ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July 31, 1986
VILLAGE OF SAUGET,
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 86—58
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
)
AGENCY,
Respondent.
MONSANTO COMPANY,
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 86—63
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
(Consolidated)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J. Anderson):
On July 11, 1986,
Sauget
filed
a motion
to stay enforcement
of contested conditions of the new NPDES permit for the American
Bottoms Regional Treatment Facility
(AB plant).
No responses
thereto have been filed.
Sauget petitions for entry
of
a stay order,
in part,
because
of its receipt of a letter from USEPA on June 16 concerning this
permit,
as well
as
the reissued permit for its existing
physical/chemical plant
(P/C plant) which
is the subject
of the
PCB 86—57 appeal.
This letter states in pertinent part that
USEPA ~considers these permits
to be
in full force and effect
regardless of the status
of the appeals before
the IPCB”,
and
specifically mentions interest in ensuring that two special
conditions of this new permit are
“complied with on
time”.
The conditions for which stay is sought,
are enumerated and
characterized by Sauget at pages 2—5 of its motion,
as follows:
“a)
the effluent limitations
for cadmium, chromium and an
effluent limitation on mercury which does not reflect
a
previously granted site—specific rule
(AB Permit at p.
2);
71-412
—2—
b)
the inter—plant effluent limitations
for discharges
from
the P/C plant to the AS plant
(AB Permit at p.
3);
c)
the requirements for
a biomonitoring program and
a
provision allowing the NPDES permit
for the AB plant
to be
reopened upon completion of that program (AS Permit, Special
Conditions
17 and 18 at pp. 14—15);
d)
the provision requiring the development
of
a
pretreatment program encompassing the entire service area of
the
AB plant
and which will account for the interrelationships
between the NPDES permits for the P/C and AS plants
(AS Permit,
Special Condition 13 at
p.
12);
e)
the effluent
limitation based upon toxicity
(AB Permit,
Special Condition 16 at p.
14);
f)
the requirement that
the actual mixing patterns
of the
discharge from the AB plant with the Mississippi River
be
documented
(AB Permit, Special Condition 19 at
p.
15);
g)
the requirements that Sauget identify a list of
materials far beyond
those listed
as priority pollutants;
test
for materials for which
there are no accepted protocols;
and
identify any chemical believed to have
a potential
for pass—
through
or interference
(AB Permit, Special Condition 20
at
pp.
15—19);
h)
conditions which allow IEPA to reopen
the permit for
virtually any reason
(AB Permit,
Special Conditions
14,
15, 16,
18 and
20 at
pp.
14—19);
i)
the duplicative requirement
that Sauget continuously
monitor TOC
in the
(sic)
discharge
(AS Permit at p.
2);
j)
a provision requiring the duplicative and unnecessary
submission of data
to both IEPA and the United States
Environmental Protection Agency
(AB Permit, Special Condition
3
at pp. 5—6);
k)
the insertion
of erroneous and unattainable compliance
schedule dates,
including the dates for attaining operational
levels
(April
30, 1986),
for completing diversion of all flows to
the AB plant (July 20, 1986) and for attaining full operational
level
(January 20, 1987)
(AB Permit, Special Condition
8 at p.
9);
1
1)
the inclusion
of
a retroactive provision requiring the
submission
to IEPA and U.S.EPA of twice yearly construction grant
progress reports for the period going back
in time to
the
commencement of construction of
the AS plant and continuing until
its completion
CAB Permit,
Special Condition
8 at
p.
9); and
71-413
—3—
m)
a condition prohibiting
the discharge of unspecified
“additional pollutants”
if their discharge would violate any
applicable federal
or state water quality standards,
effluent
guidelines or other
limitation unless
a limit for that pollutant
is specifically set forth in the permit
CAB Permit, Special
Condition 10 at p. 10).”
In support of
its motion, Sauget asserts that the grant of
a
stay will have minimal environmental impact,
if any,
because
a)
the AB plant
is not now,
and will not be,
fully operational until
March,
1987 and
b) the flows from the P/C plant have not been
diverted
to the AB plant as
it
is not yet ready to receive and
treat
these flows.
Sauget asserts that as decision, pursuant
to
waiver,
is due January 21, 1987,
that
a Board decision will have
been reached before the plant
is operational and before certain
monitoring requirements and effluent limitations become
necessary.
As balanced against this asserted minimal harm, Sauget
alleges that the impact of denial
of stay would be significant.
As to some conditions whose compliance deadlines occur this
summer, Sauget argues that denial
of stay could effectively deny
it an opportunity to have
its position heard and adjudicated by
the Board.
As
to the testing, monitoring and reporting
requirements, Sauget asserts that many are beyond
the Agency’s
authority to impose,
and that compliance costs will be
substantial.
Given Sauget’s assertions,
and
the lack of response by the
Agency,
the Board will
grant Sauget’s motion.
The contested
conditions,
as outlined above, are stayed through January 21,
1987.
IT
IS
SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy
M.
Gunn, Clerk
of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Order was adopted on
the
.5/’~
day of
__________________,
1986 by
a vote
of 5~’
F7
Dorothy M.
Gun’n,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
71-414