ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

June

22,

19,8

VILLAGE OF SAUGET,

Petitioner,

V.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY,

Respondent

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr~ Dumelle):

This

matter is before

the Board on a petition filed May 20,

1977 by the Village

of

Sauget

(Sauget)

for a variance from

Rules

404(b) (i)

408,

409(a),

901 and 902(j) (5)

of Chapter

3

of the Regulations.

The Agencv~smotion to dismiss was granted

with respect to Rules

901

and

902(j)

(5)

on June

28,

1977.

An

amended recommendation

was

filed by the Agency July 19,

1977.

The parties have agreed

to a stipulation of facts filed

May 24,

1978.

The subject of

the

petition is the

pin::

al chemical waste

treatment facility

operated

by Petitioner

~:neMississippi

River since April,

1977.,

A

treatment

prcn~r~

consistIng of

solids removal, neutralization,

flocculation, clarification

and oil skimming is

applied to an average influent of 11.5 million

gallons/day from nine

industries and aeproximately 200 residen~

tial customers.

The

chemical

treatment plant is

a substantial

improvement over the

primary

treatment system utilized

between 1967 and 1977.

Nevertheless,

it is insufficient to

meet the effluent

standards

for BOD,

suspended solids,

oil and grease, phenols

and

mercury

in Chapter

3 of the

Regulations.

Consistent with

the

recommendation of the Southwestern

Illinois Metropolitan

Planning Commission

(SWIMPC),

Sauget is

preparing to construct a

regional

biological waste treatment

facility by 1983 which

will

meet all effluent standards except

the one for mercury.

In

October,

1977,

Petitioner submitted

a step II grant application

for such

a facility,

pursuant to an

30

—

479

---

intergovernmental

agreement negotiated with

East St. Louis,

Cahokia, the Cahokia Commonwealth

Public

Water District and

Metro East Sanitary District,

During the interim period,

Petitioner

seeks a variance from

the

effluent standards for

BOD

(Rule 404(b)

Ci),

suspended solids and oil

(Rule 408),

and phenols

and mercury

(Rule 409(a)).

The Agency recommends granting a

five

year variance for

oil while imposing

an

interim

standard of

58

mg/i,

a five-~year

variance for

phenols

with an interim

standard of

19 mg/l, and

a one year

variance

for mercury

with an

interim standard of

.005 mg/i.

With respect

to Rule

404(b)

Ci),

the

Agency

correctly points

out

that effluent standards therein apply

to Petitioner~sdischarge of suspended solids as well as BOD.

The recommendation

is

for denial

of a variance

for both of

these on

the grounds that

such a

variance

is precluded by

the Clean Water

Act

(CWA) and regulations thereunder which

set minimum

effluent standards,

The Agency states that Petitioner

must first receive an extension of the 1977 treatment deadline

under CWA section

301(1)

from U.S.

EPA.

The Board

agrees

with

the Agency

that

variance relief is

appropriate in

this

case for

oil,

phenols

and mercury.

Despite

the recently

commenced operation of a

physical chemical treatment

plant, Sauget

is

still

in violation of

the

effluent standards

for these pollutants.

Sauget

is currently engaged in plans for

construction of a

regional

biological treatment plant which

will meet all

effluent

standards except

those

for mercury.

The

mercury effluent standard is currently the subject of two pro~-

posed rule changes

(R76~l7and R76-2l)

and

the

major industrial

discharger of mercury

(Monsanto)

is engaged

in

a variance

proceeding

(PCB 75-318),

In light of these factors, compliance

at the present time would be arbitrary

and

unreasonable.

With regard to the requested variance for BOD and Suspended

Solids,

the Board notes that Section 35 of

the

Act requires

variances

to be

consistent

with the Clean Water Act

(CWA)

The Federal secondary treatment standard applicable to Sauget

CWA

Section 301(b) (1) (B)

is defined as an effluent limitation

of 30 mg/I for

BOD and

Suspended Solids

(40

C.F.R.

§133).

The

Board has previously held that CWA §510(1) (B)

prohibits enforce-

ment of standards less stringent than these.

See City of

Springfield v.

EPA,

PCB 77-185,

Applying the rule in City of

Springfield, Sauget would be required to obtain an extension of

the 1977 secondary treatment deadline from U.S. EPA pursuant

to CWA §301(i)

before

the Board could grant a variance.

Nevertheless, U.S. EPA has recently promulgated an interim

Final Rule which establishes criteria for incorporation of a

30

—

480

---

CWA

§301(i)

deadline

extension into the Illinois NPDES

permit

procedure

See

43

Fed

Pea

2l2il

C~

seq

(Ma1

16,

1978)

Under the new regulation

the Board can extend the

Federal

compliance deadline

to a petitioner who applies

for a

Sec.

301(i)

extension

by

incorporating

the

terms

and

condi-

tions of a variance

into a stateilssued NPDES permit.

In order

to qualify

for the variance

Ssuget

must make

a request to Illinois

EPA for the issuance

modification

of its NPDES permit

before June 26~1978,

and demonstrate

that it meets the

criteria in

40

C.F.’R.

§124.103.

The Board finds

that

Sauget has satisfaed the

criteria

established

in

40

C.F.R.

§124.103(b).

faucet las

pursued

Federal financial

assistance which will non be available in

time to complete

construction by the July

~,

1977

deadline

for secondary treatment.

Sauget has demonstrated its

good faith

by pursuing regionalization

and

has

not

contributed

in any

significant way to

the

delay

in

achinvinc

this

goal.

The

Board

will

direct

the

Agancv

to

is sue

an

NPDES

permit

to Petitioner consistent

with this Order and

40 C.F,R,

§124,104

pursuant to Rule 914

of

Chapter

3

and

to

Include

interim

effluent

limitations

as

may

reasonabi

be

achieved.

This opinion

constitutes

the

findinys

ilct

and

conclusions

of law of the Board in

this

matter.

It is the Order

of

the

Pollution

Control

Board

that:

1.

The Village of

Sauget

be

granted

a

variance

from

Rule

408(a) of Chapter

3

of

the

Boardhs

Maqulations,

pertain-

ing to mercury,

until

Ju~ly 1,

1979,

subject

to

the fol-

lowing conditions:

(a)

Sauget~s

mercury

effluent

discharge

shall

not

exceed

a

monthly

average

•of

0.005

mg/i.

(b)

Sauget

shall

conduct

an

inventory

on

discharge

of mercury

into its sewage system,

provide

data

on daily

discharges from each source and

describe

all current

efforts

to

control

such

discharges.

30

—

481

---

—4—

(c)

The

variance

for

mercury

shall

sooner

terminate

upon

modification

of

mercury

effluent

standards

resulting

from

final

action

by

the

Board in

R76—17

and

R76—2l.

2.

The

Village

of

Sauget

be

granted,

a

variance

from

Rules

408

and

409(a)

of

Chapter

3

of

the

Bosrd~s

Regulations

pertaining

to

oil

and

phenols,

until

C

sly 1, 1983, under

the

following

conditions:

(a)

Sauget!s

oil

effluent

discharge

shall

not

exceed

a

monthly

average

of

58

mg/i.

(b)

Saugetil

phenol

effluent

discharge

shall

not

exceed

a

monthly

average

of

19

mcj/1.

(c)

The

variance

for

phenols

shall

sooner

terminate

upon

Promulgation

of

appropriate

Federal

BAT

standards

for

phenols

under

the

Clean

Water

Act

of

1977.

Cd)

Sauget

shall

proceed

exueditiously

with

construc-

tion

of

a

regional

biological

waste

treatment

plant.

(e)

The

variance

for

oil

and

phenols’

shall

sooner

terminate

upon

diversion

of

Sauget’s

wastewater

flow

to

a

regional

biological

treat.ment

plant.

3.

The

Village of Sauget be granted a variance

from

Rule

404(b)

Ci)

of Chapter

3 of the Board~sRegulations pertaining to

BOD

and Suspended Solids until July

1, 1983 subject

to the

following conditions:

(a)

Sauget~s

POD

effluent

discharge

shall

not exceed

a

monthly

average

of

332

mg/I.

(b)

Saugetil

Total

Suspended

Solids

effluent

discharge

shall

not

exceed

a

monthly

average

of

120 mg/l.

(c)

Sauget

shall

proceed

expeditiously

with

construction

of

a

regional

biological

waste

treatment

plant,

following

the

timetable

in

the

Stipulation

of Facts

p.

23

which

is

incorporated

by reference as if fully

set

out

herein.

30

—

482

---

Cd)

Petitioner

shall

refuest

sic

Igency

before

June

26,

1978,

to

issue

or

r

1I~~DES

permit

to

incorp-

orate

all

condition

of

I.

variance

sec

forth

herein,

including

but

not

:iran

.

(1)

Compliance

w~ti

f

a

ian

~‘tabic

referred

to

in

Condition

F).

(2)

Compliance

with

2~’

~b) thiough

(g)

of

the

C.W.A. conans cia “can

he terms of

Saugetts

construction

a

an reports

indicating

m’

a

sure

maximum

operation

‘an

treatment

facilities

(4)

Compliance

vil~h

regulations

p~o

Section

307(b

no

such

regis

c”

compliance In

in

40

C,F.R.

a

4.

The Agency,

pursuant

o

or modify Sauget~s

NPDE~ pa

tons set forth in

Ithis

0’-

c

requirements and

such

in~e’~

Ti

reasonably be

achieved.

precreatment

“n

tent

to

C,W,A,

Pt.

403,

or if

mcii ororaulgated,

~ lanes

regulations

In

~P’apter

3,

shall

issue

~

ut with the

condi—

r

.npropriate

monitoring

r’itations as

may

5.

Within 45 days

after

tue

(

£

this

Order,

the

Petitioner

shall

submit

to

e

/

c,

Variance

Section,

Division of Water

Pol1utio~

r

~,

~~anois

Environmental

Protection

Agency.

22(0

~C~’j.j

~

Springfield,

Illinois

62706

an

executed

Cert

Inci

o

t ~wccotance

and

Agreement

to

be

bound

to

all

term

rant

“oian-~aLors

of

the

variance.

The

forty~-five

day

period In

in

mmii

ha suspended

in

the event

of judicial review

of

thin

~

n

a’

oirsuar.t

to

Section 41 of

the Environmental

ProLec

van

fan.

Th’

form

of

said

certifi—

cation shall

be

as

foil

I (We),

___

having

read

the

Order

of~E~TP~5Tlut

ion Rb~t 1/’ lJ3oardinPCB77—l

36,

understand

and

accept

sa

d

Green,

reclizing

that such

acceptance

renders

aL.

terms

av

.

cmd~tions thereto

binding

and

enforceable,

(3)

Issuance

of

qu

the

measurec u

ci’

I

and

maintena..

f an

for

the

dur

a’

---

SIGNED

TITLE

DATE

I, Christan

L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois

Pollution

Control Board,

hereby ce~tify

the above

Opinion

and Order

a vote of

____

were adopt~~

te±~

day ~

C&anL.Moffe~lerk

Illinois Pollutio

ontrol

—