ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September 5, 1985
MARATHON
PETROLEUM CO.,
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 85—83
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
INTERIr’i
ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J. Anderson):
The Board has received copies of correspondence from the
U.S. EPA to the Illinois EPA which question the relief granted by
the Board in R83—19 and R81—26. The letters are appended to this
order and speak for themselves.
The relief sought in the instant proceeding may be similar
to that sought in the prior proceedings. Board procedural rule
104.122 requires that petitioners in variance proceedings
indicate whether the relief requested is consistent with Federal
law. The Board believes the parties should express their views
on this issue before this variance petition is presented at
public hearing. Specifically, the parties are requested to
address whether the Board can grant site—specific or variance
relief in light of the provisions of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1257 et. seq.) especially sections 303 and 510 (Id. 1313
and 1370).
Accordingly, the Illinois EPA is ordered to provide
the
Board and Marathon copies of any replies it has made to the
appended letters from U.S. EPA by September 13, 1985. Marathon
shall have until October 4, 1985 to file an amended petition
addressing this issue. The Agency’s recommendation shall be due
October 28, 1985.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
85-435
—2—
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board hereby certify that t e above Interim Order was adopted on
the
___________
day of
____________________,
1985 by a vote
of
________________.
Dorothy M. iunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control
Board
65-438
Ii~
~©
I1~
JtJL25~85
I
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
~
REGION S
VOIITRO(
BOARD
~~
~
230 SOUTH DEARSORN ST.
1?~4 ~
/
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
REPLY
TO114F
~TTL~rIflN o~
5W-TUB-8
JUL
2
1985
Mr. RoQer Kanerva
Manager, Enviromental Programs
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
Dear Mr. Kanerva:
On April 23, 1985, we received a copy of the January 18,1985, illInois
Pollution Control Board rulemaking pertaining to the City of Lockport treat—
plant discharge (R83-19 codified 35 I.A.C. 304.208) from Steven Ewart of
your Agency. Mr. Ewart provided his opinion that the Board rulemaking
does not constitute a revision to the Illinois water quality standards
(WOS), and, therefore, is not subject to U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (U.S. EPA) review, in accordance with Section 303(c) of the Clean
Water Act (CWA).
The Board action, In effect, raised the criterion for ammonia-nitrogen in
Deep Run Creek from 1.5 mg/i to to 15 mg/I. The general use designation
of Deep Run Creek is maintained.
We believe this rulemaking Is a WQS revision that must be approved by the
U.S. EPA. We are also of the opinion that a criterion of 15 mg/I ammoçtia-
nitrogen is not consistent with the general use designation of Deep Run
Creek.
We would like to avoid disapproval of the WQS for Deep Run Creek as currently
revised. In order to do this, Illinois must either modify the use designation
for Deep Run Creek based upon a use attainability analysis; or It must take
action to revise the current ammonia—nitrogen criterion to be supportive of
the general use designation.
We would lik~to receive your proposal for resolving this issue within the
next 30 day~. This would enable us to carry out our statutory responsi-
bilities for WQS review and approval.
85-437
2
This is a serious matter which requires your personal attention. If you have
any questions or concerns regarding this matter, please feel free to contact
me directly.
Charles H. Sutfin
Director, Water Division
ely
cc: J~eDumelle, IPCB ~
85-438
5—WQS-TiJ~-.F~
AUG261c)c,~
‘~‘
1 ~
-~
Mr.
Roger Kaner~.ca
~ L~
I
I
~)
Manager, Environi~iental Programs
Illinois Environniental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illin’is 62706
Dear Mr.
Kanerva~
As a result of a recent NPDES pemit review for John
Deere Foundry (Rock
Island
County),
I
became
aware of a
ig~i site—specific rule change
(Section 304.205) t.~
the State’s effluent limitation rules, which exempts
the discharger from
n~etingwater quality standards (Section 305.105) for
total dissolved solids, iron, and temperature. Although this rule was a
revision to the State’s effluent standards, It Is my opinion that this
change clearly constitutes a de facto water quality standards changc~which
was never submitted to the u.S. Environmental Protection Agency for revi~u
and approval.
In addition, if the permittee were to discharge these parameters at the
permitted levels, the resultant in—stream concentrations at critical Thw
flow
(1Q10)
would not be protective of the designated general use for the
unnamed tributary to Sugar Creek. Further, the available Illinois
Pollution Control Board records do
not provide sufficient information to
justify such a water quality standards revision.
We would like to avoid disapproval of the water quality standards exemption
for John Deere
Foundry as currently adopted. In order to do
this, Illinois
must either modify the use designation for the affected receiving streams
based upon use attainability analyses or it must rescind or revise the rule
in order to adopt criteria which
are protective of the designated general
use.
We would like
to receive your proposal for resolving this Issue within th~
next 30 days. This would enable u.is to carry
out our statutory responsibili-
ties
for
water quality standards review and approval. In the interim, we
will cOntinue to object to the John
Deere Foundry permit on the basis
that
the proposed effluent limits are not protective of the designated general
use.
65-439
As witli the Lockport issue, this is a serious matter which requires your
personal attention. If
you have any questions or
concerns regardiny this
matter, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely yours,
~~C~AL
SIGNED
VT
DALES.
Charles H. Sutfin
Director,
t~aterDivts~on
cc:~acoh flumelle
85-440