ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
September
30,
1971
THE VILLAGE OF WARREN
V.
)
PCB 71—177
Environmental Protection Agency
)
Mr.
F.
Stanley Rodkey, Village Attorney, appeared for the petitioner
Mr.
Frederick
C. Prillaman,
appeared for the respondent
Mr.
James W. Richardson,
appeared for Mr.
and Mrs. John H.
Balbach
Opinion of
the Board
(by Mr. Dumelle)
The Village of Warren
(Warren)
filed a petition for variance
on July
7,
1971 and sought
to be exempt from the operation of cer-
tain sections of Rules and Regulations SWB-14,
Water Quality
Standards,
Intrastate Waters
(hereinafter SWB—14).
Specifically the
Village sought to be relieved of complying with requirements in
SWB-l4 relating to tertiary treatment and BOD
and suspended solids
levels in its plant effluent.
The Village with
a population of
1500 operates
a sewage treatment plant whose effluent flows into
Wolf Creek in
Jo
Daviess County
(R.15).
At present
the plant
provides secondary treatment.
It requested that the deadline
for tertiary treatment of July
1,
1972 be extended
for an inde-
finite period until needed land could be acquired through condem-
nation proceedings
and the required
treatment plant additions
could be built.
The parties owning the land on which the Village
sought to expand were present and represented by counsel at the
hearing in this matter held on September
7,
1971.
It is the
cbcision of the Board that petitioner be granted
a
variance from the operation of
the requirements of SWB—l4
terminating 120 days from this date subject to certain conditions
hereinafter set forth in this opinion and order.
The regulation from which
the Village sought
a variance in
this
case was enacted by
the Sanitary Water Board, one of this
Board’s predecessors,
in 1967 with
the implementation plan section
of the
regulation being enacted in March 1968.
The tertiary treat-
ment requirement has thus been on the boo1~sfor more than three
years.
SWB—14 is
a comprehensive water pollution abatement regula-
tion applicable
to all intrastate waters in Illinois not covered
2
—
529
that
a performance bond be posted and that compliance be ascertained
an independent testing firm,
We grant the variance to January
1,
1972,
subject to the
terms
and conditions hereinafter set forth in the decretal portion of
this opinion.
Petitioner is located in Belvidere, Illinois, and produces
gray
and ductile iron castings
for automotive, agricultural
and
other industries.
All operations,
including the melting
of raw
metal, the molding of the castings,
as well
as shake—out and clean-
ing processes
and the manufacture
of cores, take place on the plant
site.
Petitioner employs between
200 and
300 employees operating on
a five-day week.
The plant processes approximately
24,000 pounds
of gray iron per hour and uses 150,000 pounds of sand in connection
with
its molding and cleaning operations.
Excluding the cupola
operation,
which is not in issue
in the present case,
Petitioner’s
process weight rate
is 175,000 pounds per hour.
2,000 pounds of
particulate emissions, consisting primarily of sand and foundry
dust are generated each sixteen—hour day,
of which only approximate-
ly one-third is collected by equipment to be supplanted by the new
equipment proposed to be installed pursuant to this variance request.
In simple
terms,
a gray iron operation consists
of the melting
of iron ore
and scrap
in cupolas, which molten metal is poured into
molds, which, after cooling,
are removed from the metal by
a shake-
out process and cleaned by sand blasting.
The casting is then
ground and polished.
Cores made of sand and oil are processed at
the plant and used in the mold operation.
The shake-out, cleaning,
blasting and core operations
all generate
a substantial amount of
particulate emissions which presently
are controlled inadequately
by two wet collectors
and four dry bag collectors, which are to be
supplanted by
two Venturi Scrubbers,
one
to be
in the SPO and grinding
room area and another in the so-called Taccone area,
Schematic
diagrams representing the present operations and proposed installa-
tions
of both of these areas
are in the record as Exhibits
#27
and
#28,
respectively.
Pursuant to permit granted by the Environmental
Protection Agency
(Petitioner’s Exhibit #23, R.54),
the installation
is approximately 75
completed.
The final completion schedule is
for approximately November
1,
1971, and full operation of the new
Venturis will be
in effect by January
1,
1972,
Upon operation of
the two Venturi scrubbers,
emissions from the in—plant operation
would not exceed
.05 grains per standard cubic foot, which is well
within the applicable regulations relating to this operation.
One
of
the present wet collectors will be used for control of emissions
from the core—baking operation, which presently
aie uncontrolled.
On the basis
of the record,
the amount of work done to date and the
2— 530
and their duty under that regulation,
The Village doesn~tknow
where the improvements are to be located and appears to be in no
hurry to be
in compliance with the water pollution regulations.
We agree with
the Agency’s conclusion in their Recommendation that
“Petitioner has not proceeded in the most diligent and most expe-
ditious manner,”
The consulting engineers have estimated the cost of the needed
improvements
to be between $143,650
and $200,000
(R.85).
Apparently,
in attempting
to resolve the present, interim and long term problem
with
the treatment plant,
there was
no thought given
to the instal-
lation
of
a
package
treatment
plant.
To
handle
100,000
gpd,
the
cost of a package plant effecting 98
removal of BOD
is in the range
of $125,000 to $150,000.
Such an alternative may nonetheless be
the
best solution to
the Village’s problem, particularly when one con-
siders that the degree of treatment required is 95
removal of BOD
and not the more difficult to achieve
98.
Such portable~advanced
waste treatment plants are finding increased use
in areas with
critical problems.
There is virtually no testimony on
this subject,
however,
and we are thus unable to make
any evaluations
or decisions
on the subject.
We grant the requested variance for
a sharply delimited period
in this
case.
Since even now the Village has no definite plans
as.
to how it will proceed we must continue our jurisdiction and
scrutiny
of this cause.
The Village must make every practical
effort to resolve its site acquisition difficulties in the immediate
future; within the next
90
days.
We will require the Village
to
submit
a supplemental petition by that time detailing with parti-
cularity all necessary measures which must be taken to get underway.
The Village’s program must include alternate means
of accomplishing
the necessary ends even if roadblocks
such
as unduly protracted pro-
ceedings
in land acquisition are encountered.
Use of package
facilities is obviously another alternative that should be considered.
In considering the supplemental petition the Board would be inter-
ested
in knowing of the effect of the plant’s effluent on the receiv-
ing stream and on Apple Canyon Lake if that is where
the plant’s
effluent travels to.
No results of stream sampling, either chemical
or biological, were presented at the hearing on this matter~
Such
water quality data is generally
a great
aid to the Board in their
consideration of variance requests.
We need to know the environ-
mental detriment caused by
the grant of
a variance.
(See PCB 71-166
supra).
The request for extension of this variance beyond the
120 days,
the supplemental petition, must be filed within 90 days
and if
complete enough may be acted upon without
a hearing although
at
this point it would appear that
a further hearing will
be necessary
to fully develop the facts.
As
a
further
condition
of
this
variance,
we
will
require
the
Village
to post
a bond or other adequate security with the
Environmental Protection Agency as we have done in most
of the
variance
cases
decided
to
date.
The
bond
is
provided
for
by
2
—
531
statute and is intended to serve as an incentive to the polluter
to proceed apace with the clean up job.
We will require
a bond or
other security in the amount of $150,000 subject to modification
after consideration of the supplemental petition.
The obligation
of the bond shall be the operation of the plant
in
compliance with~
SWB—l4 after any period of variance has run its course.
Finally as a condition of this variance grant we will require
the
payment of a money penalty of
$200.
There
is
a period of
nearly two years
in which almost nothing was done to effect
compliance with the tertiary treatment requirement.
The Village
made no move to acquire needed land for expansion~untilsometime
in 1971.
It did not engage an engineering firm until December of
1970.
The Village has missed two important deadlines specified in
SWB-l4.
It has not made a timely submission of its plans and
specifications and it has missed the deadline for the letting of
contracts.
Such lack of adherence to this State’s overall water
pollution abatement program cannot stand unnoticed and unneeded
by this Board.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
of law by the Board.
2
—
532
The Board having considered the petition, recommendation,
transcript and exhibits in this proceeding, hereby grants the
request of the Village of Warren for a variance subject to the
following conditions:
1.
This grant of variance from the provisions of SWB—14
requiring that steps be taken
(.i.e. submission of plans
and specifications,
award of contracts)
to provide for
tertiary treatment by July 1972 extends for 120 days
from this date.
This variance is granted to allow the
Village to acquire real property necessary for plant
expansion and upgrading or to make concrete alternative
plans.
2.
The Village of Warren shall submit a supplemental petition
for variance containing a complete program
(with consideration
of alternative plans including the use of package treatment
plants)
to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Board
within 90 days specifying in detail the course which the
Village will pursue to conform to the requirements of SW13-14.
Such complete supplemental petition to extend the present
variance may be acted upon without a hearing.
3.
The Village of Warren shah
post with the Environmental
Protection Agency on or before October 20, 1971 a bond or
other adequate security in the amount of $150,000 and in
such form as is satisfactory to the Agency, which sum
shall be forfeited to the State of Illinois in the event
the treatment plant shall be operated in contravention of
the provisions of SWB—14 after the initial or extended
(if any) period of variance is expired.
Any extended
date will be determined after the Village’s submission of a
petition and program as required by paragraph No.
2.
4.
The Village of Warren shall by October 15, 1971 pay to the
State of Illinois the
sum
of $200 asa penalty for the
violations found
in the Board’s opinion.
5.
Failure to adhere to any of the conditions of this variance
shall be grounds for revocation of the variance.
I, Regina B. Ryan, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board,
certify that the Board adopted the above Opinion and Order on the
30_day of September,
1971.
Control Board
2
—
533