ILLINOIS
POLLUTiON
CONTROL BOARD
February 27,
1973
CITY OF
EAST
MOLINE
)
)
)
v.
)
PCB 72-460
)
)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
)
OPINION
AND ORDER OF THE
BOARD
(by Mr.
Dumelle)
This is
a petition for variance
from Rule
404
(b)(i) of the Illinois Water
Pollution
Regulations
which requires that
no effluent
whose untreated
waste load is
10, 000 population
equivalents or more
being discharged
to
the Mississippi
River shall exceed
20 mg/l
ROD and
25 mg/I
suspended
solids
(SS) after
December
31,
1973.
Hearing was held on January
16,
1973.
The City’s present
sewage treatment
plant provides
only primary
treatment
and chlorination of its
effluent.
It discharges
into
Pool
15
of the Mississippi
River.
The plant has
a design hydraulic
capacity of
4.5
MGD with an average
flow of
around 3.0
MCD.
Any excess
flow Is
bypassed directly
to the
Mississippi
River
without treatment.
The monthly operating
report
submitted
by the
City for July.
1972
showed 126
mg/I
BOD and
55 mg/I
58.
The report
for
August,
1972
showed
125 mg/i
BOD and
65 mg/I
SS.
The report
for September,
1972
showed 123
mg/l
ROD and
110 mg/i
53.
The Agency has
also taken samples
of the plant
effluent.
The
same taken
on
July
24,
1972
showed
41
mg/I
ROD,
55 mg/i
85
and
78, 000/100 nil fecal
coliforni.
The sample taken on September
20,
1972
showed 130 mg/l
BOD,
65
mg/i
55
and 44, 000/100 ml fecal
coliform.
The sample taken on
November 8.
1972
showed
210 mg/I
HOD and
110 mg/l
SS.
The
East
Moline sewage tteatment
plant
was
originally
regulated
by
Sanitary
Wnv’r
Hoard Rule
12
under which
they
were
not
scheduled to begin
construction
of secondary
treatment
facilities
until
December,
1976.
On
7— 15*
-2-
January
19,
1971.
notice
was
itt’.
en to the
City that
it
would
have
to upgrade
its
plant to
provide
secondary
trealinent
by
December
31,
1973,
in accordance
with
the revised
regulation
R70-3
adopted by
the
Roam
on
January
6.
lf’71.
R70-3
was thereafter
superseded
by
Rule
404
tb)
Ci) of thy’
Water
Regulations,
from
which this
bariancc
is
requested.
Some of the significant
events
occurring
in the City’s
abatement program
were
as follows.
On
July
28.
1968
the
(‘fly enierc’l
into
an engineering agree-
ment with their
consultant.
On
November
27.
1968 the
consultant
submitted
to the City
a master
plan
for the prim&rv
plant
expansion.
In September,
1969
the
City
authorized
the consultant to bc’~izswork
on the
expansion after
com-
pleting work on the interceptor
sewer.
In
February,
1970,
the consultant
received
a
letter
from
the
Sanitary
Water
Hoard insisting
upon secondary
treatment.
In 1lune,
1071,
a contract
amendment
was negotiated between the
consultant
and the
City for the basic
engineering
to design
a secondary
treatment
plant
expansion to
double
plant
capacity to
7.1
MCD.
In August,
1971 the consultant
submitted
to the City a time
schedule for
the secondary
plant with a final
completion
chUe
of
December
3,
1973.
Adhering to that
schedule would
have brought
the City into compliance
with
Rule
404
(b)(l)
of the Water
Regulations.
The
following week that
time
schedule
was
submitted
to the
13i-State
Planning
Commission.
A week later
Ri-State
recommended
that
Silvis,
Illinois
be
included
and that
the original
Metropolitan
Sewer Plan
not be
changed.
Two weeks later,
on September
23,
1971,
contract
amendment
number two
to the basic
engineering
agreement
was proposed
which
allowed the consultant to proceed
with the industrial
gauging and
sampling program.
On October
12.
1971.
a letter
from the
Agency was received
stating
that
while the original plan had been approved.
the Agency was unable
to determine
an
appropriate
solution
at that time.
The
Agency requested
all relevant
documents
in the matter
and,
after review,
was to give some
conclusion on the matter.
A
week
Later the Agency
notified the City that it was on the
critical
review list for sewer
extension.
On November
30,
1971,
the consultant
presented to
the City its
complete
report
on the proposed
plant pursuant
to the earlier
engineering
agreements.
Two days later
the report
was
submitted
to the Agency.
On
December
7,
1971,
the
City received
a letter
from
the
Agency stating that
its policy
will require
that
no
additional
volume
of effluent from
municipal
sewage
treatment
plants
be
discharged into the
Mississippi
River pool
above
Darn
No.
15.
On
December
22,
197!,
the
engineering
report
was sent
to
RI-State
for
review.
On .Ianuary
12,
1972.
the
Agency requested Bi-
State
to re-evaluate
that portion
of the
Total Water
Quality
Management
Plan
which
c’al1s for continued
and increased
discharges
into Pool 15.
A
week later
Hi-State
approved
the
City’s
plan but cautioned
about final
7—154
-3-
design until
the Pool
15 issue
was settled.
On January
28,
1972 the
City received
a notice of a hearing
in Chicago which
was then continued until
March
3,
1972
in Rock Island.
On February
17,
1972,
the Mayor ofthe
City sent
a letter
to the Agency stating
that the
City had in
good faith tried
to keep on
schedule
in order to meet
the
December
31,
1973
deadline
but that
due to recent
developments
it would be impossible
to begin final design
and meet
the
deadline until
all parties
agree
on what is to be done.
A
week later
at a
meeting
in Springfield,
Bi-State
agreed to
study
all
available
alternatives
and
report back to all parties
involved.
On March
17.
1972,
Bi-State
made that
report to the Agency.
On April
5,
1972,
the Agency requested Bi-State
to present
a cost
analysis
of the vaFious alternatives
in their report.
On
April
28,
1972,
the
City submitted to the Agency a grant
application for the
proposed
7.1
MCD plant.
On June
15,
1972,
the Agency agreed that the
East Moline
plant
was the proper
location for
serving
the East
Moline
-
Silvis
-
Carbon Cliff
-
Hampton areas.
On June 16,
1972,
there was
a meeting in
Springfield between the Agency,
Silvis
and East
Moline where
it was proposed
that
the plant
size be increased
to 11.1
MCD due to
enlarging
the proposed
area to
be
served by East
Moline’s plant
On July
24,
1972,
there
was a
meeting held between
East
Moline,
Silvis
and Bi-State
at which time
East
Moline’s
consultant presented
a new time
schedule based upon
an 11.1
MCD
plant
which added six
more
months to the overall
schedule.
At
that time
the
Agency had not yet approved the enlarged
capacity.
On September
26.
1972,
the
City sent a letter
to the Agency expressing
concern that there
was still
no
answer from the Agency regarding approved plant
capacity
so that
the
City begin final
design.
On October
18,
1972.
there
was
another letter
sent to the Agency similar
to the one
sent September
26.
On October
20,
1972,
the
City received
a letter
from the
Permit
Section of the Agency stating
that
they could not
approve the
completion
schedule because it extended
past
the
December
31,
1973 deadline.
On October
24,
1972,
there
was
a letter
sent by the Agency
to the Federal
Environmental
Protection
Agency finally
approving the
design
capacity at
11.1
MCD.
According to the
City’s proposed
time
schedule,
they are
to
submit
their plans
and
specifications
for the general
construction
contract
to the
Agency by June 2,
1973.
They plan to receive bids for the general
construction
contract by September
8.
1973.
They plan to begin construction
by October
6,
1973.
They plan.to
begin operating the expanded primary facilities
by June 5,
1974
and finaliy they plan to have the secondary
facilities
in operation
by
December
27.
1975.
The
City submitted
a Project
Completion
Schedule to the
Agency on
August 27,
1972,
pursuant
to Rule
1002 of the Water
Regulations.
Rule
1002
provides that such Schedule may only be approved
if
Its
target
completion
7—155
—4-
dates
indicate
that.
the
project
will
he
completed
on
or
before
the
deadline
dates
set
forth
in
the
Regulations.
Since
the
Cityts
proposed
schedule
indicated
that
it
would
not
be
meeting
the
deadline
of December
31,
1973
for
secondary
treatment,
it
was
not
approved
by
the
Agency.
The
Agency
also
points
out
that
it
will
not
he
able
to
issue
a permit
to the
City
when the
City
submits
its
final
plans
and
specifications
because
Rule
921
of
the
Water
Regulations
provides,
in
part,
that
no permit
shall
issue
unless
the
applicant
has
an
approved
Project
Completion
Schedule
pursuant
to Rule
1002.
The
Agency,
in
its
recommendation,
suggests
that
the City~spetition
for
variance
should
also
be
interpreted
as
a request
for
a variance
from
Rules
921
and
1002
also.
The
Agency
goes
on
to
recommend
that
not
granting
a
variance
from
those
two
Rules
would
serve
no
useful
purpose
and will
only result
in further
delay
of this
needed
facility.
We
agree.
We
also
find
that
the
City has
shown
adequate
proof
to justify
the
granting
of
a variance
from
the
December
31,
1973
deadline
for
secondary
treatment
imposed
by
Rule
404
(b)
(i)
of
the
Water
Regulations.
They
have
made
diligent
efforts
to
comply
but
have
not
been
able
to because
of
the
complicated
situation
resulting
from
the
regional
plant
idea.
We
will
not,
however,
be
able
to grant
the
variance
until
the
requested
date
of
December
27,
1975
because
of
the
one-year
statutory
limitation
on
variances.
We
will
grant
the
variance
for
one
year
from
the
date
of this
opinion
and order.
At
that time
we will
again
look
at
the
City1s
progress
on
their
proposed
schedule
and determine
if an extension
of the
variance
is
appropriate.
Adherence
to
the
schedule
set
out
below
will
be
an
important
factor
in
granting
extensions
of
this
variance.
This
opinion
constitutes
the
Board!s
findings
of
fact
and
conclusions
of
law.
~RDE
R
1.
The
City
of
East
Moline
is granted
a
variance
from
Rules
921
and
i002
of
the Water
Regulations.
2.
The
City
is
also
granted
a variance
from
Rule
404
(b)
(I) until
February
27,
1974
on
the
following
conditions:
a.
The
City
shall
submit
its
plans
and
speciifi rations
for
the
general
construction
contract
to the
Agency
by
June
2,
ii)73.
b.
The
City
shall
receive
bids
for
the
general
construction
contract
by
September
~,
H7~.
7
—
156
-5—
c.
The
City
shall
begin
construction
by
October
6,
1973.
3.
Requests
for
extension
of this
variance
shall
he
made
at
least
90
days
prior
to the
expiration
date.
1,
Christan
L.
Moffett,
Clerk
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Conlrol
Board,
hereby
certify
the
above
Opinion
and
Order
were
adopted
on
the
~
7
“
day
of
February,
1973
by
a
vote
of
3
—
.
/
~‘~‘/
~//~
Christan
U.
Moffett,
Clerk
Illinois
Poilut
i on
Control
Roar
d
7
—
15’
I
I