ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
August 24, 1995
AMERICAN RIVER TRANSPORTATION
)
COMPANY,
Petitioner,
)
v.
)
PCB 95—147
)
(Variance
-
Water)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by G. T. Girard):
On May 16, 1995, American River Transportation Company
(ARTCO) filed a request for variance from the Board’s regulations
which require that special waste haulers obtain a permit and that
special waste be manifested prior to transportation and disposal.
(35 Ill. Adm. Code 809.201, 809.301, 809.302, 809.501.) ARTCO
seeks a variance to allow ARTCO to haul special waste generated
by barge washing at its facility to a disposal point without
ARTCO obtaining a permit and without a manifest. ARTCO is
seeking a variance until May 15, 1998 for its facility in
LaSalle, Illinois.
On June 12, 1995, the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (Agency) filed its recommendation recommending that the
variance be granted with certain conditions. ARTCO filed a
response to the Agency recommendation on June 14, 1995,
indicating that ARTCO is willing to accept the conditions
recommended by the Agency. ARTCO waived hearing and no hearing
was held. On August 7, 1995, ARTCO filed a motion for expedited
decision. The Board will grant that motion.
The Board’s responsibility in this matter arises from the
Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (1992).)
The Board is charged in the Act with the responsibility of
granting variance from Board regulations whenever it is found
that compliance with the regulations would impose an arbitrary or
unreasonable hardship upon the petitioner. (415 ILCS 5/35(a).)
The Agency is required to appear in hearings on variance
petitions. (415 ILCS 5/4(f).) The Agency is also charged, among
other matters, with the responsibility of investigating each
variance petition and making a recommendation to the Board as to
the disposition of the petition. (415 ILCS 5/37(a).)
BACKGROUND
ARTCO is a wholly—owned subsidiary of Archer Daniels Midland
Company (“ADM”), an international agri—processing company with
its corporate world headquarters located in Decatur, Illinois.
2
(Pet. at 3•)1 ADM was incorporated in 1923, and originated as a
processor of linseed oil and has grown to be one of the world’s
largest food companies, processing virtually every type of
agricultural commodity, according to the petition.
(Id.)
ADM
currently employs over 3,000 Illinois residents, 2,600 of whom
are located in Decatur, and in fiscal year 1994 generated net
earnings of over $484 million.
(Id.)
ARTCO owns 26 boats and 1,800 covered barges, the largest
covered barge fleet in the United States. (Pet. at 3.) ARTCO
employs 833 people, and has 12 locations across the United
States, operating 6 facilities on rivers within or bordering
Illinois.
(Id.)
The principal administrative offices of ARTCO
are located in Decatur, Illinois. ARTCO’s activities include
moving barges up and down the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers for ADM
as well as others, and providing fleeting and switching services
to customers.
(Id.)
ARTCO acquired the marine operations at LaSalle, Illinois,
in December 1991 from Tabor Grain Co., a.grain company acquired
by ADM in 1975. (Pet. at 4.) The services provided by ARTCO at
LaSalle include fleeting (parking of barges on the river),
switching (moving barges in and out of the fleet and dock areas),
building tows (preparing barges to be moved by a line boat down
the river) and barge cleaning and maintenance. (Pet. at 4.)
Except for cleaning and maintenance, these are essentially the
same services which were provided by Tabor when it controlled the
operations, and these services are generally provided in
connection with Tabor’s business.
(Id.)
Tabor loads out
Illinois grain for shipment to ports down river, typically on the
Gulf of Mexico, in preparation for export, and receives shipments
of fertilizers, coal and salt for storage for independent
entities.
(Id.)
ARTCO moves the loaded barges out of the fleet
to the Tabor dock for unloading.
(Id.)
The empty barges will be
cleaned by ARTCO if the particular barge lessor or owner so
requests.
(Id.)
Additionally, ARTCO will move empty barges from
the fleet to the Tabor dock to be loaded with grain for outbound
shipment. (Pet. at 4.) These barges are typically cleaned prior
to arrival in LaSalle, although on occasion grain barges will
require cleaning prior to loading.
(Id.)
The only additional
services performed by ARTCO in LaSalle, which would not
necessarily be connected with the activities of Tabor-LaSalle, is
the making and breaking of tows for barges to be moved down or
further up the Illinois River.
(Id.)
ARTCO’s facility is located on the I & M canal a short
distance upstream of its confluence with the Illinois River.
1 The petition for variance will be cited as “Pet. at _“;
the motion for expedited decision is cited as “Mot. at “j’; and
the Agency recommendation is cited as “Ag. Rec. at j’.
3
(Pet. at 5.) The facility lies at the center of what is
informally known as the LaSalle Harbor which extends for
approximately 2.9 miles on the I & M Canal and the Illinois River
and which encompasses 7 docks.
(Id.)
The manhole into which
ARTCO proposes to discharge is located at about the midpoint of
the downstream harbor area.
(Id.)
Surrounding land uses are
predominantly industrial and commercial, including a chemical
plant, a lumber yard, a publicly owned treatment works (POTW),
and a sand and gravel company.
(Id.)
The nearest residential
areas are several blocks to the north of ARTCO’s facility and
approximately three or four blocks from the River.
(Id.)
A
limited amount of recreational boating and fishing occurs in this
area, but there are no recreational boat access points to the
river in that area or any swimming areas. (Id.)
ARTCO had formerly followed the historical practices for
barge cleaning on the Illinois River which consisted of, after a
commodity was unloaded, the barge would be swept clean, river
water would be pumped into the barge to remove the residual
materials, and that rinse water would then be discharged back
into the river. (Pet. at 1.) On April 29, 1994, ARTCO changed
its practices such that the rinse waters are now discharged into
a holding barge until the rinse waters can be disposed of cost—
effectively.
(Id.)
The barge rinse waters are “equipment
cleanings” as listed in the definition of “industrial process
waste” of the Act at Section 3.17. (Ag. Rec. at 3 citing 415
I1CS 5/3.17; 35 Ill. Adm. Code 809.103.) Therefore, by
definition, rinse waters are a special waste and no further
showing of potential or actual threat to public health or the
environment is necessary. (Ag. Rec. at 4.) Special wastes
consist of hazardous wastes, industrial process wastes and
pollution control wastes which have not been declassified. (Ag.
Rec. at 3 citing 415 ILCS 5/3.45 and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 808.110.)
The Peru Sanitary District is willing to accept the rinse
waters at its POTW, and ARTCO has recently been issued a water
connection permit by the Agency to connect to the Peru Sanitary
District. (Pet. at 1; Mot. at 1.) The Peru Sanitary District
has informed ARTCO that it will not accept manifested wastes for
treatment. (Pet. at 1.) Since there is presently no sewer line
into which ARTCO can discharge directly from its barge cleaning
area, the rinse waters will have to be transported approximately
one mile by barge to a manhole near the Illinois River. (Pet. at
1-2.) Further, since the rinse waters are characterized as
special waste, which must be manifested, some form of regulatory
relief will be necessary in order to dispose of these waters as
proposed. (Pet. at 2.)
Up to eight hundred barges carrying grain, coal, salt or
fertilizer are loaded or unloaded at the LaSalle facility each
year. (Pet. at 5.) These barges are loaded and unloaded on the
Illinois and Michigan Canal approximately 750 feet upstream of
4
its confluence with the Illinois River.
(Id.)
Approximately 200
of those barges are cleaned each year, including approximately 60
which had carried salt, 60 which had carried fertilizer, 50 which
had carried coal and 30 which had carried grain. (Pet. at 5-6.)
Historically prior to cleaning, the barges were taken to a point
away from the loading/unloading area and positioned to best avoid
interference with fleeting or traffic on the river. (Pet. at 6.)
The cleaning operations took place on the Illinois River in an
area from immediately upstream of the confluence of the I & M
Canal and the Illinois River to slightly more than one mile
upstream of that point.
(Id.)
The employees swept out the barge
to empty it of all recoverable product and then sprayed the barge
with river water to remove any residual product which remained a
after sweeping.
(Id.)
The spraying operation would take up to
one hour and used approximately 5,000 gallons of water.
(Id.)
As a result of these operations, the rinse water, which was then
returned to the river, would contain some increased level of
coal, salt, fertilizer or grain (depending upon which particular
product the barge had contained), but would not contain any other
constituents that were not already in the river water; i.e. no
solvents or cleaning agents other than river water were used.
(Id.)
On April 29, 1994, ARTCO was informed that its barge
cleaning method was “allegedly contrary to the environmental
laws”. (Pet. at 6.) ARTCO immediately changed its cleaning,
operations at the LaSalle facility to ensure that the rinse water
was not returned to the river.
(Id.)
ARTCO has now positioned a
barge to receive the rinse water near the loading/unloading area,
and the barge cleaning takes place adjacent to that receiving
barge.
(Id.)
Rather than returning the rinse water to the river,
it is now pumped directly to the receiving barge.
(Id.)
ARTCO
has also intensified its sweeping efforts to minimize the number
of barges rinsed at LaSalle by using only dry sweeping to the
extent possible.
(Id.)
It has also minimized the amount of
rinse water used to clean those barges.
(Id.)
As a result the
spraying operation is now completed in 15 to 20 minutes and only
approximately 1,500 gallons of river water are used.
(Id.)
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
ARTCO is requesting a variance from the Board’s special
waste hauling regulations as those regulations relate to
manifesting of special waste for transport and disposal. The
regulations ARTCO is seeking a variance from are 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 809.201, 809.301, 809.302, 809.501. Section 809.201
entitled “Special Waste Hauling Permits
-
General”, provides:
No person shall haul or otherwise transport any special
waste generated within Illinois or any special waste to be
disposed of, stored or treated within Illinois without a
current, valid waste hauling permit issued by the Agency in
5
accordance with the requirements of this Subpart unless the
hauler is exempt from the special waste hauling permit
requirements under this Subpart.
Section 809.301 entitled “Requirements for Delivery of
Special Waste to Haulers” provides:
No person shall deliver any special waste generated within
Illinois or for disposal, storage or treatment within
Illinois unless that person concurrently delivers a manifest
completed in accordance with Subpart E of this Part to a
special waste hauler who holds a current, valid special
waste hauling permit issued by the Agency under Subpart B of
this Part.
Section 809.302 entitled “Requirements for Acceptance of
Special Waste from Haulers” provides:
a) No person shall accept any special waste for disposal,
storage or treatment within Illinois from a special
waste hauler unless the special waste hauler has a
valid special waste hauling permit issued by the Agency
under Subpart B of this Part and concurrently presents
to the receiver of the special waste, or his agent, a
completed, signed manifest as required by Subpart E of
this Part, which manifest designates the receiver’s
facility as the destination for the special waste.
b) No person shall deliver special waste in Illinois for
disposal, storage or treatment unless the person who
accepts the special waste has a current, valid
operating permit issued by the Agency and the necessary
supplemental permits required by 35 Ill. Adm. Code 807,
as well as all other applicable permits as required by
the Act and Board regulations.
Section 809.501 entitled “Manifests, Records, Access to
Records, Reporting Requirements and Forms” provides in pertinent
part:
a) Any person who delivers special waste to a permitted
special waste hauler shall complete a manifest to
accompany the special waste from delivery to the
destination of the special waste. The manifest which
shall be provided or prescribed by the Agency shall, as
a minimum, contain the name of the generator of the
special waste; when and where generated; name of the
person from whom delivery is accepted and the name of
the site from which delivered; the name of the special
waste hauler; the date of delivery; the final disposal,
storage or treatment site; and the name, classification
and quantity of the special waste delivered to the
6
hauler. The Agency may provide or prescribe a
different form of manifest for Class A special wastes
than for Class B special wastes.
In determining whether any variance is to be granted, the
Act requires the Board to determine whether a petitioner has
presented adequate proof that immediate compliance with the Board
regulations at issue would impose an arbitrary or unreasonable
hardship. (415 ILCS 5/35(a) (1992)) Furthermore, the burden is
upon the petitioner to show that its claimed hardship outweighs
the public interest in attaining compliance with regulations
designed to protect the public. (Willowbrook Motel v. Pollution
Control Board, (1985), 135 Ill. App.3d 343, 481 N.E.2d 1032.)
Only with such a showing can the claimed hardship rise to the
level of arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.
A further feature of a variance is that it is, by its
nature, a temporary reprieve from compliance with the Board’s
regulations, and compliance is to be sought regardless of the
hardship which the task of eventual compliance presents an
individual polluter. (Monsanto Co. v. IPCB, (1977), 67 Ill.2d
276, 367 N.E.2d 684.) Accordingly, except in certain special
circumstances, a variance petitioner is required, as a condition
to grant of variance, to commit to a plan which is reasonably
calculated to achieve compliance within the term of the variance.
COMPLIANCE PLAN
The materials discharged historically during barge rinsing
consisted of Illinois River water containing residual amounts of
coal dust, grain, salt and fertilizer. (Pet. at 7.) ARTCO
estimates that the LaSalle/Peru barge cleaning operation resulted
in the discharge of less than 1,000 pounds of salt, less than
1,000 pounds of fertilizer, less than 750 pounds of coal and less
than 500 pounds of grain to the Illinois River in 1993.
(Id.)
ARTCO’s proposed compliance plan consists of three phases.
(Pet. at 8.) During Phase I ARTCO will investigate whether
economically reasonable compliance options exist.
(Id.)
During
Phase II ARTCO will implement the most cost—effective of those
options, if such an option is available.
(Id.)
If not, during
Phase II ARTCO will seek an adjusted standard.
(Id.)
The
requested variance will terminate at the end of Phase II unless
no economically reasonable compliance option is identified and
ARTCO is denied an adjusted standard. (Pet. at 8.) In that
case, during Phase III, ARTCO will arrange for disposal of the
accumulated rinse waters in compliance with the law.
(Id.)
ARTCO has been investigating various compliance options ever
since it ceased discharging its barge rinse waters to the
7
Illinois River. These options include: ceasing the generation
of rinse waters, constructing an on-site treatment facility,
arranging to have the rinse waters picked up by trucks and taken
to an appropriate treatment facility, taking the rinse waters by
barge to an appropriate treatment facility, and constructing a
sewer line for treatment at the Peru Sanitary District’s POTW.
(Id.)
ARTCO has determined that transporting the rinse waters by
barge to a POTW would be the most cost-effective option, at least
for the short—term, and this variance is requested to allow ARTCO
to proceed in that manner.
(Id.)
During Phase I of its compliance plan ARTCO proposes to
continue to investigate the costs and feasibility of obtaining an
NPDES permit for the direct discharge of the rinse waters to the
Illinois River (after using a vacuuming system with or without
some form of treatment) as well as the construction of a sewer
line to discharge directly to the Peru Sanitary District. ARTCO
anticipates completing these efforts within one year. (Pet. at
8.) If either or both options prove feasible and economically
reasonable, ARTCO would implement one of those options within an
additional year.
(Id.)
If not, ARTCO would petition the Board
for an adjusted standard and would seek a Board decision within
18 months.
(Id.)
Should such relief be denied, ARTCO would
immediately begin making arrangements to have its rinse waters
picked up by a licensed special waste hauler and disposed of at a
permitted facility.
The Board has in some cases held that reliance upon an
adjusted standard as a compliance plan is overly speculative
unless the petition for the adjusted standard is filed on or
before the date of filing the petition for variance. (Pet. at
9.) However, in this case it is possible that compliance can be
reasonably achieved through construction of a direct discharge
sewer or through obtaining an NPDES permit to discharge the rinse
waters to the river without the need for an adjusted standard.
(Id.)
As the Board stated in dicta in the City of Sycamore v.
IEPA (PCB 83—172 (July 11, 1984), “in specific instances, where
there is no apparent solution to the problem, compliance plans
may include time for research leading to an ultimate but as yet
unidentified resolution.”
(Id.)
The Agency agrees that the compliance plan set out by ARTCO
is acceptable. (Ag. Rec. at 5.) The Agenr~ycites to Olin
Corporation v. IEPA, (PCB 92-172 (December 3, 1992) for the
proposition that a petitioner can propose a compliance plan which
has several alternative compliance options, including that of an
adjusted standard.
(Id.)
HARDSHIP
In investigating each of the compliance options, ARTCO and
determined that the most cost—effective option, at least for the
8
short term, was to barge the rinse waters to a POTW. (Pet. at
12.) ARTCO, therefore, contacted the sanitary districts of
LaSalle and Peru since the facility is located at the dividing
line of those municipalities.
(Id.)
LaSalle would not accept
the rinse waters so ARTCO pursued obtaining such authorization
from the Peru Sanitary District.
(Id.)
In order to proceed in
that manner first requires approval of the POTW and then a permit
to connect to the sewer from the Agency.
(Id.)
To accomplish
that, ARTCO was required to perform sampling and testing of the
rinse water resulting from the cleaning of barges which had
carried various commodities in order to complete an application
to be submitted to the POTW.
(Id.)
ARTCO completed all of the
required testing and submitted an application to the Peru
Sanitary District, which requested certain additional
information.
(Id.)
That information was supplied, and the Peru
Sanitary District informed ARTCO of its approval by signing
Section 7.5 of ARTCO’s application to the Agency for a connection
permit and by issuing ARTCO a discharge permit dated March 1,
1995.
(Id.)2
However, the Peru Sanitary District indicated that
it would be unable to accept the barge rinse waters if those
waters were required to be manifested as special wastes. (Pet.
at 12—13.)
Ever since ARTCO began accumulating the rinse waters, it has
also been investigating whether the water rinse method of barge
cleaning could be replaced with a vacuuming system which would
not generate such waters. (Pet. at 13.) ARTCO contacted various
vendors who might have the appropriate equipment, but was
unsuccessful.
(Id.)
ARTCO, therefore, designed its own system
and ordered parts to fabricate it.
(Id.)
ARTCO built such a
unit at its St. Louis facility and has begun testing it.
(Id.)
Generally, the unit has performed quite well, and ARTCO is
optimistic that it can greatly reduce the number of barges which
must be rinsed.
(Id.)
However, the unit is expensive ($40,750,
not including the cost of fabrication and the lost use of the
housing barge for commerce) and it leaves a residue which will
still require washing when the barge is used to carry certain
commodities.
(Id.)
Building an on-site treatment facility is probably not
technologically feasible and is certainly not economically
reasonable. (Pet. at 14.) The rinse waters are generated
intermittently and have been averaging less than 1,000 gallons
per day since ARTCO began accumulating them.
(Id.)
Consistent
treatment for ammonia, BOD5 and suspended solids is difficult, if
not impossible to achieve under those circumstances using
conventional treatment.
(Id.)
Further, effective treatment of
2
The Agency issued the connection permit on July 26, 1995.
(Mot. at 1.)
9
TDS and chlorides is quite costly, especially in light of the
small flows.
It is possible, however, that use of the vacuuming system
will reduce the levels of the rinse water constituents
sufficiently to allow them to be discharged directly back to the
Illinois River without causing effluent or water quality
violations, especially if some sort of in—line filter is used.
(Pet. at 14.) In order to evaluate that option, ARTCO will be
required to first analyze the concentrations of the contaminants
of concern for various commodities following vacuuming and
rinsing, determine acceptable mixing zones and zones of initial
dilution, determine whether the resultant dilutions would result
in compliance with applicable regulations and, if not, evaluate
potential in-line treatment.
(Id.)
Then, if such disposal
promises to be technologically feasible and economically
reasonable, a construction permit would have to be obtained as
well as an NPDES permit.
(Id.)
This process could probably be
completed within 6 to 12 months.
ARTCO has also been investigating the cost and feasibility
of building a sewer line to connect directly to the manhole into
which it proposes to discharge. (Pet. at 14.) Such discharge is
permissible without Part 807 permits or manifests.
(Id.)
In
fact, the Tabor Grain facility at Havana has recently obtained
the necessary approvals to commence discharging similar rinse
waters to the sanitary district there.
(Id.)
At the
LaSalle/Peru facility, however, such a sewer would have to be
approximately 3,000 feet long and would have to be constructed
under a railroad right-of-way and a chemical plant site.
(Id.)
It would, of course, be necessary to obtain construction and
operating permits from the Agency, easements from the property
owners and local building permits, among other things.
(Id.)
Ignoring the costs for such work and engineering, and assuming
that no impediments to construction arise, this work could also
probably be completed within 6 to 12 months at a construction
cost of approximately $105,000.
ARTCO could also arrange to have the rinse waters picked up
by a licensed special waste hauler and disposed of at a properly
permitted facility. (Pet. at 15.) However, ARTCO has estimated
that the cost to do so would be approximately $0.35 per gallon
for the rinse waters which have already been accumulated and
$105,000 per year thereafter.
In addition to the compliance alternatives presented above,
it might be possible for ARTCO to locate some other POTW which
would be willing and able to accept the manifested wastewaters.
However, based upon ARTCO’s initial efforts in that regard (the
sanitary districts of LaSalle and Peoria refused) and the general
reluctance of sanitary districts to accept manifested wastewaters
or wastewaters generated outside of their districts, it does not
10
appear that a nearby site would be available. (Pet. at 15.) This
is especially true due to the small profit margin for treating
highly diluted waste waters, making it not worth the effort in
most cases to go through all of the required procedures.
(Id.)
Further, hauling, the rinse waters long distances greatly
increases the disposal costs, and whatever minimal risk may
potentially exist from the barging would increase as the distance
increases.
(Id.)
Finally, for over a year ARTCO has been
working with the Agency for the issuance of a permit allowing
connection to Peru Sanitary District. (Pet. at 15; Mot. at 1..)
ARTCO has had to:
1. Test sample rinse waters from barges carrying various
loads;
2. Identify a sanitary district which is willing to
consider accepting the rinse waters and which has a
manhole close enough to a river in an area where a
barge could discharge;
3. Negotiate the rate which would be charged for treatment
of the rinse waters;
4. Develop a mutually acceptable plan for insuring ARTCO
access to the sewer while maintaining the security of
that sewer;
5. Obtain the Peru Sanitary District’s approval to accept
the rinse waters; and
6. Apply for and obtain an Agency permit to connect to the
Peru Sanitary District’s system.
ARTCO has been accumulating rinse waters for more than a
year now without any economically reasonable method of disposal,
and no such means of disposal can be expected in the near future.
(Pet. at 16-17.) Yet, ARTCO is close to having the necessary
water permits and approvals to barge these rinse waters
approximately one mile to be appropriately treated and discharged
in accordance with the Peru Sanitary District’s NPDES permit
without any adverse environmental impact. (Pet. at 17.) At
other ARTCO facilities which discharge their barge cleaning
waters directly to sewer lines the total cost of disposal
averages $50 per barge cleaned.
(Id.)
The only means of near
term compliance would be to arrange for trucking the waters to an
approved disposal facility (which generally would consist of
discharging to a sanitary sewer) at a cost of approximately $525
per barge with approximately 200 barges being washed per year,
the cost differential would be $105,000 less $10,000, or $95,000
per year without any corresponding environmental benefit.
(Id.)
11
The Agency states that it “accepts” ARTCO’s assertion that
“the difference in cost between barging and the use of a land
based hauler would be approximately $95,000 per year”. (Ag. Rec.
at 5.) The Agency further states that it “accepts” that ARTCO
would incur a hardship that justifies the granting of the
requested variance. (Ag. Rec. at 4.)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The granting of the requested relief should have no adverse
impact upon the environment. ARTCO proposes simply to transport
its rinse waters containing residual salt, fertilizer, coal or
grain by barge a distance of approximately one mile within the
LaSalle Harbor without the need for special waste manifests or
permits. (Pet. at 9.) The barges which ARTCO proposes to use
are the same barges in which commodities are shipped to and from
the facility, the only differences being that the commodities
will be barged a much shorter distance, and they will be in a
highly diluted form.
(Id.)
The rinse waters would then be
discharged to a manhole which is tributary to the Peru Sanitary
District’s POTW and which is capable of accepting those rinse
waters while continuing to meet applicable discharge limits.
(Pet. at 9-10.)
The Agency states that “because this variance only addresses
the Petitioner’s activities since it ceased discharging the rinse
waters into the Illinois River” there is no environmental impact.
(Ag. Rec. at 5.) In fact the Agency states that “there is no
relevant discharge of contaminants into the environment to
consider, other than the permitted discharge to the sewer
system”.
(Id.)
CONSISTENCY WITH FEDERAL LAW
ARTCO and the Agency agree that the requested relief is
consistent with federal law. (Pet. at 18; Rec. at 6.).) ARTCO
states that there is no federal regulation applicable to barge
rinse waters and therefore only Illinois “criteria for granting
or denying a variance are relevant”.
(Id.)
CONCLUSION
Based on the record the Board finds that ARTCO has
established that compliance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 809.201,
809.301, 809.302, 809.501 constitutes an arbitrary or
unreasonable hardship. ARTCO has shown that alternative methods
of compliance with the special waste hauling requirements are
less cost-efficient.
The Board finds that temporary relief which is granted by
this variance does not pose a significant risk to environmental
health. ARTCO will be the generator and hauler of the special
12
waste (barge rinse water) which will be discharged into Peru
Sanitary District sewer treatment system. ARTCO will examine
several specific compliance alternatives and should be in
compliance with all Board regulations when the terms of this
variance expire on May 15, 1998. The Board will grant the
variance with the conditions recommended by the Agency.
This opinion constitutes the Board findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter
ORDER
The Board hereby grants the American River Transportation
Company a variance from the special waste hauling regulations as
set out at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 809.201; 35 Ill. Adm. Code 809.301;
35 Ill. Adm. Code 809.302; and, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 809.501 for the
handling of barge rinse waters at its LaSalle, Illinois facility.
This variance becomes effective on the date of this final order
and terminates on May 15, 1998. The variance is subject to the
following conditions:
1. The rinse water is transported and discharged only to
the Peru Sanitary District so long as the Peru Sanitary
District shall possess and maintain all necessary
permits, except as authorized by the terms of this
variance, in order to accept this waste;
2. Petitioner shall submit status reports to the Agency
regarding its compliance efforts within fourteen days
of the ending date of each of the phases of the
Petitioner’s compliance plan as set out in Section F of
the petition for variance;
3. The Petitioner shall notify the Board and the Agency in
the event that the Petitioner implements one of the
compliance options as set out in the compliance plan
prior to the expiration of the variance and this
variance shall terminate upon the implementation of the
compliance option;
4. The Petitioner shall maintain logs of the
transportation and discharge of the rinse waters
documenting the dates and amounts discharged to the
Peru Sanitary District. The petitioner shall submit on
an annual basis reports to the Agency showing the
quantity of rinse waters discharged;
5. Petitioner shall procure a permit allowing it to
connect and discharge the rinse waters to the Peru
Sanitary District pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part
309 and all other necessary permits, except as
authorized by the terms of this variance,;
13
6. Petitioner shall comply with all terms and conditions
of its connection and discharge permits for the rinse
waters during the term of the variance.
7. Petitioner shall allow representatives of the Agency
upon presentation of credentials access to its
operations at reasonable times for the purposes of
conducting inspections of its facility and examination
of records required under the conditions of the
variance.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
If the petitioner chooses to accept this variance subject to the
above order, within forty—five days of the grant of the variance,
the petitioner must execute and forward the attached certificate
of acceptance and agreement to:
Christopher P. Perzan
Division of Legal Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
P. 0. Box 19276
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 62794—9276
Once executed and received, that certificate of acceptance
and agreement shall bind the petitioner to all terms and
conditions of the granted variance. The 45-day period shall be
held in abeyance during any period that this matter is appealed.
Failure to execute and forward the certificate within 45-days
renders this variance void. The form of certificate is as
follows:
14
CERTIFICATION
I (we),
,
hereby
accept and agree to be bound by all terms and conditions of the
Order of the Pollution Control Board in PCB 95-147, August 24,
1995.
Petitioner
Authorized Agent ______________________________________
Title
Date ______________________
Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act, Ill. Rev.
Stat. 1989, ch. 111 1/2 par. 1041, provides for appeal of final
Orders of the Board within 35 days. The Rules of the Supreme
Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the abj~veopinion and order was
adopted on the
~
day of ~
,
1995, by a
vote of
2-~
.
Dorothy M.IGunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
