ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
April
17,
1980
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
and THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY
DISTRICT
OF GREATER CHICAGO,
Complainants,
v.
)
PCB 75—13
INTERLAKE,
INC.,
Respondent.
MR.
JOHN
BERNBOM,
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL,
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY;
MR. PHILIP ROTHENBERG, SENIOR ASSISTANT ATTORNEY, APPEARED ON
BEHALF
OF THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT
OF GREATER CHICAGO;
MR. JAMES T. HARRINGTON AND MS. DIXIE LEE LASWELL, ROOKS, PITTS,
FULLAGAR AND POUST, APPEARED ON BEHALF
OF RESPONDENT INTERLAKE,
INC.
OPINION OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Goodman):
This Opinion supports the Order herein entered on April
3,
1980.
This enforcement case was filed by the Illinois Environ-
mental Protection Agency
(Agency) and the Metropolitan Sanitary
District of Greater Chicago
(MSD)
on January
8,
1975,
alleging
that Interlake,
Inc.
(Interlake) was
in violation of Rule 703(a)
of the Illinois Pollution Control Board’s Rules and Regulations,
Chapter
3:
Water Pollution
(Regulations) and Section 12(a)
of
the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
(Act).
This action
involves effluent from Interlake’s blast furnace and coke oven
facility located
in Chicago,
Illinois,
which effluent is dis-
charged into the sewers
of the City of Chicago and thence into
a sewer owned by MSD.
On January
29,
1975,
Interlake filed an answer and filed
a counterclaim
for variance which the Board docketed as PCB
75-44.
On February
6,
1975 the Board ordered PCB 75-13 stayed
pending the conclusion of two relevant cyanide regulatory
proceedings,
R74—15 and R74—16.
On April
4,
1975,
proceedings
PCB 75—13 and PCB 75-44 were consolidated
upon Complainants’
motion.
On November 30,
1978,
upon adoption of the final Order
—2—
by the Board
in R74-15 and R74—16,
the Board vacated the stay
of February
6,
1975 and ordered hearing held within sixty
days.
Thereafter,
various hearings were held and on July 31,
1979 a
Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement was filed with the Board.
In its September 20,
1979 Interim Order,
the Board rejected the
proposed Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement,
severed PCB
75-13 and PCB 75-44,
and remanded both cases
for further action.
After additional hearing on March 19, 1980
a new Stipulation
and Proposal
for Settlement was filed.
On March 19,
1980, the
parties
filed
a joint motion for expedited consideration of the
enforcement case PCB 75-13.
The Board hereby grants the joint
motion.
This matter has been before the Board for more than five
years.
A good portion of that time elapsed during the Board-
ordered
stay.
This Opinion addresses only PCB 75—13 and does
not address the variance petition in PCB 75—44,
The subject matter of this enforcement action is a facility
owned and operated by Interlake
in Chicago,
Illinois, which con-
tains
a coke plant and a blast furnace operation, both of which
generate waste water containing cyanide.
The cyanide is dis-
charged to a sewer owned by the City of Chicago and then to a
sewer owned by MSD.
The Settlement
stipulates that the concen-
tration of total
cyanide
in the coke plant and blast furnace
waste water discharges has exceeded 0.25 mg/i since about
April,
1972 and continues
to the present time.
In addition,
since 1974 and to the present time the waste water discharge
from the coke plant has contained concentrations of total
cyanide
in excess of
10 mg/I and contained more than
2 mg/i
when tested at a pH of 4.5 mg/i at 150 degrees Fahrenheit
for thirty minutes.
These figures are the limitations adopted
by the Board on September
7,
1978 in amendments
to Rule
703(a)
pursuant
to the regulatory proceedings R74-15 and R74—16.
Interlake alleges that during the pendency of R74-15 and
R74-16 the company had installed various interim control de-
vices to
limit the amount of cyanide being discharged to the
Chicago and MSD sewers at a cost of
almost $500,000
(Settlement,
Ex. A),
Included among the alternatives investigated by Inter-
lake were ozonination,
and combined ammonia still and cyanide
reduction systems.
All were rejected for one reason or another,
including but not limited
to cost,
fear of creating potential
adverse chemical reactions.,
and lack of guarantees available
on proprietary systems.
After
a number
of conciliation conferences with ~1SD,
Interlake committed
to install
a system to achieve the levels
contained in MSD’s
sewage and waste control ordinance (Settle-
ment,
Ex.
C).
Subsequent to the adoption of R74—15 and R74—16,
Interlake was informed that MSD would not require Interlake to
achieve
a more stringent standard than contained in R74—i5 and
—3—
R74—i6.
MSD determined that tnterlake’s cyanide discharges
will not prevent MSD’s own Calumet District Treatment Plant
from meeting Rule 408(a)
during execution of
the proposed
compliance plan contained
in the Settlement.
The Settlement calls
for Interlake to pipe
the cyanide
waste from the coke plant to the blast furnace recycling
system
where
chemical
reactions
will
produce
stable
ferro—
ferric
cyanides.
These
cyanides
will
then
precipitate
and
be removed by
Interlake’s clarifiers.
It
is the opinion
of
all
parties
hereto
that
these
actions
will
meet
the
require-
ments
of
the
present
Board
limitations on cyanide discharges
to sewers,
although the process represents innovative tech-
nology and has not yet been proven in practice.
The proposed schedule for implementation of the system
is as follows:
COMMENCE FINAL DESIGN
July
1,
1979
ENGINEERING
(Commenced)
COMMENCE PROCUREMENT
Thirty days after
approval
by
the
Pollution
Control
Board
SUE~MTT
PERMIT ~\PP1JJCATIONS
May
1,
1980
TO ALL APPROPRIATE AGENCII~-~
COMMENCE CONSTRUCTION
August
1,
i980
COMPLETE INSTALLATION AND
December 15,
1980
ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE
The Settlement contains
a force majeure clause which
calls
for the Board
to resolve disagreements with respect
to implementation
of the system.
Compliance by the dates
scheduled depends upon final Board action herein prior to
April
17,
1980 and upon
the issuance of necessary permits
by July 31,
1980.
It
is agreed by the parties that
any
slippage
in the scheduled procurement and permit dates shall
cause an extension of
the schedule for a period equal
to the
delay.
In the case of construction
and installation, the
time shall
be extended by a period equal
to either the delay
or to the earliest date which would allow three consecutive
months of construction during the construction
season.
With regard to the penalty assessment,
the MSD and the
Agency are of the opinion that Interlake should have pursued
its variance proceeding,
notwithstanding the stay of this
enforcement case.
Interlake,
on the other hand,
feels that
no penalty
is appropriate since Interlake had
no reasonable
—4—
assurance until
after the final Orders
in
R74—15
and
R74—16
that
it
could construct
a system which would comply with the
regulations.
Interlake proposes to pay certain penalties without ad-
mitting
that
any
penalty
is
appropriate.
These
penalties
are
set
forth
in
Paragraph
16
of
the
Settlement
and
include
a
penalty
of
$14,500
for
the
violation
and
a
payment
of
$14,500
to
MSD
as
reimbursement
for
expenses
incurred.
Under
the
Settlement,
these
penalties
would
satisfy
any
liability
which
Interlake
might
have
to
either
the
State
of
Illinois
or
MSD
with
respect
to
the
discharge
of
cyanide
to
the
Chicago
and
MSD
sewers
up
to
and
including
the
date
of
the
Board
Order
(April
3,
1980).
The
Settlement
contains
paragraphs
concerning
reporting
requirements,
inadvertent
excursions
during
start—up
of
the
system,
effects
of
future
laws
and
regulations
on
the
com-
pliance
plan,
and a
stipulation by the Agency and MSD that
neither will cause any other enforcement action to be brought
or
initiated
for
Interlake’s
discharges
of
cyanide
to
the
Chicago and MSD sewers during the period covered by the Settle-
ment as long
as
Interlake
is in compliance with each and every
element of the Settlement.
The Board
finds that the Settlement presented to the Board
on March 19,
1980
is a reasonable resolution of the issues
and that it reasonably protects the environment by providing
a feasible compliance plan.
The Board therefore accepts the
Settlement and will order execution of its terms by the parties
herein.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and con-
clusions of law of the Board
in this matter.
Mrs. Anderson abstained.
I, Christan
L.
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board hereby certify that the above Opinion was
adopted on the
/~7~’
day of
_______________,
1980 by a
vote of
4-ô
Christan
L.
Mof~6~j,
Clerk
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board