ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July 11, 2002
AKZO NOBEL SURFACE CHEMISTRY
LLC,
Petitioner,
v.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PCB 03-3
(Variance - Water)
ORDER OF THE BOARD (by C.A. Manning):
Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry LLC (Akzo Nobel) seeks a variance from certain
effluent standards in the Board’s water pollution regulations. The Environmental Protection
Act authorizes the Board to grant temporary relief from its regulations in the form of a
variance.
See
415 ILCS 5/35(a) (2000). The person requesting the variance must prove that
compliance with the Board’s regulations “would impose an arbitrary and unreasonable
hardship.”
Id.
Below, the Board briefly describes Akzo Nobel’s operations and variance
request. The Board then identifies informational deficiencies in Akzo Nobel’s petition that
preclude accepting it for hearing at this time. Finally, the Board gives Akzo Nobel time to file
an amended petition to correct the deficiencies.
AKZO NOBEL’S OPERATIONS AND VARIANCE REQUEST
Akzo Nobel has a plant on Tabler Road outside of Morris in Grundy County. Akzo
Nobel explains in its July 8, 2002 petition for variance
1 that its plant produces fatty acid and
nitrogen derivatives that are used primarily as surfactants in agricultural, detergent, and
personal care products and in numerous industries. Pet. at 1. According to the petition, the
plant has a wastewater treatment system culminating in a 65-acre spray irrigation field
designed to biologically treat the water. Excess treated water from the field is collected
through an underdrain system and discharged through Outfall 001 under Akzo Nobel’s
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
Id.
at 2, 4. Outfall 001
discharges to Aux Sable Creek, a tributary of the Illinois River.
Id.
Akzo Nobel seeks a variance from the Board’s effluent standards for (1) biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD5) and total suspended solids (TSS) at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.120 and (2)
total ammonia nitrogen at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.122. Pet. at 1. In its petition, Akzo Nobel
1 Akzo Nobel’s petition is cited as “Pet. at _.”
2
explains that its wastewater effluent from Outfall 001 has, in recent years, periodically
exceeded these standards for several reasons, including increased wastewater volume and
prolonged cold weather that impair how well the 65-acre field works.
Id.
at 3-7.
Akzo Nobel states that it plans to address the problem by making wastewater treatment
improvements at the plant. Pet. at 8-12. The petition contains proposed variance conditions
regarding Akzo Nobel’s schedule for these improvements, including having constructed
additional wastewater storage by February 2003 and improvements to equalize wastewater flow
by December 2003.
Id.
at 12-13. Akzo Nobel asks the Board to hold a hearing and requests
that the variance “be effective immediately” and last until December 31, 2004.
Id.
at 13. The
Board understands Akzo Nobel’s request for immediate effectiveness to mean not that Akzo
Nobel seeks a retroactive variance, but rather that any variance granted would take effect when
the Board issues its final order.
See
35 Ill. Adm. 104.204(k).
DEFICIENCIES IN AKZO NOBEL’S PETITION
The Board’s procedural rules specify what variance petitions must contain.
See
35 Ill.
Adm. Code 104.204. The Board cannot accept Akzo Nobel’s petition for hearing because it is
deficient in the following respects. First, the petition fails to provide “[f]acts that set forth the
reasons the petitioner believes that immediate compliance with the regulation . . . of the Board
would impose an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.” 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.204(e). The
petition provides only the conclusory statement that Akzo Nobel “cannot maintain consistent
compliance” until it implements its proposed improvements. Pet. at 8. Second, the petition
addresses neither efforts that would be necessary to comply immediately with the Board’s
effluent standards, nor all possible compliance alternatives, including corresponding costs and
why Akzo Nobel chose its proposed improvements over the alternatives.
See
35 Ill. Adm.
Code 104.204(d). Third, the petition includes no estimated costs to implement Akzo Nobel’s
proposed improvements.
See
35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.204(f)(3).
Fourth, the petition does not describe the amount of discharges of BOD5, TSS, and total
ammonia nitrogen currently generated, or provide data on the nature and extent of the present
or anticipated failure to meet the Board’s effluent standards.
See
35 Ill. Adm. Code
104.204(b)(8), (c). Fifth, Akzo Nobel’s petition fails to describe the nature and amount of
discharges of the constituents, or the quantitative impact on human health and the environment,
if the Board grants the requested variance compared to that which would result if Akzo Nobel
had to comply immediately.
See
35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.204(g)(1), (2). Finally, the petition
does not identify any “numerical interim discharge limitations that can be achieved during the
period of the variance.” 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.204(g)(3).
AMENDED PETITION
The Board orders Akzo Nobel to file an amended petition that addresses the
deficiencies described above.
See
35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.228;
see also
35 Ill. Adm. Code
104.232(a)(2) (calculating decision deadline when amended petition is filed). The Board will
3
dismiss this case if Akzo Nobel fails to file an amended petition by August 10, 2002, which is
the 30th day after the date of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the
Board adopted the above order on July 11, 2002, by a vote of 5-0.
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
