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