BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

AND

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR THE

CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM

AND THE LOWER DES PLAINES

RIVER:

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 Ill.

Adrn. Code Parts 301,302,303 and 304

NOTICE OF

FILING

John Therriault, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James

R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph Street, Suite 1 1-500

Chicago, Illinois 6060 1

Matthew Dunn, Chief

Environmental Bureau

Office of the Attorney General

100

W. Randolph, 12~~

Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Bill Richardson, Chief Legal Counsel

Illinois Department of Natural Resources

One Natural Resources Way

Springfield, Illinois 62702- 127 1

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have filed today with the Illinois Pollution Control Board the

Motion for Acceptance; Appearances; Motion for Waiver of Copy Requirements; Motion For

Hearings to be Conducted in Chicago and Joliet; Director's Statement of Submittal; Certificate of

Origination; Statement of Reasons and Attachments; and Proposed Amendments to 35 Ill. Adrn.

Code Parts 301, 302,303 and 304 by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, a copy of which

is herewith served upon you.

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

Dated:

tad 2b 1

o7

1021 North rand Avenue ast

Assistant ~ouxel

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

(217) 782-5544

---

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR THE

CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM

AND THE LOWER DES PLANS RIVER:

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 Ill.

Adm. Code Parts 30 1,302,303 and 304

R08-

(Rulem

1

g

-

Water)

STATE OF lLLlNOlS

Pollution

Control

Board

MOTION FOR ACCEPTANCE

NOW COMES the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("Illinois EPA"), by and

through its attorneys, Stefanie

N. Diers and Deborah J. Williams, and pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 102.106, 102.200, and 102.202, moves that the Illinois Pollution Control Board ("Board")

accept for hearing the Illinois EPA7s proposal for the adoption of amendments to 35

Ill.

Adrn.

Code Parts 301,302,303 and 304. This regulatory proposal includes:

Notice of Filing;

Appearances of Attorneys for the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency;

Motion for Waiver of Copy Requirements;

Motion to Conduct Hearings in Chicago and Joliet,

Director Scott's Statement of Submittal;

Certification of Origination;

Statement of Reasons (including list of attachments and documents relied on);

Attachments to the Statement of Reasons;

Proposed Amendments;

Proof of Service;

Computer disc containing Proposed Amendments.

---

Dated:

(O/a~/~q

102 1 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

(2 17) 782-5544

Respectfully Submitted,

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

By:

Deborah

J. Williams

Assistant Counsel

Division

of Legal Counsel

---

@c@l~~~

CLE~~'~

OFFICE

IN THE MATTER OF:

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

AND

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR THE

CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM

AND THE LOWER DES PLAINES RIVER:

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 Ill.

Adm. Code Parts 301,302,303 and 304

STATE OF

ILLINOIS

Pollution Control 8oard

R08-

(~ulemak&~

-

Water)

APPEARANCE

The undersigned, as one of its attorneys, hereby enters her appearance on behalf of the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTIQN AGENCY

Dated:

1021 ~orth'

Grand

107

Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

(217) 782-5544

---

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND

EFFLUENT

CHICAGO AREA

LMITATIONS

WATERWAY

FOR

SYSTEM

THE

0

(Rulemak'

7

g

-

Water)

AND THE LOWER DES PLAINES RIVER:

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 Ill.

Adm. Code Parts 301,302,303 and 304

APPEARANCE

The undersigned, as one of its attorneys, hereby enters her appearance on behalf of the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

Assistant ~ounsx

Division of Legal Counsel

Dated:

I~~CL[O~

1021 North

and A enue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

(217) 782-5544

---

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

AND

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR THE

CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM

AND

THE LOWER DES PLANES RIVER:

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 ni.

Adm. Code Parts 301,302,303 and 304

-.

R08

2

OF

~~Ll~ol~

Po''~tlon

control Board

mulern ing

-

Water)

MOTION FOR WAIVER OF COPY REOUIREMENTS

NOW COMES the Proponent, the ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY ("Illinois EPA"), by one of its attorneys, and pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.500,

102.110 and 102.402, moves that the Illinois Pollution Control Board ("Board") waive certain

requirements, namely that the Illinois EPA submit the original and nine copies of all documents

upon which it relied.

In support of its Motion, the Illinois EPA states

as

follows:

Section 102.200 of the Board's procedural rules requires that the original and nine copies

of each regulatory proposal be filed with the Clerk. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.200. This entire

regulatory proposal approaches 3,000 pages in length. Given the length of the proposal and the

resources required to provide nine copies, the Illinois EPA requests that the Board waive the

normal copy requirements of Section 102.200

and allow the Illinois EPA to instead file the

original and four complete copies of the proposal, plus five partial copies containing the

pleadings, Statement of Reasons and proposed amendments.

WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, the Illinois EPA moves that the Board

waive the copy requirement and allow the Illinois EPA to provide the Board with an original and

four complete copies, along with five partial copies of the proposal

as described

supra.

---

Dated:

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

(217) 782-5544

Respectfully submitted,

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

Deborah

J. Willias

Assistant Counsel

---

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

~@~dX'O

IN THE MATTER OF:

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

AND

EFFLUENT LlMITATIONS FOR THE

CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM

AND

THE LOWER DES PLAINES RIVER:

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 Ill.

Adm. Code Parts 301,302,303 and 304

1

)

~~~ernaJmg

-

water)

MOTION TO CONDUCT HEARINGS

IN CHICAGO AND JOLIET

NOW COMES the Proponent, the ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY ("Illinois EPA"), by one of its attorneys, and pursuant to 35

Ill. Adm. Code 101.500,101.502, 102.402, and 102.412, moves that the Illinois Pollution

Control Board ("Board") or the assigned Hearing Officer schedule the first required

rulemaking hearing in Chicago and the second required rulemaking hearing in Joliet.

In

support of its Motion, the Illinois EPA states

as

follows:

1.

Section 28 (a) of the Environmental Protection Act provides as follows:

"No substantive regulation shall be adopted, amended, or repealed until after a public

hearing

within the area of the State concerned. In the case of state-wide regulations

hearings shall be held in at least two areas."

In addition, Section 102.412 of the Board's

procedural rules states in part

". .

.In the case of site-specific rules, a public hearing will

be held in the affected county..

."

2.

The instant rulemhg proposal is clearly not a site-specific rulemaking

proposal as it is

a comprehensive water quality standards proposal impacting the entire

Chicago Area Waterway System and Lower Des Plaines River fiom the Wilrnette

---

Pumping Station and Controlling Works on the North Shore Channel at Lake Michigan in

Wilmette to the Interstate-55 Bridge crossing over the Lower Des Plaines River south of

Joliet. This area is located

in both Cook and Will counties.

3.

While the instant rulemaking proposal is technically a rule of general

applicability, in practice, it is primarily a proposal of regional applicability and concern.

Therefore, the Agency believes the interests of the public at large are best served by

conducting hearings in two areas of the State that are both located within the impacted

region and are located in the county seats of the impacted counties. Conducting

rulemaking hearings in downtown Chicago and Joliet will best accomplish these goals.

4.

In addition, the Agency moves that the Board schedule the initial hearing

dates in Chicago. Section 102.428(c) of the Board's procedural rules requires that

"Proponents must present testimony in support of the proposal first." At the initial

hearing, the Agency will be presenting testimony in support of this proposal and

responding to questions fiom the public. To ensure that the greatest number of

participants have access to this testimony in person and are able to ask their questions of

the Agency on the record, the Agency moves the Board to conduct the first hearing in

downtown Chicago.

WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, the Illinois EPA moves that the

Board conduct the hearings in this proceeding in Chicago and Joliet with the first hearing

to be held in Chicago.

---

Respectfblly submitted,

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PR-CTION

AGENCY

By:

Deborah

J. #illiarns

Assistant Counsel

Dated:

20 /2CP/oq

1 02 1 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box

19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

(217) 782-5544

---

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION

IN

THE MATTER OF:

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR THE

CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM

AND THE LOWER DES PLAINES RIVER:

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 Ill.

Adm. Code Parts 301,302,303 and 304

CONTROL

R08Fj

(Rule aking

, -

Water)

DIRECTOR SCOTT'S STATEMENT OF SUBMITTAL

Pursuant to Section 27 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/27), the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency hereby moves the Illinois Pollution Control Board to

adopt the proposed amendments.

Respectllly Submitted,

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

By:

Dated:

102

1

North

Au

~fand

r*rf

Avenue

& ,

East

P-.O. BOX-19276

- --

--

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

(2 17) 782-5544

---

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

AND

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR THE

CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM

AND THE LOWER DES PLANES RIVER:

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 Ill.

Adm. Code Parts 301,302,303 and 304

R08-

(Rulem

8

g

-

Water)

CERTIFICATION OF ORIGINATION

NOW COMES the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency to certify in accordance

with 35 Ill. Adm. Code. 102.202(i) that this proposal amends the most recent version

of the Parts

301, 302, 303 and 304 of the Pollution Control Board's regulations,

as published on the Board's

web site,

http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/SLRlPCBand1EPAEnvir0nnlentaRegu1ations-Tit1e35

.asp.

Respectfully Submitted,

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

Assistant counsel

Division of Legal Counsel

Dated:

10 /2k/04

102 1 North Grand venue East

P.Q. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

(217) 782-5544

---

IN THE MATTER OF:

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

AND

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR THE

CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM

AND THE LOWER DES PLAINES RIVER:

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 Ill.

Adrn. Code Parts 301,302,303 and 304

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

(~ulemal(m~

-

Water)

STATEMENT OF REASONS

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("Illinois EPA" or "Agency") hereby

submits its Statement of Reasons for the above captioned rulemaking to the Illinois Pollution

Control Board ("Board") pursuant to Section 27 of the Environmental Protection Act ("Act")

[415 ILCS 5/27] and 35 Ill.

Adm.

Code 102.200 and 102.202.

I.

STATUTORY BASIS

A.

Environmental Protection Act

Section 5(c) of the Act gives the Board "authority to act for the State in regard to the

adoption of standards for submission to the United States under any federal law respecting

environmental protection. Such standards shall be adopted in accordance with Title

VII

of the

Act and upon adoption shall be forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency for

submission to the United States

. . . "

415 ILCS 5/5(c)(2006). The Agency is given the

responsibility under Section 4(1) of the Act to transmit the standards adopted by the Board to the

United States Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. EPA') for approval where required by

federal law. 41 5 ILCS 5/4(1)(2006).

---

In the provisions specific to protection of waters of the State, Section 13(a) of the Act

provides that

The Board, pursuant to procedures prescribed in Title

VII of this Act, may adopt

regulations to promote the purposes and provisions of this Title. Without limiting

the generality of this authority, such regulations may among other things

prescribe: (1) Water quality standards specifying among other things, the

maximum short-term and long-term concentrations of various contaminants in the

waters, the minimum permissible concentrations of dissolved oxygen and other

desirable matter in the waters, and the temperature of such waters; (2) Effluent

standards specifying the maximum amounts or concentrations, and the physical,

chemical, thermal, biological and radioactive nature of contaminants that may be

discharged into the waters of the State..

.

415 ILCS 5/13(a)(2006).

Section 27(a) of the Act confers general substantive rulemaking authority upon the Board

and the contents of this regulatory proposal are clearly within these general rulemaking powers

of the Board as well as the specific powers outlined above. This proposal is being filed

as a

regulatory proposal of general applicability pursuant to Sections 27 and 28 of the Act. 415 ILCS

5/27 and 28(2006). It is not being proposed as an identical-in-substance, fast-track or federally

required rulemaking.

In addition, this proposal is being filed as a general (rather than emergency

or peremptory) rulemaking pursuant to Section 5-40 of the Illinois Administrative Procedure

Act. 5 ILCS 100/5-40.

In evaluating these proposed rules, the ~oard

is required to take into

account "the existing physical conditions, the character of the area involved, including the

character of surrounding land uses, zoning classifications, the nature of the existing air quality,

or receiving body of water, as the case may be, and the technical feasibility and economic

reasonableness of measuring or reducing the particular type of pollution." 415 ILCS

---

B.

Clean Water Act

Pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (hereinafter "Clean Water Act" or

"CWA'), it is the primary responsibility of the States to set water quality standards for intrastate

waters and submit changes to those standards to U.S. EPA for approval. 33 U.S.C. $1313.

Section 101(a)(2) of the CWA provides that "it is the national goal that wherever attainable, an

interim goal of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish,

and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water be achieved by July 1,1983." 33

U.S.C.

!j

125 1(a)(2). This goal is often paraphrased and over-simplified as the

'

"fishable/swimrnable" goal of the CWA. These simplistic terms can be misleading because the

terms "fishable" and "swimmable" imply incorrectly that this goal is limited to "fishing" and

"swimming" which would both be considered examples of recreational uses under the CWA. To

. .

avoid this confusion, these goals will be referred to hereinafter as the Clean Water ~ct

aquatic

life goal and the Clean Water Act recreational goal.

><

CWA Section 303 provides that "the State water pollution control agency.

. .

shall from

time to time (but at least once each three year period beginning with October 18,1972) hold

public hearings for the purpose of reviewing applicable water quality standards and,

as

appropriate, modifying and adopting standards." 33 U.S.C. 13 13(c)(l). This requirement to

periodically review and update standards is commonly referred to as the "triennial review"

requirement.

Under the terminology used in the federal law the phrase "water quality standards"

includes both the establishment of designated uses for all intrastate waters as well as the

promulgation of criteria necessary to protect these uses. Whereas in Illinois law, the term "water

quality standards" is often used to refer only to the specific numeric or narrative criteria that have

---

been adopted to protect the existing designated uses. The CWA describes this obligation by the

states to set water quality standards as follows:

Whenever the State revises or adopts a new standard, such revised or new

standard shall be submitted to the Administrator. Such revised or new water

quality standard shall consist of the designated uses of the navigable waters

involved and the water quality criteria for such waters based upon such uses.

Such standards shall be such as to protect the public health or welfare, enhance

the quality of water and serve thepurposes

of this [Clean Water]

Act.

Such

standards shall be established taking into consideration their use and value for

public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational purposes, and

agricultural, industrial, and other purposes, and also taking into consideration

their use and value for navigation. (Emphasis added).

33 U.S.C. $1313(c)(2)(A). This proposal is a culmination of the State's requirement to conduct a

triennial review and includes both the designation of uses for the specified waters and

establishment of numeric and narrative criteria intended to protect these designated uses.

Federal Re~ulations Applicable to Water Oualitv Standards Proposals

--

Use Attainabilitv Analyses

In the federal regulations, U.S. EPA defines the meaning of "serves the purposes of this

[Clean Water] Act" in the above provision (CWA Section 303(c)(2)(A)) to mean

that water quality standards should, wherever attainable, provide water quality

for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife and for recreation

in and on the water and take into consideration their use and value of public water

supplies, propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, recreation

in and on the

water, and agricultural, industrial, and other purposes including navigation. Such

standards serve the dual purposes of establishing the water quality goals for a

specific water body and serve as the regulatory basis for the establishment of

.water-quality-based treatment controls and strategies beyond the technology-

based levels of treatment required by sections 301(b) and 306 of the [CWA].

(Emphasis added).

40 C.F.R. $131.2.

In 40 C.F.R. Part 131, U.S. EPA has established the requirements for federal approval of

State water quality standards pursuant to Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act. U.S. EPA has

---

provided the six minimum requirements for State water quality standards submissions in 40

C.F.R.

9

13 1.6. These six minimum elements are:

(a)

Use designations consistent with the provisions of sections 101(a)(2) and

303(c)(2) of the [Clean Water] Act.

(b)

Methods used and analyses conducted to support water quality standards

revisions.

(c)

Water quality criteria sufficient to protect the designated uses.

(d)

An antidegradation policy consistent with

5

13 1.12.

(e)

Certification by the State Attorney General.. .that the water quality

standards were duly adopted pursuant to State law.

(f)

-

General information which will aid [U.S. EPA] in determining the

adequacy of the scientific basis of the standards which do not include the

uses specified in section 101(a)(2) of the [Clean Water] Act

as

well as

information on general policies applicable to State standards which may affect

their application and implementation.

40 C.F.R.

tj

13 1.6.

.

In addition,to these general minimum requirements, U.S. EPA has outlined the

procedures for designation of uses and conducting use attainability analyses in 40 C.F.R.

9

13 1.10. States may adopt sub-categories of a use with appropriate criteria reflecting the varying

needs of such sub-categories [40 C.F.R. $13 l.lO(c)]

and they may also adopt seasonal uses [40

C.F.R.

@

13 l.lO(f)]. States are required to provide notice and opportunity for hearing before

adding, removing or establishing sub-categories of any use. 40 C.F.R.

9

13 1.1 O(e).

To remove a designated use or establish sub-categories of uses other than the CWA

aquatic life and recreational goals, States must follow. the requirements in 40 C.F.R.

9

13 1.1 O(g).

These will be referred to in this proceeding

as

the Use Attainability Analysis ("UAA") factors.

The six

UAA

factors to be considered when adopting a use other than the CWA goals are:

(1)

Naturally occurring pollutant concentrations prevent the attainment

of the use; or

(2)

Natural, ephemeral, intermittent, or low flow conditions or water

levels prevent the attainment of the use..

.;

or

---

(3)

Human caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent the

attainment of the use and cannot be remedied or would cause more

environmental damage to correct than to leave in place; or

(4)

Dams, diversions or other types of hydrologic modifications

preclude the attainment of the use, and it is not feasible to restore

the water body to its original condition or to operatesuch

modification

in a way that would result in the attainment of the

use; or

(5)

Physical conditions related to the natural features of the water

body, such as the lack of a proper substrate, cover, flow, depth,

pools, riffles, and the like, unrelated to water quality, preclude

attainment of aquatic life protection uses; or

(6)

Controls more stringent than those required by sections 301(b) and

306 of the Act [CWA effluent standards] would result in

widespread economic and social impact.

40 C.F.R. 13 1.1 O(g). When states rely on the

UAA

factor number six (widespread socio-

economic impact), U.S. EPA has developed guidance for the appropriate analysis for the State to

undertake. Interim Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards, Workbook, Appendix

M to

the Water Quality Standards Handbook

-

Second Edition

(EPA-823-B-94-005a),

EPA-823-B-

95-002 (March 1995). (See Attachment C). In addition to the six

UAA

factors, 40 C.F.R.

$

$13 1.100 and (i) prohibit States from removing or downgrading uses that are existing uses (as

of November 28,1975), that are currently being attained or that could be attained by

implementing the CWA effluent limits. 40 C.F.R.

9

13 1.10.

After designating uses, States are obligated to look to the requirements of 40 C.F.R.

$13 1.1 1 to establish criteria sufficient to protect these uses. States must establish criteria, for the

relevant parameter, that protect the most sensitive use 'and must address all parameters necessary

to protect the use. 40 C.F.R.

$

13 1.1 l(a). In addition, States must specifically address toxic

pollutants through numeric or narrative criteria. 40 C.F.R.

$

13 1.1 1 (b). U.S. EPA also requires

adoption of a statewide antidegradation policy and methods for implementing the policy. 40

C.F.R. $13 1.12. Illinois has a statewide antidegradation policy that can be found

in the Board's

---

regulations at 35 Ill. Adrn. Code 302.105. States may submit policies for mixing, low flows and

variances to U.S. EPA for approval as part of their standards as well. 40 C.F.R.

$

13 1.13.

As with the numeric criteria or standards for particular pollutants, there is also an

obligation to review the designated uses portion of State water quality standards every three

years where a use has been established that does not meet the Clean Water Act aquatic life goal

or recreational goal of Section 101(a)(2). 33 U.S.C.

$

125 1(a)(2). (See 40 C.F.R. $13 1.20). In

Illinois, the Clean Water Act goals are considered attainable in General Use Waters. The waters

that were designated for Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Uses are considered

incapable of attaining these Clean Water Act aquatic life ahd recreational goals. This petition

proposes rulemaking changes to the Board necessary to update the designated uses and criteria

necessary to protect such uses for the waters currently designated for Secondary Contact and

Indigenous Aquatic Life Uses in 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 303.' The standards adopted by the

Board to protect this use are currently found in 35 Ill. Adrn. Code 302, Subpart D.

D.

Applicable Board Regulations and Re~ulatorv Historv

Prior to adoption of the Act in 1970, water quality management activities, including

establishment of water quality standards, were under the jurisdiction of the Illinois Sanitary

Water Board. Pursuant to the federal Water Quality Act. of 1965 (PL89-235), the Sanitary Water

Board initially designated the Lower Des Plaines River as an "Industrial Water Supply Sector"

with numeric and narrative criteria appropriate to such use category. SWB-8 (Adopted

December 1

,-

1966, Approved by U.S. Department of Interior January 27,1968, ~eai~roved

by

Sanitary Water Board March 5, 1968). (See Attachment D). Sanitary Water Board Regulation

SWB-15 established the uses and numeric and narrative water quality standards applicable to the

'

This comprehensive proposal also addresses the small portion of the Chicago Area Waterway System currently

designated as General Use. These segments, which are explained

in detail below, include portions of North Shore

Channel, Calumet River and Chicago River.

---

Chicago Area Waterway System ("CAWS"). SWB-15 (Adopted June 28, 1967, Approved by

U.S. Department of Interior January 27,1968 and reapproved by Sanitary Water Board on March

5, 1968). (See Attachment D). Uses specified within these classifications included "commercial

vessel and barge shipping, recreational boating transit, withdrawal and return of industrial

cooling and process water, and to receive effluents fiom industrial and domestic waste treatment

facilities." (See Attachment D). Narrative standards established minimum conditions such as

fieedom fiom unnatural bottom deposits, floating debris and nuisance or toxic conditions. Water

quality standards for dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, dissolved solids, and bacteria were also

included in Rule 1.07 of SWB-8 and Rule 1.03 of SWB-15.

In addition, North Shore Channel

and Chicago River were also found to be used for recreational activities and Calumet Harbor was

found to be used

as

a public water supply and for fish and aquatic life. SWB-15, Rule 1.02.

Following adoption of the initial water quality criteria, the Sanitary Water Board submitted a

plan for implementation of the standards applicable to the Lower Des Plaines River and the

CAWS to the federal government on August 10,1967. The U.S. Department of Interior

approved these plans on January 27,1968.

Upon enactment of the Act in 1970, the Sanitary Water Board was superseded by

creation of the Board and the Illinois EPA. While Sanitary Water Board regulations remained in

place on an interim basis under the new state statute; the Board and Agency focused attention

almost immediately on development of new water quality stkdards. Draft proposed rules were

published for public comment on May 12,197 1 (docketed as R7 1

-

14) and public hearings were

conducted shortly thereafter.

During the R71-14 proceedings, the Board considered classifying Chicago Sanitary and

Ship Canal ("CSSC")

as

Restricted Use upstream of its confluence with Des Plaines River,

---

generally recognized as being located at Lockport, and considered placing the Lower Des Plaines

River downstream from Lockport within the higher General Use designation. Restricted Use

standards were provided for waters. that were not protected for aquatic life and in which aquatic

life standards for various toxic materials need not be met (similar to the Industrial Water Supply

Sector designation under the SWB regulations). Restricted Use was later changed to the

-

Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Uses ,contained in the current Board regulations.

During these early Board proceedings, a great deal of time was spent debating where the

Restricted or Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Use designations should end and

where the General Use classification should begin.

The Commonwealth Edison power company immediately suggested that the Restricted

Use designation be extended to include Des Plaines River downstream to the Interstate-55

bridge. The City of Joliet also expressed concerns that being directly downstream of the

.

proposed use change at Lockport would force the City to comply with the more stringent General

Use standards even though the waters had not come to a point of dilution. Joliet suggested the

point of changeover be made at the confluence of the Des Plaines and Kankakee rivers. The

United States Steel Corporation of Joliet was also concerned that the Board had overlooked that

the area south of the proposed change was industrial and suggested that the Restricted Use be

extended a short distance to the area near Brandon Locks. While the Will-Grundy

Manufacturers' Association commented that the Restricted Use designation be "extended south

at least to a point where industrial land is not a consideration."

Commonwealth Edison witnesses testified that the costs of imposing the General Use

water quality standard on the Lower Des Plaines River would outweigh any benefits and that

even if water quality standards could be met, the river would not be suitable for aquatic life (at

---

least, downstream to the Interstate-55 bridge) due to heavy industrialization, barge traffic, diking

of the shoreline and dredging. (Transcript, February 10,1972 Board Hearing). Commonwealth

Edison did not believe the General Use water quality standard for temperature could be met in

Lower Des Plaines River upstream of its confluence with Kankakee River (five miles

downstream of the Interstate-55 bridge). Arguments were also made suggesting that meeting the

temperature standard was not important due to the small possibility that General Use water

quality standards would be met in other aspects. Therefore, while an increased temperature

standard had perceived benefits such as maintaining the river for year-round navigation and

speeding up the degradation of ammonia, there would be no advantage 'in adopting a General Use

designation because the waterway would be incapable of supporting aquatic life anyway and use

of the river for recreation up to the Interstate-55 bridge was nonexistent due to industrialization.

In the non-industrialized five-mile stretch, however, support for aquatic life would need to be

addressed. The fish biologist called

as

a witness for Commonwealth Edison testified that fish

would rarely be disturbed by

an increased temperature standard, and on the occasions when the

temperature did raise above tolerance levels, the fish would sense the rise and simply move out

to other waterways until the temperature was once again suitable.

As a result of the testimony presented, the Board ultimately decided to classify the

CAWS and the Lower Des Plaines River fiom Lockport to the Interstate-55 bridge as Restricted

Use waters.

(See

R71-14 (March 7,1972)). The Board again considered proposed amendments

filed by Commonwealth Edison on March 30,1972 to move the General Use boundary to the

confluence with Kankakee River in rulemaking docket R72-4.

In its Opinion, the Board stated

that "The basis for the Board's decision to use the 1-55 bridge as a boundary for the division of

the Des Plaines River into restrictive and General Use is that the location of the bridge

---

corresponds to changes in the physical environment characteristics of the area." R72-4, Slip

Op.

at 5 (November 8, 1973). The industrial characteristics described by Commonwealth Edison's

witnesses in referring to Lower Des Plaines River could not be applied to the area below the

bridge. The Board also found that the five-mile stretch downstream of the Interstate-55 bridge

"is capable of providing a source of recreation badly needed in the area

(R. 107,9/14/72), and is

supporting a limited desirable aquatic biota." R72-4 at 8.

Very few regulatory changes have been made to the use designations or water quality

standards applicable to the CAWS and Lower Des Plaines River since 1972. One exception was

.

when North Shore Channel fiom the North Side Sewage Treatment Works to Lake Michigan and

Calumet River fiom ,the O'Brien Locks and Dam to Lake Michigan were upgraded fiom the

Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Uses to ~eneral Use

in R87-27 (May 19,1988).

While the North and South Branches of the Chicago River have consistently been designated for

Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Uses, the main branch of the Chicago River was

-7

-

not included in this designation in R71-14, but was instead included in a list of waters

specifically exempted fiom the Public and Food Processing Water Supply Use designation in

Rule 303.

E.

Historv of Thermal Demonstrations and Thermal Adiusted Standards in the

Chicapo Area Waterway System and Lower Des Plaines River

To explain the background regarding the alternative thermal standards applicable to the

affected waters and the area immediately downstream of them, it is helpful to first summarize the

temperature water quality standards for Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Uses

and General Use. For Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Uses, temperature shall

not exceed 34 degrees Celsius (93 degrees Fahrenheit) more than 5% of the time, or 37.8 degrees

---

Celsius (100 degrees Fahrenheit) at any time. The 5

%

allowable excursion time limit represents

approximately 438 hours. (See Attachment A at 2-83; 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.21 1).

The General Use numeric standards require that the water temperature be no higher than

32 degrees Celsius (90 degrees Fahrenheit) during April through November and no higher than

16 degrees Celsius (60 degrees Fahrenheit) for the remaining months of the year. These limits

cannot be exceeded for more than 1% of the hours in any 12-month period ending with any

month, which is equal to approximately 88 hours. The maximum deviation from these

limitations during any excursion hours is 1.7 degrees Celsius (3 degrees Fahrenheit), meaning

that the maximum temperature that cannot be exceeded at any time is 93 degrees Fahrenheit

(33.7 degrees Celsius) for the summer months and 63 degrees Fahrenheit (17.7 degrees Celsius)

for the winter months. (See Attachment A at 2-82).

As explained above, the General Use standards apply in Des Plaines River downstream

from the Interstate-55 bridge to its confluence with Kankakee River and downstream. Since the

initial Board proceedings to establish temperature water quality standards, Commonwealth

Edison (the predecessor of Midwest Generation) has come before the Board to request changes

to these standards and regulatory relief from them.

In R72-4, Commonwealth Edison proposed various amendments to the temperature

standards adopted in R71-14. In R72-4, the Board agreed to give some relief to Commonwealth

Edison for the "five mile stretch" of Des Plaines River below the Interstate-55 bridge to its

confluence with Kankakee River, but sunset this relief on July 1,1978 "as middle ground

between Edison's proposal and the need to protect aquatic life." R72-4 at p. 8 (November 8,

1973). In PCB 78-79, Commonwealth Edison requested a variance from the General Use

temperature water quality standard, claiming that while its discharge was able to comply with the

---

Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Uses standard, it did not cool sufficiently to

comply with the General Use standard at the Interstate-55 bridge.

Commonwealth Edison

v.

Illinois EPA,

PCB 78-79 (May 25,1978). The Board granted Commonwealth Edison a variance

until April 2, 1981 from Rule 203(i)(5) that required it to make

a thermal demonstration that its

discharges were not causing ecological damage and until July 1,198 1 from Rule 203(i)(4) which

allowed deviation from the General Use temperature standards for the "five mile stretch." The

Board gave Commonwealth Edison additional variances from the requirement to submit a

thermal demonstration in PCB 8 1-34 (June 10,198 1) which expired on July 1,1984 and PCB

84-33 (December 20, 1984) which expired on July 1, 1987. Another variarice petition was filed

but later dismissed in PCB 87-40, and Commonwealth Edison's thermal demonstration finally

submitted to the Board on August 1,1988

as part of the Record of PCB 87-93 and approved by

the Board on November 15,1989. After its thermal demonstration was approved by the Board,

Commonwealth Edison was granted another thermal variance fkom the General Use water

quality standard in PCB 9 1-29 (November 2 1, 199 1) for its two Joliet facilities as well as its

three facilities on the CAWS (Will County, Fisk and Crawford) from the General Use

temperature water quality standards applicable at the Interstate-55 bridge. The Board also

required Commonwealth Edison to conduct a study pursuant to

3 16(a) of the Clean Water Act to

establish the appropriate thermal standards for these waters. This relief expired on November

21, 1996.

On October 3, 1996, the Board ultimately granted Commonwealth Edison an Adjusted

Standard that is applicable to all five of its facilities on the CAWS and Lower Des Plaines River

at the location of the Interstate-55 bridge..

(See

AS96-10 and Attachment A at 2-84). This

Adjusted Standard sets monthly temperature limits ranging fkom 60 degrees Fahrenheit in

---

January and February to 9 1 degrees Fahrenheit from June 16 through August 3 1. These

standards may be exceeded by no more than 3 degrees Fahrenheit (1.7 degrees Celsius) during

2% of the hours (about 175 hours)

in the 12-month period ending December 3 1, except that at no

time shall Midwest Generation's plants cause the water temperature at the Interstate35 bridge to

exceed 93 degrees Fahrenheit (33.9 degrees Celsius). (See Attachment A at 2-83). This relief

was updated in the same docket on March 16,2000 in which the Board granted a name change

from Commonwealth Edison to Midwest Generation as the holder of the Adjusted Standard

relief.

11.

REGULATORY PROPOSAL: PURPOSE AND EFFECT

A.

Introduction

-

Svstem and Lower Des Plaines River

The CAWS and Lower Des Plaines River consist of portions of the Chicago, Calumet

and Lower Des Plaines River drainages which were altered, in various stages during the mid

1800s on into the mid 1900s, to promote commercial navigation and to eliminate untreated

sewage fiom flowing into Lake Michigan. Artificial waterways and controlling structures were

added to CAWS to redirect its flow to Des Plaines River. Four artificial channels were dug

where no major waterways existed before and five controlling structures were installed.

Additionally, watercraft passage was enhanced and stream flow was altered

in the redirected

system by deepening, widening and channelizing various reaches, and by augmenting existing

flow with navigational makeup and "discretionary diversion" from Lake Michigan. Upon

completion of the alterations, flows in several of the major reaches were

in a reverse direction of

their original paths. With the urban development of the Chicago metropolitan area, CAWS and

Lower Des Plaines River grew in importance as a storm water management system. Detail of the

---

waterways' bank, bed and riparian features are contained in the Lower Des Plaines River and

CAWS

UAA

reports. (See Attachments A and B).

Because the names of the original waterways are retained to this day, it is useful to

describe their pre-altered configuration and flow directions.

During early settlement of the Chicago area, Chicago River flow originated from its north

and south branches. North Branch Chicago River flowed south and converged with north-

flowing South Branch Chicago River to form Chicago River. Chicago River then meandered

.

east and emptied into Lake Michigan. North Branch Chicago River received most of its flow

from two forks (east and middle), and fiom a wetland system known as the Skokie Marsh. South

Branch Chicago River headwaters included the southern and western forks. The entire drainage

consisted of relatively small, sluggishly flowing prairie streams.

The Calumet River System consisted of Little Calumet River, Grand Calumet River and,a

vast network of wetlands. Little Calumet River began in La Porte County, Indiana, flowed west

into Illinois, made a hairpin curve north and then back east, and then joined numerous wetland

flows to form Grand Calumet River. Grand Calumet River flowed east and emptied into Lake

Michigan in Miller, Indiana. At the same time, Lake Calumet and Calumet River

had fairly

undefined boundaries. Rather, there existed a complex system of marshes, dunes and swales

surrounding an area of open water that sometimes flowed into Grand Calumet River and its

tributary, Little Calumet River; whereas, at other times it flowed into Lake Michigan or remained

stagnant and isolated. Rain events and Lake Michigan levels dictated the direction of the Lake

Calumet wetland complex flow.

Lower Des Plaines River had a much smaller amount of water flowing through the

system before urbanization occurred and the flow fkom the CAWS was redirected from Lake

---

Michigan to Des Plaines River. Lower Des Plaines River was modified from its original

configuration to accommodate shipping traffic and the increased flow fkom the CAWS; it was

deepened and channelized and the Lockport Lock and Power House and the Brandon Road Lock

and Dam were added.

B.

Descri~tion of the Lower Des Plaines River and Chicago Area Waterway

System

-

1.

Development of Lower Des Plaines River

Des Plaines River originates just south of Union Grove, Wisconsin, and enters Illinois

near Russell, Illinois. From Russell, Des ~laiies River flows south through Lake and Cook

counties. Near Lyons, Des Plaines River turns to the southwest, paralleling CSSC in DuPage

and Will counties until it joins CSSC near Lockport. The drainage area of Des Plaines River

excluding CSSC is 13,371 square miles; the CSSC drainage is 740 square miles. The total

+

mainstem length of Des Plaines River in Illinois from the state border to the confluence with

Kankakee River is

1 10.7 miles.

(See

Attachment

A

at 1-5).

For purposes of this rulemaking proposal, the portion of Des.Plaines River currently

designated for Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Uses is called "Lower Des

Plaines River," which extends from the confluence with CSSC (at the

E.J.& E railroad bridge at

River Mile 290.1 just downstream of Lockport) downstream to the Interstate-55 bridge at River

Mile 277.9. Almost the entire reach is impounded and

has two morphologically different

segments, the Brandon Pool above the Brandon Road Lock and Dam Nver Mile

286) and the

.

portion of the Dresden Island Pool upstream of the Interstate-55 bridge, which will be referred to

in this proposal as the "Upper Dresden Island Pool."

(See

Attachment A at 1-7).

As identified in the UAA study and this rulemaking proposal, the Brandon Pool is four

miles in length, approximately 300 feet wide and with depths of 12 to 15 feet. It is a highly

---

modified stream channel. CSSC contributes approximately 80 percent of the flow to the

Brandon Pool downstream of the confluence of CSSC with Des Plaines River.

Id.

The entire Dresden Island Pool is 14 miles long and approximately 800 feet wide, with

depths of 2 to 15 feet. Upper Dresden Island Pool is defined

as the 8.1 mile reach of the

impoundment that is upstream of the Interstate-55 -bridge and part of this UAA. Upper Dresden

Island Pool is more natural than the Brandon Pool and has a fair amount of natural shoreline and

side channels.

a.

.,

Lower Des Plaines River is a part of the Upper Illinois Waterway. The Illinois Waterway

is one of the busiest inland commercial navigation systems in the nation, providing a link

between the Great LakesISt. Lawrence Seaway navigation system and the Mississippi River

navigation system that connects to the Gulf Intercoastal Waterway. The entire Illinois Waterway

is channelized to maintain a minimum depth of

9 feet for commercial waterway transportation of

bulk commodities.

Id.

Historically, Lower Des Plaines River has received flows from the human-made CSSC,

whose flow was determined by the treated and partially treated effluents from several

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago ("MWRDGC") wastewater

reclamation plants and by Combined Sewer Overflows ("CSOs"). Consequently, the

environmental potential for the river was historically deemed to be limited to the point of

hopelessness. The population equivalent (or P.E.) of effluent discharge carried by the canal to

Des Plaines River is about

9.5 million. The now completed tunnel portion of the Tunnel and

Reservoir Project (or TARP) today has significantly reduced the number of CSO discharges per

year. With full implementation of the reservoir portion of the Tunnel and Reservoir Project, the

frequency of overflows will be further reduced. (See Attachment

A at 1-8).

---

2.

Development of the Chicago Area Waterway System

The Chicago area is drained by a series of waterways, many of which were human-made

in order to facilitate water flow away from Lake Michigan to protect the Lake's drinking water

and recreational uses.

(See

Attachment B at 1-1). CAWS consists of 78 miles of human-made

channels that provide an outlet for drainage of urban stormwater runoff and treated municipal

wastewater effluent while supporting commercial navigation. The waterways also support

recreational boating, fishing, streamside recreation and aquatic life and wildlife. Approximately

75 percent of the waterway-length consists of human-made canals where no defined stream

channel existed previously. The remainder is formerly natural stream channels that have been

deepened, straightened or widened. The flow is artificially controlled by four hydraulic

structures managed by MWRDGC. The level of water in the waterways can be lowered in the

anticipation, of a storm event to provide additional storage for flood control. .Wastewater

treatment plant effluent makes up approximately 70 percent of the annual flow going through the

Lockport Powerhouse and Lock and Powerhouse facility.

(See

Attachment B at 1-6).

The CAWS drainage area is approximately 740 square miles and comprises the Chicago

River and the Calumet River drainages. The Chicago River System, which consists of 55 miles

of waterways, includes Chicago River, CSSC, North Branch Chicago River (including the North

Branch Canal), North Shore Channel, South Branch Chicago River, and South Fork of South

Branch Chicago River. The Calumet River System, which is

23

miles in length, includes

Calumet-Sag Channel, portions of Little Calumet River, portions Grand Calumet River, Calumet

River, Lake Calumet Connecting Channel and Lake Calumet.

(See

Attachment B at

3-2).

---

C.

Description of the Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Use

Desipnations

Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Uses were described as being intended

for those waters not suited for General Use activities, but which are appropriate for all secondary

contact uses and are capable of supporting indigenous aquatic life limited only by the physical

configuration of the body of water, characteristics and origin of the water and the presence of

contaminants in amounts that do not exceed the water quality standards in

35 Ill. Adm. Code

Subpart

D. Secondary contact means any recreational or other water use in which contact with

the water is incidental or accidental and in which the probability of ingesting appreciable

quantities of water is minimal, such as fishing, commercial and recreational boating and any

limited contact incident to shoreline activity. (See Attachment

B at 1-2).

There is one basic underlying common characteristic of the water bodies that have been

designated for Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Uses in northeastern Illinois:

these water bodies were part of a massive engineering effort

that reversed the flow of the

Chicago River System and the Upper Illinois Waterway to allow the City of Chicago to divert its

wastewater fiom Lake Michigan and to create a navigational connection between Illinois River

and Lake Michigan. (See Attachment A at 1-20).

At the time (early 1970s) Secondary Contact ~se'and'hdi~enous

Aquatic Life Use was

formulated; the waters designated for these uses had the following characteristics:

1.

Routinely dredged and maintained channels, including steep-sided cross-sections

designed to accommodate barge traffic and optimize flow.

2.

Significant sludge deposition, as a result of CSOs, industrial waste discharges

and urban runoff. Sludge depth in the channel system can reach five feet or more

despite dredging.

3.

Flow reversal projects, such as this one, place a premium on head differential.

The entire system has minimum slope and, consequently, low velocity, stagnant

---

flow conditions. Because of international agreements on the use of Lake

Michigan water, diversion to maintain flow in the system is kept as low

as

possible.

4.

Urban stress is significant within the entire drainage area. There was essentially

no recreation potential with most adjacent property commercially owned and

access limited.

5.

Good physical habitat for aquatic communities in the main channel was

nonexistent due to the impact of commercial and recreational watercraft use of the

system as well as sludge deposition. Watercraft lockage through the Chicago

River Control Works averages 25,000 vessels annually; most activity occurs

during the summer months.

6.

In addition to the above human-made and irretrievable modifications, the CAWS

also carries a massive wastewater load including CSOs during wet weather.

During the summer periods, a small "discretionary diversion" of Lake Michigan

'

water is permitted to minimize the combined effects of waste load fiom the

municipal and industrial discharges to the system and poor assimilative capacity.

(See Attachment

A at 1-20 through 1-2 1).

In 1972, Congress passed the Clean Water Act Amendments to the Water Pollution

Control Act.

In the same year, the Board was formulating the uses of the Illinois water bodies

and the appropriate standards to protect these uses. R70-8, R71-14, and R71-20 (consolidated)

(March 7,1972).

In this rule, the Board defined the General Use and Restricted Uses categories

of designated uses. The Board held "that all waters should be protected against nuisance and

against health hazard to those near them; that all waters naturally capable of supporting aquatic

life, with the exception of a few highly industrialized streams consisting primarily of effluents in

the Chicago area, should be protected to support such life

. .

.Consequently general standards for

water quality are set that will protect most uses except public water supply;.

.

.and more lenient

standards are set for those streams classified for restricted use." R71-14 at 3-178 (March

7,

---

Establishment of the Restricted Use, later named Secondary Contact and Indigenous

Aquatic Life Uses was limited to "those waters in the Chicago industrial area for which it was

established that even with the most advanced treatment and

with stormwater overflow control,

aquatic life standards (for dissolved oxygen and perhaps ammonia) cannot be met..

.

and that

meeting the aquatic life temperature in the same areas, as well as in adjacent section of the Des

Plaines River, would require cooling towers costing tens of millions of dollars and produce

doubtful benefits in teks of stream improvements." (See Attachment A at 1-22).

In the 1980s U.S. EPA re-evaluated the appropriateness of the Secondary Contact and

Indigenous Aquatic Life designations for the CAWs and Lower Des Plaines River. U.S.

EPA

concluded in the mid 1980s that waterways designation for secondary contact use in Illinois was

appropriate, in spite of the fact that no Use Attainability Analysis was submitted. U.S.

EPA

agreed with the Board that primary contact activities were also inappropriate for these waters due

..

to limited access and danger associated with heavy navigation as well as general aesthetic

-

,

constraints. Also in the 1980s, the Board and U.S. EPA approved elimination of the bacterial

water quality standard for fecal coliform applicable to the Secondary Contact Use waters. (See

35 Ill. Adrn. Code 302.406 (Repealed at 6 Ill. Reg. 13750, efective October

26, 1982) and

Attachment A at 1-22).

D.

Pilot Use Attainabilitv Analysis for the Lower Des Plaines River

The pilot UAA for Lower Des Plaines River began in March 2000 by the convening of a

stakeholder's advisory group. This group comprised a cross-section of the community likely to

be impacted by potential rule changes, including environmental groups, local governments,

specific industries, industry trade associations and regulatory agencies. The stakeholder model

developed in the Lower Des Plaines UAA was expanded for the CAWS UAA was one of the

---

most extensive stakeholder involvement efforts undertaken by the Agency. ,Planning meetings

with interested stakeholders were held first on March 8,2000. A meeting in Joliet which

included a boat tour of Lower Des Plaines River, was held on May 17,2000. The first formal

UAA stakeholder group meeting with the UAA contractors took place on December 15,2000.

See Attachment

E for a detailed timeline of meetings of the UAA stakeholder's advisory groups

and Attachment

F for a list of stakeholder's advisory group members.

The UAA for Lower Des Plaines River identified the water quality problems of

Lower Des Plaines Riyer and suggested remedies particular to each problem. It is clear fiom the-

UAA that Lower Des Plaines River continues to be a highly modified water body that does not

resemble its pre-urbanized state. The main goal of the UAA was to find an ecologically and

recreationally attainable state that would

as closely as possible approach the aquatic life and

recreational goals of the Clean Water Act without causing an adverse widespread socio-

economic impact.

(See

Attachment

A

at 9-1). The UAA found that the water quality of the river

has significantly improved since the 1970s when the Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic

Life Uses were designated by the Board for this waterbody. While there has been improvement

and potential exists for additional improvement; the UAA did not find the Lower Des Plaines

River to be capable of full attainment of the aquatic life and recreational goals of the Clean

Water Act for un-impacted waters

in the foreseeable future.

Id.

E.

Use Attainabilitv Analvsis for the Chicago Area Waterwav Svstem

The UAA for the CAWS began in September 2002 by the convening of a Stakeholders

Advisory Committee. This group comprised a cross-section of the community likely to be

impacted by any proposed rule changes including environmental groups, local governments,

specific industries, industry trade associations and regulatory agencies. See Attachment

E for a

---

detailed timeline of meetings of the CAWS UAA Stakeholder Advisory Committee and

Attachment G for a list of Stakeholder Advisory Committee Members. The first formal

stakeholder group meeting with the UAA contractors was held in April of 2003.

The UAA for the CAWS was undertaken to determine the existing and potential uses of

the waterway. The project was to asses the factors limiting the potential uses and evaluate

whether or not those factors can be controlled through appropriate technology and regulations.

The focus of the UAA was on the Calumet and Chicago River drainage reaches that aie for the

most part currently designated by the Board for Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life

Uses. Three CAWS reaches are currently designated for General Use and two of the three were

upgraded fiom their original "Restricted Use" designations in the late 1980's without a rigorous

technical assessment. R87-27 (May 19,1988). The CAWS UAA excluded Lower ~es

Plaines

.

River because it was being evaluated by a separate UAA.

(See

Attachment B at 2-1). The

CAWS UAA contractors focused on existing and potential uses occurring in

thk

waterway now

and that are expected to occur in the foreseeable future (ten to twenty years) to reach

recommendations for proposed designated recreational and aquatic life uses for the entire CAWS

study area.

Id.

at 2-1.

F.

Combined Use Desi~nation and Water Qualitv Standards Proposal

Rather than presenting the Board with separate regulatory proposals, Illinois EPA

decided to combine the results of the Lower Des Plaines River Pilot UAA and the CAWS UAA

into a single regulatory proposal. This proposal is intended to incorporate the policy conclusions

the Agency made

as a result of these years of study and the regulatory language changes that are

.

recommended to enact these policy changes. The result is a fairly exhaustive and' detailed

rulemaking proposal.

In order to communicate all the changes being proposed for the Board's

---

regulations, the Agency has structured the succeeding sections of this Statement of Reasons

around the line-by-line regulatory changes being proposed. The justification will begin with

Parts 301 and 303, which include the Definitions and Use Designations and the subdivision of

the segments of the UAA waters into the new Use Designation Categories. Then, the summary

will address the proposed changes to Part 302, Subparts A and D which replace the existing

narrative and numerical water quality standards necessary to the protect the Secondary Contact

and Indigenous Aquatic Life Uses with new standards designed to protect newly defined uses.

Finally, the justification will address proposed changes to Part 304 that address effluent

limitations for bacteria discharges.

The Agency believes that this regulatory proposal establishes comprehensive stand-alone

use designations and water quality standards necessary to protect those uses. The only exception

would be the absence of a numeric bacteria standard to protect recreational activity, which is also

explained in more 'detail below. These uses and standards are intended to reflect the best and

most up-to-date information available and are intended to outlast the existing General Use

designation and standards currently applicable in the rest of the State.

When the Board is faced

with a proposal to update the one-size-fits-all aquatic life use designations for the rest of the

State, the Illinois EPA expects there to be no need to reopen these uses and standards designed to

apply specifically to these waters.

III.

REGULATORY PROPOSAL: REGULATORY'LANGUAGE

The Agency is proposing additions and changes to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 301,302,303

and 304 that have resulted fiom the conclusions and policy judgments made by the Agency as a

result of the UAA contractor reports and stakeholder process. The conclusions and proposed

regulatory changes are discussed in detail in the following sections. First, the Agency will

---

summarize the three distinct aquatic life uses and three distinct recreational uses that are

proposed for definition and designation in Parts 301 and Part 303 and the specific reaches to

which each use will be applicable. Then, in subsection C below, the Agency will describe the

numeric and narrative criteria being proposed to protect these uses.

A.

Part 301 Definitions

Proposed changes to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 301, Definitions, are presented and explained

below.

1.

'

Section 301.247 Chicago Area Waterway System

"chicago Area Waterway System" means Calumet River, Grand Calumet River, Little Calumet

River downstream fi-om the confluence of Calumet River and Grand Calumet River, Calurnet-

Sag Channel, Lake Calumet, Chicago River and its branches downstream from their confluence

with North Shore Channel, North Shore Channel and Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal."

This new definition is needed to describe the specific waterway segments included within

the "Chicago Area Waterway System."

The chosen segments are based on the work conducted

during the UAA process and define the scope of waters to be designated for the various

recreational and aquatic life uses being proposed.

(See

Attachment B at 1-4 through 1-6).

2.

Section 301.282 Incidental Contact Recreation

"Incidental Contact Recreation" means any recreational activity in which human contact with the

water is incidental and in which the probability of ingesting appreciable quantities of water is

minimal, such as fishing; commercial -boating; small craft recreational boating; and any limited

contact associated with shoreline activity such

as wading.

This definition is needed to describe certain recreational activities where there is a

minimal probability of ingesting an appreciable amount water when an individual engages in the

above listed non-primary contact activities. Recreational use surveys and other forms of research

were conducted during the UAA process to determine which specific activities were taking place

on the waterways and needed to be protected.

(See

Attachment B at 1-1 1).

---

3.

Section 301.307 Lower Des Plaines River

"Lower Des Plaines River" means Des Plaines River from the confluence with Chicago Sanitary

and Ship Canal to the Interstate

55 bridge.

This definition is needed to define the segments of Des Plaines River that are included in

this regulatory proposal and covered by the water quality standards in Part 302, Subpart D. This

definition was chosen to describe the waters currently classified as Secondary Contact and

Indigenous

qua tic Life Use and being proposed for redesignation based on the work conducted

during the Lower Des Plaines River Pilot

UAA

process.

(See

Attachment A at 1-6 and 1-7).

4.

Section 301.323 Non-contact Recreation

'Won-contact Recreation" means any recreational or other water use in which human contact

with the water is unlikely, such as pass through commercial or recreational navigation, and

where physical conditions or hydrologic modifications make direct human contact unlikely or

dangerous.

This definition is needed to describe recreational activities where human contact with the

water is highly unlikely or would be dangerous to the individual. Observations were made

during the

UAA

process outlining areas in the waterways where it is believed that human contact

with the water is not occurring or should not be occurring due to safety reasons.

(See

Attachment B, Sections 4 and 5).

5.

Section 301.324

Non-recreational

'Won-recreational" means a water body where the physical conditions or hydrologic

modifications preclude primary contact, incidental contact and non-contact recreation.

This definition is needed to describe the water bodies where individuals should refrain

fkom any type of contact due to the conditions of the water body.

B.

Part 303

-

Use Designations

In Part 303, the Agency is proposing to establish three distinct recreational uses and three

distinct aquatic life uses applicable to the CAWS or Lower Des Plaines River. For each use

---

description, the Agency has listed the waterway segments in which the use applies.

.

The Agency

will summarize below each segment and where it begins and ends. Color-coded maps of the

affected area identifying the applicable recreational use designations and

identifying the

applicable aquatic life use designations are included as Attachment

H.

1,

Explanation of Chicago Area Waterway System and Lower Des Plaines

River Reach Segments

The CAWS and Lower Des Plaines River,

as

evaluated in the UAAs, consist of 13

waterbodies and five controlling structures stretching fkom Lake Michigan to the Interstate-55

bridge crossing Des Plaines River near Channahon.

See

Attachment I (map of CAWS and

Lower Des Plaines River segments). For use designation purposes, the waterbodies are

subdivided into 17 reaches. Starting at the far north end of CAWS, the UAA portion of the

Chicago River drahage begins at the Wilrnette Pumping Station and Controlling Works on the

artificially constructed North Shore Channel at Lake Michigan in Wilmette. The southern

portion of the Chicago River drainage in the UAA study area ends with the Elgin, Joliet and

Eastern Railroad bridge crossing over the Des Plaines River in Joliet. The terminology used in

the proposed regulatory changes to identi@ stream reaches within each designated use in Part

303 are explained and defined

as

follows:

1)

North Shore Channel

-

North Shore Channel is a human-made channel that stretches

fkom the Wilmette Pumping Station and Control Works south to its confluence with

North Branch Chicago River, just south of Foster Avenue. The pumping station is used

to divert water into North Shore Channel from Lake Michigan (navigational makeup or

"discretionary diversion") and the controlling works is used to discharge stormwater into

the Lake. Flow is generally stagnant upstream of Howard Street in Skokie and flow

moves south downstream of Howard Street.

2) North Branch Chicago River

-

The North Branch Chicago River segment begins at

North Branch Chicago River's confluence with North Shore Channel and flows south to

its confluence with both Chicago River and South Branch Chicago River in downtown

Chicago. For purposes of this proposal, North Branch Chicago River is divided into two

reaches:

---

a) the upper reach starts at the confluence with North Shore Channel and ends at the

southern end of the North Avenue Turning Basin; and

b) the lower reach starts at the southern end of the North Avenue Turning Basin,

includes the North Branch Canal (at Goose Island), and ends its confluence with

Chicago River and South Branch Chicago River.

3) Chicago River

-

Chicago River begins at the Chicago River Lock and Controlling

Works at Lake Michigan and stretches to its confluence with both the North Branch

Chicago River and South Branch Chicago River. The lock is used to transfer watercraft

between Lake Michigan and Chicago River and the controlling works is used either to

divert lake water into the river or to discharge stbrm related high stage river water into

the lake. Chicago River flow is generally stagnant but is subject to density currents

where it meets the more saline waters of North Branch Chicago River.

4) South Branch Chicago River

-

South Branch Chicago River begins at its confluence

with both Chicago River and North Branch Chicago River, and flows south and then

west. It ends at its confluence with Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal at Ashland Avenue

in Chicago. The present flow of South Branch Chicago River has been reversed relative

to its natural state.

5) South Fork tributary to South Branch Chicago River

-

South Fork begins at the

MWRDGC Racine Avenue combined sewer pump station and ends at its confluence with

South Branch Chicago River. South Fork flow is generally stagnant but has significant

flow after precipitation events.

6) Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

(CSSC)

-

CSSC is a human-made channel that

begins at its confluence with South Branch Chicago River, flows southwest and then

south and ends at its confluence with Des Plaines River. For this proposal, CSSC is

divided into two reaches:

a) the upper reach starts at the confluence with South Branch Chicago River and ends at

its confluence with Calumet-Sag Channel in Willow Springs; and

b) the lower reach starts at the'confluence with Calumet-Sag Channel and ends at the

confluence with Des Plaines River near the

E J

&

E railroad crossing.

CSSC also includes the Loclcport Control Structure, which diverts stormwater fiom

.

CSSC water into Des Plaines River to prevent upstream flooding and to protect the downstream

lock and powerhouse. It also includes the Loclcport Lock and Powerhouse which is used to

transfer watercraft upstream and downstream and to generate hydroelectric power.

---

7) Lower Des Plaines River

-

For purposes of this UAA, Lower Des Plaines River

segment begins at its confluence with CSSC, flows south, and ends at the Interstate-55

bridge crossing. Lower Des Plaines River is sub-divided in this proposal into two

reaches:

a) the Brandon Road Pool reach of the Lower Des Plaines Rive? starts at the confluence

of the Lower Des Plaines River and CSSC and ends at the Brandon Road Lock and

Dam in Rockdale; and

b) Upper Dresden Island Pool starts at the Brandon Road Lock and Dam and ends at the

Interstate-55 bridge.

The Brandon Road Lock and Dam is used to transfer watercraft upstream and

downstream and to control upstream stage height in the CSSC.

'

The following is a description of the

UAA

part of the Calumet River drainage which

begins at Lake Michigan in Chicago, where the mostly human-made Calumet River joins the

lake, and it ends where the Calumet-Sag Channel joins CSSC in Willow Springs.

8) Calumet River

-

Calumet River begins at Lake Michigan and ends at its confluence with

both Little Calumet River and Grand Calumet River. Flow in Calumet River is variable,

with periods of no flow. For this proposal, Calumet River is subdivided into two reaches:

a) the north reach begins at Lake Michigan and ends at the Torrence Avenue crossing in

Chicago; and

b) the south reach begins at the Torrence Avenue crossing and ends the confluence with

both Little Calumet River arid Grand Calumet River.

Calumet River includes the O'Brien Lock and Controlling Works. The lock is used to

transfer watercraft back and forth between the Lake Michigan side and the Little Calumet River

side of the Calumet River. The controlling works is used to divert Lake Michigan water into the

Little Calumet River or to discharge stormwater from Little Calumet River to the Lake Michigan

Approximately one mile of Brandon Pool upstream of the confluence of the Des Plaines River and

CSSC

is

considered part of

CSSC.

This one-mile stretch of

CSSC

downstream of Lockport Locks, but upstream of the

confluence of

CSSC

and Lower Des Plaines River, is being addressed as part of the

CSSC

and is not considered part

of the "Brandon Pool" of Lower Des Plaines River for purposes for this proposal.

---

side of Calumet River. The reach extending fiom Lake Calumet Connecting Channel to the

confluence with Little and Grand Calumet rivers is human-made.

9) Lake Calumet

-

Lake Calumet includes the contiguous waters west of Calumet

River and north of an imaginary extension of 126'~ Street that crosses the lake. Lake

Calumet receives flow from various storm ditches and sewers and from some

surrounding remnant wetlands, but is otherwise stagnant. At times it acts with

-

Calumet River as a surge basin for Lake Michigan during wind-driven fluctuations in

Lake Michigan levels.

10)

Lake Calumet Connecting Channel

-

The term Lake Calumet Connecting Channel

is being used to describe the waters beginning at the southern end of Lake Calumet

and ending at the confluence with Calumet River. Lake Calumet Connecting Channel

generally lacks flow.

11)

Grand Calumet River

-

The UAA Grand Calumet River segment begins at the

Illinois-Indiana state line in Burnham, flows west, and ends at its confluence with

both Calumet River and Little Calumet River. The Grand Calumet River's flow is

reverse of its pre-altered direction.

12)

Little Calumet River

-

The

UAA

part of Little Calumet River begins at its

confluence with both Calumet River and Grand Calumet River at the border of

Burnham and Chicago, flows west, and the segment ends at its confluence with

Calumet-Sag Channel. The Little Calumet River's flow is reverse of its pre-altered

direction.

13)

Calumet-Sag Channel

-

Calumet-Sag Channel is a human-made channel that begins

at its confluence

with Little Calumet River, flows west-northwest, and ends at its

confluence with CSSC.

These segments, as identified and explained above, are used in the proposed changes to

Part 303 to identify which segments are designated for which uses.

2.

Section 303.102 ~ulemaki'ng Required (Repealed)

The Illinois EPA is proposing to repeal the existing Section 303.102 which required

rulemaking pursuant to the Board's procedural rules for designation of waters to meet the

Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Uses standards. Since those use designations

are being proposed for elimination in their entirety this Section is no longer necessary.

---

3.

Subpart

B

-

CAWS and Lower Des Plaines River Use definitions

Section 303.204

Chicago Area Waterwav Svstem and Lower Des Plaines River

NWaters

The Chicano Area Waterwav Svstem and Lower Des Plaines River Waters

whkh

are designated

to protect for incidental contact or non-contact recreational uses. except where designated as

non-recreational waters; commercial activity. including navigation and industrial water supply

uses: and the highest quality aauatic life and wildlife that is attainable, limited onlv by the

phvsical condition of these waters and hydrolo&

.

modifications

.

to these waters. These waters

-

are required to meet the

. .

standards contained in

ef

Subpart

D;

ofpart 302, mare not required to meet the general use standards or the public and

food processing water supply standards of Subparts

B and C7 ofpart 302. Desimated

recreational and aquatic life uses and subcategories or seasonal uses for each segment of the

Chicago Area Waterway Svstem and Lower Des Plaines River are identified in this Subpart.

In this Section, the Agency is proposing to delete the references toethe current Secondary

Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Use designation, to describe generally the uses being

designated for the CAWS and Lower Des Plaines River

as a whole, and to cross-reference the

applicable water quality standards in Part 302 for these waters.

4.

Activities: Incidental Contact, Non-Contact and Non-Recreational

Uses

The CAWS and Lower Des Plaines River UAA reports support the conclusion that the

attainable recreational uses within the CAWS and Lower Des Plaines River are synonymous

with the uses existing fiom the time the UAAs were performed to the present. The achievable

uses for the given waterway reaches include:

1) Non-Recreation Use, which Illinois EPA proposes to define to include only commercial

boat operations and large recreational boat passage and no human contact activity.

2) Non-Contact Recreation Use, which Illinois EPA proposes to define to include these

Non-Recreation Uses as well as powerboat passage.

3) Incidental Contact Recreation Use, which Illinois EPA proposes to define to include:

Non-Recreation and

on-contact Recreation Uses as well as fishing, small craft boating

and any limited contact associated with shoreline activity such as wading uses.

---

Conditions described in UAA factors 3 and 4 preclude other recreational uses (including primary

contact recreation) fkom occurring:

Factor 3

-

Human caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent the attainment of the

use, and cannot be remedied or would cause more environmental damage to correct than

to leave

in place.

Factor 4

-

Dams, diversion or other types of hydrological modifications preclude the

attainment of the use and it is not feasible to restore the waterbody to its original

condition or to operate such modifications in such a way that would result in the

attainment of the use.

40 C.F.R. §131.10(g)(3) and (4). The factual justification for invoking these two factors is

explained in the next two sections.. Whereas UAA Factor

5 is also invoked in this UAA, that

factor applies only to aquatic life uses, not to recreational ones.

a)

UAA Factor 4: Hvdro1og;ic Modifications

The waterways currently designated for Secondary contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life

Uses have been heavily modified in order to allow for stormwater management and navigation in

the Chicago area. Due to the extensive nature of these modifications, it is impossible to reverse

them to allow attainment of primary contact recreational uses.

Flow and hydraulic behavior of the CAWS and Lower Des Plaines River is actively

managed via a system of control structures to prevent flooding within and downstream of the

basin and to maintain navigation capabilities. Flow rates and pool stages are continually

monitored and managed. In advance of a storm event, the water depth

in the Lockport basin

which comprises the CAWS waterbodies located between the Lockport, Wihette, Chicago

River and 07Brien controlling works, is lowered by as much as 3 feet to accommodate the

anticipated storm flow. This lowering is accomplished by sending CSSC flow to Des Plaines

River at the 'Lockport controlling works. Normal storm events contribute an amount of storm

water sufficient to bring the basin back up to navigational stage. Heavier storm events raise the

---

basin stage higher than normal navigational levels and when stage height threatens downstream

structures, the basin is discharged to Lake Michigan. If storm events contribute less storm water

than anticipated, navigational makeup water is discharged into the basin fiom Lake Michigan.

As a result, it is not uncommon for some portions of CAWS to experience changes in depth of

four to six feet in a

24 to 48 hour period and rapid changes in flow velocity. Such rapid

fluctuations result in sediment scouring and resuspension plus alternate drying and wetting of

shoreline habitat for aquatic life.

.

Because most of CAWS and Lower Des Plaines River is artificially channelized, it is also

routinely subject to unavoidable moderate to severe watercraft passage related disturbances such

as sediment scouring and wake formation that is dangerous to small watercraft and disrupts

shoreline habitat for aquatic life. Wakes coupled with vertical-wall construction in many of the

waterway reaches make recreational uses dangerous. Small craft can easily be capsized and

persons

in the water will have little if .any route for escape.

'

In addition to flow modifications, the most severe physical barriers to waterway

recreation exist in CSSC fiom its confluence with Calumet-Sag Channel down to its confluence

with Des Plaines River. Here the waterway consists of deep-draft, vertical-walled shipping

channels and terminals; the steep walls offer no human escape route fiom the water. Such

conditions limit waterway uses to materials loading and ofloading and passage of commercial

and large recreational watercraft. Additionally, the land along the reach is privately owned and

dominated by materials handling, chemical manufacturing, oil refining, electrical power

generating and other large industrial operations; and there are no points designated for public

access. The Lockport Lock and Powerhouse, the Lockport controlling works and the Aquatic

Invasive Species Dispersal Barrier are located within this reach of the CSSC and present

---

additional dangerous conditions. Such conditions are irreversible, and in combination with other

factors described herein, preclude any recreational activities fiom occurring. Des Plaines River

fiom its confluence with CSSC to the Brandon Road Lock and Dam has characteristics similar to

the above segment.

Many of the same deep-draft, steep-walled features described above exist in other reaches

of CAWS, including Calumet River on the Lake Michigan side (north) of Torrence Avenue.

However, due to the existence of or definitive plans for nearby public-access facilities,

these reaches can accommodate recreational motor-boat passage. Field observations. show that

such boating creates wakes dangerous to small motorized and non-motorized watercraft; in the

event of a capsize,

an individual would have few escape routes fiom the water. The

UAA

recreational survey team was unable to safely navigate the upper Calumet River in a 14-foot

motorized johnboat. Such conditions are irreversible and in combination with other factors

described, preclude any activities fiom occurring in these two reaches other than-commercial

watercraft operation and recreational powerboat passage.

The remaining reaches of CAWS and Lower Des Plaines River are more accessible to the

public and support a greater variety of recreational activities. Many of the activities are

promoted and occur fiom March through early November. They include small human-powered

watercraft boating, fishing and other shoreline uses such

as wading. Such activities represent

incidental contact with the waters, but rarely result

in intentional full body immersion. Each of

the reaches possesses some physical limitations to human-contact recreation ranging fiom: deep-

draft, steep-walled channels; to gradual sloped, manicured banks. Such limitations are

irreversible in the foreseeable future but, in combination with other factors described, preclude

any activities fiom occurring in these reaches other than those that currently exist. These

---

waterway reaches include those designated for Incidental Contact Recreational use in proposed

Section 303.230.

b)

UAA

Factor 3: Human Caused Conditions or Sources of Pollution

UAA

Factor 3 (40 CFR 13 1.10(g)(3)) allows for a lesser use than primary-contact

recreation when hurnan caused conditions or sources of pollution cannot be remedied or would

cause more environmental damage to correct than to leave in place. Some of the factors

discussed under

UAA

Factor 4 would also apply to

UAA

factor 3. Additional factors are

provided in this Section.

Physical and flow conditions and other restrictions and opportunities dictate, fiom human

safety and logistics standpoints, what recreational activities are achievable in and along CAWS

and Lower Des Plaines River. The

UAA

reports in Attachments A and B identi@ these

conditions and restrictions in greater detail. Background information gathered by the Agency

fiom various sources describing such conditions, restrictions and opportunities are included as

Attachments J,

K, L,

My

N, 0 and JJ.

It was discovered eirly in the

UAA

process that all CAWS and Lower Des Plaines River

reaches are subject to an average of about fifteen CSO events per year and that neither

MWRDGC nor the City of Joliet disinfects its wastewater treatment plant effluents. As a result,

bacteria levels in the waterways exceed draft federal water quality criteria nearly everywhere in

the waterways following CSO events. The levels also exceed draft criteria downstream of the-

treatment plant effluents most all other times. MWRDGC has implemented and the City of Joliet

is on notice to implement CSO public notification programs to advise the public on health issues

associated with CSOs; and a CAWS Health Advisory Committee designed and implemented a

health advisory program to caution the public on recreating in non-disinfected effluent-

---

dominated waters. The CSO and Health Advisory programs include waterway sign postings,

pamphlet distributions and other elements.

(See

Attachments N and P).

In April 2002 an electrical aquatic invasive species dispersal barrier was installed in the

CSSC to prevent the

of Asian carp and other invasive species fiom the Illinois River to

Lake Michigan and vice versa. The barrier involves applying an electrical charge directly to the

water and the charge is dangerous to humans.

(See

Attachment 0). Therefore the electric barrier

prevents humans from engaging in full-body immersion activities in the waters in .and around the

barrier zone.

.

Based on idformation summarized below, the Agency has concluded that primary contact

recreation is not attainable in the UM study area. Illinois EPA proposed three distinct

recreational uses of Incidental Contact, Non-Contact and Non-Recreational to address the

varying levels of attainable human contact uses in these waters.

c)

Local Recreational Prohibitions and Future Attainability of

Primarv Contact Recreational Uses

During the UAAs it was discovered that wading is prohibited by MWRDGC on all of the

human-made reaches of CAWS, including: North Shore Channel, the upper North Branch

Chicago River, CSSC, Calumet-Sag Channel and Lake Calumet. Special Homeland Security

restrictions may apply to Port District Properties. Only secondary contact recreational activities

are allowed from specific points in these reaches, id in these cases only through formal permit,

lease or security-clearance arrangements. Additionally, direct body contact with any waterways

in Forest Preserve District of Cook County properties is prohibited by ordinance. The Coast

Guard and the 'Chicago police Marine U~t

use their authorities to make case-by-case

determinations on what activities can occur in or near all of the waterways under their

---

jurisdiction. Primary contact and in some cases small-watercraft activities are not allowed in

reaches where power boating is occurring.

To determine whether any entities had plans for establishing additional recreational

facilities on, along or within the waterways over the next

10 years, Illinois EPA made phone

calls, exchanged e-mails and letters and solicited public and stakeholder input at meetings. None

of the responses included definitive plans for establishing primary contact opportunities.

,

5.

Plaines River

Primary contact recreational use is the Clean Water Act recreational goal to be adopted

for all waters of the U.S. unless it can be demonstrated

through the performance of a UAA that

one of the six UAA factors prevents full-body-contact recreation. Where one or more of the six

UAA factors applies, lesser uses may be adopted. One of the goals of the CAWS and Lower Des

Plaines River UAAs was to identify attainable recreational uses and set standards to protect such

uses in the waterways analyzed. The UAA contractors and Illinois EPA investigated existing

uses and considered attainable uses within Lower Des Plaines River and the CAWS.

(See

Attachments A and B). Attachments K and L contain additional supporting documentation

developed by Illinois EPA regarding attainable uses in these waters. Illinois EPA has condensed

the investigation findings herein to justify recreational use designation and assignment to the

waterway reaches investigated and to further explain the need for the new recreational use

designations identified above.

Existing-uses are considered attainable uses if they occurred on or after November

28,

1975. Existing recreational uses in CAWS and Lower Des Plaines River were.determined fiom:

1) Waterway surveys performed by UAA contractors and stakeholders;

2) Public input at UAA and other public meetings; and

---

3)

Input during numerous phone, letter, e-mail, UAA website

(

W

W

W

g

)

and other meeting inquiries.

To determine whether uses other than existing uses are attainable in the foreseeable hture, the

UAA contractors and Illinois EPA performed a series of additional investigations including, but

not limited to, the following:

1) Inventoried physical and flow features and conditions, and public access points along the

waterways;

2)

Sent a letter to land owners along CAWS that allow or might allow recreation to occur in,

on, or along CAWS;

3)

Reviewed local ordinances and programs pertaining to promotion or prohibition of

recreational activities; and

4) Coordinated a Health Advisory subgroup- of the

UAA

Stakeholder Advisory Committee,

and developed a health advisory program for CAWS.

After analyzing all of the information received

as

a result of these efforts, the Agency

concluded that each of the

UAA reach segments would be placed into one of the three distinct

recreational use categories explained above. The designation of CAWS and Lower Des Plaines

segments for each of these use designations is explained below.

a.

Incidental Contact Recreation Waters

303.220

Incidental Contact Recreation Waters

The following waters are designated as Incidental- Contact Recreation waters and must protect

for incidental contact recreational uses

as

defined in

35

Ill. Adm. Code

301.282.

a)

North Shore Channel;

b)

North Branch Chicago River from the confluence with North Shore

Channel to the confluence with South Branch Chicapo River and Chicago River;

c)

Chicago River;

d)

South Branch Chicapo River and its South Fork;

---

e)

Chicapo Sanitary and Ship Canal from the confluence with South Branch Chicago

River to the confluence of Calumet-Sag Channel;

f)

Calumet River. from Torrence Avenue to the confluence .with Grand

Calumet River and Little Calumet River;

k?)

Lake Calumet;

h)

Lake Calumet Connecting Channel;

1)

Grand Calumet River;

I)

Little Calumet River from the confluence with Calumet River and Grand Calumet

River to the confluence with Calumet-Sap Channel;

k)

Calumet-Sag Channel: and

1)

Lower Des Plaines River from the Brandon Road Lock and Dam to the Interstate

55 bridpe.

Incidental Contact Recreational use is any recreational activity

in which human contact

with the water is incidental and in which the probability of ingesting appreciable quantities of

water is minimal, such

as

fishing; commercial boating; small craft recreational boating; and any

limited contact associated with shoreline activity such as wading. The waters listed above are

subject to this use designation. The waters placed in this category were determined to have the

highest degree of human contact of the waters studied.

In general, primary contact recreational

activities were not found to be attainable uses

in these waters.

A small portion of the investigated reaches are currently designated

as

General Use along

with the presumption that primary contact recreation is a designated use. These reaches are:

Chicago River, North Shore Channel fkom the North Side Sewage Treatment Works to Lake

Michigan,

and Calumet River fkom the OYBrien Locks and Dam to Lake Michigan. It is the

Agency's intention with this rulemaking to remove these stream segments from the General Use

---

designation and group them with the other reaches of the CAWS and Lower Des Plaines River

based on each the appropriate attainable recreational (and aquatic life) uses for each segment.

North Shore Channel from the North Side Sewage Treatment Works to Lake Michigan

and Calumet River fi-om the OYBrien Locks and

Dam to Lake Michigan,were designated as

Secondary Contact Use waters by the Board on March 7, 1972 in combined rulemakings R70-8,

R71-14, and R71-20, which were derived from Rule 1.07 of SWB-8, adopted by the Sanitary

Water Board on December 1,1966. Among other changes, R87-27 changed the designation of

these two segments to General Use. It appears that the change in designated use was

accomplished with little or no analysis: In R71-14, the Board did hot designate Chicago River as

a Restricted Use water, but the Board did designate Chicago River as the one of only two non-

Restricted Use Waters not designated for use as a public and food processing water supply. The

other waterbody was the non-Secondary Contact portions of Little Calumet River. R72-4 at p.

15 (Rule 303).

The CAWS

UAA

demonstrates through recreational surveys that primary contact does

not occur in North Shore Channel and Chicago River.

(See

Attachment B at 4-23

&

4-24 and 4-

43

thru 46). The recreational assessment conducted for Calumet River did not include a survey

of recreational activity because of the dangers of traveling the area; kvertheless, no primary

contact recreation is believed to occur in Calumet River.

(See

Attachment B at 4-86). For the

Calumet River segment currently designated as General Use, the portion of Calumet River fiom

Torrence Avenue to the O'Brien Locks and

Dam is being proposed for designation as Incidental

Contact Recreation, because some smaller craft recreational boating is believed to occur in this

portion., The remainder (Torrence Avenue to Lake Michigan) is being designated for Non-

Contact Recreation as identified.below.

---

According to 40 CFR 13 l.lO(g), "States may remove a designated use which is not an

existing use, as defined in 40 CFR 13 1.3". According to 40 CFR. 13 1.3, existing uses are those

uses actually attained in the water body on or after November 28,1975, whether or not they are

included in the water quality standards. The Agency has concluded that primary contact

recreation has not been an existing use on any of the UAA study segments currently designated

as General Use waters.

b.

,

Non-Contact Recreation Waters

303.225

Non-Contact Recreation Waters

.

Calumet River from Lake Michigan to Torrence Avenue is designated as a Non-Contact

Recreation water and must protect for non-contact recreational uses as defined in 35 Ill. Adrn.

Code 301.323.

Non-Contact Recreational Use is

any

recreational or other water use in which human

contact with the water is unlikely, such as pass through commercial or recreational navigation,

and where physical or flow conditions make direct human contact unlikely or dangerous. The

:

- ,

Agency has designated Calumet River from Lake Michigan to Torrence Avenue for Non-Contact

Recreational use. Although this segment is currently designated as General Use, the UAA

contractors and the Agency concludes that primary contact recreation is not attainable

in this

waterbody.

In addition, the Agency hi concluded that Incidental Contact Recreation is not

attainable in this waterbody.

c.

Non-Recreational Waters

303.227

Non-Recreational Waters

The followinp waters are designated as Non-Recreational waters

as defined in 35 Ill. 'Ah. Code

301.324.

a)

Chicago Sanitary and Shiv Canal from its confluence with the Calumet-

Sag Channel to its confluence with Des Plaines River: and

---

bl

Lower Des Plaines River from its confluence with Chicano Sanitary and

Shi~

Canal to the Brandon RoadLock and

Dam.

Non-Recreational Use is any water use that precludes primary contact, incidental contact

and non-contract recreation due to physical or flow conditions or other restrictions and is

applicable to the waters listed above. The Agency has concluded that the above portions of

CSSC and the Brandon Pool cannot attain secondary contact recreational uses and need not be

protected for these uses.

6.

Criteria Necessary to protect the Designated Recreational Uses

The CAWS and ~ower

Des Plaines River support limited recreational activity. The level

of these recreational activities has increased and it is anticipated that it will continue to grow.

The current Secondary Contact classification does not include

an accompanying numerical

standard for any health related or indicator bacterial organism. The Agency declines to propose

a numeric standard at this time. Rather, the Agency recommends to defer setting numerical

standard for bacterial parameters for all three of the proposed recreational use designations

proposed pending co~~ietion

of additional scientific evaluations. The rationale for this deferral

includes several considerations and is explained below.

In 1986, U.S. EPA published Ambient Water Ouality Criteria for Bacteria-1986

(Attachment

Q). This document contains U.S. EPAYs current recommended water quality

criteria to protect individuals from gastrointestinal illness

in recreational waters. The main route

of human exposure to illness-causing organisms in recreational waters is through accidental

ingestion of water while engaging in.activities in and on the waterway. Primary contact

recreation is typically defined by States to encompass activities that could be expected to result

in the ingestion of or immersion in water, such as swimming, water skiing, surfing, or any other

---

activity where immersion in the water is likely.)

U.S.

EPA conducted epidemiological studies

and evaluated the use of several organisms as indicators, including fecal coliform, Escherichia

coli

("E.

coli") and enterococci.

U.S.

EPA recommended the use of E.coli for fiesh recreational

waters because levels of these organisms were more accurate predictors of acute gastrointestinal

illness levels than levels of fecal coliform. In

U.S.

EPA's epidemiological studies, E. coli had

exhibited the strongest correlation to swimming-associated gastroenteritis in fiesh waters.

U.S.

EPA believed' at the time that fecal coliform bacteria are sometimes detected where fecal

.

contamination is absent, possibly resulting in inaccurate assessments of recreational safety.

.

In-2004,

U.S.

EPA indicated it intended to publish new bacteria criteria in October 2005

and the indicator organism would be neither fecal coliform nor E-coli. It was also unclear at that

time if

U.S.

EPA's new bacteria criteria would only apply to Great Lake Coastal Recreation

Waters or to all surface waters. As of today,

U.S.

EPA hasnot determined what the indicator

organism should be. When

U.S.

EPA determines the indicator organism, Illinois EPA has

committed to the Board to initiate another rulemaking to address

U.S.

EPA's decision with

regard to the bacterial standard for Lake Michigan. Although

U.S.

EPA developed a draft

guidance for implementation of its 1986 national criteria document in May 2002, that document

has never been finalized by

U.S.

EPA.

There is currently no federal recommended bacterial criterion for non-primary contact

recreational activities, and the federal criteria for primary contact activities has been criticized as

an inappropriate standard to use as a basis for protection of non-immersion or secondary contact

recreational actiirities.

U.S.

EPA is also currently in litigation with environmental groups

regarding the requirements to complete studies and establish new criteria pursuant to the Beaches

Kayaking and jet skiing may be borderline recreational activities that many lump into primary contact but likely do

not involve as high a likelihood of ingestion of appreciable amounts of water as swimming, waterskiing and surfing.

43

---

Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000 (Beach Act of 2000). As a result,

U.S. EPA is embarking on a major epidemiologic study that will form the basis for new national

criteria and they estimate completion of that effort and adoption of new or revised criteria

by

2012. Unfortunately, U.S. EPA's work plan includes no provision to assess health risks and

formulate criteria associated with any secondary or lesser exposure conditions than primary

contact recreational activities.

To fill the void in scientific knowledge and lack of federal criteria recommendations for

non-primary contact recreation, MWRDGC has commissioned an epidemiologic study of health

risks and illness incidences associated with current recreational activities in the CAWS. This

study will be undertaken by the University of Illinois at Chicago, School of Public Health and

will commence this year. The study will follow peer-review standards and is being conducted in

consultation with national experts including U.S. EPA and Water Environment Research

Foundation affiliates. The study schedule is shorter than that of the U.S. EPA's primary contact

recreation effort and should be completed with results available within an approximate. 24-30

month time Me.

MWRDGC

has further undertaken a risk assessment of recreational activity. The risk

assessment has two distinct components: risk associated with @:weather recreation in the

CAWS and risks associated with wet weather recreation in the CAWS. Results of these studies

are intended to allow comparison between the risk associated with the specific types of human

contact recreation occurring in the CAWS during both

dry and wet weather and the

recommended risk levels of between

8 and 14 illnesses per thousand recreational users in U.S.

EPA's 1986 national criteria document.

---

Although risk estimates during wet weather are not available yet, it is clear that as a result

of CSOs during wet weather, any level of recreational activity in the waterway is unhealthy

during periods when raw sewage is present. Until completion and operability of the reservoir

'

phase of the Tunnel and Reservoir Project system, numerous CSO discharges will continue to

produce highly elevated bacterial levels that likely create an unacceptably high health risk for

recreational activity during and immediately following these periods. While there may be an

argument that most of the current recreational activity may be reasonably attained during dry

weather, conditions under wet weather are clearly incompatible with recreational activity and the

,

recreational use is not being attained during those conditions at any reasonably acceptable risk

level.

Therefore, in addition to lack of a sound scientific basis for a numeric recreational based

bacteria standard, recreational uses (including primary, incidental contact and non-contact

,

activities) are not attainable during wet weather. These recreational uses will not be attained for

--

-

at least several more years until the Tunnel and Reservoir Project is complete, if not longer.

Based on the consultant's data

and

recommendations, the Agency has proposed

appropriate recreational use designations for each reach.

In the future, when it is known which

indicator organism should be used and what the water quality standards should be, the numeric

standards that protect each of the recreational uses can easily be inserted by initiating another

rulemaking.

In the meantime, the Agency is proposing a technology-based effluent disinfection

requirement in

Part

304.

That proposal is discussed in detail below in the discussion of Part

304.

In summary, the recreational use components of this proposal include designation of non-

contact and incidental contact recreational activities, with technology-based disinfection

requirements for treated domestic wastewater and deferral of a numeric bacteria standard until

---

scientific studies currently underway yield a defensible and meaningful bacterial parameter ai~d

numeric value.

7.

Aquatic Life Use Designations

The Illinois EPA is proposing the following regulatory language for designation of

Aquatic Life Uses in the CAWS ,and Lower Des Plaines River:

303.230

Chicapo Area Waterway Svstem Aquatic Life Use A Waters

Waters designated as Chicavo Area Waterway System Aquatic Life Use A Waters are capable of

maintaining aquatic-life populations predominated by individuals of tolerant or intermediately

tolerant tmes that are adaptive to the unique physical conditions, flow patterns, and operational

controls necessary to maintain navigational use. flood control, and drainage functions of the

waterway system. The following waters are designated as Chicago Area Wateiwav Svstem

Aquatic Life Use A waters and must meet the water quality standards of

35 Ill. Adm. Code

302,

Subpart D:

a)

North Shore Channel;

b)

North Branch Chicago River fiom its confluence with North Shore Channel to the

south end of the North Avenue Turning Basin;

c)

Calumet River from Torrence Avenue to its confluence with Grand Calumet

River and Little Calumet River;

d)

Lake Calumet;

e)

Grand Calumet River;

fl

Little Calumet River from its confluence with Calumet River and Grand

Calumet River to its confluence with Calumet-Sag Channel; and

&!)

Calumet-Sag Channel.

303.235

Chicapo Area Waterwav Svstem and Brandon Pool Aquatic Life

Use B Waters

Waters desimated as Chicago Area Waterway Svstem and Brandon Pool Aquatic Life Use B

Waters are capable of maintaining aquatic-life ~opulations predominated b? individuals of

tolerant types that are adaptive to the unique physical conditions, flow patterns, and operational

controls designed to maintain navigational use. flood control, and drainage fbnctions

in deep-

draft. steep-walled shipping channels. The following waters are desimated as Chicago Area

---

Waterway System and Brandon Pool Asuatic Life Use B waters and must meet the water euality

standards of

35 Ill. Adm. Code 302. Subpart D:

a)

North Branch Chicago River from the south end of the North Avenue

Turninn Basin to its confluence with South Branch Chicago River and

Chicapo River;

. -

b)

Chicago River;

c)

South Branch Chicano River and its South Fork;

d)

Chicano Sanitarv and Shiu Canal;

e)

Calumet River fiom Lake Michivan to Torrence Avenue;

f)

Lake Calumet Connecting Channel: and

P)

Lower Des Plaines River fiom its confluence with Chicapo Sanitary and Ship

Canal to the Brandon Road Lock and Dam.

303.237

Upper Dresden Island Pool Aquatic Life Use Waters

Lower Des Plaines River fiom the Brandon Road Lock and Dam to the Interstate 55 bridge'shall

be designated for the Upper Dresden Island Pool Aquatic Life Use. These waters are capable

maintaining aquatic-life populations consisting of individuals of tolerant. intermediately tolerant

and intolerant types that are adaptive to the unique flow conditions necessary to maintain

navi~ational use and upstream flood control functions of the waterway system. These waters

must meet the water quality standards of

35 Ill. Adrn. Code 302, Subpart D.

Aquatic Life use attainability (i.e., biological potential) of the CAWS and Lower Des

Plaines River depends primarily on physical habitat conditions.

UAAs

performed on the CAWS

and Lower Des Plaines River show that these waterways have unique habitat conditions. Based

on the findings from the UAAs and additional data, Illinois EPA is proposing definitions and

designations for Aquatic Life Uses and standards to protect the designated uses.

From the information gathered, Illinois EPA determined that three levels of biological

potential apply in CAWS and Lower Des Plaines River; two of the three levels representing

biological conditions do not meet the Clean Water Act's aquatic life goal because of the

---

following two factors described in the UAAs: (1) Human-caused conditions or sources of

pollution prevent the attainment of the use, and cannot be remedied or would cause more

environmental damage to correct than to leave in place,

(2)

Dams, diversion or other types of

hydrological modification preclude the attainment of the use, and it is not feasible to restore the

waterbody to its original condition or to operate such modifications in such a way that would

result in the attainment of the use and

(3)

physical conditions related to the natural features of the

waterbody, such as the lack of a proper substrate, cover, flow depth, pools, riffles, and the like,

unrelated to water quality and preclude attainment of aquatic life protection uses.

(See

Attachments A,

By

R and S).

Each of the three attainable levels of biological potential applies in specific waters,

resulting in three designated uses:

(1)

the Upper Dresden Island Pool Aquatic Life Use Waters,

(2)

the Chicago Area Waterway System Aquatic Life Use A Waters and

(3)

Chicago Area

Waterway System and Brandon Pool Aquatic Life Use B Waters.

The Upper ~resden Island Pool Aquatic Life Use Waters are capable of maintaining

aquatic life populations consisting of individuals of tolerant, intermediately tolerant, and

intolerant types that are adaptive to the unique flow conditions necessary to maintain

navigational use

. ..

and, upstream flood-control functions of the waterway

..

system.

.

The Chicago Area Waterway System Aquatic Life Use A Waters are capable of

maintaining aquatic life populations predominated by individuals of tolerant or intermediately

tolerant types that are adaptive to the unique physical conditions, flow patterns, and operational

controls necessary to maintain navigational use, flood control, and drainage functions of the

waterway system.

---

The Chicago Area Waterway System and Brandon Pool Aquatic Life Use B Waters are

capable of maintaining aquatic life populations predominated by individuals of tolerant types that

are adaptive to the unique physical conditions, flow patterns, and operational controls designed

to maintain navigational use, flood control, and drainage functions in deep-draft, steep-walled

shipping channels.

CAWS and Brandon Pool Aquatic Life Use B waters are artificially constructed or

channelized, straight, deep-draft, steep-walled shipping channels with little or no fixed aquatic or

overhanging riparian vegetation or other refbgia for aquatic life from shipping traffic and

predation. They are generally

15 feet or more deep and square or rectangular in cross section.

The channel walls are kept in place by sheet piling, concrete, timbers or various combinations of

each. Use B waterways are subject to recurring, moderate to severe anthropogenic impacts such

as sediment scouring, wake disturbances of shoreline areas, and.rapid changes in water levels

and flow velocities; the impacts are attributable primarily to navigational uses and flood control

functions.

The waterway reaches in the Lockport zone (i.e., the area bound by the Lockport lock and

dam, the

0' Brien lock and dam, the Chicago River lock and controlling structure and the

Wilmette controlling structure); are especially subject to such impacts. The area described can

be found on the map included as Attachment

I. In order to ensure navigation and prevent

flooding, Lockport zone stage height is dropped by as much as

3 feet in advance of a rain event

and then allowed to regain navigation stage

by allowing storm water and, if necessary,

navigational makeup water from Lake Michigan to flow into the system. More severe storms are

followed by temporary stage heights higher than required for navigational purposes and it is not

uncommon for the system to fluctuate 4 to

6 feet in level over a 48-hour storm related period.

---

When stage height endangers waterway or other basin structures, CAWS flow direction is

reversed and discharged into Lake Michigan through the controlling structures.

Additionally, in April 2002 an aquatic invasive species dispersal barrier was installed in

the CSSC at Romeoville to prevent Asian

carp and other invasive species' passage from the

Illinois River to Lake Michigan and vice versa. The barrier involves applying an electrical

charge directly to the water at a rate intended to prevent any fish from passing alive.

Quality Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) scores in Use B waters generally are below 40,

which according to a report prepared by the Center for Applied Bioassessment and Biocriteria,

corresponds to

a:

very poor to poor biological potential. (See Attachment R). The Ohio Boatable

and Illinois EPA fish Index of Biological

integrity (IBI) scores generally are below 22, which are

to be expected in waters with very poor to poor habitat attributes. (See Attachments A, B, T and

U). Such conditions are irreversible, and in combination with other factors, prevent Use B

waters from maintaining a biological condition that meets the Clean Water Act's Aquatic Life

goal.

Use-B waterways are:

1) North Brach Chicago River from the south end of the North

Avenue Turning Basin to its confluence with Chicago River, 2) Chicago River,

3) South Branch

Chicago River,

4) South Fork of South Branch chicago River, 5) CSSC, 6) Brandon Pool-Des

Plaines River from its confluence with CSSC to Brandon ~oad

Lock and Dam,

7) Calumet River

from Lake Michigan to the Torrence Avenue bridge &d

8) Lake Calumet Connecting Channel.

Use A waters are artificially constructed or channelized, earthen bank reaches with some

fixed aquatic or overhanging riparian vegetation and other

areas

of refugia. The waterways are

generally less than

15 feet deep and a narrow, littoral zone flanks one or both sides of a steeper-

---

sloped deep midstream channel. Use A waters are also,subject to some of the same routine

moderate to severe navigation and other anthropogenic conditions found in Use B waters.

QHEI scores in Use A waters generally range fiom 40 to

55, which corresponds to a poor

to fair biological potential.

(See

Attachment R). IBI scores generally range fiom 22 to 30, which

is to be expected in waterways with poor to fair habitat attributes.

(See

Attachments A, B, T and

U). Such conditions are not reversible in the foreseeable future and in combination with other

factors, prevent Use A waters fiom maintaining a biological condition that meets the Clean

Water Act's Aquatic Life goal.

Use A waters are: 1) North Shore Channel,

2)

North Branch of Chicago Rivei fkom its

confluence with North Shore Channel to the south end of North Avenue Turning Basin,

3)

Calumet River fiom Torrence Avenue bridge to its confluence with both Little Calumet River

.and Grand Calumet River, 4)Lake Calumet, 5) Grand Calumet River,

6)

Little Calumet River

fiom its confluence with both Calumet River and Grand Calumet River to its confluence with

Calumet-Sag Channel, and

7)

Calumet-Sag Channel.

Upper Dresden Island Pool waters have more diverse habitat conditions than Use

A

or

Use B waters: Upper Dresden Island Pool is

an earthen bank reach with fixed aquatic and

overhanging riparian vegetation, and other zones of refbgia for aquatic life. The midstream

channel is generally about 15 feet deep and in most areas is flanked on one or both sides by

littoral zones with sand-gravel substrate. It also contains some islands and shallow tributary

mouths and deltas. Upper Dresden Island Pool is subject to recurring impacts fiom navigation

use and upstream flood control hctions, but to a lesser degree than found in Use A or Use B

waters.

---

QHEI scores in Upper Dresden Island Pool range from 45 to 80, which according to the

Center of Applied Bioassessment and Biocriteria, corresponds to a fair to excellent biological

potential. (See Attachment

R). Upper Dresden Island Pool is capable of maintaining a

biological condition that minimally meets the Clean Water Act's Aquatic Life goal. However,

IBI scores are generally at 20, suggesting that the existing aquatic life is not achieving the

biological potential expected in waters with fair to excellent habitat. (See Attachments A,

B, T,

U, LL and MM).

10.

Section 303.441 Secondary Contact Waters Repealed

The Illinois EPA is proposing

a repealer of Section 303.441 which provided the list of

waters subject to the Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life use designation. This list

is superseded by the lists in Sections 303.220 through 303.237 of this Part.

C.

Part 302, Subpart

A.

The Agency has proposed minor changes to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.Subpart A to make

the general requirements consistent with the proposed amendments to Part 303 and Part

302.Subpart D.

1

Applicability

Section 302.101(d) is updated to remove reference to the Secondary Contact and

Indigenous Aquatic Life standards and replace them with the CAWS and Lower Des Plaines

River water quality standards. This Section also contains updated cross-references to the

Sections in Part 303 where these waterways are delineated and defined. It also adds a cross-

reference in 302.101(f) to incorporate the applicability of the procedures in 32 Ill. Adm. Code

302.Subpart

F to apply to the waterways impacted by this rulemaking. The relevant proposed

language changes Section 302.101 are:

---

Section 302.101

Scope and Applicability

d)

Subpart D contains

. .

the Chicano Area

. .

Waterway

standards.

System

These standards

and the Lower

must

Des

be met

Plaines

only

River

by

certain waters designated

in 35 Ill. Adrn. Code

303.204,303.220,303.225,303.227,303.230,

303.235 and 303.237

?"?.

f)

Subpart F contains the procedures for determining each of the criteria designated in

Sections 302.210 and 302.410.

2.

~ixin~

Zone Cross References

, .

This proposal also contains a minor change to 35 Ill. Adm. code 302.102(c) that would

update the cross-reference

in that Section to require all acute toxicity standards to' apply within

mixing zones established for numerical standards for toxic parameters whether they were

established for a standard in Subpart

B or a standard established under Subpart D.

Section 302.102

Allowed Mixing, Mixing Zones and ZIDs

c)

All water quality standards of this Part must be met at every point outside of the

area and volume of the receiving water within which mixing is allowed. The

acute toxicity standards of this Part

P

must be met

within the area and volume within which mixing is allowed, except

as provided in

subsection (e).

D.

Part 302, Subpart D Chicago Area Watemav Svstem and Lower Des Plaines

River Standards

35 Ill. Adrn. Code 302.Subpart D formerly titled Secondary Contact and Indigenous

Aquatic Life Standards is proposed to be changed to Chicago Area Waterway System and Lower

Des Plaines River Standards to update the reference to the water quality standards contained in

this Subpart.

---

1.

Subpart D Scope and Applicability

Section 302.401 identifies the scope and applicability for Subpart D of 35 Ill. Adm. Code

Part 302. The Agency

has proposed to update this Section to eliminate the references to the

secondary contact provisions and include the references to the new Chicago Area Waterway

System and Lower Des Plaines River provisions. The changes proposed to Section 302.401 are

reprinted below for reference.

Section 302.401

Scope and Applicability

mstandards.

Subpart D contains

. .

the Chicano

. .

Area Waterway

These

Svstem

must

and

be

Lower

met only

Des

by

Plaines River

waters

sewidmy

specifically designated in Part 303. The Subpart

B general use ahd Sub~art C public water

supply standards of this Part do not apply to waters described in Section 303.204 and listed in

Lower

Sections

Des

303.220

Plaines

through

River

fi

303.237 of this Part as the Chicano Area

. .

Waterway Svstem

.

.

or the

w.

2.

Subpart

D

Purpose

Section 302.402 contains a statement of purpose of Subpart

D of Part 302. This Section

is proposed to be changed

to eliminate the secondary contact and indigenous aquatic life

statement of purpose and replace it with a new statement of general purpose for the waterways

subject to the Subpart

D water quality standards. This statement outlines generally the uses

being protected by the standards in this Subpart and indicates that the standards proposed for this

Subpart are the standards needed to protect these uses. More specific definitions of the uses and

the subcategories of uses are provided in Part 301 (Definitions) and Part 303 (Water Use

Designations). The new Purpose Section for Part 302, Subpart

D reads:

Section 302.402

Purpose

The Chicano Area Waterway Svstem and Lower Des Plaines River standards shall protect

incidental contact or non-contact recreational uses. except where designated as non-recreational

waters; commercial activity. including navigation and industrial water supply uses; and the

highest quality aquatic life and wildlife that is attainable, limited only by the physical condition

---

of these waters and hvdroloc4c modifications to these waters. The numeric and narrative

standards contained in this Part will assure the protection of the aquatic life and recreational uses

of the Chicano Area Waterway System and Lower Des Plaines River

as

those uses are defined in

35 Ill. Adm. Code Part

301 and designated in 35 Ill.

Adrn.

Code Part 303

3.

Narrative Offensive Conditions Criteria

The Agency is proposing no changes to the existing narrative standard in Subpart D.

That language is included for the Board's reference:

Section 302.403

Unnatural Sludge

Waters subject to this subpart shall be free from unnatural sludge or bottom deposits, floating

debris, visible oil, odor, unnatural plant or algal growth, or unnatural color or turbidity.

The Agency recognizes that the existing history of sediment pollution in the CAWS and

Lower Des Plaines River will make this standard nearly impossible to attain. However, the

Illinois EPA is unaware of a narrative standard that would be approvable by U.S. EPA and would

serve the necessary purpose of preventing future additional accumulations of unnatural pollutants

or creation of offensive conditions in these waters other than the existing narrative standard.

Historic sediment pollution presents an attainability concern for some types of aquatic life in

these waters, but the Agency intends to implement the existing narrative standard to prevent

additional accumulations of sediment. It is anticipated that the sediment conditions in these

waters will continue to gradually improve over time

as

will the water chemistry impacts from

these historic sediments.

4.

Section 302.404 pH

The ckent water quality standard for pH for the affected waters is 6.0 to 9.0. Illinois

EPA is proposing an update to these numbers to conform the standard to

the current General Use

---

standards of 6.5 to 9.0. The existing Secondary Contact standard may be based on the effluent

limitation in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.125 of 6.0 to 9.0. The value of 6.5 to 9.0 is consistent with

the most recent federal criteria document "Quality Criteria for Water 1986" (EPA 440/5-86-001).

(See

Attachment

V).

It is expected that this standard will be attained at most times and in most areas of the

CAWS and Lower Des Plaines River, though data from

MWRDGC indicates there may be

occasional pH violations below 6.5. The federal criterion states that a pH range of 6.0

-

6.5 will

be unlikely to be harmhl to fish unless the free carbon dioxide present is in excess of 100

part

per million. Based on the Agency's request, MWRDGC derived the free carbon dioxide

concentrations.

In cases where pH was between 6.0 and 6.5, the free carbon dioxide level was

greater than 100 ppm approximately. 64

%

of the time.

(See

Attachment W). Therefore, the

Agency concluded a pH standard below 6.5 could not be supported for these waters at this tihe.

5.

Dissolved Oxygen

The Illinois EPA is proposing the following dissolved oxygen standards to protect aquatic

life uses:

Section 302.405

Dissolved Oxygen

Dissolved oxygen

concentrations shall not be less than the a~plicable

values in subsections (a),

6)

and (c) of this Section

a)

For the Upper Dresden Island Pool Aquatic Life Use waters listed in Section

303.237,

1)

durin~ the period of March through July:

A)

6.0 mdl

as

a daily mean averaged over 7 days. and

B)

5.0 mdl at any time: and

2)

during the period of Aumst through February:

---

A)

5.5 mdl as a daily mean averaged over 30 days,

B)

4.0 mdl as a daily minimum averaged over

7 days. and

C)

3.5 mdl at

anv

time.

b)

For the Chicago Area Waterway System Aquatic Life Use

A waters listed in

Section 303.230,

1)

during the period of March throu~h July, 5.0 md at any time: and

2)

durin~ the period of Auerust through Februai-v:

A)

4.0 mdl as a daily minimum averaged over

7 days. and

B)

3.5 mdl at any time.

c)

For the Chicago Area Waterway System and Brandon Pool Aquatic Life

Use

B waters listed in Section 303.235:

1)

4.0 mdl as a daily minimum averaged over

7 days, and

2)

3.5 mg/l at

any

time.

d)

assess in^ attainment of dissolved oxygen minimum values.

1)

Daily mean is the arithmetic mean of dissolved oxygen values

measured in a single 24-hour calendar day.

2)

Daily minimum is the minimum dissolved oxygen value

measured in a single 24-hour calendar day.

3)

The measurements of dissolved oxygen used to determine

attainment or lack of attainment with

anv

of the dissolved oxygen

standards in this Section must assure dailv minima and dailv means

that represent the true daily minima and dailv means.

4)

The dissolved oxygen values used in calculating or determining

any

dailv mean or dailv minimum should not exceed the air-

eauilibrated value.

The proposed dissolved oxygen standards are based on criteria and corresponding

justification

in U.S. EPA's national-criteria document, Ambient Aquatic Life Water Quality

---

Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen

(Freshwater)(l986)(Attachment

X) and thus are consistent with

standards already recommended to the Board by Illinois EPA.

See

In the Matter of: Pro~osed

Amendments to Dissolved Oxygen Standard, R04-25, Exhibit 23. The Board issued a First

Notice Order and Opinion in R04-25 on July 12,2007.

The proposed dissolved oxygen standards represent minimum concentration thresholds

intended to protect aquatic organisms from acutely lethal effects and from chronic, sublethal

effects of low dissolved oxygen. Protection against acutely lethal effects of low dissolved

oxygen is provided by the standards that represent a daily minimum. These acute standards

apply to all life stages. Protection against chronic, sublethal effects-such

as inhibited growth-

is provided by two types of standards. One type, which applies only to life stages other than

early life stages, represents a seven-day average of daily minima. This type of chronic standard

is designed to prevent continuous or regularly recurring exposures to dissolved oxygen

concentrations at or near the acutely lethal threshold. The other type of chronic standard

represents a daily mean averaged over an extended period of either seven days (for early life

stages) or 30 days (for other life stages). This chronic standard is designed to represent the

threshold of average daily dissolved oxygen concentrations necessary to ensure the long-term

maintenance of aquatic life.

The above proposed standards represent incremental levels of protection that he

consistent with the incremental biological potential of each of the sets of waters in which the

standards apply. Table

1 (found on page 60) shows the standards in this context. The standards

for Upper Dresden Island Pool Aquatic Life Use Waters are identical to those already

recommended by Illinois EPA for most General Use waters.

See

In the Matter of: Pro~osed

Amendments to Dissolved Oxyien Standard, R04-25, Exhibit 23 and Attachment

MM.

---

The standards p'roposed for Chicago Area Waterway System Aquatic Life Use A Waters

are consistent with the lower biological potential of these waters compared to that of Upper

Dresden Island Pool Aquatic Life Use Waters.

(See Attachments LL and MM). For the

following reasons, one of the two types of chronic standards is not being proposed for these

waters because sufficient protection against harmful chronic effects of low dissolved oxygen is

provided by the other proposed standards. One manifestation of the limited biological potential

of Chicago Area Waterway System Aquatic Life Use A Waters is suboptimal growth conditions

for fish. For sufficient protection under such limited growth situations, U.S. EPAYs

1986

dissolved oxygen national criteria document provides a chronic criterion of

5.0

mg/l as a daily

mean averaged over seven days, for early life stages. Attachment

X. For other life stages, U.S.

EPA provides an analogous criterion of

4.0

ma. Attachment X. The

1986

national criteria

document states that these two criteria protect for "...the persistence of existing fish

populations...", but allow "...considerable loss of production." Attachment

X. Illinois EPA

judges that this level of protection is sufficient to attain the already limited growth potential of

fish

in these waters. However, Illinois EPA does not propose these two chronic standards

because this level of protection is already provided by the other applicable standards.

Specifically, for early life stages, if dissolved oxygen concentrations remain at all times above

the proposed acute standard of

5.0

mg/l, it is mathematically impossible for a daily mean

averaged over seven days to be less than

5.0

mg/l. Similarly, for other life stages, if seven-day

averages of daily minima remain above the proposed

4.0

mg/l standard, it is unnecessarily

redundant to require that daily means averaged over seven days remain less than

4.0

mg/l.

Therefore, the proposed standards based on daily minima alone provide sufficient chronic

protection for all life stages in Chicago Area Waterway System Aquatic Life Use A Waters.

---

The dissolved oxygen standards proposed for Chicago Area Waterway System and

Brandon Pool Aquatic Life Use

B Waters are consistent with the incrementally lower biological

potential of these waters compared to Chicago Area Waterway System Aquatic Life Use A

Waters. Namely, there are no standards proposed to protect early life stages of fish because

these waters do not have the potential to consistently support early life stages of fish.

(See

Attachment A and LL). Similar to Chicago Area Waterway System Aquatic Life Use A Waters,

Chicago Area Waterway System and Brandon Pool Aquatic Life Use

B Waters can attain only

suboptimal growth conditions for fish. Therefore, only one of the two types of chronic standards

is needed to provide sufficient chronic protection.

Table

1. Dissolved oxygen standards recommended or proposed by Illinois EPA for protecting

aquatic life in specified Illinois waters. Each value is a minimum, at or above which the

dissolved oxygen concentration is intended to be sufficiently protective.

Chicago

.

Aquatic I

Area Wa

Life Use

,

teway

S

A Water

I

.4.0

Chicago Area Watefwaj

Designated Waters

(UAA

waters specifically

addressed in this Statement of

Reasons are highlighted

in grey)

Selected subset of "General Use"

waters

Most remaining "General Use"

waters

Early Life Stages Absent

(August -February, except January

-

December for Chicago Area Waterways

and Brandon Pool Aquatic Life Use

B

Waters)

.

&> . -... -*

7-

w

c. ,*A

= . -,

\ -. '-

upper

Ihsden 1

Aquatic Life

We

-

Daily

~i~i~~~

(m%l)

4.0

3.5

Early Life Stages

Present

(March -July)

Daily

Minimum

(m%l)

5.0

5.0

-.-,?lg'"',-

I

I

. -.--. --'

7-Day Mean

Means

6.25

6.0

7Day Mean

of Daily

Minima

(m%l)

4.5

4.0

'Y

7'--

A*

30-Day

Mean of

Daily Means

("En)

6.0

5.5

---

The existing Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life dissolved oxygen standards

applicable to these waters are 3.0 mg/L in the Calumet-Sag Channel and 4.0 ma in the rest of

the waters, and are frequently violated during wet weather periods. During periods when wet

weather causes CSO discharges to impact the CAWS and Lower Des Plaines River, dissolved

oxygen levels can drop to zero. Similarly, at least until the Tunnel and Reservoir Project is

complete in 2016, it is highly likely the proposed dissolved oxygen standards will be violated. It

may be necessary for MWRDGC to implement additional flow augmentation and aeration

treatment technologies in order to achieve compliance with these dissolved oxygen standards.

6.

Chemical Constituents

-

General Terms and Requirements

The following language has been proposed for Sections 302.407:

Section 302.407

Chemical Constituents

a)

The acute standard (AS) for the chemical constituents listed in subsection (e) shall

not be exceeded at

any time except as provided in subsection (dl.

b)

The chronic standard (CS) for the chemical constituents listed in subsection (e)

shall not be exceeded by the arithmetic average of at least four consecutive

samples collected over any period of at least four days. except as provided in

subsection (d). The samples used to demonstrate attainment or lack of attainment

with a CS must be collected in a manner that assures an averane representative of

the sampling period. For the metals that have water aualitv based standards

dependent upon hardness, the chronic water aualitv standard will be calculated

according to subsection (e) using the hardness of the water body at the time the

metals sample was collected. To calculate attainment status of chronic metals

standards, the concentration of the metal in each sample is divided by the

calculated water quality standard for the sample to determine a quotient. The

water quality standard is attained if the mean of the smle auotients is less than

or equal to one for the duration of the averaninn period.

c)

The human health standard (HHS) for the chemical constituents listed in

subsection

(f)

shall not be exceeded when the stream flow is at or above the

harmonic mean flow pursuant to Section 302.658 nor shall an annual average,

based on at least eight samples, collected in a manner representative of the

samplinn period, exceed the HHS except as provided in subsection (dl.

---

d)

In waters where mixing is allowed pursuant to Section 302.102 of this

Part.

the

-

following apply:

1)

The AS shall not be exceeded in

any waters except for those waters for

which a zone of initial dilution

(ZID)

applies pursuant to Section 302.102

of this

Part.

2)

The CS shall not be exceeded outside of waters in which mixinn is

allowed pursuant to Section 302.1 02 of this

Part.

31

The HHS shall not be exceeded outside of waters in which mixing is

allowed pursuant to Section 302.102 of this

Part.

Sections 302.407(a) through (d) include the general provisions and definitions applicable

to the individual numeric toxic pollutants regulated in the rest of the Section. It contains

definitions for the acute, chronic- and human health standards and implementation provisions

specifying how the mixing zone and zone of initial dilution provisions in Section 302.102 are to

be applied for acute, chronic and human health standards for these constituents. Subsections

(b)

and (c) address the sampling required for determining attainment with chronic and human health

water quality standards and subsection

(b)

also provides instructions for calculating dissolved

metals water quality standards that depend on hardness.

The language in these Sections was taken directly fiom the parallel provisions in Subpart

By

Section 302.208. The only change made between Sections 302.208(a) through (d) and

302.407(a) through (d) is a minor clarification in subsection (d)(l) of this Section.

In the existing language applicable to General Use waters in Section 302.208(d)(l), it

reads "The AS shall not be exceeded in any waters except for those waters for

which the Agency

has approved

a zone of initial dilutions (ZZD) pursuant to Section 302.1 02." In

the proposed

Section 302.407(d)(l) the language- which is bolded for emphasis, has been changed to "a zone

of initial dilution

(ZID)

applies pursuant to Section 302.102 of this

Part."

The Agency believes

this revised language is clearer and more accurate than the existing language, but the proposed

---

language is not intended to make a substantive change in the way the regulatory language is

interpreted and applied.

7.

Standards to Protect Aquatic Life: Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium,

Copper, Cyanide, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Total Residual Chlorine,

Zinc, Benzene, Ethylbenzene, Toluene, Xylene.

The standards presented in this Section are designed to protect aquatic life from acute and

chronic toxicity resulting from the effect of these toxic metals'and other toxic parameters in the

environment.

In each case, the water quality standards being proposed are the same for the three

aquatic life uses applicable to the waterways being addressed

in this proposal.

a.

Chromium (Hexavalent, total); Cyanide and Total Residual

Chlorine

The chromium (hexavalent, total), cyanide and Total Residual Chlorine (or TRC) water

quality standards contained

in the Agency's proposal are all based on the existing General Use

standards for these three parameters currently found in 35 Ill. Adrn. Code 302.208. Each of these

particular General Use standards is also identical to and based on the most recent U.S. EPA

national criteria document for the given pollutant.

The Agency's proposed standards regulate two forms of chromium, hexavalent

chromium in total form ("Hex") and trivalent chromium

in the dissolved form (see below).

Hexavalent chromium is the +6 valence cation of chromium. The General Use standard for

chromium (Hex) was updated during the R88-21 (A) rulemaking that was adopted by the Board

on January 25,1990. The most recent national criteria document for chromium (Hex) is

1995

U~dates: Water Quality Criteria Documents for the Protection of Aquatic Life in Ambient Water

(EPA-820-B-96-001). (See Attachment

Y). The 1995 Updates for chromium update but do not

supersede the January 1985 national criteria document (EPA 44015-84-029)- The proposed acute

standard is 16 micrograms per liter and the chronic is 1 1 micrograms per liter. Under the current

---

regulations the total hexavalent chromium standard in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.407 is 0.3 ma.

The effluent standard in Part 304 for this parameter is a monthly average of 0.1 mglL, daily

average value limit of 0.3 ma and an instantaneous maximum limit of 1.0 ma.

The proposed cyanide acute and chronic water quality standards are exactly the same as

the General Use water quality standards and also match the most recent national criteria

document. Cyanide was updated during the R88-21(A) rulemaking that was adopted by the

Board on January 25,1990. The most recent national criteria document for cyanide is

1995

U~dates: Water Oualitv Criteria Documents for the Protection of Aquatic Life in Ambient Water

(EPA-820-B-96-001). (See Attachment

Y). The 1995 Updates for cyanide updates,.but does not

supersede the January 1985 national criteria document (EPA 44015-84-028). There is currently a

standard for total cyanide of 0.10 mg/L contained in two separate provisions of 35 Ill. Adrn.

Code 302.Subpart

D. In addition to the existing cyanide standard in Section 302.407, there is a

stand-alone provision for cyanide in section 302.409 which is proposed for repeal in this

rulemaking docket.

The proposed cyanide acute standard is 22 micrograms per liter and the chronic standard

is 5.2 micrograms per liter. The Agency is proposing that the samples taken to measure

attainment of or compliance with this standard may be taken and analyzed in either the available

or weak acid dissociable (or

WAD) forms. The current General Use standard does not specify

the form of cyanide, but it is interpreted

as allowing either of these two methods of testing for

cyanide. Currently, the Lake Michigan Basin standards in Subpart E of Part 302 refer to the

weak acid dissociable (WAD) form, while the total form is used in the existing Secondary

Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life standard and the effluent standard of 0.1.0 mglL. Total

Cyanide refers to all of the

CN

groups in cyanide compounds that can be determined as the

---

cyanide ion (Cw. Available cyanide consists of cyanide ion (CN), hydrogen cyanide in water

(HCN,,) and the cyano-complexes of zinc, copper, cadmium, mercury, nickel, and silver.

Cyanide (WAD) is the hydrogen cyanide (HCN) that is liberated from a slightly acidified

(pH

4.5 to 6.0) sample under the prescribed distillation conditions. Total cyanide and cyanide

(WAD) are determined using standard methods, while available cyanide methods are taken fiom

EPA-82 1 -R-99-013 (August 1999). (See Attachment

Y).

The proposed total residual chlorine (or TRC) water quality standards are also exactly the

same

as

the General Use water quality standards and the most recent national criteria document.

The total residual-chlorine standard was updated during the R88-21(A) rulemaking that was

adopted by the Board on January 25, 1990. The most recent national criteria document for total

residual chlorine is the "Gold Book" (EPA 44015-86-001). (See Attachment

V). The proposed

acute standard is 19 micrograms per liter and the proposed chronic standard is 11 micrograms

per liter. There is no'standard for total residual chlorine currently applicable to Lower Des

Plaines River and the CAWS. There is also no effluent standard for this parameter

in Part 304.

b.

Arsenic (Trivalent. Dissolved) and Chromium (Trivalent.

Dissolved)

The proposed arsenic (trivalent, dissolved) and chromium (trivalent, dissolved) water

quality standards for all three aquatic life use designations are exactly the same

as

the most

recent national criteria document: 1995 U~dates: Water Oualitv Criteria Documents for the

Protection of Aquatic Life in Ambient Water (EPA-820-B-96-001). (See Attachment

Y). This

document updates the January 1985 national criteria document for arsenic (EPA 44015-84-033)

and the January 1985 national. criteria document for chromium @PA 44015-84-029).

The proposed water quality standards are also being updated to include a translator from

total arsenic (trivalent) to dissolved arsenic (trivalent) and total chromium (trivalent) to dissolved

---

chromium (trivalent) based on The Metals Translator: Guidance for Calculating a Total

Recoverable Permit Limit from a Dissolved Criterion (EPA 823-B-96-007 (June 1996). (See

Attachment

Z). Similar changes to the General Use standards were adopted by the Board on

December 19,2002 during the R02- 1 1 rulemaking.

c.

Cadmium (dissolved)

The Agency considered basing the acute and chronic cadmium water quality standards on

the recalculation procedure fiom the 2001 national criteria document (EPA-822-R-01-001). (See

Attachment AA). To adapt the cadmium water quality standard for protection

of aquatic life in

these waters, all of the tests from Table 3a Ranked Freshwater Genus Mean Acute Values with

Species Mean Acute-Chronic Ratios of the 2001 NCD (pages 83-88) were used with the

following exceptions. The following species were removed fiom the acute database along with

their Genus Mean Acute Value (GMAV) and Species Mean Acute Value (SMAV) because they

are not representative of the aquatic life

in the subject waters. Brown trout, brook trout, bull

trout, coho salmon, Chinook salmon and rainbow trout are not found in Illinois waters outside of

Lake Michigan. Colorado squawfish and northern pike minnow are only f~und in western states

and flagfish are located in coastal swamps and lagoons from Florida to the Yucatan in Mexico.

GMAV

1.613

<

1.963

3.836

22.54

2,847

Species

Brown trout, Salmo tmtta

Brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis

Bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus

Coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch

Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha

Rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss

Colorado squawfish, Ptychocheilus lucius

Northern pike minnow, Ptychocheilus

oregonensis

Flagfish, Jordanellafloridae

SMAV

1.613

<

1.791

2.152

6.221

4.305

2.108

22.54

2,221

2,847

---

The acute standard was based on the final acute value divided by two (FAVI2) and the chronic

standard was not changed- fiom the criteria document. The acute formula fiom the NCD would

.be Exp[A

+

Bln(H)] X (1 .I38672

-

[(lnH)(O.O41838)])

*,

where A

=

1.743 and B

=

1.0166 and

the chronic formula would be Exp[A

+

Bln(H)] X (1 .I01672

-

[(lnH)(0.041838)])*, where A

= -

4.719 and B

=

0.7409.

In determining the appropriate water quality standard for cadmium, the Agency looked to

'data collected by MWRDGC and then evaluated whether a criteria based on the federal national

criteria document would be met and why. (See Attachment BB). Based on MWRDGC7s stream

data, the chronic criteria could not be met. MWRDGC collects cadmium data once per month at

26 stream locations and the data indicates that the chronic criteria would be exceeded

periodically. (See Attachment BB).

.

The Agency reviewed .the data and noted that the violations of the national criteria would

occur mostly in the'summer months. The data indicated that cadmium was usually not detectable

in the winter months when barge traffic was minimal. The Agency reviewed the stream data

where there was not a known point source of cadmium. The Agency reviewed the data and

determined that the exceedances of the chronic criteria were most likely the result of

contaminated sediment, but could not rule out point sources that were not quantified, such as

CSOs. Contaminated sediment is scoured and resuspended by barge traffic. The Agency has

photos showing the plume fiom sediment scoured and resuspended in the waterway. (See

Attachment CC).

On page 3-41 of the Lower Des Plaines River

UAA

report, the authors state that "Toxic

metals do not appear to be a toxicity problem with the exception of cadmium in the

RM 286+

(just upstream of the Brandon Road Lock and Dam) depositional zone." (See Attachment A).

---

This statement may have been based on meeting the General Use standard. Probable effects

concentration (PEC) and effects range

-

median (ER-M) are both presumed to be toxic and

threshold effects concentration (TEC) and effects range

-

low (ER-L) are possibly toxic.

According to the CAWS

UAA, all of the streams for which sediment data was available

exceeded the threshold effects concentration (TEC) and effects range

-

low (ER-L) or Probable

effects concentration (PEC) and effects range

-

median (ER-M). Three of the five stations on

North Shore Channel exceeded the TECER-L. (See Attachment A at 4-36). Chicago River and

South Fork both exceeded the TECER-L and Upper North Branch, Lower North Branch, and

South. Branch exceeded the PECER-M. (See Attachment B at 4-53). CSSC and Collatoral

Channel exceed the PECER-M. (See Attachment B at 4-76). Calumet River and Little Calumet

(East) exceeded the TEC and Grand Calumet, Little Calumet River (West) and Calumet-Sag

Channel exceeded the PECER-M. (See Attachment B at 4-91). Based on all of the above

information, the Agency believes that sediment is the primary reason that the chronic national

criterion cannot be met in these waters.

Therefore, the Agency's proposal is using "Human caused conditions or sources of

pollution prevent the attainment of the use and cannot be remedied or would cause more

environmental damage to correct than to leave in place" (40 CFR 13 1.10(g)(3)) to adjust the

water quality standard for cadmium fiom the recalculation of the national criteria document

described above.

Based on the above factors, the proposed cadmium (dissolved) water quality standards

are exactly the same

as the General Use water quality standards. Cadmium (dissolved) was

updated during the R88-21(A) rulemaking that was adopted by the Board on January 25,1990

and updated to include a translator from total cadmium to dissolved cadmium during the R02-11

---

rulemaking that was adopted by the Illinois Pollution Control Board on December 19,2002.

Metals Translator: Guidance for Calculatin~ a Total Recoverable Permit Limit fiom a Dissolved

Criterion (EPA 823-B-96-007 (June 1996)).

(See

~ttichment Z).

It was noted in the Lower Des Plaines UAA study that the concentrations of the

contaminants in the sediment have been decreasing over time.

(See

Attachment A at 3-19). It is

believed that these concentrations will continue to decrease as contaminated sediment either

stabilizes or is covered by cleaner sediments.

:

d.

,

.Lead (dissolved).

.

The proposed lead (dissolved) water quality standards for the three aquatic life uses are

exactly the same as the General Use water quality standards. Lead. (dissolved) was updated

during the,R94-1(A) rulemaking that was adopted by the Board on May 16,1996 and further

updated to include a translator fiom total lead to dissolved lead during the R02-11 rulemaking

that was adopted by the Board on December 19,2002. There

are no national criteria updates for

lead more current than those that the Agency is proposing in this rulemaking and U.S. EPA

has

approved the existing General Use standard. This water quality standards revision was approved

by Region

V of U.S. EPA on December 1,1999.

e.

Benzene. Ethylbenzene, Toluene. Xylene, Nickel (Dissolved), Zinc

(Dissolved)

The proposed nickel (dissolved), zinc (dissolved), benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene and

xylerie(s) water quality standards are exactly the same as the General Use water quality

standards. Nickel (dissolved), zinc (dissolved), benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylene(s)

were updated during the R02-11 rulemaking that was adopted by the Board on December 19,

2002. The technical support for 'these updates to the federal criteria documents is found in the

docket for that rulemaking. There are no national criteria updates for any of these parameters

---

that are more up-to-date than those that the Agency is proposing in this rulemaking. U.S. EPA

approval of these standards is pending.

f.

Mercurv (Diss.olved)

The'proposed mercury (dissolved) water quality standard for the protection of aquatic life

uses is based on the most recent national criteria document 1995 Updates: Water Oualitv Criteria

Documents for the Protection of Aquatic Life in Ambient Water (EPA-820-B-96-001). (See

Attachment

Y). This document updates the January 1985 national criteria document for mercury

(EPA 44015-84-026) The proposed water'quality standard for mercury is also being updated to

include a translator fiom totalmercury to, dissolved mercury based on The Metals Translator:

-

Guidance for Calculatin~ a Total Recoverable Permit Limit fiom a Dissolved Criterion (EPA

823-B-96-007 (June 1996). (See Attachment

Z). The General Use standard was updated to

reflect this change during the R02-11 riilemaking that

was

adopted by the Board on ~ecember

g-

Copper (Dissolved)

The acute and chronic copper water quality standards in this proposal are based on the

recalculation procedure established in the 1995 national criteria document (EPA-820-B-96-001).

..

(See

. .

Attachment

..

. ..

Y).

.

This document

- ,-

updates the Jahuary

, .

1985 copper national criteria document

(EPA 44015-84-031). The proposed water quality standards for these waters are also being

updated to include a translator fiom total copper to dissolved copper based on The Metals

Translator: Guidance for Calculating. a Total Recoverable Permit Limit fiom a Dissolved

Criterion (EPA 823-B-96-007 (June 1996). (See Attachment

Z). This translator was adopted by

the Board for the General Use copper water quality standard in R02-11 (effective ~ecembe; 19,

2002).

---

All of the tests from Tables' 1,2, and 3 of the 1995 national criteria document were used

in selecting the water quality standardfor

this proposal with the following exceptions from Table

3. (See Attachment

Y at E3 through E8). The following species were removed from the acute

database along with their Genus Mean Acute Value (GMAV) and Species Mean Acute Value

(SMAV) because they are not representative of the aquatic life in the subject waters. The

northern squawfish and chiselmouth are only found in the western states. Coho salmon, sockeye

salmon, cutthroat trout, Chinook salmon, rainbow trout, Atlantic salmon and brook trout are not

found in Illinois outside of Lake Michigan.

. .

The acute standard was based on the final acute value divided by two (FAVl2) and the chronic

standard

was based on FAVFACR. FAV stands for the final acute value and FACR stands for

the final acute-chronic ratio.

.. .

On ~ebruary 22,2007,

U.S.

EPA finalized a national criterion update for copper. (see 72

Fed. Reg. 7983). Illinois EPA has not chosen to incorporate the 2007 criterion because it is

based on a Biotic.Ligand Model. This new methodology is quite complex and requires the

ability to measure the presence of additional parameters that would impact copper's toxicity such

as dissolved organics. This new methodology would be a significant departure from the way

copper water quality standards have been'used in the past. Illinois EPA will continue to evaluate

---

whether this model is useful for General Use waters and the waters impacted by this proposal

and will consider updating or supplementing the copper standards

as appropriate.

In the Lower Des Plaines River UAA study, copper was identified as a parameter that did

not meet the water quality standards at the locations on the Lower Des Plaines River analyzed by

the MWRDGC while the Illinois EPA location indicated compliance. Copper compliance was

not found to be a concern in the CAWS.

Aqua Nova and Hey

&

Associates recommended developing a metals translator andfor, a

Water Effects Rations (WER) for copper in order to propose water quality standards that would

be met in the receiving stream, based on the toxicity difference betvteen the waters of the Lower

Des Plaines River and the laboratory water for .which standards were developed in the laboratory.

Based on the compliance of the Agency samples and the closeness to compliance of the

MWRDGC data, the Agency recommends.-that the water quality standard be set at the existing

General Use standard.

,

-

8.

.

Standards to Protect Human ~ealth: Mercury, Benzene

Since this system is not designated as source water for public water supply and food

processing, human health exposure to environmental conditions of the waterway is primarily,if

. --

not exclusively, attributable to exposure through consumption of fish

-.

fiom the system that by

bioaccurnulation of substances fiom the waterway are toxic to humans. Mercury and benzene

are such substances and therefore the Agency is proposing standards for the protection of human

health fiom fish consumption for these parameters. Both standards mirror the existing provisions

in Subpart B of Part

302.

---

a.

Mercury Human Health Standard

The proposed mercury water quality standard for the protection of human health is

exactly the same as the existing General Use standard,of 0.012 micrograms per liter. The

mercury human health standard was updated during the R94-l(A) rul-emaking that w& adopted

by the Board on May 16,1996. There are no national criteria documents for mercury for the

protection of human health that are more current

than those that the Agency is proposing in this

rulemaking other than the standards applicable to the Great Lakes Initiative waters of Lake

Michigan. The General Use standard was appi-oved by.U.S. EPA on December 1,1999..

6.'

Benzene Human Health Standard

The proposed benzene water quality standard for the protection of human health is

exactly the same

as the human health General Use standard of 3 10 micrograms per liter. The

General Use standard was adopted by the Board in R02-11 on December 19,2002. There are no

national criteria documents for this parameter that afe more up-to-date than whit the Agency is

proposing

in this rulemaking. U.S. EPA approval of these standards is pending.

9.

Other Standards: Chloride, Iron, Silver, Selenium, Sulfate

a.

Iron (Dissolved]

-. .. .

.

The

.. .

current Secondary Contact water quality standard for iron'is 2.0

mg/L

total iron.

Illinois EPA is proposing to replace this standard with a dissolved iron standard of 1.0 mglL for

the protection of the three aquatic life uses. If adopted, this standard would be identical to the

one found in'the Subpart B General Use water quality standards.

1roh

(dissolved) was updated

during the R88-21(B) rulemaking that was adopted by the Board on June 21,1990. The only

U.S. EPA national criteria document for iron is based on total iron &d is contained in the July

1976 "Red Book"

(EPA 44019-76-023). (See Attachment DD). The Board changed the General

---

Use standard from total to dissolved in R88-21(B) and Illinois EPA proposes that the Board do

the same for these waters.

b.

Silver (dissolved)

The existing silver standard is presented

in the total form and is 1.1 mg/L. The proposed

.

silver (dissolved) water quality standard is exactly the same as the most recent national criteria

document Ambient Water Oualit~ Criteria for Silver (EPA 44015-80-07 1 )(October 1980). (See

Attachment EE). The metals translator value of 0.85 was taken from The Metals Translator:

Guidance For Calculating A ~otal

Recoverable Permit Limit From A Dissolved Criterion (EPA

823-B-96-007)(June 1996). (See Attachment

Z). This standard is more up to date than the

General Use standard of 5.0 micrograms per liter.

The equation being proposed is as follows: Silver (dissolved)

=

exp[A

+

Bln(H)] X

.0.85* where A

=

-6.52, B

=

1.72, exp[x]

=

base natural logarithms raised to the x- power, lnw

=

natural logarithm of Hardness in milligrams per liter, and

* =

conversion factor multiplier for

dissolved metals. Current data from MWRDGC indicates-that, this standard is being met

in the

.

CAWS.

-

C.

,

-

Selenium (total)

The proposed selenium (total) water quality standard is exactly the same as the existing

,- -

- . --

. ' .

..

. . .- ...

. ...

Secondary Contact and General Use water quality standards of 1.0 mg/L. These standards have

not been updated since the original adoption. The most recent national criteria document for

selenium (total) was published in 1987 (EPA 44015-87-006). U.S. EPA made minor

adjustments in the criteria concentrations when it converted the selenium criteria from a total

recoverable measurement basis to a dissolved measurement basis in 60 FR 15366, March 23,

---

1995, only for the Great Lakes Initiative and in 64. FR 1978 1, April 22,. 1999, optionally for

fieshwater nationwide.

(See

Attachment Y at Section N).

U.S. EPA proposed updating its 1987 national criteria document for selenium on

December 17,2004.

(See

69 Fed. Reg. 75541-75546). This proposal has never been finalized

and has been the subject of a good deal of controversy. It is a fish tissue-based criterion that is

designed to protect waterfowl that feed on fish. This methodology has not been utilized in

General Use water quality standards in Illinois to date. It is not expected that the CAWS or the

Lower Des Plaines River will have issues with elevated selenium levels as might be foqnd in

western states with large ore mining industries.

. .

.

Illinois EPA has chosen not to use the U.S. EPA criteria' for selenium at this time. This

decision is based on the current uncertainty surrounding the science used in developing the last

-.

final and current draft standards. Inthe event a federal national criteria document for this

. .

-

.

parameter is finalized, Illinois EPA'will review the final document and may propose additional

*?

or modified rules in a future Board regulatory proceeding.

d.

Sulfate and Chloride

Currently, there are no sulfate or chloride ambient water quality standards applicable to

the CAWS and the

-.

Lower Des Plaines River. The Agency proposed changes to the General Use

water quality standards for sulfate and total dissolved solids in docket R07-09 which was filed

with the Board on October 23,2006. The proposal in this rulemaking to address these

parameters in the Chicago Area Waterway System and the Lower Des Plaines River is patterned

after the proposal currently before the Board in R07-09. It was also developed prior to a First

Notice Opinion by the Board in that proceeding.

---

While the proposed sulfate water quality standard in this rulemaking is based primarily

.

on the proposal in R07-09, the instit proposal does not include the limit of 2,000 mg/L for

protection of livestock watering since this is not a designated use of the CAWS or Lower Des

Plaines River. In addition, the-Agency's proposal does not include provisions for instances when

hardness is less than 100 mgL or chloride is less than

5 mg/L since these conditions do not exist

.

in the CAWS or Lower Des Plaines'River. Instream-monitoring data collected by MWRDGC

supporting this conclusion is contained in Attachment W. ~ke

are currently no applicable

national criteria for sulfate.

.

.

,

. .

There is currently no chloride standard applicable to the Secondary Contact and

,

Indigenous Aquatic Life Uses segments of the CAWS and Lower Des Plaines River. The

proposed chloride water quality standard is exactly the same as the current General Use water

quality standard of 500 mgL. The General Use chloride standard has not been updated since the

original adoption. The national criteria document (EPA 44015-88-001) recommends a'criterion

Maximum concentration (CMC) of 860 mgL 'and a Criterion Chronic Concentration (CCC) of

230 mgL. Illinois EPA is proposing to maintain the General Use water.quality standard in these

waters of a single value of 500 mgL. This is the value that has been used by scientists in

-.

evaluating

-

the toxicity of sulfate and chloride

. -. .

as the key toxic components of the

.

total

.

dissolved

solids standard and it would be inconsistent with the results of that research to convert to the

federal methodology which contains an acute value that is less restrictive than the Illinois EPA's

~eneral Use standard and a chronic value that may be more restrictive than the Agency's

General Use standard. The Illinois EPA expects that there will be violations of the chloride

standard during the winter months when road salting takes place to address winter weather

events and the safety of Illinois motorists. This problem is not unique to the CAWS and Lower

---

Des Plaines River and the Illinois EPA has issued National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System stormwater permits to municipalities requiring the implementation of best management

practices and other programs to minimize storm related water quality impacts fiom salts and

other contaminants. The Agency hopes to continue to work with state and local government

entities to mitigate the potential harm to aquatic life fiom these practices.

10.

Standards being eliminated or moved from chemical tables:

ammonia, barium, fluoride, manganese, oil/fat/grease, phenols,

TDS

, .

Illinois EPA is propoSing to eliminate several parameters from the current Chemical

.

.

, .

Constituent tables in Section 302.407. In the case

0.

of ammonia, Illinois EPA is moving the

,

.

ammonia stkdard to a stand-alone Section 302.412 to accommodate the more intricate

provisions of the updated standard.

see,

below. For the other

Illinois EPA has

-

,

-

~

determined the parameter itself or the,value it was based on are not necessary for the protection

.'

C

h

of the aquatic life uses of these waters id in most cases the limits are equal to or less stringent

.. -,

.

,

.

.

. ,-

than the technology based effluent limitations in Part 304.

. ,

Barium, fluoride, manganese, oil/fat/grease, phenols and TDS (total dissolved solids) are

all being eliminated as out-of-date water quality standards.

U.S.

EPA has not adopted a federal

national criteria document for the protection of aquatic life for any of these parameters. The

basis for elimination of these six parameters

as water quality standards is explained in more

detail individually below.

The Agency looked for guidance other than U.S. EPA criteria documents for an aquatic

life ambient standard for manganese, because the only available information from

U.S.

EPA was

criteria developed based on the protection of domestic water supplies and shellfish consumption

in the "Gold Book." EPA44015-86-001 (May

1, 1986)(Attachment V). The most up to date

information has been developed by Colorado.

See

Derivation of a Colorado State Manganese

---

Table Value Standard For The Protection of Aauatic Life (July 2000)(Attachment FF). Colorado

has developed a hardness based acute and chronic water quality standards for total manganese.

Hardness Acute Chronic

(ma)

(ma) (mg/L)

50

2.37

1.31

100

2.986

1.65

200

3.76

2.078

400

4.738

2.618

Illinois EPA was not able to directly use the data developed by Colorado because the

most- sensitive species utilized by Colorado (such as rainbow trout) are not typically found in

Illinois waters other than Lake Michigan. However, when Illinois evaluated this data and

-,

removed the four species non-native to Illinois fiom the twelve species used by Colorado, the

result was a slightly higher final acute value (FAV) which would have resulted in

an even less

-.

stringent standard than Colorado. Because the hardness values for the CAWS and Lower Des

Plaines 'River typically range fiom 187 mg/L to 218 mgL, it is likely that even the chronic

standard applicable to this system would be significantly higher than the effluent limitation of

1.0 mg/L contained in

Part 304. Therefore, Illinois EPA has determined a water quality standard

for manganese is not necessary to protect aquatic life in the effluent dominated CAWS and

Lower Des Plaines River.

-

.-

The

iciintific basis for &e elimination of the total dissolved solids standard is found-in

the Record of R07-09. Scientific research has indicated (and testimony confirmed in the March

7,2007 Board heaiing) that-total dissolved solids is not a parameter indicative of toxicity to

aquatic life since the quantities of its individual constituents are more relevant to toxicity than

their simple sum. R07-09, March 7,2002 Hearing Transcript at pages 14-15. Toxicity is always

associated with either sulfate, chloride or their combination; accordingly, water samples with

identical total dissolved solids concentrations can range fiom nontoxic to acutely toxic to aquatic

---

life because of variances in respective chloride and sulfate concentrations. Toxicity resulting

from other major ions included in total dissolved solids has not proven significant in the

determination of total toxicity to aquatic life; therefore, the total dissolved solids standard results

in unnecessary restrictions that do not enhance protection for aquatic life. (R07-09, Agency

Rulemaking Petition, Exhibit

I, pages 15-1 6). As explained above, Illinois EPA is including

updated chloride and sulfate standards in this proposal to protect the aquatic life uses. This

eliminates the need for the surrogate total dissolved solids standard which is currently 1,500

mg/L in these waters. The only federal guidance related to dissolved solids is found in the "Gold

Book" and is applicable to domestic water supplies. (See Attachment

V).

In the case of fluoride, manganese, oiyfatfgrease and phenols the current standards are

identical to the existing effluent limitations in Section 304.124.

-

These values are 15.0 mg/L, 1.0

m@L,

14.0

mg/L

and 0.3 mg/L respectively. Because no discharger into the CAWS or Lower

Des Plaines River can exceed these effluent limitations regardless of the available assimilative

capacity of the waterbody, these numbers are duplicative and unnecessary as water quality

standards in these waters.

In addition to the existing effluent standard in Part 304, oillfatlgrease are regulated most

effectively through a narrative standard. The existing narrative standard in Section 302.403 will

continue to prohibit "unnatural sludge or bottom deposits, floating debris, visible oil, odor,

unnatural plant or algal growth, or unnatural color or turbidity" in these waters. The Illinois EPA

believes this narrative standard is more effective

than a water

standard at protection of

any potential impacts to aquatic life of these pollutants.

Phenols are regulated primarily for their organoleptic effects (taste and odor) and because

the CAWS and Lower Des Plaines River are not being designated for public water supply or

---

food processing uses the 0.3 mg/L value from the "Gold Book" is not an appropriate water

quality standard for these waters.

(See

Attachment V).

U.S. EPA has not developed a national criteria document for fluoride for the protection of

aquatic life or human consumption uses. Illinois has regulated fluoride in General Use waters to

protect downstream drinking water supplies from potential human health effects fiom the

consumption of excessive amounts of fluoride. Because these waters are-not designated for use

as a public water supply, the Illinois EPA does not believe a water quality standard for fluoride is

appropriate for the CAWS and Lower Des Plaines River. Dischargers to the CAWS and Lower

Des Plaines River would not be permitted to cause violations of the existing General Use

standards at downstream public water supply intake-points.

In the case of barium, the existing effluent limitation is actually lower than the existing

water quality standard. The effluent limitation is 2.0 ma, while the Secondary Contact and

.

Indigenous'Aquatic Life Uses' standard is 5.0 ma. General'Use on the other hand, has a water

quality standard of 1.0 ma. This value is derived from the "Gold Book" and was developed

for the protection of the domestic water supply use, which is not a designated use

in the CAWS

and Lower Des Plaines River.

(see

Attachment V). here are no aquatic life criteria for barium

and the Illinois EPA does not believe a

.

water

.

quality standard for

.

barium

.

is necessary

. .

in these

waters.

11.

Temperature

The proposed temperature water quality standards were based on the report by Midwest

Biodiversity Institute

(MBI) and center for Applied Bioassessment and Biocriteria (CABB)

titled

Temperature Criteria Options for the Lower Des Plaines River

(October 11,2005).

(See

Attachment GG). A correction to Table 3 of the above report is submitted as Attachment HH.

---

The correction was for the thermal limits for the Secondary Contacthdigenous Aquatic Life

category as identified in the

2005

document. The MBI author is Chris 0. Yoder and the CABB

author is Edward T. Rankin. U.S. EPA Region

5

and Illinois EPA requested this study to

develop technical support and temperature criteria options for Lower Des Plaines River. The

Agency then used the conclusions and options presented in this report to develop temperature

standards for the CAWS and Lower Des Plaines River.

-. . ,,

The principle objective of this project was to develop seasonal temperature criteria

.

options that protect representative biological~assemblages. The approach uses published data

fkom the thermal effects literature to creatk a thermal-effects database for 6eshwater fish. These

thermal effects data are

then used to calculate four behavioral ad physiological thresholds for a

-

list

are intended

of specified

to represent

representative

the fish

fish

assemblage

species called

of a

Representative

particular river

Aquatic

or river

Species

segment.

(or

Ohio

RAS)

EPA

that

'.

:

used this approach to set temperature criteria for inland waters and Lake Erie in the 1978

-;

revisions to the Ohio water quality standards and the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation

Commission used it to adopt the current Ohio River temperature,criteria in 1984. These are

the

criteria currently applicable to the Ohio River streak segments in Illinois.

s our thermal input variables are used to determine the summer (for purposes of this

standard, June

16

-

~epteiber 15) average and daily maximum temperature criteria. However,

in developing the baseline input variables, up to six- thermal parameters were first considered. Of

the six thermal parameters that were inventoried for each fish species, the upper incipient lethal

temperature (UILT), chronic thermal maximum (ChTM), and the critical thermal maximum

(CTM) are considered lethal thresholds and the remaining four (optimum, final preferendum,

growth, and upper avoidance) are considered sublethal thresholds. The Yoder report had three

---

main categories with some subcategories; General Use, Modified Use, and secondary

ContactlIndigenous Aquatic Life with

49.27,

id 8 RAS respectively. The categories are

modeled after existing aquatic life uses in Illinois and Ohio9s.modified use, but should not be

, .

interpreted as being equivalent to existing Illinois and Ohio use labels. These labels were only

used to show the variety of possible choices for setting thermal water quality standards. The

methodology then uses the'RA~

to develop summer daily maximum and period average criteria.

The Agency determined that the Chicago Area Waterway System and Brandon Pool

Aquatic Life Use B waters listed in

35

LAC

303.235

should.use the option of 8 RAS (Secondary

.

ContactlIndigenous Aquatic Life) to determine the summer daily maxim& and period average.

This decision was made based on the aquatic life and habitat in the affected stream reaches It is

believed that those eight species are representative of the species that would be found in water

capable of maintaining aquatic life populations predominated by individuals of tolerant types that

are adaptive to the unique physical conditions, flow patterns and operational controls designed to

maintain navigational use, flood control and drainage functions in deepdraft, steep-walled

shipping channels.

Based on the fact that white sucker was present in certain waters, the ~~enc~

determined

the Chicago Area Waterway System Aquatic Life Use A waters listed in

35

LAC

303.230

should

use the option of

8 RAS (Secondary Contacthdigenous Aquatic Life) plus white sucker to

determine the summer daily maximum and period average. This decision was made based on the

aquatic life and habitat

in the affected stream reaches. It is believed that those nine species are

representative of the species that would be found in water capable of maintaining aquatic life

populations predominated by individuals of tolerdnt or intermediately tolerant types that are

---

adaptive to the unique physical conditions, flow patterns, and operational controls necessary to

maintain navigational use, flood control, and drainage functions of this waterway system.

Based on the fact Des Plaines River between the Brandon Road Lock and Dam and the

I-

55 bridge has incrementally more diverse aquatic life and higher quality habitat than the rest of

the CAWS and Lower Des Plaines River, the Agency determined it was appropriate to use the

option of 27 RAS "Modified Usey' to determine the summer daily maximum and period average

for the Upper Dresden Island Pool waters.

.

.

.. ,

Criteria for non-swer periods are derived to maintain seasonal norms and cycles of

increasing and decreasing temperatures. Seasonal ambient temperature data were analyzed from

.

eight locations in the CAWS and Lower Des Plaines River for the period,

1998

through 2004.

The data from these stations is contained in the MBUCAAB report.

(See

Attachment GG). The

Y

monitoring location at Route

83

on CSSC was used as ,the "background" location because it was

,

-

:

not directly influenced by thermal sources such as cooling water or Lake Michigan and was

believed to be representative of "background" temperatures. Because the background waters of

the CAWS are composed of the MWRDGC water reclamation plant effluents, in the periods of

January, February, October

1-1

5, November, and December, the Agency used the effluent

.

temperature

. ..

from the MWRDGC7s Northside, Calumet, and Stickney facilities as the

background temperature instead of using temperatures at the Route

83

CSSC station.

The Agency used the 75th percentile as the monthly average to ensure that the seasonal

norms are preserved in the system. The daily maximum of the summer months was preserved

for the entire year to ensure that no acute lethal temperatures are present. The Route

83

CSSC

station data can be found in the MBIICAAB report and the effluent data submitted by

---

MWRDGC was e-mailed to the Agency on May 22,2007 and can be found in Attachments I1

and W.

The following language is being proposed for the temperature water quality standards for

the three aquatic life use designations proposed for the CAWS and Lower Des Plaines River:

Section 302.408

Temperature

a)

Water temperature shall not exceed the maximum limits in the applicable table

that follows during more than two percent of the hours in the 12-month period

ending with

any

month. Moreover. at no time shall the water temperature at such

locations exceed the maximum limits in the applicable table that follows by more

than 2'

C

(3.6'

F).

b)

.

Water temperatke'in the Chicago Area Waterway System Aauatic Life Use A

waters listed in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 303.230 shall not exceed the period average

limits in the following table during

any

~eriod on an average basis.

c)

Water temperature in the Chicano Area Waterway System and Brandon Pool

Aquatic Life Use

B waters listed in 303.325, shall not exceed the period average

limits in the following table during

anv

period on an averape basis.

---

dl

Water tem~erature for the U~per Dresden Island Pool. as defined in 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 303.237. shall not exceed the ~eriod average limits in the followinn table

during

any period on an averane basis.

---

ee-eew-

0

The proposed thermal water quality standards have a period average as well as a daily

maximum temperature limit, where the current standards only have a daily maximum. The

rationale for the period average as opposed to a daily, weekly, or monthly average is in

recognition of the realities of within season temperature variations and the thermal tolerances of

fish. The proposed thermal water quality stanbards are more stringent

than the current

Secondary contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life for all mbnths. The proposed thermal water

quality standards are more stringent than the current- General Use standards for the months April

,through November, especially when considering the period average. The remaining months, the

proposed standards are approximately equivalent. The proposed thermal water quality standards

are more stringent

than

the current Adjusted Water Quality Standards at Interstate-55 for all of

the months, especially when considering the period average.

The Agency is proposing to allow excursions from the proposed criteria two percent of

the time. This is between the one percent for General Use and five percent for the existing

Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Standards. Currently, the excursion hours

allowed under Midwest Generation's thermal adjusted standard at the

1-55 bridge also allow two

percent excursion hours.

The Agency is also proposing to allow excursions up to

2

OC

(3.6

OF). This is between

the

1.7 OC

(3

OF)

for General Use and

3.8

"C

(7

OF) for the existing Secondary Contact and

Indigenous Aquatic Life Standards. Mr. Yoder will present testimony to the Board about the

basis for the temperature criteria methodology and the lack of

a scientific foundation for the use

---

in older temperature standards of prohibition against a 5 degree

OF

increase in temperature above

natural conditions.

12.

Cyanide deleted from stand-alone section and moved to chemical

Section 302.409

Cyanide (total) shall not exceed 0.10 mg/l

As explained above, the existing Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life

standards have a cyanide standard listed in both the table of chemical constituent standards in

Section 302.407 and

as a stand-alone provision in Section 302.409. The proposal would repeal

Section 302.409.

-.

.

, ,

13.

Section 302.410 Substances Toxic to Aquatic life

The Agency is proposing the following language changes to Section 302.410:

"

Section 302.410

Substances Toxic to Aquatic Life

Any substance or combination of substances toxic to aquatic life not listed in Section 302.407

shall not be present in amounts toxic to aquatic life or wildlife

D

a)

Anv

substance or combination of substances shall be deemed to be toxic or

harmhl to aquatic life if present in concentrations that exceed the following:

1)

An Acute Aquatic Toxicity Criterion (AATC) validly derived and

correctlv applied pursuant to procedures set forth in Sections 302.612

.

throu& 302.61 8 or in Section 302.621

:

or

2)

A Chronic A~uatic Toxicity Criterion (CATC) validly derived and

correctly applied pursuant to procedures set forth in Sections 302.627 or

302.630.

b)

Any

substance or combination of substances shall be deemed to be toxic or

harmhl to wild or domestic animal life if present in concentrations that exceed

any

Wild and Domestic Animal Protection Criterion (WDAPC) validly derived

and correctly applied pursuant to Section 302.633.

---

c)

The most stringent criterion of subsections (a) and

(b)

shall amlv at all points

outside of any waters within which, mixing is allowed pursuant to Section

302.102.

In addition. the AATC derived pursuant to subsection (a)(l) shall amlv

in all waters except that it shall not apply within a

ZID

that is prescribed in

accordance with Section 302.102.

d)

The procedures of Subpart

F set forth minimum data requirements, appropriate

test protocols and data assessment methods for establishing criteria pursuant to

subsections (a) and

(b).

No other procedures may be used to. establish such

criteria unless approved by the Board in a rulemaking or adjusted standard

proceeding pursuant to Title VII of the Act. The validity and applicability of the

Subpart

F procedures may not be challenned in

any

proceeding brought pursuant

to Titles VIII or

X of the Act, although the validity and correctness of application

of the numeric criteria derived pursuant to Subpart

F mav be challenned in such

proceedings pursuant to subsection (e).

e)

Agency derived criteria may be challenned as follows:

1)

A permittee may challen~e the validity and correctness of application of a

criterion derived by the Agency pursuant to this Section only at the time

such criterion is first applied in an NPDES permit pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 309.1 52 or in an action ~ursuant to Title VIII of the Act for violation

of the toxicity water quality standard. Failure of a person to challenge the

.

.

validity of a criterion at the time of its first application shall constitute a

waiver of such challenge in

any

subsequent proceeding involving

application of the criterion to that person.

2)

Consistent with subsection (e)(l), if a criterion is included as. or is used to

derive. a condition of

&I

NPDES dischawe permit, a permittee may

challenge the criterion in a permit appeal pursuant to Section 40 of the Act

and 35 Ill.

Adrn.

Code 309.1 81. In anv such action, the A~encv shall

-

include in the record all information upon which it has relied in

developing and amlying the criterion, whether such information was

developed by the A~encv or submitted by the Petitioner. THE

BURDEN

OF PROOF SHALL BE ON THE PETITIONER TO DEMONSTRATE

THAT THE CRITERION-BASED CONDITION IS NOT NECESSARY

TO ACCOMPLISH THE PURPOSES

OF SUBSECTION (a) (Section

40(a)(l) of the Act), but there is no presumption in favor of the general

validity and correctness of the application of the criterion

as reflected in

the challenped condition.

3)

Consistent with subsection (e)(l). in an action where alleged violation of

the toxicity water quality standard is based on alleged excursion of a

criterion, the person bringing such action shall have the burdens of going

forward with proof and of persuasion regarding the general validity and

correctness of application of the criterion.

---

f)

Subsections (a) through (d) do not apply to USEPA registered pesticides approved

for aauatic application and applied pursuant to the following conditions:

1)

Application shall be made in strict accordance with label directions;

2)

Applicator shall be ~roperlv certified under the provisions of the Federal

Insecticide. Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7

U.S.C.

135 et sea. (1972)k

3)

Applications of aauatic pesticides must be in accordance with the laws,

regulations and nuidelines of all state and federal agencies authorized by

law to regulate. use or supervise pesticide applications.

As explained earlier, the Clean Water Act requires states to

aquatic life and

' ,

wildlife against

. .

toxic pollutants or other hannll effects of with ambient standards. ~hese

standards must be either in the form of specific numerical criteria or narrative criteria. In

addition, U.S. EPA has sanctioned the use of derived criteria for toxic parameters. The

procedures for calculating derived criteria are in Subpart F of Part 302. The changes being

: -

proposed to Section 302.410 are intended-to update the existing neive toxic standard and to

make the derived criteria procedures and methods in Subpart

F applicable to the water quality

standards in Subpart D.

'

The Agency made minor deviations from the General Use language in this proposal. The

introductory paragraph is worded slightly different than the introductory paragraph in 302.210 to

~cco-odate the differing terminology &d language being amended.

An introductory phrase

"Agency derived criteria may be challenged as follows:" was also added to Section 302.410(e).

The Agency believes it is necessary to include the Wild and Domestic Animal Protection

Criterion references in these standards, but has not proposed to incorporate use of the Human

Health ~hreshold and Non-Threshold Criterion because these waters are not being designated for

public or food processing water supply uses. This change affected the introductory paragraph

language and also allowed the Agency to exclude the language in Section 302.210(c) regarding

---

derivation of Human Health Threshold and Non-Threshold Criterion. Excluding the language in

Section 302.210(c) also made it necessary to change certain internal cross-references to match

the revised language.

Subsection

(f)

of this Section [or Subsection

(g)

of 302.2101 refers to the exemption of

certain U.S. EPA registered pesticide applications from these requirements.

In adopting the

requirements, the following cross reference has been deleted because it is out of date and

unnecessary:

"among which is included the Department of Energy and Natural Resources

pursuant to Section 3 of

'AN ACT in relation to natural resources, research;data collection and

environmen'tal studies

:

Ill. Rev. stat. 1987 chi 96

1/2.

para. 7403."

Finally, the Agency is not.

-.

proposing inclusion of the language currently found in 302.210(g)(4) in this proposal because it

. .

addresses the application of pesticides to waters used for public or food-processing water

supplies.

. .

14.

Ammonia

The Illinois EPA is proposing that the Board adopt a new stand-alone section 302.412

entitled Total Ammonia Nitrogen. As explained above, the Agency has also proposed removing

Ammonia from the table of water quality standards for chemical constituents,

in 302.407. The

.

language

.

proposed for the updated ammonia standard mirrors the existing General Use standard

in Section 302.212, which was adopted by the Board in rulemaking docket R02-19 (October 17,

2002). The standards adopted in R02-19 and proposed today for these waters are also based on

the most recent national criteria document for ammonia.

See

1999 U~date of Ambient Water

Qualitv Criteria for Ammonia, U. S. EPA Office of-Water

(EPA-822-R-99-014)@ecember

1999).

(See

Attachment KK).

---

The ammonia standards proposed herein differ from the existing General Use standard

only for the CAWS and Brandon Pool Aquatic Life Use B waters. Namely, for these waters, the

same standards apply year round rather than two different standards applying seasonally. The

language being proposed for subsection (e) of the ammonia nitrogen standards applicable to the

CAWS and Lower Des Plaines River is reproduced below:

Section

302.412

Total Ammonia Nitropen

****

e)

The Early Life Stave Present period occurs from March through October. All

other periods are subiect to the Earlv Life Stane Absent period. except that waters listed in

Section 303.235 are not subiect to Early Life Stage Present ammonia limits at

any

time.

This language differs slightly fiorn the language in 302.212(e) in order to address the

applicability of the early life stage absent numbers year round to the waters listed in Section

303.235 and designated as Chicago Area Waterway System and ~rando'n

Pool Aquatic Life Use,

B Waters. Also, the following sentence fiorn Section 302.212(e) is not proposed for inclusion

in

the CAWS and Lower Des Plaines River standards "In addition, during any other period when

. .

. ,

early life stages are present, and where the water quality standard does not provide adequate

protection for these organisms, the water body must meet the Early Life Stage Present water

quality standard." This sentence was inserted in the General Use water quality standards to

provide-a heightened level of c6nsirvatisrn or an additibnal safety factor to the General Use

water quality standards to address any unknown organisms that may be found to spW

extremely early or extremely late in the year. Illinois EPA is confident this language is not

necessary to protect the aquatic life uses designated for these waters and is unaware of any

instance

in which it has been proven to protect aquatic life anywhere in the State. Chicago Area

Waterway Aquatic Life Use Waters, Chicago Area Waterway and Brandon Pool Aquatic Life

---

Use B Waters and the Upper Dresden Island Pool Aquatic Life Use Waters will be fully

protected by the adoption of the ammonia water quality standards proposed by the Agency.

E.

Effluent Standards, Part 304

-

Effluent Bacteria Standard

As part of this water quality standards proposal to the Board, the Agency is also

proposing one addition to the Effluent Standards in

35

Ill. Adm. Code Part

304.

This proposal

would create an effluent disinfection requirement for dischargers to the waters proposed for

designation as Incidental Contact Recreation waters or as,Non-Contact Recreation waters. The

following language is being proposed for the new Section

304.224.-.

. ,

APPLICABILITY

304.224

Effluent Bacteria Standards for Dischar~es to the Chicago Area

Waterwav System and Lower Des Plaines River

EMuents discharged to the Incidental Contact Recreation waters listed in

35

111. Adm. Code

303.220

and the Non-Contact Recreation waters listed in

35

Ill. Adm. Code

303.225

shall not

exceed

400

fecal coliforms per

100

ml during the recreational season lasting from March

1

through November

30.

All effluents'in existence on or before the effective date of this Section

shall meet these standards by March

1,201 1.

All new discharges shall meet these standards

upon the initiation of discharge.

This

language establishes an effluent bacteria standard for certain dischargers impacted

by this proposal of

400

fecal

-.

coliforms per

100

milliliters. This standard mirrors the

.

existing

.

standard for dischargers to General Use waters that have not been granted a disinfection

exemption found in

35

Ill. Adm. Code

304.121(a).

The numerical limitation in this proposal and

the existing requirement is a technology-based value designed to assure that disinfection

technologies are functioning properly. This will require active disinfection as an element of the

wastewater treatment process for affected facilities during the months of March through

November. It was noted at stakeholder meetings that there were activities, such as sculling,

---

being performed as early as March and as late as November. It was determined that disinfection

needed to correspond to these known recreational activities.

(See

Attachment K).

The recreational value to the public of these waterways is increasing. Accordingly,

current projects to maintain or enhance this value include construction of the reservoir phase of

TARP

as driven by the Combined Sewer Overflow controls (Long Term Control Plan in federal

nomenclature). Another major step to expand protection is establishing enforceable disinfection

requirements for sewage treatment facilities discharging into the waterway,

as proposed in

- .

Section

304.224

of this petition.

. . -

In the proposal, the Agency included an effluent standard for the disinfection of all

.

existing effluents discharged to Incidental Contact Recreation waters and Non-Contact

Recreation waters by the recreational season

201 1

as specified in the language above.

No other changes are being proposed for Part

304.

Depending on the outcome of this

..

;

proceeding, the parties may need to revisit the existing site specific rulemaking applicable to

, .

-

.*

. .

MWRDGCYs Northside and Calumet treatment plants in 35

Ill.

Adrn.

code

304.201

and the City

of Lockport's treatment plant in 35 Ill.

Adm.

Code

304.208.

IV. FACTS IN SUPPORT

The proposal before the Board relies on numerous studies and reports. In particular, the

UAA

reports contained in Attachments A and B summarize the available data and,make certain

recommendations. The Agency relied extensively on the recommendations of the Midwest

Biodiversity Institute

("MBI") and Center for Applied Bioassessment and Biocriteria ("CABB)

contained in Attachment GG in developing temperature criteria protective of the aquatic life use

designations of these waters.

---

A.

Lower Des Plaines

UAA

Study Findings and Recommendations

This study found that at least three of the six UAA factors are applicable to portions of

this waterway. The Agency is proposing (as recommended in this study) to upgrade the

designated uses in these waters to incrementally higher uses than their current classification.

The consultant recommended setting a bacteria standard to protect the use of the Brandon

Pool for non-contact recreation such

as

boating, fishing and aesthetic enjoyment of the river and

providing adequate protection for incidental contact with the water. After consideration, the

,. ,

Agency decided that the,Brandon Pool warranted no protection of recreational use because of the

.

risks associated with any type of recieation in the Brandon Pool caused by the safety concerns of

limited access and barge traffic. However, if recreational opportunities are enhanced, the

recreational use designation will need to be reevaluated.

For theUpper Dresden Island Pool, the consultant recommended that it should not be

'

considered

as

i

prime zone for primary contact recreation. The report states that, primary

contact recreation should be infrequent or accidental because of the effluent dominated nature of

the river and the risks associated with navigation. The Agency adopted this recommendation by

designating the Upper Dresden Island Pool

as Incidental Contact Recreation water.

- . . - . . -

The

-

consultants

--

recommended that the Agency adopt the reduced biotic integrity status

-

for the Upper Dresden Island Pool and develop a new "Modified Impounded Use Designationyy

for the Brandon Pool along with a dissolved oxygen standard recognizing the severity and

irreversibility of the physical strucNe of the channel. The Agency's proposed aquatic life use

designations are consistent with these recommendations.

---

B.

CAWS UAA Studv Findings and Recommendations

The CDM portion of the CAWS UAA involved analyzing CAWS data and coordinating a

stakeholder advisory group to determine attainable uses and management strategies for achieving

such uses. CDM was also responsible for presenting the

UAA

to the public at large.

In their final report, CDM concludes that while CAWS water quality was for the most

part meeting Illinois' General Use standards, none of.the waterbodies could achieve Clean Water

Act goals due to habitat and safety limitations described

in the six UAA factors. The primary

'.

-

parameters not meeting General Use standards in most reaches of CAWS are temperature,

. .

dissolved oxygen, bacteria. As a result, CDM recommends two aquatic life and two recreational

- .

uses for assignment to the waterways. The recommended recreational uses are: "Limited

Contact Recreation" for CAWS reaches where hand-powered boating and wading take place; and

"Recreational Navigation" for CAWS reaches whereonly commercial and power boating may

:>

safely occur. The recommended aquatic life uses

are:

"Modified Warm-water Aquatic Life"

where

a fisheries consisting of some important sport fish species could exist; and "Limited

-

, ,

Warm-water Aquatic Life" where straight-walled, deep-draft shipping channels limit the

fisheries to predominantly tolerant species.

--

. .

CDM

further concludes that several management options would need to be implemented

before all of CAWS could achieve the recommended attainable uses:

1)

Supplemental aeration andlor flow augmentation would be needed to meet

dissolved oxygen standards

in the Chicago River System.

2)

Effluent disinfection at the MWRDGC Calumet, Stickney and North Side

treatment plants would be required to meet bacteria standards during

dry and wet

weather in most of CAWS.

3)

CSO controls beyond what is existing would be needed to meet bacteria standards

during wet weather in most of CAWS. CDM recommends that the completion of

TARP should be the first step in controlling CSOs.

---

4)

Evaluation of temperature control at the Midwest Generation power plants would

be needed to meet temperature standards in the Chicago River System.

C.

Biocriteria Recommendations

Due to extreme differences of opinion in the temperature discussions, the Agency

engaged

an independent temperature expert to offer a recommendation on the appropriate

temperature criteria necessary to protect the aquatic life uses of the Lower Des Plaines River.

.

Through funding from U.S. EPA, the Center for Applied Bioassessment and Biocriteria (CABB)

was requested to develop temperature criteria options for the Lower Des Plaines River. The

report, "Temperature Criteria Options for the Lower Des Plaines River" can be found in

Attachment GG and a discussion on the Agency's decisions regarding the options that the

Agency selected can be found in the temperature section of this report.

D.

Other Facts in Support

In addition to the three primary contracted studies performed specifically to support this

rulemaking, the Agency also received many comments

and

suggestions from members of the two

stakeholders advisory cormhittees. These comments were incorporated into the final

UM

' .

studies and this rulemaking proposal.

. . , . , . .

, "". , , . .-. --

- - -- ---

The Agency relied onnumerous~1S. EPA criteria documents to -determine what criteria.

are needed to protect the designated uses being proposed. The Agency summarized the

documents, data and other facts relied oh in support of the recommended water quality standards

for specific parameters in the above summaries df each individual parameter. Citations to these

documents are provided in this Statement of Reasons and many of the relevant documents or

portions thereof are provided

as Attachments to this rulemaking proposal. A comprehensive list

---

of Attachments relied upon in developing this rulemaking proposal is provided at the end of this

Statement of Reasons.

V..

A.

Introduction

Section

27

of the Act requires the Board to consider the technical feasibility and

economic reasonableness of all rulemaking proposals.

-

The ~~enc~~s

proposal

can

be split into

three distinct categories for this purpose. First, the Agency has proposed six new use

,

designations in Part 303. Second, the Agency has proposed.appropriate water quality standards

'

for the protection of these use;. Finally, in the absence of suffici'ent information to propose

water quality standards for the protection of the designated recreational uses, the Agency has

proposed a technology based effluent limitation in

Part 304 that requires wastewater treatment

plant effluent disinfection for dischargers to two of the three designations for recreational use

'

waters. The technical and economic analysis is slightly differently for each of these components

of the proposal in addition to the impact of the proposal

as a whole.

.#

B.

Technical Feasibilitv

The technical feasibility of the use designations proposed in

Part 303 and the

. .

accompanying definitions of Part 301 is inherent in the

UAA

conducted to develop these

designated uses.

In proposing these uses, the Agency relied on three

UAA

factors: Factor 3

(human caused conditions or sources of pollution); Factor 4 (dams, diversions or other types of

hydrologic modifications) and Factor

5 (physical conditions related to the natural features of the

water body). 40 CFR

5

13 1.10(g)(3), (4) and (5). Each of these factors takes into account the

technical feasibility of influencing the limitations of the waterway that prevent attaining aquatic

life and recreational uses at levels consistent with the Clean Water Act aquatic life and

---

recreational goals. In order to conclude that one of these three

UAA

factors is applicable, the

State must conclude that it is technically infeasible to overcome the limiting factor.

In

Part 304, the Agency is proposing a technology-based effluent limitation that mandates

disinfection by dischargers to the majority of the affected waters. ~echnology-based disinfection

has been

a long standing requirement applied to numerous wastewater facilities throughout the

State, dating back to the original 1970s Board regulations. 35 111. Adm. Code 304.121. The

Agency believes strongly that effluent disinfection is technically feasible and that this long

history of use of disinfection technologies supports this conclusion. The most common and.

'

,

,%

, -

widely accepted disinfection technologies are chlorination, ozonation, and ultra violet (UV)

'

radiation. MWRDGC has indicated if they were to undertake disinfection at some of their

facilities they would likely use

W treatment, but would be fiee to select between -any available

technologies that would meet the 400 fecal coliforms per 100 ml requirement of 304.224. (See

~ttadhment

NN).

In addition to bacterial standards to protect human health, the Agency has proposed

comprehensive numeric and narrative water quality standards to protect the aquatic life.

In the

case of two specific parameters (dissolved oxygen and temperature) the Agency is aware that, if

. .

adopted, these

-- .-

standards

-

would require installation of additional treatment

-

technology by some

dischargers. For dissolved oxygen, it is expected that MWRDGC will need to consider

additional supplemental aeration andlor flow augmentation technologies to comply with the

water quality standard. Supplemental aeration is currently used by

MWRDGC to increase the

dissolved oxygen concentrations in portions of the CAWS and is clearly technically feasible.

(See Attachments

00 and QQ). The feasibility of flow augmentation was also the subject of a

study by MWRDGC. (See Attachments

PP and QQ):

---

With regard to temperature water quality standards, the proposed rulemaking will require

Midwest Generation to control the temperature of their effluent by installing cooling towers

andlor instituting closed-cycle cooling or some combination of open and closed-cycle cooling at

five of their facilities: Crawford, Fisk, Will County and both Joliet facilities. Cooling towers

and closed-cycle cooling are also widely used and accepted treatment technologies that are

clearly technologically feasible. Various factors will impact which technology will be more

-

,,

appropriate for each facility. In particular, Midwest Generation will have to study the best way

'

to provide cooling at its smaller, older facilities where the availability of additional land may

.

determine how much cooling~capacity can be installed. As the Board is already aware, Midwest

'

Generation is currently considering whether to close its Will County, Crawford and Fisk

facilities.

(See

Attachment RR).

, , ,

, .

.:

- -

.

Ultimately, if these studies lead Midwest Generation to conclude that it is'techni~rill~

infeasible (or economically unreasonable) to install additional cooling capacity at these facilities,

-

Section

3

16 of the clean Water Act allows Midwest ~eieration to petition for relief from these

requirements

.

C.

Economic Justification

..

.

In

-

addition

- ..

to technical feasibility, the Board is required to examine the economic

-. .

impacts of any new technology required by this rulemaking proposal. Regarding the cost of

technology required to comply with the temperature standards of this proposed rulemaking,

Midwest Generation has provided the Agency with only one. statement of the estimated cost of

the technology needed to control the temperature of their effluent at all five of their facilities in

the affected waterways (Crawford, Fisk, Will County, and Joliet 9 and

29 facilities). A cost

estimate of between $559 million and $790 million was provided in a power point presentation at

---

the March 20 and 22,2007 stakeholder advisory committee outreach meetings on this

rulemaking proposal. (See Attachment SS).

The proposed effluent disinfection requirement in Section 304.224 would require

MWRDGC to disinfect their effluent at three facilities: North Side, ~tickne~,

and Calumet. In

the August 26,2005 report "Technical Memorandum 1 WQ: Disinfection Evaluation,"

MWRDGC provided a cost estimate to disinfect the effluent at the Northside, Stickney and

Calumet treatment plants of total present worth between $963 million and $2,702 million for

'.

.

capital-costs and operation and maintenance costs. (See Attachment NN). In 'addition to these

MWRDGC facilities, the city of Joliet will need to disinfect two facilities (Joliet-East and Joliet-

West) to comply with proposed Section 304.224; no cost estimate is available at this time.

The proposal will also require MWRDGC .to address dissolved oxygen levels in the

.

North Branch Chicago River, South Branch Chicago River, upper North Shore Channel, and

South Fork of the South Branch Chicago River (Bubbly Creek). Controlling the dissolved

oxygen level of the stream may be done by using aeration andlor flow augmentation.

In the

January 12,2007 report "Technical Memorandum 4WQ: Supplemental Aeration. of the North

and South Branches of the Chicago River," MWRDGC provided a cost estimate for

., -

supplemental

,

- . . - , - -

aeration

. -. - . - . . .

of

. .

the

,

North

, . .

Branch

. -... . ---

Chicago

-.

River and South Branch

..

Chicago

.

.

River

- . . . .

of

. - . . .

.

,

,

total present worth from $47.4 million to $132.6 million

."

(See Attachment 00). MWRDGC

- -

provided a cost estimate for flow augmentation in the upper North Shore Channel of total present

worth from $74.9 million to $447 million in the January 12,2007 report "Technical

Memorandum 5WQ: Flow Augmentation of the Upper North Shore Channel." (See Attachment

PP). MWRDGC provided a cost estimate for flow augmentation and aeration in the south Fork

of the South Branch Chicago River (Bubbly Creek) of total present worth from

$8 1.9 million to

---

$145 million in the January 12,2007 report "Technical Memorandum

6WQ:

Flow Augmentation

and Supplemental Aeration of the South Fork of the South Branch of the Chicago River (Bubbly

.

Creek)."

(See

Attachment

QQ).

, -

The Agency is not aware of any water quality standards except dissolved oxygen and

temperature that would require specific technology upgrades to achieve compliance and no

. .

effluent limitations are being proposed except for disinfection.. The Agency is not aware ofany

,facilities other

than

those discussed above that will be required to install upgrades to achieve

- ,

compliahce with this proposal, though there may be smaller dischargers impacted by one of these

standards and limitations. A complete list of potentially affected facilities is provided as

,,

Attachment

TT.

. .

,, ,

, ,

The Agency believes it is clear that the technologies required by this proposal are

technically feasible

and,

to assist the Board in evaluating theeconomic reasonableness, the

.'

Agency has provided the cited additional cost estimates and Attachments.

. ,

.. .

,

.

VI.

AFFECTED FACILITIES

AM)

OUTREACH

, .., .

- .

A.

1.

Municipal Facilities

. . . -,

. . . ,

. ,, ,.

.,

,

.,- , - -.

This rulemaking proposal focuses primarily on ambient water quality standards .for the

CAWS

and Lower Des Plaines River, rather than on effluent standards or other requirements for

specific facilities. However, the proposal also includes a technology-based treatment

requirement on effluents from sources containing domestic sewage, a potential source of

bacteria. Municipal sources specifically affected by the bacteria effluent limit include three of the

four facilities of the

MWRDGC:

the Stickney, Calumet and North Side Water Reclamation

plants. The Calumet Plant has a Design Average Flow

("DM')

of 354 million gallons per day

101

---

("MGD") and a Design Maximum Flow ("DMF") of 430 MGD, the Stickney Plant has a DAF of

1,200 MGD and a DMF of 1,440 MGD and the North Side Plant has a DAF of 333 MGD and

DMF of 450 MGD. The relatively small Lemont Plant with a DAF of 2.3 MGD and a DMF of

4.0 MGD would not be subject to the effluent disinfection requirement because it currently

discharges to a waterway designated as Non-Recreational. The MWRDGC Lemont Publicly

Owned Treatment Works ("POTW) is located on CSSC.

The effluent bacteria standards will also affect the East and West Sewage Treatment

plant's of the City of Joliet. The Lower Des Plaines River receives the discharge directly from

the Joliet-West POTW. While the' Joliet-East POTW discharges into Hickory Creek

'-

immediately upstream from the Lower Des Plaines River. Additionally, any small industrial and

. :

miscellaneous facilities containing bacteria that discharge along the system would also be

affected. The proposal inc1udes.a schedule to allow time for design and construction of controls

to meet this new requirement.

In

addition to the POTW discharginginto this system, there are approximately 250 CSOs

that discharge directly into CAWS and Lower Des Plaines River. Direct discharge CSO'owners

.

include the City of Chicago, MWRDGC, Wilrnette, Evanston, Skokie, ~incolnwocid, Stickney,

Forest View, Summit,

.

Burnhani,

.

u -.

Dolton,

. - . . - -. . -

Riverdale,

- . - , .

. . . .

Calumet

. - . . .

City, Calumet Park, Blue Island

. . - . - - . . . . -- . . . . . . . . - - . . . . - . . - . . . . - - . , , , . -

and Posen.

2.

Industrial Dischargers

Beyond the direct impact of an effluent bacteria limitation on domestic wastewater

effluents, the proposed modifications to water quality standards potentially have an indirect

impact on new or existing sources discharging in the system. Although this rulemaking affects a

relatively small percentage of the surface waters of the State, there are a significant number of

---

large and important facilities that discharge into it. The Lower Des Plaines River and CSSC in

particular receive discharges from a large number of significant industrial facilities. One primary

and noteworthy group of sources are thermal discharges (Midwest Generation electric generating

stations and a few other industrial operations discharging cooling water, grain processing and

petroleum refining). The Midwest Generation coal-fired power plants discharging into these

waters include the Joliet 9 and 29 facilities on the Upper Dresden Island Pool, the Will

County/Romeoville, Crawford and Fisk plants which discharge, respectively into the CSSC and

the South Branch of the Chicago River in CAWS. They are potentially affected by new

temperature' standards being proposed. Beyond that however, virtually any source that has permit

limits driven by water quality standards rather than or in addition to,technology based limits

could potentially be affected by one, or more,of the various standards being proposed. Other

,. . +

potentially impacted industrial facilities are the oil refineries currently owned by Citgo and

Exxon-Mobil. There are numerous small industrial and commercial facilities that discharge non-

, .. + .

contact cooling water and other pollutants to CAWS. A comprehensive list of all currently

permitted sources discharging .within CAWS and Lower Des Plaines River is included as

Attachment

TT to this Statement of Reasons.

-.

. ---

B.

outreach

-

stakeholder rrouss and meetin~s

,

,, .

, . . u

1.

Lower Des Plaines Pilot stakeholder workgroup

The pilot

UAA

for the Lower Des Plaines River began in 2000 with the meeting of the

Stakeholders Advisory Group. This group comprised a cross-section of the community likely to

be impacted by these rules, including environmental groups, local governments, specific

industries, industry trade associations and regulatory agencies. Planning meetings with

interested stakeholders were held first on March 8,2000 and a second meeting was held in Joliet

---

with a boat tour of the Lower Des Plaines River on May 17,2000. The first official Lower Des

Plaines Stakeholder Advisory Group meeting was held on December 15,2000 after selection of

the UAA contractors. A detailed timeline of events and activities of the Stakeholder's Group is

included as Attachment E.

The model begun in the Lower Des Plaines River UAA process and expanded for the

Chicago Area Waterways stakeholder Advisory Committee was one of the most extensive

stakeholder involvement efforts ever undertaken by the Agency. A list of participants and

.

members of the Lower Des Plaines Stakeholder Advisory.Committee is attached as Attachment

F. Input received by Illinois EPA fkom the members of the Stakeholder Advisory Committees

was incorporated into the final UAA studies and this rulemaking proposal to the Board.

Lower Des Plaines

UAA

Biological Subcommittee

During the course of the meetings to address the findings and conclusions of the UAA

contractors explained above, it became cleat; that a separate forum was appropriate for the

discussion and consensus decision-making regarding the use of available biological data. A sub-

committee was formed with members representing various government, environmental, industry

,

and consultant stakeholders to achieve this purpose. Subcommittee members were selected or

.-

volunteered

_-- --

__

based

_: .

on

.

their

.. _

expertise

. .. . . ..

in biology

.. . .

(fish

.

or

- ._

macroinvertebrates).

.. .

._

The subcommittee

- ....

memb,ers were made up of representatives from Illinois EPA, the University of Wisconsin-

Milwaukee, consulting engineering firms, MWRDGC, Midwest Generation, Illinois

Environmental Regulatory Group, Chemical Industry Council of Illinois, Exxon/Mobil, Sierra

Club, Environmental Law and Policy Center, Illinois Department of Natural Resources, U.S.

EPA and Midwest Biodiversity Institute, AquaNova International and Hey

&

Associates (the

consultants for the UAA and temperature studies). This group met numerous times between

---

May 2001 and June 2002. The results of this process are incorporated in Chapters 4,5 and 6 of

the final

UAA

and attached comments disputing certain findings in those Chapters by Midwest

Generation.

(See

Attachment UU).

3.

CAWS 'Stakeholders Advisory Committee (SAC)

During the Lower Des Plaines

UAA

stakeholder process, the Agency coordinated an

even larger and more diverse Stakeholder Advisory Committee for the UM for the rest of the

Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life waters. This group first met in April 2003 and

tjyically met monthly through 2003 and 2004., The meetings continued on

a less fiequent basis

bemeen 2005 and early 2007. Attachment

G

contains a list of SAC members and Attachment E

includes a detailed timeline of the activities of the committee.

4.

CAWS Public Meetings and Other Outreach Meetings and Events

In addition to the SAC involvement, public meetings were held to get feedback fiom the

;, .

.

.

..

general public in the neighborhoods surrounding CAWS. Three separate meetings were held in

. --

Evanston, Palos Hills, on Lake calumet in May 2003 and again in September 2003. Meetings

were also held at the Thompson ~e& and Windjammer Marina which is located at the junction

of the Calumet, Little Calumet and Grand'Calumet Rivers

in June 2003.

...A.L..,.,.,.

5.

'

-.

Combined Lower Des Plaines and CAWS Stakeholder

-

meetings

-- --

in

--

Joliet and Chicago on Rulemaking ~roposal

After completion of the contractors'

UAA

reports and receiving extensive comments

fiom the stakeholders, the Agency proceeded to develop a draft water quality standards

rulemaking proposal incorporating the conclusions of the

UAA

reports, supplemental technical

reports on temperature and disinfection, recommendations of the stakeholders and policy

decisions made by the Agency. A

draft proposal was distributed to both groups of stakeholders

on January 26,2007. Meetings to receive oral or written comments on the proposal were held in

---

March 2007. A meeting was held in Joliet on March 20,2007 and in Chicago on March 22,

2007. Presentations at the Joliet meeting were made by ~llinois EPA, the Alliance for the Great

Lakes (on behalf of several environmental groups), MWRDGC and Midwest Generation. Each

of these groups also made presentations in Chicago, but that meeting also included a formal

presentation by the City of Chicago and additional information was also provided by

representatives from the Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute and the School of Public Health at the

,

.

University of Illinois at chicago-, A list of attendees from these meetings is included as

.

Attachment W.

6.

Additional Outreach

In addition to the open, formal meetings discussed above, the Agency held meetings with

U.S. EPA Region

5 stafYand their contractor ~hris

Yoder (of the-Midwest Biodiversity Institute)

and another meeting with Midwest Generation and its consultant to obtain input primarily

on the

temperature component of this proposal prior to filing with the Board.

,

Midwest Generation also asked for and received a meeting

with

U.S. EPA Region 5 and

U.S. EPA headquarters staff to discuss their concerns.

Throughout the process, the Agency has been receptive and responsive to outreach with

--

individuals

-

and groups in addition to the broader stakeholder events: numerous meetings were

held with MWRDGC, the Great Lakes Alliance, Friends of the Chicago River, City of Chicago,

City of Evanston and various health and safety agencies.

MI. SYNOPSIS OF TESTIMONY

Testimony will be provided by several Agencies witnesses.

---

A.

Water, Illinois EPA

Mr.- Frevert will present testimony on the policy conclusions of the

UAA

for the CAWS

and Lower Des Plaines River. He will discuss the selection and definition of the six categories

of use designations. He will also discuss the Agency's decision not to propose a water quality

standard for bacteria at this time and to instead propose an effluent disinfection technology-based

requirement.

B.

~ob

Control, Bureau. of Water

Mr. Sulski will present an overview

and

summary of the CAWS

,UAA

and conclusions

therein. Mr. Sulski has

23

years experience in the Region and has detailed personal experience

with the configurations, processes, effluent inputs and water quality of CAWS.

~e

will discuss

-? : .

the use designation definitions and which segments are proposed for designation of each use.

.

He

:-

will also provide testimony discussing certain water quality standards to protect particular uses

: -

including dissolved oxygen.

C.

Scott Twait, Environmental Protection En~ineer 111, Water Oualitv

.

Standards Unit, Bureau of Water, Illinois EPA

'Mr. Twait's testimony will present an overview of Lower Des Plaines River Pilot Use

Attainability Analysis. He will discuss the development and selection of criteria necessary to

protect the uses,

in particular the toxic parameters and metals. Mr. Twait's testimony will also

address the temperature criteria development and how the Midwest Biodiversity Institute and

Center for Applied Bioassessment and Biocriteria methodology from the report drafted by Mr.

Yoder was implemented and adapted to these waters.

---

D.

Chris Yoder, Midwest Biodiversity Institute

A national expert on temperature criteria development, Mr. Yoder will provide testimony

to the Board on his temperature methodology and the recommendations he made to the Agency

regarding the temperature criteria for the Lower Des Plaines River and how that can be applied

. .

to the other waterways in the CAWS.

.

E.

Roy Smo~or, Public service Administrator, Surface Water Section, Division

of Water Pollution Control, Bureau of Water

Mr. Smogor will present testimony to

thi:

Board relating to his expertise on Illinois

biology and fish populations. He will present additional testimony on the proposed dissolved

. -

.

-

oxygen water quality standards and their relationship to the joint 'Illinois EPAmlinois

Department

of Natural Resources recommended dissolved oxygen standards currently pending

before the Board. He will also present testimony in support of the aquatic life use designations.

. ,

,

.

F.

'

Other Potential Testimony

.

In addition to the above experts who will provide pre-filed testimony, other Illinois EPA

staff, including field biologists, will be available to answer the Board's and public's questions.

VIII.

'

A.

Statement Repardine Com~liance with 5 ILCS 10015-40(3.5)

. .

Pursuant to the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act, the Board's procedural rules

provide that rulemaking proponents must submit to the Board

'A

descriptive title or other

,description of any published study or research report used in developing the rule, the identity

of

the person ,who performed such study, and a description of where the public may obtain a copy

of any such study or research report. Ifthe study was performed by an agency or by a person or

entity that contracted with the agency for the performance of the study, the agency shall also

make copies of the underlying data available to members of the public upon request ifthe data

---

are not protected from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act

[SILCS 1401.

[5

ILCS

10015-40(3.5)]." 35 Ill. Adrn. Code 102.202(e).

To assist the Board in compliance with these requirements, the Agency has attempted to

file as Attachments to this proposal the published studies and research reports relied on in

developing this proposal, to the Board. See Section B below for the List of Attachments which

summarizes these documents and provides the relevant identifying information.

In addition, the

Agency has provided a second list in Section C below of documents relied upon, but not

-.

submitted to the Board ?'Attachments to this rulemaking proposal. These documents consist of

.

statutes, regulations and Boatd opinions that are readily accessible by the Board and the public.

With regard to studies conducted by the Agency or by

an entity that contracted with the

Agency for performance of the study, much of the underlying data for those studies are provided

.L

.

in the studies themselves and included in the Attachments to this-rulemaking proposal. There are

additional data relied on in these studies and additional data relied on by the Agency 'in

-u

. -

- ,

developing this proposal that are not included in this proposal because it is voluminous chemical,

biological and habitat data. With respect to underlying data that are summarized in these

documents, rather than provided in total, the Agency will provide, to the Board in electronic

format any

. ..

of

.

the relevant underlying data used

as requested and accommodate requests fkom the

public to post this underlying data on the website created for the CAWS

UAA

(www.chicagoareawaterways.org).

In addition, the Agency will make such data available to

members of the public at the following address:

Stefaxiie Diers, Assistant Counsel

.

Division of Legal Counsel

Mail Code #21

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

102 1 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

---

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

2 171782-5544

.

.

For the Lower Des Plaines River UAA, a peer-reviewed article was also published by the

UAA contractor as a result of the work conducted to support the UAA. That published study

is included as Attachment WW.

B.

List of Attachments

A. Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis Final Report. AquaNova 'International,

Ltd. and Hey

&

Associates, Inc., prepared for Illinois EPA (December 2003).

B. Chicago Area Wateruiay System Use Attainability Analysis Final Report. Camp, Dresser.

and McKee, prepared for Illinois EPA (August 2007).

C. Interim Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards Workbook (Appendix M to the

Water Qualitystandards Handbook-Second Edition, EPA -823-B-94-005b).

.

U.S. EPA

Office of Water (EPA-823-B-95-002) (March 1995).

-

.

D. Illinois Sanitary Water Board Rules and Regulations SWB-8 Water Quality Standards,

Interstate Waters, Illinois River and Lower Section of Des Plaines River

(REF. 348.025

ISWB SWB-8 C.2) (Criteria Adopted December 1,1966; Implementation Plan Submitted

August 10,1967; Approved by U.S. Dept. of Interior January 27,1968; Sanitary Water

Board Reapproved March 5,1968).

Illinois Sanitary Water Board Rules and Regulations SWB-15 Water Quality Standards,

Interstate Waters, Chicago River and Calumet River System and Calumet Harbor Basin

(REF. 348.025 ISWB SWB-15 C.2) (Adopted by Board June 28,1967; Approved by U.S.

Dept.

. ,,

of

-.

Interior

.

January 27,1968;

. -

Sanitary Water Board reapproval March 5,1968).

E. Timeline of Lower Des Plaines River and CAWS Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meetings

and Outreach Activities.

'

F. Lower Des Plaines UAA Stakeholder Advisory Committee Member List.

G. CAWS UAA Stakeholder Advisory Committee Member List.

H. Recreational Use Designations Map and Aquatic Life Use Designations Map.

I. Map of Lower Des ~l&nes

River and Chicago Area Waterway System.

---

J. Ordinance: Code of Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Title

2:

Forest Preserve District

Lands and Properties, Chapter 4: Recreation in the Forest Preserve.

K. Chicago Area Waterway System Recreational Data

-

Additional and Highlighted. Illinois

EPA, Bureau of Water (April 15,2007).

L. Inventory of Public Access Locations along the Chicago Area Waterway System. Illinois

EPA, Bureau of Water (May 15,2007).

M.. Description of the Chicago Waterway System: Use Attainability Analysis Study Conducted

by Illinois EPA Bureau of Water in Cooperation with,MWRDGC. MWRDGC, Research and

'

Development (May 2002).

N. Written Notice of Wading as a prohibited Use in waterways. Letter from MWRDGC

General Superintendent, John C. Farnan, to Illinois EPA Division of Water Pollution Control

Manager, Toby Frevert (January 14,2004).

0. Minutes from the June 23,2005 Dispersal Bapier Advisory Panel. ~hili~.~.

Moy, University

.

of

.

Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute (June 23,2005).

P. Chicago Area Waterways Health Precautions Pamphlet. MWRDGC, Illinois Department of

Public Health, U.S. EPA, Illinois EPA (October 2003).

-,

Q. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria

-

1986. U.S. EPA Office of Water (EPA44015-

84-002) (January 1986).

.

R. ::Analysis of physical Habitat Quality and Limitations. to Waterways in the Chicago Area.

Center for Applied Bi~assessment and Biocriteria, prepared for U.S. EPA Region 5 (2004).

S. Aquatic Life and Habitat Data Collected in 2006 on the Illinois and Des Plaines Rivers.

Midwest Biodiversity Institute, prepared for U.S. EPA Region 5 (2006).

,,

T.

-

Biological Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life: Volume 11: Users Manual for

Biological and Field Assessment of Ohio Surface Waters. Ohio Environmental protection

Agency, Surface Water Section (Updated January 1,1988).

U.

Interpreting Illinois Fish-IBI Scores,

DRAFT: January 2005. Illinois EPA, Bureau of Water

(January 2005).

V. Quality Criteria for Water 1986 (gold book). U.S. EPA Office of Water (EPA 44015-86-001)

pp. 17-21,34,76-79,168-171 and 253-261 (May 1,1986).

W. 2001-2006 Effluent Sample Results for Temperature at Water Reclamation Plants, 2005 and

2006 Water Quality Sample Results for Temperature,

pH, Alkalinity and Chloride, and

Calculations of H2C03 (soluble C02) in Chicago Area Waterways in 2005 and 2006.

MWRDGC, Research and Development (June 4,2007).

---

X. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen. U.S. EPA Office of Water

Regulations and Standards. Criteria and Standards Division. Washington, D.C (EPA 44015-

86-003) (April 1986).

Y. 1995 Updates: Water Quality Criteria Documents for the Protection of Aquatic Life in

Ambient Water. U.S. EPA Office of Water 4301 (EPA-820-B-96-001) (September 1996).

Z. The Metals Translator: Guidance for Calculating A Total Recoverable Permit Limit From A

Dissolved Criterion. U.S. EPA Office of Water 4305 (EPA-823-B-96-007) (June 1996).

AA.

2001 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Cadmium. U.S. EPA Office'of Water

4304 (EPA-822-R-01-001) (April 2001).

BB. 2005, and 2006 Water Quality Sample Resultsfor Hardness, Cadmium, Nickel and Zinc and

~alcu1ate.d complia&e Rates with Proposed Chronic Standards for the Respective Metals.

MWRDGC, Research and Development (April 25,2007).

2005 and 2006 EMuent Sample Results for Hardness and Cadmium at Calumet, North Side,

and Stickney Water Reclamation Plants. MWRDGC, Research and Development (May

1,

2007).

CC. Agency photos Showing Plume fkom Sediment Scoured and Resuspended in Waterway.

DD. Quality Criteria for Water. U.S. EPA (PB-263 943) pp. 152-159 (1976).

EE. Ambient water Quality for Silver. U.S. EPA Office of Water @PA 44015-80-071) (October

1980).

'

FF. Derivation of a Colorado State Manganese Tablevalue Standard for the Protection of

Aquatic 'Life. William A. Stubblefield and James R. Hockett. ENSR Corporation (July

2000).

GG. Temperahire Crit6xia Options for the Lower Des Plaines

River. Chris 0. Yoder, Research

Director. Midwest Biodiversity Institute, Columbus, Ohio (October 11; 2005).

HH.

Letter fiom Chris Yoder, Midwest Biodiversity Institute, to Toby Frevert, Illinois EPA

Bureau of Water (July 11,2007).

11. E-Mail on effluent data submitted by MWRDGC (May 22,2007).

JJ.

Minutes fiom November 19,2003 SAC Meeting on Safety and Navigational Issues

Applicable to CAWS. Ron French, to Toby Freveri and Rob Sulski (November 24,2003).

KK.

1999 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia. U.S. EPA Office of Water

(EPA-822-R-99-014) (December 1999).

---

LL. The Upper,Illinois Waterway Study Interim Report. 1994 Ichythoplankton Investigation RM

276.2-32 1.7. EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, prepared for Commonwealth

Edison Co. (April 1995).

'

MM. 2004 Lower Des Plaines River Fisheries Investigation RM 274.4-285.5. EA Engineering,

Science, and Technology, prepared for Midwest Generation, EME, LLC (November 2005).

NN. Master Plan North Side Water Reclamation Plant and Surrounding Chicago Waterways,

Technical Memorandum 1 WQ: Disinfection Evaluation. Consoer Townsend Environdyne

Engineers, Inc., prepared for MWRDGC (August 26,2005).

00. Technical Memorandum 4WQ Supplemental Aeration of the North and South Branches of

"

-

the Chicago River MWRDGC North Side Water Reclamation Plant, Project No. 04-014-2P.

Consoer Townsend Environdyne Engineers, Inc., prepared for

MWRDGC (January 12,

2007).

PP.

Technical Memorandum 5WQ Flow Augmentation of the Upper North Shore Channel

MWRDGC North Side Water Reclamation Plant, Project No. 04-014-2P. Consoer

Townsend Environdyne Engineers, Inc., prepared for MWRDGC (January 12,2007).

'

QQ. Technical Memorandum 6WQ Flow,Augmentation and Supplemental Aeration of the South

..

Fork of the South Branch of the Chicago River MWRDGC North Side Water Reclamation

' .

Plant, Project No. 04-014-2P. Consoer Townsend Environdyne Engineers, Inc., prepared for

>.

;, ' . --

MWRDGC (January 12,2007).

RR.

Memorandum of Understanding By and ~etween'Midwest

Generation LLC and Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency, Revised 12/10/2006 3:21:06 PM.

SS.

Cost Estimate from Midwest Generation from power point presentation SAC Meetings

(March 20

&

22,2007).

TT.

List of

.

Potentially

.

Affected Facilities.

W. Midwest Generation Comments on Lower Des Plaines River Temperature Criteria Options

Report. Letter to Toby Frevert (June 1,2006).

Comments on Lower Des Plaines River Temperature Criteria Derivation Report Prepared by

Chris Yoder and Ed

an kin. Letter to Toby Frevert (July 28,2004).

W. List of attendees from Rulemaking Proposal Meeting.

WW. A River is Reborn-Use Attainability Analysis for the Lower Des Plaines River, Illinois.

Vladimir Novotny, Neal OYReilly, Timothy Ehlinger, Toby Frevert and Scott Twait. Water

Environment Research, Volume 79, Number

1, pp. 68-80.

---

C.

List of Documents Relied Upon But Not Attached

Statutes and Regulations

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) 33 U.S.C.

8

125 1 et seq.

Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act 2000 (Beach Act), 33 U.S.C. $1313.

Illinois Environmental Protection Act, 415 ILCS 511 et seq

40 C.F.R; Part 131 (Water Quality Standards)

35 Illinois Administrative Code' Subtitle C: Water Pollution

US.

EPA Guidance Documents

Water Oualitv Standards Handbook: Second Editi'on, EPA-823-B-94-005a, U.S. EPAeOffice of

Water (4305)(August 1994).

Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Oualitv Criteria for the Protection of Aauatic

Ornanisms and Their Uses, PB85-227049, U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development,

Environmental Research Laboratories (1985)(reproduced by National Technical Information

Service, U.S. Department of Commerce).

Board O~inions

In the Mbtter of: Water Quality Triennial Review: Amendments to-35 Adm. Code 302.1 05,

302.208(e)-(g;), 302.504(a), 302.575(d), 309.141

(h); and Proposed 35 Ill. Adm. Code 301.267,

301.31 3,301.413,304.120, and 309.157, R02-11 (December 19,2002).

In the Matter of: Proposed Amendments to ~mmonia Nitrogen Standards 35

Ill. Adm. Code

302.1 00, 302.212, 302.213, and 304.122, R02-19 (October 17,2002).

In the Matter of: Petition of Commonwealth Edison Company for an Adjusted Standardfiom

35

Ill. Adm. Code 302.211(d) and (e), AS96-10 (October 3,1996) and (March 16,2000).

In the Matter of: Triennial Water Quality Review: Amendments to

35 Ill. ~dm.

Code 302.208

and 302.407 (Lead and Mercury), R94-1 (A), (May 16,1996).

Commonwealth Edison Company v. Illinois EPA, PCB 91-29 (Variance

-

Water)(Novemb,er 21,

1991).

In the Matter oj Proposed Amendments to Title 35, Subtitle C (Toxins Control), R88-21-

Docket

B (June 21,1990).

---

In the Matter oj Proposed Amendments to Title 35, Subtitle

C

(Toxins Control), R88-21-

Docket

A (January 25,1990).

In the Matter oj Proposed Determination of No SigniJicant Ecological Damage for the Joliet

Generating Station, PCB 87-93 (November 15, 1989).

In the Matter oj Water Quality and Efluent Standards Applicable to the Chicago River System

and Calumet River System, R87-27 (May 19,1988).

,

Commonwealth Edison v. Illinois EPA, PCB 87-40 (dismissed August 20,1987).

Commonwealth Edison Company v. Illinois EPA, PCB 84-33 (Variance

-

Water) (December 20,

1984).

Commonwealth Edison Company v. Illinois EPA, PCB 81-34 (Variance

-

Water) (June 10,

1981).

Commonwealth Edison Company v. Illinois EPA, PCB 78-79 (~&ance

-

Water) (May 25,

1978).

In the Matter of Water Quality Standards Revisions, R72-4 (November 8, 1973).

>

In the Matter of Water Quality Standards Revisions, R71-14 (Consolidated with R70-8 arid

R71-20) (March 7,1972).

'

Pending Board Rulemakina Dockets

.>-

*.. .

In the Matter of Proposed Amendments to Dissolved Oxygen Standards 35 Ill. Adm. Code

302.406, R04-25 (First Notice Opinion and Order, July 12,2007), Recommended Revisions to

'

the Illinois General Use Water-Oualitv Standard for Dissolved Oxygen, Illinois EPA and Illinois

Department of Natural Resources (March 31,2006), entered

as

Exhibit 23.

In the Matter

08 Triennial Review of Sulfate and Total Dissolved.Solids Water Quality

Standards: Proposed Amendments to 35

111. Adm. Code 302.1 02(b)(6),

302.102(b)(8),302.102(b)(I

0), 302.208(&, 309.103(~)(3), 405.109(b)(2)(A), 409.109(b)(2)(B),

406.1 OO(d); Repealer of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 406.203 and Part 407; and Proposed

New

35 111.

Adm. Code 302.208@), R07-09 (filed with the Board on October 23,2006).

---

---

TITLE 35

:

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SUBTITLE C: WATER POLLUTION

CHAPTER I: POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PART 301

INTRODUCTION

Section

301.101

Authority

301.102

Policy

301.103

Repeals

301.104

Analytical Testing

301.105

~eferences to Other Sections

301.106

Incorporations by Reference

301.107

Severability

301.108

Adjusted Standards

301.200

Definitions

301.205

Act

301.210

Administrator

301.215

Agency

'

301.220

Aquatic Life

301.221

Area of Concern

301.225

Artificial Cooling Lake

.

301.230

Basin

301.231

Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern

301.235

Board

301.240

CWA

301.245

Calumet River System

301.247

Chicano Area Waterway System

301.250

Chicago River System

301.255

Combined Sewer

301.260

Combined Sewer Service Area

301.265

Construction

301.267

Conversion Factor

301.270

Dilution Ratio

301.275

Effluent

301.280

Hearing Board

301.282

Incidental Contact Recreation

301.285

Industrial Wastes

301.290

Institute

301.295

Interstate Waters

301.300

Intrastate Waters

301.301

Lake Michigan Lakewide Management Plan

301.305

Land Runoff

301.307

Lower Des Plaines River

301.310

Marine Toilet

---

Method Detection Level

Minimum Level

Metals Translator

Modification

New Source

Non-Contact Recreation

Non-Recreational

NPDES

Other Wastes

Outlier

Person

Pollutant

Pollutant Minimization Program

Population Equivalent

Preliminary Effluent Limitation

Pretreatment Works

Primary Contact

Projected Effluent Quality

Public and Food Processing Water Supply

Publicly Owned Treatment Works

Publicly Regulated Treatment Works

Quantification Level

Reasonable Potential Analysis

Same Body of Water

Sanitary Sewer

Secondary Contact

Sewage

Sewer

Sludge

Standard of Performance

STORET

Storm Sewer

Total Maximum Daily Load

Total Metal

Treatment Works

Underground Waters

Wasteload Allocation

Wastewater

Wastewater Source

Watercraft

Waters

Water Quality Based Effluent

imitation

Wet Weather Point Source

Whole Effluent Toxicity

---

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 271.

SOURCE: Filed with the Secretary of State January 1, 1978; amended at 3 Ill. Reg. 25, p.

190, effective June 2 1,1979; amended at 5 Ill. Reg. 6384, effective May 28, 198 1

;

codified at 6 Ill. Reg. 7818; amended in R88-1 at 13 Ill. Reg. 5984, effective April 18,

1989; amended in R88-21(A) at 14 Ill. Reg. 2879, effective February 13, 1990; amended

in R99-8 at 23 Ill. Reg. 11277, effective August 26, 1999; amended in R02-11 at 27 Ill.

Reg. 158, effective December 20,2002; amended at in R08-

at

Ill. Reg.

-9

effective

Section 301.247

Chicago Area Waterway System

"Chicano Area Waterway System" means Calumet River, Grand Calumet River, Little

Calumet River downstream fiom the confluence of Calumet River and Grand Calumet

River. Calumet-San Channel. Lake Calumet, Chicago River and its branches downstream

'

fiom their confluence with North Shore Channel, North Shore Channel and Chicago

Sanitary and Ship Canal.

(Source: Added at

Ill. Reg.

,

effective

)

Section 301.282

Incidental Contact Recreation

"Incidental Contact Recreation" means any recreational activity in which human contact

with the water is incidental and in which the probability of ingesting amreciable.

quantities of water is minimal, such as fishing; commercial boating: small craft

recreational boating: and

any

limited contact associated with shoreline activity such as

wading.

(Source: Added at

Ill. Reg.

,

effective

)

Section 301.307

,

Lower Des Plaines River

"Lower Des Plaines River" means Des Plaines River fiom its confluence with Chicago

Sanitary and Ship Canal to the Interstate 55 bridge.

(Source: Added at

Ill. Reg.

,

effective

')

Section 301.323

Non-Contact Recreation

"Non-Contact Recreation" means any recreational or other water use in which human

contact with the water is unlikely. such as pass through commercial or recreational

---

navigation, and where physical conditions or hydrologic modifications make direct

human contact unlikely or dangerous.

(Source: Added at

Ill. Reg.

,

effective

)

Section 301.324

Non-Recreational

'Won-Recreational" means

a

water body where the physical conditions or h~drolo~c

modifications preclude primary contact, incidental contact and non-contract recreation.

TITLE

35: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SUBTITLE

C: WATER POLLUTION

CHAPTER I: POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PART

302

'

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

SUBPART A: GENERAL WATER QUALITY PROVISIONS

Section

302.100

Definitions

302.101

Scope and Applicability

302.102

Allowed Mixing, Mixing Zones and ZIDs

302.103

Stream Flows

302.104

-

Main River Temperatures

302.105

Antidegradation

SUBPART B: GENERAL USE WATER QUALJTY STANDARDS

Section

302.201

302.202

302.203

302.204

302.205

302.206

302.207

302.208

302.209

302.210

302.21 1

302.212

302.213

Scope and Applicability

Purpose

Offensive Conditions

pH

Phosphorus

Dissolved Oxygen

Radioactivity

Numeric Standards for Chemical Constituents

Fecal Colifoxm

Other Toxic Substances

Temperature

Total Ammonia Nitrogen

Effluent Modified Waters (Ammonia)(Repealed)

---

SUBPART C: PUBLIC

AND

FOOD PROCESSING WATER SUPPLY STANDARDS

Section

302.301

Scope and Applicability

302.302

Algicide Permits

302.303

Finished Water Standards

302.304

Chemical Constituents

302.305

Other Contaminants

302.306

Fecal Coliform

302.2207

Radium

226

and

228

SUBPART D: CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM AND LOWER DES

PLAINES RIVER WATER QUALITY

SBXlWARY

C-T

!,W

-STANDARDS

Section

302.401 '

302.402

302.403

302.404

302.405

302.406

302.407

302.408

302.409

302.410

302.412

Scope and Applicability

Purpose

Unnatural Sludge

pH

Dissolved Oxygen

Fecal Coliform (Repealed)

Chemical Constituents

Temperature

Cyanide {Repealed)

Substances Toxic to Aquatic Life

Total Ammonia Nitrogen

SUBPART E: LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

Section

302.501

302.502

302.503

302.504

302.505

302.506

302.507

302.508

Scope, Applicability, and Definitions

Dissolved Oxygen

pH

Chemical Constituents

Fecal Coliform

Temperature

Thermal Standards for Existing Sources on January

1, 1971

Thermal Standards for Sources Under Construction But Not In Operation

on January

1,197 1

Other Sources

Incorporations by Reference

Offensive Conditions

Regulation and Designation

of Bioaccumulative Chemicals ,of Concern

(BCCs)

---

Supplemental Antidegradation Provisions for Bioaccumulative Chemicals

of Concern (BCCs)

Radioactivity

Supplemental Mixing Provisions for Bioaccumulative Chemicals of

Concern (BCCs)

Ammonia Nitrogen

Other Toxic Substances

Data Requirements

Analytical Testing

Determining the Lake Michigan Aquatic Toxicity Criteria or Values

-

General Procedures

Determining the Tier I Lake Michigan Acute Aquatic Toxicity Criterion

(LMAATC): Independent of Water Chemistry

Determining the Tier I Lake Michigan Basin Acute Aquatic Life Toxicity

Criterion (LMAATC); Dependent on Water Chemistry

.

Determining the Tier I1 Lake Michigan Basin Acute Aquatic Life Toxicity

Value (LMAATV)

Determining the Lake Michigan Basin Chronic Aquatic Life Toxicity

Criterion (LMCATC) or the Lake Michigan Basin Chronic Aquatic Life

.

Toxicity Value (LMCATV)

Procedures for Deriving Bioaccumulation Factors for the Lake Michigan

Basin

Procedures for Deriving Tier I Water Quality Criteria and Values

in the

Lake Michigan Basin to Protect Wildlife

Procedures for Deriving Water Quality Criteria and Values in the Lake

Michigan Basin to Protect Human Health

-

General

Procedures for Determining the Lake Michigan Basin ~um& Health

Threshold Criterion (LMHHTC) and the Lake Michigan Basin Human

Health Threshold Value (LMHHTV)

Procedures for Determining the Lake Michigan Basin Human Health

Nonthreshold Criterion (LMHHNC) or the Lake Michigan Basin Human

Health Nonthreshold Value (LMHHNV)

Listing of Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern, Derived Criteria and

Values

SUBPART

F: PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING WATER QUALITY CRITERIA

Section

302.601

Scope and Applicability

302.603

Definitions

302.604

Mathematical Abbreviations

302.606

Data Requirements

302.612

Determining the Acute Aquatic Toxicity Criterion for an Individual

Substance

-

General Procedures

302.615

Determining the Acute Aquatic Toxicity Criterion

-

Toxicity Independent

of Water Chemistry

---

Determining the Acute Aquatic Toxicity Criterion

-

Toxicity Dependent

on Water Chemistry

Determining the Acute Aquatic Toxicity Criterion

-

Procedure for

Combinations of Substances

Determining the Chronic Aquatic Toxicity Criterion for an Individual

Substance

-

General Procedures

Determining the Chronic Aquatic Toxicity Criterion

-

Procedure for

Combinations of Substances

.

The Wild and Domestic Animal Protection Criterion

The Human Threshold Criterion

.

Determining the Acceptable Daily Intake

Determining the Hurnan Threshold Criterion

The Human Nonthreshold Criterion

~eterminin~

the Risk Associated Intake

Determining the Hurnan Nonthreshold Criterion

Stream Flow for Application of Human Nonthreshold Criterion

Bioconcentration Factor

Determination of Bioconcentration Factor

Utilizing the Bioconcentration Factor

Listing of Derived Criteria

APPENDIX A

References to Previous Rules

APPENDIX B

Sources of Codified Sections

APPENDIX C

'Maximum total ammonia nitrogen concentrations allowable for

certain combinations of pH and temperature

TABLE

A

pH-Dependent Values of the

AS

(Acute Standard)

TABLE B

Temperature and pH-Dependent Values of the CS (Chronic

Standard) for Fish Early Life Stages Absent

TABLE C

Temperature and pH-Dependent Values of the CS (Chronic

Standard) for Fish Early Life Stages Present

'

AUTHORITY: Implementing Section 13 and authorized by Sections 1 l(b) and 27 of the

Environmental Protection Act [415 ILCS 5/13, 1 l(b), and 271

SOURCE: Filed with the Secretary of State January 1, 1978; amended at 2 Ill. Reg. 44,

p. 15 1, 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; codified at 6 Ill. Reg.

78 18; amended at 6 Ill. Reg. 1 1 161, effective September 7, 1982; amended at 6 Ill. Reg.

13750, effective October 26, 1982; amended at 8 Ill. Reg. 1629, effective January 18,

1984; peremptory amendments at 10 Ill. Reg. 461, effective December 23,1985;

amended at R87-27 at 12 Ill. Reg. 991 1, effective May 27,1988; amended at R85-29 at

12 Ill. Reg. 12082, effective July 1 1, 1988; amended in R88-1 at 13 Ill. Reg. 5998,

effective April 18, 1989; amended in R88-21(A) at 14 Ill. Reg. 2899, effective February

13,1990; amended in R88-2 1

(B) at 14 Ill. Reg. 1 1974, effective July 9,1990; amended

in R94-1 (A) at 20 Ill. Reg. 7682, effective May 24, 1996; amended in R94-1(B) at 21 Ill.

Reg. 370, effective December 23, 1996; expedited correction at 21 Ill. Reg. 6273,

---

effective December 23, 1996; amended in R97-25 at 22 Ill. Reg. 1356, effective

December 24, 1997; amended in R99-8 at 23 Ill. Reg. 11249, effective August 26, 1999;

amended in R01-13 at 26 Ill. Reg. 3505,. effective February 22,2002; amended in R02-19

at 26 Ill. Reg. 16931, effective November 8,2002; amended in R02-11 at 27 Ill. Reg.

166, effective December 20,2002; amended in R04-2 1 at 30 Ill. Reg. 49 19, effective

March 1,2006; amended at in. R08-

at

Ill. Reg.

,

.effective

Section

302.101

Scope and Applicability

a)

This Part contains schedules of water quality standards which are

applicable throughout the State

as designated in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 303.

Site specific water quality standards are found with the water use

designations in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 303.

b)

Subpart B contains general use water quality standards which must be met

in waters of the State for which there is no specific designation (35 Ill.

Adm. Code 303.201).

c)

Subpart C contains the public and food processing water supply standards.

These are cumulative with Subpart B and must be met by all designated

waters at the point at which water is drawn for treatment and distribution

as a potable supply or for food processing (35 Ill. Adm. Code 303.202).

d)

Subpart

D contains the Chicano Area Waterway System and the Lower

Des Plaines River water quality

. .

&

standards. These standards must be met only by certain waters

designated in 35 Ill. Adm. Code

303.204,303.220,303.225,303.227,

303.230.303.235 and 303.237

1"2.

e)

Subpart E contains the Lake Michigan Basin water quality standards.

These must be met in the waters of the Lake Michigan Basin as designated

in 35 Ill. Adrn. Code 303.443.

f)

Subpart F contains the procedures for determining each of the criteria

designated in Sections 302.210 and 302.410.

g)

Unless

the' contrary is clearly indicated, all references to "Parts" or

"Sections" are to Ill. Adm. Code, Title 35: Environmental Protection. For

example, "Part 309" is 35 Ill.

Adm.

Code 309, and "Section 309.101" is 35

Ill. Adm. Code 309.101.

(Source: Amended at

Ill. Reg.

,

effective

)

---

Section 302.102

Allowed Mixing, Mixing Zones and ZIDs

a)

Whenever a water quality standard is more restrictive than its

corresponding effluent standard, or where there is no corresponding

effluent standard specified at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304, an opportunity shall

be allowed for compliance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.105 by mixture of

an effluent with its receiving waters, provided the discharger has made

every effort to comply with the requirements of 35 Ill.

Adrn.

Code

304.102.

b)

The portion, volume and area of any receiving waters within which mixing

is allowed pursuant to subsection (a) shall be limited by the following:

1)

Mixing must be confined in an area or volume of the receiving

water no larger than the area or volume which would result after

incorporation of outfall design measures to attain optimal mixing

efficiency of effluent and receiving waters. Such measures may

include, but are not limited to, use of difhsers ,and engineered

location and configuration of discharge points.

2)

Mixing is not allowed in waters which include a tributary stream

entrance if such mixing occludes the tributary mouth or otherwise

restricts the movement of aquatic life into or out of the tributary.

3)

Mixing is not allowed in water adjacent to bathing beaches, bank

fishing areas, boat ramps or dockages or

any

other public access

area.

4)

Mixing is not allowed in waters containing mussel beds,

endangered species habitat, fish spawning areas, areas of important

aquatic life habitat, or any other natural features vital to the well

being of aquatic life in such a manner that the maintenance of.

aquatic life in the body of water as a whole would be adversely

affected.

5)

Mixing is not allowed in waters which contain intake structures of

public or food processing water supplies, points of withdrawal of

water for irrigation, or watering areas accessed by wild or domestic

animals.

6)

Mixing must allow for a zone of passage for aquatic life in which

water quality standards are met.

7)

The area and volume in which mixing occurs, alone or in

combination with other areas and volumes of mixing, must not

intersect any area of any body of water in such a manner that the

---

maintenance of aquatic life in the body of water as a whole would

be adversely affected.

8)

The area and volume in which mixing occurs, alone or in

combination with other areas and volumes of mixing must not

contain more than 25% of the cross-sectional area or volume of

flow of a stream except for those streams where the dilution ratio is

less than 3: 1. Mixing is not allowed in receiving waters which

.

have a zero minimum seven day low flow which occurs once in ten

years.

9)

No mixing is allowed where the water quality standard for the

constituent in question is already violated in the receiving water.

10)

No body of water may be used totally for mixing of single outfall

or combination of outfalls.

11)

Single sources of effluents which have more than one outfall shall

be limited to a total area and volume of mixing no larger than that

allowable if a single outfall were used.

12)

The area and volume in which mixing occurs must be as small as is

practicable under the limitations prescribed in this subsection, and

in no circumstances may the mixing encompass a surface area

larger than 26 acres.

c)

All water quality standards of this Part must be met at every point outside

of the area and volume of the receiving water within which mixing is

allowed. The acute toxicity standards of this Part

3QXH-Q

must be met within the area and volume within which mixing is

allowed, except

as provided in subsection (e).

d)

Pursuant to the procedures of Section 39 of the Act and 35 Ill. Adrn.

Code 309, a pe'rson may apply to the Agency to include as a condition in

an NPDES permit formal definition of the area and volume of the waters

of the State within which mixing is allowed for the NPDES discharge in

question. Such formally defined area and volume of allowed mixing shall

constitute a "mixing zone" for the purposes of 35 Ill. Adm. Code:

Subtitle C. Upon proof by the applicant that a proposed mixing zone

conforms with the requirements of Section 39 of the Act, this Section and

any additional limitations as may be imposed by the Clean Water Act

(CWA) (33 U.S.C 1251 et ~eq.)~

the Act or Board regulations, the Agency

shall, pursuant to Section 39(b) of the Act, include within the NPDES

permit a condition defining the mixing zone.

---

e)

Pursuant to the procedures of Section 39 of the Act and 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 309, a person may apply to the Agency to include as a condition in

an NPDES permit a ZID as a component portion of a mixing zone. Such

ZID shall, at a minimum, be limited to waters within which effluent

dispersion is immediate and rapid. For the purposes of this subsection,

"immediate" dispersion means an effluent's merging with receiving waters

without delay in time after its discharge and within close proximity of the

end of the discharge pipe, so as to minimize the length of exposure time of

aquatic life to undiluted effluent, and "rapid" dispersion means an

effluent's merging with receiving waters so as to minimize the length of

exposure time of aquatic life to undiluted effluent. Upon proof by the

applicant that a proposed ZID conforms with the requirements of Section

39 of the Act and this Section, the Agency shall, pursuant to Section 39(b)

of the Act, include within the NPDES permit a condition defining the ZID.

f)

Pursuant to Section 39 of the Act and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 309.103, an

applicant for an NPDES permit shall submit data to allow the Agency to

determine that the nature of any mixing zone or mixing zone in

combination with a ZID conforms with the requirements of Section 39 of

the Act and of this Section. A,permittee may appeal Agency

determinations concerning a mixing zone or ZID pursuant to the

procedures of Section 40 of the Act and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 309.18 1.

g)

Where a mixing zone is defined'in an NPDES permit, the waters within

that mixing zone, for the duration of that NPDES permit, shall constitute

the sole waters within which mixing is allowed for the permitted

discharge. It shall not be a defense in any action brought pursuant to 35

111; Adm. Code 304.105 that the area and volume of waters within which

mixing may be allowed pursuant to subsection

(b)

is less restrictive than

the area or volume or waters encompassed in the mixing zone.

h)

Where a mixing zone is explicitly denied in a NPDES permit, no waters

may be used for mixing by the discharge to which the NPDES permit

applies, all other provisions of this Section notwithstanding.

i)

Where an NPDES permit is silent on the matter of a mixing zone, or

where no NPDES permit is

in effect, the burden of proof shall be on the

discharger to demonstrate compliance with this Section in any action

brought pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.105.

(Source: Amended at

Ill. Reg.

,

effective

)

SUBPART D: CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM AND LOWER DES

PLAINES

RIVER

WATER QUALITY

Y

STANDARDS

---

Section 302.401

Scope and Applicability

Subpart D contains the Chicano Area

.

Waterway

.

System and Lower Des Plaines River

. .

water quality

standards. These must be

met only by

estak

waters specifically designated in Part 303. The Subpart B general use

and Subpart C public water supply-standards of this Part do not apply to waters described

in 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 303.204 and listed in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 303.220 through 303.237 as

the Chicano Area Waterway System or Lower Des Plaines River

Section 302.402

Purpose

The Chicago Area Waterway System and Lower Des Plaines River standards shall

protect incidental contact or non-contact recreational uses, except where desimated as

non-recreational waters; commercial activity, including navigation and industrial water

supply uses; and the highest aualitv aquatic life and wildlife that is attainable, limited

only by the physical cohdition of these waters and hydrologic modifications to these

waters. The numeric and narrative standards contained

in this Part will assure the

protection of the aquatic life and recreational uses of the Chicago Area Waterway System

and Lower Des Plaines River as those uses are defined in 35 Ill.

Adm.

Code Part 301 and

designated in 35 Ill.

Adm. Code Part 3

0

3

.

0

. .

. .

(Source: Amended at

Ill. Reg.

,

effective

)

Section 302.404

pH

pH

shall be within the range of

6.5

64

to 9.0 except for natural

causes.

(Source: Amended at

Ill. Reg.

,

effective

'

Section 302.405

Dissolved Oxygen

Dissolved oxygen

concentrations shall not be less than

applicable values in subsections (a),

(b)

and (c) of this Section

a)

For the Upper Dresden Island Pool Aquatic Life Use waters listed in

Section 303.237,

1)

'

during the period of March through July:

---

A)

6.0 mn/l as a dailv mean averaged over

7 davs, and

B)

5.0 mnll at any time; and

2)

during the period of August through February:

A)

5.5 mg/l as a daily mean averaged over 30 days,

B)

4.0 mg/l as a daily minimum averaged over

7 days, and

C)

3.5 m~/1

at any time.

b)

For the Chicago Area Waterway System Aquatic Life Use A waters listed

,

in Section 303.230,

1)

during the period of March th&& July.

5.0 mdl at any time: and

2)

during the period of Aunust through February:

A)

4.0 mn/l as

a dailv minimum averaged over 7 days, and

B)

3.5 mn/l at any time.

c)

For the Chicago Area Waterway System and Brandon Pool Aquatic Life

Use

B waters listed in Section 303.235,

1)

4.0 mdl as a daily minimum averaped over 7 days. and

2)

3.5 mdl at any time.

d)

Assessing attainment of dissolved oxygen minimum values.

1)

Daily mean is the arithmetic mean of dissolved oxygen values

measured in a single 24-hour calendar day.

2)

Daily minimum is the minimum dissolved oxygen value

measured in a single 24-hour calendar day.

3)

The measurements of dissolved oxygen used to determine

. '

attainment or lack of attainment with any of the dissolved oxyge~

standards in this Section must assure daily minima and dailv means

that represent the

true dailv minima and dailv means.

---

4)

The dissolved oxygen values used in calculating or determining

any daily mean or daily minimum should not exceed the air-

equilibrated value.

(Source: Amended at

Ill. Reg.

-

effective

)

Section 302.407

Chemical Constituents

a)

The acute standard (AS) for the chemical constituents listed in subsection

le) shall not be exceeded at any time except as provided in subsection (d).

b)

The chronic standard (CS) for the chemical constituents listed in

subsection (e) shall not be exceeded by the arithmetic average of at least

four consecutive samples collected over

any

period of at least four days,

except as ~rovided in subsection (d). The samples used to demonstrate

attainment or lack of attainment with a CS must be collected in a manner

that assures an average representative of the sampling period. For the

metals that have water qualitv based standards dependent upon hardness,

the chronic water qualitv standard will be calculated according to

subsection (e) using the hardness of the water body at the time the metals

sample was collected. To calculate attainment status of chronic metals

standards. the concentration of the metal in each sample is divided by the

calculated water quality standard for the sample to determine a quotient.

The water quality standard is attained if the mean of the sample quotients

is less

than

or equal to one for the duration of the averaging period.

c)

The human health standard (HHS) for the chemical constituents listed in

subsection

(0

shall not be exceeded when the stream flow is at or above

the harmonic mean flow pursuant to Section 302.658 nor shall an annual

average, based on at least eight samples, collected in a mannef

representative of the sampling period, exceed the HHS except as provided

in subsection (d).

d)

In waters where mixing is allowed pursuant to Section 302.102 of this

Part. the followinn ~DD~Y:

1)

The AS shall not be exceeded in

anv waters except for those waters

for which a zone of initial dilution

(ZID)

applies pursuant to

Section 302.102 of this

Part.

2)

The CS shall not be exceeded outside of waters in which mixinn is

allowed pursuant to Section 302.102 of this

Part.

3)

The HHS shall not be exceeded outside of waters in which mixing

is allowed pursuant to Section 302.102 of this

Part.

---

e)

Numeric Water Quality Standards for the Protection of Aquatic Ornanisms

where:

udL

=

microgram per liter,

exprxl =base natural logarithms raised to the x- power,

lnm)

=

natural logarithm of Hardness in milligrams per liter,

* =

conversion factor multiplier for dissolved metals. and

** =

sample may be in the available or weak acid dissociable (WAD) forms

Constituent

Arsenic

[trivalent. dissolved)

Benzene

Cadmium

[dissolved)

Chromium

(hexavalent, total)

Chromium (trivalent,

dissolved)

.

Copper

(dissolved)

Cyanide**

Ethylbenzene

Lead

(dissolved)

Mercury (dissolved)

Nickel (dissolved)

Toluene

Xvlene(s1

Zinc (dissolved)

AS

G&

340 X 1.0*=340

4200

expl'A+BlnOl X

l1.138672-

J(lnH)(0.041838)1)

*,

where

A=-2.918 and B=1.128

-

-

16

expTA+Bln(H)l X 0.3 16*,

where A=3.7256 and

B=0.8190

expTA+Bln(H)l X 0.960*,

where A=-1.645 and

B=0.9422

-

22

150

expTA+Bln(H)l X l1.46203-

[(lnH)(O. 145712)))

*,

where A=- 1.30 1 and

B=1.273

1.4

X 0.85*=1.2

expTA+Bln(H)l X 0.998*,

where A=O. 5 1 73 and

B=0.8460

2000

-

19

920

expTA+Bln(H)l X 0.978*,

where A=0.9035 and

B=0.8473

-

CS

(sln/L)

150 X 1.0*=150

-

860

expTA+Bln(H)l X

/

1.101 672-

J(lnH)(O.O41838)1)

*.

where

A= -3.490 and B=0.7852

-

11

.

.

ex~FA+Bln(H)l X 0.860*,

where A=0.6848 and

B=0.8190

expTA+BlnOl X 0.960*.

where A=1.646 and

B=0.8545

-

5.2

14

expTA+Bln(H)l X

l 1.46203-

J(lnHl(O.145712)l)

*,

where Az2.863 and

B=1.273

0.77 X 0.85*=0.65

expTA+Bln(H)l X 0.997*,

where Az2.286 and

B=0.8460

-

600

-

11

-

360

expTA+Bln(H)l X 0.986*,

where A=-0.8 165 and

B=0.8473

---

n

Numeric Water Quality Standard for the Protection of Human Health

&

Numeric Water Quality Standards for other chemical constituents

Constituent

Benzene

Mercury

Concentrations of the following chemical constituents shall not be exceeded except in

waters for which mixing is allowed pursuant to Section 302.102 of this

Part.

HHS in micronrams per liter (udL)

310

0.012

where: ma

=

milligram per liter,

Constituent

Chloride

Iron (dissolved)

Selenium (total)

Silver (dissolved)

Sulfate (where H is

>

100 but

<

500 and C is

>

25 but

<

500)

Sulfate (where

H is

>

100 but

<500 andC is> 5 but<25)

Sulfate (where H

>

500 and C

>

5)

ugjL

=

micromam per liter,

H

=

Hardness concentration of receiving water in ma as CaC03;

C

=

Chloride concentration of receiving water in ma,

exprxl= base natural logarithms raised to the x-power,

In0

=

natural lo~arithm of Hardness in inillimams Der liter, and

* =

conversion factor multiplier for dissolved metals

mn/L

mdL

mdL

jg&

mdL

mn/L

mdL

'standard

-

500

1.0

1.0

expTA+Bln(H)l X 0.85*, where

A=-6.52 and B=1.72

J1276.7+5.5080-1.457(C)1

X

0.65

1-57.478

+

5.79M

+

54.163(C)1

X 0.65

2,000

---

---

(Source: Amended at

Ill. Reg.

-9

effective

)

Section 302.408

Tem~erature

a)

Water temperature shall not exceed the maximum limits in the applicable

table that follows during more than two percent of the hours in the 12-

month period ending with

any

month. Moreover, at no time shall the

water.temperature at such locations exceed the maximum limits in the

applicable table that follows by more than 2' C (3.6'

F).

b)

Water temperature in the Chicago Area Waterway System Aquatic Life

Use

A

waters listed in 35 Ill. Adrn. Code 303.230 shall not exceed the

period average limits in the followinp table durin~

anv

period on an

average basis.

c)

Water temperature in the Chicago Area Waterway System and Brandon

Pool Aquatic Life Use

B waters listed in 303.325, shall not exceed the

---

period averape limits in the following table during

any

period on an

average basis.

dl

Water temperature for the Upper Dresden Island Pool, as defined in 35 Ill.

Adm.

Code

303.237.