ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

November

14,

1972

BEARDSTOWN SANITARY DISTRICT

v.

)

 #72—232

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

CITY OF BEARDSTOWN

)

 #72—264

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

)

Opinion

 Order

of

 the Board

(by

Mr.

 Currie)

rfhe Beardstown Sanitary District operates

 a sewage

treatment plant giving primary treatment

 and some degree

of

chlorination1

to

 the domestic wastes

 of some 7,000 persons

in and near Beardstown,

 The City of Beardstown owns

a

separate treatment facility consisting

 of lagoons providing

a certain degree of treatment

 to oxygen-demanding wastes

of about 40,000 population equivalents

 from the Oscar Mayer

slaughterhouse at Beardstown.

 Although

 the District~s

petition does not state the regulations

 from which

 a variance

~s sought,

 both petitioners appear to seek variances until

June,

 1974 from the effluent standards of Rule

 404(a)

 (PCB

Regs.,

Ch.

 3, Rule 404(a)), which requires BOD to be reduced

1.

 The Agency~s uncontradicted evidence is that present

chlorination

 is ineffective;

 feeding equipment is less

than

that

required,

there

contact

chamber

as-

sure

adequate

retention

 kill

bacteria,

and

the

fecal

coliforms

the

effluent

are

“about

the

 same”

those

in

raw

sewage

(R.

267,

269;

EPA

Ex,

9)

The

District

said only

 that it

was chlorinating and believed it

was

meeting

 the standards

(R.

 185)

 It offered no supporting

test data.

 The District has contracted

to

provide

dis-

infection

 for the

 City

too

(P.

61,

 173)

 Neither

petitioner

 asks relief

 from

 the disinfection require-

ments,

and

the

 Agency has

 not filed

 a complaint.

 There

is

 therefore nothing

for

us

 to do about bacteria in

the

present case, however

 inadequate

 the present treatment.

—2—

to

 30 mg/i

and

 suspended solids

to

 37 mg/i by July

1,

 1972,

or such earlier date as may have been specified

 in prior

regulations.

 The District appears

 to request

 a similar

extension

of

 the July

1,

 1972 date of Rule

602

 for control

of

 treatment plant bypasses.

 We deny both petitions

for

reasons given below.

The hope of both petitioners

 is to combine their efforts

and

 to dispose

of

 the effluents

 from both facilities

on

land

for

 the irrigation

 of crops,

 obviating

 the need

for

additional treatment

 and terminating dry-weather discharges

to

 the Illinois River

(P.

 175)

A preliminary study

 (City Ex.

10)

 convinces

 the petitioners’

engineers

 that

 the land—disposal

 idea

 is wortn pursuing

(P.

55)

 An expert from the Illinois State Geological

Survey,

 however,

 pointed out the extremely permeable nature

of the

 soil at

 the proposed disposal

 site, noting that

much of the wastewater applied to

 the ground would reach the

water table without much diminution

 in mineral content

“in essentially

 the same condition

 as when it was sprayed

on

the land”

(P.

 100).

 An expert from

 the Illinois State

Water Survey said he believed nearby wells would be affected

(R.

 113)

 The City’s consultant

 acknowledged that his

study

so

 far did not disclose relevant information with res-

pect to

 lateral migration

 of water from the site and that

further study was needed before

 the safety of

 the project

could

 be assured

(P.

 81—82)

We cannot help feeling

 some reservations about

a

scheme for dumping inadequately treated sewage and slaughter-

house wastes2onto

 the ground with no protection against

seepage of contaminants

 into either ground or surface

waters.

 We note

 in contrast

 the careful precautions

for

control

 of leachate from solid waste disposal

 sites required

in EPA

v.

 Carlson,

 #71—243,

 5 PCB

 (Sept.

26,

 1972)

proposed by

 the operators

 in Elgin Jaycees

v.

 Tn-County

Landfill,

 Inc.,

 ~7l-59,

 which is now pending before us,

and proposed by

 the Agency and Institute

 in the pending

revised landfill regulations,

#R

 72-5.

Cf.

 also SEMCO,

 Inc.

v.

 EPA,

 #72-364,

 now pending before us,

 as to precautions

2.

 The preliminary report notes that ordinarily

 secondary

treatment is desirable before

 land disposal of

 effluent;

says

 that one

 of the City’s

 lagoons will be taken to

provide some treatment beyond primary to

 the District

effluent;

 that the City’s effluent will

 thus receive

less treatment than presently;

 that

 there will be no

disinfection;

 and that expected effluent BOD and suspend-

ed solids

 levels will be

 130 and

 80 mg/i,

 respectively——

hardly

the

equivalent

secondary

treatment

defined

SWB-8.

See

City

Ex.

10,

pp.

iii,

15-16.

There

 ade-

quate evidence

 to assure us against bacterial

 or viral con-

tamination

 of groundwater,

 or nitrate pollution.

—

230

—3—

necessary

 in land disposal

 of sewage sludge.

 We note

also that

 the cost

 of pumping

 the District’s sewage

 to the

site for land disposal without

 further treatment approximates

the cost of secondary treatment

(P.

 225)

 and that

 the June

1974 compliance date is anything

but

firm

(P.

 57—58,

 63-64)

We think

 a great deal more proof must

 be offered before

we or

 the Agency

 can give approval

 to any such proposal.

With respect

 to stormwater,

 it appears that

 the pro-

posed land disposal

 scheme will not solve the problem

(R.

 228)

 Indeed the District makes no concrete proposal

for stormwater control.

 The District complains

 that

the

Environmental

 Protection Agency has interpreted Rule

 602,

which the Agency concedes

 is substantially

 the same

 as prior

regulations,

 to require primary treatment and chlorination

of all stormwater

 flows

 in all cases,

 contrary to

 its earlier

interpretation

 that only ten times

 the dry-weather

 flow

need be

 so treated

(R.

 212-13).

 The District thinks this

requirement would impose

 an unreasonable burden upon it but

does not ask us

 to rule the Agency’s

 interpretation wrong3

3.

 The Agency’s rigid interpretation

 is totally incon-

sistent with the language and intention of

 the rule,

which deliberately

 leaves the Agency

 a good deal of

discretion as to

 the degree of treatment required, be-

yond primary treatment and disinfection

of

 ten times

the dry-weather

 flow,

 to maintain adequate water quality

without unreasonable cost in light of varying local

situations.

 The blanket requirement imposed by EPA is

precisely what we rejected

 in adopting

 the regulation,

as

 a reading

 of the opinion accompanying

 the regulations

will

readily

show.

the

Matter

Effluent

Criteria,

#R

 70-8,

 3 PCB 755,

 773—75

 (March

7,

 1972).

 The Agency

should consider on its merits

the

 adequacy of the

proposed stormwater treatment

 facility to determine

its effect upon water quality

 in recognition

of

the

fact

 that

 the regu~.ationcontemplates

 there will be

cases

 in which the cost of capturing

and

 treating the

 highest flows may not be justified.

—

231

—4—

or to give it permission to construct a less costly facility.4

Instead

the

 District asks a year’s time in which, if the

Agency

 is correct, the “design may be revised or the

storm water facility eliminated from the plans and specifi-

cations for the secondary treatment facility.”

 (Amended

Petition,

p.

2).

 How the later course would cure the

stormwater problem is not clear.

We

 find

 a total absence

of coninitnent to an adequate program of stormwater control.5

4.

 The District’s cost figures for giving complete storm-

water

treatment

are

red

herring.

The

District

tells

us it

may

cost

million

dollars

more

(R.

221),

over three times the cost of the secondary plant,

to

build

primary

treatment

facilities

for

the

entire

50-mgd

storm

flow.

There

proof

that

this

sensible

way

approach

the

problem,

much

less

the

only

the

least

expensive

way.

have

elsewhere

noted

the

practice

constructing

retention

ponds

capture large storm flows that can later be fed through

treatment facilities of comparatively modest size.

See In the Matter of Effluent Criteria, tR 70—8,

3 PCB 755, 773 (March 7, 1972); League of Women Voters

v. North Shore Sanitary District, 470—7,

 1 PCB 369,

379

 (March 31,

 1971).

 There was no proof here

that

this method could not be followed, only the cryptic

suggestion that the idea had not been pursued because

of the “prevailing winds”

(R.

250—51).

 The practicability

and

 cost of such facilities is a proper issue for

the

 Agency to consider in assessing the quantity of

stormwater

for

which

treatment

must

provided

particular

case

under

Rule

602.

5.

 A final issue requires clarification

this

connection.

There was repeated reference in the record to differ-

ent

stormwater standards that must be met

now

and

1975

 (E.g.,

 R. 157—58).

 This is

 a misconception.

The

standard for

 both

1972

and

 1975 compliance is phrased

in identical larquage, to be applied by the Agency

according to the facts.

 The different dates reflect the

decision to allow more time for correction of over-

flows elsewhere in the sewer system than for bypasses

at the treatment plant itself, because of more challeng-

ing

logistic

problems

detailed

the

rule-making

record.

 See In the Matter of Effluent Criteria, #R 70-8

3 PCB 755, 773—75 (March

 7, 1972).

6—

232

—5—

Thus we find, with respect to both petitioners,

 that

the proposed plan for compliance with the standards is

inadequate to justify present approval,

 Normally an

adequate program is requisite to the grant of a variance.

See Chicago—Dubuque Foundry Co. v.

 EPA, #71-130,

 2 PCB 65

(June 28,

 1971)

;

 York Center v.

 EPA,

 #72-7,

 3 PCB 485

(Jan.

17,

 1972)

;

 Metropolitan Sanitary District v.

 EPA,

#71-183,

 3 PCB 57

 (Nov.

11,

 1971)

 The question remains

whether we should grant additional time in which to make

further study of the proposal without fear of money

penalties.

Cf.

 International Harvester Co.

v.

 EPA,

#72—321,

 5 PCB

 (October 24,

 1972)

A v.~rianceis a shield against the possibility of

penalties for failure to comply with the law or regulations.

We cannot grant

 a complete shield if

 the failure to comply

was inexcusable, for to do so would make every violation its

own justification and completely frustrate enforcement.

See,e.g.,

 Decatur Sanitary District v.

 EPA,

 #71-37,

1

PCB 359

 (March 22, 1971);

 Commonwealth Edison Co. v.

 EPA,

#71-150,

 5 PCB

 (August

8,

 1972).

 We must inquire as

to the diligence of

 the District and of the City in attempting

to comply with the standards here sought to be waived.

The City attempts to argue that there were no standards

it was required to meet until the adoption of Rule 404(a)

in March,

 1972,

 so that it simply had no adequate time

in which to construct the necessary facilities by

the

July 1972 deadline.

 This would be

 a persuasive argument

if the premises underlying

 it were sound, see International

Harvester Co.

 v. EPA, cited above,

 and cases there cited,

but they are not.

 Rule

1.08 of Rules and Regulations

SWB—8,

 (City Ex.

11)

 adopted

 the Sanitary Water Board

March

5,

 1968 and effective April

1,

 1968,

 provided as

follows:

10.

 Treatment Requirements and Effluent Criteria.

a.

 All municipal

or

 industrial

 facilities

 for treatment

of deoxygenating waste

 shall provide at least

secondary biological treatment,

 or advanced waste

treatment to reduce the ~ganic

 pollution

load of the treatment works effluent at the

final treatment structure

 in accordance with effluent

guidelines

 in paragraph

11.

11.

 Guidelines Regarding Range of Treatment

a.

 Secondary treatment resulting in effluents ranging

from

mg/l

five-day

BOD

and

mg/l

suspended solids

 is acceptable on the Illinois

 River.

—

233

—6—

Permissive

Treatment

and

Effluent

Requirements

Based on Average Strength Municipal Wastes

BOD or ODI

 Effluent

 Effluent

 Stream

Type

 Reduction

 BOD, ODI

 Suspended

 .Dilution

Treatment

 Percent

 mg/i

 Solids mg/i

 Requirements

Secondary

Illinois

I

River

The

City,

acknowledging

the

“coincidence”

CR.

75)

that

the

effluent numbers of the new Rule 404(a) are virtually

identical

those

the

1968

regulation,

suggests

that

the earlier regulation was merely a “guideline”

 in contrast

the

present

“standard”

(R.

32-33).

This

difference

pure

semantics.

The

City

would

have

believe

that

the

Sanitary

Water

Board,

carefully

prescribing

figure

for

effluents

the

Illinois

River,

intended

that

it

could be

freely

ignored.

This

incredible

interpretation

squarely

refuted

the

language

the

regulation,

quoted

above:

“All.

 facilities.

 shall

 provide.

 treatment.

in accordance with effluent guidelines in paragraph ii.”

explicit

language

for

creating

legally

enforceable

obligation

can

imagined.

The

1968

regulation

imposed

effluent BOD and suspended solids requirements of not over

and

mg/i,

respectively,

 with

“average

stren~jth”

municipal

wastes required to meet

 30 and 35 and others to be determined

the

Agency

within

the

range

stated

paragraph

ha.

It is undisputed that the City’s facilities never con-

formed

with these

limits.

 They were designed to produce an

effluent BOD of 75 mg/i

(R.

35)

;

 in May 1971 the effluent

averaged

80,5

mg/i

BOD

and

68.5

mg/i

suspended

solids;

May

1972

the

averages

were

and

mg/i

respectively

(See petition).

If

the

effluent

had

consistently

met

the

SWB-8

maximum

standard

and

45,

the

City

might

have

legitimate position;6 there

 is no contention that it did.

The

effluent

has

been

continuous

violation

SWB—8

ever

since

 the adoption of that reguaition in 1968,

 and based

upon the City’s own design for the plant the City should

have been aware of the violation even

if

it did not sample

the effluent.

 The resemblance between the old and new standards

was

 no mere coincidence;

the

new

standard

was

set

indi-

cate what the old had long since required.

6.

 Even

on this assumption the

Agency

letter

 of October,

1970,

specifically

imposing

the

30—35

limit

(City

Ex.

gave

 the City ample

 time to

meet

the

standard

as

the

Agency had determined

 it should he

 aoplied,.

—

234

—7—

The City’s next excuse

that

was

lulled

into

complacency by the fact that

the

 Sanitary

Water

 Board,

listing the steps that must he taken by individual discharg-

ers

 in order

 to comply with SWB-8, expressly provided that

no additional treatment was required for this facility

(SWB—8,

p.

15,

 under

 the name Oscar Mayer)

How

the Sanitary

Water

Board

could have believed this

to he

true is

beyond

us,

 since the lagoons were

admittedly

not

 designed

-to

allow compliance with the regulation.

 We do not know on

what information that Board acted in purporting

-to

give

the

City a free pass.

 To the extent it had adequate information,

the SWB as enforcement agency seems to

have

made a deter-

mination squarely contrary to

 its own regulations.

 Whether

a discharger

 is entitled

to

ignore

the

plain meaning of

the

law and follow

the

erroneous advice of the prosecutor seems

to us highly doubtful,

Even giving the City the benefit of the doubt, since

this bad advice was incorporated into

the

implementation

plan of

the

 regulation,

 the City has not justified its

entire

delay~

 In October

1970

 the Environmental Protection

Agency informed the City that

it

was required to provide

additional treatment to meet

 a standard

of

 30 and

35

mg/I

of BOD and suspended solids

 (City Ex.

2)

 which

 in fact was

the

basic

requirement

EWE-B

well

slightly

tighter

version

the

present

Rule

 404(a).7

This

letter

made

it no longer appropriate,

 if it ever had been,

 for the

City

rely

 on the

 SWB’s earlier erroneous interpretation

of SWB-8

 as not requiring further treatment.

 The letter

required

that

plans

and

specifications

for

meeting

the

BOD

and

solids

requirements

submitted

January

1971

and that contracts be awarded by July

 1971.

The City next relies upon

 a letter from

 the Aqency

in December

1970

 (City Ex.

4)

 that

 it reads

 to suggest

that

the

City

should

after

all

nothing

until

the

Pollution Control Board had completed its reexamination

The

fact

that

the

letteFreferred

passing

Regulations

SWB-l4,

which

applied

intrastate

streams

not

covered

by

other

regulations

(See

44)

 as well as

 to Techni-

cal Release 20-22, which set forth the Agency~sinter-

pretation of all the SWB regulations,

 is not decisive.

The

 letter adequately warned the City of its

 obligations,

and

in case of

 a. legitimate dispute over the applicable

standard

 the City could have petitioned

 this Board

for

relief, which it chose not to do.

6

—

235

—8—

of the

e

 ffluent standards

 (See R. l6~47).

 We cannot so

read this rather mysterious document..U

 Even if we could,

the argument is that the Agency gave

the

City a variance from

the old regulations until such time as new regulations

might be adopted.

 This is something flatly beyond the Agency’s

power, for the statute makes it crystal clear

that

only

this Board may qrant varia)aces

 (Environmental Protection

Act,

 35).

 No one in good faith was entitled to rely

upon

any

belief

 that the Agency could waive the require-

ments of the regulations.

 To take the examination of

whether existing regulations need strengthening as an

excuse to violate the law,as the City did,

 is a cruel

joke indeed to which nothing in the statute or regulations

gives the least shred of support.

Thus, at least since Octcber 1970 it has been the

City’s duty to proceed posthaste with the construction of

facilities to meet the 30-35 standard.

 In fact the City

has spent

two

entire years in simply going through the

preliminary stages of studying what to do about the pro-

blem.

 There is no proof that the year and three quarters

between notification by the EPA and the July,

 1972 com-

pliance date set by the new regulation was

too

 short a

time to get the job done or that there is any adequate

justification for the need for

two

additional years.

It

appears from the record that the City simply made up its

mind to go as slowly as possible.

 We cannot forgive that

sort of delay.

The Sanitary District’s case is still less appealing.

According .to a 1971 EPA memorandum (EPA Ex.

 8), Beardstown

is “the last major city south of Peoria on the Illinois

River usinq primary treatment.”

 The District indicated

that the BOD in its effluent ranges from 70 to 120 mg/l

(average 90) and suspended solids 40 to 100

(R.

 184).

Flows during storms, as a result of combined sewers, are

 as much as 100 times the dry—weather flow

(R.

 193).

At

such times raw waste is bypassed directly to the river in

large quantities

 (See EPA Ex.

 9 for a graphic description

the

bypass

problem).

8.

 ‘This letter acknowledges that the City must make further

engineering studies before submitting final plans and

that

certain

proposed

regulations

then

under

Board

consideration

nitrogen

and

phosphorus

would

affect

plans

for

plant

 improvements, promises to notify the

City

any

revised

treatment

dates

once

the

Board

had

completed

its

rule-making

proceedings,

and

re-

affirms

the

necd

for

variance

the

event

the

existing requirements cannot be met.

 No variance petition

was filed until the present one in 1972.

6— 236

—9—

The District makes

 no claim

 that SWB—8 did

not

 recuire

it

 to provide additional treatment,

 for,

 in addition to the pro-

visions quoted earlier in

this

opinion,

the

regulation

specifically lists

the

Beardstown

 Sanitary District as re-

cuiring construction

 of secondary treatment

 and chlorination

facilities

 to begin by January

1969

 (SWB—8,

p.

9)

The

record indicates

 that the District did not bother hiring

engineer

develop

program

for

secondary

treatment

until January,

1969

CR.

 232)

 the date when construction

was supposed

 to begin.

 A revised timetable was

 sent by the

District

 the Sanitary Water Board,

 promising

 that final

plans would be submitted

 by August

1970

 and that

the

 secondary

plant would he

 in operation,

 presumably with

 the necessary

bypass controls,

 by September

1971

 (EPA Ex.

4)

have

no proof that

 the Board approved

 this

 extension,9 which would

have

amounted

variance.

The

District’s

consultant

ad-

mitted

 he knew

 no reason for the delay in getting started

on time

 to meet

 the original deadline

CR.

 245)

;

 the Dis-

trict itself offered only that it had not been aware

 of the

requirements

 until

1969

CR.

 165,

 170)

 It was

 of course

the District’s duty

 to be aware

of

 the requirements.

In fact

 the District’s

 own revised schedule,

 whether

or

 not approved,

 was violated at

 an early date.

 The plans

the District

 had promised

 to file by August 1970 were not

even begun until

 the next November

(P.

 203)

 The excuse

is

that alternative means of stormwater treatment were beinc

stu~ied (P.

 219)

No

 extra time

 for such study had been

requested

granted.

In

 late 1970 discussions began with

the City

as

to

 the nossihility

of

a

 joint approach

 through

land

disposal

CR.

174)

Although

the

District

professed

not

 to he

certain

that,

 with

the

 possibility of joint

treatment

under

discussion,

ought

file

the

plans

for

 the secondary plant

CR.

 240)

 it did

so

 in May 1971

(A.

 203)

 nearly

 a year

 late.

 No extension or waiver

c)t

the

obligation

file

plans

had

been

requested

granted.

The clans were rejected

as

 inadecuate,

 for failure

 to pro~-

vide

dual

aeration

tanks

and

backup

chlorination

equipment

(A.

 205,

 208-09)

 both needed

 to protect against pollution

in

 the event

of

 a malfunction.

 Some corrections

in

the

clans were made although

 the District continued

 to object

to dual tanks

CR.

 210)

 hut ultimately

 the District

 simply

decided not

 to pursue

the

 secondary plant

CR.

 214)

 Land

disposal had not been approved,

but

 it was

 the answer.

extension

relief

from

the

secondary

timetable

had

The

attorney

for

the

Agency

so

suggested

oral

argument

CR.

 150)

6

—

237

been

 so unsted

 or cr~nLo1

bit

Lhc

istr

jet

‘lee

 died

not

to

comi

L

fl(1

thr

 r’~~ment

a

excuse

 ~or what

has

 a1—

ready

00gm

ich~d

 three veers

of

 deja’;

 C two an

the

as

sumetion

the revised

 s checlu Ia

a

er~raved

t as

log

~onseruct

ion

of

seconder’.

 storm~ater

‘~~fjr5~

 ‘‘Us

je

cannot

‘~ii

~ye

each

dcla’

We

 therefore cannot

 ‘ir.~nt

cii

Leer

Lb

 Fit’;

the

Dintrict

~

~m1~

1

:1

Cqainst

 I :~

~r) L

itv

0)1

~J~

 ‘joe

 ‘need

 ~o 1 c’s

that have postponed

correction

 their

 exces:3i~’e ~ischargee.

The

 further

 question

 is whether

 to deny

 Lb‘variances

out-

right,

or,

 as we have done

 in some

cases,

 to qremst

 a variance

upon

condition

the

payment

money

oenal

far

east

delays,

 avca:clinq

 the necessity

for

thrfher

liticatian

and

giving

all

 concerned

 a clear indication

of

the

 course that

should be

 followed in

 futore,

Scsi

CAl”

Carp.

 CPA,

i7l—

I,

1

PCB

481

 (April

19,

 197)

First

liational

S~~k

of Springfield

v.

 EPA,

 ~72-3a1,

5

~CB

 (October

li,

1972)

Lie

think

the

latter

course

erecluclod

here

the’

absence

 of any definitive aroqran we can

approve

pro-

viding

adequate

solution

the

rob

 lema.

Until

clear

 just

what

done

end

liaen,

think

in-

advisable

 to grant even

 a conditiaral variance.

 The City

and

 the District

should

pet

were

once

comciv

quickly

they

can

“i

all

 opel Ic lii e regulations.

We do not understand why

 the Environmental Pro-

tection Agency has

 permitted matters

 to reach

this

pass

without

filinq

complaint.

The

Sanitary

Distr

lit

has been in continuous violation o~ its deadlines

 for years,

and nothing has been done.

The

City

 was told what it had

to do

 in 1970,

and

 it has

done

nothing

mare

than

prepare

preliminary

report.

Inattention

such

flagrant

violations

can

only

encourage

violators

commit

further

delays.

The absence

of

 a complaint

in

 these cases

brinus

mind once again our observations

with

respect

municipal

sewace treatment problems

 in adoptine

the

new

 regulations

in March

 of this year.

 We noted at

 the time

 the state-

ment of Director Blaser of

the

EPA

 that most communities

had

 fallen behind

the

 deadlines

 set by

 the Sanitary Water

Board

for

additional

treatment.

ifl

setting

new

dates

for

the submission

 of programs

 to achieve compliance

with

the

standards,

 we stressed that

 the pattern

of

 slippage that had

characterized

 the Sanitary

Water

Board

aeriod

 “must not be

permitted

happen

again”

and

that

!Tsubstantial

money

penalties,

 as well

 as prohibition

 of additional

 connections,

are

distinct

possibility

for

 communities

 that do not

make diligent efforts

 to meet

the

now

 sleacllines.”

In

10.

The

 Agency’s

new

Interpret

ition

 the lonq-standinq

 storm-

water control

 rcmqui renent

was

made

known

t-o

the

 District only

July,

1972

(A.

212)

 cannot excuse

the

 fai lure

condo

with

the

law

as

1’,’

construed

some

Lime

hetore.

—

238

the

 yatter

of

Effluent

 Cr:teria,

70—3,

?CB

755,

773

The

programs

for

concliance

;~ioh

many

the

ne’~:

nunicioal—waste

reoulations

~:ere

required

fileS

Seoterober

1,

1972,

and

those

for

certain

other

effluent

standards

 July

1.

 PCB Rees.

Cii.

3,

 Rule 1002(b)

These interim dates

are

 there

for

 the oureose

 of alo~:-

ing early enforcement action ~‘:hilethere

 is still

 some

aossibiiitv of brineina

 about timely coomliance

 ‘:ith the

ultimate treatment

 deadline.

 Both

 the July and

the

Secteriber dates have cassedr

and

 no comolaints have

 ~.‘et

been filed

 for failure

to

 file

 a compliance orocram.

We urge

 the Agency to take such steps

 as may be aoprooriate

to assure that

 the regulations

 are obeyed.

The

 petitions

 for variance

 are hereby denied.

I, Christan Moffett, Clerk

of

 the Pollution Control Joard,

certify that the

Board

 adopted

 the above Opinion

 Order

this

 14th day

 of November,

 1972, by

 a vote of

6

—

239