ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    April
    6,
    1989
    IN THE MATTER OF:
    )
    PETITION FOR SITE SPECIFIC
    )
    EXCEPTION TO EFFLUENT STANDARDS
    FOR THE ILLINOIS—AMERICAN
    )
    R85—ll
    WATER COMPANY, EAST ST. LOUIS
    )
    TREATMENT PLANT
    )
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by J.
    Theodore Meyer):
    This matter
    is before the Board
    on
    a March
    10,
    1989 motion
    for clarification filed by the Illinois Environmental Protection
    Agency (Agency).
    Petitioner Illinois—American Water Company
    (Company)
    filed
    its response on March 22,
    1989, with
    a motion
    to
    file
    instanter.
    The motion to file instanter
    is granted.
    The Agency asks the Board
    to clarify its February 2,
    1989
    opinion
    in this matter, where
    the Board expressed its trust that
    the Agency and the Company will work together on the issuance of
    a NPDES permit.
    The Agency notes that the Board’s order makes
    35
    Ill. Mm.
    Code 304.124 inapplicable to
    the Company’s East
    St.
    Louis water
    treatment plant
    until January
    1,
    1992.
    However, the
    Agency contends that it is obligated
    to apply the most
    restrictive of state or federal regulations.
    The Agency
    therefore seeks clarification that the Board’s February
    2,
    1989
    opinion
    and order “still requires the Agency to apply the more
    restrictive of state
    or federal regulations,
    and
    to determine the
    appropriate level
    of control
    required by the Federal Clean Water
    Act.”
    (Motion at
    2.)
    In response, the Company states that the Board’s prior
    opinions
    in this rulemaking
    have repeatedly and unequivocably
    addressed
    the matters raised
    in the Agency’s motion.
    The Company
    points out that there
    are currently no federal effluent
    limitations applicable to water
    treatment plant waste,
    and thus
    maintains
    that the Agency’s concern that
    it must apply the most
    restrictive state or federal
    regulations
    is inappropriate.
    The
    Company notes
    that the Board has determined
    that
    a temporary
    site—specific exemption
    is appropriate
    for the Company’s
    East
    St.
    Louis facility,
    and contends that there
    is no conflict between
    the site—specific rule and applicable federal
    requirements.
    The Board believes that its February
    2,
    1989 opinion
    and
    order
    are self—explanatory
    as
    to
    this rulemaking.
    The
    Boar~5
    granted
    the Company a temporary exemption
    from the effluent
    standards
    for
    total suspended solids
    (TSS)
    and total
    iron of
    Section 304.124,
    and that exemption became effective when the
    98—121
    —2—
    regulation was filed with the Secretary of State on February
    6,
    1989.
    On the issue of the NPDES permit,
    the Board
    stated:
    The Agency suggested the possibility that an
    NPDES permit could not be issued
    to the Company
    which did not contain numerical limitations on
    TSS and iron.
    Although the Company argues
    in
    its reply brief that numerical limitations
    should
    not be set, one of
    its attorneys stated
    at the hearing that the Company would be
    willing to work with the Agency
    for as long as
    necessary to work out NPDES limitations.
    (Tr.
    178—179;
    209—210.)
    The Board trusts that the
    Agency and Company will worktogether on the
    issuance of a permit.
    (February
    2,
    1989,
    p.
    10.)
    The Board also noted
    that the United States Environmental
    Protection Agency (USEPA) has not yet promulgated regulations
    establishing effluent limitations on water
    treatment plant waste,
    and stated that “directives from USEPA give the Board and
    the
    Agency broad discretion
    in determining the appropriate standard
    of control
    to apply to discharges from water
    treatment plants.”
    (February 2,
    1989,
    p.
    10.)
    The Board agrees with the Company
    that there
    is no conflict between the site—specific rule and
    applicable federal requirements.
    To any extent that the Agency’s
    motion seeks
    clarification as to what effluent limitations
    should
    be established
    in a permit,
    the Board declines
    to address this
    issue
    at this time.
    Under
    the Environmental Protection Act
    (Act),
    the Agency has the authority
    to issue permits, not the
    Board.
    The Agency must issue permits
    in accordance with
    the Act
    and
    regulations promulgated thereunder,
    including the site—
    specific regulation temporarily exempting the Company from
    compliance with Section 304.124, as
    it applies
    to TSS and
    total
    iron.
    The motion for clarification
    is denied.
    IT
    IS SO ORDERED.
    I,
    Dorothy M.
    Gunn, Clerk of the
    Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify)hat
    the above
    Order was adopted on
    the
    ______
    day of
    ________________,
    1989,
    by a vote of
    ________
    ~
    ~.
    Dorothy
    M.
    Gu~(n, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    98—122

    Back to top