004 at the hearing in this matter and expanded
2

that motion to include the transcript (at that time not yet available) ofthe conclusion of the
Permit Appeal Hearing held on February 17, 2004. Hearing Transcript (“Tr.”) at
15,
324.
-
Hearing Officer Halloran again denied this oral motion. Tr. at
15,
326.
Noveon submitted extensive pre-filed testimony for several witnesses in this matter.
Testimony from Houston Flippin, David Giffin, Linda Shaw, William Goodfellow and Michael
Corn was submitted on Friday, February 6, 2004. Exhibits accompanying Mr. Corn’s and Mr.
Flippin’s testimony were filed on February 9, 2004. With regard to the testimony ofMr. Flippin,
on Monday, February 9, 2004, with three business days remaining before the hearing, Petitioner
submitted a Motion to Withdraw and Substitute Expert Written Testimony ofT. Houston
Flippin. This Motion was granted by Hearing Officer Halloran for this proceeding. No pre-filed
testimony was submitted, but oral testimony was also taken from Guy Davids. The Agency
presented two witnesses at the hearing, Robert Mosher and Rick Pinneo. Statements were taken
at the hearing from four members of the public: Richard Jansen, Bill Maupin, Richard Gillfillan
and Doug Hermann.
The public comment period in this matter closed on March 22, 2004. Written comments
were received from six members ofthe public prior to the close ofthe public comment period.
II. BACKGROUND
ON PETITIONER’S
FACILITY
Noveon’s Henry, Illinois Plant is located on 1550 County Road, 850 N. in northwestern
Marshall County. Petition for Adjusted Standard (“Pet.”) at 9. This facility was owned and
operated by BF Goodrich until 1993. At that time, part ofthe facilitywas divested to form The
Geon Company and is now known as PolyOne. Pet. at 9. The PolyOne portion ofthe former BF
Goodrich facility manufactures poly-vinyl chloride resins and compounds. Pet. at 10, Tr. at 21.
3

The resins are used in a variety ofspecialty niche markets including by the medical industry for
blood bags and other medical equipment and by the construction industry as coatings fbr flooring
and wallpaper and for house siding and vertical blinds. Tr. at 23. In 2001, the remainder ofthe
Henry facility was sold by BF Goodrich and is now known as Noveon. Pet. at 9. Noveon’s
portion ofthe former BF Goodrich facilityproduces specialty polymers and chemicals used
either as rubber accelerators in the tire curing process or production ofanti-oxidant additives to
prevent degradation ofpolyethylene for the rubber, lubricant, and plastic industries. Pet. at 9, Tr.
at 22. Recently, the facility has added Personal Care and Carboset products to its mix of
products. One product called Geltrol is approved for food grade applications such as baby bottle
nipples. Petitioner’s Post-Hearing Brief (“Pet. Br.”) at 3-4, Tr. at 22 Nôveon operates the
wastewater treatment facilities forboth PolyOne’s and Noveon’s productions processes. Tr. at
21.
Noveon treats 360, 000 gallons per day from PolyOne’s operations and 180,000 gallons
per day from Noveon’s operations. Tr. at 157. Process and non-process water discharged per
day is approximately 800,000 gallons. Tr. at 320; Effluent monitoring is currently conducted
after all wastestreams from both plants are combined. The wastewater treatment system treats
process wastewater from both plants, while stormwater and non-conta~tcooling water are sent to
holding ponds. Pet. at 10. Treatment begins with pre-treatment ofNoveon’s Cure-Rite 18
wastestream. Noveon’s process water is then sent to one oftwo tanks for equalization (the
Polymer Chemical (PC) Tank or a separate equalization tank for the Cure-Rite 18 wastestream)
while PohyOne’s wastewater receives equalization in the Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Tank. This, is
followed by primarytreatment (pH adjustment and addition ofcoagulant and polymer to remove
4

solids) and a primary clarifier. Solids are then sent to a collection tank and are dewatered in a
filter press and sent to a landfill. Primaryclarification is followed by activated sludge treatment
in four biotreators to degrade the organic matter. Finally, the wastewater is sent to a secondary
clarifier followed by tertiary treatment that consists ofpolishing by a traveling bridge sand filter.
Pet. at 12-13, Pet. Br. at
5-6.
The stormwater and utility waters wastestream are either pumped
from the holding ponds into the wastewater treatment process to add additional flow or sent to a
sand filter prior to discharge to the Illinois River.
Noveon asserts that its wastewater treatment facility is constructed as a publicly owned
treatment works (“POTW”) would be constructed to treat ammonia through nitrification, but in
fact nitrification does not occur at Noveon’s facility. Noveon’s existing plant is unable to
achieve nitrification for a variety ofreasons including: inhibition ofgrowth of nitrif~ringbacteria
by specific inhibitory compounds in Noveon’s wastestream, insufficient oxygen due to poor
oxygen transferrates and the need for additional alkalinity to be chemically added. Pet. Br. at 7-
8.
The discharge from the City ofHenry’s POTW combines with Noveon’s effluent and is
discharged through Noveon’s outfall to the Illinois River. Pet. at 13. The total flow ofthe two
discharges is around 1.1 million gallons per day (“mgd”) or 1.7 cubic feet per second (“cfs”).
Pet. Br. at 6. Noveon’s Outfall 001 is located on the Illinois River between river mile 198 and
199. Pet. at 14. According to Noveon, the 7-day, 10-year low flow for the Illinois River at
Henry, Illinois is 3,400 cubic feet per second. Pet. at 14. The major source ofammonia in
Noveon’s wastewater is generated from the destruction ofamine compounds in the secondary
treatment activated sludge portion ofthe wastewater treatment process. Pet. at 10. There is no
5

dispute in the Record that Noveon’s discharge ofammonia nitrogen to the Illinois River exceeds
100 pounds per day (“lbs/day”).
-
Noveon’s wastewater treatment plant was upgraded in 1987. Pet. at 10. This included
installation oftwo above ground biotreators, two above ground equalization tanks, and a tertiary
filtration system. Pet. at 10. In addition, a third biotreator was added in 1989 and a fourth in
1998. Noveon testified that aeration tank capacity was increased by 100 percent in 1998 to
accommodate expanded production. Tr. at 107.
In addition to the requirements ofthe Act and the Board’s regulations, Noveon is subject
to federal requirements for the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fiber industry
category promulgatedby U.S. EPA.
See,
40 CFR Section 414.90
et seq.
and Development
Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Organic Chemicals, Plastics
and Synthetic Fibers Point Source Category, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Industrial
Technology Division, Office ofWater Regulations and Standards, EPA 440/1-87/009 (October
1987).
III. BURDEN OF PROOF
AND STANDARD
OF
REVIEW
The Petitioner has the burden ofproofin all Adjusted Standard proceedings. 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 104.426. Where, as in this case, the regulation ofgeneral applic~bilityfrom which
Petitioner seeks relief (35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.122) does not specify a level ofjustification or
other requirements necessary for an adjusted standard, the Board must apply the standard of
review contained in Section 28.1 ofthe Act. 415 ILCS
5/28.1.
Section 28.1(c) ofthe Act
contains the general level ofjustification the Board must find a petitioner to have met when
granting an adjusted standard petition. 415 ILCS 5/28.1(c). That subsection provides:
6

The Board may grant individual adjusted standards whenever the
-
Board determines, upon adequate proofby petitioner, that: 1)
-
factors relating to that petitioner are substantially and significantly
different from the factors relied upon by the Board in adopting the
general regulation applicable to that petitioner; 2) the existence of
those factors justifies an adjusted standard; 3) the requested
standard will not result in environmental or health effects
substantially and significantly more adverse than the effects
considered by the Board in adopting the rule ofgeneral
applicability; and 4) the adjusted standard is consistent with any
applicable federal law.
The Illinois EPA has maintained that Noveon has failed to meet this standard ofreview
for the reasons outlined more fully below. In particular, Noveon has failed to demonstrate that it
possesses substantially and significantly different factors than those considered by the Board in
adopting the regulation ofgeneral applicability thatjustify the adjusted standard requested and
that there will not be a negative environmental impact from this adjusted standard greater than
the rule ofgeneral applicability.
Petitioner must also justify their adjustment consistent with the requirements ofSection
27(a) ofthe Act. The Illinois EPA also argues that the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that
the rule ofgeneral appliáability is technically infeasible and economically unreasonable when
applied to Petitioner’s facility.
IV. RELIEF REQUESTED
Petitioner has requested an adjusted standard from 35111. Adm. Code 304.122. That
provision contains an ammonia effluent limit for large dischargers ofammonia to specified water
bodies, including the Illinois River. As a result ofthis regulation, the illinois EPA has placed in
Noveon’s NPDES permit ammonia effluent limitations and requirements formonitoring and
reporting ofammonia effluent concentrations in Noveon’s discharge. The requirements ofthe
7

ammonia effluent limitations contained in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.122 provide as follows:
a)
No effluent from any source which discharges to the Illinois River, the Des
-
Plaines River downstream ofits confluence with the Chicago River System or the
Calumet River System, and whose untreated waste load is 50,000 or more
population equivalents shall contain more than
2.5
mg/L oftotal ammonia
nitrogen as N during the months ofApril through October, or 4 mg/L at other
times.
b)
Sources discharging to any ofthe above waters and whose untreated waste load
cannot be computed on a population equivalent basis comparable to that used for
municipal waste treatment plants and whose total ammonia nitrogen as N
discharge exceeds 45.4 kg/day (100 pounds per day) shall not discharge an
effluent ofmore than 3.0 mg/L oftotal ammonia nitrogen as N.
c)
In addition to the effluent standards set forth in subsections (a) and (b) ofthis
Section, all sources are subject to Section 304.105.
The Illinois EPA placed ammonia effluent limitations in Noveon’s NPDES permit based on
subsection (b) of 304.122, which applies to dischargers whose “untreated waste load cannot be
computed on a population equivalent basis comparable to that used for municipal waste
treatment plants.” The effluent limitations placed in Noveon’s permit require that when the
facility’s 30-day average ammonia loading to the Illinois River is greater than 100 lbs/day,
Petitioner is required to comply with a 30-day average ammonia concentration of3 milligrams
per liter (“mg/i”). Ifthe daily maximum loading ofammonia in Noveon’s effluent exceeds 200
lbs/day, Petitioner is limited to a daily maximum concentration of6 mg/I.
The regulatory relief requested by Petitioner in some places refers to 304.122 generally
and in other places refers to the provision the Agency has applied to the Petitioner, 304.122(b).
Pet. Br. at 2, 42. While Noveon has argued that 304.122(a) applies rather than subsection (b), it
has neverpresented a justification forrelief from 304.122(c). The Illin~oisEPA wants to be clear,
forthe Record, that it would not support and the Board should not consider granting reliefthat
8

could be interpreted as granting relief from 304.122(c). Any reliefgranted to Petitioner must
include c~mpliancewith 304.122(c), which in turn requires compliance with the requirement
contained in 304.105 that Noveon’s effluent may not be permitted to cause a violation ofwater
quality standards.
The Illinois EPA’s Post-Hearing Memorandum in this matter will not discuss in any
detail the applicability of304.122 to the Petitioner. The Agency has long maintained that
subsection (b) ofthis provision applies and Noveon has tirelessly argued that subsection (a) is the
appropriate condition. The Board will be forced to rule on this issue directly in PCB 91-17.
While it is not unheard for a party to seek declaratoryrelief from the Board that a rule does not
apply in an adjusted standard case, such relief is disfavored and has not been sought in this
matter. Petitioner has properly challenged the applicability ofthe provision at issue in an appeal
ofits NPDES permit in PCB 91-17. By proceeding additionally with AS 02-05, the Agency will
assume acknowledgment for the purpose ofthis proceeding that the effluent limitation of
304.122(b) does apply to its facility, for otherwise there would be no need for Noveon to file or
forthe Board to rule on Noveon’s requested relief in AS 02-05. This adjusted standard
proceeding presumes that the Agency’s position on this question has been upheld by the Board in
its ruling on Noveon’s permit appeal. The only exception to this is thai the Illinois EPA will
briefly attempt to highlight conflicting testimony from the Petitioner regarding flow and
population equivalent (“P.E.”) calculations for Petitioner’s wastestream.
In identifying the relief requested Petitioner has stated: “This Petition is submitted in
the alternative to the NPDES Permit Appeal..
.
Noveon therefore seeks relief from Section
304.122(b) and requests as part ofthe relief that the Board also grant Noveon a mixing zone
9

S
calculated in accordance with federal and state regulations.” Pet. Br. at 2. Noveon has not
requested relief from the ammonia nitrogen water quality standards of35 III. Adm. Code
302.2 12, because it claims it can meet those standards. However, Noveon stated in its initial
Petition that “Noveon also seeks from the Board as part ofthis proceeding, a determination that
the ammonia water quality standards will be met with the ZID and mixing zone calculated in
Exhibit 1 and 3 and as discussed above for the Henry plant discharge.” Pet. at 8. The Agency
will discuss below why the request forthe Board to calculate a mixing zone in this case is
inappropriate, unnecessary and possibly an attempt to gain relief from the water quality standard
into the future without requesting orjustifying such relief directly.
Petitioner originally presented three alternative forms ofrelief in its adjusted standard
Petition. Each alternative exempted Noveon from the requirements of 35 Ill. Adm. Code
304.122 and required Noveon to install a multi-port diffuser, but each alternative presented an
effluent limit expressed in a different format that would allow Noveon to continue discharging
ammonia at and even above current levels. Tn its Post-Hearing Brief Noveon withdraws its
proposed alternatives #1 (with an effluent limit expressed as an un-ionized ammonia limitation)
and #2 (with an effluent limit expressed as pounds ofammonia loading) and changes alternative
#3 as originally presented to its final request to the Board. Instead of its original request in
alternative #3 for an effluent limit concentration of
155
mgTL total ammonia nitrogen during the
months ofApril through October and 225 mg/L during the months ofNovember through March.
Noveon now requests an effluent limit of225 mg/L year round. Although the Agency
appreciates the Petitioner’s decision to limit the proposed alternatives to one from three, the
Illinois EPA cannot support Noveon’s request for an even higher limit in the summer months
10

than originally requested at this late date.t The Board should not allow an alternative effluent
adjusted standard that implements a limit greater than that required to meet the water quality
standard year round. Noveon’s request is also misleading to the Board when it attempts to base
this request on an Illinois EPA memo, because this conclusion ofthe Agency was premised on
the requirement that best degree oftreatment (“BDT”) for ammonia be met and a full review ofa
proposed multi-port diffuser be conducted before any mixing zone is available. Tr. at 337, 390-
91.
V. PETITIONER’S MOTION TO’ OVERTURN HEARING OFFICER ORDER
As explained above, Noveon’s Motion to incorporate the transcripts and exhibits from
PCB 9 1-17 was denied by the hearing officer twice. Tr. at 326. In its Post-Hearing Brief,
Noveon argues that the Board should overturn this ruling. The Illinois EPA supports the Hearing
Officer’s use ofdiscretion in this matter and argues that the Board should uphold Hearing Officer
Halloran’s ruling in this regard. Noveon claims this information is relevant to the Board’s
decision in this matter, but testimony related to the application of 304.122 to Noveon’s facility is
-
not relevant to this proceeding as this posture ofthis proceeding assumes the Board has already
ruled on this question in the Agency’s favor.
While Noveon claims it removed unrelated material from the 1991 transcript in PCB 91-
17, the material submitted as an offer ofproofin Exhibit contains 131 pages ofthe 160 total
pages ofthat Transcript and all ofthe Exhibits. Tr. at 324.
Noveon cites to the Board’s procedural rules at 35 IlL Adm. Code 101.306(a) to support
Noveon’s own consultants initially determinedthat the water quality standards would be met with a year round
effluent limit of 189 mgfL. Pet. at 7, 15. Petitioner presented testimony from Mike Corn that the acute ammonia
water quality standard would be met at the edge ofthe zone of initial dilution he has calculated with the single port
diffuser at 224 mgfL though that testimony was later modified to 220 mgfL. Tr. at 319, 480.
11

its argument. That provision allows for a “separate written request” to incorporate materials
from another Board proceeding into any proceeding. Petitioner correctly states that this
provision provides a relatively lenient standard. However, it does require the request to be in
writing and to include a filing of4 copies ofthe materials to be incorporated as well as a
demonstration that the material is authentic, credible and relevant to the proceeding. Illinois
EPA does not dispute the authenticity or credibility, but it does dispute the relevance. In
addition, Noveon is requesting incorporation of a transcript that was not available at the time the
hearingwas conducted in this matter or at the time the original motion was made. Noveon has
not submitted 4 copies ofthe 2004 hearing transcript and in fact could not have done so.
Rule 101.306(a) also requires notice to all parties ofa request to incorporate materials
from another proceeding. The original motion to incorporate was filed on February 6, 2004. The
Illinois EPA argues that an important foundation of the Hearing Officer’s denial ofthis motion
was its ‘lateness in the process. Petitioner had from May 2002 to submit this request to the Board
and waited until there were only four State business days remaining until the hearing to submit its
request. In light ofthis, the Agency has and continues to argue that it is prejudiced by
incorporation ofthe material in its entirety. Tr. at 324.
As Noveon has pointed out, the Illinois EPA has argued that the basis for this request is
not to assist the Board in its decision-making in this matter, but to attempt a de facto
consolidation ofthe Permit Appeal proceeding with this Adjusted Standard case. Such~a
consolidation would be inappropriate under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.406 based on the different
standard ofreview applicable to the Permit Appeal proceeding. Though Petitioner claims they
are not trying to achieve a consolidation ofthese two proceedings, with regard to its argument
12

that Noveon’s P.E. value was less that 50,000 prior to issuance ofits most recent NPDES permit
Noveon states, “That argument will not be repeated here but is incorporated by reference.” Pet.
Br. at 13. While on page 34 footnote 7 ofits Post-Hearing Brief Noveon cites to testimony of
Bob Mosher that the Board could “consider” if the transcript was incorporated even though Mr.
Mosher was thoroughly cross-examined in this matter by Petitioner. The Illinois EPA believes
the Board’s decision-making in this matter will be aided by its attempts to limit the Record in
this proceeding to the material relevant for the decision it is being asked to render on Noveon’s
Petitioner for Adjusted Standard.
VI. CALCULATION OF NOVEON’S P.E.
Petitioner has argued that its facility would not trigger the applicability threshold of35 Ill.
Adm. Code 304.122(a) if that provision were found to apply to its facility. Under subsection (a),
Petitioner claims no effluent limit would attach based on the allegation that Noveon’s influent
has a P.E. ofless than 50,000. Although the Illinois EPA did not deem a P.E. calculation
necessary or appropriate for this industrial facility, when Noveonpropounded Interrogatories
upon the Illinois EPA in this matter, the Agency was asked for the first time to calculate
Noveon’s P.E. After manyyears ofdiscussions and disputes between the parties regarding the
applicability of35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.122 to Noveon’s facility, the parties realized forthe first
time that a factual dispute existed between the parties regarding the actual properly calculated
P.E. value forNoveon’s facility. While the AgenCy still maintains that a P.E. calculation is not
necessary or meaningful for this facility (even in the permit appeal proceeding) and certainly not
relevant to this proceeding which assumes Noveon would be subject to an ammonia effluent
limit, the Agency still thinks its important to point out for the Board some inconsistencies in the
13

Record regarding attempts to calculate Noveon’s P.E. with conflicting flow, BOD5 (5-day
biochemical oxygen demand) and TSS (total suspended solids) values.
P.E. is determined by calculating the P.E. value for flow, BOD and TSS pursuant to 35
Ill. Adm. Code 301.345 andtaking the highest ofthese when determining the impact on a
treatment works. In the case ofimpact on the receiving stream, it is the higher ofthe BOD and
TSS P.E. values that controls.
Noveon has called the calculations made by Illinois EPA in response to discovery
“inflated” and claimed values were obtained for flow P.E. of916 and BOD P.E. of 19, 412. Pet.
Br. at 14. Noveon omits that the testimony at hearing identified that the flow P.E. contained a
typographical error and was actually 9,160. Tr. at 425. This typographical error was repeated by
Noveon’s witness Mr. Flippin verbatim in his pre-filed testimony. Petitioner’s Exhibit 7. This
calls into question what flow P.E. Noveon thinks is the proper value as it relied entirely on the
Agency’s calculations, which it has called inflated. Noveon does not mention the results Illinois
EPA obtained for TSS P.E. but instead repeats Mr. Flippin’s conclusion of a TSS P.E. of24,955.
This Illinois EPA’s calculations were based on the Baxter and Woodman Report and resulted in
a TSS P.E. value of265,000. Illinois EPA Ex.
5,
Tr. at 316. This TSS P.E. calculation made
was based upon the only influent TSS data provided by the Petitioner prior to the hearing in AS
02-05. This data was found on pages 3 through 7 ofIllinois EPA’s Exhibit
5.
However, the flow
diagram for Petitioner’s wastewater treatment system contained in that report did not did not
identify certain waste streams as being internal to the wastewater treatment system as identified
by Petitioner subsequently. Pet. Br. at 14. The TSS figure used for Illinois EPA’s calculation
was 53,000 lbs/day. Exhibit
5
at 3. While the TSS figure used by Mr. Flippin was 4,991 lbs/day.
14

This leaves a difference of 48,009 lbs/day, which Petitioner claims can be accounted for, by the
internal waste streams offiltrate from sludge dewatering, backwash from the tertiary filters and
the intermittent occasions when primary sludge is not being dewatered. Pet. Br. at 14. If
accurate, this would mean the capture efficiency of the sludge filter is only 10 percent ofthe total
solids or that sludge is not filtered on a regular basis.
Noveon’s TSS P.E. calculations are also suspect to the extent the flow values used to
reach them are in, dispute. For both TSS and BOD P.E., Noveon had to use flow values to
convertBOD and TSS concentration values into BOD and TSS loadings. Noveon submitted
additional information to the Board on April
15,
2004 to support Mr. Flippin’s testimony
regarding calculation of P.E. values for TSS. The average flow figures provided in the data
submitted for PolyOne (consisting ofPVC lift station discharge and what is referred to as the 213
manufacturing discharge) results in a flow value of 168 gallons per minute or241,920 gallons
per day. This flow value is lower than the average flow value Noveon has consistently
maintained is being treated for PolyOne of360,000 gallons per day (or 250 gallons per minute).
Pet. at 9, Pet. Ex. 30. Similarly, for the influent flow from Noveon’s treatment processes
(identified as PC tank discharge plus C-18 tank discharge in the data submitted on April
15,
2004) an average value is provided of97.6 gallons per minute (or 140,544 gallons per day). This
flow value is much lower than that consistently provided by Noveon in its documentation forthis
adjusted standard forthe Noveon processes of 180,000 gallons per day (or 125 gallons per
minute). Pet. at 9, Pet. Ex. 30.
These deflated flow figures outlined above were utilized by Mr. Flippin to calculate a
15

TSS loading of4,991 lbs/day.2 With regard to TSS P.E. calculations Noveon states that
“Because all wastestreams expected to have any significant levels ofTSS were included Mr.
Flippin testified that his calculation ofpopulation equivalents was accurate to within 25 percent.
Tr. 486-88.” Pet. at 14-15. By this statement Petitioner admits that untreated wastestreams from
Well number 3 and the Stormwater/Utility Pond discharges have been excluded from its
calculation. Petitioner expects the Board to accept that this calculation might be offby no more
than 25 percent based on its statement that “The TSS discharged by the combined Well No. 3 and
Storm/Utility Pond discharges are less than 25 percent ofthe total influent wasteload as
illustrated in the Baxter and Woodman Report.” Pet. Ex. 7 at 13. Review ofIllinois EPA
Exhibit
5
(the Baxter and Woodman Report) by the Agency has not resulted in findingthe basis
for this assumption in that document.
Other wastestreams not internal to the treatment process were excluded from Mr.
Flippin’s calculations including the Parkson filter wastestream, which was identified to the Board
as having a flow of 100,800 gallons per day (70 gallons per minute). Exhibit 30. Additionally,
when asked by the Board to identify the components ofthe 800,000 gallons per day oftotal flow
that were not attributable to Noveon and PolyOne process waters, the Petitioner included the 70
gallons per minute (100,800 gallons per day) from the filter backwash which is an internal
wastestream and not a component ofNoveon’s influent. Pet. Ex. 30 at 2. It is not clear where
the Illinois EPA should look to find this additional 70 gallons per minutes and what impact this
flow would have on Noveon’s P.E. values for TSS.
Another example ofconfusion over the proper flow values to be utilized in calculated
2
Only an estimated TSS concentration was supplied for the 213 process, not an actual measured value.
16

flow, BOD and TSS P.E. values can be found in Petitioner’s Exhibit 5 where flow values totaling
145 gallons per minute are provided while Noveon claims the total flow from these segments of
the wastestream are only 90 gallons per minute. Tr. at 48.
• The Petitioner has used estimates, made omissions and apparently utilized non-
representative flows tomake their P.E. calculation for TSS. While the Agency does not dispute
it is quite possible a proper P.E. value forNoveon’s facility as a whole might be less than 50,000,
that fact is not at all clear from the information presented to date. In addition, Petitioner has
managed to make what both parties claim to be a simple calculation quite complicated and not
comparable to the method typically utilized by POTWs or the Agency in deriving P.E. values.
While there is a factual dispute in the Record regarding the actual P.E. value ofNoveon’s
facility, there can be no dispute that when calculated that value does not correspond to the
enormous ammonia loading Petitioner’s facility is discharging to the Illinois River as would be
represented by a P.E. value for a POTW.
VII.
EFFORTS
NECESSARY
TO
ACHIEVE
COMPLIANCE AND ALTERNATIVES
Noveon states in its Petition that “Noveon and its consultants have concluded, that the
evidence presented in this proceeding will show, that none ofthe available treatment
technologies are both economically reasonable and technically feasible for Noveon to
significantly reduce the ammonia in the wastewater from the HenryPlant to levels that would
achieve compliance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.122(b).” Pet. at 4. The evidence presented at
hearing clearly shows that there are technically feasible alternatives available forthe treatment of
ammonia at Noveon’s facility. In addition, while some ofthese alternatives are very expensive,
the Agency maintains that if viewed in terms ofcost per pound ofammonia removed, the cost for
17

Noveon is not substantially different than the cost for other industries and municipalities of
achieving nitrification.
Biological ammonia treatment is referred to as “nitrification” because treatment of
ammonia involves oxidizing ammonia to nitrates. Noveon studied the nitrification ability ofthe
existing plant and concluded that: “the Henry Plant could not achieve single-stage nitrification
under existing waste loads and optimum conditions ofmixed liquor pH, D.O., temperature,
alkalinity, F/M ratio and mean cell residency time.” Pet. at 16. Noveon also determined that
addition ofnitrifier-rich bio-mass would not help because of“The inability ofthe Henry Plant
wastewater treatment system to nitrify was due to inhibition ofnitrifying bacteriaby the PC tank
and C-18 tank contents flows.” Pet. at 16.
Noveon analyzed the alternative compliance methods :by looking at in-process reductions,
pretreatment ofthe wastestream and post-treatment ofthe wastestream. Pet. at 17. Noveon has
concluded that it is not willing to implement any alternatives to reduce the ammonia in its
wastestream and has asked the Board to grant relief to allow its ammonia discharge to continue at
(or even above) current levels. Noveon has offered that in return for receiving regulatory relief
from 304.122 from the Board, “Noveon will agree to replace the current single-port diffuser with
a multi-port diffuser as part ofthis proceeding.” Pet. at
15.
This change is likely necessary to
assure Noveon is in compliance with water quality standards and is not an effort to reduce its
ammonia discharge.
Noveon presented testimony from Mr. Giffin regarding its efforts to reduce inhibitory and
otherwise problematic compounds in its wastestream including morpholine and tertiary butyl
amine (“TBA”) through in process reductions and pre-treatment alternatives. Pet. at 17, Exhibit
18

6. According to Noveon, none ofthese alternatives would result in compliance with 304.122
and many had resulting safety or environmental concerns.
Noveon did give several examples ofsuccessful efforts to remove compounds from its
wastestreams. Pet. Br. at 18, Ex. 6. Noveon identified TBA as one ofthe compounds in its
wastestream contributing to high levels ofammonia in its discharge and identified that it was
able to recover 185,000 lbs/year ofthis compound by achieving a
5
percent recovery rate. Tr. at
50.
Noveon could not testify as to how much ofthis problematic compound is utilized at the
plant, but basic calculations would indicate that a
5
percent recoveryof 185,000 lbs/yearwould
equate to a reduction of506 lbs/day. IfS percent ofthe TBA used is
506
lbs/day then the total
usedwould be approximately 10,000 lbs/day with approximately 9,500 ofthat going to the
system. Although the process reductions presented by Mr. Giffin total 474,000 lbs/year of
compounds prevented from entering final wastestream, there is no correlation made between the
efforts and whether or not there has been any ammonia reduction as a result. Tr. at 48. The
available evidence leads to the conclusion that these source reduction efforts were performed to
assure compliance with BOD and TSS limitations in Noveon’s NPDES permit and not to reduce
ammonia levels. It is misleading to connect these efforts with an effort to reduce ammonia levels
in Noveon’s discharge. The only evidence presented by Noveon regarding efforts that reduced
ammonia levels is that its treatment plant succeeds in removing some BOD and that without this
BOD removal by the plant, ammonia concentrations in Noveon’s discharge would be 20 mg/L
higher than they would be with no treatment. Pet. Br. at 19.
Evaluation of Ammonia Treatment Technologies
Noveon has reviewed approximately eight potential post-treatment compliance options
19

prior to concluding that none ofthese are technologically feasible and economically reasonable.
In its Recommendation, the Agency reviewed each ofthese options and where Noveon provided
cost figures, the Illinois EPA analyzed those figures on a per pound reduced basis arid compared
them to municipal treatment plants that have recently installed nitrification technology as
contemplated by 40 CFR 125.3(d)(2). Illinois EPA Recommendation (“Rec.”) at 14-17. Noveon
included Operating and Maintenance (“O&M”) costs in its evaluation ofalternatives and based
those on a 10-year life ofthe equipment. Because figures available from POTWs did not include
O&M costs, the Illinois EPA attempted to subtract those costs when comparing Noveon’s costs
per pound of ammonia removed from three recent sewage treatment plant nitrification projects
(Geneva, Batavia and St. Charles) for comparison purposes. Each ofthese facilities chose to
install .a single stage facility similar to what Noveon proposes in the pretreatment and biological
treatment option after evaluation ofthe most cost effective treatment alternatives. The Agency
concluded that the capital costs presented by Noveon are not economically unreasonable based
on• the largeNoveonamountsclaimsofthatammoniaits
expertbeingwitnessremovedconductedfrom
the“adischarge.thorough 3evaluation
of the costs,
feasibility, and effectiveness ofall proven technologies for treatment ofammonia.” Pet. Br. at
19. The Illinois EPA did ask Noveon to conduct a more detailed review ofthe use ofgranular
activated carbon instead of the powdered carbon that was evaluated by Mr. Flippin. Noveon’s
response to this was that “Granular Activated Carbon was considered but quickly abandoned due
to the large PAC (powdered activated carbon) dosing required and the certain fouling problems.”
Pet. Br. at 28 (Exhibit 7 at 19). The Illinois EPA feels that its suggestion for further study was
3The Agency also presented testimony at the hearing that the only increased O&M costs Noveon should experience
that would not be required of a POTW is the additional chemical costs which amounted to 20 percent ofthe total
20

dismissed by Noveon’s experts quickly.
Noveon has spent an enormous amount oftime and money to study alternatives as
evidence by the extensive list ofalternatives presented. The Agency does not dispute that it
wouldbe expensive to reduce ammonia to the levels required by the 304.122. It is also often
very expensive for municipal plants to install nitrification capabilities. Although the costs are
high, the amounts of ammonia to be removed are also extreme and the Illinois EPA does not
agree that the per pound ammonia removal cost is unreasonable.
Mr. Flippin admits there are many technically feasible treatments available to reduce
ammonia at Noveon’s plant. Tr. at 118. Among the alternatives evaluated that would achieve
full compliance with 304.122(b) are effluent breakpoint chlorination (achieving 98 percent
reduction for $9.7 million); biological nitrification ofcombined wastewater (at a cost ofSl 1.7
million); ozonation (98 percent reduction at a very high cost of $20.3 million); ion exchange (98
percent reduction at a cost of$5.1 million); tertiary nitrification (at cost of $11.4 million).
Noveon complains that ofthe technically feasible alternatives that achieve full compliance with
304.122(b) biological nitrification ofcombined wastewater, ion exchange and tertiary
nitrification achieve only inconsistent compliance due to reliability ratings’of 6 or 7. While the
Illinois EPA would always prefer consistent compliance, Noveon has never suggested it would
be willing to implement any alternative with inconsistent or less than full compliance for the
Illinois EPA or the Board to consider for approval.
Noveon does not explicitly state that some ofthe alternatives studied are economically
reasonable, except to state that “Foralternative 6 (nitrification ofPVC tank wastewater), the
O&M figures. Tr. at 438.
21

Henry plant would incur an incremental cost of $329,000. This alternative is the only one of
those considered that would not generate a negative return and sic on net plant, property and
equipment.” Pet. Br. at 30.~Some ofthe costs summarized in Noveon’s brief seem to be
reasonable even without looking at the per pound removal cost: Struvite precipitation costs
$5.1
million (only 24 perceht reduction); Single-stage biological nitrification ofnon-PC wastewater
costs only $4.9 million (with 47 percent removal); and alkaline air stripping costs $2.2 million
(foronly 14 percent reductions) but costs about $14 million for 27 percent or 95 percent
reductions. The Agency believes there are treatments available that could achieve at least partial
compliance with 304.122(b) for an economically reasonable cost. However, it is not the role of
the Illinois EPA orthe Board to select Noveon’s treatment system.
Noveon’s Cost Figures May be
Inflated
The Illinois EPA also raised several concerns at the hearing regarding whether or not Mr.
Flippin’s cost calculations were inflated to make the cost oftreatment appear economically
unreasonable. Although Mr. Flippin testified he is not usuallyresponsible for developing cost
‘estimates and did not actually run the models that were used to determine the costs ofeach
alternative, he testified as the expert on this issue. Tr. at 105-106.
With regard to use ofpresent worth costs, Noveon utilized a 10 year life and has claimed
in its briefthat it did so to keep the costs down and that by using a larger 2,0 or 30 year life, the
present worth costs for O&M would be higher. Pet. Br. at 20. This may be true, but it is also
true that an increase in present worth O&M costs would be countered by a decrease in the present
worth capital costs for equipment.
term “considered” in this quote only refers to the three alternatives addressed in Ms. Shaw’s testimony.
22

Mr. Flippin used a contingency cost of 15 percent, which increases the cost estimates for
each alte~nativeby that amount. Tr. at 121. A cost oflabor was used at a rate of$40 per hour
even though Noveon’s documents indicated that its workers typically earn $22 per hour. Tr. at
24. It seems unlikely that the cost ofemployee benefits or overtime would account for the entire
disparity. Especially since Mr. Flippin testified that Noveon would not be hiring a full time
employee to perform the additional workload but would be utilizing an existing staffperson or a
“portion ofa person.” Tr. at 127. Mr. Flippin also testified that he based his use of an 8 percent
interest rate on what he “believed people could make on their money” at the time the cost
analysis was conducted. Tr. at 128. Mr. Flippin admitted this figure might no longer be accurate
if it was calculated based on the current economic situation. Tr. at 129. Although Mr. Flippin
testified that salvage costs for wastewater treatment plants are not very high, it seems that to
assume a 10 year life forthis equipment with absolutely no salvage value serves to inflate the
capital costs ofthese alternatives.
In order to counter the Agency’s argument that Noveon’s costs per pound ofammonia
removed are comparable to costs ofother plants Mr. Flippin attempts to compare his client’s
costs to a $0.20 per pound surcharge used at one municipal facility forindustrial users. Flippin at
29, Tr. at 115-116. Although documentation ofthis research was not submitted by Noveon, this
comparison is suspect because municipality surcharges take into account a variety offactors
including instituting a disincentive above usual cost oftreatment to discourage compounds that
might overload the plant or a desire to encourage local industry through provision of
infrastructure services.
One ofthe most disturbing aspects ofNoveon’s economic argument is that it asks the
23

Board to consider the impact ofeach ofthese alternatives on the viability ofthe Henry Plant
withouttaking into account that PolyOne typically contributes approximately
55
percent ofthe
cost ofoperation ofthe wastewater treatment facility operated by Noveon. Tr. at 44. Since
PolyQne also contributes to the high levels of ammonia in the final discharge and without
Noveon’s facility would be forced to construct its own treatment plant, it is unreasonable to ask
the Board to assume that the former portion ofthe BF Goodrich plant now owned by a different
corporate entity would not contribute significantly to these costs and therebyreduce the
economic burden on Noveon.
Illinois EPA therefore disagrees with Noveon’s conclusion that after substantial
investigation, “None ofthese assessments resulted in discovery of any treatment alternative that
was both technologically feasible and economically reasonable as a method to achieve
compliance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 204.122(b)
sic.”
Pet. Br. at 17. Noveon did find
alternatives that could achieve full compliance and at least one alternative it admits is
economically reasonable. The Illinois EPA argues that before reliefshould be granted by the
-Board, Noveon should express a willingness to reduce ammonia to levels that would achieve the
greatest reductions that would be economically reasonable in order to minimize its environmental
impact. Instead, Noveon has taken an all or nothing approach to the reliefrequested. It is the
Illinois EPA’s responsibility to evaluate the relief requested in an Adjusted Standard proceeding.
The Illinois EPA cannot pick an option for Noveon, but it is unwilling to accept that none of
those evaluated are technical feasible and economically reasonable.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
AND MIXING ZONE CALCULATIONS
Noveon claims that granting adjusted standard relief from 304.122 will not result in any
24

adverse environmental impacts. Pet. at 25. Noveon further claims that the acute ammonia water
quality standard will be met at the edge of the zone ofinitial dilution (“ZID”) and the chronic
standard will be met at the edge ofthe mixing zone. The Illinois EPA disagrees that the relief
requested will have no adverse environmental impacts. The Agency also disputes that Noveon is
entitled to the mixing zone and ZID calculated by Mr. Corn.
Noveon attempts to use the status of the dissolved oxygen in the Illinois River as a basis
for its claim that there will be no adverse environmental impact if the requested relief is granted.
Noveon accurately points out that the impact ofammonia on dissolved oxygen sags was one
aspect ofwater quality that was consideredby the Board in adopting 304.122. However, at that
time there was not an ammonia water quality standard to consider. Today there are fully
developed ammonia water quality standards which Noveonmust address its ability to comply
with as well. As part ofits argument regarding dissolved oxygen, Noveon alleges that the studies
underlying the Board’s rulemaking in 304.122 have proved faulty and implies the Board should
not attempt to apply the rule as a result. The Agency does not agree with this conclusion and has
consistently maintained that the proper forum for addressing problems with the science
underlying a rule ofgeneral applicability is a rulemaking to amend the rule ofgeneral
applicability. The Board has opened 304.122 twice since the adoption ofsubsections (a) through
(c) and the Board never sought to update or alter the effluent ammonia standard at that time and
the Illinois EPA must assume the Board still finds the rule valid and necessary to protect aquatic
life.
With regard to the environmental impact ofNoveon’s discharge, the Agency presented
testimony that Noveon’s effluent is the single most toxic remaining discharge to the waters ofthe
25

State ofIllinois. Tr. at 350. Now that other highly toxic dischargers in the State have improved
the quality oftheir discharge, Noveon is the last remaining discharger to improve the toxicity of
its effluent above the single digit LC5O level. Tr. at 350.
Noveon attempted to• present evidence from Mr. Goodfellow to lessen the impact ofthe
Agency’s testimony regarding the toxicity ofNoveon’s discharge. Mr. Goodfellow presented
evidence that in addition to ammonia, salinity is a component ofthe toxicity ofNoveon’s
discharge. Cross-examination ofMr. Goodfellow and Mr. Mosher’s testimony demonstrate that
Noveon neither knows exactly how toxic its discharge is norwhat components besides ammonia
and salinity maybe causing the lethality of Noveon’s whole effluent to aquatic life. Tr. at 351-
52.~Noveon’s toxicity studies failed to dilute the whole effluent toxicity samples studied by Mr.
Goodfellow sufficiently to reach a No Observed Effect Concentration (“NIEOC”) which would
identify exactly how much dilution is required to remove the toxicity of its discharge. As Mr.
Mosher testified, “When you do that kind oftesting, you take the trouble to do a definitive test;
you always bring the dilutions down to the level ofdisappearance oftoxicity. In other words,
you keep diluting the effluent until the organismsdon’t have an adverse effect to it any longer.”
Tr. at
351.6
Noveon has performedno in stream studies which look at the actual impact ofits
discharge on the aquatic life downstream from its discharge, but nevertheless concluded there
would be no adverse impact. Tr. at 354.
Another basis for Noveon’s claim that there will be no adverse environmental impact
~
identified by Noveon’s consultants in the Baxter and Woodman Report “Although the fmal effluent BOD was
consistently low (6 mg/L), the COD chemical oxygen demand and TOC total organic carbon concentrations
remained relatively high (385 mgfL and 158 mg/i). The residual COD and TOC indicate that the wastewater still
contains certain inorganic compounds and organic compounds which may-be inhibitive and/or toxic to biological
nitrification processes.” Ex.
5
at 18-19.
6These undefinitive toxicity test results were later used by Mr. Corn to conclude that a 100:1 dilution ration wOuld
26

beyond that considered by the Board in adoption ofthe regulation ofgeneral applicability is that
use ofa multi-port diffuser will assure compliance with the water quality standards. Installation
ofa multi-port diffuser is necessary for Noveon’s existing discharge to meet the acute water
quality standard for ammonia and is being proposed by Noveon as part ofits request for adjusted
standard relief. While the Agency welcomes the diffuser to improve mixing ofNoveon’s
discharge, this is not a form oftreatment. Additionally, the Illinois EPA disagrees with
Petitioner’s method ofusing the multi-port diffuser in calculation ofa proposed mixing zone.
The
Board Should
Not Designate a
Mixing Zone for Noveon’s Discharge
Noveon presents a detailed discussion ofwhat it terms Noveon’s “actual” mixing zone.
Pet. Br. at 32-34. This discussion includes a description of a dispute between the parties
regarding whether aquatic life can live in the entire “jet entrainment zone” as that term is used by
Noveon. Tr. at 376-77. The Illinois EPA is concerned this discussion confuses the reader in that
the methods used by Noveon to calculate this “actual” mixing zone do not comply with the
Board’s regulations for calculating mixing zones (called “regulatory mixing zones” by Noveon).
The first issue to be addressed in determining the nature ofthe mixing zone available to
Noveon is whether Best Degree ofTreatment (“BDT”) is being provided. Tr. at 337. Pursuant to
the Board’s mixing zone regulations in 302.102(a), a mixing zone is available “provided the
discharger has made every effort to comply with the requirements of 304.102.” The referenced
provision 304.102 is the BDT requirement and the prohibition against using dilution to meet
effluent standards. Further, this provision obligates dischargers to provide the best degreeof
treatment ofwastewater consistent with technical feasibility and economic reasonableness and
be adequate to address the toxicity issues in Noveon’s effluent when calculating a mixing zone. Tr. at 353.
27

sound engineering judgment. With regard to ammonia treatment, Illinois EPA has consistently
claimed BDT is not being met for ammonia at Noveon’s plant as there is no ammonia treatment
at the plant. The only way for a mixing zone to be available to Noveon to achieve compliance
with the ammonia water quality standards in 302.2 12 is for Noveon to install ammonia treatment
or for the Board to overrule the Agency’s conclusion and find that Noveon is in fact currently
meeting BDT even without an ammonia treatment technology in place. Noveon apparently
wants the Board to declare as part ofthis proceeding that Noveon is already providing BDT for
ammonia. Pet. Br. at 35.
Ifthe Board finds that Noveon has implemented BDT, it would then be necessary to
address Noveon’s request that the Board calculate its mixing zone. The Agency does not agree
that this step is necessary. Ifthe Board found that Noveon has met BDT, the Illinois EPA will be
ableto grant Noveon a mixing zone in compliance with the Board’s mixing zone regulations in
Noveon’s NPDES permit. Mr. Mosher testified that the acute water quality standard for
ammonia would not be met currently at the edge ofan appropriatelycalculated ZID with the
existing single port diffuser. Tr. at 342. However, once Noveon has installed a multi-port
diffuser, it is expected that the mixing zone available to Noveon with a high rate diffuser,would
be sufficiently large to achieve compliance with the ammonia nitrogen water quality standards~in
the Illinois River.
Noveon spent a great deal oftime at hearing and in its Post-Hearing Brief arguing that the
Board must craft a mixing zone for Noveon because it does not agree with Illinois EPA’s
interpretation ofthe Board’s regulations as they relate to Noveon’s
existing
ZID and mixing
zone. While the Agency will attempt to explain this issue forthe Board below, it seems
28

unnecessary for the Board to address the Agency’s or Noveon’s interpretation ofthe mixing
zones regulations in an abstract, theoretical situation. Illinois EPA has never applied a mixing
zone to Noveon’s existing discharge because the Agency’s mixing zone program post-dates
Noveon’s most recently issued NPDES permit. Since Noveon and the Agency agree that with
adjusted standard relief and a multi-port diffuser Noveon would have an adequate mixing zone to
achieve water quality standards, it seems inappropriate to ask the Board to overrule the Agency’s
interpretation offederal and state mixing zone regulations in the abstract.
The Agency’s interpretation ofthe Board’s mixing zone regulations and state and federal
guidance has not been altered to deal with Noveon’s discharge yet Noveon seems to call into
question the Illinois EPA’s mixing zone program as a whole. Noveon even goes so far as to
state: “It is clear that Mr. Mosher simply does not like mixing zones, notwithstanding their
permissibility in the regulations ofU.S. EPA and in most states, including Illinois.
. .“
Noveon’s
disparagement ofMr. Mosher is inappropriate. Mr. Mosher testified clearly that “when a mixing
zone and ZID are granted to an NPDES discharge, that means the standards won’t be met. The
standards are based on toxic effect to aquatic life, and that includes fish, that includes mussels
and clams that live on the bottom. And when you allow those areas in the river to not meet the
standards.
. .
there is an impact to that aquatic habitat.” Tr. at 346. Mr. Mosher testified that
there are important economic and socialjustifications for mixing zones and ZIDs, but the areas
where water quality standards are not met must be limited to the level specified in the regulations
in order to protect aquatic life.
Noveon states they have agreed to replace single-port diffuser with multi-port diffuser as
part of this proceeding. Pet. at 7. Although Noveon could have undertaken this project at any
29

time to assure that sufficient mixing was occurring to meet water quality standards, they have not
agreed to do s until an adjusted standard is granted by the Board. Noveon asks for a mixing
zone of
5
acres that is 1,000 feet long and a ZID that is 66 feet long with the current diffuser.
Pet. Br. at 36, Tr. at 341. The Agency has maintained that the current ZID is calculated at 22.5
feet. Tr. at 341. With regard to Noveon’s mixing zone, Mr. Mosher testified that “Mr. Corn
seems to be using a formula to arrive at the dimensions ofthe zone ofinitial dilution that, as far
as I know, is unique to him. It’s definitely not the formula that the Agency uses in determining
the size ofthe ZID. We have been very consistent in our interpretation ofwhat the size of the
ZID can be for the last 12 years.. .when the U.S. EPA Technical Support Documentwas
published.” Tr. at 338. The Illinois EPA disagrees with Mr. Corn’s conclusion that “In free-
flowing streams..
.
this length (ofthe ZID) is defined in the downstream flow direction or along
the length where maximum plume concentrations occur. Pet. Ex. 16 at 8; Tr. at 477-79.” Pet.
Br. at 37. Ifadopted by the Board, the interpretation ofthe federal technical support document
(“TSD”) used by Noveon would allow for a larger ZID in a smaller river, while the Agency’s
method allows larger ZIDs in larger rivers and the smaller the river the smaller the ZID. Tr. at
339.
Noveon’s ZID calculation also utilizes a figure of8 mg/L for the City ofHenry’s
ammonia discharge. This is based on Mr. Corn’s estimate for small municipal POTWs, not from
actual figures from that facility. Tr. at 321. The Agency presented testimony that 25 mg/L
would be a more appropriate figure to use for the City ofHenry’s discharge. Tr. at 354. Noveon
testified that such a change would reduce the effluent limit that would comply with water quality
standards down to possibly 218 mg/L (even though Noveon has requested an adjusted standard of
30

225 mg/L). Tr. at 480. Noveon also incorrectlypoints to mixing zones granted by the Illinois
EPA to high velocity diffusers for the conclusion that Illinois EPA’s determination with regard to
the appropriate calculation for Noveon’s mixing and ZID while it still operates a low velocity
diffusçr is incorrect. Tr. at 477. These different types ofdiffusers are subject to different
guidelines under the federal TSD for mixing zone calculations. Hearing Officer Ex. 1 at 7 1-73.
The Agency has made a preliminary calculation regarding the mixing zone that could be
applied to Noveon’s discharge if BDT is found and if the multi-port diffuser is properly
constructed. However, this was only a preliminary recommendation and if such a mixing zone is
granted to Noveon by the Board in an Adjusted Standard Opinion and Order, it will be
impossible for the Agency to revisit that decision as conditions change when Noveon’s NPDES
permit is subject to review and renewal in the future. Tr. at 467. Noveon claims that “with an
appropriately calculated zone ofinitial dilution (‘ZIID’) and mixing zone, consistent with both
Agency and U.S. EPA guidance on mixing zones, the discharge from’ the Hemy Plant will meet
the summer/winter acute and chronic limitations set for in the amended ammonia water quality
standards.” Pet. at 6. However, Petitioner nevertheless is asking the Board to go beyond
granting adjusted standard relief from a technology based effluent limit of304.122, to request a
declaratoryjudgment that the Illinois EPA must accept the mixing zone and ZID calculated by
Noveon and find that the water quality standards will be met.
IX. PETITIONER’S JUSTIFICATION OF PROPOSED ADJUSTED STANDARD
In requesting adjusted standard relief from the Board, a Petitioner has an obligation to
first prove to the Board that “factors relating to the petitioner are substantially different from the
factors relied upon by the Board in adopting the general regulation.” 415 ILCS 28.1(c). Noveon
31

has claimed that “there are no alternatives that are both technologically feasible and economically
reasonable to achieve the ammonia reduction necessary to comply with 35 Ill. Adm. Code
304.122(b).” Pet. at 28. Noveon has not proven that the technological factors or cost ofreducing
ammonia are substantially different than what was contemplated by the Board. Other industrial
dischargers have madeefforts to comply with this regulation and the costs ofcompliance for
Noveon are not significantly different than the cost ofinstalling nitrification capabilities at a
conventional wastewater treatment plant. 40 CFR
125.3(d)(2)
provides that the removal costs
incurred by an industrial discharger maybe compared to the costs incurred by a POTW in
assessing economic reasonableness.
When first adopted by the Board, the provisions at issue in this proceeding were codified
as Rule 406. On January 6, 1972, the Board adopted the language currently contained in
subsection (a) of304.122 in the combined dockets of R70-8, R71-14 and R7l-20. It required
that no effluents from dischargers to specified waterbodies, including the Illinois River, “whose
untreated waste load is 50,000 or more population equivalents shall contain more than 2.5 mg/L
oftotal ammonia nitrogen as N during the months ofApril through October, or4 mg/L at other
times, after December 31, 1977.” 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.122(a)(adopted as PCB Rule 4Q6). In
1973, the Board adopted the language (proposed upon its own motion) currently found in
304.122(b) which requires dischargers to the same specified waterways “whose untreated waste
load cannot be computed on a population equivalent basis comparable to that used for municipal
waste treatment plants and whose total ammonia nitrogen as N discharge exceeds 45.4 kg/day
(100 pounds per day) shall not discharge an effluent ofmore than 3.0 mg/L oftotal ammonia
nitrogen as N.” 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.122(b).
See
R 72-4 (June 28, 1973) and Opinion ofthe
32

Board dated November 8, 1973. Even though it was adopted after the language in the current
304.122(a), this provision had an effective date ofDecember 31, 1974. One explanation given
by the Board for including the additional language is found in another rulemaking opinion’s
discussion ofthe addition ofthe current 304.122(b) to Rule 406: “This amendment did nothing
more than provide an additional clarification ofthe definition ofa source subject to the effluent
limitations ofRule 406; for either case, the threshold applicability ofthe rule is established by a
discharge of100 pounds per day of ammonia nitrogen, however calculated.” In the Matter of:
Proposed Final Amendment to Chapter 3, Water Pollution Regulations~Rule 402.1, An
Exception to Rule 402 for Certain Ammonia Nitrogen Sources, R77-6 (March 30, 1978), slip. op.
at
5.
The Board has been willing in the past to grant site-specific relief from 304.122(b) to
other dischargers after those facilities have committed to reducing their effluent ammonia
concentrations to more acceptable levels. Though the number ofsources subject to these
provisions is relatively small, except for Noveon, all affected dischargers have made efforts to
reduce ammonia levels in their discharge (through process changes and/or controls) since these
rules were implemented. In 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.2 13, the Board granted a site-specific,
effluent standard for PDV Midwest Refining, LLC. for a ten year period after the Refinery
engaged in a series ofactivities to reduce the ammonia in its effluent. Relief was granted from
304.122(b) and that facility is required to meet a monthly average effluent limit of9.4 mg/L and
a daily maximum of26.0 mg/L. In 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.214, similar relief from 304.122(b) is
granted to Mobil Oil Refinery with the requirement that the facility meet monthly average
effluent limits of9.0 mg/L and daily maximum limitations of23.0 mg/L. This reliefwas
33

ultimately supported by the Agency and granted by the Board only after Mobile engaged in
several measures to conserve water, pre-treat and reduce ammonia in its discharge by 50 percent
and agreed to a sunset provision for the relief granted.
Noveon outlines seven factors that make its circumstances different from other industries
or POTWs: 1) few facilities produce similar wastestreams; 2) the presence ofMBT as a
pervasive, building block chemical in all its processes; 3) the need for pretreatment to achieve
ammonia removal; 4) degradable organic nitrogen compounds such as TBA, morpholine and
possibly others that reduce ammonia nitrogen when they decay;
5)
unknown compounds in
Noveon’s wastestream make oxygen transfer halfas efficient as municipal wastewaters; 6) the
majority of alkalinity would have to be added to achieve nitrification at Noveon’s facility while
its already present in municipal plants; and 7) the hardship created by the need for additional
electric power. Pet. Br. at 7-8. The Agency does not dispute that there are some factors that
make Noveon’s discharge more difficult to treat for ammonia than many other industries or
POTWs. However, those distinctions do not justify the adjusted standard reliefrequested by
Noveon to allow its facility to continue discharging ammonia at or even above current levels.
The relief requested would grant Noveon an effluent ammonia concentration limit of75 times
that contained in the rule ofgeneral applicability.
Noveon claims that no measurable impact upon the environment or human health would
result from the relief requested. Pet. at 29. In one sense Noveon is correct in this regard, since
Noveon has never come into compliance with 304.122 since its adoption in 1972, the existing
level ofenvironmental impact would not change. However, Illinois EPA believes that the results
ofthis existing situation are indeed substantially and significantly more adverse than

contemplated by the Board. Currently, Noveon’s facilityis not able to meet water quality
standards for ammonia at the edge ofa mixing zone or ZID. While this situation may change if a
multi-port diffuser is constructed, Noveon will still be responsible for discharging enormous
levels ofammonia nitrogen into the Illinois River
exactly the environmental impact 304.122
was designed to prevent. Illinois EPA maintains that Noveon’s wastestream is exactly the type
ofdischarge the Board had in mind when it adopted a separate section for wastestreams not
comparable to municipal waste treatment plants.
Noveon rests its argument for adjusted standard relief on the premise that it is too
expensive to implement the available treatment alternatives. Though Noveon’s total cost for
complete compliance would be quite high, the resulting total pounds of ammonia reduced would
be even greater. Noveon has been unwilling to state a level ofammonia reduction it is willing or
capable ofachieving. ‘Tr. at
54.
As a result, the Illinois EPA feels Noveon has not justified the
relief requested and must continue to ask the Board to deny Noveon’s request.
X.
CONSISTENCY WITH FEDERAL LAW
The Illinois EPA agrees with Noveon’s conclusion that the Board has authority to grant
relief from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.122(b) without conflicting with any federal statutes or,
regulations. Noveon claims that it does not seek relief from water quality standards or mixing
zone regulations and therefore the relief granted by the Board would not need U.S. EPA approval
as a change in water quality standards. Noveon’s requested relief
must
be limited to 304.122(a)
and (b); however, to assure that relief is not granted from the requirement of304.122(c) to
comply with water quality standards. Otherwise U.S. EPA approval ofrelief granted by the
Board would be necessary to remain consistent with federal law.
35

It is not at all clear what type ofrelief Noveon is requesting by asking the Board to
“designate a mixing zone.” Pet. Br. at 43. The vague and unusual nature of this reliefmakes it
unclear to the Illinois EPA whetherthis type ofrelief would be consistent with federal law. If
Noveon is granted relief from the Board’s mixing zone regulations or an allowance to exceed
water quality standards at the edge of the mixing zone orZID then the reliefwould be
inconsistent with federal law. U.S. EPA will also need to review any relief incorporated into
Noveon’s NPDES permit if it is revised to incorporate the Board’s opinion in this matter to
maintain consistencywith federal law.
XI. CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated herein, the Illinois EPA recommends that the
Pollution Control Board DENY the Adjusted Standard Petition ofNoveon, Inc.
•~
Deborah J. Wil iams
Assistant Counsel
Division ofLegal Counsel
DATED: June
15,
2004
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 N. Grand Ave. East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED
217/782-5544
ON RECYCLED PAPER
36

Illinois Permitting Guidance for Mixing ‘Zones
April 23, 1993
Purpose
Mixing zone regulations promulgated by the Illinois Pollution Control Board
(IPCB) -are found at 35 Ill. Adrn. Code 302.102. These regulations were amended
on January 25, 1990 as part of thetoxics control rulemaking wherein s’tate
standards were updated tocomply with recent changes in the Federal Clean
Water Act. This guidance document outlines the Agency’s approach to
implementing these rules specifically in regard to establishing limitations in
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits.
tntroductiàn
Illinois regulations require that discharges to waters of the state must meet
water quality standards in addition to state effluent limits and appropriate
federal categorical criteria. In certain cases it’ is appropriate to allowthe
mixing of effluent with the receiving water prior to the determi•nation of
compliance with these water quality standards. The Agency has the
responsibility of establishing these mixing allowances in the form of mixing
zones and zones of initial dilution. In the case of NPDES permits, these
allowances are used to translate water quality requirements into discharge
limits that are incorporated into, the permit.
Part A: Application of Mixing Zone Regulations
In order to implement Illinois mixing zone provisions the Agency must answer
three basic regulatory questions:
1) When Is it appropriate to allow a.mixing zone?
2) What restrictions are placed on.the size and location of mixing zones?
3) How will mixing zone allowances be incorporated in NPDES permits?
The following step—by—step procedure describes the Agency’s procedure for
application of mixing to a given situation.
As stated in the regulation at
Section 302.102(d—i), mixing zones are d’ealf with exclusively in NPDES permits.
1. Determination of Reasonableness of Treatment
The opening’paragraph of the mixing zone regulations (Section 302.102(a))
• states that an opportunity for mixing shall be allowed provided that the
stipulations concerning “best degree of treatment” found in 304.102 are
met. Listed under the category of General Effluent Standards Section,,
this rule states that dischargers must provide the best ‘degree of
treatment to wastewater:
Printed on Recycled
Paper

It shall be the obligation of any person discharging
contaminants of any kind into the waters of the State to
provide the best degree of treatment of wastewater
consistent with technological feasibility, economic
reasonableness and sound engineering judgment. For
making determinations as to what kind of treatment Is th~
“best degree of treatment” within the meaning of this
paragraph any person shall consider the following:
1) what degree of waste reduction can be achieved by
process change, Improved housekeeping and recovery
of individual waste components for reuse; and
2) whether Individual process wastewater streams should
be segregated or combined.
Mixing zones are allowed only after best degree’ of treatment Is provided.
Each permit must be reviewed to assure that this level’ of treatment Is
reflected in permit limits. In addition to the construction of treatment
plant hardware as discussed below, best degree of treatment also
encompasses plant operations, housekeeping, raw material selection, etc.,
that will produce the best possible effluent. The following are to be
used as guidelines In this determination and best degree of treatment will
be assumed If appropriate demonstratlon,is made for all regulated
parameters:
-
a. Compliance with State effluent standards.
b. Compliance with Federal BAT categorical limits.
c. A parameter specific determination by the Agency addressing the need
for additional treatment, improved operations and maintenance, raw
material selection or housekeeping improvements that are technically’
feasible and economically reasonable. The Agency may request
additional information from the discharger to address this provision
as necessary.
The review of best degree of treatment is an Integral part of the permit
issuance process,for new facilities and those undergoing additional
construction ‘or equipment replacement. The best te~chnicaily feasible and
economically reasonable treatment processes must be Included during these
construction periods. The usefuT lIfe of treatment facilities Is an
important factor In any subsequent best degree of treatment review, I.e.,
at permit renewal. In addition, the economic reasonableness of replacing
an existing treatment facility or component that still holds useful life
will be assessed using’ best professional judgerneiit. It is n~tthe intent
of the Agency to reassess previous decisions that an existing treatment
process is the best degree of treatment while
the
treatment component
still retains useful life. However, existing tre’a.tment facilities may be
deemed by the Agency not to be the best degree of treatment while still
within useful life
if
water quality standar~schange’ or the mixing zone
conditions are altered due to an Increase in upstream’ concentrations.
Evaluations concerning new water quality standards,. parameters not
previously evaluated, or other changes In the mtxfng zone will be made
—2—

routinely at permit renewal. In such cases, a new’ evaluation is necessary
because the mixing zone may no longer be allowable. But if the mixing
z.one is still valid, i.e., meets the mixing zone provisions of the
-
regulations, the requirement to improve a facility to the best degree of
treatment may only be made during periods of construction undertaken to
increase treatment capacity or to replace equipment which is past its
useful life.
Another component of the demonstration of best degree of treatment is the
evaluation of the mixing characteristics of the outfall structure. The
mixing zone .regulations at Section 302.102(b)(l) requires that the outfall
be designed
“...
to attain optimal mixing efficiency of effluent and
receiving waters.” Furthermore, Section 302.l02(b)(l2) states that
provision must be made to assure that the mixing zone is as small as
practical given reasonable economic and technical constraints. If the
area of mixing is in compliance with the other requirements of Section
302.102, the Agency will make its determination concerning compliance with
this provision based on its best professional judgement.
2. Mixing Zone Size.’and Location Limitations
A. The Mixing Zone Proper.
Limits on overall size are included inSection 302.102(b) 8 and 12:
1) 25 of cross—sectional area or volume of flow (whichever is more
restrictive) for streams providing greater than or equal to 3:1
dilution under conditions of 7010 and, design average discharge.
2) as small as possible and in no case have a surface area larger
than 26 acres.
The 25 of cross sectional area or volume of flow establishes the
extent of the zone of passage given at 35 Ill. Adm. Co’de
302.102(b)(6) for mixing situations where the upstream flow to
effluent dilution ratio is 3:1 or greater. No directive for the size
of the zone of passage for discharges to streams, with less available
dilution is specifically given but paragraph 10 of Section 302.102(b)
states that no body of water may be used totally for mixing with a
discharge outfall. For purposes of allowing mixing in these
situations yet providing a zone of passage, the Agency will generally
restrict allowable mixing to 50 of the upstream flow or 50 of the
cross sectional area (whichever is more restrictive) at 7Q10. No
mixing will be allowed in streams with a 7Q10 flow of zero.
Discharges to lakes which have no discernible and reliably
predictable currents in the immediate vicinity of the discharge
outfall must be assessed with dye studies conducted under critical
effluent and water body conditions as outlined under Part B in’ order
to receive mixing allowances.
Aside from overall size limitations, ‘the rules provide additional
length and location limits. Section 302.102(b), paragraphs 2, 3, 4,
5 and 7 prohibit mixing zones from adversely impacting aquatic life
—3—

habitats, public use areas or the waterbody as a whole. Before
granting mixing in the permit, the Agency must have knowledge of the
locality such that the following may be ensured:
1) Tributary stream entrances shall not be occluded by a mixing
zone nor shall access by migrating aquatic life be Impeded In
either direction.
2) Mixing zones shall not infringe upon bathing beaches, bank
fishing areas, boat ramps or dockages or any other public access
area.
-
3) Mussel beds, endangered species habitat, fish spawning areas,
areas of outstanding aquatic life habitat (e.g., riffle areas)
or any other natural features vital to the well being of aquatic
life shall not be threatened or Impaired by a mixing zone.
4) Mixing zones shall not Infringe upon intake structures of public
or food processing water supplies, watering areas routinely
accessed by wild or domesti.c animals, or points of irrigation
withdrawal.
In instances where a new Or relocated di’scharge Is proposed the above
information will be provided by the discharger in th& form of a
habitat survey report or as part of the formal application for a
mixing zone. In cases of an existing outfall, Agency biologists will
provide habitat and biological information from their direct
knowledge of the receiving stream and facility. Their comments will
provide a key portion of th’e permit writers mixing evaluation, i.e.,
are mixing zone regulations being met at this existing site or shoul,d
the discharge be màved’ to a better site where no conflicts occur.
Where Agency produced biological information is absent, the
discharger may be required to supply this information (see Part B
Additional Mixing Zone Demonstrations).
It will be the responsibility of all dischargers with existing or
proposed effluent concentrations in”excess of chronic water quality
standards or criteria to provide the Agency with required
documentation of themixing characteristics of ‘the discharge. This
Includes the chronic standards at 35 Ill. Adn. Code Section
302.208(d), the standards at Ce), and any chronic derived water
quality criterion obtained as a result
of the application of Section
302.210. Such information will’ be submitted as part of NPDES permit
application or as a permit requirement after issuance. At a minimum,
a conservative “default mixing zone demonstration” as outlined below
will be required. If the discharger believes that a more
representative demonstration than the Agency’s Initial determination
is necessary. to characterize mixing, it will be
his responsibility to
provide the appropriate modeling and/or field data. These
requirements are discussed In Part B and a comprehensive description
of dispersion models and field investigation of mixing
characteristics
are
contained in the Technical Support Document
(TSD) (1).
—4—

The regulations also state that “No mixing is allowed where the water
quality standard for the constituent in question is already violated
in the receiving water.” Normally, such a violation will be’dete’cted
when upstream water quality data are examined for mass balance
determinations (waste load allocations). If the upstream
concentration is already at or over the standard, the determination
of the allowable mixing zone would •end and the permit would contain
water quality standards as limits at the point of discharge. This
procedure is described in detail in “Procedures for Determination of
Water Quality Based Effluent Limits” and uses the following equation:
Ce
=
Cds(Qus
+
Qe)
CusQus
Qe
B. Zones of Initial Dilution
With the advent of acute water quality standards, there is a need for
a mixing area that will protect waterbodies from short lived or
limited area impacts yet still make provision for instream mixing
opportunity where reasonable treatment to meet the standard does not
exist. The regulations. provide for this situation in subsections (c)
and Ce) of 302.102. Subsection Cc) states that acute standards must
be met within the area Eand at all times where mixing is allowed
except where provided by subsection Ce). Here the concept of the
zone of initial dilution (ZID) is introduced.
The regulatory definition of a ZID uses the terms “rapid” and
“Immediate” to describe mixing in this area. The fact that the ZID
may afford only a minimal area of exposure to aquatic life is
stressed in these defined terms.
USEPA provides a detailed approach to defining the ZID in the second
edition of the TSD that is compatible with Illinois regulations (2).
USEPA’s concept of the ZID is based on passage of organisms through
the effluent plume without resulting lethality. USEPA uses the term
criterion maximum concentration (CXC) to denote a protective
concentration for a short—term (one hour) exposure. The equivalent
terms in Illinois standards are the Acute Aquatic Toxicity Criterion
(AATC) and the Acute Standard (AS). The CXC is considered protective
for a one hour exposure period, hence any organism which would spend
less than one hour passing through a ZID at or less than the CXC
would be protected from lethal effects. Although Illinois
regulations do not specify the one hour exposure, the AATC is
computed virtually identically to the CMC and the TSD exposure
concept can be applied to Illinois mixing zones. The spatial
dimensions used in the TSD for defining ZIDs are, therefore, used in
this document. However, one of the TSD alternatives which abandons
set spatial dimensions in favor of an exposure area based on time of
passage is rejected. In this option for allowed mixing a one hour
travel time would be granted before standards must be met at the edge
of a ZID. This concept is clearly in opposition to the language and
intent of the regulation and is, therefore, rejected.
—5—

Any effluent exceeding the AATC or AS and discharged to an intermittent or
very low flow stream or to a wetland or’lake with poor dilution potential
aannot be a candidate for a ZID because organisms could not be expected to
avoid exposure. The AATC or AS must be’ met at the end—Of—pipe in these
situations.
The TSD offers three alternative ZID delineation methods providing
criteria for areas where the AATC or AS may be exceeded in a given portion
ofthereceiving water.
The
discharger may propose alternate approaches
to defining, the ZID. These will be reviewed on a case—by—case basis for
consistency with the regulations. The two alternatives deemed. suItable
for use in Illinois will be utilized to define the maximum extent of the
ZID. They are given in the TSD as follows:
1. A high velocity discharge may be utilized to ensure that the AATC or
AS is met within a very short distance from the outfall and thereby
allow only a few minutes of exposure to’ passing aquatic organisms.
The initial velocity of the discharge must be at least three meters
per second. Addltionally,•a spatial limitation in any direction from
the discharge port(s) of 50 times the square root of the
cross—sectional area of the port(s), i.e., single or multipoint
diffuser, is imposed. When high velocity diffusers are used, a dye
study will usually be required to verify predicted effluent
dispersion at,the edge of the allowed ZID. Permit limitations can be
based on the above calculations but a provision for a field
verification will be included in the permit.
2. The second alternative allows a discharger to utilize a lower
velocity outfall. The most restrictive of the following must be met:
A. The AATC or AS must be met within 10 of the distance from the
edge of the outfall structure to the edge of the regulatory
mixing zone in any spatial direction;
B. each individual discharge port must cause the AATC to be met
within a distance of 50 times the square root of the cross
sectional area Qf the pipe flowing full at defined flow*
conditions; and
C. the AATC must be met within a distance of five times the local
water depth.. The local water depth is defined as the average of
the depth of the water at the point of outfall (end—of—pipe or
entrance of an effluent ditch) and the maximum depth within the
area defined in A or B above. Since this is a more conservative
approach than option A above, field verification may not be
needed, however
dye
studies may be required where appropriate.
*For municipal facilities the effluent discharge will be’ the
average of the three consecutive lowest months flow for the past
two years of record. Industrial effluents will generally
utilize highest monthly average flow.
—6—

As a part of the permit review process, the Agency will complete a
default initial mixing demonstration to characterize the mixing
likely in the ZID. In some cases, the Agency may require the
-
discharger to perform the necessary analysis or submit sufficient
data to allow the Agency to complete the evaluation. The procedure
for the default ZID mixing determination when applying an acute water
quality standard from Section 302.208(d) or a derived criterion from
Section 302.210 is taken from the TSD (2). A supplementary equation
is provided for converting the flux averaged dilution factor (S) to
an effluent limit.
S
= 0.3
(xld) where
S
= flux averaged dilution
x
= distance from outlet where the acute standard or AATC must be met
(ft)
x is determined from the most stringent of the three alternatives (A,
B and C) of the secOnd ZID delineation method (low velocity
discharges) found on pages 6 and 7 of this document, slightly
modified from the TSD.
d = diameter of outfall if it were flowing full through a pipe at
design conditions (ft)
Obtain d by the following method:
A. ‘Determine design slope value, s1, for the outfall sewer.
B.
Determine effluent flow,
Qe,
in cfs. This is highest monthly
average flow
for industrial discharges and the average of the
three lowest consecutive months of flow over the past two years
of record for municipal dischargers.
C. Use Manning’s Equation based upon a roughness’value of n
= O.~3a
to determine pipe size, d, which will flow full corresponding to
Qe
and s1 values.
The only field measurement normally required by ‘the above procedure
will be to determine average water depth. This is
done by measuring
depths in the allowable ZID and averaging the lowest and highest
values obtained. MOre sophisticated methods to obtain the average
may also be employed, however, all measurements must be taken’at low
water levels, e.g., river discharges of less than harmonic mean flow.
When the flux—averaged dilution (S) value is obtained, the following
equation is utilized to calculate permit limits:
Ce =
S(Cd—CU)
+ C~
where,
Ce = the concentration of a substance in the effluent (effluent
permit limit for daily maximum concentration)
—‘7—

Cd
=
the acute water quality standard or AATC for the substance
Cu
=
the upstream concentration of the substance
Cu may be obtained from a monitoring station maintained by the Agency
or a monitoring requirement may be placed in the permit to obtain
needed upstream data.
Dischargers not able to meet limits produced by this screening
proc’ess (having met the best degree of treatment requirement) may
seek todemonstrate mixing efficiency in the ZID by the more complex
modeling or tracer studies described later in this section.
Mixing allowance will be granted on a parameter specific basis for
both the mixing zone proper and the ZID. The resulting variably
sized mixing zones and ZIDs possible at a single discharge outfall
will thereby reflect the individual review of best degree of
treatment and existing effluent quality (see #4 below). Monitoring
activities designed to assess compliance with permit conditions will
occur at the NPDESsampling point rather than at some point in the
receiving water.
3. ToxicIty Assessment
Toxic effluents must be further evaluated because of their potential to
violate water quality standards. This entails either whole effluent
toxicity (Sections 302.621 and 630) or numeric standards or criteria for
substances that are not presently regulated In the NPDES permit and can be
shown to be a potential problem to the receiving stream. The presence of
substances producing whole effluent toxicity may not have been considered
when review of steps 1 and 2 above was conducted.
The Agency generates whole effluent toxicity results for many
dischargers. Planning Section will generate bioassay review sheets
summarizing Agency bioassay results (collected 1
1—1/2 years before
permit expiration) as well as results from prior biomonitoring plans,
USEPA testing or bioassays required from the permittee at permit renewal.
These reviews will be made a part of the permit writer’s review notes and
will remain in the appropriate facility file.
Where significant toxicity* is encountered in an effluent, the permit
writer will require further biomonitoring as a permit condition. A clause
to perform a toxicity reduction evaluation (IRE) will accompany this
requirement. If the effluent is typified as having a fairly consistent
toxicity problem in this further testing, the IRE will attempt to identify
the source and options for its elimination. In some cases, the identified
toxicant will be already regulated by the permit with a. stipulated mixing
allowance. However, when unregulated toxic substances are discovered,
*significant toxicity may generally be defined as effluent toxicity exceeding
the stipulations of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.621 for all discharges and, for
dischargers to smaller streamsdisplaying adverse downstream impacts as
determined by an Agency biosurvey, exceeding the stipulations of Section
302.630.,
—8—

analysis of best degree of treatment must be repeated. A detailed
explanation of the Agency’s b~omonitoringpolicy is given in “Effluent
Biernonitoring and ToxicIty Assessment
Aquatic Life Concerns”. The
-
absence of a’cute effluent toxicity in discharge situations ‘of greater than
100:1 dilution will usually eliminate the need for additional’ modeling or
mixing demonstrations beyond that covered in this document up to this
point.
4.
,
ExistinqEffluent Quality
When mixing i’s allowed, the permit writer must implement permit limits
corresponding to existing effluent quality (EEQ). This procedure goes
beyond the granting of State effluent standards or other indicators of
best degree of treatment as default perniit.limits. When a discharger has
demonstrated’ through the years that the treatment systems in place can
exceed the performance dictated by the technology based permit’limit,
permit limits reflective of the existing abilities are in order. The ISO
(1) provides a procedure for determining the maximum expected effluent
concentrations expected given past plant performance:
In cases where effluent monitoring data is available for the parameters of
interest, effluent limitations will be determined using a statistical
approach at the 95 confidence level. The following statistical approach
has two parts. The first part is a determination of the percentile.
ranking for the highest measured effluent concentration. The percentile
ranking (Pa) can be determined from the following formula:
=
(0.0~5
1/fl
Where n is the number of samples.
The second part of this statistical approach is a relationship between’ the
above—determined percentile ranking and the appropriate upper bound
percentile ranking for a lognormal effluent distribution. For determining
permit limitations, the appropriate upper bounds are the 95th percentile
for both daily maxima and monthly averages. The relationship for
determining daily maxima is:
C95 = exp(2--32.6c~—
0.5ci2)
Czp ‘
exp (Z~a
0.5a~)
Where a is determin~~..fl~a..±hecoefficient of variation (CV) by o~=
In (CV2÷l)or
a = ~.Jln(CV2÷l)and Z
is the Z.-valué of the
,
/
percentile ranking pr,. CV will be assumed to be 0.6 unless the
discharger ha’s justified a different coefficient of variation.
The daily maximum permit limit is then determined by multiplying the
highest daily maximum effluent concentration by C95/C~~.The monthly
average permit limit is determined by multiplying the highest recorded
monthly average by C95/C~~provided that, at least two effluent samples
were used to determine the “average”. If only one sample per month or
less was collected, the monthly average is calculated by multiplying the
yearly mean effluent concentration by C95/C~~.If the number of
‘~amp1es is 35 or less, C95/C~~can be obtained from Appendix A.
S~mpl~larger than .35 will use a multiplier of 1.1. The Agency will
~allow outlier values froni these calculations.
—9—

Existing effluent quality will be used as.a measure of best ,degree of
treatment and will supercede the criteria set forth in the section
entitled Determination of Reasonableness of Treatment except when, the..
fdllowing conditions are met:
1. The resulting effluent limits are more stringent, and;
2. Such limits do not preclude reasonable increases in flow or pollutant
load to the treatment plant up to the design capacity of the plant
during the term of the permit. This determination will be based on
the best professional judgement of the Agency based on available
information. The Agency may ask’ the permittee to provide additional
information necessary to make this determination.
If an increaseof a plant’s design capacity becomes necessary, the new
treatment facilities shall be evaluated using the guidelines set forth in
the section of this document entitled Determination of Reasonableness of
Treatment. EEQ limits established for the previous treatment facilities
will therefore not necessarily apply to the new permit. EEQ limits will
be applied once sufficient effluent data is generated for the new plant.
Bestprofessional judgement will be utilized to set permit limits
Initially.
5. Bloaccumulative Substances
Mixing zones for bioaccumulative substances* will not be allowed, if there
is a current sport fish’ advisory for the waterbody reach involved. These
advisories are published in the Illinois Water Quality Report (305(b)) on
a biennial schedule and in an annual publication entitled “Guide to Eating
Illinois Sport Fish”. In addition to ensuring that water quality
standards for bioaccumulati’ve substances will be met outside of the mixing
zone,’ the permit will require additional studies where the Agency
determines that a significant amount of these substances will be
discharged. Often, NPDES permits are written which regulate
bloaccurnulative substances but no documentation exists that levels above
detection limits are actually.discharged. A significant amount is
therefore a measurable amount found with enough regularity as to represent
what is believed to bea genuine release. Where it appears that a
measurable discharge exists, the permittee will be required to perform
body burden analyseson fish collected below the Outfall to document that
no actual impact will occur, i.e., fish body burdens approaching the
action level or other applicable guideline. ‘This requirement should be
repeated in each succeeding permit. The Agency may also require caged
fish or internal waste stream studies to determine the presence of
bioaccumulatfve substances In an effluent where they are suspected but are
non—measurable by other means.
*Bioaccumulative substances for purposes of this document are those which have
a more stringent human health or wildlife criterion than aquatic life
criterion. This will be indicated in the permit writerts review notes file as
part of the implementation of Subpart F narrative standards.
-
10

Part B: Additional Mixing Zone Demonstrations
1. E*isting Discharges
.
-
The default’mixing zone and ZID delineation models described
in Part A
will not suffice when a discharge approaches the maximum limits set by
these relatively simple analyses. The equation for
the mixing zone proper
assumes ideal mixing and, therefore, any discharge that contains
concentrations of substances near the effluent limits calculated may in
fact violate mixing zone standards if poor mixing is actually present.
The equation’predicting ZID dilution is more conservative but also may
assume better mixing than actually occurs. Better models (requiring more
sophisticated input data) may be adequate in some cases (see Holley and
Jirka 2). The discharger may demonstrate to the Agency that advanced
models are adequate to document mixing and receive mixing zone allowances
‘in the permit.
Where models cannot adequately describe mixing, rhodamine WI dye,
conductivity, chloride or other tracers can be used in field work to
identify a series of effluent residual contours. This should be done
under both a seasonal low flow and a normal mean or median flow. The
results from these two conditions can be utilized to extrapolate for 7010
and design average discharge. The various models given in the ISO (2) may
be applied, to predict effluent contours or extrapolate to different flow
conditions using existing tracer study data. The decision to require a
field study will lie with the Agency. For non—intermittent streams with a
flow up to 50 cfs immediately downstream of the outfall and lakes under 3
feet maximum depth, vertical mixing can be assumed to be uniform. For
streams with flow beyond ‘50 cfs and lakes with depth greater than 3 feet,
and in instances where differences in ionic strengths or temperatures are
of concern, the residual contours should be identified at the surface and
selected depth intervals. Recommendations given in the ISO for tracer
studies (pp. 74 and 75) should be followed where possible. The Agency
will always reserve the right to review and approve mixing zone
delineation study plans.
In ‘some instances, the Agency may require biological nionitoring’to assess
an effluent’s compliance to the ecological provisions of the Board
regulations. These may consist of studies of in—place communities of
organisms such as mussel beds or artificial substrate devices to document
the effects of water quality on benthic communities.’
2. Proposed New or Relocated Discharges
Modeling will generally be used to predict mixing zone dimensions for
proposed new discharges. Methods recommended in the ISO should be used
unless site specific characteristics indicate that another model better
fits the situation. The decision to require sophisticated modeling or
dispersion studies will be based on the overall diluton ratio between
effluents and receiving waters. Generally, such studieswill be
unnecessary when dilution ratios are greater than 1,000:1. If the system
cannot be successfully modeled, it may be necessary to perform a
dispersion study as discussed above with a temporary discharge ofcity
~iater,groundwater or upstream river water and a tracer substance. The
following poirits’must be addressed if modeling is utilized.
11

a) The type of modeling to be used for a given discharge shall be
addressed in the application documeht. References, such as text
books, technical papers, etc., for the modeling methods to be used
shall be listed. Examples of methods and models are available in
references listed in Appendix A.
b) Data supplied for the modeling must be based on factors particular to
a given system and should include:
1)
Stream and effluent flows.
2) Stream geometry at 6 to 10 locations downstream from the outfall.
3) Longitudinal and lateral boundaries of the mixing zone.
4) Dispersion coefficient value(s) and other hydraulic
characteristics of the stream.
c) Predicted effluent residual concentration contours in a sketch of the
proposed mixing zone.
d) Biological and Habitat Characterization.
1)
IdentIfy habitat types In the proposed mixing zone, e.g.,
substrate types, cover characteristics, etc.
2)’ Delineate mussel ‘beds within 1,000 feet of the proposed mixing
zone.
3)
Research the. likelihood for endangered or threatened species
(state or,federal) to inhabit the mixing zone.
4) Identify any unique or highly valued (fish spawning or
congregating areas, etc.) habitats within the proposed mixing
zone.
e) Verification by in situ methods will be required when the discharge
commences.
,
‘. .
.
The Agency may require. a confirmatory dye study after a new discharge
begins to verify the model. The results of these studies may indicate
that refinnients to the, outfall design are necessary.,
Part C: Application Information
Information Required
,
When the screening procedures outlined in Part A prove inadequate for. mixing
zone or ZID characterization, the following information must be submitted to
the Agency as a mixing zone’application.
a) Facility Information
1) Design and operating data.
,
12

A) NPDES permit number.
B)
Treatment type.
C) Design average and maximum flow.
0) Monthly average flow for each of the last 24 months.
E) Physical, and biological characteristics of the effluent.
F)
Any proposed expansion or upgrading program.
2) Outfall data.
A) Location.
B) Outfall modification considerations to induce rapid mixing (e.g.
high rate diffusers).
C) Physical characteristics of the existing or modified outfall.
0) Any available toxicity data for the effluent.
E) Chemical components of the effluent.
b) Receiving Waterbody Information
1) General Information
A) Name of the receiving water body.
B) The location of the point of discharge by county and United
States Geological Survey (USGS) coordinates.
(This should be
highlighted, along with the ,discharge.points of any other known
dlschargers,on a copy of the most recent 7.5 or 15 minute USGS
topographic map).
C) Distance in river miles from the facility’s outfall to both the
next downstream outfall and the next downstream tributary to the
receiving stream.
2) Receiving stream hydraulic factors:
A) Seven day ten year low flow (7Q10) immediately upstream of the
outfall.
.
B) Stream velocity, depth and top width at 7Q10. (Stream velocity
and depth should be measured at mid—channel).
C) Representative channel geometry.
3) ReceivIng stream water quality data and biological ‘information:
A) Any existing data for the last twelve months on the
concentrations of water quality constituents, including pH and
13

temperature in the general vicinity of the outfall (upstream and
downstream):
B) Any existing data concerning the biological characteristics of
the stream up and downstream of the outfall, including such
Items as habitat, benthic macroinvertebrates, fisheries, and
algal blooms.
C) For new or modified dlschargeoutfalls, determine unique habitat
occurrence In any area likely to come under effluent impact that
was unaffected prior to the change. Include information on
mussel beds, fish nursery areas or any other habitat that
differs from the usual habitat configuration of the receiving
water,.
.,
-
4) ‘Receiving stream morphological factors:
A)
Substrate type.
B)
.
Variation of structure via natural meandering, pool and riffle
sequence, proximity to side channels, backwater lakes, harbors,
etc..
C) Degree of dredging, channelization or other alteration of
natural stream character.
0) Accumulation of logjams and other naturally occurring vegetative
debris, and presence.of manmade habitats such as dikes, pilings,
wing dams and riprap.
5) Receiving stream riparian habitat and land use description:
A) Topography.
B) Land cover including forest, agricultural row crop, marsh, grass
buffer strip, residential lawn, etc.
C) Land use, zoning classification and projected growth patterns in
the vicinity of the outfall using the following
classifications: residential, commercial, industrial, wetlands
recreational, agricultural. A specific determination should be
made regardi’ng utilization and’accessibllity of’the adjoining
property and receiving water body within the proposed mixing
zone.
6) Stream use related information:
A) The present and
anticipated uses of the receiving water body.
B) The existence of an
impact upon any spawninq
or nursery areas of
any indigenous aquatic species.
C) Any obstruction to migratory routes of any indigenous aquatic
species.
14

D) The synergistic effects
of overlapping mixing zones or the
aggregate
effects of adjacent mixing zones.
‘ -
C) Application Submittal, Review and Approval
1) A written application will consist of the following:
A) Review conducted in parts a and b of this Section.
B) Details of Methodology used in delineating the mixing zone.
C) Details of calculations made in delineating the mixing zone and,
if applicable, the ZID.
0) A sketch of the proposed mixing zone showing length, width, and,
If applicable, the ZID. If concentration lines are developed
for the mixing zone, a concentration profile should also be
shown.
2) Submittal shall be addressed to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Planning Section
Division of Water Pollution Control
2200 Churchill Road
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794—9276
Upon receipt and approval of a
completed
mixing zone application, the
location, dimensions and allowable dilution ratio of the mixing zone
and, if applicable, Zone of Initial Dilution, will be designated in a
written response to the applicant.
BM:jk/sp/3023n
— 15 —

References
1. USEPA. March, 1991. Technical Support Document for Water Quality—Based
Toxics Control. Office of Water. EPA/505/2—90—OOl. Washington, D.C.
2. Holley, E. R. an,d G. H. Jirka, 1986. Mixing in Rivers. Technical Report
E—86—ll, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vlcksburg,
Mississippi.
BM:jk/sp/3023n
16

Appendix A.
Reasonable Potential
Multiplying Factors: 95 Confidence
Level and 95 Probability Basis
N~:nber’
~JF
Coefficient of Variation
mt~1~0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
1.6 ‘ 1,7 LA
1.9 2.0
1
1.4 1.9 2.6 3.6 4.7 6.2 8.0 10.1 12.6 15.5 18.7 22.4 26.4 30.8 35.6 40.7 46.3 52.2 58.4 65.0
2
1.3 1.6 2.0 2.5 3.1 3.8 4.6 5.4 6.4 7.4 8.5 9.7 11.0 12.3 13.6 15.1 16.5 18.0 19.6 ‘21.2
3
1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.6 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.6 5.2
‘ 5.8 6.5 7.2 7.9 8.6 9.3 10.1’
10.8 11.6 12.4
4
1.2 1.4 1.7 ‘1.9 2.2 2.6 3.0 3.3 3.7 4.’2 4.6 5.1 5.5 6.0 6.4 6.9
7.4 7.9 8.3 8.8
5
1.2
6
1.1
7
1.1
8
1.1
9
1.1
10
1.1
1.4 1.6
1.3 1.5
1.3 1.4
1.3 1.4
1.2
1.4
1.2 1.3
1.8 2.1 2.3 2.6 2.9 3.2 3.6 3.9 4.2 4.5 4.9 5.2 5.6 5.9 6.2 6.6 6.9
1.7 1.9 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.9 3.1 3.4 3.7 3.9 4.2 4.5 4.7 5.0 5.2 5.5 5.7
1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.3 4.5 4.7 4.9
1.6 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.7 3.9 4.0 4.2 4.3
1.5 1.7 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.8 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.8 3.9
1.5 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.6
11
1.1
12
1.1
13
1.1
14
1.1
15
1.1
1.2 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3
1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.0
1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.8
1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 ‘1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.7
1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.5
16
1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.4
17
1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3
18
1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2
19
1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1
20
1.1 1.1
,
1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.0
21
1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0
22
1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9
23
1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9
24
1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2
1.2 1.3 ‘1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8
25
1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
26
1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6’ 1.7 1.7
27
1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2
L2
1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7
28
1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6
29
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.6
30
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.4
, 1.4
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5 1.5
31
32
33
34
35
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
‘ 1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.?
1.2
1.2
1.2
,
1.2~
1.2
1.3
1.2 1.2
1.2
,
1.2
1.2 1.2
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
1:2
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
.
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.4 1.4
1.3
‘ 1.4
1.3 1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.5 1.5
1.4
‘ 1.4
1.4 1.4
1.4
1.4

STATE OF ILLINOIS
COUNTY OF SANGAMON
)
)
)“
SS
)
)
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, on oath state that I have served the attached,
Post-Hearing Memorandum of the
Illinois Envfronmental Protection Agency and Documentation ofMixing
Zone Guidance Requested
by the Board,
of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency upon the person to whom it is directed, by
FACSIMILE
and by placing a copy in an envelope addressed to:
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
Illinois
Pollution Control Board
James
R.
Thompson Center
100
West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Bradley
P.
Halloran, Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100
West RandolphStreet, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois
60601
Mark Latham
Richard Kissel
Sheila Deely
Gardner, Carton and Douglas
191 North Wacker Drive, Suite 3700
Chicago, Illinois
60606
and mailing it by First Class Mail from Springfield, Illinois on June
15, 2004
with sufficient postage
affixed.
SUBSCRIBED
AND
SWORN TO BEFORE ME
this
15th
day of June
2004
OFFICIAL SEAL
CYNTHIA L.W0I_FE
~
~ NOTARy PLI8IJC, STATE
OF
IWNOIS ~
*
MY COMMISSION EXPIASS ~~2o.2Qo7~
THIS
FILING
IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

Back to top