ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March 20, 1980

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Petitioner,

v.

)

POE 80—7

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent,

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Dumelle):

Petitioner has requested

a variance from Rules 203(d),

402

(as it pertains to dissolved oxygen),

404(f),

910(a)(4),

910(b),

and

962(a) of Chapter

3:

Water Pollution.

The

Agency has recommended that the variance he granted subject

to conditions.

No hearing was held.

Petitioner has been developing

a 63 acre site in South

Barrington for the purposes of constructing a regional

office complex.

As part of its plans, Petitioner has

proposed construction and operation of a sewage treatment

plant to service 3,000 employees.

The plant will

be

designed

for an average flow of approximately 52,500 gallons

per day.

Petitioner

is requesting effluent limitations of

10

mg/I

BOD5 and

12 mg/i suspended solids as thirty~day

averages.

Petitionervs application for a construction permit

has been denied because

of the findings of

a computer

simulation modelling study completed by the Northeastern

Illinois Planning Commission pursuant to Section 208 of the

Clean Water Act,

This study was considered

in Village of

Bloomingdale

v.

EPA,

PCB78-124,

31 POE 125,

October

19,

1978.

That case provided relief similar to Petitioner~s

request,to over 280 dischargers.

If Petitionervs proposed

sewage treatment facilities had been in existence at the

time Bloomingdaie was decided,

it would have been included

in the relief granted.

Since South Barrington has no sewer service available

to Petitioner, there are no reasonable alternatives to the

proposed sewage treatment facilities.

Petitioner has

already incurred significant expenses in planning its office

cor:iplex and

is subject to ongoing expenses

for financing,

taxes, and construction,

These expenses to date exceed $1.5

mu lion

---

—2—

The Board concludes that denial of a variance would

constitute arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.

The

reasoning in

~i~dale

must be employed in this matter

to avoid inequitable results.

This Opinion constitutes the Board~s findings of

fact and conclusions of law in this matter,

ORDER

1.

Petitioner

is hereby granted a variance from

Rules

203(d),

402

(as it pertains to dissolved

oxygen),

962,

910(a)(4),

910(b)

of Chapter 3~

Water Pollution until

October 19,

1983.

2,

Petitioner

is hereby granted a variance from

Rule 404(f)

of Chapter

3: Water Pollution until

October

19,

1983 or until the Board reaches

a

final decision

in P77—12,

Docket C, whichever

occurs first,

subject to the condition that the

effluent from Petitioner~sproposed sewage

treatment facilities not exceed

10 mg/I

BODE

and 12 mg/l suspended solids

as monthly

averages.

3.

Within 45 days of the date of this Order,

Petitioner

shall execute a certification of

acceptance and agreement to be bound to the

terms and conditions of this variance.

The

45 day period shall

be held in abeyance

if

this matter is appealed.

The certifica-

tion shall

be forwarded to the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency,

Division of

Water Pollution Control,

2200 Churchill

Road,

Springfield,

Illinois 62706 and shall read as

follows:

CERTIFICATION

I

(We),

,

having

read and understanding the Order

in PCB 80—7, hereby accept

that Order and agree to be bound by its terms and conditions.

SIGNED ____________________________—

TI TLE

DATE

---

—3—

4,

The Agency is hereby authorized to issue

a

NPDES permit to Petitioner

in a manner

consistent with this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Christan L.

rloffett,

Clerk,

Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby agree that the above Opinion and Order were adopted

on the

~

_______

day of

______________

1980 by

a vote of~/-~

—

~lerk

Christan

Illinois Pollution Control Board