ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May
23,
1972
METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT
OF GREATER CHICAGO
v.
)
#72—110
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Opinion of the Board
(by Mr.
Currie):
The District first filed
a petition seeking extension until
1974 of the then applicable date of July,
1972 for meeting effluent
standards for biochemical oxygen demand of
4 mg/l and
for sus-
pended solids of
5 mg/I.
The basis for
the request was that
the
East Chicago Heights sewage treatment plant, which provides
secondary treatment by
a trickling filter and has
a capacity of
about
3 million gallons per day,
was
to be phased out by
1974
and that with interim improvements
it would operate satisfactorily
enough
to make it unreasonable
to spend the substantial sums
required to meet the standard for the short remaining
life of
the plant.
A similar request we granted in
a case involving the
same petitioner’s Orland Park treatment plant,
#71—166
(Sept.
16,
1971).
However,
the adoption of our revised regulations
intervened, mooting the request by postponing the date
for the
strict effluent standard, and the petition was dismissed
(#72-24, April
4,
1972).
A new petition was thereupon filed,
asking extension until March,
1973
of the new July,
1972
standards of
20
and
25 mg/l for BOD and suspended
solids res-
pectively.
PCB Regs,
Ch.
3, Rule 404(b).
We grant
the request
until November 23,
1972, for reasons given below.
MSD alleges that its effluent now averages BOD
25, suspended
solids
23;
the Agency’s analysis of MSD’s operating reports
indicates
49 and
29.
In any case,
to improve this performance
(to an estimated
8 and 12 mg/i respectively,
exclusive
of algae)
and to provide additional capacity for expanded influent sources,
MSD plans to add ferric chloride
and polyelectrolytes
to im-
prove settling
and to construct an aerated lagoon.
Experience
with these chemical additions at the District’s Orland Park plant
is said to have increased overall suspended
solids and BOD
reductions from about
70 to about
90.
—
561
Construction permits for these and further improvements
were issued March
6,
1972, and the District stated that completidn
would take five months from the issuance of the permit.
The
Agency recosunends an extra month of grace, and
thus a compliance
date
of September
6,
1972.
MSD’s March 1973 request was based
on the assumptions
that the Board would
act in the petition by
the
end of June, that
90 more days would pass before
a permit
issued,
and
that construction could not start Liii
then.
The discrepancy between EPA~s and MSD~sassessments of the
required time
seems to turn on an interpretation of the permits
issued
in
March,
EPA
says
MSD should
have
gone ahead at once
with
construction.
MSD
says
the
permits
contemplated
construction
of
the
presently
planned
facilities
only
in
conjunction
with
tertiary
filters
that
both
parties
now
agree
need
not
be
built
because of the
changed
standards.
While
we have made clear
be-
fore
that
a
discharger
may
not
sit
idly
waiting
for
a
variance
decision
before
starting
to
work
on
facilities
that
are
required
whether
or
not
the
variance
is granted
(Richardson
Co~ v.
EPA,
#72—41
(May
3,
1972);
A.
E.
Staley
Co~
V.
EPA,
#71—174
(Sept.
30,
1971)),
here MSD seems to have
believed
it
could
not
proceed
without
a
further
permit
that
would
not
be
granted
without
a
variance.
The
doubt
has
now
been
removed
by
EPA’s
recommendation,
which
unequivocally
and
of
fically
states
that
MSD has
a permit for
the
interim
faci:Lities
and
may
construct
them without further
ado.
We think the most expenditious way
to improve the present discharge is to construe
the recommendation
as
a declaration that no further permit
is needed,
and to give
MSD the
six months
it needs for bids and construction
starting
from the date of this
order,
all obstacles to construction
having been
removed.
Until March
of this
year, MSD was confronted with regulations
requiring full tertiary treatment
at a plant
that was
to be phased
out in the near future~and occupied itself in devising
a program
to avoid unnecessary expense while providing interim improve—
merits.
The significance of the July,
1972 date
for meeting
a
20-25 standard became clear only upon
the adoption
of the
new
regulations,
We believe
the District applied itself
in good
faith and with diligence
to the solution of the problem con-
fronting it before March, and that
it is entitled
to
a few
additional months
to do what the new rules require.
We also note that the District states its intention to seek
a brief variance from the presently applicable December,
1973
date for
full tertiary treatment on the ground the plant will be
abandoned
in
May,
1974.
We construed
the petition
to make
such a
request
now;
the Agency says it
is not prepared
to respond
on
that issue and
that no
such
request has yet been made.
We
do not
see why this issue should be postponed,
since
the facts
4
562
are clear
and
the
decision
obvious.
To
spend
hundreds
of
thousands
of dollars
in order
to bring the plant into compliance for five
months
would
be
a waste of money, given the quality of effluent
it. will
produce
on
the
basis
of
the
interim
improvements
alone.
The District’s whole
plan
is
before
us,
including
the
construction
of an interceptor to
take
away the wastes now
reaching
the
plant.
As
we
said
before,
we construe the petition
as
incorporating
the
earlier
request
(see
#72-24)
for
a May,
1974 date
to
meet
BUD
4,
solids
5,
and
that
request
is
granted
subject
to annual renewal,
as
required
by
the
statute,
based
on
a
showing
of
satisfactory
progress
toward
phasing
out
the
plant.
Cf.
MSD
v.
EPA,
#71—166
(Sept.
16,
1971)
(Orland Park).
ORDER
A.
The
Metropolitan
Sanitary
District
(MSD)
is
hereby
granted
a
variance
with
respect
to
its
East
Chicago
Heights
sewage
treatment
plant,from
Rule
404(b)
of PCB
Regs.,
Ch.
3,
until
November
23,
l972,on
the
following
conditions:
1.
MSD
shall
so
operate
its
existing
facilities
as
to
achieve
as
good
an
effluent
as is
practicable;
2.
NSD
shall
with
all
expedition
undertake
the
program
of
interim
improvements
described
in its
petition;
3.
MSD
shall
within
35
days
after
receipt
of this order
post
with:•the
Agency
a
bond
in
the
amount
of
the
cost
of
interim
improvements
remaining
to
be
made
under
this
program;
to
assure
their
completion;
4,
MSD
shall
within
35 days after
receipt
of
this
order
file
with
the
Agency
a
detailed
critical
path
construction
schedule;
5.
MSD
shall
file
monthly
progress
reports
with
the
Agency,
the
first
to
be
filed
within
35
days
after
receipt
of
this
order.
B.
MSD
is further
granted
a
variance
until
May
23,
1973, from
requirements respecting the
4 and
5 mg/l standards of PCB
Regs.
Ch.
3,
Rule
404(f),
subject to extension
to
May,
1974
upon
application and proof of satisfactory progress, provided
the
following conditions are met:
1.
MSD shall
file
a timely project completion
schedule
for the program of plant abandonment and shall diligently
pursue that
program;
2.
MSD shall so operate
its facilities
as to achieve as
good an effluent
as
is practicable;
4
—
563
3.
Within
35
days
after
receipt of this
order
MSD
shall
post
a
bond
in
the
amount
of
the
cost
of
the
abandonment
program
not
yet
incurred,
to
assure
its
completion;
4.
MSD
shall
file
quarterly
reports
with
the
Agency,
the
first
to
be
filed
within
35
days
after
receipt
of
this
order.
I,
Christan
Moffett,
Clerk
of the
Pollution
Control
Board,
certif
that the Board adopted the above Opinion ths
~
day of
,
1972,
by
a
vote
of
—C
4
—
564