ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

November

3,

1988

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

PETITION OF THE CITY OF

JOLIET FOR A SITE SPECIFIC

RULE FOR THE EAST SIDE

)

R84—20

JOLIET WASTEWATER TREATMENT

)

FACILITY

)

PROPOSED RULE.

SECOND NOTICE.

PROPOSED OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by 3. Theodore Meyer):

This matter

is before

the Board on a May 29,

1984 petition

for site specific rulemaking

filed

by the City of Joliet.

Joliet

asks that its East Side Wastewater Treatment Plant

(EWTP), which

discharges into Hickory Creek, be exempted from the effluent

limitations for biochemical

oxygen demand

(BOD)

and suspended

solids

(SS)

applicable

to Hickory Creek.

Those limitations,

found at

35

Iii. Adm.

Code 304.120(c),

are

10 milligrams per

liter

(mg/i) and

12 mg/i,

respectively.

Instead,

Joliet requests

that the discharges from EWTP be subject

to the BOD and SS

limitations applicable

to the Des Plaines

River.

Those

standards,

set forth at

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 304.120(b), are 20 mg/i

BOD and

25 mg/i

SS.

On June

30, 1988 the Board proposed for

First Notice

a rule

giving Joliet the requested relief for five years.

This five—

year period will allow Joliet

to conduct water quality monitoring

for approximately three years,

and still have time

to petition

the Board

for permanent relief

if the monitoring results

are

positive.

The proposed rule was published

in the Illinois

Register on July 15,

at 12

Ill.

Reg.

11669.

The Board’s

rationale for proposing the rule

is set forth

in the Proposed

Opinion of June

30, 1988.

The Board received only one public comment during

the First

Notice period.

The. Department of Commerce and Community Affairs

stated that

the proposed rule will have no effect on small

businesses regulated by the

rule.

(P.C.

#8.)

The Board notes

that the proposed rule regulates only Joliet’s EWTP.

After

the close of the First Notice period

it came

to the

Board’s attention that under

a proposed federal

consent decree,

Joliet would pay a $160,000 civil penalty

to resolve

a federal

enforcement action alleging Clean Water Act violations

at the

EWTP.

(U.S.

v.

Joliet, DC

N.

Ill. No.

88—5561.)

The consent

decree also requires Joliet

to attain and maintain compliance

with its permit,

upgrade facilities

to meet secondary treatment

93—329

---

—2—

standards,

construct

a single—stage nitrification facility, and

take measures

to ensure proper operation and maintenance

of the

EWTP.

On September

22,

1988 the Board adopted

an order directing

Joliet and the Agency

to comment on any relation between

this

rulemaking and the federal consent decree.

The Agency filed

its

response on October

26,

1988,

and Joliet submitted

its response

on October

28, 1988.

Both the Agency and Joliet submit that the consent decree

and this rulemaking are related and consistent.

Joliet states

that the primary purpose of the consent decree

is to assure that

the city continues with the construction program identified

in

its municipal compliance plan.

(That compliance plan

is

discussed on pages

2 and

3

of the Board’s June

30,

1988 First

Notice Order, and

is Exhibit

F

in this docket.)

This rulemaking

is

a part of that municipal compliance plan,

and thus

is an

approved part of the consent decree.

The Agency states that

the

site—specific relief sought by Joliet

in this proceeding was

approved by the Agency during the settlement discussions between

Joliet and the Agency,

and that the United States Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA) also concurs with

the site—specific

relief.

Joliet summarizes

the situation by declaring

that the

construction of

facilities,

the request

for site—specific relief,

and the terms of the consent decree have been coordinated

to

result

in compliance with the effluent limitations for the Des

Plaines River.

The Board

finds that the federal consent decree and this

rulemaking are consistent,

and thus will propose the site—

specific rule for Second Notice.

The Board does wish

to note,

however,

its concern that

it was not told of the federal

enforcement action and consent decree during the course of this

proceeding.

According

to Joliet’s response,

discussions about

a

proposed consent decree were begun

in late 1986 and continued

through May 1988.

However, no mention of these discussions was

made either

at the March

1988 hearing or

in post—hearing

comments.

If either the Agency or Joliet had explained

the

pending discussions

at that time,

this proceeding could probably

have been shortened by at least one month.

ORDER

The Board hereby proposes the following amendments

for

Second Notice,

which are

to be filed with the Joint Committee on

Administrative

Rules.

TITLE

35:

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SUBTITLE C:

WATER POLLUTION

CHAPTER

I:

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PART 304

EFFLUENT STANDARDS

93330

---

—3—

SUBPART

C:

TEMPORARY EFFLUENT STANDARDS

Section 304.302

City of Joliet East Side

Wastewater Treatment Plant

This Section applies only

to the City

of Joliet’s

East Side

Wastewater Treatment Plant which discharges into Hickory Creek

in

Will County,

Illinois.

The discharges

of that plant

shall not be

subject

to the standards

of Section 304.120(c),

provided that

those discharges meet the

five day biochemical oxygen demand

(BOD)

and suspended solids limitations

of Section 304.120(b).

This Section will

expire on January

1,

1994.

IT

IS

SO ORDERED.

R.

Flema.

was not present.

I,

Dorothy M.

Gunn,

Clerk

of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the above Proposed Opinion and Order

was adopted on the

~‘.-t-~.

day

of

~l~t~’

,

1988,

by

a

vote

of

c~o

Dorothy M/ Gunn,

Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

93—33 1