ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    September 15, 1994
    CABOT CORPORATION,
    )
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 94—155
    )
    (Variance)
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    )
    Respondent.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J. Theodore Meyer):
    This matter is before the Board on Cabot Corporation’s May
    18, 1994 petition for variance. Cabot seeks a variance from a
    condition of the Board’s March 25, 1993 order in PCB 92—179. The
    condition at issue required Cabot to “replace the tubing for well
    number 2 either within sixty (60) days after well number 3 is
    operational or during the 1994 facility shutdown, whichever is
    earlier.” Cabot seeks to postpone the removal of the tubing in
    well number 2 until after its new underground injection control
    (UIC) well (known as well number 3) is operating. For the
    reasons set forth below, the variance is granted.
    AGENCY RECOMMENDATION AND MOTION
    The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed
    its recommendation on September 6, 1994, recommending that the
    variance be granted subject to conditions. The recommendation
    was accompanied by a motion for leave to file
    instanter.
    The
    Agency states that because the permit reviewer familiar with this
    case is on an extended leave of absence, other Agency personnel
    not as familiar with the site have been assigned to this case,
    leading in part to delay in filing the recommendation. The
    Agency further states that the press of other business prevented
    the filing of the recommendation any earlier, and alleges that no
    undue prejudice will result from a grant of the motion for leave
    to file
    instanter.
    The Board is aware that personnel matters are a practical
    problem, and indeed deals with those problems itself. However,
    we also note that the variance recommendation was due 30 days
    after the filing of the petition, or on June 17, 1994. (35 Ill.
    Adm. Code 104.180.) We received the recommendation on September
    6, 1994, just 9 days before the required decision deadline.
    Thus, we cannot accept the Agency’s allegation that there is no
    undue prejudice from a grant of the motion. Nevertheless,
    because the Agency is required by statute to file a
    recommendation (415 ILCS 5/37(a) (1992)), the motion for leave to
    file
    instanter
    is granted.

    2
    BACKGROUND
    Cabot’s facility at Tuscola, Douglas County, Illinois, is an
    inorganic chemical manufacturing plant. The facility
    manufactures fumed silicon dioxide marketed under the registered
    trademark of Cab-O-Sil. The facility has operated from 1958 to
    the present and employs approximately 175 persons. The facility
    is located three miles west of Tuscola and occupies 100 acres.
    (Pet. at 2)
    On site at the facility are two UIC wells permitted by the
    Agency. (Pet. at 2.) Cabot currently disposes of
    approximately 200 gallons of hazardous waste per minute (gpm),
    with maximum injection rates of 100 gpm at well number 1 and 250
    gpm at well number 2. (Pet. at 2-3.)
    REQUESTED VARIANCE
    Cabot requests a variance from condition III of the Board’s
    March 25, 1993 order in PCB 92—179.’ Condition III states:
    Cabot shall replace the tubing for well number 2 either
    within sixty (60) days after well number 3 is
    operational or during the 1994 facility shutdown,
    whichever is earlier.
    Cabot seeks to postpone the removal of the tubing in well number
    2 until sixty days after its new UIC well (known as well number
    3) is operating. Cabot states that it filed a permit application
    for well number 3 with the Agency and the United States
    Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in September 1992, but
    that as of the date of filing of this petition for variance (May
    18, 1994), no permit had been issued. Cabot states that the
    tubing for well number 2 should not be removed until well number
    3 is operational, because well number 2 will have to be shut down
    for approximately two weeks in order to remove the tubing to
    perform the test, and then replace the tubing. Since well number
    1 does not have sufficient capacity to meet the facility’s waste
    disposal needs alone, the entire facility would have to be shut
    down for the period needed to perform the tests and replace the
    tubing. (Pet. at 3-5.) Thus, Cabot asks for an extension of the
    time in which to perform the required tests.
    The Agency notes that it generally agrees with the facts set
    That order granted Cabot’s request for variance from
    the requirement that casing inspection logs be run every five
    years. (35 Ill. Adm. Code 730.l68(d)(4).) That variance
    continues in effect, and expires on March 25, 1995. Cabot has
    not requested an extension of that expiration date.

    3
    forth in Cabot’s variance petition, with the exception of the
    allegation that no permit for well number 3 has been issued. The
    Agency states that it issued a final permit on May 13, 1994, and
    that the permit was mailed to Cabot under a cover letter dated
    May 20, 1994. Thus, Cabot has now received a permit for well
    number 3.
    CONSISTENCY WITH FEDERAL LAW
    Cabot contends that the requested variance is consistent
    with both federal and state law. Cabot states that on October 7,
    1992, USEPA amended its rules so that a casting inspection log is
    no longer required every five years. Instead, the amended
    federal regulation now requires that casting inspection logs be
    run whenever the owner or operator conducts a workover in which
    the injection string is pulled. The rule does allow USEPA to
    require the test every five years, if it has reason to believe
    that integrity may be adversely affected by naturally-occurring
    or man-made events. (40 C.F.R. §146.68(d)(4).) Cabot also notes
    that on September 13, 1993 the Board updated the corresponding
    Illinois rules to reflect the change. (35 Ill. Adm. Code
    730.168(d)(4).) Thus, Cabot concludes that the variance is
    consistent with the amended federal and state regulations.
    The Agency agrees with Cabot’s discussion of the amended
    federal rules, and states that the requested variance apparently
    violates no federal laws or regulations.
    HARDSHIP
    Cabot maintains that requiring it to remove the tubing in
    well number 2 before well number 3 is operational would create an
    arbitrary and unreasonable hardship, because: 1) shutting down
    the well to perform the tests would require that the facility
    itself be closed, at great cost to Cabot; 2) Cabot has recently
    demonstrated, through mechanical integrity testing procedures
    that there is no evidence of fluid movement along the bore hole;
    3) USEPA has recognized, when amending the federal regulation,
    that it is possible to adequately test for mechanical integrity
    without removing the tubing; 4) USEPA and the Board have amended
    the federal and state regulations so that they no longer require
    a casing inspection log every five years; and 5) the unnecessary
    removal of the tubing can place undue stress on the well
    components. Cabot also contends that postponing the removal of
    the tubing will pose no danger to the human, plant, or animal
    life in the affected area, since mechanical integrity tests
    performed in October 1992 show no evidence that well number 2
    lacks mechanical integrity. Finally, Cabot concludes that it
    should not be penalized because well number 3 is not yet
    permitted and operational, because it has done what it can to
    ensure that the well is operational as quickly as possible.

    4
    The Agency accepts Cabot’s statement that immediate
    compliance with condition III would require a shut-down of the
    entire facility, at “great cost” to Cabot, although the Agency
    states that it does not have knowledge of the actual costs. The
    Agency believes that these kinds of costs are insufficient to
    excuse immediate compliance if there was a significant risk of
    harm to the environment. However, given the present facts, the
    Agency believes that there is no significant risk of harm to the
    public or the environment if the requested variance is granted.
    CONCLUSIONS
    After considering the record and the arguments of both Cabot
    and the Agency, the Board finds that immediate compliance with
    condition III of the Board’s March 25, 1993 order in PCB 92—179
    would impose an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship on Cabot.
    Cabot has made efforts towards ensuring that well number 3 is
    operational soon, and those efforts have resulted in the issuance
    of the permit for well number 3. Those efforts, in combination
    with the fact that neither the federal nor the state rules
    currently require that the casing inspection log be performed
    every five years, persuade the Board that the requested variance
    should be granted.
    Cabot has requested that it be allowed to postpone action on
    well number 2 until sixty days after well number 3 is allowed to
    operate, and contended in its petition that action on well number
    2 should not be linked to an arbitrary date in the future because
    the permit for well number 3 had not yet been issued.2 In the
    alternative, Cabot requests that the date for action on well
    number 2 should be 21 months after the variance is issued, which
    was the length of the variance issued in PCB 92—179. The Agency
    contends that there should be “some reasonable outer time limit”
    beyond which Cabot cannot postpone action on well number 2,
    irrespective of the status of well number 3.
    The Board notes that, although Cabot requests an ultimate
    compliance date of 21 months from grant of variance, 21 months
    would extend far beyond the expiration of the existing variance.
    Cabot has not requested, nor has it provided information in
    support of, an extension of the underlying variance.3 The record
    lacks any information on the current status of construction of
    well number 3, so that we do not know when well number 3 might be
    operational. Additionally, the Agency has not indicated what it
    2
    As noted above, the permit for well number 3 was issued
    on May 13, 1994, and mailed to Cabot on May 20, 1994.
    For example, extension of a variance requires proof of
    satisfactory progress. (415 ILCS 5/36(b) (1992).)

    5
    considers to be a “reasonable outer time limit”. Therefore, the
    Board will impose a time limit for action on well number 2 of
    sixty days after well number 3 is operational, or March 24, 1995,
    whichever is earlier. We have chosen the March 24, 1995 deadline
    because it is the day before the variance expires. As noted
    above, Cabot has not requested an extension of the variance
    itself.
    This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
    conclusions of law.
    ORDER
    The Board hereby grants Cabot Corporation (Cabot) a variance
    for its Tuscola, Illinois facility from condition III of the
    Board’s March 25, 1993 order in PCB 92-179. The variance is
    subject to the following conditions:
    1. Cabot shall continue to comply with the requirements of
    conditions I and II of the March 25, 1993 order in PCB 92-179.
    2. Cabot shall replace the tubing for well number 2 either
    within sixty (60) days after well number 3 is operational, or by
    March 24, 1995, whichever is earlier.
    3. The terms of the variance granted on March 25, 1993, as
    amended by this order, shall expire no later than March 25, 1995.
    Within forty-five days of the date of this order, Cabot
    shall execute and forward to:
    Daniel P. Merriman
    Division of Legal Counsel
    Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    P.O. Box 19276
    2200 Churchill Road
    Springfield, Illinois 62794—9276
    a certificate of acceptance and agreement to be bound 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.
    I (We),
    hereby accept and agree to be bound by all terms and conditions
    of the order of the Pollution Control Board in PCB 94—155, dated
    September 15, 1994.

    6
    Petitioner
    Authorized Agent
    Title
    Date
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS
    5/41 (1992)) provides for the appeal of final Board orders within
    35 days of the date of service of this order. The Rules of the
    Supreme Court of Illinois establish filing requirements. (See
    also 35 Ill.Adm.Code 101.246 “Motions for Reconsideration”.)
    I, Dorothy N. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that the above opinion and order was
    adopted on the
    /~54
    day of
    _______________,
    1994, by a vote
    of ~
    V
    /2L /~J
    Dorothy N. G~?c1, Clerk
    Illinois Poi(~ationControl Board

    Back to top