2

Center, Prairie Rivers Network and Sierra Club (collectively ELPC) filed a response to the

comments of IAWA. The Agency filed a comment on July 26, 2005.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSE

 

Three public comments and a response were filed in this rulemaking after the Board

proceeded to first notice. Both the Agency (PC 22) and ELPC (docketed as a response,

hereinafter ELPC Resp.) were supportive of the proposal the Board sent to first notice. The

IAWA (PC 21) filed a comment against the proposal on June 20, 2005. On August 31, 2005, the

IAWA filed additional comments, accompanied by a motion for leave to file

instanter

.

 

In the motion for leave to file, the IAWA asserts that through a combination of factors

including vacation schedule and workload, it has not been able to file the comments in a timely

fashion. Mot. at 1. The IAWA contends that the purpose of the additional comments is not to

prejudice the other parties, but to provide the Board with the IAWA’s unique insight into what it

believes is a mistake by the Board in its previous order.

Id

.

 

Hearing Officer John Knittle directed the parties to indicate on or before September 9,

2005, whether any response to the motion and comments would be forthcoming. ELPC

indicated that they would not be filing any response to the motion or comment. To date, no other

responses have been received by the Board. The motion for leave to file is granted, and the

Board accepts the IAWA’s additional comments, and dockets the comments as Public Comment

23 (PC 23). The pleadings are summarized below.

 

IAWA

 

The IAWA continues to oppose the proposal as insufficiently supported. PC 21 at 1.

IAWA asserts that the record does not contain evidence that phosphorus is causing widespread

pollution problems in the state of Illinois, or that promulgation of the proposed standard will

have a measurable impact on eutrophication.

Id.

The IAWA contends that eutrophic conditions

may or may not be an environmental problem depending on the presence or absence of

conditions other than phosphorus, such as low reaeration rates.

Id.

The IAWA notes that the

Illinois Eater Quality Report prepared by the Agency does list many streams segments as

impaired due to phosphorus, but that the listing is not based on onsite determination of cause and

effect, but on statistical guidelines.

Id.

The IAWA contends that this should not be considered

evidence that these elevated levels of phosphorus are causing environmental problems. PC 21 at

1-2.

 

The IAWA states that the Agency, along with the Illinois Nutrient Work Group, is in the

midst of a multi-year undertaking to develop science-based water quality standards, and that

IAWA does not believe the record in this matter documents an urgent need to shortcut the

science-based approach. PC 21 at 2. The IAWA contends the proposed rule will have very

limited impact on the total amount of phosphorus entering the aquatic environment because

agricultural sources are also major dischargers of phosphorus.

Id.

 

 

---

 

3

The IAWA asserts that if a phosphorus effluent standard is adopted, the Board should

exempt the standard from the Averaging Rule at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.104 (a)(2) and (3). PC

21 at 2. The IAWA asserts that the rule would require the Agency to place a daily maximum

limit of 2.0 mg/L in NPDES permits, and that a daily maximum limit is both unnecessary and

undesirable.

Id.

The IAWA contends that a daily maximum limit is not needed since

phosphorus is not a toxic parameter. The IAWA argues that daily maximum effluent limits are

typically related to acute toxicity levels of pollutants, and are designed to prevent short-term

discharges of high levels of pollutants that would lead to acute toxicity levels.

Id.

   

 

The IAWA asserts that a daily maximum limit is undesirable as it will discourage the use

of biological phosphorus removal technology (BPR), and that the Board should encourage the

use of BPR over chemical phosphorus removal (CPR) because CPR is more resource intensive.

PC 21 at 2-3. CPR requires the manufacture of a chemical and transportation of the chemical to

the treatment facilities. PC 21 at 3. The IAWA notes that the state of Wisconsin has allowed an

exemption even to the monthly average limit for plants using BPR.

Id.

The IAWA suggests the

following addition to the rule:

 

g) (4) Monthly average permit limits established under this subsection

(g) are not subject to the averaging rules under subsections (a)(2)

and (a)(3) of Section 304.104. PC 21 at 3.

 

The IAWA believes that the economic impact of the proposed rule has been seriously

underestimated. PC 21 at 3. The IAWA asserts that the Village of Beecher is expanding its

plant to 1.2 MGD and that the cost of chemical phosphorus removal including a chemical feed

building, equipment, electrical, and controls amounts to $288,000.

Id.

The IAWA contends the

cost for the phosphorus portion of the sludge handling is $178,600, equating to a total capital

cost for phosphorus removal of $466,600 for a 1.2 MGD plant.

Id.

The IAWA asserts that the

City of McHenry’s South plant is expanding to 1.5 MGD, and that the cost of the chemical feed

equipment and building, including electrical and controls, was $350,000.

Id.

  

 

The IAWA argues that these costs are dramatically different from those referenced by the

Board and that the Board’s decision in the first-notice opinion and order was erroneously based

upon an estimate of the capital cost for phosphorus removal of $35,000 per MGD capacity. PC

21 at 4-5. The IAWA asserts that the actual costs of complying with the proposed rule will be 4

or 10 times higher than the costs cited in the Board’s first-notice opinion and order.

Id.

The

IAWA asserts that costs will be ten times higher than $35,000 for plants in the 1 to 5 MGD range

and four times $35,000 for plants above 30 MGD.

Id.

The IAWA assert that for plants with a

capacity of 1 to 2 MGD using CPR, it appears that the 20-year present worth including sludge

processing and disposal will be $600,000 to $1,000,000.

Id.

 

In its additional comments, the IAWA asserts that to the extent the Board relied on costs

estimates submitted in the record by the City of Elgin in a facility plan amendment request, the

Board is relying on incorrect information. PC 23 at 1. The IAWA submits a letter from Mr.

Greg Hergenroeder, the director of the Fox Water Reclamation District in support of this

assertion. The IAWA asserts that, as set forth in the letter, the costs contained in the IAWA’s

---

 

4

first public comment are more accurate, and that the cost for chemical phosphorus control would

be approximately $3,000,000. PC 23 at 1-2.

 

The IAWA contends that the information it provided regarding the actual costs for twenty

facilities that constructed phosphorus removal in Wisconsin are probably much more accurate

than cost estimates contained in the Agency comments. PC 23 at 2. The IAWA asserts that the

best evidence is provided by the IAWA and that it is mere speculation that chemical feed

facilities can be fit into existing buildings at a reasonable cost.

Id

.

 

The IAWA asserts that the costs using whatever numbers the Board uses are

unreasonable when compared to environmental need or benefit. PC 23 at 2.

 

Environmental Law and Policy Center, Prairie Rivers Network and Sierra Club

 

The ELPC asserts that it is true, but irrelevant, that agriculture is a major source of

phosphorus, and that the Board has found that phosphorus from point sources is likely more

damaging to the environment because it is more biologically available to algae. ELPC Resp. at

1-2, citing Site-Specific Phosphorus Limitation for the City of Shelbyville, R83-12 (Dec. 20,

1984). The ELPC does not object to amending the rules to make it more clear that daily

maximum limits are not intended. ELPC Resp. at 2. The ELPC proposes the following language

to effectuate that intention:

 

k) The averaging rules under subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) of Section 304.104

do not apply to permit limits established pursuant to Section 304.123(g) or

(h). ELPC Resp. at 2.

 

The ELPC asserts that without a daily maximum it should be possible for most Illinois

dischargers to use BPR methods that generate less sludge than CPR methods. ELPC Resp. at 2.

 

The ELPC contends that if the proposal costs dischargers anything, the costs will be very

modest. ELPC Resp. at 2. The ELPC assert that the IAWA comments regarding potential

economic costs to Illinois dischargers basically confirm that the costs are modest.

Id.

The ELPC

argues that the economic costs of the proposal were probably overstated and certainly were not

significantly understated as suggested by the IAWA. ELPC Resp. at 3. The ELPC notes that a

limit of 1 mg/L is already required for new or increased discharges by a provision of Illinois’

antidegradation regulations.

Id.

The ELPC asserts that under this provision, new or increased

pollution may only be allowed to the extent it is necessary and it certainly is not necessary to

allow more than 1 mg/L phosphorus to be discharged given that a 1 mg/L phosphorus limit was

found economically reasonable by the Board using technology in existence two decades ago.

ELPC Resp. at 3, citing Village of Wauconda v. IEPA, PCB 81-017 (May 1, 1981);

Amendments to the Water Pollution Regulations, R76-1 (Feb. 15, 1979).

 

The ELPC asserts that the figures provided by the IAWA are for the present value of the

total costs of 20 years of construction and operation of the phosphorus removal equipment.

ELPC Resp. at 3. The ELPC contends that no party to this proceeding has denied that

phosphorus removal is likely to required well within the 20 year period, and thus even if

---

 

5

phosphorus removal were not already required by the antidegradation rules, the effect of the

proposal at issue would be to advance the installation of phosphorus removal equipment at a few

plants by a few years and to encourage some municipalities to explore land treatment or other

non-discharge methods. ELPC Resp. at 3-4. The ELPC calculates that ignoring antidegradation,

the virtual certainty that phosphorus treatment will be required in much less than 20 years, and

assuming $1,000,000 for a 1 MGD will result in a cost of $5.00 per person per year. ELPC

Resp. at 4. The ELPC asserts that the Wisconsin study cited by the IAWA makes clear that costs

per person vary greatly and fall rapidly with increased scale.

Id.

  

 

The ELPC asserts that even ignoring the antidegradation requirements, total costs would

not be large, and that it is unclear how many new or increased discharges there will be before

numeric phosphorus standards are adopted, and what, if any, increased costs will be incurred by

new or expanding discharges as a result of having a 1 mg/L phosphorus limit. ELPC Resp. at 4.

Further, argues the ELPC, the savings from not having to retrofit plants after numeric standards

are adopted and the savings for drinking water plants and other waste users from reduced

phosphorus pollution must be set against any increased costs.

Id.

The ELPC asserts that the

evidence shows that the net economic effects of reducing phosphorus loadings are strongly

positive. ELPC Resp. at 5.

 

The ELPC concludes that the adoption of the proposal will save money for the state of

Illinois by establishing a bright line rule for new or increased discharges during the period in

which phosphorus standards are developed. ELPC Resp. at 5. The ELPC posits that the net

effect of the adoption of the proposal will be to reduce the number of permit disputes and

potential hearings and appeals resulting from such disputes.

Id.

 

 

Agency

 

The Agency fully supports the Board’s decision to proceed to first notice and agrees that

the Board’s proposed language provides clarity to the proposal without sacrificing the intent or

changing the scope of the original proposal. PC 22 at 2. The Agency asserts that, contrary to the

assertion of the IAWA, the record contains abundant discussion on issues related to need to

control phosphorus loading in Illinois streams, and the availability of technically feasible and

economically reasonable phosphorus controls.

Id.

 

 

The Agency, in general, supports the IAWA’s concept that a daily maximum limit is not

necessary, and believes that the exemption of the proposed phosphorus standard from the

Board’s averaging rule does not interfere with the original intended purpose of the proposal. PC

22 at 2-3. The Agency asserts that the primary objective of its proposal is to reduce net loading

of phosphorus from certain major sources into waters of the state, and as long as there are no

changes to the proposed monthly average limit of 1 mg/L, the primary objective will be met. PC

22 at 3. The Agency proposes the following language to meet the IAWA’s intended objective:

 

k) The averaging rules under subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) of Section 304.104

do not apply to permit limits established pursuant to Section 304.104(g) or

(h). PC 22 at 3.

 

---

 

6

The Agency argues that its proposed language ensures that the averaging rule exemption

is available to permits issued under Section 304.104(g) as well as 304.104(b). PC 22 at 3.

 

The Agency contends that the costs provided by the IAWA may be applicable to the

Village of Beecher and the City of McHenry, but appear to above the expected average costs in

general. PC 22 at 3-4. The Agency asserts that when specific high costs are extrapolated on a

statewide basis, they would give an unrealistic high estimate of the costs because (1) the costs

are based on a strictly CPR or BPR method and the general trend in the industry is to remove

most of the phosphorus with BPR methods and any remaining phosphorus with CPR at a

minimum costs; (2) The 20% increase in sludge production is excessive, and generally 5 to 10

percent is considered a good number, especially with BPR and CPR are used in combination; (3)

the cost of $288,000 for a chemical feed building may be reasonable for the Village of Beecher,

but in most cases the chemical feed may fit into an existing building or a proposed building may

be expanded for a more reasonable cost; and (4) many plants built or modified in the last few

years considered the possibility of phosphorus removal in the planning phase of the treatment

plant and removal at such plants can be accomplished with minimal additional facilities at a

modest cost. PC 22 at 4.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The Board has held two days of hearings and received substantial testimony and

comments on this proposal. The comments and the recent additional language changes

suggested by IAWA, the ELPC, and the Agency and the participants have been evaluated, and

the second-notice proposal adopted by the Board today reflects the Board’s consideration of all

the comments and testimony the Board has received. The Board will discuss below the issues

raised in the first-notice comments.

 

Justification for the Proposed Phosphorus Standard

 

IAWA has reiterated its opposition to this rulemaking as not based on sound science,

noting that the Illinois Nutrient Work Group is in the midst of a multi-year undertaking to

develop science-based water quality standards. As discussed in the first notice opinion and

order, the Illinois Nutrient Work Group has been formed to develop nutrient standards. The

Agency expects that a nutrient standards petition will be filed with the Board in early 2007.

While the Board recognizes that water quality data is still being gathered for the State’s rivers

and streams to develop comprehensive nutrient standards, the Board finds nothing in the

comments of the IAWA to alter its decision that there is sufficient information in the record to

justify reduction of phosphorus loading on the State waters.

 

While the findings of the nutrient control work group will help the Agency in developing

scientifically justifiable nutrient water quality standards, the Board believes that an effluent

standard would reduce the phosphorus loading on the State waters. The Board continues to agree

with ELPC and the Agency that an effluent standard is mainly intended to reduce significant

loading of a pollutant giving consideration to availability of appropriate treatment technology,

and associated costs.

 

---

 

7

The IAWA argues that the proposed rule will have very limited impact on the total

amount of phosphorus entering the aquatic environment because agricultural sources are also

major dischargers of phosphorus. As before, the Board believes it is prudent to control

phosphorus discharge from larger treatment plants given the impact of such discharges on

receiving streams. While non-point source contribution (agricultural drainage and runoff) is also

a significant source of phosphorus loadings, the Board believes that control of phosphorus from

non-point sources is not appropriate in this rulemaking.

 

Economic Reasonableness

 

The IAWA believes that the economic impact of the proposed rule has been seriously

underestimated, and presents information in its comments to support this contention. The

Agency notes that although the costs provided by the IAWA may be applicable to the Village of

Beecher and the City of McHenry, they appear to above the expected average costs in general;

while the ELPC argues that the economic costs contained in the proposal were probably

overstated and certainly were not significantly understated as suggested by the IAWA.

 

The Board finds nothing in the information provided by IAWA to alter its decision that

the implementation of the proposed phosphorus effluent standard is economically reasonable. In

the first-notice opinion, the Board stated that the cost of phosphorus removal varies on a site-

specific basis depending upon the plant capacity, type of phosphorus removal process and

existing treatment processes. If anything, the information supplied by the IAWA taken in

context with the comments of the Agency and the ELPC bolster that statement.

 

As stated in the first-notice opinion and order, BPR and CPR are generally used for

phosphorus removal. CPR treatment involves the use of aluminum salts, iron salts or lime to

precipitate phosphorus from wastewater. The BPR processes involve the application of a

combination of anaerobic, anoxic, and aerobic zones in suspended growth biological systems to

remove reduce both phosphorus and nitrogen. Chemical addition is also used to augment the

biological treatment processes.

 

The Board continues to believe that, based on the cost information in the record coupled

with the fact that the proposed rule applies to only larger facilities, affected facilities can

incorporate the additional cost of phosphorus control in their overall expansion plans with

minimal impact. Thus, the Board finds that the implementation of the proposed phosphorus

effluent standard to be economically reasonable.

 

Daily Maximum Limits

 

Each commenting party agrees that if a phosphorus effluent standard is adopted, the

Board should exempt the standard from the averaging rule at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.104 (a)(2)

and (3). The Board agrees. The exemption of the proposed phosphorus standard from the

Board’s averaging rule will not interfere with the stated objective of the proposal to reduce net

loading of phosphorus from certain major sources into waters of the state. Exempting the

phosphorus effluent standard from the averaging rule will in no way change the proposed

monthly average limit of 1 mg/L.

---

 

8

 

Further, as argued by both the IAWA and the ELPC, exempting the phosphorus effluent

standard from the averaging rule should encourage the use of BPR methods that may have more

beneficial results, including the generation of less sludge.

 

The Board will use the following language in its second-notice proposal:

 

k) The averaging rules under subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) of Section 304.104 do

not apply to permit limits established pursuant to Section 304.123(g) or (h).

 

This language ensures that the exemption from the averaging rule applies to permit limits

established pursuant to both subsections 304.123(g) or (h), instead of limiting the exemption to

only subsection 304.123(g).

 

  

SUMMARY OF SECOND-NOTICE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal sets forth a phosphorus effluent limit of 1.0 milligram per liter (mg/L) as a

monthly average that would apply to new or expanded discharges from treatment works with a

design average flow (DAF) over 1.0 million gallons per day receiving municipal or domestic

wastewater, or a total phosphorus effluent load of 25 lbs/day or more for treatment works other

than those treating municipal or domestic wastewater. However, if the source can demonstrate

that phosphorus is not limiting nutrient in the receiving water or that alternative phosphorus

effluent limits are warranted by the aquatic environment in the receiving water, the 1.0 mg/L

limit would not apply.

 

Today’s proposal differs in only one substantive manner than the proposal as set forth in

its entirety in the Board’s first notice opinion and order – the addition of proposed language to

ensure that the averaging rule exemption is available to permits issued under Section 304.104(g)

as well as 304.104(b). This change was supported by IAWA, the ELPC and the Agency in post

first-notice filings, and is set forth above.

 

In response to testimony and questions at hearing, the Agency offered several changes to

the original proposal in its post-hearing comments prior to first notice. In the first notice opinion

and order, the Board found that the changes to the proposal did not change the scope of the

originally proposed language. The proposal that was published in the

Illinois Register

accepted

the Agency’s changes along with some clarifying changes drafted by Board.

 

Changes of note that were made in the Board’s first-notice opinion and order include: (1)

the addition of language in subsections (g)(1) and (g)(2) to clarify that treatment works receiving

primarily municipal or domestic wastewater are not covered by subsections (b) through (f) of the

proposal; (2) language in subsection (h) that provides that dischargers otherwise subject to the

requirement in (g) may choose to demonstrate that the treatment works in question is not causing

the phosphorus issues in the receiving waters, and therefore should not be subject to a monthly

average permit limit for total phosphorus of 1.0 mg/L; (3) a sentence allowing the Agency to

consider site-specific information in deciding whether alternative phosphorus effluent limits are

appropriate is also included in the proposal; (4) a change in the renumbered subsection (i) that

---

 

9

provides that dischargers that comply with the requirements of (g) or (h) are not subject to

additional phosphorus limitations that may be otherwise required by 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.105

and 302.203; and (5) a new clause in the renumbered subsection (j) that the new water quality

standards are not effective until approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). Interim Phosphorus Effluent Standard, Proposed 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.123(g-k),

R04-26 (Apr. 7, 2005), slip op. at 20.

 

In addition, the Board defined what constitutes as a “new” or “expanded” discharge from

treatment works at subsections (g)(3), defined a “new” discharge as a discharge from treatment

works constructed after the effective date of the proposed regulations, an “expanded” discharge

as a discharge from an existing treatment works that would be greater than the flow rates

permitted prior to the effective date of the proposed amendments, and deleted subsection (i) of

the Agency’s proposal. Interim Phosphorus Effluent Standard, Proposed 35 Ill. Adm. Code

304.123(g-k), R04-26 (Apr. 7, 2005), slip op. at 20.

 

The Board has made additional non-substantive changes to the rule, but will not

summarize or delineate the entirety of the rule or the changes made by the Board. The Board’s

order reflects the Board’s changes.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Based on the record developed to date in this matter, the Board finds that adoption of the

Agency’s proposal is warranted. The Board proposes this rulemaking for second-notice review

by Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR).

 

ORDER

 

The Board directs the Clerk to cause the filing of the following rule with the Joint

Committee on Administrative Rules for its second-notice review.

 

 

TITLE 35: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SUBTITLE C: WATER POLLUTION

CHAPTER I: POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

 

PART 304

EFFLUENT STANDARDS

 

 

SUBPART A: GENERAL EFFLUENT STANDARDS

Section

304.101 Preamble

304.102 Dilution

304.103 Background Concentrations

304.104 Averaging

304.105

Violation of Water Quality Standards

---

 

10

304.106 Offensive Discharges

304.120 Deoxygenating Wastes

304.121 Bacteria

304.122

Total Ammonia Nitrogen (as N: STORET number 00610)

304.123

Phosphorus (STORET number 00665)

304.124 Additional Contaminants

304.125 pH

304.126 Mercury

304.140

Delays in Upgrading (Repealed)

304.141 NPDES Effluent Standards

304.142

New Source Performance Standards (Repealed)

 

SUBPART B: SITE SPECIFIC RULES AND EXCEPTIONS NOT OF GENERAL

APPLICABILITY

Section

304.201

Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharges of the Metropolitan Water

Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

304.202 Chlor-alkali Mercury Discharges in St. Clair County

304.203

Copper Discharges by Olin Corporation

304.204

Schoenberger Creek: Groundwater Discharges

304.205

John Deere Foundry Discharges

304.206

Alton Water Company Treatment Plant Discharges

304.207

Galesburg Sanitary District Deoxygenating Wastes Discharges

304.208

City of Lockport Treatment Plant Discharges

304.209

Wood River Station Total Suspended Solids Discharges

304.210

Alton Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharges

304.211 Discharges From Borden Chemicals and Plastics Operating Limited

Partnership Into an Unnamed Tributary of Long Point Slough

304.212

Sanitary District of Decatur Discharges

304.213

PDV Midwest Refining, L.L.C. Refinery Ammonia Discharge

304.214

Mobil Oil Refinery Ammonia Discharge

304.215

City of Tuscola Wastewater Treatment Facility Discharges

304.216

Newton Station Suspended Solids Discharges

304.218

City of Pana Phosphorus Discharge

304.219

North Shore Sanitary District Phosphorus Discharges

304.220

East St. Louis Treatment Facility, Illinois-American Water Company

304.221

Ringwood Drive Manufacturing Facility in McHenry County

304.222

Intermittent Discharge of TRC

 

SUBPART C: TEMPORARY EFFLUENT STANDARDS

 

Section

304.301

Exception for Ammonia Nitrogen Water Quality Violations (Repealed)

304.302

City of Joliet East Side Wastewater Treatment Plant

304.303

Amerock Corporation, Rockford Facility

 

---

 

11

Appendix A

References to Previous Rules

 

AUTHORITY: Implementing Section 13 and authorized by Section 27 of the Environmental

Protection Act [415 ILCS 5/13 and 27].

 

SOURCE: Filed with the Secretary of State January 1, 1978; amended at 2 Ill. Reg. 30, p. 343,

effective July 27, 1978; amended at 2 Ill. Reg. 44, p. 151, effective November 2, 1978; amended

at 3 Ill. Reg. 20, p. 95, effective May 17, 1979; amended at 3 Ill. Reg. 25, p. 190, effective June

21, 1979; amended at 4 Ill. Reg. 20, p. 53 effective May 7, 1980; amended at 6 Ill. Reg. 563,

effective December 24, 1981; codified at 6 Ill. Reg. 7818: amended at 6 Ill. Reg. 11161, effective

September 7, 1982; amended at 6 Ill. Reg. 13750, effective October 26, 1982; amended at 7 Ill.

Reg. 3020, effective March 4, 1983; amended at 7 Ill. Reg. 8111, effective June 23, 1983;

amended at 7 Ill. Reg. 14515, effective October 14, 1983; amended at 7 Ill. Reg. 14910, effective

November 14, 1983; amended at 8 Ill. Reg. 1600, effective January 18, 1984; amended at 8 Ill.

Reg. 3687, effective March 14, 1984; amended at 8 Ill. Reg. 8237, effective June 8, 1984;

amended at 9 Ill. Reg. 1379, effective January 21, 1985; amended at 9 Ill. Reg. 4510, effective

March 22, 1985; peremptory amendment at 10 Ill. Reg. 456, effective December 23, 1985;

amended at 11 Ill. Reg. 3117, effective January 28, 1987; amended in R84-13 at 11 Ill. Reg.

7291 effective April 3, 1987; amended in R86-17(A) at 11 Ill. Reg. 14748, effective August 24,

1987; amended in R84-16 at 12 Ill. Reg. 2445, effective January 15, 1988; amended in R83-23 at

12 Ill. Reg. 8658, effective May 10, 1988; amended in R87-27 at 12 Ill. Reg. 9905, effective

May 27, 1988; amended in R82-7 at 12 Ill. Reg. 10712, effective June 9, 1988; amended in R85-

29 at 12 Ill. Reg. 12064, effective July 12, 1988; amended in R87-22 at 12 Ill. Reg. 13966,

effective August 23, 1988; amended in R86-3 at 12 Ill. Reg. 20126, effective November 16,

1988; amended in R84-20 at 13 Ill. Reg. 851, effective January 9, 1989; amended in R85-11 at

13 Ill. Reg. 2060, effective February 6, 1989; amended in R88-1 at 13 Ill. Reg. 5976, effective

April 18, 1989; amended in R86-17(B) at 13 Ill. Reg. 7754, effective May 4, 1989; amended in

R88-22 at 13 Ill. Reg. 8880, effective May 26, 1989; amended in R87-6 at 14 Ill. Reg. 6777,

effective April 24, 1990; amended in R87-36 at 14 Ill. Reg. 9437, effective May 31, 1990;

amended in R88-21(B) at 14 Ill. Reg. 12538, effective July 18, 1990; amended in R84-44 at 14

Ill. Reg. 20719, effective December 11, 1990; amended in R86-14 at 15 Ill. Reg. 241, effective

December 18, 1990; amended in R93-8 at 18 Ill. Reg. 267, effective December 23, 1993;

amended in R87-33 at 18 Ill. Reg. 11574, effective July 7, 1994; amended in R95-14 at 20 Ill.

Reg. 3528, effective February 8, 1996; amended in R94-1(B) at 21 Ill. Reg. 364, effective

December 23, 1996; expedited correction in R94-1(B) at 21 Ill. Reg. 6269, effective December

23, 1996; amended in R97-25 at 22 Ill. Reg. 1351, effective December 24, 1997; amended in

R97-28 at 23 Ill. Reg. 3512, effective February 3, 1998; amended in R98-14 at 23 Ill. Reg.687,

effective December 31, 1998; amended in R02-19 at 26 Ill. Reg. 16948, effective November 8,

2002; amended in R02-11 at 27 Ill. Reg. 194, effective December 20, 2002; amended in R04-26

at 29 Ill. Reg. _______________, effective ________________.

 

SUBPART A: GENERAL EFFLUENT STANDARDS

 

Section 304.123 Phosphorus (STORET number 00665)

 

---

 

12

a) No effluent discharge within the Lake Michigan Basin shall contain more than 1.0

mg/L of phosphorus as P.

 

b) No effluent from any source which discharges to a lake or reservoir with a surface

area of 8.1 hectares (20 acres) or more, or to any tributary of such a lake or

reservoir whose untreated waste load is 2500 or more population equivalents, and

which does not utilize a third-stage lagoon treatment system as specified in

subsections 304.120(a) and (c), shall exceed 1.0 mg/L of phosphorus as P;

however, this subsection shall not apply where the lake or reservoir, including any

side channel reservoir or other portion thereof, on an annual basis exhibits a mean

hydraulic retention time of 0.05 years (18 days) or less.

 

c) Pursuant to Section 28.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (Act) [415 ILCS

5/28.1], the owner or operator of any source subject to subsection (b) of this

Section may apply for an adjusted standard. In addition to the proofs specified in

Section 28.1(c) of the Act 415 ILCS 5/28.1(c), such application shall, at a

minimum, contain adequate proof that the effluent resulting from grant of the

adjusted standard will not contribute to cultural eutrophication, unnatural plant or

algal growth or dissolved oxygen deficiencies in the receiving lake or reservoir.

For purposes of this subsection (c), such effluent shall be deemed to contribute to

such conditions if phosphorus is the limiting nutrient for biological growth in the

lake or reservoir, taking into account the lake or reservoir limnology,

morphological, physical and chemical characteristics, and sediment transport.

However, if the effluent discharge enters a tributary at least 40.25 kilometers (25

miles) upstream of the point at which the tributary enters the lake or reservoir at

normal pool level, such effluent shall not be deemed to contribute to such

conditions if the receiving lake or reservoir is eutrophic and phosphorus from

internal regeneration is not a limiting nutrient.

 

d) For the purposes of this Section the term "lake or reservoir" shall not include low

level pools constructed in free flowing streams or any body of water which is an

integral part of an operation which includes the application of sludge on land.

 

e) Compliance with the limitations of subsection (b) of this Section will be achieved

by the following dates:

 

1) Sources with the present capability to comply will do so on the effective

date of this Section;

 

2) All other sources will comply as required by NPDES permit.

 

f) For purposes of this Section, the following terms will have the meanings

specified:

 

1) "Dissolved oxygen deficiencies" means the occurrence of a violation of

the dissolved oxygen standard applicable to a lake or reservoir.

---

 

13

 

(BOARD NOTE: Dissolved Oxygen standards for general use waters are

set forth at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.206; Dissolved Oxygen standards for

secondary contact or indigenous aquatic life waters are set forth at 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 302.405.)

 

2) "Euphotic zone" means that region of a lake or reservoir extending from

the water surface to a depth at which 99% of the surface light has

disappeared or such lesser depth below which photosynthesis does not

occur.

 

3) "Eutrophic" means a condition of a lake or reservoir in which there is an

abundant supply of nutrients, including phosphorus, accounting for a high

concentration of biomass.

 

4) "Eutrophication" means the process of increasing or accumulating plant

nutrients in the water of a lake or reservoir. Cultural eutrophication is

eutrophication attributable to human activities.

 

5) "Internal regeneration" means the process of conversion of phosphorus or

other nutrients in sediments of a lake or reservoir from the particulate to

the dissolved form and the subsequent return of such dissolved forms to

the euphotic zone.

 

6) "Limiting nutrient" means a substance which is limiting to biological

growth in a lake or reservoir due to its short supply or unavailability with

respect to other substances necessary for the growth of organisms.

 

7) "Unnatural plant or algal growth" means the occurrence of a violation of

the unnatural sludge standard applicable to a lake or reservoir with respect

to such growth.

 

(BOARD NOTE: Unnatural sludge standards for general use waters are

set forth at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.203; unnatural sludge standards for

secondary and indigenous aquatic life waters are set forth at 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 302.403.)

 

g)

Except as provided in subsection (h) of this Section, any new or expanded

discharges into General Use waters from the following treatment works not

covered by subsections (b) through (f) of this Section, are subject to monthly

average permit limits for total phosphorus of 1 mg/L:

 

  

1)

Treatment works with a Design Average Flow of 1.0 million gallons per

day or more receiving primarily municipal or domestic wastewater; or

 

---

 

14

2)

Any treatment works, other than those treating primarily municipal or

domestic wastewater, with a total phosphorus effluent load of 25 pounds

per day or more.

 

3)

For purposes of this subsection:

 

i)

A new discharge means a discharge from a treatment works

constructed after the effective date of this Section.

 

ii)

An expanded discharge means a discharge from any existing

treatment works that would be greater than the flowrates permitted

prior to the effective date of this Section.

 

  

h)

Discharges qualifying under subsections (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this Section may not

be subject to the requirements of subsection (g) of this Section provided the

discharger demonstrate that phosphorus from treatment works is not the limiting

nutrient in the receiving water. The Agency may impose alternative phosphorus

effluent limits where the supporting information shows that alternative limits are

warranted by the aquatic environment in the receiving stream.

 

i)

No additional phosphorus limitations are required pursuant to Sections 304.105

and 302.203 for the discharges that comply with the requirements of (g) or (h) of

this Section.

 

j)

The provisions of subsections (g), (h), and (i) of this Section apply until such time

as the Board adopts a numeric water quality standard for phosphorus and the

adopted standard is approved by the U.S. EPA.

 

k)

The averaging rules under subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) of Section 304.104

do not apply to permit limits established pursuant to subsection (g) or (h)

of this Section.

 

(Source: Amended in __________ at __________ Ill. Reg. _______________, effective

________________, 2005.

 

 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the Board

adopted the above opinion and order on September 1, 2005, by a vote of 5-0.

 

Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board