ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September ~,
1971
GAF CORPORATION
v.
)
PCB 71—uS
(Supplementary)
Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Robert W. Thomas
(Gray, Thomas, Wallace, Feehan and Baron)
and
Mr. Kenneth D. Archer, Associate Counsel, GAF Corporation, on behalf
of the petitioner
Mr. Fred Prillaman, on behalf of the respondent
Opinion of the Board
(by Mr. Dumelle)
Originally GAF Corporation
(GAP)
filed
a petition for variance
on January 27,
1971.
A hearing was held and on April
19,
1971 the
Board issued an opinion and order granting
a variance until June
19,
1971 subject to several conditions including
a requirement that GAP
file
a supplemental petition before June
19,
1971.
On June
17,
1971
GAP filed the instant petition requesting that the variance be ex-
tended to April
30,
1972.
On June 16 GAF filed
a request for an
interim extension of the variance pending disposition of the supple-
mental petition.
The Board issued an order on June
23 granting an
interim extension of the variance for 90 days or until
a decision on
the supplemental petition was rendered.
The variance was sought to shield the company from prosecution
for violation of water pollution regulations during the period that
installation of treatment facilities was underway.
Specifically GAP
sought to be allowed to discharge BOD
and suspended solids in excess
of the amount allowed by the existing regulations.
The company’s operations
and the quantities of contaminants
discharged as well as other aspects of the history of this
case were
extensively dealt with
in the Board’s opinion of April
19,
The
manufacturing operations at the GAP Joliet location are centered
about the production of roofing
felt.
The plant’s effluvia was
flowing untreated into the Des Plaines River at
a daily rate of 15,000
pounds of biological oxygen demand
(BOD) and 20,000 pounds of suspended
solids
(R.62).
The quantity of these
two contaminants discharged into
the Des Plaines is at least 20 times the amount presently allowable
by regulation.
2
—
401
Since the first hearing before this Board on this matter on March 22,
1971 GAP
has
begun and reportedly
has completed construction
of the pri-
mary treatment facilities.
During
the second hearing in this matter,
the hearing on the instant supplemental petition, held on August 10,
1971 Mr. Anthony Melchiorre, project manager in the GAF corporate
engineering department, testified that the primary facilities would
be functional after September
1,
1971.
Operation of
the primary
treatment facilities should result in a decrease of 50
in the
discharge of suspended solids and
a decrease of 15
in the amount
of BOD discharged
(R.54,83,l09).
As regards the secondary treatment
facilities Mr. Melchiorre stated that the aerating basin, clarifiers,
centrifuges and other units comprising the secondary facilities
should be complete by April
30,
1972
(R.49,54).
Work is presently
proceeding on
the secondary facilities in the most ~xpeditious
way
possible according
to Mr. George Wise,
the principal contractor’s
project manager
(R.lll).
He stated that the critical path scheduling
for this project is under careful and continuous scrutiny.
A permit for the treatment facilities has been secured from the
Environmental Protection Agency
(R.24-25,
34).
A lease for the
property
on
which
the faôilities are located has been obtained and
GAF
has secured
a required easement from the E.J.
&
E.
Railroad
(R,27)
.
The company has also secured a required license needed
to
provide roadway access to~the treatment area
(R.28).
All the permits
necessary
for the construction of both
the primary and secondary
facilities have been obtained or
as in the case of the Illinois Divi-
sion of Waterways
and Army Corps of Engineers permits,
are in the
process
of being obtained while construction of
the facilities
is
underway
(R,31).
GAF has contracted with Catalytic,
Inc.
to evaluate, design,
and construct the treatment facilities
(R.50)
GAF’s contractor has
been instructed
to use overtime work whenever possible to accelerate
the completion date of
the treatment facilities
(R,54).
There was
testimony, however,
that for most of the construction period the
job could not be speeded up with overtime as the critical factor
holding up the completion date was delivery of major items such as
the centrifuges
(R,77).
The condition of
the Des Flames River is about the same
now
as it was
a
few short months ago.
The River has been badly polluted
for
a number of years.
Contaminants continue
to be dumped into
it
from its source to its confluence with the Illinois River; effluents
from municipal sewage treatment works
as well
as industrial wastes
are a daily burden.
To be
sure the Des Plaines River,
as any flowing
stream, cleanses itself
as it moves along,
depositing particulate on
the bottom and enriching itself with oxygen from the air, which helps
break down the organic wastes
in the water, yet is remains
a great
flowing depository of wastes.
It can aptly be characterized
as
a
massive open sewer after
it has accepted the treatment plants effluents
from the Chicago metropolitan area.
Until
the Chicago area treatment
plants go on line with tertiary treatment of municipal
and industrial
wastes and
some form of control of the combined sewer problem is
effected,
the quality of the
Des Plaines River at Joliet will remain
low.
This
is one reason,
as we stated in our Opinion of April
19,
that this Board can consider granting this variance request.
At the first hearing on this matter the company sought to por-
tray itself as
a pollution fighting Gulliver restrained by
a number
of government
agency Lilliputians.
The picture which emerges from
the present state
of the facts
is quite different.
GAF has elected
to proceed post haste
to abate
the
pollutional nature of its aqueous
discharges.
We therefore grant the requested variance subject to
several conditions.
The conditions attached to this grant of
a variance are not un-
like those stated in
the order of April
19,
1971.
Further,
as we
stated in our opinion of June 28
(and order
of June 23),
following
a hearing on the motion requesting interim relief,
the conditions
of our order of April
19 relating to the payment of a money penalty
and the posting of
a bond are
not affected by the instant opinion
and order.
Resolution of GAP’s refusal to comply with those condi-
tions enumerated in the order of April
19
is left to the Illinois
Appellate
Court.
The several conditions connected to the instant
grant are
in furtherance
of the policy expressed in the Environmental
Protection Act which authorized
this Board
to grant variances.
The
condition
in the order of April
19 relating to overtime work is
modified to require such construction work only when the date of
completion of the facilities will be advanced by
such efforts,
GAF
shall submit monthly progress reports
to the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency
so that we may have some assurance that work is proceed-
ing apace.
Reports shall be filed on the
first working day of each
month until
the work is completed detailing progress to date and
fully explaining any deviations from GAF’s announced plans.
It is abundantly clear from the present record that
the company
has made substantial progress and expended considerable effort to
make
up for several years
of inexcusable inaction,
The history of
this case of delay,
study and re-study, alternatives
chosen, rejected,
then once more looked upon with favor
is now happily past.
Continuance
of the present pace should in the next eight months result in the
control of
a significant source of Des Plaines River pollution.
The
company is now seriously engaged in solving
its acute pollution prob-
lem.
We grant the variance to enable GAF to complete the abatement
project but we
do
so with conditions which will assure that the clean-
up
job proceeds in the most expeditious way.
This opinion constitutes
the Board’s findings of
fact and con-
clusions of
law.
I, Regina
E.
Ryan,
Clerk of the
Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
certify that the Board adopted the above Opinion on the
16
day of September,
1971.
C