ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

December 29, 1983

G.D. SEARLE & CO. AND SEARLE

FOOD

RESOURCES,

INC

•

AND

PARK

)

FOREST

SOUTH

UTILITIES

COMPANY,

)

)

Petitioners,

)

v.

)

PCB

83—73

)

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION

AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

DISSENTING OPINION (by B. Forcade)

The majority has granted

five

year variances to Searle and

PFSU knowing that operations under these variances will cause or

contribute to downstream violations of water quality standards.

I respectfully dissent for three reasons:

(1) the holding

violates prior Board precedent,

(2) the variance is premature,

and (3) the variance grant destroys the incentive for reduction

of pollutant loadings to Deer Creejc before 1988.

In

PCB

83—11, August 18,

198$,

CPC

International, Inc.

(‘CPC)

filed a petition for variance with

this

Board

concerning

its

SO.,

air

emissions

•

The

Board

found

that

CPC

was

presently

in

compliAnce

with

applicable

rules,

technology

existed

for

CPC

to

remain

in

compliance

(continue4

burning

of

low—sulfur

coal),

the

only

hardship

claimed

was

economic,

and

that

if

the

variance

was

granted

ambient

air

quality

standards

would

not

be

violated.

In

denying

the

variance,

the

majority of the B0IPif held:

CPC

is requesting to go out of compliance

with

Rule

204(f)

to save

money

and

possibly increase the use of Illinois

coal,

i.e., medium sulfur coal,

in keeping with Section 9.2

of the Act.

This form of relief is inconsistent with Title

IX of the Act.

(Slip Opinion, p.

3)

In this matter Searle is in compliance with applicable

regulations, technology exists for Searle to remain in compliance

(continued off-site disposal), the only hardship to continued

off—site disposal

is economic, and grant of the variance will

cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards.

As

I believe CPC was correctly decided,

I dissent here.

Moreover, the variance is premature.

Searle admits that it

is investigating methods of reducing TDS levels and all preliminary

reports will be completed within five months (Amend.

Pet., ¶ 19).

The Order in this case requires Searle to conduct additional

55-459

---

2

studies on the impact of high TDS on drinking water and

irrigation

in the area

(Order,

¶

(l)(f)).

I would dismiss the

variance petition with

leave to refile when this preliminary

information becomes available so that the Board could make

a more

informed decision.

The substantial increase in disposal fees to

Searle will depend on new discharges from Trains

III and IV.

The

record

is not clear on when those discharges will commence

(R.

34—36), but the Agency asserts that Trains

III and IV are not

included

in the existing permit

(R.

39)

and additional permits

may take six months to secure.

I do not believe

it is

unreasonable to conclude that past discharge levels will

be

maintained

for the next six months.

By that time significant

additional information may he available on control options and

environmental impacts.

At that time the Board could grant a

variance to allow completion of

final studies and construction of

any improvements necessary to implement promising alternative

control options.

Thus,

this grant of variance

is premature.

Lastly,

I believe

a

full five year variance should not be

granted unless all relevant facts are firmly established.

Should

investigation show that the environmental harm is great and that

viable control options could be rapidly and economically

implemented,

the five year variance grant would he

imprudent.

If

such

a worst case scenario develops,

any corporation with less

professional integrity than Searle might continue operations

under the relaxed variance conditions

for the full

five years.

Therefore,

the Order

sets a bad precedent.

For these reasons,

I would dismiss the variance petition

with

leave to refile when more information

is available on

possible environmental harm and alternative control

strategies.

Bil

i’o

e,

Boar

r

I Christan L.

Moffett,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board,

hereb?7 certify that the above Dissenting Opinion

was filed on the

____

day of~~

,

1984.

Christan L.

Mçv~btt,

Clerk

Illinois Polli~ionControl Board

55-460