1~L~

POLLUTION

CONTROI’~

.~C)/\U~

Septetnher

5,

 ~9H5

.U~M1C/\L

(OMP?\Li~,

)

pr~t.jtioner,

)

PCL~

LLLNO~S

ENVIRONMENTAL

P~.C)F,~C

AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

~:RM

ORDER

THE

BOARD

(by

Marlin)

The

Board

has

received

copies

correspondence

1~roiri H.

i~.

 EPA to

 the Illinois

EPA

which

question

the

 relial ~

-ha Board

 in R83-~l9 and R8l—26.

The

 letters ~re append~.iL~

Lis

l~r

arid

 speak for

 themselves.

The

 relief sought

 in the instant proceedinq may he

simiL~r

~o that sought

 the prior proceedings.

Bodrd

procedural

~4.22

 requires

that

 petitioners

variance

proceedings

 r~iicatewheLher

 the relief requested

 is consistent wiLh F’deH

‘.aw.

The

 Board

believes

the

parties

should

express

thai

~Lc~i~

 this issue beCore

 the Board rules on this variance

p~titHri.

apeci~ically, the parties are requested

 to address whetlie~ Lie

Board can grant site—specific or variance relief

in

light

ProvisLons

of

 the Clean water Act

(33

U.S.C.

1257

at.

seq.)

especially sections

 303 and

510

 (Id.

 1313 and 1370).

Accordingly,

 the Illinois EPA is ordered

 to provide

Lie:

Board

 and Borden copies of any replies

 it has made

to

the

appended

 letters from U.S.

 EPA by September

13,

 1985.

~n~:•ie~i

shall have

 until October

4,

 1985 to file an amended

~aLiLio-i

adciressLng

 this issue.

The

 Agency’s recommendation sh~U b:

October

28,

 1985.

ORDERED.

65-379

—2—

.1,

Dorothy

~4.

Gunn~

Clerk

the

Illinois

Pollution

Contr.-l

~rd

hereby

certify

~tie

above

interim

Order

was

~op’

day

1985

vote

•~

~‘

rothy

0~inn,

C ler

Illinois Pollution Cont~l

Board

65-380

REGION

23~

SOUTH

‘I

1985

Mr.

 Rooer Kanerva

Nanager, Enviromental Programs

Illinois Environmental

 Protection Agency

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield~Illinois

 6270~5

Dear Mr. Kanerva:

On April

23,

 1985, we received

 a copy of the January 18,1985,

lilino~i

Pollution Control

 Board rulemaking pertaining to the City of

 Lockport

~r~-

plant discharge (R83-19 codified 35 I.A.C.

 304.208) from Steven Ewart

c~

your I~qency.

Mr.

 rwart

 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 US. Environmental Protection

Agency (U.S. EPA)

 review,

 in accordance with Section 303(c)

 of the

Clean

l~aterAct

 (CWA).

The Board action,

 in effect, raised the criterion

 for ammonia—nitrogen

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 WOS revision that must be approved

 by the

U.S. EPA.

 are also of the opinion that

 a criterion of

 15 mg/l

amm~nL.

~dtro~~en

is

 not consistent with the general use designation

 of D2ep

“reek.

l~ewould like to avoid disapproval

 of the WQS for Deep

Run

 Creek

as

ct.

rc~etly

-evised.

 In order

to

do this,

 illinois must either modify the u~e

~1.iqnation

t~rDeep Run Creek

 based upon

a

 use attairiaoility analysis;

or

L ~

take

action to revise th2 current ammonia—nitrogen criterion

pui-tive

the general use designation.

would

 receive your proposal

 for resolving this issue

~flthin

tie’

next

3C)

days.

 This would enable us

 to carry out our statutory

responsi-

bilities

for

I4QS

review

~nd

 approval.

65-381

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

D~rector,Water Division

-ely

•~r~~.Yake

 Durnelie,

 IPCB

~—

65-382

A UG

1935

—

~‘

Mr. Roger Kanerva

L

Manager. Environmental

Programs

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

2200

 Churchill Road

Springfield,

 Illinois

62706

Dear Mr. Kaner~a:

As

a

 result of

 a recent

 NPDES permit review for John Deere foundry

 (Rock

Island County),

 I hecame aware of

 a 19R1 site—specific rule

change’

(Section 304.205) to the State’s effluent limitation rules, which

 exenipts

the discharger from meeting water quality standards (Section 305.105) for

total

 dissolved

 soflds, 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 chang7

which

WaS never

 submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for review

and approval.

In addition, if the permittee were to discharge these parameters at tho

permitted levels, the resultant in_strearT~concentrations at critical

low

flow

(1Q10)

 would

 not be protective of the designated general

 use for

trip

unnamrd tributary to Sugar Creek.

 Further, the available Illinois

 Poflittion Control

 F3oard 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 exem~tiori

for John Deere

Foundry

as currently adopted.

 In order

to

 do this, Illinois

must either modify the use designation for the affected receiving

streans

based upon use attainability analyses or it

must

rescind or revise the

r’jl~

in order to adopt criteria which are protective of the designated qeneral

use.

We would

 like to receive your proposal

 for resolving this issue within tho

next 30 days.

 This would enable us to carry out

 our statutory responsibili-

ties for water quality standards review and approval.

 In the interim, w~

will

 continue to object to the John Deere Foundry permit on the basis

that

the propose-i effluent limits are not protective of the designated general

use.

65-383

—2—

ti-,

the

Lockport

issue,

 this

is

 a serious matter

which

requires

 your

--sonal

 ottent~on.

 If you have any questions or concerns reyordin~

tI-i~

-~t~er,lease feel

tree

 to contact me.

—locerely

yours,

~C~AL

 SIGNED flV

D’~E

~3f!~3Q~

chj~-lesH.

Sutfin

~~-eOt:jr,

hater

Division

cc:\/c’acoh

flumelle

65-384