ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
May 22, 1975
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 74—213
SPINNEY RUN FARMS CORPORATION,
)
Respondent.
SPINNEY RUN FARMS CORPORATION,
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 74—347
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Dumelle):
Spinney Run Farms’ Motions for Stay and for Reconsideration
and Modification of our Order in PCB 74-347 is dismissed.
We
note that on May 13,
1975,
the day before the Motions were filed,
a Petition For Review of our Orders in PCB 74-213 and PCB 74—347
was filed with the Illinois Appellate Court, Second District,
Docket Number 75-185.
As this matter is now pending before the
Court, the Board is of the opinion it no longer has jurisdiction
to consider such Motions.
We are aware that when the Petitioner filed the appeal with
the Court and the Motions with the Board it was without the bene-
fit of our Opinion in PCB 74-347,
and our Opinion and Order in
the Enforcement Case, PCB 74-213,
both of which were issued May
8,
1975 but not released until May 22,
1975.
For this reason we
will explain why we would deny the Motions if it was determined
we still had jurisdiction.
Petitioner objects that the variance we granted on April
10,
1975
is for an insufficient period of time within which to
construct its pretreatment plant.
The variance extends through
September 22,
1975 while Petitioner asserts that fifteen months
17
—83
—2—
are needed for construction.
It is a frequent policy of the
Board to grant variances for shorter periods of time than are
necessary to complete a compliance program.
As we indicated
in our Opinion, at the conclusion of the variance period an
extension of a variance would be appropriate where Petitioner
can show a good faith effort to comply with its compliance pro-
gram.
In considering Petitioner’s contention that insufficient
time has been allotted, we cannot help but note that the pre-
treatment plant was originally to have been completed in 1973,
a fact upon which we granted our earlier variance
in PCB 72—185
and PCB 72-327.
The records shows that work on the plant was
never even begun.
Considering Petitioner’s past performance,
we are unwilling to grant the variance for the full period of
time necessary for construction without a showing that reasonable
progress has been made.
Since Petitioner indicated in the record a willingness and
intention to construct the pretreatment plant,
and since pretreat-
ment will be necessary for diversion to the Gurnee Treatment Plant
in accordance with NPDES requirements,
there should be no serious
objection now to construction of the plant.
Since a similar
willingness and intention was expressed in the earlier variance
case,
in which no bond was required, we now deem it appropriate to
require a bond to give Petitioner adequate financial incentive to
proceed with the pretreatment plant.
Petitioner also seeks clarification of the Order with regard
to the standards imposed for its effluent.
These standards apply
to the time period of the variance and are designed to insure
that Spinney Run Farms does not increase the load of BOD and sus-
pended solids in its effluent.
At such time as the pretreatment
plant
is completed, and if
a variance is still needed, and granted,
then these standards would be adjusted accordingly.
Petitioner’s Motion For a Rendering of a Concurrent Decision
on the Enforcement Proceeding is moot,
since the Opinion and Order
were issued.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, here~ycertify the above Opinion and prder were
adopted on the
~9LJ
day of May,
1975 by a vote of
~_Q
Christan L. Noffet
,fg4~erk
Illinois Pollution Cd~r?ro1Board
17 —84