December 17, 2000

To: Ms. Dorothy Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

CLER~’S~Fr!~

100 West Randolph Street

Suite 11—500

~

~

inn

~UJL

Chicago, Illinois 60601

STATE OF ~L1JNOIS

Fr:

Jane Johnson, President

Prairie-Woods Environmental Coalition

1776 Knox Hwy. 11

Gilson, Il 61436

and

Karen Hudson, President

Families Against Rural Messes

~9.

~•

22514 West Claybaugh Road

Elmwood, Il 61529

Re: Public Comment, R01-13

In the Matter of the

Proposed Revisions to Antidegradation Rules,

35 Iii. Administrative Code 302.105, 303.205, 303.206 and

106.990

—

106.995

The Prairie-Woods Environmental Coalition, (PWEC), a grass-

roots organization promoting conservation education in Knox County,

Illinois schools and the Families Against Rural Messes (F.A.R.M.)

organized to educate and encourage responsible stewardship of land

and water, promote rural health and craft laws and regulations

supporting those goals offer the following:

The focus of the proposed amendments to Section 302.105,

must be to maintain the integrity of the cleaner waters of the

state of Illinois. It is time that the Illinois Pollution Control

Board (IPCB) and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(IEPA) adopt beneficial water resource antidegradation rules and

enforce them. Sinceenactment of the Clean Water Act (CWA),

citizens have been relying on the IPCB and the IEPA to oversee and

protect the quality and safety of Illinois water resources but the

agencies have not had in—hand all the tools necessary for the job.

The proposed amendments to the above referenced citations,

corrected and refined by citizen participation in the decision—

making process, must be adopted so as to maintain the integrity of

the cleaner waters of the state.

---

—2—

anti—de

Section 302.105 (a) requiring that the IPCB must maintain

and protect the water bodies of Illinois by not permitting any

action that will 1) result indeterioration of any existing water

community or cause 2) a loss of an indigenous species beneficial

to commercial or recreational activities is confining and un-

necessary and should be stricken. All indigenous species should

be protected.

Overall, the IPCB proposed amendments must protect the state’s

higher quality and biologically significant water resources, even

where a pollutant which has the potential to violate any water

quality standards is released on a temporary basis.

Under 106.992, citizens can petition to have certain Illinois

water bodies designated 0i~tstandingWater Resources (OWR) in order

to protect them from future pollution but for the public to make

use of that offer, burdensome and unnecessary criteria have been

imposed. Generally, the public does not have the ways and means

to investigate the potential economic impacts of an OWR designation

on any given business. What is needed is a fair set of rules clear-

ly wr±tten. The petition process should be instituted and encourag-

ed without the above requirement and others of that nature becoming

a requisite.

Clearly, the burdensome petition process described in Sub-

part L of the Rules will discourage the public from ever attempting

to petition any waterway in the state for OWR designation. The

IPCB, acting fairly in all aspects of the process and as a guardian,

must relax the huge burden of proof and notification required of

the public for an OWR designation.

---

—3—

anti—de

Surely in modern times, the IPCB can devise a smoother way

for an OWR petitioner to notify interested parties of intent,

than for the petitioner to furnish a multitude of lengthly peti-

tions to them. In order for those interested parties to be

sufficiently served, why can’t the regulators set up a system

similar to the one successfully used to notify the public of

tentatively issued National POllution Elimination Discharge

System ~NPDES) permits, the Public Notice Fact Sheet?

Under Section 303.205 (b), excluding intermittent stream

segments with a zero 7Q10 flow from candidacy for OWR designation

is a mistake. A case could be made that the receiving waters of

discharge from a NPDES permitted operation could be into an (at

sometime) intermittent stream. All intermittent streams have their

place in the riverine ecosystem.

The citation, 302.105 (b)(2)(C) under the NPDES permit process

puzzles me. How can an action set to improve the quality of

water bodies in Illinois, be achieved if an increase in water

pollutant loading is proposed?

The NPDES general permitting rules should be overhauled to

guarantee that the applicant furnish specific antidegradation

review of the proposed operation. The revised rules should require

permitting agencies to very seriously research the environmental

harm the applicant will cause to all the waters of the state,

making high quality waters off—limits to new pollution.

A threat to existing Illinois water quality regulation is

the standard found in 302.208 (g) for sulfate and chloride dis-

charges into the waters of the state allowed in the NPDES permitting

process. An applicant intending to open a coal mine is granted the

---

—4-

anti—de

privilege of exceeding by seven (7) times the Illinois water

quality standards for discharging sulfate and two (2) times the

Illinois water quality standards for chloride. This comment

period is the perfect time to urge a rule-making change to oblit-

erate these exceedingly generous standards.

What folly for state agencies and the public to continually

attempt to protect and restore the quality of water bodies in this

state while leaving floodgates open, so to speak, allowing new

polluting sources to foul those same waters via the NPDES permit

system! “Let us work hard to clean up our water resources there-

fore making them lovely for another element to defile!”

In keeping with the intent of the anti—degradation rules,

surely the IPCB must make certain that Section 302.105 applies to

all new or expanded permitted discharges. The language of (b) (1)

(B) is contradictory.. it allows water quality to be lowered if

stormwater discharges do not violate water quality standards. How

is that again? ‘Point of clarification?

As an aside, Section 302.105 (C) (1), relative to identifying

high quality waters in the state of Illinois, contains a gramatical

error. The pronoun, “whose,” can not be used (along with “who”

and “whom”) to define possession of any object, article, theme,

etc., unless in relation to human beings. Thus, the phrase, “waters

of the state whose...” is used incorrectly. (Likewise, “a dog

whose tail is crooked,” “a book whose title is

...,“

etc. is

incorrect.)

The error is repeated in Section 302.105 a) (2), “an action

that would result in a loss of a resident or indegenous species

WHOSE presence is necessary

.“

Kindly correct.

---

—5—

anti—de

The IPCB, as interpreter of federal environmental law,

must provide a clear state policy and procedures (long overdue)

that will help maintain those few places of high quality water in

Illinois and one that does not favor those permit applicants

seeking least costly alternatives to water quality protection.

The purpose of the antidegradation rule—making changes should

be to give the IPCB and the IEPA more power to protect Illinois

waterbodies from increased discharges of pollutants and from the

impacts of pollutant loading. Another purpose should give those

authorities strength to meet future water quality needs beyond

just barely meeting water quality standards.

In the interests of the state’s economy, it is no longer

acceptable to allow certain factions to pollute and pollute and use

Illinois waterways as sewers and dump sites. Illinois’ cleaner

surface and groundwater can be an incentive to new businesses and

industries and office complexes to settle and prosper in Illinois.

Better pollution control technologies will benefit all strata of

the economy. In the long run, it is cheaper to prevent pollution

than clean it up after the fact.

The IPCB’s policy of nondegradation should contain determina-

tions of whether the economic benefits derived from an activity

benefitting a profit-generating operation outweigh the environmen-

tal cost paid by taxpayers.

In conclusion, the success of the Board’s enactment of new

policy and rules depends on adequate oversight and enforcement

with sufficient penalties to serve as future deterrents.

Remember that WATER is life!

1/

---