ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

January

rP,

1974

ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY,

Petitioner,

vs.

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

)

PCB 73-482

AGENCY,

Respondent.

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr.

Seaman)

On November 14,

1973, Petitioner,

Illinois Power Company,

filed its Petition for Variance.

Petitioner owns and operates

a coal—fired electric power generating station near Hennepin,

Putnam County,

Illinois.

Although Petitioner fails to specify, the Agency has assumed

that the variance sought is from Rule 408

(suspended and total

dissolved solids)

of Chapter 3 of the~äterPollution Regulations.

The Agency,

in its Recommendation,

states that wastewater

from Petitioner’s generating station is presently discharged

directly into the Illinois River via two separate waste streams.

One waste stream is made up of untreated wastewater from Petitioner’s

demineralizer regenerant, ash hopper overflows from Unit 1 and

2

Boilers, and non—contact condenser cooling water.

The second waste

stream is composed of wastewater from Petitioner’s Unit 1 and

2

ash basin lagoons.

Petitioner submits no information on this

point.

The Agency Recommendation informs us that Petitioner’s Ash

Basin Lagoons rarely discharge an effluent due to evaporation

and due

to percolation attributable to the permeable sandy soil

of the locale and that Petitioner’s untreated wastewater discharge

does not have a noticeable adverse environmental impact upon the

Illinois River.

Test results of recent Agency effluent grab samples

indicate the following:

Suspended

Total Dissolved

Date

Solids

(mg/l)

Solids

(mg/l)

Jan

1/73

8

360

Sep 25/73

85

480

---

—2—

Petitioner obtained Agency approval of Project Completion

Schedules and an Agency Construction Permit for the re—routing

and collecting of the Unit

1

&

2 ash hopper overflows and

demineralized regenerant wastewater

into the Unit

1

&

2 ash basin

lagoons for treatment prior to release into the River.

The Agency

believes that the completion of these jrojects will assure compliance

with Rule 408.

The permits and associated Project Completion Schedules show

the anticipated completion date to be December 31,

1973.

Petitioner

alleges that the mechanical work associated with its project cannot

be completed before March 31,

1974,

and variance is sought to that

date.

The primary reason advanced by Petitioner to justify the grant

of the subject variance is the alleged delay encountered in procuring

materials and equipment.

Petitioner contents itself with this

bare allegation and proffers no supportive information.

Such an

unsupported allegation cannot justify

a variance.

The entire Petition is so insufficient in substance and detail

that this Board cannot find sufficient evidence upon which to

founda reasoned decision.

Petitioner is advised to familiarize itself

with the requirements

of Rule 401 of the Procedural Rules of the

Pollution Control Board.

Petitioner is hereby directed to file an

amended petitiOn within 15 days of the date of this Order or suffer its

cause to be dismissed.

Said amended petition should include, without limitation, the

following:

1.

Waiver, for an additional

30 days,

of the 90-day

requirement of Section

38 of the Illinois Environ—

mental Protection Act.

2.

An identification of the particular rules and regu-

lations from which variance is sought; relevant

evidence should also be included bearing on Petitioner’s

claim of unavoidable delay, not self—imposed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, certify that the above Order was adopted on the

________

day

of

____________,

1974 by a vote of

____________

U

__________

10—

704