ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September
8,
1983
CITY
OF CHICAGO,
Petitioner,
V.
)
PCT3 82—139
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by
13.
Anderson):
This matter comes before the Board on the petition for
variance the City of Chicago (City),
filed December
9,
1982,
as
amended April
5, July 22, and August 30,
1983.
The Board construes
the petition as seeking relief from the water quality standards
of 35 Ill. Mm.
Code Section 302.206, the 16—hour 6.0 mg/i
24
hour 5.0 mg/i dissolved oxygen standard;
Section 302.212, the
15 mg/i ammonia nitrogen and 0.04 mg/i un-ionized ammonia standards;
Section 304.120(c), the 10/12 mg/i BOD and TSS standards;
and
also the general effluent quality standard of Section 304.105,
as
it relates to the above—listed parameters.
The City seeks
variance to permit the draining and expansion of Lake O’Hare,
located in the south half of O’Hare International Airport, Cook
and DuPage Counties.
The Recommendation of the IEPA (Agency)
filed February 22, as amended May 11 and August
1,
1983 is that
variance be granted for no longer than one year,
subject to
conditions.
Hearing was waived, and none has been held.
This
matter is being given expedited consideration, pursuant: to the
City’s motion of July 22,
1983.
Lake O’Hare
is
a
98 acre stormwater collection and detention
basin collecting runoff from 1800 acres in the south half of
O’Hare Field
(Including the area of the Lake itself,
as well
as
all the area which could ultimately be developed and drained to
the Lake,
the Lake could serve to drain 2722 acres).
The Lake
currently has a capacity to hold 34.2 million cubic feet of
water.
Prior to 1976, discharge from the Lake was to Crystal Creek,
which
flows about 1.2 miles easterly from the Lake to the Des
Plaines River.
As a result of an enforcement action for
pollution of the Creek, ~ J2~_y~Cityof Chicago,
No.
70
CII
5357,
the City consented to divert most of the flows from the Lake to an
interceptor for treatment by the Metropolitan Sanitary District
54-19
2
of Greater Chicago (MSDGC).
Pursuant to the agreement, the
maximum rate of discharge to the MSDGC
is
10 cubic feet/second
when there is not high water in the Upper Des Plaines No.
5
interceptor
sewer.
That normal discharge from the Lake
is
estimated to be available about
50 percent of the time, and is
generally adequate to handle
the
full year’s discharge from the
Lake.
However, under some circumstances there are occasional
discharges to Crystal Creek through
a gate structure at the
Lake’s southeast corner,
Discharges into the Creek can occur
when the liquid
level
in the No,
5 interceptor is high,
and/or
when large volumes
of rain require rapid discharge of the Lake’s
accumulated stormwater to re—establish adequate holding capacity
to provide for drainage of
the runways.
The subject of this variance is the City’s plan to enlarge
Lake O’Hare,
and the resulting necessity to drain the Lake and to
send increased flows to Crystal Creek.
The City asserts that expansion of the Lake
is necessary to
solve various problems.
The MSDGC pumping restrictions have
resulted in
a significant increase
in the time to draw down the
lake level, effectively reducing its retention capacity.
This,
of course,
can cause drainage problems.
Another problem
is that, in the spring,
the Lake developes
objectionable odors caused by the runway deicers entering it in
the winter months
(which subject is more fully explored infra).
Finally, water fowl have been attracted to the Lake which have
caused a danger to the safety of aircraft operating on nearby
runways.
In addition, due
to
a
dry summer and low lake levels
one particular year,
inability to drain the lake caused develop-
ment of shallow stagnant pools which promoted the spread among
the waterfowl of a form of botulism.
To solve the retention capacity problem,
the City seeks
to
enlarge the size of the Lake by excavating 268,000 cubic yards of
material,
increasing
its capacity to 50.5 million cubic
feet.
The
shallow, stagnant pools problem would be solved in part by
recontouring the lake with about 125,000 cubic yards of this
material, and steepening the existing 15’ horizontal:1’ vertical
banks
to 4:1.
Odor problems,
as well as water
fowl attraction
problems would be addressed by recontouring the lake bottom,
so
that water is channeled to a
300’
X 175’
X
8’ sedimentation pond
at a new pump section,
to allow the lake to be pumped dry, or at
least kept as low as possible at all
times.
In order to accomplish the project, estimated to cost
$972,000, the City will need to dewater the Lake.
During the
approximately 65 day dewatering
and
construction operation the
City seeks permission to divert all
flows which it cannot lawfully
send to the MSDGC for treatment,
and to discharge partially
treated effluent into Crystal Creek.
During construction,
the
54-20
3
City would propose to treat
flows to be sent to Crystal Creek in
a proposed sedimentation basin,
and an
oil
separator.
Variance is needed
for such activity, because
the Lake’s
discharges
to the Creek already, and consistently,
1) exceed the
10/12 mg/i BOD and TSS limits,
2) cause an average 1.17 mg/i per
month DO decrease
in
the months
in which
such discharges occur,
and 3) are likely in violation of ammonia nitrogen standards.
The major cause of these problems are the aircraft and runway
deicing chemicals used in wintertime.
A yearly mean average of
348,500 gallons of runway deicers are used,
as are 6,800,000
pounds of aircraft deicers.
The primary constituents of these
compounds are ethylene glycol, high glycol,
and
urea.
In support of
its
petition,
the
City
asserts that denial of
variance to allow it to complete needed Lake expansion would
constitute
an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.
Alternatives
to achieve
full compliance with Board rules other than the
proposed expansion would require either cessation of airport
operations,
or installation of retention facilities sufficient
for the airport to operate on a zero discharge basis.
The first
is alleged to be economically unreasonable, and the second
technically infeasible given the “built—up” nature of the area
surrounding the airport.
In investigating this petition,
the Agency has been
commendably diligent in its “back and forth” efforts to elicit
additional, necessary information.
The Agency agrees with the
City’s assessment of hardship.
As to environmental harm,
it
believes that after improvement of the Lake compliance is “much
more assured than
it is now”.
The Agency believes temporary
environmental harm,
in
the nature of DO depletion, could well
occur to the Creek during the construction period.
The Agency
believes,
however, that such harm can be minimized by careful
timing of the project.
It suggests that the concern over adverse environmental
impact can be minimized as much as possible during the term of
the variance by the condition that draining and subsequent
construction dewatering be
scheduled to occur between October
1
through December 15,
1983 or between May
1 through September 1,
1984.
First,
this would allow draining to occur during a time of
improved water quality
in
the Creek.
Second, construction would
hopefully occur during
a period when deicing pollutants are not
being used, thus protecting the receiving waters
from the high
strength wastewater that could be discharged.
If construction
delays occur and Petitioner must wait until
May,
1984 to begin
draining Lake O’Hare, there most likely will be high levels of
pollutants being discharged during
the winter of 1983—1984 and
early spring of 1984 in the same manner as in the past and
reflected in the City’s DMR summary of past discharges.
However,
the Agency argues, this would be environmentally better than
attempting construction during the winter and early spring since
Lake O’Hare should provide some buffering and reduction in
54-21
4
pollutants prior to discharging.
The Agency suggests that the
City should not begin draining in 1983 if it appears draining and
construction dewatering could not be completed by December 15,
1983, because said buffering and reduction in pollutants would
not be available if the drainage and construction dewatering
occurred during the winter when the use of deicers would he at
its peak.
Other conditions suggested by the Agency include sampling,
monitoring, and reporting requirements.
The Agency notes that
the City’s “Operating Policy for Lake O’Hare”, to be followed
upon completion of the improvement plan,
seems sufficient at
least in the context of a variance proceeding.
On balance,
the Board
finds that denial of variance would
impose an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.
The Board believes
that any temporary environmental harm to Crystal Creek would be
outweighed by the benefit of solving the other specified environ-
mental problems.
Variance from 35
Iii. Adm, Code 302.206,
302.212,
304.120(c)
and 304.105
is granted for a one—year period,
subject
to the conditions outlined in the attached Order.
This Opinion constitutes
the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
1.
Petitioner, the City of Chicago is hereby granted
variance until September 8,
1984,
from 35 Ill. Mm.
Code,
Sections 302.206, 302.212, 304120(c) and 304.105
(as the latter
relates to the former sections) subject to the following conditions:
A.
The variance period shall commence with the initial
drainage and construction dewatering of Lake O’Hare done in
accordance with the plans of the Lake O’Hare Improvements
construction project as described in Petitioner’s Response
to Recommendation filed on April
11,
1983.
The variance
period shall cease on September 8,
1984 or when the construction
project is completed, whichever occurs
first,
B.
The City shall
attempt to begin draining Lake
O’Hare pursuant to said construction project no later than
October
1,
1983 and complete construction no later than
December 15,
1983;
but if draining cannot begin by October
15, draining shall then begin no sooner than May 1,
1984 and
construction shall
be completed by September
8,
1984.
C.
If draining pursuant to said construction project
cannot begin until after May
1,
1984, Petitioner shall,
from
the date deicers are first used after the variance is granted,
but in any case after December 21,
1983,
and until draining
begins pursuant to said construction project:
54-22
5
i)
discharge
as
much
wastewater
to
the
Metropolitan
Sanitary
District
of
Greater
Chicago
(MSDGC) as is possible;
ii)
only discharge to Crystal Creek when levels
meet the BOD
,
TSS and ammonia nitrogen limitations or
to prevent i&ninent flooding of airport buildings
that
would disrupt airport operations;
iii) continue to report to the Agency pursuant to
Petitioner’s NPDES permit;
iv)
submit to the Agency, Compliance Assurance
Section, copies of all reports Petitioner provides to
the
MSDGC
relevant to discharges from Lake O’Hare to
the
MSDGC.
D.
During construction pursuant to said construction
project, all flows to Crystal Creek shall receive treatment
in the proposed sedimentation basin and API oil separator.
E.
During draining pursuant to said construction
project, as much water as allowable will be discharged to
MSDGC.
F.
During draining pursuant to said construction
project, the City shall sample its discharge to Crystal
Creek three times per week for BOD, TSS, ammonia nitrogen,
and
oil
and
grease and submit the results to the Agency,
Compliance Assurance Section, within 10 days of the last day
of each month.
G.
During construction pursuant to said construction
project, the City shall sample each day a discharge occurs
to crystal Creek for the parameters listed in subparagraph
(F), above, and report in the same manner.
H.
Within ten days of the intended day of beginning
the draining Lake O’Hare, pursuant to said construction
project, the City shall sample Lake O’Hare for BOD, TSS,
and
anmionia nitrogen and immediately upon receiving the results,
forward
them
to the Agency, Compliance Assurance Section.
2.
Within fortrfive days of the date of this Order,
Petitioner shall execute and forward to Wayne L. Wiemerslage,
Enforcement Programs, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
2200 Churchill Road, Springfield, IL
62706, a Certificate of
Acceptance agreeing to be
bound
to all terms and conditions of
this variance.
This forty-five day
period
shall be held in
abeyance
for any period this matter is being appealed.
The form
of the certificate shall be as follows:
54-23
6
CERTIFICATE
I,
(We),
________—~
__________
,
having
read
the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board in PCB 82—139
dated
____________
____
____,
understand and accept the
said Order,
realizing that such acceptance renders all terms and
conditions thereto binding and enforceable.
Petitioner
By:
Authorized
Agent
Title
Date
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan
L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby cprtify that the above Opinion and Order
was adopted on,~.he
~
day of
~
1983
by a vote of
‘.~-~O
.
V
Christan
L.
Moff
t
Clerk
Illinois Pollution
ontrol Board
54-24