ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
June
22, 1979
REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB
79—89
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent,
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Dumelle):
Petitioner has requested
a variance from Rules 203(d)
and 402
(as it pertains to dissolved oxygen)
of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution,
The Agency has recommended that a variance
be granted.
On June
9,
1976 Petitioner was issued a NPDES permit
which authorized the discharge of treated wastewater
from
Petitioner’s aluminum processing plant into the Summit—Lyons
Ditch in
McCook,
Illinois.
The permit
limited BOD and
suspended solids to 10 mg/i and 12 mg/l respectively as
monthly averages.
On February
26,
1979 the Agency indicated
that
it could not process a renewal application because the
discharge may cause
or contribute to downstream violations
of applicable dissolved oxygen water quality standards.
This conclusion was based on a computer model prepared by
the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission
(NIPC) and
submitted as part of NIPC’s water quality management plan
prepared pursuant to Section 208 of the Clean Water Act.
This model was the subject of a prior Board variance which
granted similar relief to over 250 dischargers
(Village of
Bloomingdale v.
EPA,
PCB 78—124,
October 19,
1978,
31 PCB
125, November
2,
1978,
and November 30,
1978).
In Bloomingdale,
the Board commented as follows on the use of this model:
“The Board finds that it need not determine whether or
not the model’s predictions are accurate.
By its very
existence the NIPC study provides evidence of possible
present and future violations
of the Board’s dissolved
oxygen water quality standard.
While the model does
not provide conclusive proof that any individual discharge
will cause or contribute to violations,
the Board sees
no reason ~ihythe model’s conclusions should be challenged
in a series of permit denial appeals or obviated in a
series of variances.
Extensive litigation would constitute
economic hardship on hundreds of dischargers and would
impose an administrative burden on the Agency.
This
hardship
is rendered arbitrary or unreasonable by
virtue of the fact that it may be needless.
Pending
‘34—91
—2—
regulatory changes may remove the need for some of this
litigation.”
The Board hereby incorporates the record and its
findings
and conclusions
in Bloomingdale in the record of this matter.
Petitioner has indicated that it can meet the 10 mg/l
BOD and
12 mg/l suspended solids effluent limitations which
were applied to the majority of dischargers
in Bloomingdale.
Without a variance Petitioner’s only alternative is
termination of its discharge or construction of additional
treatment facilities to eliminate all deoxygenating wastes,
Petitioner contends that the hardship and expense associated
with this latter alternative far outweighs any environmental
improvement which would result.
The Board concludes that denial of this variance would
constitutes arbitrary or unreasonable hardship on Petitioner.
The reasoning in Bloomingdale must be employed in this
matter to avoid inequitable results.
Relief will also be
granted from Rules
404(f),
902(i)(l)(iii),
910(a)(4) and
910(b)
so that the Agency may issue
a NPDES permit to Petitioner,
Petitioner and the Agency asked that the variance run
for a five year term.
In order to maintain consistency with
the Order
in
Bloomingdale,
the variance shall also terminate
on October 19,
1983.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact
and conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
1)
Petitioner is hereby granted a variance
from Rules
203(d),
402
(as it pertains to dissolved oxygen),
902(i)(l)(iii),
910(a)(4) and 910(b) of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution,
until October 19,
1983.
2)
Petitioner is hereby granted a variance from Rule
404(f)
of Chapter
3: Water Pollution until October
19,
1983 or until the Board takes
final action in R77—12,
Docket C,
whichever occurs first.
3)
During the term of this variance the discharge from
Petitioner’s wastewater treatment facility shall be
limited to 10 mg/l BOD and 12 mg/l suspended solids
as
30 day averages.
4)
The Agency is hereby authorized to issue a NPDES permit
to Petitioner in a manner consistent with the terms of
this Order including terms and conditions consistent
with best practicable treatment,
operation and maintenance
of Petitioner’s facilities.
34—92
—3—
5)
Within 45 days of the date of this Order,
Petitioner
shall execute a Certification of acceptance and agreement
to be bound by all the terms and conditions of this
variance.
The Certification shall
be forwarded to the
Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency,
Division of
Water Pollution Control, Variance Section,
2200 Churchill
Road,
Springfield,
Illinois
62706.
This
45 day period
shall
be held in abeyance
if this matter is appealed.
CERTIFICATION
I
(We), _____________________________,
having read
and fully understanding the Order in PCB 79-89 hereby accept
that Order and agree to be bound by all of its terms and
conditions.
SIGNED ___________________________
TITLE __________________________
DATE ______________________________
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dr. Satchell abstains.
I,
Christan L.
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control
Board, hereby certifX the above Opinion and Order
were adopted on the
~
day of
________________
1979 by a vote of
4.’~
Christan L. Moffet’~,~lerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
34—9 3