Attachment A

Appendix A: IEPA Documents

---

ILLI~OIS

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

November

8

t

1973

IN THE

~~TTER

OF UATER QUALITY

STANDARDS REVISIO':JS

OPINW:i OF THE BOARD (by

~ir.

Dumelle):

)

)

)

)

R72- 4

This Opinion of the Board is in support of

a~endments

to Cha?ter

3 of the Pollution Control BoardTs Water Pollution Regulations

adopted on June 28) 1973.

These ainendmentS; i,-ere consolidated

frCI:T)

revisions proposed by the

Board~

the Environmental Protection

Agency (Agency), Granite City Steel, The Metropolitan

Sani~ary

District of Greater Chicago (MSDGC) , and Commonwealth

Edi~Jn Corr~anv.

After reviewing the recorl produced in ten hearings, the Board

a~cpied

the aIi1endr.le-r.-::s as publishe:' in the Nel'lsletter #65,

May

17,

1973~

with tHO revisions

that Here published in Ne\'lslette-r #69,

J~ly

16,

197.3.

The A;:endncnts

were

first published in

~el\'51ette:::

#50) Jull' 14,

1972. He<;rings

i'[&N

held in six cities throughout Illinois.

1.

The first group of amendrr:ents Viere proposed

by

the Board_

An ar.tendment to Sec.

406

Nitros:er.

\<:a5

proposecl and ado";?ted to

control ind.ustrial dischargers ot

l'lOre

thsil 100 Ibs. of ammonia

as N, whose waste10ad cannot be computed on a population equivalent

(PE) basis. Such industrial discha.rgers 'Ivho' discharge into the

Illinois River, Chicago River Systera or Calumet River System. loli11 be

subj eet to an ammonia effluent standard of 3.0 mg/l as

~~

after

December

3l~

19i4.

The Board found that present technology is

cap:;ble of meeting this limit and should result in the rer.wval of

much

an~onia

nitrification oxygen demand (NOD) from these stressed

waterl';ays. Ammonia removal fro;!! such industrial wastes, \'lhe:l

COI:1-

pared with removal frcm domestic wastes is rather easily applied

CR. 25, Septenber 13) .1972).

The definition of tti.:atcr

rt

in Section 104 Defini ticns was

amended

by

the Board to add a clause that allows the use of in-stream

aeration under Agency permit.

Another Board uroDosal would have allowed the Agency to require

bends as a condi

t.io~

to ooto.in an Agency permit.

After considcriJ1.g

their

Tevision~

the Board declined to adopt the proposed new Section

926.

---

----_.

--~

--

....... :2-

2.

Another group 0: 2ncndmcnts

w~ich

were pLoposec by the Agency,

were received on Apri: 7, 1972. The first. of. the Agency proposals

was to amend Section 103 Renea1s to repeal SWB-2 and SWB-17, and

to replace SWB-2 Kith a new Part XII: Treatment Plant Operation

Certification.

S~B-2

and SWB-17

~ere

adopted

by

the Illinois Sanitary

Water Board and ccr,,;:m:ed in effect by Section. 4S}(c) of the

Environnental Protection Act " un'til repealed, :a.rnended, or superseded .

by regulations :Jild.8r this Act." SII'B-2 set rigid regulations that goveTned

the certification of treatment plant operators by the Agency. The

Agency

desired this amendment to permit then a greater flexibility

to change certi:i:icu.tion requiremeats with technological developments.

As a result of discussion concerning this amendment the Agency proposed

an addition to Part XII to insure that an applicant could appeal

his certification denial to the Board. The Board adopted the repeal

of

S~~-2

and tte addition of Part XII in order to allow the Agency

to cope l'ith various problems such as hol' to certify the 400

~·ISDGC

plant operators. The Agency sought the repeal of SWB-17 because

of language that sight be construed to conflict with the act which

gives the Agency

excl~sive

control of

~he

administration of Federal

grant monies, The Beard agreed and amended Section 103 to repeal

SWB-17 which had set out Lules for establishing priorities for

awarding Federal nanies in order to avoid any conflict with the Act.

The next portion of the Agency proposal dealt with a relatively

minor group of amendr.:(mts to correct or supply missing STORET :-;Ubl3ERS

in the follcwing

Sec~ions:

203(£), 204(b), Z06(c), and 408(a).

The Agency

PTopo~cd

a correccion of a typographical error in the

placemeIlt of the phrase "for excess energy" ',ithin Section 104

Definitions "I ..custrial I':astes". A correction of misspelled words

in Section 501, 502 and 912 was also proposed.

The Board adopted

these changes as published in Ke'isletter #65, May 17, 1973.

The Agency proposed to amend Section 302 Restricted Use Waters

by adding a clause to require that the Board

h~ld

aearings in 1973

and every 5 years

thereaf~er

to determine whether any Restricted

Use Water should be reclassified as a General Dse Water. This

amendment is in response to the Federal Environmental Protection

Agency

(U.S. EPA) policy not to approve restricted use

status as a permanent status for any water CR. 11, September 13,

1972 and Ex. #4).

In addition to the Federal objection, the

revision would give notice to those who are currently discharging

into !<.estricted Use Waters that they are not p.ernanently guaranteed

such use CR. 12,

Septe~ber

14, 1972).

The Board agreed with the

Agency's reasoning and "dDpted its amendrr:en1: to reflect a limitation

on the Restricted Use designation.

The Agency proposed a

chan~e

in Section 404(fj(ii)B to substitute

"the levels set

by

the applicable Hater quality standard" for the

previously specified numerical DO level. The Board approved this

clarification and adopted the amendment.

---

- 3-

The Agency proposed amending Section 405 Bacteria by addition

of "governed. by this part" to clarify the "'ordIngwhich requires

disinfection of

co~bined

overflows by July 31, 197Z. The deletion

of the language referring to S\'iB,7 through Sl\'B-lS ,.as also proposed.

The Agency also proposed establishing a later deadline of

Dece~her

31,

1973 for discharges into the Ohio and MississipPi Rivers. Regulations

passed by the Board in 1971 (R,

70-3

and 71-3) required disinfection

of combined overflows discharging into the Ohio and Mississippi

Rivers by Deceuber 31, 1973.

w11en the Board amended this regulacion

in R70-7, 71-14 and 71-20 it unintentionally accelerated the deadline

fA~

Ohio and Mississippi River discharges. The Board ad.opted this

amendment to correct a previous error.

The Agency proposed that Section 406 Nitrogen be amended to

include the Des Plaines

do~~stTe&~

of its confluence with the

Chicago River System in those waters which have an effluent li",ita-

tion on

.&~monia.

The Board approved this amendment because it

conforms to the Boa::d's original in-tent when it placed ammonia

effluents on the other waterways listed in this Section.

The Agency proposed a specific standard of 0.025 mg/l as a

limit for discharges- of;

cYa~ide

into a public sewer system.

Section 702(a) Cyanide prev:Lously had read. "detectable levels of

cyanide". The Board adopted this as a parallel to the llfater Quality

Standard of 0.02S mg/l found in Section 203.

The Agency proposed the deletion of "by the Agency" in Section

942 Permit Revocation to conform to the Board's desire that all

permit

revoc~tions

take place only as a result of a complaint and

action brought before the Board. The Board amended Section 942

to conform with this policy.

3.

Granite City Steel Company proposed an amendment to reclassify

Horseshoe Lake frem Public and Food Processing Water Supply to

General Use (Section 303). The Board received the proposal on

July 6, 1972. The basis for their request was that Horseshoe Lake

had never and would never be used

fOT

a public or food processing

water supply and thus should not be classified as such. Various

company officials 50 testified in support of their proposal CR. 32,

84, and Ill, September 22, 1972). Granite City Steel's Engineering

Consultant,

~r.

John Huston, testified that the Lake did not meet

the drinking 1vater standards required as a source of public waters.

The Agency testified that in their view an amendment of the rules

regarding Horseshoe Lake is not needed at the present time CR, 10,

Septesber 22, 1972), The Board finds that there is no need to

reclassify Horseshoe Lake as a general use

wat~r

(Section 301) and to

---"'-'---tili:e

it-out'of-Section 303 Public and Food Processing

\','ater Sup;;1y

---

~~.....-...--

.._- ..

._.-

.

- N4-

~ecause

of the extreme

unlikelihood that the Lcke will ever be

used as

~

Dublic water supply and thus such standards may never

become operative.

4.

The NSDGC proposed an amendment to Section 404(e) Deoxygenating

Wastes to change tha effluent limits to 10 mgll BODS and 12 mgll

suspended solids (55) frem 4 rng/l

BODs

and 5 mg/l SS. The Board

received the proposal on April 2S, 1972. At the hearing, the

Agency stated that they did not oppose the amendment (R. 17, 9/13/72).

The original purpose of reqUiring the MSDGC to

mee~

a 4 mg/l BOD

p

and 5 mg/l S8 Has to remove deoxyger.ating wastes from their

effl~ent

and thus allow the DO in the aownstream waterways to reach the level

prescribed by the existing standard. During periods of low flow up

to 99% of the flow in the sanitary district's controlled waterways

is made of M5DGC effluent.

...,

Evidence presented

By

1'11';- Ralph Evans , Illino-i-s Water Quality

Survey, tends to Show that, even with the

~SDGC ~eeting

the 4-5

effluent standard, the Illinois River at Marseilles and Starved

Rock will not meet the DO standard of 6 and will be in fact less

than 4 reg!l DO CR. 114, 10/19/72). Even if the oxygen demand

exerted by nitrofication of a","lIonia (NOD) ..'ias zero, the lilodel

predicts that a DO level of 6 is not obtainable (R. 124, 10/19/72).

Mode1i:p.g conducted by th.e ,,1SDGC also predicts that both 4 mg!l

BOD~

and 5 mg/l 55 and 10 mg!l BOD, and 12 mg/1 55 will not achieve

a De level of 6 mg/l CR. 283, 10/l9!72),

.

The MSDGC proposed to amend the standard to require

the~

to

meet 10-12 instead of 4-5. They propose to carry out instrearn-

aeration to raise the DO level to 6.0 mg/l. MSDGC presented modeling

evidence that showed an effluent of

4~S

would result in an instream

BODs level of 2.4 mg!l with a DO level of 4.4 mg/l; while an effluent

of 10-12 would result in an instream BOD level of 2.6 mg/l with a

00 level of 4.2 mg/l (R. 17, 10/20/72). SEvidence sho\'Js the predicted

Cost of meeting the 4-5 standards is $236.7 million dollars with an

operational cost of $26 million dollars. The cost of 10-12 with

instream aeration is $138.8 million dollars with an operating cost

of $16 million dollars per year (R. 19, 10/20/72).

Two eminent professionals, Clair Sawyer and General Whipple,

both. testified that the most econotiic Way for the HSDGC to meet

the required DO levels is by 10-12' and iTIstream aeration (R .. 223,

235,

10/20/72). Dr. Sawyer testified the downstream DO problens

should be elininatcd once the MSDGC

begin~

to remove the

~OD

by

nitrification CR. 248, LO/20/72). Every pound of NOD is equal

to 4.57 pounds of BOD

CR. 2S4, lO/ZO/n}.

Dr.

Sa\~)'er

testified

that the

~OD

(nmmoniaSoxygen demand) could be easily reduced

below 2.5 mg/l (R. 257, 10/20/72).

~--

-'-

._-

---"-' - --

~_._-

---

-5-

- "'--'--'" ,

g-

The'Board

de~ided

to delete Section 404(b) instead of

amendi:lg it :lS proposed

by

the

~,ISDGC.

By

deleting the requirClf..0nt,

the intention of

~he

Board (reading both Section 404(c) and (f)

together) \.:as to require the }.[SDGC to meet 4 mg/l of BODS and

5 mg/l of 5S

by

Docenter 13, 1977 unless it can show through

Section 404(£) (ii) th:J.t such an effluent standard is not required.

In the event that MSDGC can meet 'the burden required in Section 404

(f)(ii) it is subject to an effluent standard of 10 mg!l of BODS

and 12

mg/l

of S5.

(See pages 14-16, of the Board's Opinion

accom?anying R7D-B, 71-14 and 71-20, for the reasoning supporting

the creation of a conditional exemption frorn the 4

~g/l

BODS

and S mgll S5 linit). The Board based its decision upon the

modeling evidence presented and by the testimony which showed

that DO standard would be met by 10 mgjl, BODs and 12

mg/l

of

55, in-stream aeration and nitrification.

S.

Commonwealth Edison proposed an amendment in the alternative

on

~farch

30, 1972, to loosen the

·.'~mperature

standard on the Des

Plaines River below the Interstate 55 bridge to its confluence with

th.e Kankakee River (hereinafter cited as "5 mile stretch

Tl

).

The

first alternative ";auld have amended Section 302(i) Restricti'.." Use

Waters to delete the phrase "to the Interstate 5S bridge" and replace

lt with the phrase "to its confluence \-lith the Kankakee

~iver."

Edison

t

s second alternative \-lould have amended Section 203(i) (4)

by

adding "Des Plaines River from the Interstate 55 bridge to its con-

fluence with the Kankakee River.

Temperature in this

segme~t

uf

the Des Plaines River shall not exceed ,.ZoF more than five nercent of

the time, by more than 5°F."

In response to a reques t frorr..

Hearing Officer Parker to

tigh:~n

up its proposal to reflect the

minin;,),J:: temperatures possible, Edison ,.lithdreH its original ar.!cnd;r.er:.ts

on :-.'oye::lber 29, and substituted an amendment to Section 203(i) (4) '"hie}:

proposed indiVidual

~onthly

temperature limits,

cQrrespondi~g

to

historical data, for the "5 mile stretch". This final amenciiJent also

contained a 5% excursion up to SOF maximum from the monthly limits.

CoJ:.J;l.on,...ealth Edison's Joliet Plant is located on the

Des Plaines River 7.3 miles upstream of the I-55 bridge. Heated

water 5rom both the old and new portions of the plant is discharged

to the river

th~cugh

once-through cooling systems. After the heated

water is discharged it nixes with the River water and gradually

cools as heat

dissi~ates

to the atRosuhere.

The river water

temperucure,

grad~aily

decreases with. distance

dOh~stTear.i

from

the power plant. Edison prcsented evidence that the wator does

not cool sufficient:!.)' by the time it reaches the I-55 bridge to raeet,

the geneysl usc tCl1pcrature limits during July and August. 'The

temperature at the I-55 bridgc would be the highest in the "5

~ile

stretch" (Ex. #3, Edison Ex. 25, page S).

---

-6-

The final pToposed ame:r.dr:lent

dro~ped

ta"e'-alternative to amend

Section 302(i) and proposed individual monthly temperature

li~its

for the five mile stretch from I-55 bridge to the confluence with

the Kankakee River.

The Board adOlHed the final Edis on amendment

as published with

so~e

exceptions.

It set 900F as the rnaxirnuc

temperature standard for the months of July and August and reduced

the excursion to four percent of the previous twelve month period.

"The Board also set an automatic termination date of July 1, 1978

at which tir.te the general use temperature standard will again apply.

Edison desired to amend the tem?erature limit to avoid the

necessity of prOViding cooling for its Joliet Power Plant which

consists of two parts located on either side of the Des Plaines

River some 7.3 miles

upstrew~

from the I-55 bridge. (R. 32, 9/8/72)

The Board in a previous decision adopting the revised Water

Quality Standards CR. 71-14, March 7, 1972) classified the Des

Plaines Riyer from the confluence with the Canal at Lockport to

the I-55 bridge as "restricted" use water (Sec tion 302 (i) . Its

temperature limits are 93°F (not to be exceeded mOre than 5% of

the time) or lOOgF at any time (Section 205(f). At the I-55

bridge, a discontinuity in temperature limit exists as the river

below the bridge is classified as a "General U;se" 'vater with the

more restrictive ,,.ater temperature limi ts

cont,aine~1

in Rule

203(i)

(4).

The basis for the Board's decision to use the I-55 ]lridge as a

boundary fer the ciivision of the Des ?laines Riyer into restrictive

and general use is that the location of the bridge corresponds to

changes in the physical

environ~ental

characteristics of the

area CR. 71-14 at page 11, ?clarch 3, 1972). Above the bridge, the

riyer has been greatly altered by man so that it is not as suited for

recreation, (Ex. #3, Edison

~x.

25, page 4) amd water quality is such

t~a

at the present time it is not capable of sUDporting a diverse

aquatic life (Ex. '3, Edison Ex. 25, page 4). Edison witnesses expressly

excluded the 5 mile stretch below the bridge, from possessing the

characteristic that led the Board to classify the upper river as

Restrictive Use.

The Board previously decided that the I-55 bridge should be

the dividing line between the upstream Restrill:ted Use designations

and the

downstrea~

General Use designation

i~

R71-l4.

The Board

considered over dOD pages of record and

numer~uS

exhibits before

reaching its

c~cision

on Edison's amendment.

Edison's amendment

is

based upon historical water data it collected dUring 1966 to 1971

by use of continuous reor:i tors located throughout the lower Des Plaines

waterway

syste~.

This data was submitted in Edison exhibits 47-62.

However, no tecperaturc data was recorded at the I-55 bridge. Edison

carried out

extrapol~tions

using the temperature data to arrive at

a probable water ter.1perature at the I-55 bridge. The two closest

recorded locations are 3.3 and 4.3 miles from the bridge.

The maximuc

~ater

temperatures extrapolated to the I-55 bridge

shc~

that 61 occurrences exdsteJ

~bO~B

gOOF during "the

moni~ored"periGd.

(Ex.

#3, Edison Ex. 47. Tablo 1)

This data supports the

statQ~ont

made during the hO<ll"inr;s that the "summer of 1966 S1101"5 some of

the

\~armcst

water temperature periods recorded in recent decades"

---

(Ex.

fi3)

Ellisor~

I:x

.

~

::g-2:).

Thu.s

c.ny

historical

da~a

S!l u J

!'

£l~c~ ~

longer

p~r

five

vea~ d~ta ~8T ~

GisQn's data clear

present Section' 20

,,' s v::'olu.te(l 19 days

tar.d~rd

ba~ed

UDOll

thi~,

od of tine than. the

y

de~ons~Tates

that the

during July. 1966,

Edison presented tesc:mony concerning in-plant cooling based

on the maxicuc

rce~~tiGn

ic heat discharge required to lower the

observed water

te~~cr~tures

to that required by Rule 203(i).

Edison

stated that

opeTu~ion

at partial load to

achiev~

the required

reduction ir.

ther~~l

dischQrge is not possible because the critical

period of 1,a-:::e1' tC:il?Crc,tures coincides with the system ,,,ide peaks

that require Eaxirrum power production from the Joliet Power Plant.

To meet the

ge~eral

use stan1ard, at the I-55 bridge, Edison estimated

it would have

~o

spend $21.9 million dollars to construct cooling

towers on the

neu

side if the critical load is less than 75% of

capacity (Ex. #3, Edison Ex. 66, page 2). ,

Dr. Lauer, an Ed.ison

~'litness,

testified that Edison's

discharge of hot water ",;o;.lld have a lil:\i ted effect on the

aquatic 'life use of the Lewer Des Plaines River (Ex. #3, Edison

Exs. 17, 37, and 38). He stated in his opinion, the maximum effect

of the

temper~tures

slle'.,'ed.

by

Edison's proposed <l.J;\endment ",'ould DE:

that. 785 pO'.mds of fish

~':ould

;;love out of the "5 mile stretch" and

into cooler 1'iater fer up to two 1,:eeks of the year (Edison Ex. 17 and.

38, 10). Edison pre:,c:nted a cost-benefit analyses "ihich concluded,

based upon a fish harvest of IOU pounds per acre per year, 'that

the fish "auld :,ave to

1:>3

'.-orth $27.91 per pound to \';arrant

cooling tONers (Ex.

1'3,

Ediso" Ex. 26. Page 4).

Dr. Upton

further test:ified that J,"sed upon a more conservat.ive fish harvest.

the fish ,;aUld "in reality" have to be 1,orth $1,395 per pound

'

(Ex. 13, Edison Ex. 26, Page 6).

Substantial opposition to Edison's proposal 1,'as voiced by the

Agency, U.S. EPA and by several citizen witnesses. The U.S. EPA

objected to any reclassification of a water into the Restricted Use

category becaus0 of its j?olicy to opposal to such a Classification.

The U.S. EPA, in conjunction with the Illinois Conservation

Depart~ent

collected fish on

~lay

lti, 1972 f,om fh'e lecations \'iithin the "£1\'13

mile stret::h" (Ex,

F,2,

~Iilburn).

The total catch consisted of 156 iis;,:

including gcldfisll, enerald

shi~ers.

northern redhorse, white crappie,

white Slickers, gizzaru shad, channel catfish and rock bass. Edison's

consultant also ::oniucted a fish survey, Ex. '3, Edison Ex. 44, a: one

location in the "5 !'iile stretch" and coLlected 19 fish; including

goldfish, carp and quillhack. Although these surveys disclosed that

fiSh species were DorB diversified in either the Kankakee or Illinois

Rivers than in the

Lo~':cr

Des ?lailles, the LOI\er Des Plaines is

capable of supportirg a desirable aquatic biota CR. 109. 9/14/72}.

The presence of benthic orgii.nishl:;; supports the conclusion that the:

fish

~lTe

not ju.st ;:ass::';-,g through becnuse bottom feeding fish have

a source of food CR. 109, 9/14/72).

---

---- ----

- s-

Evid:~nce

.:)f

tL.e

crf-;c~s

o.i

ter"~,?eT.at-:'tl"e

Or!. variou.3 fish

s-r;cci

cs is

dOCU~2nted

ill

Exilibi~ 31~

~n(i

Ex.

~3~

Edison Exhibits 38,

·~l ~~J 7~.

In Exhibi: 51

t!lC

~U:Ut]l ~~ti~:lal l~ate·l· Q~Rlitv ~ahorato~y recom~c~ds

maxirHl~1:

;,,'cB'kly-

<.:"~\·t::rZ\.s;c

ter;1?er~tl~res

for the IIJ.inois RiveTs.

Thes~

values a:-c 0o:;:-ri'.-ed iTon

d~t3..

of lethal teopC:Tatt:.tT'eS,

n~ax.i.!~u~

t.s:-::-r;era-

tures, rcprQd\..lc.t iCon and growth anc::.. should ::-esul t in

!f~tai n~cn2.nc(';

of reasonably gC0d. port:.lat.ions of most

spe(;i~s

to be pTotectcd" ..

When compared. to I'Topo,:;ed ;:e:npera t;;'1-e 1im:" ts fa r the "£ive :ni Ie

stretch", the

~econ~cndations

of the Water Quality Laboratory are

ccnsidc::-abl~"

lower.

Edison has presentcd. evidence that diversified

fish popUlations exist in

Dresde~

Lake

pDol~

which have water

temperatu:::-es ra:::1ging

£1'0;;1

96 .

.'l°r

tc S6of.

This presents evidence

that so".e f::'sh can acclin!ate to hi.gh .,.;ate:- temperatures

l~hen

confined

i~

an elevated temperature

~ody

of

~at~r

(EX. #3, Edison

Ex. 41).

B~t

fish in the Des Plaines River are not cunfined.

The BoaTc finds that the lOI,'er "five nile stretch" is capable

of providing a source of recreation badly needed in the area

(R. 107, 9/14/72). and is supporting a limited desirable

aqua~ic

biota.

The Board reduced Edison's prcposed

nop

temperature limh

during July ana August to gOOF in order t') give protection to this

aquatic life. Dr. Lauer testified that gOOF is recogni:ed as a

te~peTnture

which will begin to affect some individual species

CR. 277, 12/29/72).

A maximun

te~perature

limit of 90°F Is

recognized as

nec~ssBry

to protect fish (R. 219, 11/29/72. Ex. '3.

Edison Ex. 3:1, reference 5, p2.ge 57).

The Board. red.uced the a1lo\'!8101e excursion to 4% of the previous

year not to exceed 5CF after reviewing Ex.

i3,

Edison Ex. 47, Tuble 1,

Support Table E,

An excursion of 4% ",auld alloN up to 14.6 days

per year.

The Board fin<1.s that this excursion more closely reflects

the historical data. It should be noted that projected excurSion

temperatures are in f<'.ct "projected" va.lues not measured values.

Signi£icoT.t ?robleJ:1s arc present ,,-hen actually measuring tewper:Hures

due to differing te;;lperatures Hhich exist across the width and dc.?th

of a body of Kater. A projection based upon temperature necessarily

reflects such problems.

The Board decided to add Section 203(i)(9), which cancels

the special

teQpe~aturc

linits cn JUly I, 1978, as middle ground

betl-iccn Edison' s

pro~)csn.l

aId the need to protect aquatic life.

Evidence was presented that temperature is not

presently-th~

limitin;:; f:2ctor :,-hicil restricts "quatic life in the "5 mile stretch".

(Ex.

~3,

Eelis!)':! Ex. 7, pages 3-4)

11o'''';;'lor-,

additional evidcJ!co ,:25

presented during the 1lcaring that water quality in the Des Plaines

Ifill bc

ir.:pr~:n·c<l

as the ;-lSDGC, \,hich is the major pollution souTce.

-----_ --furt:W::x re_ducc_d. t_hg poJ}utClnts contr.ir,ed in its efflul;)nt.

---

.,

i

,

'J

The

~f5I~';C

is

Tt!q1.11...

'ed by

,~0c.:;iC:;l

.ta.~·(£)

to produce'

GIn

~ffl~c~1t

'.,~ich

shill excct>cl. 4 ,,:g/l BODe '-'1-

~' ::'~/]

SS on or Dcfc7C

Dccc:;;tJ{~:r

51

1977.

T~~e~

are required

by

S~c~i0n

406 to limit

~heir

ammonia

'

~ischarges

to 2.5

mg/l

during Aprjl

th~ough Octobe~, O~

4 mg/l

other

t:i.::~2'S,

3.ftcr DeceIT.ber 31, 1977.

Dr ..

S~-,~veT

testified~

t.h:tt

DO problCi1s

b·el·.)~·.f

LockpoTt wi:::'l be

Teso:~/Gd

by.

a:nmoni~

removal

CR. ZeiS, 10/18/72).

The

~·:SDc;ChCi';

sta.t.ed th:3.t they are goin.g

to conduct

in5tream-p.l~rJ.r:ion

tD

~·3.iS2

'-he DO level to 6.0 1.,g/1

(See p"ges 4 and 5 of this Opini.:):--. for discussion of i"stream

aeration plans of

~SDGC)"

ThEy

a~e req~ired

to treat or remove

combined sewer overflows by

Decern~er

31, 1977 (Section 602(d)),

and "ork on the proposed "deep

~u!;~,el"

is UndeD-lilY.

All of

these

?ro)~ct5 a~e

designated or

re~uirec

to be completed before

July 1978 with the

:resul~ing

reduction of the pollution load to

tile Des Plaines ;(iVCT. The Board finds that by July 1978, te::lpe:mturc

~'ill

bi:.: tile limiting factor to the att:::.inment of a desiruble

aquatic biota in the De-s Pla.i"r.es River celcJw "the ..I--55 bridge,

The July I, 1978, termin3.t:'on G<'.te for the specific te::lpe:-1,!:urc

standard is reasonable in light of the suecial

cir:::.u~stances ~re­

sented in this f3.ct

si~uation.

it

~s

a Board policy to pTctect

an~

enhance the qu"l:'ty of che aquatic envi rOI'Jnent ".I:ienever possible.

Large

di.sc~aTges

of heated

\'J:ii.>~T dist~rb

t!leaquat:'c enviroi':I:i::nt.

The

wa~eT

quality in the

Lo~~er

Des Plaines River is

pTesen~ly

depressed hy

d:="sc.r~~~~:;s

from u?strean

~Ct~rces

such as the

?\~SDGC

..

Snell

disch~=;ers aTi~ cU~Tently ~lnd.er

orders, or required

by

DcurJ

Tegulatic~s)

to

~educe

their

dis~ha~~es

by

1977 and are

pla~ni;l~

to implei7:ent

T~:r:e1ial

prograr.ls t.o

f ....

l~tl':.er

enhance

1.~ater

qua1. ity" ..

Water quaIl ty i71. tne "five-nile st:retch", should

C~

the 1i.mi tin,5

factor to obtain or supporc:

-l

d:;;;i lable aa.uatic life by 1978. The

teroina tio::l of thermal st:r.nd2.rd:s. ',-Ihien <,.J.loHad dis charge s that

limit the aquatic biota, is ttereiore necessary to protect

aq~ntic

life in the lO','er "five-raile

stl·et;:~".

Edison is

re~~ired

by

Sec. 203(i)(5) to conduct a

pTog~am

to

monitor

t~e

affects of their discharges of heated water

fra~ ~he

Joliet Plant and present the res;).} ts of that program to the Beard

at a ]-.eitring to be held bet\;een \<2.TCh, 1977 and

~lD.rch

1978.

If,

at that time,. the B0arc. is

cOn\"i~lced.

th3.t Edison's discharge ha3

not caused, or is nOe reasonably e.xpccted to cause significant

ecological da..'7t'lge to "':he Des

?la~J,"'S

!i.i...:er; t:he Beard

Kotila

r!")~

requi;:,

Edison to construct cooli&g

fucili~ies.

Edison could then either

ask the Board to

2.~r.cnu

i

ts

r~;;ulation

1:0

tJxtend to

th.3

temin8.t.ion

date to reflect "fater quality as ":GuLi then Q0

p,'~sent

in the "five-

mile stretch", or SeC'};. a vaTi2.itcc from the standard.

:Sut if the Board

is co:nrinced

t}~at

E.:lison has cnusecl or is

reason~bly

cxpcc.tcC

t~: C~·:..lS~::

significant ecological

dam~ge i~

the future, then the Board is require

by

Section 2U3(i)(5) to ardor

Edison to carry out

~?p;:opriate

---

measures to C07rect ecological

J~n~ge.

Edison,

b~ca~se

it had

Telied U?C;, exi sting

j)0;1.~·d

:c"gul,.tions, >'lould have the variance

procedure avail&ble to seek tiffi0 to correct tho problem.

The BOJrd notes

th~t

cost bcn0fit analyses,

~s

used by Edison,

wou.ld result i':l the «llo;.:ar;cc of large the:r;rral discharges C:l even

small trout strearns since it is likely that a lake or artificial

stream for

fishi~g

purposes could be built for less

~oney

than

cooling facilities.

I, Christan L. !-loffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Cc,:tyo1

Board,

hen~by

certify the'above Optnion \'Ias adopted on the

l3 ;r.t\

-:lay

of :iove::>.bcr, 1973 by a vote of __

""-i~""e::--~O::::..

-------

chT~stan

L.

',[ol.tett/Cley;;

Illinois Pollution .:Dutycl Board

---

DATE:

TO:

FROM:

RE:

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

1021 "O,TH G,"'''D,..

y,,,~£

EAS;, P.O. Box 19276, 'SP""GF:ELO,

Ill'~OIS

62794-9276 .

THOMAS V: SKI "MR. DIRECTOR

. July 2,2001

DIST~.~T~.O

T

COnni~sor

MidWest Generation file review/permit questions

Draft

P=it No. IL0064254

Procedural Background

On November 8, 2000, the illinois Environmental Protection

Agenl;:Y ("minois EPA")

sent draft permit No. IL0064254

to the USEPA for review.

On

November 30, 2000, the

USEPA contacted the illinois EPA

with several concerns. The concerns were: (1) a

concern that the effluent might be contributing to violations of the Dissolved Oxygen

standard

in the general use waters; (2) the applicant should submit a 3l6(b) of the Clean

Water Act study; and (3) monitoring must ensure compliance with the secondary contact

temperature standards. The permit should

contain.il condition showing the combined

effect

of Generation Unit 6 and the Joliet Station.

On

Apri130. 2001, the illinois EPA responded to the USEPA'sconcerns. USEPA had

withdrawn the concern with regard to Dissolved Oxygen. The permit bad been amended

. to request the Section 316(b) report when the federal guidance was finalized. The

reporting requirements

had been clarified.. The permit had been revised to require the

permittee utilize the Near-Field Compliance Assessment Model

to calculate fully mixed

receiving water temperatures on an hourly basis. The lllinois EPA noted that the mixing

zone was that portion

ofthe river allowed for mixing in PCB 87-93.

On May 31, 2001, the USEPA requested

90 days to review the permit, 40 CFR 123.44

(a)(I),

and additional information concerning whether the p=it insured that thennal

limits and monitoring conditions are appropriate for the secondary contact waters. The

USEPA requested a

copy ofthe thermal demonstration (pCB 87.93/PCB 89-93) and the

Near Field Compliance Model.

The following is a review of the various regulatory matters relevant to the Midwest

Generation Joliet 29 Station.

.Thennal Demonstration

PCB 87-93 (pCB 89-93) did not specify a mixing zone for the secondary contact water or

for the general use water at the I-55 Bridge.

GEORGE H.

RYAN,

GOVERNOR

---

Commonwealth Edison (now Midwest Generation) initially filed PCB 87-93, On June

19, 1987, Commonwealth Edison filed an amended petition for a Thermal Demonstration

under

35 Ill. Adm, Code 302,211(f). The amended petition replaced the previously

submitted petition and the Pollution Control Board renumbered in PCB 89-93. However,

the Board has subsequently referred to the determination as PCB 87-93.

In

In the Matter of: Proposed Determination ofno Significant Ecological Damagefor

the Joliet Generating Station,

(pCB87~93,

September 17,1983) Commonwealth Edison

sought a determination that the provisions

of35 TIL Adm. Code 302.211(f) did not apply

to it as it discharged into secondary contact water or

in

the alternative a detennination

that the discharges from the

J

oli et Station had not caused and could not reasonably

be

expected to cause significant ecological damage to the "Five-Mile Stretch"l within the

meaning ofSection 302.211(f). The Five-Mile Stretch is designated a general use water.

Section 302.211(f) provides that:

'Theowner or operator of a sourCe of heated effluent which discharges 150

megawatts (0.5 billions British thermal

units per hour) or more shall demonstrate

, in

a hea.rUig before this Pollution Control Board (Board) not less than 5 nor more

than 6 years after the effective date of these regulations, or

in

the case ofnew

sources,'after the commencement

ofoperation, that discharges from that source

have not caused and cannot be reasonably expected to cause significant ecological

.damage

to the receiving waters.

If

such proof is not made to the satisfaction of

.

the Board appropriate corrective measures shall be ordered to be taken \\1thin a

reasonable time as determined

by

the Board."

The

Joliet Station is located on both sides ofthe Des Plaines River, at a segment that is

designated as secondary contact water. The discharge is approximately 7.3 miles

upstream

of the I-55 Bridge, where for approximately five miles the river is designated as

general us'e water. The Board rejected Commonwealth Edison's argument and held that

it must perfollIl a thellIlal demonstration because

of the affect that the discharge could

have on the general use water.

On

November 15, 1989, the Board found that Commonwealth Edison had successfully

made the demonstration. The Board noted that Commonwealth Edison and the (Illinois

EPA) agreed that heat

was not a factor limiting the quality of the aquatic habitat of the

Five-Mile Stretch.

2

The Board further noted: "Edison's desire to proceed at this time

I

The "five Mile Stretch"

is

the segment ofthe I,ower Des Plames River between the Interstate 55 Bridge

and

the head ofthe Illinois River (the'confluenceof the Des Plames River and the Kankakee River);

2CoriJrnonwealth

Edison had received several variances from the requirements for a demonstration at 35

lIl..

Adm, Code 302.211(f), based on the argument that heat was not a limiting factor. See, PCB 78-79, PCB

81-24, and PCB 84-33. The last variance was due to expire

in

1989.

---

appears to be based in part on Edison'sbelief that it is in compliance with all pertinent

thermal water quality standards...

,,3

.

During the proceeding, the Illinois EPA supported Corrunonwealth Edison'spetition and

Corrunonwealth Edison's conclusion that the discharge complied with both the secondary

contact and General use Standards. The Board noted that Agency concluded

that as long

as the Joliet Station meets all the applicable standards at the point ofdischarge and in the.

downstreaniGeneral use waters, the Agency did not view the Joliet Station'sthermal

discharges

as limiting aquatic diversity in the receiving waters.

4

A mixing zone as it applied to the secondary contact water was never discussed, as all of

the infonnation was that the discharger was

in

compliance with the temperature limits for

the secondary contact water. Note: the record in this proceeding is no longer retrievable.

Therefore, I was not able

to review the exact testimony presented to the Board.

However

as to the General use water, one ofCommonwealth Edison'switnesses testified

that a complete mixing

of the effluent occurred at between two miles of transport (high

discharge) and five to six miles of transport (low discharge). No plume existed and

Corrunonwealth Edison was in compliance with the General use water quality standards.

The Board found this evidence persuasive.

Peter Howe

and the Sierra Club testified that the Commonwealth Edison discharge may.

be causing early spawning, decrease

in

viability of gametes, thermal related mortality,

cold shock, heat aversion and heat shock. The Board specifically noted that most

ofthe

Sierra Club and

Mr. Howe's concerns could be raised regarding any waterway that

received heated effluent. The concerns

are more

in

the nature ofchallenges to the

Board'swater quality standards for temperature. Therefore, the Board found that they'

were beyond the

scope of the proceeding.s

The Board noted that should revisions

of the water quality regulations with regard to the

Des Plaines River occur, Commonwealth Edison would have to comply with the

regulations..The Board also noted that its. fmding

6

did not relieve Commonwealth Edison

of its obligation to comply with the secondary contact or general use water quality

.standards as they then existed or as amended.

JpCB 87-93; PCB 89-93, at p. 3. Therefore, could not argue compliance would constitute arbitrary and .'

unreasonable hardship.

.~_"_.

'PCB 87-93; 89-93, at p. 9.

s:Mr. Howe in his letter concerning the instant permit is raising several ofthe same issues that were

raise~

•.

in

PCB 87-93; 89-93.

'.'..

6 Commonwealth Edison had

dero~nstrated

that the effluent from the Joliet Station had not caused and..

could not reasonably be expected to cause significant ecological damage to the General use Waters .of .", ''''-", .

~

!ii.<.:.

Five-Mile

Stretch.>.~:t;~f~~~r~::

---

As part

of~s

proceeding, Commonwealth Edison committed to implement an operating

plan which would limit the megawatt output for the Joliet Station which to ensure that the

monthly

ma.xUnmn temperature standard of Section 302.211(e) was not exceeded.

7

Variance

On November 21, 1991, the Board granted Commonwealth Edison a variance from the

requirements

of35 TIL Adm. Code 302.211(d) and (e) to conduct a study of the Upper

Illinois Water

Way and the impact ofheated effluent discharges to the receiving stream.

The

study then would become the basis ofan adjusted standard/alternate thennal

standard,

ifneeded.

Adjusted Standard

On May 16, 1996, Commonwealth Edison filed a petition for alternate thermal standards.

(In the Matter of Petition ofcommonwealth Edison Company for AdjustedStandard

from

35

Ill. Adm. Code 302.211(d) and (e),

AS 96-10, October 3,1996; "AS 96-10"). On

Octoher 3, 1996, the

Board granted the alternate thermal standards utilizing the adjusted

standard procedures.

The adjusted standard considered the combined discharges oftbe

Joliet, Crawford and Fisk generating stations,

Section 304.141(c) provides

the authority.forthe Board's action:

"The standards ofthis chapter shall apply to thermal discharges unless, after

public notice and opportunity for hearing, in accordance with Section 316

of the

CWA and applicable federal regulations, the Administrator and the Board have

determined that different standards shall apply to a particular thermal discharge."

(35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.l41(c»

Section

3l6(a) ofthe Clean Water Act states"

"With respect

to any point source otherwise subject to the provisions ofSec.tion

306

of this Act, whenever the owner or operator ofany such source, after

opportunity for public hearing, can demonstrate to the satisfaction

ofthe

Admin.iStrator (or, ifappropriate,

the

State) that any effluent limitation proposed

for the control

of the thermal component ofany discharge from any such source

will require effluent limitations

more stringent than necessary to assure the

protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish., fish

and wildlife

in

and on the body of water into which the discharge is made, the

Administrator (or,

if appropriate, the State), may impose effluent limitation under

such section

on such plant,. with respect to the thermal component of such

discharge (taking into account the interaction

ofsuch thermal component with

other pollutants), that will assure the protection and propagation

of a balanced

indigenous population

ofshellfish, fish and wildlife in and on that body of water,"

7

PCB 87-93

at

21.

---

33 U.S.C.§1326, Section 316 oftbe CWA.

Section 125.73 (c)

ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations,. 40 C.F.R. §125.73(c), provides:

"Existing dischargers

may base their demonstration upon the absence ofprior

appreciable

harm...

Any

such demonstration shall show: (1) That no appreciable

harm has resulted from the

nonnaI component of the discharge

(taking into

account the interaction

ofsuch thermal component with oth.". pollutants and the

additional effect

ofother thermal sources)

[emphasis added] to a balanced,

indigenous

community of shellfish and \vildlife in and on the body ofwater into

which the discharge

has been made."

The Board in the alternate thennal standards considered the combined impact ofall of the

discharges on the Des Plaines and considered the. study of the waterway.

The Board concluded that Commonwealth Edison had made the requisite showing for an

alternate thermal standard under

Section 316(a) ofthe Clean Water Act and a showing for

an adjusted standard from 35

m.

Adm. Code 302.21 1(d) and (e) for the

Jolie~

Will

County, Crawford

and Pisk generating stations. The Board stated that the following

requirements applied at

the I-55 Bridge.

January

60'F

February

.60'F

March

65'F

Aprill-l5

73'F

April 16-30

gO'F

May 1-15

8S'P

May

l6~3l

90'F

June 1-15

90'F

June 16-30

91'P

July

9l'P

August

9l'P

September

90'P

October

8S'F

November

7S'F

December

6S'P

The Board further stated that the standards may be exceeded by no more that

3'F during

2% ofthe bours in the l2-month period ending December 31, except at no time shall

Commonwealth Edison's

plants

cause the water temperature at the I-55 Bridge to'exceed

93

'P.

"CornEd'splants continue to be subject to the Secondary Contact Standards at the

point ofdischarge.

.,8

.

The Board considered the combined effect ofthe discharges ofall of the Commonwealth

Edison plants in the alternate thermal standards proceeding.

It

noted operational

considerations

of each ofthe generating stations.

9

A review of the documentation in this

file

shows that the combined effect of all ofthe plants was considered in the study that

• AS

96-10, alp. 7.

'AS 96-10, at p. 3-4. The maxirrmm design temperature rise in the circulating cooling water is

approximately

11.1'F

for Will County,

1Z'F

for Crnv,.ford, and 12.2'Ffor Fisk. .

---

was presented to the Board. The stUdy specifically mentioned that at high operation the

Joliet Stations intake

ofthe river was from 75-100% of flow. 10

On December 18, 1996, the illinois EPA sent a copy of the Board'sorder, the petition,

the Exhibits, and the illinois

EPA'srecommendation to the USEPA (Joan Karnauskas),

pursuant to

40 CPR §131.21. The Illinois EPA has not, to date, received a response from

the USEPA.

On March 16, 2000, the Board granted a

transfer ofAS96-10 to Midwest Generation, as

the successor to Commonwealth Edison. The Board did

not change any provisions but

the name

oftbe OViner. I have located a March 23, 2000, letter from Richard Warrington

to USEPA pursuant

to 40 CFR §131.21. However, it is unsigned and I cannot verify that .

this documentation was transmitted.

Conclusion:

It

appears that the Board in granting the alternate thennallimits at the I-55 Bridge for tbe

general use waters did consider the combined effect

of the thermal discharges. It found

that the Joliet Station was subject

to secondary contact standards. Part of the information

before it was the effect

of the Crawford and Fisk stations, the cumulative impact ofthe .

thermal component

oftbe discharges from the Crawford and Fisk Stations. USEPA's

letter seems to suggest another study that

may in part be duplicative ofthe earlier study.

It seems as

ifthe question is whether there is a violation ofthe secondary contact

temperature standards at the Joliet Station.

10 Final Report Aquatic Ecological Smdy of the Upper illinois Waterway, Vol 2, pp. 10-4.5-10.4-7 (AS96-

10,

Exhibit 1).

---

Chemical Probability Plots

Lower Des Plaines River

Use Attainability Analysis

Lower Des Plailles River Use Attaillability Allalysis

Draft: May 24,2001

A-I

---

Probability Plots for Barium

Reference Site

0.1

-

-.-.

99

s::

95

0

.-

......

!-<

80

0

50

0..

0

20

!-<

0..

5

99.9

,....

.

/ ..

./

,""

./

..

l·····d(~·······

r

~

.

.:.

"" :

-

:: ..

-

.

..................•..........

8

.

~

..

:.

: ..'

i...

,'.' '

'.. -' '

~

.. '.. .

.-.-.-.-.' -

.....

'.-..~

... " ..

.................

-............

. ..

-

... '"....

-

.. ,.- ......•

.

.

..........

_..

.

.

-

.

.

.

.

_

"

",

..

-1.4

-1.3

-1.2

-1.1

-1

-0.9

-0.8

99.9

99

s::

95

0

.-

.....

!-<

80

0

50

0..

0

20

!-<

0..

0.1

Total Barium (log Conceniration- mglL)

IEPA G-ll

•

:

,-/'/'

•

,

~OD

• l.o.r;:vD" u",

... 0.

",.y/!t)

eJt

~~-

,

r

)3'//~

•

n

/p---

•

,//

-1.7

-I.G

-1.5

-1.4

-1.3

-1.2

Total Barililll (log Concentration -

mglL)

Lower Des Plailles River Use Attaillability Allalysis

Draft:

May 24,2001

A-2

---

99.9

99

~

95

......

0

80

t::

0

50

0..

0

20

;....,

0..

5

0.1

-2

-1.9

-1.8

IEPA G-02

-1.7

-1.6

-1.5

-1.4

99.9

99

~

95

......

0

80

t::

0

50

0..

0

20

;....,

0..

5

0.1

Total Barium (log Concentration - mg/L)

IEPA G-23

/

/n

O

u

~a:fP.

_6

0

"8

~

•

.~

•

I:V

~)'J

=

o

/9"

i

/

•

-1.9

-1.7

-1.5

-1.3

-1.1

Bariwn (log Concentration - mglL)

Lower Des Plailles River Use Attaillability Allalysis

Draft:

May 24,2001

A-3

---

99.9

99

~

95

0

.-

.;..>

80

:-.

0

50

0-

0

20

:-.

0-

S

0.1

MWRD 91

///'

.///~

//f

;

n

/'

//

;

-2

-1.8

-1.6

-1.4

-1.2

Total Barium

Oog

Concentration -

mgIL)

MWRD 92

Data Insufficient for probability plot. Within acceptable range.

Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis

Draft:

May 24,2001

A-4

---

MWRD 93

99.9

99

C

95

0

--P

SO

;....

0

50

0..

0

20

;....

0..

0.1

f-~

..

>;,«

'-

f-

u

.-

r'

/../i'

-

c-

1///"'

E3

r'

//'

-

-

•

,-

,/,//

.

~"///

•

,2

-1.8

-1.6

-1.4

•

-1.2

-I

Total Barium (log Concentration - mglL)

MWRD 94

..

..:-

.... -:-

........................ ,

cr",,,--."'.-----------'

:j

QQ.9

-:.

........

'iQ

C

95

_.

.....

-l->

0

80

----------

.------

;....

0

50

0..

0

20

;....

0..

5

n

0,1 -, .. , .....

-1.7

-1.6

..........

-1.5

-1.4

............

;-

-1.3

Total Barium (log Concentration - mgIL)

Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis

Draft: May

24,2001

A-5

---

MWRD 95

99

::i

95

.8

80

""""'

o

l-<

50

I-Ei'<c"" """ "" '" """""""",J:l.",i""",

Cl.;

o

20

l-<

Cl.;

0,1 I::::i.:=====e::::=========:..:..i..=====.::::l

-1. 7

-1.6

-1.5

-1.4

-1.3

99,9

99

::i

95

......

0

80

1:

0

50

Cl.;

0

20

:-

Cl.;

5

0,1

Total Barium (log Concentration- mglL)

Riverside (USGS)

0

/'

'cBg;~/~~

/~/r;vu

g "

,/-;/

0

l/

,

/

'"

-1.8

-1.7

-1.6

-1.5

-IA

Data not available

Total Barium (log Concentration -mglL)

Romeoville (USGS)

Lower Des Plailles River Use Attaillability AlIalysis

Draft:

May 24,2001

A-6

---

Probability Plots for Boron

-0.5

Reference Site

99.9

99

C

95

0

.-

.......

80

I-<

0

50

0..

0

20

l-;

0..

5

0

0.1

-1.7

-1.5

-1.3

-1.1

-0.9

-0.7

Total Boron (log Concentration - mglL)

IEPA G-ll

99.9

99

C

95

.-

.......

l-;

0

SO

0

50

0..

0

20

l-;

0..

5

0.1

Q~/'

.

";'O~~/c:r

o

",,§,El9»"

.....

M

1;)9~a~§g

-

§

~//"

...

-

n

~

,/'-

•

/-~

,-

-1.2

-I

-o,S

-0,6

-OA

Boron (log Concentration - mgIL)

Lower Des Plailles River Use Attaillability Allalysis

Draft: May

24,

2001

A-7

---

99.9

99

c:

95

0

......

80

t::

0

50

0..

0

20

;...,

0..

5

0.1

-0.8

-0.76

-0.72

IEPA 0-02

-0.68

o

-0.64

-0.6

Total Boron (log Concentmtion - mgIL)

IEPA 0-23

99.9

99

c:

95

......

0

80

t::

0

50

0..

0

20

;...,

0..

5

0.1

-1

-0.9

-0.8

-0.7

-0.6

-0.5

Boron (log Concentration - rnglL)

Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis

Draft:

May 24,2001

A-8

---

99.9

99

I=:

95

0

.-

t:

0

50

SO

0..

0

20

I-;

0..

5

0.1

-I

-0.8

MWRD 91

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

99.9

99

c;

95

0

.-

.....

I-;

SO

0

50

0..

0

20

l-<

0..

0.1

Total Boron (log Concentration - mgIL)

MWRD 92

•

--/'

j--./

.

i..-_/

nO

~

~//

.~

~-Iff;

o~

1-;

~1f1"o!1P'

.

......

l-

f'G"'-

.,;r('

.

•

•

1-;

.__:Ji

•

1--

~':T

••

•

~

•

1-"

." ...

-0.7

-0.5

-0.3

-O.l

0.1

0.3

0.5

Total Boron (log Concentration- mgIL)

Lower Des Plailles River Use Attaillability Allalysis

Draft: May 24,2001

A-9

---

MWRD 93

......

t::

o

c..

o

;....

c..

99 1-

,

.

95 H........................

,

.

so

50 1-,

i····B"'~'··'·

.

20

o

O. I

t:i::.;.;:.:::==':::±=::.:.==;.:.:i==:.;::;::d===:;:::;i====d

-0.86

-0.76

-0.66

-0.56

-0.46

-0.36

Total Boron (log Concentration - mg/L)

MWRD 94

99.9

99

c::

95

0

• .-..oj

80

.......

l-<

0

50

Q..

b

20

l-<

Q..

5

0.1

-0.93

-0.83

-0.73

-0.63

-0.53

-0.43

Total Boron (log Concentration - mg/L)

-0.33

Lower Des Plailles River Use Attaillability Allalysis

Draft:

May 24,2001

A-lO

---

MWRD 95

-0.89

-0.79

-0.69

-0.59

-0.49

1:1...

20

99

95

80

50 .

0.1

l:::r:.===~L.::.=======::::i::c=======:.:.:.jd

99.9

~

.....

.......

o

1-<

o

0...

1-<

o

0...

Total Boron (log Concentration -mg!L)

Riverside (USGS)

99.9

99

0

95

......

0

80

1:::

0

50

0..

0

20

1-<

0

0..

0.1

-1.2

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

Total Boron (log Concentration -mg!L)

Romeoville (USGS)

Data not available

Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis

Draft: May 24,2001

A-ll

---

999

_.'.

9<,)

-,

::::

95

-

0

.,....

80

-,

......

I-<

0

50

I-

0...

0

20

l-

I-<

0...

5

1-.

Probability Plots for Chloride

Reference Site

,. ,.,-

...)0,.,.,., , , ;_

o

1.1

1.3

1.5

1.7

1.9

2.1

99.4

99

::::

95

.,....

......

I-<

0

80

0

50

0...

0

20

I-<

0...

0.1

Chloride (log Concentration - mgfL)

IEPA G-ll

-"

1-'"

•

_.: ..

~d

p~D'cr'u

-:

_

..

:

.JJ{;

g..-O.d""

A-l3~gr6"

_.:

-~

.....

-:.

o"r("P-".....

.

-,

.

1.6

1.8

2

2.2

2.4

2.6

Chloride (log Concentration- mgIL)

Lower Des Plailles River Use Attaillability Allalysis

Draft: May

24,

2001

A-12

---

IEPA G-02

99.9

. 99

s:::

95

0

.....

+-'

80

l-<

0

50

p.,

0

20

l-<

p.,

5

O.

j

1.7

1.9

:2.1

2.3

2.5

2.7

? .9

Chloride (log Concentration - mgIL)

IEPA G-23

99.9

99

s:::

95

........

0

80

t

0

50

p.,

0

20

l-<

p.,

5

.

.

.

.

.

.

0.1

b::====i:..:..===::.::.;j====:.:±====.±.'":.:;."":.:;.".:.:;.

....:.:;...

:.:;..,,:.:;.,,,,.:;:.,,,,:.:;.,,.::i

...i.:::l-

1.7

1.9

2.1

2.5

2.7

ChlOlide (log Concentration - mgIL)

Lower

Des

Plailles River

Use

Attaillability Allalysis

Draft: May

24,2001

A-13

---

MWRD 91

999

99

l:::

95

0

.,....

......;..;

80

0

50

0-;

0

20

;..;

0-;

0

0

0.1

i.~

2

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

Chloride

Oog

Concentration - mgIL)

MWRD 92

99.9

99

l::

95

0

.,....

80

1::

0

50

0-;

0

20

;..;

0-;

5

-' ..

-

'_.-H

.

............."

; .

.....................)

........ ,-

o

... , .....

+

.......1,,.........

.............

1-

..................... +

..................... +

o

;

•

I -0.

..,

,

,

+-

0.1 L--'-i

-'-

._..

...L

.•._...._..._...._..._..._...._...--'

.

.1__

.._

..__.__--'_..__.__._--'_.______--'

..

+L...J.-

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

ChlOlide (log Concentration-

mglL)

Lower Des Plailles River Use Attaillability Allalysis

Draft: May 24,2001

A-14

---

MWRD 93

99.9

99

~

95

0

80

"-2

0

50

0...

0

20

;...

0...

....

@of

.

;~;)~~Eroa

b

•

"_-

•..........

,."'"

: _

'.>.~.~

:..

:~.ff!-.

........

.......•. "

...•,

.

....• '

JJ....

~,.-

""......................t",,

,'

..........,,........,,;.

...•....•....•........

~

.

.

.

.

.

..................: "

;

.0•

."0,,...

.

~

.. "

;

:

.

0.1

1.8

2

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

ChI01ide (log Concentration -

mglL)

MWRD 94

99.9

~:.

99 I-c

.

1- •.....

0

"

.

..-

......-

.:-

.... :.-

. '., .:-

.....

-

-

2.6

2.9

3.2

0.1

L~...l.':

---''---

'---

.J..-

-'-

. ._

. ...l..:-1-

l.7

Chloride (log Concentration - mgIL)

Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis

Draft: May

24,

2001

A-IS

---

99.9

99

Q

95

.....

......l-<

0

80

0

50

0..

0

20

l-<

0..

5

0.1

MWRD 95

....•.•.•.

•••••••••

.•.

"o<

.

••• : •• " •• ,,/.-.-::.::.

,/

~~f<~:·

g

P

:

:.

-

/,::(19

0

.

_

o

I~···~··········.·.·.·.·.·.··

.•..

..l.

_

.....................................

.

1iI

-

.

1.7

2.3

2.6

2.9

3.2

Chloride (log Concentration - rug/L)

Riverside (USGS)

.

:-

.............,...

.

-

~

,

:~tP~~rt:~·--·1~;~

~f~~l~?]!=

., , "..,....

.

,,~.,

,.,

~

"

-

+-

\l

.'

:.-

99.9

-,

......

99

-;...

..

Q

95

-; ..

.....

......

l-<

0

80

H

0

50

-c..

0..

0

20

-;

...

l-<

0..

5

t-r.<:"'''.

[p

0

1-'

.0

0.1

I-i..

...

j

.8

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

Chloride (log Concentration - mgIL)

Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis

Draft:

May 24,2001

A-16

---

Romeoville (USGS)

95

80

50

20

1--

.

1.4

1.7

2

2.3

2.6

2.9

Chloride (log Concentration - mgIL)

Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis

Draft:

May 24,2001

A-I?

---

Probability Plots for Copper

Reference Site

Data Insufficient for probability plot. Within acceptable range.

IEPA G-ll

Data Insufficient for probability plot. Within acceptable range.

IEPA G-02

Data Insufficient for probability plot. Within acceptable range.

IEPA G-23

Data Insufficient for probability plot. Within acceptable range.

MWRD 91

99.9

99

P

95

0

.-

.....

!-;

80

0

50

0...

0

20

!-;

0...

5

0.1

•

... ,

........

•

MO

~

[;;100c:.:

.......--;-----_.

--.~

;J....-(;.l-w..

•

•

-

,...ct...._-

•

_.,

8..

•

i

•

•

~

.......

-

•

.

•

•

-2.4

-2.2

-2

-1.8

-1.6

-1.4

Dissolved Copper (log Concentration - mgIL)

Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis

Draft: May 24,2001

A-18

---

........ 0

:

......

~

l-<

o

0..

o

l-<

0..

99.9

99

95

80

50

20

0.1

MWRD 92

:

:

.

.:

el~,~:~c~~";>"I~!~~"~.,

..

..

-:

.

-2.4

-2.2

-1.8

-1.6

-1.4

-1.2

99.9

99

C

95

......

0

80

t:

0

50

0..

0

20

1-<

0..

0.1

Dissolved Copper (log Concentration - mg/L)

MWRD 93

~

u

:

-.

~

~o ~

__ .•. :

I

---~'::-.

.-

~

.

•

...---

-------

•

;,.

.-.-".

..~

:.

n

•

:

-2.4

-2.2

-2

-1.8

-1.6

Dissolved Copper (log Concentration - mg/L)

Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis

Draft: May 24,2001

A-19

---

MWRD 94

~

~

99

....'._

L.

._

,_ ";.".

20

t.»'i".

5

,.§

.. 0.

80

95

50

.,...

'~e9;~j~~~-

0

......

~.~:>,~

..••.•..•.•........•.....• g

:.

...

:.

.........................

,

.... ;:

:

;

.

.

0.1

~

--'-

.

.L-

,I

__--i

t........

-'-

~.

-'--__

--.:..J..::::l

99.9

-2.4

-2.2

-2

-1.8

-1.6

-1.4

-1.2

Dissolved Copper (log Concentration - mglL)

MWRD 95

99.9

99

~

95

.

.....,

,....,

0

80

l-<

0

50

0..

0

20

l-<

0..

0.1

--

:til

.

0

•

_

..

rat_-

i-i---.....-...

..------

,-r

•

•

!L....

-·~····-·-

:

..-'

...

~

......

••

•

-

l-

•

..

•

-2.4

-2

-1.8

-1.6

-1.4

Dissolved Copper (log Concentration - mg!L)

Riverside (USGS)

Data Insufficient for probability plot. Within acceptable range.

Romeoville (USGS)

Data not available

Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis

Draft: May

24,

2001

A-20

---

Probability Plots for Dissolved Lead

Reference Site

Data Insufficient for probability plot. Within acceptable range.

IEPA G-ll

Data Insufficient for probability plot. Within acceptable range.

IEPA G-02

Data Insufficient for probability plot. Within acceptable range.

IEPA G-23

Data Insufficient for probability plot. Within acceptable range.

MWRD 91

Data Insufficient for probability plot. Within acceptable range.

MWRD 92

Data Insufficient for probability plot. Within acceptable range.

MWRD 93

Data Insufficient for probability plot. Within acceptable range.

MWRD 94

Data Insufficient for probability plot. Within acceptable range.

Lower Des Plailles River Use Attaillability Allalysis

Draft:

May 24,2001

A-21

---

MWRD 95

Data Insufficient for probability plot. Within acceptable range.

Riverside (USGS)

99.9 FI-:i.,..:::"..:-:.

=~===~

..:-:

..::T+-:::

....

~

..

C::.

======y----/7~::::::====l

99

~

95

."",,,

.....

;...

0

80

0

50

0...

0

20

;...

0...

5

1-:

.

u

........

0.1

1-,

, .

-2

-1.7

-l.4

-1.1

.0.8

-0.5

-0.2

Dissolved Lead

Oog

Concen1mtion - mglL)

Romeoville (USGS)

Data not available

Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis

Draft:

May 24,2001

A-22

---

Probability Plots for Dissolved Oxygen

Reference Site

;i

~

.'

... ...i.....

.

, ,;,

i." O

,

~

~

..

o

1

J

~

1.21

. .....>

1.01

1.11

.';0_'

i....

i

.

0.81

0.91

99.9

99

~

...

-

l=:

95

.:

...

.-

""'"

0

'-<

80

0

50

>-"-'

A

.:

0

20

'-<

A

5

0.1

.......

0.71

Dissolved Oxygen (log Concentration - mglL)

IEPA G-ll

99.9

99

l=:

95

.-

t::

00

5080

A

0

20

'-<

A

5

0.1

.'.C..

•

0

•

"JJ--~

.--rrcr-

-rr--eJ'~U

f...

.".i4

D

..Ql-...C

••• • •

r-

iD

u

00.

0.76

0.86

0.96

1.06

U6

1.26

Dissolved Oxygen (log Concentration - mgIL)

Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis

Draft:

May

24,

2001

A-23

---

95 1--"

!EPA G-02

'-

o

;-

c-

.-

................ ,

;

;

.

0.58

0.68

0.78

0.88

0.98

1.08

1.18

99.9

99

l::::i

95

......

0

80

t::

0

50

0...

0

20

;...

0...

5

0.1

Dissolved Oxygen (log Concentration - mgfL)

!EPA G-23

0

,-'

:

0

0

--".-

:---.--

:

.......

;0. 5

1

_--...0.-'-

;---Q

.-rr

':'_~"[f-

;.-.;:;"

0

:

-:0

,-,-

:

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.1

Dissolved Oxygen (log Concentration -

mglL)

Lower Des Plailles River Use Attainability Allalysis

Draft: May

24,2001

A-24

---

... , .

MWRD 91

99.9

f-!..

.... ....

~

..

99 1-.

95

I-

/".-;:;0

80 r:....

.~._

~<gif

Q

~

!•.....................

H

50

~....

. .•.............

.",,,c.i[j!.U.><......................•.

2:

jC~:"'.~·J~IIl$"""····

.."

..

.§",,,.. .;

,

,

H

.:

Q

I

~o

-:

O.

J

tt=="':"':::'L.:::::==.::.t:::======J::.::::===t.===i=l

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.1

1.2

1.3

99.9

99

t:i

95

......

0

80

~

0

50

A

0

20

l-<

0..

5

Dissolved Oxygen (log Concentration - mg/L)

MWRD 92

.......................... ,.

•

•

,

.

.....•••...

o,./""

·~4~?~;

.

•

>/.......

~

.,."/

.

.

:

0.1 l....L.

-'-

.. _ _ _

_ _..

--'-__ _ _

_._ _ _ _ --'

••

--l

0.38

0.58

0.78

0.98

1.18

Dissolved Oxygen (log Concentration - mg/L)

Lower Des Plailles River Use Attaillability Allalysis

Draft: May

24,

2001

A-25

---

99.9

99

~

95

......

r'

-

00

50

~O

0..

0

~O

;...

0..

0

0.1

•

•

0.57

0.67

0.77

MWRD 93

0.87

0.97

1.07

~

.-

t

o

o

0..

;...

o

0..

Dissolved Oxygen (log Concentration - mgIL)

MWRD 94

999

1-' .' ..

:-

:: ...,.. :

.......~.i:,,~·~?~O~~'=

80

I-

.

;

.,,~

;

-

0.1

:~

1-:

~l"·~~~

.'

.........: ••.••••• i

:~

;-

0.76

0.86

0.96

1.06

1.16

Dissolved Oxygen (log Concentration - mgIL)

Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis

Draft:

May 24,2001

A-26

---

MWRD 95

999

99

l:i

95

.......

4->

0

80

1-<

0

50

0..

0

20

1-<

0..

:.9""

0.1

0.76

0.8]

0.86

(J.OI

0.96

1.01

1.06

99.9

99

l:i

95

.......

0

80

t

0

50

0..

0

20

1-<

0..

5

0.1

Dissolved Oxygen (log Concentration - mgIL)

Riverside (USGS)

.,eo_r

_J5'--

R W

---

"'~

.oo.u""

__..v-

A""§---

_;:p:P--O

'"

cI

0.8]

0.9]

1.01

1.11

l.21

Dissolved Oxygen (log Concentrati.on - mgIL)

Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis

Draft:

May 24,2001

A-27

---

Romeoville (USGS)

5 I--'''u"......

50 1-

.

o

..•...

.:

....•

II:

; .....

:,::,'cFr""

:

~o'~

I.....' "''''''''''''''''''''''''''

~

:.-~_,>"".;

..

"'BLf'..... 0'3'

.-.

.

....

,.;,.;

20

99

95

80

q

.....

o

1::

o

0..

I-<

o

0..

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Ll

Dissolved Oxygen (log Concentration - mg/L)

Lower Des Plailles River Use Attaillability Allalysis

Draft:

May

24,

2001

A-28

---

Probability Plots for Fecal Coliforms

Reference Site

99.9

99

l=:

95

0

......

.......

l-<

80

0

50

0..

0

20

l-<

0..

5

O. ]

0

2

4

5

99.9

99

l=:

95

.-

1::

0

80

0

50

0..

0

20

l-<

0..

5

0.]

Fecal Colitorms (log Number

1100

mL)

IEPA G-ll

.

•

.....---if

•

.:. •.••• ".1::;--.-.".

:i:J

•

•

•

~.

1.o_q",~",""i::J

.~.

.--~r:r

:

;~D

a

0

~

.

•

-

•

•

1.6

2. ]

2.6

J.l

4.1

Fecal Coliform (log NLUllber

IIOO

mL)

Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis

Draft:

May

24,

2001

A-29

---

IEPA

G-D2

99.9

99

c:

95

0

.-<

SO

.......

~

0

50

0...

0

20

~

0...

5

0.1

1.3

1.7

2.1

2.5

2.9

3.3

3.7

Fecal Colifonn (log Number / 100 mL)

IEPA G-23

50 1-

,

..

80 H.

. .............. .;.

..

5

.......... ... .0.

20 H

.

... .... ...•.....

.. .

.

.

95

99. 9

P:::-'::-:-:-:':":-:-:':"-'-'-:'-:-.T.-'-'-:'~~:-:-:-:"-:-:-:C~~~:-:-:-:":-:-:-:1~=':":::'":'':":::'":''."':'':":"q

99 1-,

;

.

.-<

c:

o

1::

o

0...

o

~

0...

o

2

4

Fecal ColifOlm (log Number / 100mL)

Lower Des Plailles River Use Attaillability Allalysis

Draft: May

24,2001

A-3D

---

99.9

99

l:::::

95

0

.,....

......

l-<

80

0

50

0...

0

20

l-<

0...

5

0.1

0

MWRD 91

2

Fecal Colifonn (log Number

I

mL)

MWRD 92

45

/J/

J.,v/F

~

•

.~

V

~~

~.

te~

//0

/~

.

.

••

•

//~

99.9

99

l:::::

95

0

.,....

80

1::

0

50

0...

0

20

l-<

0...

5

0.1

o

Fecal Colifoml (log Number

1100

mL)

"

Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis

Draft:

May 24,2001

A-31

---

99.9

99

~

95

0

.€

80

0

50

P..

0

20

:-.

P..

5

0.1

MWRD 93

J///

u

.

~

0

•

@~

(}'

•

~0f3d[jl6'

-,

•

__lP

rdci~f'

.-.../",8'""

.

••

:

1.6

2.1

2.6

3.1

3.6

4.1

4.6

99.9

99

0

95

0

''''';

.........

80

l-i

0

50

P..

0

20

l-i

P..

5

0.1

Fecal ColifOlms (log Number /1 00 mL)

MWRD 94

1.5

2

2.5

3.5

4

Fecal ColifOlms (log Number /100 mL)

Lower Des Plailles River Use Attaillability Allalysis

Draft:

May

24,

2001

A-32

---

o

MWRD 95

0.1

1.9

2.3

2.7

3.1

3.5

3.9

99.9

99

P

95

.......

0

80

t::

0

50

P-.

0

20

;...

P-.

0.1

Fecal ColifoffilS (log Number / 100mL)

Riverside (USGS)

,

,-,-,-""'".'''''.-

---------

0

~,,,

..

~'-

_

.

----0

~

.<yp..

~.

>"'0

~I:f

,-

~

.-

>-

1...--

.-

.-

2.5

2.9

3.3

3.7

4.1

4.5

Data not available

Fecal

ColifOlms (log Number /100

rnL)

Romeoville (USGS)

Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis

Draft: May

24,2001

A-33

---

99.9

99

::::

95

0

"C

80

l-o

0

50

0..

0

20

l-o

0..

5

Probability Plots for Flouride

Reference Site

........,-

..............;

;

-

1--11

,

0.......

• .

...

O. I

t::.t:::.:;::::.===i.=.::;:::::==i.==::;;:::.:.:L::i===d====,d

-1

-0.9

-0.8

-O.?

-0.6

-0.5

Data not available

Data not available

Flomide

Oog

Concentration - mgIL)

IEPA G-ll

IEPA G-02

IEPA

G-23

99.9

99

::::

95

0

.....

.....

;.....

SO

0

50

A

0

20

;.....

0..

0.1

///:

.

.

/6/'°

.

•

•

¥

•

•

.¢if

r

.

•

,"'"

.......

•

..........

-

•

.~8fF

...

.-

0

M

•

•

//

.

.. '.

............:-

i::J

•

....-

/,//'

.

••

.,-

-0.56

-0.36

-0.16

0.1)4

0.24

Flouride (log Concentration - mgIL)

Lower Des Plailles River Use Attaillability Allalysis

Draft:

May 24,2001

A-34

---

MWRD 91

..................................v

..

~~:~

, -t:l

•

..•.••

I .•.

.••• .

.••••.•.•.

·............;;§:··d'~···<5

..........

.....

..a.

:

@@ ..

•

tff~F~;~~~·

.••••••••• .

.• ...•••• .

.• .

.• .....

...••.•.•......•..•..•••..•••.

~.

..........,

.

•

......................

•

•

•

99.9

99

I::

95

0

.-

1::

80

0

50

0..,

0

20

h

j::!,..,"<

0..,

O(]

d'"

(]

c

0.1

-0.61

-OAI

-0.21

-0.01

0.19

Flouride (log Concentration - mgIL)

MWRD 92

0.21

.................................

~-

-0.39

-0.19

O.oJ

.....""

.,

"

.

....,......

-~C~?B~

"

,

;;f~~~i;:

-

.

:"-

r""--!

.

?;~;c~!

..............•••••••••••••••••••••

~..::

•

99.9

-~

99

_

..

I::

95

-

0

.-<

80

_.'

t::

0

50

-:

0..,

0

20

-:.

h

0..

5

f-.

I-P

,~,..

,..<

.'

O.!

I-

-0.59

Flouride (log Concentration- mgIL)

Lower Des Plailles River Use Attaillability Allalysis

Draft:

May 24,2001

A-35

---

MWRD 93

Q

.......

o

t::

o

0..

....

o

0..

0.1

-0.38

-0.28

-0.18

-0.08

0.112

0.12

Flouride (log Concentration - mg/L)

MWRD 94

......'0

.

o'

.«"

.

i

.

0'

~'

..

:o~_nkd~~~<~f~>······

p

-.

j....

.

.

0.1

CJ..

•..:..,._.__--'

.._..

...J.

...._"_._,,_._"_"_"....J"._.

--'-

-'-__.:....:...=

99.9

99

q

95

0

.......

-

....

80

0

50

0..

....

0

20

0..

5

-0.46

.0.36

.0.26

-0.16

-O.O(i

0.04

O.l4

Flouride (log Concentration - mglL)

Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis

Draft:

May

24,

2001

A-36

---

MWRD95

99.9

99

95

80 1->

.

50

20

.•..........

;...-..-,,,Cf

~"J!~.JJ

P.

.

.

.

"""

~

0.1 C:±===="----__-'--:.:..L====i====::i:.::.===:.::.::i=i

-0.46

-0.36

-0.26

.0.16

-0.06

0.04

99.9

99

!=l

95

.......

0

80

i:

0

50

0..

0

20

;...

0..

5

0.1

Flouride (log Concentration -

mgIL)

Riverside (USGS)

0

~

8

~.

§ __

.}i.--

~

_"..."..El,....

.. ....,,'''''

--~,,--_.P'

-r'"

........

-0.7

-0.5

-0.3

-0. J

0.1

Flouride (log Concentration -

mgIL)

Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis

Draft:

May 24,2001

A-37

---

Romeoville (USGS)

99.9

99

q

95

0

......

~

80

l-<

0

50

0...

0

20

l-<

0...

0.1

-0.31

-0.21

-0.11

-0.01

0.09

Flouride (log Concentration - mgIL)

Lower Des Plailles River Use Attaillability Allalysis

Draft: May

24,

2001

A-38

---

Probability Plots for Manganese

Reference Site

99.9

99

l::

95

0

.-

t::

80

0

50

0..

0

20

1-<

0..

5

0

0.1

-1.2

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

Manganese (log Concentration- mgIL)

IEPA 0-11

99.9

99

l::

95

.

t::

-

0

80

1-..

0

50

0..

--".-

0

20

1-<

0..

5

0

1 _.

0.1 -

-1.9

-1.8

-1.7

-1.6

-1.5

o 0

-1.4

-1.3

Manganese (log Concentraion- mgIL)

Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis

Draft: May

24,2001

A-39

---

IEPA 6-02

-1.8

-1.7

-1.6

-1.5

-1.4

-L3

Manganese (log Concentration - mglL)

99.9

99

q

95

0

......

+->

80

l-<

0

50

0..

0

20

l-<

0..

0.1

-1.9

o

IEPA 6-23

Lower Des Plailles River Use Attaillability Allalysis

Draft: May 24,2001

A-40

---

99.9

99

l::

95

0

.-

.....

H

80

0

50

0..

0

20

H

0..

5

0.1

MWRD 91

//

!

•

•

J;;(/

"'iii

n

•

...... §/!

~c

1,//

•

••

.F!!

,

•

••

r;V~

~r

.

-

•

'"

..

.;

-1.7

-1.3

-0.9

-0.5

-0.1

0.3

0.7

Manganese (log Concentration - mgIL)

MWRD 92

l::

o

.

.....

-

H

o

0..

H

o

0..

.....,......,,..,.,1.... .....

n ....... ' ......., ...

1

~9...,-

.".

--,. -------.--,-

0.1 H--.-........... .-- "-..--.--- .. . .

. 'Ii:"

.

•

'

-:

.

-:

.....

..

•

-:

.

-

.•

.

~

~

..

.;

.. iii"

....•

.:.

i__ .

.---

..

.'

.:

~

..

o

~-

.

,,+-

..

'i-

i-

i-

-2

-1.6

-1.2

-0.8

-0.4

()

0.4

Manganese (log Concentration- mglL)

Lower Des Plailles River Use Attaillability Allalysis

Draft:

May 24,2001

A-41

---

MWRD 93

99.9

99

~

95

0

...-;

80

1:

0

50

0..

0

20

;...

0..

5

0.1

-1.7

-1.5

-1.3

-I.J

-0.9

-0.7

-0.5

Manganese (log Concentration - mglL)

MWRD 94

-0.2

D

-1.1

-0.8

-0.5

..

.

·_",o~-

f-;,......................................................

~.~~>'

.~

-l

f-~

::-tV"'~;

....-:..

~

':..>

6

..

> ".,

~

:

!

:-j

I-;..."""

~t''''.....

:

"-1

•

•

99.9

99

~

95

0

.......

......

;...

80

0

50

__,,-;;Il

d

0..

0

20

;...

A

5

D

~~

~

0.1

-1.7

-1.4

Manganese (log Concentration - mglL)

Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis

Draft: May

24,2001

A-42

---

MWRD 95

99.9

99

t::

95

.....

.......

0

80

l-<

0

50

0...

0

20

l-<

0...

0.1

-1.7

-1.5

-1.3

-1.1

-0.9

-0.7

-0.5

Manganese (log Concentraion -

mglL)

Riverside (USGS)

99.9

99

t::

95

0

80

'-2

0

50

0...

.....

0

20

0...

5

0.1

•

rlJ~/

•

<lp.-'_.-'.JiP"

•

..rl9Q'#~

13•..

P

;J'"

~

>.;.r/~--'"

..,

R

n

.~/Q./

...,v

~

-2.6

-2.3

-2

-1. 7

-1.4

-l.l

Manganese (log Concentration - mgIL)

Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis

Draft:

May 24,2001

A-43

---

99.9

99

I::

95

0

.

,....

;...,

..-;

80

0

50

0...

0

10

;...,

0...

0.1

Romeoville (USGS)

-:

-~.-~

:

."--t'i

0

--

:--~

0

!tl~-'5§

..-

:::ci'/d'

;-0--

...

-1.9

-1.8

-1.7

-1.6

-1.5

-1.4

-1.3

Manganese

Oog

Concentration - mgIL)

Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis

Draft: May

24,

2001

A-44

---

Probability Plots for pH

Reference Site

99.9

99

~

95

0

......

.....,

80

l-<

0

50

0..

0

20

l-<

0..

5

0

0.1

6.5

6.9

7.3

7.7

8.1

8.5

8.9

pH

IEPA G-ll

,""

80 1-'

50 1--

.

99.9

I=I-r-:-:,---:::-----:::--c=.====r---:::--===::::r====:=::r.===/==J::=====:q

99

I-

/~

~

......

o

1::

o

0..

o

l-<

0..

6.9

7.3

7.7

8.1

8.5

8.9

9.3

pH

Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis

Draft: May

24,

2001

A-45

---

IEPA G-02

99.9

99

c::

95

.-<

0

80

+->

;....

0

50

0...

0

20

;...,

0...

5

0.1

6.9

7.1

7.3

7.5

7.7

7.9

8.1

pH

IEPA G-23

99.9

99

c::

95

0

.-

+->

;....

80

0

50

0...

;....

0

20

0..

5

0.1

7

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7,6

pH

Lower Des Plailles River Use Attaillability Allalysis

Draft:

May 24,2001

A-46

---

MWRD 91

99.9

99

~

95

0

.

.....

-

~

SO

0

50

0..

0

20

~

0..

5

0.1

5.3

6.3

7.3

8.3

.......;z

../7/.."........"0.'

//

.

.

//'0

§ .... :.

•

.,.,.,"<>" •.•

•

' ••.

..... ,......,.Iii......

•

•

...."""...

•

"

......,,'.,..

•

•

"'''''.'

. "".........•

•

•

•

9.3

pH

MWRD 92

6.3

7.3

8.3

.

".,.......................

"

.... :;-;7.

...

..1-

.................

.

;....

:/:/.

.

.

;-

...

....L..../u<Q~.·...D:

/or

~-

...............

~....

.

idid~

•

~

;

.••••••••••••

~..

/!

...................•..•.•.•.••.•.•.••••••

~.::

.•.

.••.•.•••••••

tr~

.....

················,t:~

5.3

9.3

5

f-;'

[]

~

.....

50 1-;.

20

1-+.

0.1

f-:"

99.9 t- ..

99 1-;

95

I-~'

SO 1-;

pH

Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis

Draft:

May 24,2001

A-47

---

MWRD 93

99.9

99

0

••

•

......

.,..,

;....

h0

80

95

..

•

•••

0

;....

0

P..

50

20

•

•

•

•

•

••

P..

5

•

•

•

0.1

•••

..

•

•

•

5.2

6.2

7.2

8.2

9.2

pH

MWRD 94

99.9

99

c:

95

0

.

.,..,

;....

......,

80

0

50

P..

;....

0

20

P..

5

O.J

.....,,.........;..;;F

0........ .........................•........

.

~'b

.

:

.

00//:

,. .

iii'

,.... .

:

p/ll

.

..

.

[J9-'~

Ii

······l;~~~lf~

....

.• ...•

~··

.•.•

··~~~7.·L··

.•.......................•.•.•• ..•••.•.•.•.•.•.• S

•.•

_

../~.............

..

67

pH

8

9

10

Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis

Draft: May

24,

2001

A-48

---

MWRD 95

99.9

99

l:i

95

.....

......

1-<

0

80

0

50

0...

0

20

1-<

0..

0.1

o

. ,

:

.

.'.' .- .' ,

,..

~.

iii'

,., ..

~.

..................:.•....

.........

:.

:-

:-

,..

~

......

...~:

~DEi

.....

.........)~~~;~<~,/

.............. ".,..(

)~

;

"

................................+

4.9

5.9

6.9

7.9

8.9

pH

Riverside (USGS)

.-

..

..

-....

.. ,-

,"

~

.

0:

•

oo.sJ

.....

:i

111

.. !(

.......

'"'

-1

-'

."iii

-'

.....•.

-'

-'

....II'

-'

•

............" ,.,

.

.......................,

..

/

,:,'"

.."

d... .

_/

//~

.~~~~~.

'

0.1

Z

99.9

99

l:i

95

.....

......

1-<

0

80

0

50

0..

0

20

1-<

0...

5

7

7.4

7.8

8.2

8.6

9

pH

Lower Des Plailles River Use Attaillability Allalysis

Draft:

May 24,2001

A-49

---

Romeoville (USGS)

99.9

9<J

~

(.)5

0

.,...

......

l-<

80

0

50

0...

0

20

l-<

0...

5

O. J

7.2

7.4

7.6

7.8

pH

Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis

Draft: May

24,2001

A-50

---

Data not available

Data not

availabb

Data not available

Data not available

Probability Plots for Phenol

Reference Site

IEPA

G-ll

IEPA G-02

IEPA G-23

MWRD 91

99.9

99

!=:

95

0

.-

+-'

80

H

0

50

0-;

0

20

H

0-;

0.1

1-'

....

,

•

/

/~

~

c~

~'

1-.

h

•

A~

mi;fa

1

!

•

/~i1l'"

i-'

i-;

n

• /9/

-~

./«

-2.4

-2.2

-1.8

-1.6

-1.4

-1.2

Phenol (log Concentration -

mglL)

Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis

Draft: May

24,

2001

A-51

---

MWRD 92

99.9

99

l=:

95

0

.,....

.....

I-<

80

0

50

0...

0

]0

I-<

0...

0.1

.,.. ..•...

•

. ..... [J

...•"."

.......

•

,,>'

.,.~.

.....

••

" ....

....•.....

•

•

"

•

.

....

•

II!I...

.:

•

•

.

-2.3

-2

-L7

-1.4

-1.1

-0.8

99.9

99

l=:

95

0

80

"-2

0

50

0...

0

20

;...

0...

0.1

Phenol (log Concentration- mgIL)

MWRD 93

:

,/

-:

/

u

-

M0

•

#DU

H

c13#~

:

.i.il

jill'"

H

n 0

3

9

/

o

u //

y/

I-

///

1-:

-2.4

-2.2

-2

-1.8

-1.6

-1.4

-1.2

Phenol (log Concentration - mg/L)

Lower Des Plailles River Use Attaillability Allalysis

Draft: May 24,2001

A-52

---

MWRD 94

c

o

--2

o

0..

l-.

o

0..

99.9

99

95

.............."

"",,;

.

••• - ••••• "." •.• "•••.• "••• >.- •••••..

() 1

L.l..__

~'

._--._--.._...._.....J..--._

..._...__

~

_

_'_

..._.._.--_

......J..--._.--_

.. --

__'__l

-2.1

-1.9

- 1. 7

-1.5

-1.3

99.9

99

C

95

0

.';:;

80

l-.

0

50

0..

0

20

l-.

0..

5

0.1

Phenol (log Concentration -

mgIL)

MWRD 95

/,,///'

.

,0/>/

LI

~.//jO~

,-

..!'Ygj,l

~-€l'!=I

/sr~'

,-

//c;'f~

'"

'~--;:;/'

CJ

-2,1

-1.9

-1.7

-1.5

-1.3

Phenol (log Concentraion -

mglL)

Riverside (USGS)

Data not available

Romeoville (USGS)

Data not available

Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis

Draft:

May

24,

2001

A-53

---

99.9

99

l::

95

0

.....

+-'

80

l-<

0

50

0..

0

20

l-<

0..

0.1

Probability Plots for Dissolved Iron

Reference Site

.......

.....

....

.. ,

.,.~~<;Z

.,.,...

n

:P

................

l//>

co

~/

!

;//

//

//

...

-2

-J.

7

-1.4

-1.1

-0.8

-0.5

Dissolved Iron (log Concentration - mg!L)

IEPA G-ll

Data Insufficient for probability plot. Within acceptable range.

IEPA G-02

Data Insufficient for probability plot. Within acceptable range.

IEPA G-23

Data Insufficient for probability plot. Within acceptable range.

Lower Des Plailles River Use Attaillability Allalysis

Draft: May

24,

2001

A-54

---

99.9

99

~

95

.,....

.....

;...;

0

80

0

50

p.,

0

20

;...;

p.,

0.1

MWRD 91

: ..

,-

n

0

.,,,_

....•

i:P

8':'_-

,........

"'rf1iila~oa'

Bo..-"

~_'6"a'"

........

---

>,,_.

I

[

i

-2

-1.7

-1.4

.1.1

-0.8

-0.5

-0.2

99.9

99

0

95

0

.,....

......;...;

80

0

50

p.,

0

20

;...;

p.,

5

0.1

Dissolved Iron (log Concentration - mglL)

MWRD 92

......

,

•

•

n']

~

B

El

~

u

..---------

l!l_-B--~'-~----

..----{

1----;---

1----

0

,;,

-1.7

-1.4

-1.1

-0.8

-0.5

Dissolved Iron (log Concentration - mgIL)

Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis

Draft:

May

24,

2001

A-55

---

99.9

99

r::

95

0

of

80

0

50

P..

0

20

;...

P..

5

0.1

-2

-1.7

-IA

MWRD 93

-1.1

-0.8

-0.5

-0.2

99.9

99

~

95

0

.....

80

t::

0

50

P..

;...

0

20

P..

5

0.1

Dissolved Iron (log Concentration - mglL)

MWRD 94

~l:fI0o

e.-:"---

~

:J

.-----

t.

f1

_.'

?__

I;;I,5l.-.

,.__!il_--l

!}"...",

i------.

~

...

......

-2

-1.7

-1.4

-1.1

-0.8

.0.5

Dissolved Iron (log Concentration - mglL)

-0.2

Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis

Draft:

May 24,2001

A-56

---

99.9

99

c::

95

0

......

......

l-<

80

0

50

0...

0

20

l-<

0...

0.1

-2

-1.7

-1.4

MWRD 95

-1.1

-0.8

-0.5

-0.2

99.9

99

c::

95

• .-<

0

80

t:

0

50

0...

0

20

l-<

A

5

0.1

Dissolved Iron (log Concentraion - mgIL)

Riverside (USGS)

,//

•

.,,/0/

u

•

i)~"/'-'

~i;J

'.

............

•

.///•.

.... " ,".". 0< ..........

~".

•

-2

-1.7

-1.4

-1.1

-0.8

-0.5

-0.2

Dissolved Iron (log Concentration - mgIL)

Lower Des Plaines River

Use

Attainability Analysis

Draft: May

24,

2001

A-57

---

99.9

99

l=:

95

0

.......

....

1-<.

80

0

50

0...

0

20

H

0...

0.1

-2

-1.8

Romeoville (USGS)

-1.6

-1.4

-1.2

Dissolved Iron (log Concentration - mgfL)

Lower Des Plaines River

Use

Attainability Analysis.

Draft: May

24,2001

A-58

---

Probability Plots for Sulfate

Reference Site

99.9

99

95

•..

80

50

20

, 'g

.ir

.•.•.•.•.••

~

••••.•••..........

,

.

0.1 LJ..

'_'/_'

._

.._..J..

-'-

---'

-L....!

1.6

1.8

2

2.2

2.4

99.9

99

~

95

.....

~

0

....

0

50

80

0..

....

0

20

0..

5

0.1

Sulfate (log Concentration - mgIL)

IEPA G-ll

,.

.......,-

'0

1~~i9J/~

e&Pd'T

tF

J>~

,

~fi-

.........

CJ

,Ji

n

0

,/'/

////'

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.1

Sulfate (log Concentration - mglL)

Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis

Draft:

May

24,

2001

A-59

---

99.9

99

s:::

95

0

.-

+-'

;....

80

0

50

0..

0

20

;....

0..

5

0.1

IEPA G-02

.'

,

0

.-ri

t.i::J......>

~

•• _.• o

An-'

u

.=

~--

OW

......

i:J

1.8

l.85

1.9

1.95

2

2.05

~.I

Sulfate

(tog

Concen1ration - mglL)

IEPA G-23

99.9

99

s::;

95

0

.-

+-'

;....

80

0

50

0..

0

20

I-<

0..

0.1

1.7

1.8

1.9

2

Sulfate (log Concentration - mgIL)

~.I

Lower Des Plailles River Use

A ttaillability

Allalysis

Draft:

May 24,2001

A-60

---

MWRD 91

99.9

99

l=:

95

0

.-

+-'

80

I-<

0

50

0..

0

20

I-<

0..

5

0.1

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2

2.1

Sulfate (log Concentration - mgIL)

MWRD92

99.9

99

~

95

'''-;

0

80

+-'

I-<

0

50

0..

0

20

I-<

0..

0.1

:P

cEl

Jl

~

..

"~"~

#~/"

....neil

1:I?"i;L.~iP

J$:f!.J!!..- ..-

~M.....--o~

~

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.1

2.2

Sulfate (log Concentration - mgIL)

Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis

Draft: May 24,2001

A-61

---

99.9

99

$:I

95

0

......

80

t::

0

50

0..

0

20

.....

0..

5

0.1

1.7

1.8

1.9

MWRD 93

2

2.1

o

2.2

Sulfate (log Concentration - mglL)

MWRD 94

99.9

99

$:I

95

0

......

.....

.....

80

0

50

0..

.....

0

20

0..

5

0.1

1.6

.;....

1.7

1.8

1.9

2

2.1

2.2

Sulfate (log Concentration - mgIL)

Lower Des Plailles River Use Attaillability Allalysis

Draft: May 24,2001

A-62

---

MWRD 95

999

99

c::

95

0

"Z

SO

l-.<

0

50

0..

0

20

l-.<

0..

OJ

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

Sulfate (log Concentraion - mgIL)

Riverside (USGS)

2.1

2.2

99.9

99

c::

95

0

SO

"f

0

50

0..

0

20

;...

0..

0.1

1-'

1--

u

1-..

R

I-~

~

.~.-"

1-'

~.g.

---

~g;J#--"I'-'

1-.

-

I-

i5I

l:l~~~'

:

....,..

.Q:~-

1-'

,

1-,

.

1.6

L7

1.8

1.9

2

2.1

Sulfate (log Concentration - mgIL)

Lower Des Plai1les River Use Attai1lability A1lalysis

Draft:

May 24,2001

A-63

---

Romeoville (USGS)

99.9

99

~

95

0

.....

80

~

0

50

0..

0

20

l-<

0..

5

a

0.1

I.7

1.8

1.9

2.1

Sulfate (log Concentration -

mglL)

Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis

Draft: May

24,2001

A-64

---

~

.-

t::

oo

0..

o

0..

....

Probability Plots for Temperature

Reference Site

o

5

10

15

20

25

30

99.9

99

~

95

.-

.....

00

....

8050

0..

0..

....

0

205

01

Temperatme (C)

!EPA G-ll

1-" ....

........

;=

J:/"/

A

,/~

dP'

•

•

-

0

/

.87

.

•

-

•

.0

/

•

/~//

•

-0.7

-0.3

0.1

0.5

0.9

1.3

1.7

Temperature (log C)

Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis

Draft:

May 24,2001

A-65

---

!EPA G-02

99.9

99

Cl

t::

95

.,....;

0

80

+-'

l-<

0

50

0...

0

20

l-<

0...

5

0.1

0.68

0.88

1.08

1.28

1.48

Temperature ( log

C)

!EPA G-23

99.9

99

t::

95

.

0

,....;

80

+-'

l-<

0

50

0...

0

20

l-<

0...

5

..• '

"

'._.

.

_

'.'._ .. '0._.

. ..

. 0:'or

••...••••.••

~..

....• •••••.•••

~..

.

.. ....-

.~::.~:.J.

......•.•...•...•.•.•.•..•...•...

J~~,.

~

.

................ ,

,

..

,,~[]

.-.-1:P:

"

•

:

'.

.

9-"~

o~-r

..........,

. .....:

.:

0.1

=..,:.:..;....._._

..

~

.._

.........:.:

.........:.:.'.:.:'..........

~._

..

~

.._

.._

.. _'-..

~~~~._

.. -'-

.._.

~~~---'-~_~~=

0.54

0.74

0.94

1.14

1.34

1.54

Temperature (log

C)

Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis

Draft: May

24,

2001

A-66

---

MWRD 91

..... ,,-

.... <-

. ,-

.....

-

....

.....................................,

.

.

...

'_..

//

::.-

2031

7

;:

:

~

.

"

.................."...! ..".,.,

•

•

..

.....................:

~

.

.

•

0.1 f-L ..

•

99.9

99

.95

80

:

o

10

20

30

40

Temperature

(C)

MWRD 92

99.9 f-,....

99 H.nn,n

95 f-+ .n

n ' .

80 f-i.

,..

50 ,-+

. ........•.

...... !-

0.65

0.85

1.05

1.25

1.45

1.65

Temperature (log

C)

Lower Des Plailles River Use Attaillability Allalysis

Draft:

May 24,2001

A-67

---

MWRD 93

99.9

99

I=:

95

0

......

.....,

80

:-.

0

50

P..

0

20

:-.

P..

5

0

0.1

0.59

0.79

0.99

1.I9

L39

1.59

Temperature (log C)

MWRD 94

q

......

o

1::

o

P..

o

a

99.9

-~.....

.

"..

.

~-

: =:PP.

..............-.............i.I

..

~2.;.I=

•

•

[J~

•

0.1

~

1-""

~;~~~TI..........::

..... _...

•

.

......i-

o

10

20

Temperature (C)

30

40

Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis

Draft: May 24,2001

A-68

---

MWRD 95

99.9

99

Q

95

0

.......

......

1-<

SO

0

50

0..

0

20

1-<

0..

0.1

0

10

20

30

40

Temperature (C)

Riverside (USGS)

99.9

99

Q

95

......

0

80

t::

0

50

0..

0

20

1-<

0..

5

0.1

•

•

•

•

.

It

,-'

•

-'10

-~[:>-"-"

_nr;f19l~

...p--""~

~

n._rl

~-"~

;.g"_o~_"·J;J9:"'"-

~

•

o

5

10

15

20

25

30

Temperature (C)

Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis

Draft: May 24,2001

A-69

---

Romeoville (USGS)

99.9

99

~

95

0

.,....

80

~

0

50

0..

0

20

$..;

0..

5

a

0.1

0.79

0.99

1.19

1.39

1.59

Temperature (log C)

Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis

Draft: May 24,2001

A-70

---

99.9

99

q

95

0

.,..,

80

+->

I-<

0

50

0..

0

20

I-<

0..

5

0.1

-2

Probability Plots for Total Ammonium as Nitrogen

Reference Site

-1.7

-1.4

-1.1

-0.8

-0.5

Total Ammonium as N (log Concentration - mgIL)

IEPA G-ll

99.9

99

q

95

.-

1:::

0

80

0

SO

0..

0

20

I-<

0..

5

0.1

'//

.."pO

~g...

",1J

~[

~/

E:l g

~"

0

'~"/7'

,.;.

~~.

,-

...

................ ,-

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

o

0.5

Total Ammonium as N (log Concentration - mg/L)

Lower Des Plailles River Use Attaillability Allalysis

Draft:

May

24,

2001

A-7!

---

IEPA G-02

99.9

99

s:::

95

0

.-<

80

+-'

H

0

50

0...

0

20

H

0...

5

0.1

-2

-1.6

-1.2

-0.8

-0.4

0

0.4

99.9

99

s:::

95

0

.-

+-'

80

H

0

50

0...

0

20

H

0...

5

0.1

Total Ammonium as N (log Concentration - mgIL)

IEPA G-23

.,.........

:.

,....

//

~/

...

L

0

,....

..aF

f5I

Jfl~u~

~!iV6

n

J.~r';f'

,0

///

[

/

-1.7

-1.2

-0.7

-0.2

0.3

0.8

[0£ lO(NH3 Tot)

Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis

Draft: May 24,2001

A-72

---

MWRD 91

99.9

99

c:

95

......

0

80

--

l-<

0

50

0...

0

20

l-<

0...

5

0.1

-LA

-1.2

-I

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

.......0:

[J

-0.2

Total

Ammonium as N (log Concentration - mglL)

MWRD

92

99.9

99

c:

95

......

0

80

--

l-<

0

50

0...

0

20

l-<

0...

5

0.1

-0.7

-0.5

-0.3

-0.1

0.1

0.3

0.5

Total

Ammonium as N (log Concentration - mglL)

Lower Des Plailles River Use Attaillability Allalysis

Draft:

May

24,

2001

A-73

---

MWRD

93

99.9

99

0

95

0

".p

80

;....

0

50

0..

0

20

;....

0..

5

0.1

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

Total Ammonium

as

N

(log

Concentration - mgtL)

MWRD 94

99.9

99

Q

95

0

.....

.....,

;....

80

0

50

0..

;....

0

20

0..

5

0.1

-0.86

-0.66

-0.46

-0.26

-0.06

0.14

Total Ammonium

as

N

(log

Concentratiol1-mgIL)

Lower Des Plailles River Use Attaillability Allalysis

Draft: May

24,2001

A-74

---

99.9

99

Q

95

......

.....

1-<

0

80

0

50

0..

0

20

1-<

0..

0.1

-1

-(J.7

-0.4

MWRD 95

-0.1

0.2

0.5

99.9

99

!=i

95

......

0

80

t::

0

50

0..

0

20

1-<

0..

5

O.

j

Total Ammonium as N (log Concentration - mg/L)

Riverside (USGS)

_c..

:

:

:

//6'

-,

•

/<lXU

_c..

/~QJ

,~t(tI~

-~

/~

V

_:

_:.

v/

///~

-2

-1.7

-1.4

-1.1

-0.8

-0.5

-0.2

Total Ammonium as

N

(log Concentration - mg/L)

Romeoville (USGS)

Data not available

Lower Des Plaines River Use Attainability Analysis

Draft:

May

24,

2001

A-75

---

99.9

99

C

95

0

.,....

80

.;...>

l-<

0

50

0..

0

20

l-<

0..

5

0.1