BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
RECEIVEDCLERK'S
OFFICE
FEB
0 5 2007
STATE OF ILLINOIS
IN THE MATTER OF :
)
Pollution Control Board
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
:
)
35 111 . Adm. Code 302.102(b)(6), 302 .102(b)(8)
)
R07-09
302 .102(b)(10), 302 .208(g), 309.103(c)(3),
)
(Rulemaking - Water)
405
.109(b)(2)(A), 405 .109(b)(2)(B), 406 .100(d);
)
REPEALED 35 111 . Adm
. Code 406 .203, PART 407 ; and
)
PROPOSED NEW 35 Ill . Adm . Code 302 .208(h)
)
NOTICE OF FILING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office of the Clerk of the Pollution Control
Board the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency's written testimony of Robert Mosher and Brian
Koch, a copy of which is herewith served upon you .
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Mathew Dunn
Illinois Attorney General's Office
Environmental Control Division
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street
Chicago, Illinois 60601
ALSO SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
BySanjay
: K
Sofat, Assistant Counsel
Division of Legal Counsel
Dated
: February 2, 2004
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
(217) 782-5544
Marie E. Tipsord
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Jonathan Furr
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
One Natural Resources Way
Springfield, Illinois 62702-1271
THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
RECEIVED
CLERK'S OFFICE
FEB 0 5 2007
IN THE MATTER OF :
Pollution
STATE OF
Control
ILLINOIS
Board
)
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO :
)
35 111. Adm. Code 302.102(b)(6), 302 . 1 O2(b)(8)
)
R07-09
302 .102(b)(10), 302 .208(g), 309 .103(c)(3),
)
(Rulemaking - Water)
405 .109(b)(2)(A), 405
.109(b)(2)(B), 406
.100(d);
)
REPEALED 35 Ill . Adm . Code 406 .203, PART 407 ; and
)
PROPOSED NEW 35 Ill . Adm. Code 302 .208(h)
)
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT MOSHER
Qualifications/Introduction
My name is Robert Mosher and I have been employed by the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency for over 21 years
. For almost the last 20 years I have
been the manager of the Water Quality Standards Unit
. My duties in this capacity are
primarily to oversee the development of new and updated water quality standards and
together with others in the Division of Water Pollution Control, to apply those standards
in NPDES permits and Section 401 Water Quality Certifications . I have a B .S . in
zoology and environmental biology and an M .S . in zoology from Eastern Illinois
University .
In my testimony today, I will discuss the current regulatory environment that
necessitates changes to water quality standards for sulfate, total dissolved solids ("TDS")
and mixing zones
. First, I will relate the general benefits that the Agency's proposed
changes will bring to our system of water quality standards and water quality based
effluent limitations in NPDES permits . Second, I will discuss the deletion of the water
quality standard for total dissolved solids . Third, I will explain the changes proposed for
mixing zone standards and the basis for these in terms of the reasoning behind the
changes and the discharges that would benefit from these changes . Finally, I will cover
the reasons for the deletion of portions of 35 Illinois Administrative Code ("IAC")
Subtitle D, Mine Related Water Pollution regulations .
Sulfate Aquatic Life Water Quality Standard :
General Use water quality standards for sulfate (500 mg/L) and TDS (1,000
mg/L) have existed in Illinois regulations since 1972
. These standards were adopted to
protect aquatic life and agricultural uses, however, few modem studies were available to
determine appropriate values. Adopted standards stemmed more from the opinion of a
few experts .than from documented scientific experiments . Because coal mine effluents
in particular are often high in sulfate, a special standard was developed that is unique to
mine discharges and is found in Title 35, IAC, Subtitle D, Mine Related Water Pollution
.
Adopted in 1984, this sulfate standard of 3,500 mg/L also was not documented by the
kind of aquatic life toxicity or livestock tolerance studies that are now expected in
standards development. Under existing General Use water quality standards, permitting
many mine discharges without the special rules provided in Subtitle D would be
problematic because many mines cannot meet General Use sulfate and TDS standards in
effluents at the point of discharge and do not qualify for conventional mixing zones .
Other industries also have difficulty meeting the general standards and many have
received adjusted standards or site-specific water quality standards relief from the Illinois
Pollution Control Board given that regardless of the source, sulfate and many of the other
constituents of TDS are not treatable by any practical means .
A solution to this dilemma was to re-evaluate the sulfate and TDS standards that
account for most of the permitting problems . Studies of aquatic life communities
downstream from high sulfate and TDS discharges appeared to show that organisms incur
no detrimental effect from concentrations of these pollutants higher than the existing
water quality standards. Since no national criteria exist for these pollutants and few other
states even have sulfate and TDS standards, a long process was begun to gather existing
information on sulfate aquatic life toxicity . When available data proved inadequate to
derive a standard, new studies were commissioned with sponsorship from USEPA, the
Illinois Coal Association and Illinois EPA . At the same time, investigations on the
tolerance of livestock to sulfate in drinking water were begun
.
This new research into sulfate toxicity found that, as suspected, high sulfate
concentrations pose a problem of osmotic (salt) balance for some organisms . Many
organisms, including all species of fish tested and many invertebrate species are very
tolerant of sulfate, so much so that no known existing concentrations in Illinois would
cause harm . Other species including the invertebrate water fleas
(Daphnia and
Ceriodaphnia) and scud (Hyalella) have a harder time maintaining salt balance under
high sulfate conditions, which leads to toxicity . Unlike other toxicants that have ongoing
effects that lead to mortality over extended time periods, sulfate-induced mortality occurs
relatively quickly, but with no apparent residual effect
. The new research also found that
two common constituents of natural waters, chloride and hardness, are key to an
understanding of the toxicity of sulfate . Brian Koch will further explain in his testimony
how sulfate standards were developed to protect both aquatic life and livestock water
uses.
TDS Water Ouality Standard :
While sulfate was being evaluated, it became increasingly obvious that TDS is a
very inappropriate parameter for use in water quality standards . TDS is the sum of all
dissolved substances in water and is dominated by the common ions of sulfate, chloride,
sodium, calcium, carbonate and magnesium in various proportions . Our investigations
into sulfate toxicity reinforced the notion that it makes little sense to have a standard that
covers all these substances together when the toxicity of each constituent is really what is
important
. For example, a water sample with high chloride and a TDS concentration of
2,000 mg/L is acutely toxic to some species of aquatic life, but a sample with high sulfate
at that same TDS concentration is nontoxic . In my experience with toxicity testing with
ambient waters and effluents, I am not aware of an instance where any common ions
other than sulfate or chloride cause toxicity . With protective sulfate and chloride
standards in force, salt toxicity is effectively regulated and there is no need for a TDS
standard
. Illinois EPA is therefore proposing that the TDS water quality standard be
deleted along with the adoption of the new sulfate standard . The existing chloride
standard is considered to be protective of uses without being overprotective and therefore
is not proposed to be changed by our proposal .
Changes to the Board's Mixing Regulations at 35 Ill . Adm. Code 302 .102:
Mixing zone standards at 35 JAC 302
.102 dictate the conditions under which the
Agency may allow dilution of an effluent by its receiving water . As regulations change,
the realities of mixing needs must be reassessed . Sulfate is part of a small group of
substances for which treatment is usually infeasible and for which mixing becomes an
important option in regulation . The other common substances for which treatment does
not exist are chloride, boron and fluoride . It is not uncommon for discharges from coal
mining operations as well as other activities to exceed these water quality standards and
require some mixing zone allowance to achieve attainment of standards in the receiving
stream .
Most high sulfate discharges from coal mines occur during wet weather events
that bring sediment-laden water into treatment ponds and from there the water is
discharged to water bodies where water quality standards apply . The ponds function to
remove sediment and if necessary, control pH, but sulfate and chloride are not reduced .
Water from the un-mined or reclaimed watershed also enters streams during
sedimentation pond discharge events and provides dilution for these effluents . At many
mines this is a simultaneous process, in other words, rain makes both the effluent and the
receiving stream flow and lack of rain means both sources do not flow . For the past few
years, Illinois EPA has granted wet weather discharges allowed mixing zones for sulfate
and sometimes chloride, with consideration of these upstream flows . We now propose to
augment the mixing regulations to make them clear in this regard . The changes to the
mixing standards will allow mixing if it is verifiable that upstream dilution will always
exist when an effluent is discharged .
35 Ill . Adm. Code 302 .102(b)(6) and(b)(10) :
Two aspects of the mixing regulations found at 35 IAC 302 .102 are proposed for
change. The first of these is the prohibition at 302 .102(b)(6) and (10) preventing any
receiving stream being entirely used for mixing . The existing standard dictates that a
zone of passage, an area not impacted by the mixture of effluent with the receiving water,
must be preserved for use by aquatic life whenever mixing is allowed
. This is a concept
recognized in regulations nationwide as a precept of mixing zones . However, there is one
circumstance of mixing of effluent with receiving water that practically and physically
cannot include a zone of passage
. Many discharges of storm water, particularly those
from mines, are located high in the watershed where only a few square miles or less of
drainage area supplies the receiving stream . These receiving streams are so small and
narrow that storm water driven effluent will mix completely across the stream channel
and leave no zone of passage as would have been physically realized in a wider stream
.
Under a strict interpretation of the existing mixing standards, these discharges would not
be allowed mixing and a large segment of dischargers would not be able to exist .
If the Agency's proposal to do away with the zone of passage requirement in very
small streams high in watersheds is to be functional, a method of defining `very small
streams' is needed. With the help of the Illinois State Water Survey, the Illinois EPA
proposes that a concept similar to the commonly used and well understood 7Q10 flow be
adopted to identify these streams . `Small' may be equated with a stream's ability to
maintain flow
. Streams very high up in watersheds will typically dry up during periods
of little rainfall and then fill with water again when rainfall returns
. The more often a
stream is dry, the more hostile that habitat will be to aquatic life
. Streams losing all flow
for at least a one week period nine out of ten years on average will present only a very
limited habitat for aquatic life
. This will consist of organisms that can live out their life
cycles in a relatively short time and then survive dry conditions as eggs or dormant
stages
. Fish will use these headwater streams on a migratory basis, with a few pioneering
species possibly using them only seasonally as spawning or feeding areas
. Streams
identified as 7Q1
.1 zero flow are defined as having no flow for at least seven days in nine
out of every ten years.
Under our proposal, wet weather discharges to streams determined to be 7Q1 .1
zero flow will be allowed the entire stream volume for mixing . Aquatic life that may
inhabit the stream at the time of discharge will be protected because an analysis of the
effluent and the amount of flow expected in the stream during discharge events will be
required in order to determine that the available mixing will reduce effluent
concentrations to below water quality standards . For streams that have been determined
to have adequate dilution potential for a given discharge, the force present in these storm
water driven effluents will be sufficient to cause near instant mixing to occur. Therefore,
aquatic life will not be exposed to concentrations over the water quality standards . Fish
will be able to migrate through the area of mixing with no ill effects .
35 III . Adm. Code 302 .102(b)(8):
The other change to mixing zone regulations is to delete the statement in 35 IAC
302 .102(b)(8) that prohibits mixing in streams that have a 7Q10 flow of zero . The storm
water mixing I just described depends on this change as well as non-storm water
discharges that have unique characteristics . The existing definition of Dilution Ratio at
35 IAC 301 .270 states that dilution ratio is to be determined from the 7Q10 stream flow
or the lowest flow that is present when discharge occurs, whichever is greater . This
implies that for non-continuous dischargers, the allowed stream flow to be used in the
mixing based permit limit calculation is the flow expected when the discharge occurs .
Under our proposal, these flows must allow for a zone of passage, which is 75% of the
stream flow if the dilution ratio is 3 :1 or greater and the stream 7Q1 .1 is greater than
zero. Many effluents are continuously discharged and consequently the default stream
flow for calculating dilution is 7Q10 . These would include sewage treatment plants,
power plants and most industrial discharges . However, some facilities outside these
general categories produce effluent only periodically, and where it can be demonstrated
that effluent will only be discharged at times and in quantities that will be sufficiently
diluted by the stream flow present at the time of discharge, that stream flow may be used
for the mixing granted . Deleting the sentence `Mixing is not allowed in receiving waters
which have a zero minimum seven day low flow which occurs once in ten years' enables
the definition of dilution ratio to guide the Illinois EPA in granting mixing . Discharges
that can be withheld until sufficient stream flow exists, or naturally are only produced in
tandem with higher stream flows, will benefit from this clarification
.
It is important to note that all other aspects of the mixing zone regulation, and for
that matter all other water regulations, are still in force and work together with the
changes proposed . Especially important is the reference to the provisions of 35 IAC
304.102
which stipulates that the best degree of treatment must be provided to effluents
before mixing may be allowed .
Changes to Subtitle D of the Board Regulations :
With the changes proposed for sulfate and TDS, and the deletion of Subtitle D
mine exemptions to water quality standards, Illinois EPA is proposing to regulate all
types of discharges in an equitable manner
. Water quality based permit limit decisions
will now be required in lieu of the special exemptions formerly allowed for mines .
Additionally, as a housekeeping measure, an outdated portion of Subtitle D unrelated to
water quality standards will also be deleted .
The changes to standards proposed in the Illinois EPA's petition are based on
sound science and assure the protection of designated uses of waters of the state . These
modernized standards will benefit mines and other dischargers of sulfate and other
dissolved salts that are not amenable to treatment . Permit limits issued using the new
sulfate and mixing regulations will be protective, yet not overly so, and will cause no
unnecessary burden on economic activity
. The Agency requests that the Board adopt this
proposal .
By:
Robert Mosher
February 1, 2007
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
Robert G
. Mosher
5350 Richland Road
Phone 217-785-3950
Pleasant Plains, Illinois 62677
E-mail Bob .Mosher@Illinois .gov
Education
Eastern Illinois University
Charleston, Illinois
BS Environmental Biology and Zoology
1977
MS
Zoology
1979
professional
1988 -
Present
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
experience
Supervisor, Water Quality Standards Unit, Bureau of Water
Supervision of 3-5 profession employees
of the Unit, consisting of engineers,
toxicologists and environmental biologists
.
1 . Implementation of water quality standards
.
Work extensively with Permit Section staff to incorporate water
quality based
effluent limits in NPDES permits for metals,
ammonia, chlorine and other
parameters .
Coordinate the Agency's whole effluent biomonitoring
program
including review of bioassays conducted
by the Agency laboratory, private
consulting laboratories and permittees
.
Recommend permit actions related to
whole effluent biomonitoring
such as monitoring requirements and limits .
Evaluate Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB) nondegradation standard for new
or expanding discharges,
explore alternatives to increasing
pollutant load
increases and work with municipal and industrial dischargers to seek less polluting
solutions under the nondegradation regulation
.
Provide expert witness testimony
at IPCB hearings and appeals related to NPDES permits
.
2.
Coordination of Special Rulemakings .
Work with Division of Legal Council staff concerning petitions submitted by
dischargers to the IPCB
. Review petitions for Adjusted Standards, Variances and
Site-specific changes to the water quality standards from dischargers
based on
unique needs .
Recommend Agency position on such relief based on federal
regulations and compatibility with protection of the waters of the state
. Provide
expert witness testimony at IPCB hearings related to special relief
.
3.
Development of water quality standards regulations
.
Develop water quality standards suitable for use
in Illinois using information
obtained from USEPA and the scientific literature
.
Work with Agency legal staff
and the IPCB in the adoption of these standards into Illinois Administrative Code
.
Coordinate and participate in stakeholders workgroups to explain new standards
and obtain public participation in standards initiatives
.
Participated as a lead
worker or primary manager of many standards rulemakings including Disinfection
Exemptions (1988), Toxics Control
(1990), Ammonia (1996), Great Lakes
Initiative (1997) Dissolved Metals Update and Nutrient Standards
(2002) and
currently, Sulfate and Mixing Zones
.
Provide expert witness testimony at
hearings .
4. Other Duties .
Speak at three to five professional organization conferences
(such as Water
Environment Federation) each year on water quality
initiatives and Agency
programs . ORSANCO subcommittee member
. ASIWPCA subcommittee
member .
Community
•
Tutor, Washington Street Mission, Springfield
activities
•
Coach, Boys Baseball and Girls Softball, Pleasant Plains Junior Athletic
Association
•
Deacon Board Member, Cherry Hills Baptist Church, Springfield
Awards
Illinois EPA Employee of the Month, February 1995
received
1985 - 1988
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Data Management Unit, Planning Section, Division of Water
Pollution Control
Managed Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network data through the USEPA
STORET system
. Lead worker in compilation of the
1988 Illinois Water Quality
Report .
Performed quality assurance work for Agency water quality data
.
1982 - 1985
Monsanto Company, St
. Louis, Missouri
Contract Worker
Performed aquatic life bioassays in Monsanto's Environmental Sciences Center
Developed Standard Operating Procedures for several aquatic life bioassays
.
Traveled to Monsanto plant sites across the country collecting samples and
conducting stream biosurveys
. Used a mobile aquatic bioassay laboratory at some of
these sites to perform whole effluent bioassays
.
1981-1985
Belleville Area College, Belleville &Granite City, Illinois
Instructor of Biology
Instructed Community College courses in introductory biology and human anatomy
and physiology on a full to part time basis
. Member of the Charter Staff at the Granite
City Campus .
1980-1981
Environmental Science & Engineering, Inc ., St
. Louis MO
Aquatic Biologist
Performed surveys of fishes and macroinvertebrates in large rivers and small streams
for power plant location feasibility studies
.
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOAR
CLERK'S
E C E
OFFICE
IV E D
FEB 0 5 2007
STATE
OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
IN
THE MATTER OF :
)
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO:
35 111 . Adm. Code 302.102(b)(6), 302 .102(b)(8)
302.102(b)(10), 302
.208(g), 309 .103(c)(3),
405 .109(b)(2)(A), 405 .109(b)(2)(B), 406 .100(d);
REPEALED 35 Ill . Adm. Code 406 .203, PART 407 ; and
PROPOSED NEW 35 Ill . Adm. Code 302 .208(h)
R07-09
(Rulemaking - Water)
TESTIMONY OF BRIAN KOCH
Qualifications/Introduction
My name is Brian Koch and I have been employed by the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency ("Illinois EPA or "Agency") for over one year
. I work as a
toxicologist in the Water Quality Standards section of the Division of Water Pollution
Control. I have a B .A. and M.S. in Zoology from Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, with specialization in fisheries ecology and aquatic toxicology, respectively
.
My primary responsibility at the Agency is to derive water quality standards and criteria
through the implementation of USEPA and Illinois EPA methodologies . My testimony
will discuss procedures utilized in the derivation of new sulfate water quality standards
for two designated uses, aquatic life use and livestock watering
.
Water Quality Standard Derivation Process
My employment with Illinois EPA began in January 2006, whereupon I was
immediately assigned to become familiar with the procedures utilized in the derivation of
updated sulfate standards . Prior to my employment, personnel from Illinois EPA,
USEPA, and Illinois Natural History Survey spent several years reviewing literature and
conducting research in support of standards derivation
.
Critical issues such as data
selection and statistical analyses had already been completed, thereby providing a
foundation for the new standards
. It has been my responsibility to obtain a complete
understanding of the formal guidelines Illinois EPA used to derive the proposed aquatic
life standards, as described by the USEPA document entitled
Guidelines for Deriving
Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection ofAquatic Organisms and
Their Uses, 1985
("the Guidelines", Exhibit L of the Agency's Proposal)
. The
Guidelines are followed in standards development by USEPA and other states, and are
also used as a basis for procedures in 35 Ill
. Adm
. Code Part 302 Subpart E and Subpart F
used in deriving water quality criteria .
Aquatic Life:
A key component in standards derivation is the gathering and
assessing available toxicity data for the substance of interest
.
Given that sodium is the
predominant cation in Illinois waters, the Agency searched for Na2SO4
aquatic life
toxicity data that was reputable and representative of Illinois fauna
.
The Agency
searched the USEPA AQUIRE database as well as other sources and compiled a database
of toxicity values
. Upon consultation with USEPA and ADVENT-ENVIRON (a
consultant employed by the Illinois Coal Association), several of the studies were
deemed unacceptable for use in standards derivation
. An explanation for the approval or
rejection of each study is provided in the justification document (Exhibit K of the
Agency's Proposal)
. Dr
. Charles Stephan, the primary author of the Guidelines
document, took precedence in this evaluation of toxicity data, and compiled a final list of
values considered valid for sulfate standards derivation (Exhibit M of the Agency's
Proposal)
. Upon review of acceptable data, it was apparent that fish are quite tolerant of
sulfate, while invertebrates are much more sensitive due to problems in maintaining
osmotic balance . Of all tested species, the amphipod Hyalella azteca was most sensitive
to sulfate . However, data on this species was limited and warranted further research to
determine the extent of sulfate toxicity . At this time, it was also noted that sulfate
toxicity to invertebrates may be dependent on water chemistry
. In order to supplement
knowledge of sulfate toxicity, Dr . David Soucek of the Illinois Natural History Survey
was contracted to conduct laboratory toxicity testing on multiple invertebrate species
exposed to sodium sulfate at various concentrations of hardness and chloride
. Detailed
reports of Dr
. Soucek's research, as well as additional toxicity values generated from this
research, have been provided in the justification document (Exhibits P-U of the Agency's
Proposal) .
Dr
. Soucek's research was instrumental in the derivation of new sulfate aquatic
life standards, as it verified that sulfate toxicity to aquatic invertebrates is dependent on
hardness and chloride concentrations of water
. Additionally, the research characterized
sulfate toxicity to previously untested invertebrates, thereby increasing the data set and
providing a more accurate estimation of sulfate toxicity to sensitive species
. A fortunate
byproduct of Dr
. Soucek's research was the finding that chronic exposures of sulfate to
the water flea, Ceriodaphnia dubia, did not result in reduced survival compared to acute
exposures
. Because sulfate toxicity is exerted through the inability of an invertebrate to
maintain osmotic balance with surrounding water, it is believed that sulfate does not
exhibit traditional chronic toxicity similar to substances such as heavy metals or
pesticides . Whereas chronic effects of other substances typically occur at concentrations
a factor lower than acute thresholds, Dr
. Soucek has self-sustaining Ceriodaphnia dubia
cultures inhabiting water with sulfate concentrations that are one-half to one-third of
acute thresholds
. The unique toxicodynamics of sulfate therefore required a sulfate-
specific adjustment factor when converting from the LC50 level of effect, which is the
concentration lethal to 50% of tested organisms, to the protective level of effect, a
procedure to be further described in my testimony
.
All aspects of Dr
. Soucek's research, as well as acceptable data from other
sources, were used to derive the new acute sulfate standards
.
As previously stated, the
procedures used in deriving numerical standards are described in the Guidelines
document
. A detailed account of the data and equations used in the derivation of sulfate
standards can be found in Attachment I of the Agency's Proposal(pages 9-15)
.
When data is available to show that acute toxicity to two or more species is
related to a water quality characteristic, a Final Acute Equation must be calculated in
order to describe the relationship
. Such was the case with sulfate, where sulfate toxicity
to Hyalella azteca and Ceriodaphnia dubia
was quantified in respect to hardness and
chloride concentrations of test water
. Sulfate LC50 values for the two species were
measured or estimated at various concentrations of hardness and chloride and were then
transformed into equations with hardness and chloride-specific slopes accounting for
these relationships
. Two separate equations were required due to the finding that sulfate
was increasingly toxic at low chloride concentrations, but decreasingly toxic at
concentrations intermediate and higher, therefore requiring different slopes
. With the
two equations in place, LC50 values for all valid tests within the database were then
normalized at specified concentrations of hardness and chloride, whereupon GMAVs
(Genus Mean Acute Values) and FAVs (Final Acute Values) were then calculated
. The
FAVs are the values that each equation solves to when the normalized hardness and
chloride concentrations are entered into the final equations
. Two critical components of
the sulfate standards derivation warrant further discussion, the FAV equations that
account for hardness and chloride concentrations, and the adjustment factor that the FAV
equation is multiplied by in order to reach a protective effect level
. By definition, the
FAV is the value protective of at least 95% of the species at the LC50 level of effect
.
Because sulfate toxicity is dependent on water chemistry, the FAVs are expressed in the
form of two equations accounting for different ranges of hardness and chloride
. An
important concept to grasp is that a standard can not be set at the FAV effect level, as this
concentration would result in at least 50% mortality in highly sensitive species, as well as
lesser mortality in more tolerant species
. To achieve a sufficient level of protection, an
FAV or FAV equation is multiplied by an adjustment factor that translates the LC50-
based FAV into a value that is representative of a no observable effect concentration
(NOEC), which is the test concentration that did not result in mortality greater than that
observed in the control
. The default adjustment factor value of 0
.5 is used when
insufficient data is available for a substance
. This default factor was derived by taking
the geometric mean of the NOEC to LC50 ratios of over two hundred tests on various
toxicants
. In the instance of a substance with atypical toxicity, such as sulfate, a
pollutant-specific adjustment factor may be calculated' if the data set is of sufficient
quantity and quality and includes results from sensitive test species
. The pollutant-
specific adjustment factor for sulfate was derived by taking the geometric mean of NOEC
to LC50 ratios from the two most sensitive species,
Hyalella azteca
and Ceriodaphnia
dubia
.
The analyses resulted in an adjustment factor of 0
.65, which is of greater
specificity and accuracy for sulfate toxicity than the general multiplier of 0
.5 . The
sulfate-specific adjustment factor was incorporated into both standards and serves to
assure that an appropriate amount of protection is provided to aquatic life
.
The outcome of the Agency's efforts with sulfate was the development of two
acute aquatic toxicity criterion equations for sulfate at specified ranges of hardness and
chloride
. The adoption of these equations will allow for the calculation of site-specific
sulfate standards that are dependent on water quality characteristics
. By entering
hardness and chloride measurements from a specific site into the appropriate equation,
the resulting value will be the protective concentration of sulfate at that specific site
under those water quality characteristics
. The calculated aquatic life standards are not to
be exceeded at any time, but may be superseded by the livestock watering standard if
applicable .
Livestock Watering :
The existing General Use and Lake Michigan Basin aquatic
life standard for sulfate was adopted in 1972
. There is no existing livestock standard, but
it is implied that the 500 mg/L aquatic life standard was thought to be protective of
livestock, as the McKee and Wolf (1972) water quality criteria document used in support
of standards adoption listed 500 mg/L as a concentration protective of livestock
. Upon
early stages of developing the newly proposed aquatic life standards, it was apparent that
the higher aquatic life standards may conflict with the attainment of other designated uses
such as livestock watering
. At the onset of my employment, it was my responsibility to
research the effects of sulfate on livestock watering to determine if the newly proposed
aquatic life standards would threaten attainment of this use
.
ADVENT-ENVIRON also
participated in literature review and supplemented the database
.
A listing of the toxicity
endpoints and respective studies that were considered are listed in Exhibit E of the
Agency's Proposal
. Additionally, full-text versions of studies integral to selection of the
proposed livestock standard are attached in the justification document (Exhibits F-J of the
Agency's Proposal) .
A review of the literature found that livestock are acutely tolerant of sulfate
within the range of calculable aquatic life sulfate standards
. Acute exposure to
concentrations within this range may result in cathartic effects for several days, but these
effects will diminish as animals acclimate to elevated sulfates
. Prolonged exposure to
these same concentrations, however, would likely lead to adverse effects on livestock, as
well as the economy of impacted livestock operations
. Based from literature review, the
Agency concluded that a chronic standard of 2,000 mg/L sulfate would be protective of
livestock watering, as surface waters supporting this concentration would not lead to
adverse effects on livestock or economic impacts to livestock operations
. It must be
emphasized that this standard is applicable only in areas where water is withdrawn or
accessed for purposes of livestock watering
. In many of these waters, aquatic life
standards will require that sulfate concentrations are maintained below the 2,000 mg/L
livestock standard
. However, for livestock waters where the instantaneously applied
aquatic life standard is calculated to be above 2,000 mg/L, a 30-day average sulfate
standard of 2,000 mg/L will apply for protection of livestock
. The 2,000 mg/L chronic
standard was determined upon review of recent studies where cattle chronically exposed
to drinking water showed increasingly deleterious effects at concentrations from 2,360
mg/L to 3,000 mg/L sulfate
. At 2,360 mg/L sulfate, cattle have been shown to have
decreased dress-out parameters, signifying that exposure to drinking water at this
concentration may result in economic losses to livestock operations
. As concentrations
reach 2,500 mg/L cattle have poor conception, and at 2,600 mg/L cattle have been found
to have decreased weight and body condition
. As sulfate concentrations approach 3,000
mg/L cattle drink less water and become more prone to polioencephalomalacia, a
neurological disorder which leads to anorexia, blindness, seizures, and eventually death
.
To verify the suitability of this proposed standard, Dr
. Gavin Meerdink from the
Department of Veterinary Medicine at University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana was
contacted. Dr
. Meerdink has performed consultations for livestock operations throughout
the State and has often dealt with the issue of sulfate in livestock water and feed
. Dr.
Meerdink was supplied with all values collected from literature review and was informed
of our plans of implementing 2,000 mg/L sulfate as a chronic, 30-day average standard
.
Dr. Meerdink questioned the validity of the older studies
. He stated that much more has
been learned regarding the complexity of sulfur compounds and ruminants over the last
30 years, and that the recent studies likely had better detail in experimental design
. He
stated that sulfur compounds within the ruminant are a complicated issue, as much
variability can be attributed to the sulfur content of feed as well as
the ability of rumen
microbes to convert sulfur compounds into sulfides
. Although limited animal taxa are
represented in the literature, Dr
. Meerdink acknowledged that cattle are a suitable study
organism, as sulfur compounds in monogastric animals (pigs, rats, etc
.) are much less of
an issue . In summary, Dr
. Meerdink stated that a 2,000 mg/L sulfate standard would
adequately protect livestock
. He related that unacclimated animals may exhibit diarrhea
for several days immediately after initial exposure but will suffer no economically
significant weight loss or other adverse condition
. In his experience, livestock will soon
adapt to the higher sulfate water and the temporary symptoms will disappear
. Dr.
Meerdink also stated that he would feel uncomfortable setting a standard at
concentrations significantly higher than 2,000 mg/L sulfate
.
Section 302 .208(h):
The development of updated sulfate standards required
modifications to the regulatory language in 302
.208. The following is a summary of
regulatory changes that reflect the updated sulfate standards for aquatic life and livestock
watering
. The previous numerical standards for sulfate and TDS have been stricken from
302.208(g)
. Sulfate regulations now exist in 302
.208(h)(l)-(3), beginning with the
livestock standard listed in 302 .208(h)(1)
. The 2,000 mg/L livestock standard will be
implemented as the concentration not to be exceeded over a 30-day period in waters that
are withdrawn or accessed for purposes of livestock watering
. Sulfate concentrations are
allowed to instantaneously exceed 2,000 mg/L in these waters providing aquatic life
standards are not exceeded and the 30-day average does not exceed 2,000 mg/L sulfate
.
Water bodies not utilized for livestock watering are exempt from this standard but
are regulated by sulfate aquatic life standards calculated in 302
.208(h)(2)(A) or
302.208(h)(2)(B)
. The calculation of the standard is subject to use of a specific equation
dependent on hardness and chloride concentrations within the water body
. The equation
in 302
.208(h)(2)(A) calculates sulfate aquatic life standards for waters where hardness is
between 100 and 500 mg/L and chloride between 25 and 500 mg/L
. Upon entering
hardness and chloride concentrations from the receiving water into the provided equation,
the resulting value will be the sulfate concentration not to be exceeded at any time
.
Section 302
.208(h)(2)(B) contains the equation that calculates sulfate standards when
hardness is between 100 and 500 mg/L and chloride is greater than or equal to 5 mg/L but
less than 25 mg/L
. Additionally, in the occasion that hardness and chloride
concentrations are outside of the previously described ranges, the following sulfate
standards must be met . Pursuant to Section 302.208(h)(3)(A),
if the hardness
concentration of waters is less than 100 mg/L or chloride concentration of waters is less
than 5 mg/L, the sulfate standard is 500 mg/L
. Pursuant to Section 302 .208(h)(3)(B), if
the hardness concentration of waters is greater than 500 mg/L and the chloride
concentration of waters is 5 mg/L or greater, the sulfate standard is 2,000 mg/L
. The
Agency believes the proposed aquatic life and livestock standards are scientifically sound
and will serve to effectively protect the environment from adverse amounts of sulfate
.
This concludes my pre-filed testimony
. I will be supplementing the testimony as
needed during the hearing and would be happy to address any questions
.
By
Brian
:
-;K
Koch
-;O-
February 1, 2007
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
BRIAN T
. KOCH
1021 N
. Grand Ave . E, Springfield, IL 62794-9276
• (217) 558-2012
brian
.koch@illinois .go v
EMPLOYMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SPECIALIST II
DATES EMPLOYED (2006-PRESENT)
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 N. Grand Ave. E.
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
(217) 558-2012
Employed as a toxicologist/biologist in the Water Quality Standards section of the Division of Water
Pollution Control
. Derive water quality criteria for protection of aquatic life and human health, maintain
database and quarterly Illinois Register publication of criteria
. Conduct research towards the derivation of
numeric water quality standards, provide support in adoption of standards before the Illinois Pollution
Control Board
. Present information to stakeholders or other entities interested in rulemakings, write
justification documents, attend hearings
. Evaluate environmental risk of water treatment additives used by
NPDES facilities, work with permit writers to assure compliance with water quality standards/criteria
. Act
as the Agency expert in emerging water quality standard issues, conduct field sampling when necessary
.
RESEARCH TECHNICIAN
DATES EMPLOYED (FALL 2005)
Southern Illinois University Carbondale
Fisheries and Illinois Aquaculture Center
1255 Lincoln Drive
Carbondale, IL 62901
Led telemetry research on the federally endangered pallid sturgeon, managed personnel and collection of
data
. Assessed seasonal habitat use and availability, characterized migratory movement and environmental
cues, and assessed potential spawning grounds within the Middle Mississippi River (MMR)
. Compiled
final report, currently completing manuscript for publication
. Acquired experience with ArcMap 9
.1 .
GRADUATE RESEARCH ASSISTANT
DATES EMPLOYED (2002-2005)
Southern Illinois University Carbondale
Fisheries and Illinois Aquaculture Center
1255 Lincoln Drive
Carbondale, IL 62901
Sampled sturgeon populations throughout the MMR, collaborated with the Engineer Research and
Development Center (U.S
. Army Corps of Engineers) and Long Term Resource Monitoring (LTRM)
facility
. Operated boats, collected sturgeon with active and passive gears throughout all seasons
.
EDUCATION
M .S. ZOOLOGY
YEARS ATTENDED (2002-2005)
Southern Illinois University Carbondale
GPA: 3 .86
B.A.
ZOOLOGY
YEARS ATTENDED (1997-200 1)
Southern Illinois University Carbondale
GPA: 3 .13
PUBLICATIONS
HONORS
Implanted external tags for demographics, surgically implanted ultrasonic tags internally within pallid
sturgeon for telemetry, tracked fish
. Collected diet samples, aged pallid and shovelnose sturgeon pectoral
fin rays .
Thesis work examined body residues of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in MMR shovelnose
sturgeon .
Analyzed brains, gonads, and fillets with methods allowing for simultaneous determination of PCBs,
organochlorine pesticides, and organophosphates . Performed analytical procedures with HPLC and GC-
NPD/ECD . Assessed reproductive limitations and intersexuality in relation to body residues . Presented
work at regional and national meetings, published research .
UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH ASSISTANT
DATES EMPLOYED (2000-2001)
Southern Illinois University Carbondale
Fisheries and Illinois Aquaculture Center
1255 Lincoln Drive
Carbondale, IL 62901
Primary duties pertained to culturing of crappie, bluegill, and hybrid sunfish . Assisted graduate researchers
in completing grant work for muskellunge gynogenesis study and hybrid-striped bass
aquaculture studies .
Gained field and laboratory experience in shovelnose sturgeon age and mortality study, served as second
reader for age validation .
FISH CULTURIST
DATES EMPLOYED (SUMMER, 2000)
Logan Hollow Fish Farm
824 Stave Mill Road
Murphysboro, IL 62966
Assisted in culturing and rearing of food and sport fish . Maintained water quality of ponds, delivered fish .
ASSISTANT LAKE MANAGER
DATES EMPLOYED (SUMMERS, 1997-1999)
Woodhaven Lakes Association
509 LaMoille Road
Sublette, IL 61367
Maintained aquatic vegetation through mechanical and chemical removal . Assisted lake manager in nature
workshops, creel surveys, and fish stocking/sampling . Participated in Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program
•
Koch, B.T., J.E . Garvey, J . You, and M.J. Lydy. 2006. Elevated organochlorines in the brain-
hypothalamic-pituitary complex of intersexual shovelnose sturgeon . Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry 25 :1689-1697 .
•
SETAC / EA Engineering Jeff Black Award
SETAC Fourth World Congress, 25" Annual Meeting in North America
Portland, Oregon, November 2004
Koch- 2
R 07-09
Service List
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal
Katten, Muchin & Zavis
U .S . Fish & Wildlife Service
7800 Sears Tower
525 West Monroe
4469-48th Avenue Court
233 South Wacker Drive
Suite 1600
Rock Island, IL 61201
Chicago, IL 60606-6404
Chicago, IL 60601-3693
Stateside Associates
Illinois Environmental Regulatory
Caterpillar Inc .
2300 Clarendon Blvd .
Group
100 N .E . Adams Street
Suite 407
3150 Roland Avenue
Peoria, IL 61629
Arlington, VA 22201
Springfield, IL 62703
Illinois Municipal League
Abbott Laboratories
Goodwin & Broms, Inc .
500 E . Capitol
Dept. 590, Bldg . P-14
400 Bruns Lane
P.O . Box 5180
1401 Sheridan Road North
Springfield, IL 62707
Springfield, IL 62705
Chicago, IL 60064-4000
DeptSmall
. ofBusiness
Commerce
Office&
Economic Opportunity
Barnes & Thornburg
Thom Creek Basin Sanitary
020 East Adams Street, Fifth Floor
I North Wacker Drive
District
Springfield, IL 62701
Suite 4400
700 West End Avenue
Chicago,IL 60606
Chicago Heights,IL 60411
Exxon Mobile Oil Corporation
Metropolitan Water Reclamation
Huff & Huff, Inc
.
1-55 & Arsenal Road East
District of Greater Chicago
512 West Burlington Avenue
Channahon, IL 60410
100 East Erie
Suite 100
Chicago, IL 60611
LaGrange, IL 60525
Admiral Environmental Services, Inc
.
American Bottoms RWTF
Openlands Project
Suite
2025
Arlington
South
103
Heights,Arlington
IL 60005-4141Heights
Road
One
Sauget,
American
IL 62201Bottoms
Road
25
Suite
Chicago,
East
1650Washington
IL 60602
Street
Fox Metro Water Reclamation
Wheaton Sanitary District
Ameren Services
District
P.O . Box 626
One Ameren Plaza
682 State Route 31
Wheaton, IL 60189
PO Box 66149
Oswego, IL 60543
St . Louis, MO 63166
August Mack Environmental, Inc .
Prairie Rivers Network
Fox River WRD
8007 Castleton Road
809 South 5th Street
P .O . Box 328
Indianapolis, IN 46250
Champaign, IL 61820
Elgin, IL 60121
Environmental Law & Policy
Midwest Generation
ExxonMobil
Center
440 S . LaSalle Street
PO Box 874
35 E
. Wacker
Suite 3500
Joliet, IL 60410
Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60601
Chicago, IL 60605
ECT
Illinois Coal Association
Illinois-American Water Co
.
3701 NW 98th street
1480 E . 1200th Street
123 S .W. Washington Street
Gainesville, FL 32606
Industry, IL 61440
Peoria, IL 61602-1317
R 07-09
Service List
Formosa Plastics
MRRI
Illinois Association of Wastewater
P .O. Box 27
P
.O
. Box 1642
Agencies
Illiopolis, IL 62539
Murphysboro, IL 62966
241 N . Fifth Street
Springfield, IL 62701
Environmental Consulting and
Illinois Coal Association
Illinois Coal Association
Technology
P.O. Box 727
8100 E . Main Street
3701 NW 98th Street
Harrisburg, IL 62946
Williamsville, IL 62693
Gainsville, FL 32606
Illinois Coal Association
Illinois Rural Water Association
U.S
. EPA
212 S
. Second St.
P .O. Box 6049
Region 5 (WT-15J)
Springfield, IL 62701
Taylorville, IL 62568
77 West Jackson Blvd .
Chicago, IL 60604
Citgo Petroleum
Bolten & Menk, Inc
.
Illinois Natural History Survey
135th Street & New Ave
.
2730 Ford Street
607 E
. Peabody Drive
Lemont, IL 60439-3569
P.O. Box 668
Champaign, IL 61820-6970
Ames, IA 50010-0668
Rhodia Inc .
Akzo Nobel
Farmland Foods
1101 Arnold Street
8201 West 47th Street
1220 N . 6th Street Road
Chicago Heights, IL 60411
P.O . Box 1569
Monmouth, IL 61462
McCook, IL 60525
Farmland Foods
Viper Mine
IDOT
7501 N.W
. Tiffany Springs Parkway
8100 East Main Street
2300 South Dirksen Parkway
Kansas City, MO 64153
Williamsville, IL 62693
Springfield, IL 62764
STATE OF ILLINOIS
COUNTY OF SANGAMON
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(OVERNIGHT MAIL)
Mathew Dunn
Illinois Attorney General's Office
Environmental Control Division
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(OVERNIGHT MAIL)
ALSO SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
(FIRST CLASS)
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME
THIS 2°d DAY OF FEBRUARY 2007 .
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, on oath state that I have served the attached
written testimony of
Robert Mosher and Brian Koch upon the persons to whom it is directed, by placing a copy in an
envelope addressed to :
SS
Marie E
. Tipsord
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(OVERNIGHT MAIL)
Jonathan Fun
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
One Natural Resources Way
Springfield, Illinois 62702-1271
(OVERNIGHT MAIL)
''
: NOTARY
BRENDA
OFFICIAL
PUBLIC
.
BOEHNER
STATE
SEALOF
I WNOIS :
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 11 .3-2008 t
: •::•a a,• •r
aaa++++t++aaaaaaa•:•a'
2
