ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February
26, 1976
METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF
)
GREATER CHICAGO,
a municipal
)
Corporation,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB
75—338
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY,
Respondent.
-
and
-
FULTON COUNTY CITIZENS FOR
)
BETTER HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT,
)
a not-for—profit Corporation,
Intervenor.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Goodman):
This matter comes before the Pollution Control Board
(Board)
upon the August
27,
1975, Permit Appeal of the Metropolitan Sani-
tary District of Greater Chicago
(MSD).
On September
29,
1975,
Fulton County Citizens for Better Health and Environment
(Citizens)
was permitted to intervene.
Fourteen days of hearings were held
in
Fulton County.
On August 14,
1975,
the Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
issued three permits to MSD.
Permit number 1975-SA-753-COP—l
was issued to allow sludge and supernatant application to the former
Gale and Henderson Farms.
Permit number 1975-SA-754-COP-1 was
issued to allow reclamation sludge incorporation on the United
Electric Property.
Permit number 1975-SA--755-COP-l was issued to
allow construction of a sludge distribution system for the United
Electric, Gale and Henderson Properties.
All of the property
is
located within Fulton County,
Illinois.
Permits 753 and 754 contain
special conditions
to which MSD objects.
In permit
753, MSD objects
to special conditions
2,
7 and 11.
MSD objects to special condition
11
in permit 754 which
is identical
to special condition 11 in permit
753.
The subject conditions
state:
SPECIAL CONDITION #2:
The application rate of
sludge and
supernatant shall not exceed a rate necessary to apply
a
20—167
—2—
maximum
of 120 pounds of available nitrogen per acre during
the duration of this permit.
This may involve a combination
of sludge and supernatant; however,
if considered separately,
application should be limited to 30,000 gallons of sludge at
4.1 percent solids or 117,000 gallons of supernatant at 0.1
percent solids.
The permittee shall submit schematic piping diagrams and equip-
ment specifications for any specialized supernatant pumping
equipment prior to construction of said equipment.
SPECIAL CONDITION
#7:
The permittee shall manage the cropping
of the hay
in such a manner that three crops or more are
harvested during the one year of operation.
SPECIAL CONDITION #11:
The quantity of sludge/supernatant
in the storage basins
shall not exceed 4.80 million wet tons
by the expiration date of this permit.
The permittee shall
report monthly to the Agency the total quantity of sludge/
supernatant in storage at the site.
SPECIAL CONDITION *11
The Board will consider special condition #11 first.
This
condition limits the amount of sludge/supernatant which MSD may retaii~
in its storage basins.
These basins are located on property contigu-
ous to the properties which are the subject of the permit.
Although
there was some confusion on the part of the Agency’s witnesses,
the
purpose of the condition was twofold:
1)
to control potential odor
and
2)
to insure that MSD realized that the issuance of these per-
mits did not constitute
a permit to ship or store sludge.
(R 159,
179,
182,
383.4,
576,
1402—3,
1453,
1510,
1953—4,
1967,
2070,
2236,
and 2253).
The assumptions that formed the basis for special condi-
tion 11 were:
1)
No more sludge would
be brought from Chicago;
2)
No unpermitted activities would occur;
3)
No supernatant would be returned to Chicago;
4)
No sludge would be applied to stages 1-7 and 9; and
5)
The capabilities of MSD to apply sludge were the same
as reported by MSD
(R 204,
264).
20—168
—3
Based upon the above assumptions, the Agency arrived at the
numerical figure in
#11 by reducing the volume of sludge in the
basins by the amount to be applied
(R 276).
Jim Frank, Agency Agri-
culture Advisor, testified that the application rate and method
approved by the Agency would result in a small amount of odor but
would not present an unreasonable interference with the enjoyment of
life or property
(R.
524).
It is the Opinion of the Board that the Agency’s imposition of
special condition #11
is unreasonable when reviewed within the scope
of the instant permits.
The Agency feels that this condition does not
limit the shipment of sludge to Fulton County in and of itself
(R 1354).
However, the Agency admits
it has no knowledge of any method by which
MSD could take sludge straight from the barges
to the Gale and United
Electric Properties
(R 2603).
It would seem that if MSD could not
add any sludge to the basins, then
it is effectively forestalled from
shipping sludge to Fulton County as there is no means
to use any
sludge so shipped.
The Board takes notice of the fact that MSD’s
Comprehensive Permit is currently under appeal and that there is
currently an enforcement action concerning odor violations pending
before the Board.
Special condition #11 prejudges these actions.
If
MSD were to prevail in both of those actions,
it would still be unable
to ship more sludge to Fulton County due to special condition
#11.
When this is considered together with the fact that the basins are
not located on any of the property
to which permits 753,
754 and 755
apply, the Board must conclude that this condition is unreasonable
and more properly belongs
in the Comprehensive Permit.
It would seem
that special condition #10 in permit 754
(which states:
SPECIAL CONDITION #10:
This permit shall not be construed or
interpreted as permitting or condoning the shipment
to or
storage of sludge or supernatant
in Fulton County by MSDGC
except as permitted by the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency.)
would be sufficient to fulfill the Agency’s purpose of informing
MSD
that these permits do not constitute permits
to ship or store sludge.
As far as the odor potential from the new application of sludge
to
these properties,
the Agency’s expert states that this would not re-
sult
in a 9(A)
violation if applied in the quantity and methods
approved
(R
524).
Therefore,
the Board will strike special condition
#11
from permits 753 and 754.
20
169
—4—
SPECIAL CONDITION
#2
MSD objects to the 120 pound/acre of available nitrogen limi-
tation found in special condition #2.
This limitation is the equivi-
lent to approximately four inches of sludge per acre per year.
MSD
suggests that 20 dry tons or 12 inches per acre per year is the
reasonable agronomic loading rate.
This
is four times the amount
found by the Agency to be reasonable
(R 459-60,
462).
Jim Frank
calculated that the agronomic loading rate for alfalfa and smooth
brome grass would be 120 lb. of available nitrogen per acre per year.
He took into consideration three environmental factors:
(1)
ground
water pollution from nitrates;
(2)
surface water pollution from
polluted rain water or snow melt;
(3) odor potential
(R 2294—5).
Frank interprets agronomic rate as the amount of nutrient or
nitrogen that must be applied to grow a good crop on the soil from
a nitrogen need stand point.
This would include natural nitrogen
loss such as volatilization, leaching and surface run-off.
Presuming
that MSD would be maintaining a smooth brome alfalfa mixture, the
Agency determined that
33 lbs of available nitrogen was needed per
ton of hay.
According to the United States Department of Agriculture
and Illinois Department of Agriculture Statistical Reporting Service
and Annual Summary,
the hay yield per acre in Fulton County was 2.3
tons
in 1974 and 2.82 tons
in 1973.
Therefore, Frank settled on a
3
ton per acre figure.
This was multiplied by the 33 pounds per ton
and results
in a 99 lb/acre application rate.
This was increased to
120
lb.
(2296-8).
These permits deleted the requirement that MSD
erect dikes and berms on the Gale and United Electric properties, whi~
will save MSD approximately $5,000,000
(1k 1430).
However, without
berms and dikes,
as you increase application above agronoznic rates, you
increase the likelihood of water pollution from the unretained run—off
(1k
518)
MSD
rebuts these calculations through Dr. Lue-Hing’s letter to
the Agency
(Agency Ex.
3) which presumes a
6 ton per acre yield.
The
loading rate suggested by Dr. Lue—Hing is based upon a reclama-
tion program which would eventually build up the organic matter
in
the soil to 3-5
(H 709-10).
The studies on which MSD’s suggested
loading rates are based were not designed to determine an agronomic
nitrate rate for cultivation of smooth brome on the Gale property
but rather to determine the maximum amount of nitrate you can apply
to a given soil type without nitrate contamination of ground water.
The MSD assumes that the Gale property has not received any general
fertilizer and that there is
45 feet of soil material containing
clay available to fix the aniznonium ion to prevent leachate.
The
Agency contends that
amirtoniuin ion will probably not penetrate more
than six inches
(H 2303-6).
MSD does not rebut, with direct testimony,
the Agency’s basis for the 120
lb.
limitation.
The Board finds this
limitation to be reasonable and in the best environmental interest.
Indeed, considering that alfalfa fixes its own nitrogen, the rate
is generous.
Therefore special condition #2 will be affirmed.
20— 170
—5—
SPECIAL CONDITION #7
MSD objects to the requirement in special condition #7 which
mandates a minimum of three cuttings per year.
According to Jim
Frank,
special condition #7 was in part due to his observation that
MSD employees had not known that the crop was past maturity
(R 457).
He settled on three cuttings because that was a normal or minimal
number for a smooth brome crop in any given year with normal precipi-
tation and normal management
(H 518).
MSD explained that its failure
to cut the crop was due to its uncertainty as to whether it would be
clearing, stripping and destroying the existing surface and rebuilding
and recontouring it
(R.
1223).
Special condition #7
is supported by
environmental factors,
also.
The Agency states that when a yield of
hay is not removed and more sludge is applied to it, both the alfalfa
and the sludge are contributing nitrogen to the
soil.
This can
develop into a nitrogen sink where the nitrogen has no place to go
other than surface run-off which will eventually reach the aquifer
especially here,
where the berm and dike requirements have been de-
leted
(H 1430,
2310—11).
In addition, nitrates formed may also enter
the aquifer.
Special condition #7 assumes that the hay will be har-
vested so as to produce a maximum yield, which
is the basis
for load-
ing rate
in special condition
#2
(R 2311).
If the hay is cut less
than three times, it may be unpalatable and therefore unusable for
cattle
(H 2312).
As MSD sells its crops,
this would result in a loss
of income to it
(H 1185,
1467).
In addition, MSD assumed that it would
cut the crop three times per year (District Ex.
7,
R.
519).
Special
conditions
#2 and #7 are interineshed both economically and environment-
ally.
Having found special condition #2 to be reasonable, the Board
also finds the three cutting requirement to be reasonable.
The Board
will affirm special condition #7.
The Board notes that these permits are of one year duration.
MSD will have the opportunity to supply the Agency with additional
information which may modify special conditions
*2 and *7 in future
permits.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that Special
Condition #11
in permits l975—SA-753—COP--1 and l975-SA-754-COP-l
be and
is,
hereby, stricken from said permits.
Special Conditions
#2 and #7 in permit l975—SA-753—COP—l are affirmed.
IT IS
SO ORDERED.
Mr.
Young abstains.
20— 171
—6—
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hçreby certify. the above Opinion and Order were adopted on
the
~~i~’7
day of
,
1976 by a vote of ‘I_p
Christan L. Moffe.~
Clerk
Illinois Pollution
ontrol Board
20—172