ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October 18,

1979

SANITARY DISTRICT OF ROCKFORD,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 79—138

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION OF THE BOARD

(by Mr.

Dumelle):

Petitioner requested a variance from Rules 404(a) and

408(a)

as

it pertains to cyanide and heavy metals of Chapter

3: Water Pollution.

The Agency recommended that the variance

be granted subject

to conditions.

No

hearing was held.

On

October

4,

1979 the Board granted the variance for 60 days.

This Opinion supports the Board’s Order.

In cooperation with the Agency, Petitioner developed a

plan for final connection of an approved expansion of Petitioner’s

sewage treatment facilities.

The plan calls for diversion

of Petitioner’s secondary treatment works while final connection

takes place.

During these periods chemical coagulants will

be added to Petitioner’s primary clarifier to approximate

secondary treatment.

The diversion is to occur only on

weekends until connection is completed.

In Exhibit C attached

to the Petition, Petitioner has indicated the anticipated

efficiency of treatment during diversion.

In Exhibit A

Petitioner has requested specific effluent limitations

less

stringent than anticipated efficiency.

On May 16,

1979 the Agency approved of Petitioner’s

plans subject to compliance with a specific step by step

procedure.

The Agency also required that the work be done

during a low flow period, preferably on weekends; that

sufficient manpower be on hand to minimize damage to the

water quality of the Rock River; and that Petitioner solicit

the cooperation of

all major industries contributing to the

plant.

On June

14, 1979 the Attorney General’s office

advised Petitioner that a variance would be needed to allow

for the diversion during connection.

Petitioner feels that compliance with its proposed

effluent limitations over the short

(48 hour) periods will

minimize environmental harm.

Petitioner’s only alternative

to its proposal would involve

a $300,000 expense.

The

Agency agreed that the $300,000 expense was unreasonable and

approved of Petitioner’s requested effluent limitations.

35—529

---

—2—

The Board concludes that denial of

a variance in this

instance would constitute arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.

After reviewing the step by step procedure outlined in the

Agency’s Recommendation,

the Board

finds that it constitutes

adequate protection during these short

low flow periods.

While Petitioner’s requested interim effluent limitations

are somewhat less stringent than its anticipated treatment

efficiency, they

lie

in an appropriate range.

The variance

is limited to weekends during a 60 day period to provide

adequate time to complete final connection.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact

and conclusions of

law in this matter.

I, Christan L.

Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Boards

hereby certify the a

ye Opinion was adopted

on the

_______________

day of

_________________,

1979 by

a vote of

____

Christan L. Moffet

lerk

Illinois Pollution

ntrol Board

35—530

---

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October 18,

1979

VILLAGE OF WAUCONDA,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 79—185

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr.

Dumelle):

Petitioner has requested a variance from the drinking

water standard for barium in Rule 304 B

4 of Chapter

6:

Public Water Supplies.

The Agency has recommended that the

Petition be dismissed or, in the alternative, be granted

subject to conditions.

No hearing was held.

Petitioner operates four water supply wells.

Three of

these wells pump from raw water sources which comply with

the barium standard of 1.0 mg/l.

These three wells have a

total capacity of 1.368 million gallons per day

(MGD)

and

are adequate to handle Petitioner’s needs except for cases

of mechanical or electrical

failure or during fires.

The

fourth well,

which has

a barium content of 3.6 mg/l, is

disconnected from Petitioner’s distribution system. Petitioner

has requested relief for those emergency periods when the

fourth well may be needed.

In

City

of Breese v.

EPA,

PCB 77—200,

27 PCB 207,

August

4,

1977, the Board addressed a similar situation and

stated as follows:

“The Board in the past has refused to accept petitions

which,

as here, anticipate an emergency condition

before the fact,

and request relief in case the emergency

occurs. The Variance Section of the Environmental

Protection Act does not envision such relief

.

.

.

The

Board therefore will dismiss the Breese petition as

inappropriate and note that an emergency situation

would be a matter of evidence in any enforcement action

that might be broughtbefore the Board subsequent to

the use of emergency equipment.”

The Board hereby reaffirms its position on contingent

or emergency variances.

In this case Petitioner has not

shown any circumstances which would distinguish its request

from Breese’s.

Consequently this Petition shall be dismissed.

35—54 1

---

—2—

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact

and conclusions of law in this matter.

ORDER

Petitioner’s request for a variance from the drinking

water standard for barium in Rule

304 B

4 is hereby dismissed.

IT IS

SO ORDERED.

I,

Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby ceçtify the above Opinion a d Order

were adopted on the

_______________

day of

_______________

1979 by a vote of

g...~

2LLdm~~~

Christan

L. Moffet~

Clerk

Illinois Pollution

ontrol

Board

.