ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December 19, 1974

ABBOTT LABORATORIES

PETITIONER

)

PCB 74—338

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

)

RESPONDENT

MR. RONALD L. SCHERUBEL, ATTORNEY, in

behalf of ABBOTT LABORATORIES

MR. JOHN T. BERNBOM, ATTORNEY,

in

behalf of the ENVIRONMENTAL PRO-

TECTION

AGENCY

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Marder)

This action involves a Petition for Variance, filed by Abbott Lab-

oratories on September 19, 1974, in order to discharge effluent from

its North Chicago treatment plant, in excess of the standard set in

Rule 404 (d) of Chapter 3, Water Pollution Control Regulations. The

standard in Rule 404 (d) is 4 mg/i BOD and 5 mg/i suspended solids.

Variance is requested until late 1975, when Petitioner will divert

its entire flow to the new Gurnee treatment plant of the North Shore

Sanitary District.

The Agency filed its Recommendation on October 24, 1974. In the

Recommendation the Agency suggests variance be granted, subject to

certain conditions.

Hearing was held in North Chicago, Lake County, Illinois,

on Octo-

ber 31, 1974. Members of the public were present.

Abbott Laboratories is a world—wide manufacturer of pharmaceuticals,

with its largest facility in North Chicago. The plant turns out a wide

range of drugs and consumer products and employs almost 6000 persons.

The Petitioner maintains an activated sludge treatment plant for

treatment of process waste water in the plant. Seventy—five percent

of the waste water in the plant is recycled for reuse, whereas 25 of

the water is treated for discharge. Discharge is to Lake Michigan at

about 700,000 gallons per day.

In 1972 Abbott was considering ways of bringing its 

effluent into

compliance with Rule 404 (d) by December 31, 1974. Two plans were con-

sidered. The first was to upgrade the treatment plant, so that the

discharge would meet the Lake Michigan standards. Pilot plant work

was done to determine how this could be done. The second plan was to

divert the entire flow from Abbott to the North Shore Sanitary Dist-

rict plant in Gurnee, Illinois.

14—749

—2—

Abbott chose the second plan. Going to Gurnee would involve less

cost for Abbott over the long run (even though Abbott would pay a share

of capital and operating costs as related to its contribution) because

of economies of scale in plant construction and operation. Further,

Abbott felt it would be a better policy to end its discharge to the

lake completely.

In 1972 the Agency accepted the diversion to Gurnee as an acceptable

compliance plan (Exhibit 1 attached to Petition).

All would have been well had the Gurnee plant proceeded on schedule

and been completed in December 1974. Through no fault of Abbott’s, the

Gurnee plant is now scheduled to have secondary treatment by September

of 1975 and tertiary treatment by August of 1976.

Hardship:

Abbott alleges, and the Agency agrees, that it would be an unreason-

able hardship for Abbott to spend the time and money to upgrade its

plant to handle these discharges when the Gurnee plant will be on line

in less than one year. The Board agrees and notes that even if Abbott

were to start work today to upgrade the plant, it probably would not be

in operation by the time the Gurnee plant was ready to receive the eff—

luent.

Environmental Impact:

It is noted in the Petition and confirmed in the Agency’s Recommend-

ation, that other than BOD and suspended solids the Abbott effluent com-

plies with all the other criteria in Rule 408 (a). It is noted in the

record that part of the problem with maintaining the suspended solids

criteria is that at times the intake water to the plant from the lake

is higher than the effluent standard (R. 29-30). The BOD discharge

will have a minimal impact on the lake. Also, it appears better for

the lake to end the discharge completely, as is contemplated by divert-

ing the effluent to Gurnee. Effluent discharges for a. recent six—months

period are as follows:

Date         

BOD

SS

March 1974        

15

25

April 1974        

47

75

May 1974         

25

15

June 1974         

31

18

July 1974         

22

14

August 1974       

17

9

(Agency Rec. Pg. 2)

The only controversy in this matter relates to conditions the Agency

wants placed on the grant of this variance. One condition relates to

the maximum discharge of BOD and suspended solids during the term of

the variance. The Agency feels that the limit should be BOD, 17 mg/i,

and suspended solids, 25 mg/l. This falls into the average that the

—

750

—3—

plant has had over the past 26 months (R. 27) 

Abbott feels that there

should be no 

standard

for two reasons. First, they feel that the plant,

for reasons of design characteristics and load constituents, cannot al-

ways guarantee a 17/25 BOD/SS effluent. Abbott states that though the

plant average over 26 months was 17/25 BOD/SS, there were days when the

effluent was higher and days when it was lower (R. 27) 

This is reme—

died by the Agency’s recommendation that the effluent levels be averaged

over a 30-day period with no more than 5 of the samples greater than

2.5 times the levels in cuestion. Abbott’s second point is that the

Agency’s recommended levels are more restrictive than the levels in

Abbott’s NPDES permit, issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agen-

cy. These levels are set in the permit at 20 mg/i BOD and 25 mg/l sus-

pended solids (R. 23) 

Though we~arenot bound by the federal permit,

we feel it would be unfair for Abbott to have to worry about meeting

two rather close standards. Therefore, we will order Abbott to maintain

an effluent of 20 mg/i BOD and 25 mg/i suspended solids. Abbott is ask-

ing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to drop these standards

from the NPDES permit. Should such standards be removed, the Board

still feels for the purpose of this variance that standards are necess-

ary for its discharge.

The second point raised relates to when Abbott must divert to the

Gurnee plant. The Agency wants diversion within 30 days of the date

the plant is completed for secondary treatment. Abbott suggests that

in that time, the Sanitary District may not authorize Abbott to divert

the flow, for reasons beyond Abbott’s control. We agree. Abbott should

not be put in jeopardy of our Order because of actions by a third party

out of Abbott’s control. Therefore, we will order Abbott to divert to

Gurnee within 30 days of receiving notice to do so by the North Shore

Sanitary District, but no later than 90 days after the completion of

the treatment plant.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of

law of the Board.

ORDER

IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:

Abbott Laboratories is granted variance from Rule 404 (d), Chapter 3,

Water Pollution Regulations, for the waste treatment plant in North

Chicago, Illinois, for a period of one year, subject to the following

conditions:

1. That BaD5 and suspended solids concentrations be limited to

a monthly average of 20 and 25 mg/i respectivelym determined

on the basis of 24—hour composite samples averaged over any

consecutive 30-day period. In addition, no more than 5 of

the samples collected shall exceed 2.5 times the limitations

herein established for BOD5 and suspended solids;

2. That Petitioner shall divert its treatment flow to the Gurnee

sewage treatment plant at the earliest practical date, but in

no event later than 30 days from the date the North Shore San—

—

751

—4—

itary 

District gives Abbott notice to divert, or 90 days

after secondary treatment facilities are completed, which-

ever is Sooner;

3. That Petitioner file monthly operating reports with the

Agency indicating daily laboratory results on the parameters

in question.

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

Board, certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted by the

Board on the 19th day of December 

1974, by a vote of 4

to 0

/

/

1

—

752