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.
Adm. Code Parts 301, 302, 303 and 304
R08-9
(Rulemaking
- Water)
PRE-FILED TESTIMONY OF JENNIFER WASIK
My name is Jennifer Wasik, and I have been a biologist in the Aquatic Ecology and
Water Quality Section at the District for over 7 years. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in
Biology from the University of Michigan and a Master of Science degree in Environmental
Management from the Illinois Institute of Technology. I am the Environmental Monitoring
Manager for the District's Ambient Water Quality Monitoring (AWQM) Program, which began
in 2001. In addition to managing other aquatic research projects, I serve on various local water
quality-related committees and workgroups.
Proposed Chronic Cyanide Standard
In Section 302.407 (Chemical Constituents) of the proposed standards, IEPA has listed a
chronic cyanide standard of 5.2 µg/L, which is identical to the General Use Standard for Illinois.
This fails to consider the site-specific chronic cyanide water quality standard outlined in Title 35,
Subtitle C, Chapter 1, Section 303.444 that has been applied to General Use waterways in Cook
County subsequent to the IPCB rulemaking R95-14 (
Attachment
1).
According to the
regulations, the General Use chronic water quality standard for cyanide does not apply in Salt
Creek, Higgins Creek, the West Branch DuPage River, and the Des Plaines River. Rather, a
chronic cyanide standard of 10 µg/L is applied to the General Use waterways located in Cook
County.
Among the reasons cited in the R95-14 IPCB rulemaking for a site specific standard was
that the list of indigenous species used to determine the chronically toxic cyanide concentration
was not appropriate for the warmwater aquatic environment found in the waterways in Cook
County, Illinois. From the final IPCB ruling: "The current cyanide CS standard of 5.2 µg/l, was
established based upon a calculation that included toxicities to rainbow trout, brook trout, yellow
perch, and bluegill." The rainbow trout are the most cyanide-sensitive fish considered and are a
coldwater fish species.
As such, they should not be considered in warmwater aquatic
environments.
By removing rainbow trout and adding the next most cyanide-sensitive species,
black crappie, the calculated chronic standard for cyanide would be 9.8 µg/L, which was rounded
up to 10 µg/L in the final ruling. Incidentally, brook trout do not occur in the General Use
waterways of Cook County or the CAWS either, however, this species was not removed from the
calculation for the purposes of the R95-14 Rulemaking.
Given that a less stringent site specific chronic cyanide water quality standard was
recommended for the General Use waters of Cook County, it would be reasonable to conclude
that a similar or even less stringent standard should be applied to the CAWS. The District thus
recommends a chronic cyanide standard of 10 µg/L or higher, based on the potential fish species
expected to be present in the CAWS.
2
Respectfully
submitted,
By:
Jennifer Wasik
Testimony Attachments
1.
R95-14 Chronic cyanide rulemaking final Opinion and Order of the Board
3
A
ttachm
e
nt 1
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February 1, 1996
IN THE MATTER OF:
}
}
PETITION OF THE METROPOLITAN WATER )
R95-14
RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF GREATER
)
(Site-Specific
CHICAGO FOR SITE-SPECIFIC WATER
)
Rulemaking - Water)
QUALITY REGULATION FOR CYANIDE
)
(Amendments to 35 111. Adm. Code
)
303 and 304)
)
Adopted Rule.
Final Action.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by R.C. Flemal):
This matter comes before the Board upon a proposal to amend
the Board's water quality regulations for cyanide filed by the
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
(District). The District requests that the existing General Use
chronic standard (CS) for weak acid dissociable (WAD) cyanide be
changed from 5.2 µg/L to 10 µg/L. as applied to the West Branch of
the DuPage River, Higgins Creek, Salt Creek; and the Des.Plaines
River within Cook County.
The Board'.s responsibility in this matter arises from the
Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (.1994)).
The Board is charged therein to "determine, define and implement
the environmental control standards applicable in the State of
Illinois" (415 ILCS 5/5(b)).
More generally, the Board's
rulemaking charge is based on the system of checks and balances
integral to Illinois environmental governance:
the Board bears
responsibility for the rulemaking and principal adjudicatory
functions; the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)
has primary responsibility for administration of the Act and the
Board's regulations, including today's proposed regulation.
Today the Board adopts the amendment as final and sends the
amendment to the Administrative Code Division of the office of
Secretary of State for publication and assignment of an effective
date pursuant to Section S of the Illinois Administrative
Procedure Act (5 ILCS 100/5-40(d) (1994)).
2
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The District filed its proposal on April 28, 1995. By order
of May 4, 1995 the Board accepted the proposal for hearing.
A public hearing was held before hearing officer Audrey
Lozuk-Lawless in Chicago on June 30, 1995. The District
presented the testimony of Dr. Cecil Lue-Ring, Director of
Research and Development at the District; Dr. Richard G. Luthy,
Professor and Head of the Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University; and Dr. Herbert Allen,
Professor of Environmental Engineering at the University of
Delaware.
Dr. Lue-Ring presented an overview of the District's
petition, including discussion of the existing WAD cyanide
standard and studies the District has undertaken of that
standard.
Dr. Lue-Hing additionally addressed the economic
impact to the District and the water quality of the rivers
impacted by the proposed new standard.
Dr. Luthy addressed the methodology for WAD cyanide
analysis, including the precision and accuracy of the WAD cyanide
test.
Dr. Allen addressed the methodologies for determining a
WAD cyanide CS.
In addition to the hearing testimony, seven public comments
(PC)
were filed by Chicago Metal Finishers Institute (PC ##1),
Illinois Association of Wastewater Agencies (PC #2), the District
(PC #3, 45, and #7), and the Agency (PC #4 and #6). All comments
support adoption of the District's proposal.
By order of August 24, 1995 the Board adopted the District's
proposal' for first notice. First notice publication occurred
at 19
Illinois
Registez 12583 (September 8, 1995).
By order of December 7, 1995 the Board adopted the
District's proposal for second notice2. The matter was
'
The proposal as adopted for first notice contained several
modifications relative to the proposal as originally filed with
the Board. The basis for making these modifications is discussed
in the Board's first notice opinion of August 24 at p. 7-8.
2
The second notice proposal contained several
modifications relative to the proposal as presented at first
notice.
These modifications and their justification are
discussed in the Board's second notice opinion of December 7,
1995 at p. 8-9. The principal modification was striking of.
3
accordingly filed with the Joint Committee on Administrative
Rules (JCAR).
On January 23, 1996 JCAR voted no objection to
adoption of the proposal.
BACKGROUND
The District is a unit of government with jurisdiction
within part•of Cook County, Illinois. Among the duties of the
District is operation of water reclamation plants (WRPs), which,
as part of their normal activities, produce discharges to local
waterways.
The Board has established water quality standards for the
streams of the State, including streams within the area served by
the District.
Among these standards are two standards for
cyanide3 that apply to the General Use Waterways to which the
District discharges.
These are a chronic standard. (CS) with a
value of 5.2 µg/L and an acute standard (AS) of 22 ug\L. The
parameter to be measured in both cases is WAD cyanide, identified
by the STORET number 00718.
At issue in the instant proceedings are three of the
District's seven WRPs and the General Use Water Quality streams
to which they discharge. These are.
WRP
Receiving Stream
ADF*
Hanover Park
West Branch DuPage River
8.87
John E.
Egan
Salt Creek
24.5
James C.
Kirie Higgins Creek
31.8
*(ADF = Average 1994 daily flow in million gallons per day)
Each of the three receiving streams has a7--day, 10-year low
flow of zero at the point of discharge. The three receiving
streams are tributary to a fourth stream of interest, the Des
Plaines River.
In 1993 the Agency issued renewed National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for the Hanover Park
304.201(c), a subsection observed by the Agency to be obsolete
(PC
W.
3
These standards are found at 35 Ill. Adm. Code. 302.208(d).
They were adopted in Board proceeding R88-21(A) (In the matter
of: Amendments to Title 35, Subtitle C (Toxics Control)),
effective February 13, 1990.
4
and James C. Kirie WRPs. In these permits the Agency for the
first time included numerical effluent limits based on the
cyanide water quality standards°. These effluent limits for the
two plants are 5.2 and 5.0 ug/L, respectively, measured as
monthly average WAD cyanide, and 22 pg/L measured as daily
maximum WAD cyanide.
.
The.NPDES cyanide limits were set equal to the cyanide CS,
in keeping with the permit-writing practice applicable to streams
that have 7-day,.10-year low flows of zero.
Prior
to the 1993 issuance of the NPDES permits at issue,
the District had not conducted routine analysis of effluent
cyanide.
However, analyses conducted subsequently at both the
Hanover Park and James C. Kirie WRPs have suggested to the
District that a 5 ^ig\L monthly averages of WAD cyanide would
often be equaled or exceeded. In this circumstance the District
believes that compliance with the monthly averages currently
expressed in the permits is problematic. The District believes
.that the solution lies in examination of the rationale for the
cyanide General Use CS, and bases the instant petition on that
examination.
JUSTIFICATION FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
The District has identified four factors that it believes
give technical justification for a CS standard of 10 µg/Lb.
These are:
1.
The indigenous species used in calculating
fish toxicities are not applicable to the
waterways named in the District's proposal.
4 Upon petition from the District the Agency has set the
effective date for the cyanide limits to October 1, 1996.
5 The District believes that it would have no difficulty
complying with the 22 ug/L daily limits.
6
This value is expressed in the record both as 10 gg/L and
10.0 gg/L. The Agency recommends (PC *4 at 16), and the Board
agrees, that in view of concerns regarding precision of WAD
cyanide analyses, 10 µg/L is the preferred
form.
5
2.
Use of WAD cyanide for determining water
quality standards is not directly related to
toxicity as compared to use of free cyanide.
3. Chlorine interferes with the WAD cyanide
test.
4. The regulatory limits are at or below the
limit of detection.
The Board will address each of these in turn.
Use of Indigenous Species
Determination of AS-and CS water quality standards is
accomplished by a well-established procedure that involves
consideration of the toxicity of the substance in question to a
range of aquatic organisms. In fresh-water environments such as
those of concern here, the procedures and cyanide data base are
such that the four fish species most sensitive to cyanide
determine the calculated standards .
The current cyanide CS standard of 5.2 µg/1, was established
based upon a calculation that included toxicities to rainbow
trout, brook trout, yellow perch, and bluegill as the four
species in question. However, the District observes that rainbow
trout, which is the most sensitive of the four species to
cyanide, are not indigenous to the District's waterways.
The District notes that rainbow trout have never been
observed in any of the extensive fish collections made by the
District.
(Proposal at p. 45-51: Tr. at 25.) -Moreover, the
District .observes that rainbow trout, which are a Coldwater fish
7
The procedures are given in Guidelines for Deriving
Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of
Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses, NTIS PB85-227049. Similar
procedures are present in the Board's regulations at 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 302.Subpart F: Procedures for Determining Water Quality
Criteria.
8
Application of.the procedures, including selection of data
and calculations using the data to produce the CS values
discussed herein, is detailed in the testimony of Dr. Allen at
Tr. 35-42 and Exh. 2. The Agency has independently undertaken
the.analysis, and confirms the results obtained by Dr. Allen.
(Tr. at 54.)
6
species,
are intolerant of the warmwater environments at issue
here. (Proposal '.at p. 50-54.)
If rainbow trout are not included in the cyanide CS
calculation, the four most sensitive species become the four
fishes: brook trout9, yellow. perch, bluegill, and black crappie.
When these.four species are used, the calculated CS value for
cyanide becomes 9.799 gg/L. (Tr, at 41-42; Exh. 2 at 6.) The
District recommends that this value, rounded to 10 µg/L, be the
CS applicable in the District's waterways.
The Agency
agrees
that rainbow trout are not a species
indigenous to the District's waterways. (Tr. at 62-63.) The
Agency further observes that excluding rainbow trout from the CS
calculation for the streams at
issue
is consistent with 'federal
guidance and that the resultant cyanide CS of 10 µg/L is
protective of existing and expected aquatic life. (PC 44 at 12.)
WAD Cyanide
Toxicity
Cyanide occurs in natural aquatic environments in a number
of forms.
Among these are HCN, CN-, and complexes of cyanide
with metals (e.g., ferrocyanide). The WAD cyanide measurement
procedure measures all three of these forms. However, it is
generally recognized that only the first two forms, HCN and CN-
(collectively called free cyanide), significantly contribute to
the toxicity of cyanide. (Tr. at 44.) Thus, analyses of WAD
cyanide overestimates the toxicity of the cyanide in direct
proportion to the amount of metallocyanide complexes present in
any sample.
This problem would be eliminated if free cyanide could be
measured directly. However, there currently is no approved
method for analysis of free cyanide in natural samples. (Tr. at
29, 45; Exh. 3 at 2.) Thus, analysis of WAD cyanide must be used
in default.
The District observes that for these reasons, WAD cyanide is
a conservative measure of cyanide toxicity. (Tr. at 29.)
Nevertheless, at the low levels of metals and cyanide in the
District's effluent, there should be little difference between
9
At hearing it was noted that brook trout do not occur in the
waterways at issue, and that yellow perch are rare (Tr. at 51-54).
Nevertheless, no suggestion has been made that these species also
be excluded from the CS calculation; if brook trout are excluded,
the calculated CS would be 10.9 !tg/L (Tr. at 54).
7
the expected free cyanide concentrations and measured WAD cyanide
concentrations.
(Tr. at 59.)
Chlorine Interference
The District has completed 1611 months of detailed WAD
cyanide sampling and analysis in effluents from the Hanover Park
and James C. Kirie WRPs. In both data sets the District observes
that measured WAD cyanide concentrations were higher during the
months of May through October than in November through April'0 .
The only consistent difference in inflow or operational
parameters between these two time periods is that during May
through October both WRPs employ chlorination/dechlorination
procedures.
The District observes that during the summer of 1994, when
the correlation between chlorination/dechlorination was becoming
evident, it undertook a study of the fate of WAD cyanide
concentrations during the treatment process, including sampling
prior to and after chlorination. (Tr. at 31-32; Exh. 1 at 11.)
The results verified that chlorination causes an increase in the
reported WAD cyanide concentrations (Id.), although it remains
uncertain whether the increase is caused by an.analytical
interference or by a chemical reaction that produces new cyanide
(Tr. at 55-57) ..
Detection Limit
The District observes that Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th edition, lists the
limit of detection for WAD cyanide as 5 to 20 ptg/L, depending
upon the sample matrix. (Proposal at 57.) The District
observes, accordingly, that a standard at 5.2 ).tg/L lies at the
threshold of and "perhaps beyond the limits of existing
laboratory analytical methodology" (Id.).
In addition, Dr. Luthy, who chairs the task group that
prepared the section on cyanide for the current edition of
Standard Methods, notes that the single operator precision for
19
At the Hanover Park WRP, the WAD cyanide concentrations on
the final effluent were 1.0 to 2.0 gg/L during November through
April, versus 4.0 to 6.0 pg/L during May through October. (Exh.
1 at Table 1.) At the James C. Kirie WRP WAD cyanide
concentrations were 1.0 to 2.0 gg/L during November through
April, versus 3.0 to 4.0 µg/L during May through October. (Exh.
1 at Table 2.)
8
the determination of WAD cyanide is about 8 µg/L for samples in
the range 5--10 µg/L. (Tr. at 47; Exh. 3 at 3.) He concludes
that considerable variation should be expected in such low-level
samples, and that "it would be improper to ascribe great
significance to sample analyses in this range" (Id.).
ECONOMICS
The District has calculated the cost of replacing the
chlorination/dechlorination system at the Hanover Park and James
C.
Kirie WRPs. (Proposal at 24, Attachment 7.) The District
calculated estimates of replacing the existing system with
ultraviolet radiation (UV) and ozone disinfection.
The
calculations indicate that ozonation would be the least costly
replacement alternative.
The District's total cost to replace
the current chlorination/dechlorination system with an ozonation
system would be $5,699,728 in construction costs, with an annual
operating cost of $164,200. (Id.) The total annualized capital
plus operating cost for both WRPs would be $830,097. (Id.)
These expenses do not include any costs for replacing the
existing chlorination/dechlorination system at the John E. Egan
WRP.
The District notes that even with this expenditure, there is
no guarantee that an ozonation system would not produce increases
in WAD cyanide as observed during chlorination/dechlorination.
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that the record before us justifies adoption
of the District's proposed site-specific cyanide rule.
Accordingly, we today adopt that.rule.
ORDER
The Board directs that the following amendments be submitted
to the Secretary of State for final notice pursuant to Section 5-
40 of the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act.
TITLE 35: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE C:
WATER POLLUTION
CHAPTER I:
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PART 303
WATER USE DESIGNATIONS AND SITE SPECIFIC
9
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
SUBPART A:
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section
303.100
Scope and Applicability
303.101
Multiple Designations
303.102
Rulemaking Required
SUBPART B:
NONSPECIFIC WATER USE DESIGNATIONS
Section
303.200
Scope and Applicability
303.201 General Use Waters
303.202
Public and Food Processing Water Supplies
303.203 Underground Waters
303.204
Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Waters
SUBPART C: SPECIFIC USE DESIGNATIONS AND SITE SPECIFIC
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Section
303.300 Scope and Applicability
303.301 Organization
303.311 Ohio River Temperature
.303.312 Waters Receiving Fluorspar Mine Drainage
303.321
Wabash River Temperature
303.322 Unnamed Tributary of the Vermilion River
303.323 Sugar Creek and Its Unnamed Tributary
303.331 Mississippi River North.Temperature
303.341
Mississippi River North Central Temperature
303.351
Mississippi River South Central Temperature
303.352 Unnamed Tributary of Wood River Greek
303.353
Schoenberger Creek; Unnamed Tributary of Cahokia Canal
303.361
Mississippi River South Temperature
303.400
Bankline Disposal Along the Illinois Waterway Rivers
303.430
Unnamed Tributary to Dutch Creek
303.431
Long Point Slough and Its Unnamed Tributary
303:441
Secondary Contact Waters
303.442
Waters Not Designated for Public Water Supply
303.443
Lake Michigan
303.444
Salt Creek, Higgins Creek, West Branch of the DuPage
River, Des Plaines River
SUBPART D:
THERMAL DISCHARGES
Section
10
303.500
Scope and Applicability
303.502
Lake Sangchris Thermal Discharges
303.Appendix
A.References
to Previous Rules
303.Appendix
B Sources
of Codified Sections
AUTHORITY:
Implementing Section 13 and authorized by Section 27
of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/13 and 27).
SOURCE:
Filed with the Secretary of State January 1, 1978;
amended at 2 Ill. Reg. 27, p. 221, effective July 5, 1978;
amended at 3 111. Reg. 20, p. 95, effective May 17, 1979;. amended
at 5 Ill. Reg. 11592, effective October 19, 1981; codified at 6
Ill. Reg. 7818; amended at 6 Ill. Reg. 11161, effective September
7,
1982; amended at 7 Ill. Reg. 8111, effective June 23, 1983;
amended in R87-27 at 12 Ill. Reg. 9917, effective May 27, 1988;
amended in R87-2 at 13 111. Reg. 15649, effective September 22,
1989; amended in R87-36 at 14 Ill. Reg. 9460, effective May 31,
1990; amended in R86-14 at 14 Ill. Reg. 20724, effective December
18', 1990; amended in R89-14(C) at 16 Ill. Reg. 14684, effective
September 10, 1992] amended in R92--17 at 18 Ill. Reg. at 2981
effective February 14, 1994; amended in R91-23 at 18 Ill. Reg.
13457, effective August 19, 1994; amended in R93-13 at 19 Ill.
Reg. 1310 effective January 30, 1995; amended in R95-14 at 19
Ill. Reg.
effective
SUBPART C: SPECIFIC USE DESIGNATIONS AND SITE SPECIFIC WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS
Section 303.444
Salt Creek, Higgins Creek, West Branch of the
DuPage River, Des Plaines River
The General Use chronic water quality standard for cyanide
(STORET number 00718), contained in Section 302:208 does not apply
to Salt Creek, Higgins Creek, the West Branch of the DuPa e
River, and the Des Plaines River in Cook County, Illinois.
Instead, for these waters the chronic cyanide standard is 10
µg/L.
(Source: Amended at 19 Ill. Reg.
)
effective
TITLE 35:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE C: WATER POLLUTION
CHAPTER I:
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
11
PART 304
EFFLUENT STANDARDS
SUBPART A:
GENERAL EFFLUENT STANDARDS
Section
304.101
Preamble
304.102
Dilution
304.103
Background Concentrations
304.104
Averaging
304.105
Violation of Water (duality Standards
304.106
Offensive Discharges
304.120
Deoxygenating Wastes
304.121
Bacteria
304.122
Nitrogen (STORET number 00610)
304.123 Phosphorus (STORET number 00665)
304.124
Additional Contaminants
304.125 pH
304.126 Mercury
304.140
Delays in Upgrading (Repealed)
304.141 NPDES Effluent Standards
304.142
New Source Performance Standards (Repealed)
SUBPART B:
SITE SPECIFIC RULES AND
EXCEPTIONS NOT OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY
Section
304.201
Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharges of the
Metropolitan
Water Reclamation District of
Greater Chicago
304.202 Chlor-alkali Mercury Discharges in St. Clair County
304.203 Copper Discharges by Olin Corporation
304.204 Schoenberger Creek:
Groundwater Discharges
304.205 John Deere Foundry Discharges
304.206
Alton Water Company Treatment Plant Discharges
304.207
Galesburg Sanitary District Deoxygenating Wastes
Discharges
304.208
City of Lockport Treatment Plant Discharges
304.209 Wood River Station Total Suspended Solids Discharges
304.210 Alton Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharges
304.211
Discharges From Borden Chemicals and Plastics Operating
Limited Partnership Into an Unnamed Tributary of Long
Point Slough
304.212
Sanitary , District of Decatur Discharges
304.213
UNO-VEN Refinery Ammonia Discharge
304.214
Mobil Oil Refinery Ammonia Discharge
304.215
City of Tuscola Wastewater Treatment Facility
Discharges
304.216
Newton Station Suspended Solids Discharges
12
304.218
City
of Pana Phosphorus Discharge
304.219
North
Shore Sanitary District Phosphorus Discharges
304.220
East
Water
St. Louis Treatment Facility, Illinois-American
Company
304.221
Ringwood Drive Manufacturing Facility in McHenry County
304.222
Intermittent Discharge of TRC
SUBPART C:
TEMPORARY EFFLUENT STANDARDS
Section
304.301
Exception for Ammonia Nitrogen Water Quality Violations
304.302
City of Joliet East Side Wastewater Treatment
Plant
304,303
Amerock Corporation, Rockford Facility
Appendix A
References to Previous Rules
.AUTHORITY:
Implementing Section 13 and authorized by Section 27
of the Environmental Protection Act (41.5 ILCS 5/13 and 27).
SOURCE:
Filed with the Secretary of State January 1, 1978;
amended at 2 Ill. Reg. 30, p. 343, effective July 27, 1978;
amended at 2 111. Reg. 44, p. 151, effective November 2, 197.8;
amended at 3 Ill. Reg. 20, p. 95, effective May 17, 1979; amended
at 3 Ill. Reg, 25, p. 190, effective June 21, 1979; amended at 4
111. Reg. 20, p. 53 effective May 7, 1980; amended at 6 Ill. Reg.
563, effective December 24, 1981; codified at 6 Ill. Reg. 7818:
amended at 6 Ill. Reg. 11161, effective September 7, 1982;
amended at 6 Ill. Reg. 13750, effective October 26, 1982; amended
at 7 111. Reg. 3020, effective March 4, 1983; amended at 7 Ill.
Reg. 8111, effective June 23,. 1983; amended at 7 111. Reg. 14515,
effective October
14,
1983; amended at 7
Ill.
Reg.
14910,
effective November 14,
1983; amended at 7 Ill. Reg. 14910,
effective
November
14,
1983; amended at 8
Ill.
Reg.
1600,
effective January
18,
1984; amended at 8 111.
Reg.
3687,
effective March 14, 1984; amended at 8 Ill. Reg. 8237, effective
June 8, 1984; amended at 9 Ill. Reg. 1379, effective January 21,
1985; amended at 9 Ill. Reg. 4510, effective March 22, 1985;
peremptory amendment at 10 Ill. Reg. 456, effective December 23,
1985; amended at 11 Ill. Reg. 3117, effective January 28, 1987;
amended in R84-13 at 11 Ill. Reg. 7291 effective April 3, 1987;
amended in R86--17(A) at 11 Ill. Reg. 14748, effective August 24,
1987; amended in R84-16 at 12 Ill. Reg. 2445, effective January
15, 1988; amended in R83-23 at 12 Ill. Reg. 8658, effective May
10, 1988; amended in R87-27 at 12 Ill. Reg. 9905, effective May
27, 1988; amended in R82-7'at 12 Ill. Reg. 10712, effective June
9,
1988; amended in R85-29 at 12 Ill. Reg. 12064, effective July
12, 1988; amended in R87--22 at 12 Ill. Reg. 13966, effective
August 23, 1988; amended in R86-3 at 12 111. Reg. 20126,
effective November 16, 1988; amended in R84-20 at 13 Ill. Reg.
13
851, effective January 9, 1989; amended in R85-11 at 13 Ill. Reg.
2060, effective February 6, 1989; amended in R88-1 at 13 Ill.
Reg. 5976, effective April-18, 1989; amended in R86-17B at 13
Ill. Reg. 7754, effective May 4, 1989; amended in R88-22 at 13
Ill. Reg. 8880, effective May 26, 1989; amended in R87-6 at 14
Ill. Reg. 6777, effective April 24, 1990; amended in R87-36 at 14
Ill. Reg. 9437, effective May 31, 1990; amended in R88-21-(B) at
14 Ill. Reg. 12538, effective July 18, 1990; amended in R84-44 at
14 Ill. Reg. 20719, effective December 11, 1990; amended in R86-
14 at 15 Ill. Reg. 241, effective December 18, 1990; amended in
R87-33 at 18
Ill. Reg.
11574,
effective July 7,
1994; amended in
R94-1 at 19
Ill. Reg.
, effective
amended
in R95-14 at 19 Ill. Reg.
,
effective
BOARD NOTE:
This Part implements the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act as of July 1, 1994.
SUBPART B:
SITE SPECIFIC RULES AND EXCEPTIONS NOT OF GENERAL,
APPLICABILITY
Section 304.201
Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharges of The
Metropolitan Gatti aEy Water Reclamation
District of Greater Chicago
a)
Calumet Treatment Plant Cyanide Discharges;
'The effluent standards of Section 304.124 as applied to
cyanide discharges, Sections 304.120(b) and (c) and Section
304.122 do not apply to BOD5, total suspended solids,
cyanide, and ammonia-nitrogen discharged from the Calumet
Sewage Treatment Works of The Metropolitan
SaRltar-
Water
Reclamation District of Greater Chicago. Instead, it must
meet the following effluent standard, subject to the
averaging rule of Section 304.104(a), effective July 1,
1988:
CONSTITUENT
STORET
NUMBER--
CONCENTRATION
(mg/1)
CBOD5
80082
24
SS
00530
28
Ammonia
Nitrogen
00610
13
(as N)
Cyanide
00720
0.15
b)
North Side Sewage Treatment Works
14
The effluent standards of Sections 304.120(b) and (c) and
304.122 do not apply to BOD5r total suspended solids, and
ammonia-nitrogen discharged from the North Side Sewage
Treatment Works of The Metropolitan G-a^ Water
Reclamation District of Greater Chicago. Instead, it must
meet the following standard, subject to the averaging rule
of Section 304.104
(
a)
effective July 1,
1988:
CONSTITUENT
STORET
NUMBER
--- -
CONCENTRATION
-
tmT^ 1?
CBOD5
80082
12
SS
00530
20
Ammonia Nitrogen
(as N)
April-October
00610
2.5
November-March
00610
4.0
h i
'
Stead
ev'-a's.aC3
eit
^$e
errsz-razel
eel-e
stlekney wastewater- reelamat^en plants and the extent ef
S^B
(Source:
Amended at 19 Ill. Reg.
,
effective
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board
,
hereby certify that the abQ
opinion and order was
adopted on the
44-4- day of
1996
,
by a vote
of
''f ..,o
Dorothy M. Gl#n, Clerk
Illinois Pol ution Control Board
