ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December 21,
1971
The Village of Sauget
)
v.
)
PCB 71—287
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Harold G. Baker, Jr.,
appeared for the Petitioner
~r. Delbert D.
Haschemeier, appeared for the Environmental Protection
Agency
Opinion of the Board
(by Mr. Dumelle)
On September 27, l~7lthe Village of Sauget
(Sauget)
filed
etition for variance seeking an extension of the established
deadline by which Sauget must have secondary treatment facilities
fully constructed and operating.
In its petition Sauget sought
until December 31,
1975 to commence secondary treatment of its
effluent or in the alternative the village asked for a one year
extension of time
to and including December 31, 1974 before it must
commence secondary treatment of its effluent.
We grant a variance for one year, until December 15,
1972,
subject
to conditions outlined in this opinion and specified in the Board~s
Order.
Sauget is an incorporated village in St. Clair County located
on the east bank of the Mississippi River across from St. Louis.
About two hundred forty persons reside in the village.
Additionally
the village
is the location of several large and small industrial
plants, warehouses and transportation facilities
(R.8-9).
Until the rule was changed by this Board in l971the applicable
regulation required Sauget to install secondary treatment facilities
by December of 1982.
SWB—13,
the presently effective regulation, was
amended by an adoption by the Board on January
6,
1971
(R70-3)
to
the effect that the various deadline dates for the commencement of
secondary treatment were moved up to December 31,
1973.
The effluent from the Sauget treatment plant is discharged
directly into the Mississippi River after passing through primary
treatment facilities.
The primary treatment plant began operation
in 1965 and was and continues to be operated by
a not—for-profit
3
—
289
corporation, The Village
of
Sauget Sanitary Development Association
(hereafter Association)
(R.10).
The primary treatment consists of
sedimentation
for removal of solids
and
skimming
for
floating
matter.
The removed materials are pumped into four sludge lagoons
for drying
and landfill.
In the spring of 1970 the Association started looking into
constructing secondary treatment facilities because
it concluded
at
that time that it would require
a minimum of
five years
to
design, put out for bids and have
the necessary plant constructed
(R.36).
The Association undertook a search
for an engineering
firm to develop the secondary treatment and ended by selecting
Monsanto Biodize Systems on June
30,
1970
(R.ll-l3,
Pet.
Ex.
2).
Up to this time the consultant has performed its contract on time
and has submitted regular reports on progress to date
(R.l8).
At present the plant influent is at the rate of 14 MGD.
One
of the manufacturing facilities usually served by the treatment
plant is presently not in operation, when it comes on line the
influent will be at the rate of
20 MGD
(R.83)
The influent to the treatment plant usually averages about
20 MGD
and is usually comprised of effluent from the Village of
Sauget,
Sterling Steel Casting Company, Rogers Cartage Company,
Monsanto Company, Mobil Oil Company, Cerro Cooper and Brass,
Midwest Rubber Company, Edwin Cooper,
Inc.
and American
Zinc Company.
At this
time both the plant influent and effluent are characterized
by
a high COD, BOD,
and suspended solids content and an extremely
acidic pH level.
Representative plant effluent concentrations were
shown
in the petition as
500 mg/i COD,
76 mg/l BOD,
50 mg/i suspended
solids and
a pH of 35.
Because of the character and strength of the wastes treated
the secondary facilities will not be
of the conventional biological
type
(R.84—85,
87).
The completed plant will resemble more what is
usually referred to as tertiary or advanced treatment.
A conventional
secondary treatment plant would be incapable of achieving the reqired
treatment
so
a treatment protess involving primary settling,
skimming, pH adjustment with lime, precipitation of heavy metals,
and activated carbon adsorption
is being planned.
Since
the summer of 1970 in—plant effluent controls have been
established at some of the industries
(R.86).
Cerro Corporation
is installing solids removal treatment for the effluent from their
scrubbers.
Monsanto is removing
some of their organic contaminants
and their mercury discharges.
Other in—plant programs are being
evaluated
(R.90—9l).
In each variance case which comes before
us we must weigh
the asserted arbitrary or unreasonable hardship on the petitioner
against the
harm to the environment should the variance be granted.
3
29~)
In most cases it
is
a delicate balance.
Here we must consider
whether
the harm done to the Mississippi River by delaying
the
installation
of
secondary
treatment
by
one
year
will
out
balance
the hardship which
the several affected industries
(and the village)
would suffer if the request were denied.
We find that the harm
done to the River is not of such magnitude to prevent our granting
the requested variance.
However, we must note that the analytical
results of at least five parameters
is disquieting.
The
five para-
meters—phenol,
cyanide,
oil,
copper,
and manganese—did not meet
the proposed stream standards
(R 71-14)
at
a distance of at least
600 feet beyond the point of discharge
(R.134).
The Environmental Protection Act states that any variance
granted under the Act is limited to one year and then may be extendeci
only if satisfactory progress has been shown.
We grant this variance
to terminate on December 15,
1972.
If the petitioner will need
a
further exemption from prosecution beyond that time,
it should take
the precaution of filing
a further petition some 90 days before the
date of termination of the instant grant,
at which time renewal
of
the grant will be considered.
The statute explicitly authorizes the Board
to impose such
conditions
as the policies of this Act may require when granting
a
variance
(Sec.
36(a)).
Several conditions are required here to
further the purposes of
the statute.
First, we shall require
Sauget to submit quarterly progress reports.
Periodic progress
reports are necessary
as
a means of checking compliance with
program schedules.
The reports should detail progress
to date and
fully document and explain significant deviations from the program
as planned.
The first report shall cover the period from the
present through March
31,
1972.
Sauget should submit such reports
to the Environmental Protection Agency and
the Board
a reasonable
time after the expiration of the calendar quarter but in no case
shall
this period extend beyond three weeks.
We do not wish
to
be in the position a year from now of discovering for the first
time that there have been further delays.
Sauget could prepare its
third quarterly report to both report progress to date and to
petition the Board
for another year’s renewal of the instant variance
We shall further condition the grant on two interim deadlines.
Sauget’s program aims toward ultimate compliance by
the end of 1974;
in order to give us intermediate check—points against which to measur
progress, we shall require that the bidding process for final
engineering design be complete by April
30,
1972,
and that final
engineering design be completed by November 15,
1972.
The scheme of the presently effective regulation contemplates
completion of facilities by December 1973,
a twelve month construc-
tion period
(a requirement that construction commence by December
1972)
and a six month earlier period for submission of complete
engineering plans
(a requirement that plans be submitted by
July 1972).
Twelve months
is usually sufficient time
for the
3
—
291
construction of
a conventional treatment plant.
The duration
scheduled for construction
in this case
is
18 months.
The record
makes
it abundantly clear
that this
is no ordinary secondary treat-
ment plant and
that the elongated construction period is necessary
(R.l06-1l0).
Usually two years
lead time would be more than
sufficient to install
and have adequate facilities operating.
This two-year policy for installation of industrial waste control
facilities is reflected
in virtually all of the regulations adopted
by our predecessor Sanitary Water
Board.
In this case we are in
effect condoning
a three year program.
We are doing so because
six or eight major industrial dischargers are being accommodated
by
the planned facilities.
Although
each industrial user will be
pretreating their waste the combined influent will still be of
a
peculiar character requiring special, non-conventional treatment.
As
a further condition, we will require that a bond he posted
in this case to assure that satisfactory progress
is made and that the
interim dates set as conditions to this variance grant are met.
We
will require
a security in the amount of $100,000
to be forfeited
pro rata ($50,000 for each)
if the interim deadlines of
(1)
April
30,
1972, by which time the bidding process for final engineering design
is
to be complete
and
(2)
November
15,
1972 by which
time final
engineering design
is to be complete, are not met.
The purpose
of the bond requirement is to provide an additional incentive
to
the variance holder to meet its deadlines,
by imposing
the threat
of forfeiture
if it does
not.
This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions
of law.
3
—
292
ORDER
The Board, having considered the transcript and exhibits in
this proceeding hereby grants
a variance to the Village of Sauget
(Sauget)
until December
15,
1972,
subject
to extension
to December
31,
1974 upon timely application therefor,
from the regulations
in SWB-13
and amendments thereto relating to the construction of secondary
treatment facilities on condition that Sauget continues its progress
on
its program planned for completion by December
31, 1974 and
subject to
the further conditions that~
1.
Sauget meet the following schedule deadlines:
(a)
April
30,
1972
—
complete bidding process for
engin—ering design;
and
(b)
November 15,
1972
-
complete
final engineering design.
2.
Sauget submit to the Environmental Protection Agency and
the Board quarterly reports on the progress of its program.
The first report shall cover the period from the present
through March 31,
1972, with each subsequent report covering
the calendar quarter.
The reports shall be submitted a
reasonable
time, not to exceed three weeks
after
the end of
the quarter.
3.
Sauget post with the Environmental Protection Agency, on
or before January 15,
1972 and in such form as the Agency
may
find satisfactory,
a bond or other adequate security in
the amount of $100,000, which sum shall be forfeited
(pro
rata,
$50,000 each)
to the State of Illinois in the event that
the interim deadlines of April
30,
and November
5,
1972
are
not met.
4.
During
the period that this variance is
in effect Sauget
shall not increase the pollutional nature of its discharges
either in strength or in volume.
5.
Failure
to adhere to any of
the conditions of this variance
shall be grounds for revocation of this variance.
I,
Christan Noffett, Acting Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify that the Board adopted the above
Opinion and Order on the
2lstday of December,
1971
by
a vote of 4-0.
ristan Moffett, c~
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Q~ro1 Board
3
293