ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September
5,
1985
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
PROPOSAL OF MOBIL OIL CORPORATION
)
FOR SITE—SPECIFIC RELIEF FROM
)
R84-16
WATER QUALITY AND EFFLUENT STANDARDS
)
INTERIM ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by
1. Marlin):
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
is similar
to
that sought in the prior proceedings.
The Board believes the
participants should express their
views on this issue before
the
Board
rules
in this proceeding.
Specifically, the participants
are requested
to address whether the Board
can grant site—
specific relief from 304.105
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 Mobil copies of any replies it has made to the appended
letters from U.S. EPA by September 13, 1985.
Mobil
shall have
until October
4, 1985
to address this issue.
The Agency’s
response shall
be due October
28,
1985.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
I,
Dorothy M.
Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board hereby certify that
he above Interim Order was adopted
on
the
___________
day of
____________________,
1985 by a vote
of
--1-c
.
m.
Dorothy M.
dunn,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control
Board
65-457
u~\1
JLiL25~85
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTE~~~
~3~~—
REGION 5
~IILlflDNCONTROL
BOARD
230
SOUTH
DEARBORN ST.
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS ~0604
REPLY
tO
11~F
~TTP.
rl(~N
O~
5W-TUB-8
JUL
2
1985
Mr.
RoQer ~anerva
Manager, Enviromental
Programs
Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield,
flhlnois
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 codifled 35 I.A.C. 304.208) from Steven Ewert
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
111
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 ammonia-
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 aninonla-nitrogen criterion to be supportive of
the general use designation.
We would
lik~e
to receive your proposal for resolving this
issue within the
next
30 days~. This would enable us to carry out our statutory responsi-
bilities for WQS review and approval.
65-458
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
~e1y,
c~: J~keDurnelle, IPCB
—~
65-459
54~QS
-T~J’3
-~
AUG26193
Mr.
Roger Kanerva
L~~k
Manager, Environmental
Programs
Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
2200
Churchill
Road
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
Dear
Mr.
Kanerva:
As
a
result
of
a
recent
NPDES
permit
review
far
John
Deere
Foundry
(Rock
Island
County),
I
became
aware
of
a
19~1site—specific
rule
change
(Section 304.20)
to
the
State’s
effluent
limitation
rules,
which
exe~npts
the discharger from meeting water 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 revie~i
and approval.
In addition, If the perrnittee
were
to discharge these parameters at
thE?
permitted levels, the resultant In-stream concentrations at critical mw
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 exe~iiption
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
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
the
next 30 days.
This would enable
us
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.
65-480
—2—
As
with
the Lockport
issue, 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.
Sincerely
yours,
~G~!AL
SIQNED VT
DALE S.BR~~
Charles H.
Sutfin
Director, Water Division
cc:~cohDumelle
65-461