ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April
26, 1979
A.E.
STALEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 78—308
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF TH~BOARD
(by Mr. Dumelle):
Petitioner has requested
a variance from the BOD and
phosphorus
limitations of Rules 404(f) and 203(c) of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution which are contained in NPDES Permit No.
1L0002381.
The Agency has recommended that the variance he
granted subject
to conditions.
No hearing was held.
Petitioner processes corn and soybeans at
a manufacturing
facility in Decatur.
Petitioner operates a combined cooling
water and storm water collection system at the Decatur
facility which discharges into Lake Decatur.
Petitioner’s
NPDES Permit prohibits any increase
in BOD and phosphorus
concentrations
in the effluent over the concentrations
in
the cooling water which is drawn from Lake Decatur.
Data in
Exhibit A attached to the Petition show that effluent concentrations
of BOD have consistently exceeded intake concentrations by a
range
of 0.4 mg/i
to 5.0 mg/i.
During periods
of wet weather
when the storm water component has been substantial,
the
difference between intake and effluent concentrations has
generally been greater.
Increased phosphorus concentrations
in the range of 0,1 mg/i to 0.2 mg/i are also associated
with contributions from storm water.
Petitioner
feels
it would be fruitless
to separate the
streams
of cooling water and storm water since the same
contaminants would still reach Lake Decatur.
Cooling towers
could be installed to remove the cooling water component,
but these would cost approximately $1,000,000 and blow-down
would have to be treated or discharged to the Decatur Sanitary
District.
Petitioner feels that cooling towers would not
improve the storm water effluent and may have an adverse
effect on Lake Decatur by reducing the volume
of flow
in the
vicinity of the discharge.
Petitioner cannot meet the standards
of Rule 404(f)
for
DOD
(4.0 mg/i)
and 203(c)
for phosphorus
(0.05
mg/i)
since
both of these values are exceeded occasionally
in the intake
water,
and Petitioner has no treatment
system in place to
remove these contaminants.
Petitioner has requested alternative
33—407
—2—
effluent limitations of 10 mg/I DOD and 1,0 mg/i phosphorus
since these are the values proposed by the Agency
in the
pending regulatory proceedings designated
as R77-12 and
R76—1 respectively.
Data in Exhibit BB attached to the Amended Petition
show that BOD levels
in the intake,
which
is located one
half mile downstream from Petitioner’s discharge, have never
exceeded 5.5 mg/i on a weekly average.
Total phosphate
levels
in the intake have been as high as 2,8 mg/l
(approximately
0.9 mg/i phosphorus),
but Petitioner feels
that these values
can be attributed to local agricultural runoff.
Exhibit DD
lists dissolved oxygen values in Lake Decatur in 1972.
The
data here show values from 6,3 mg/i to 12.4 mg/i.
Petitioner
feels that the water quality of Lake Decatur
is generally
good and that it has not suffered from the effects of Petitioner’s
discharge.
Petitioner has proposed to undertake an additional
program to demonstrate that granting this variance will not
contribute
to a violation of water quality standards
in Lake
Decatur.
This program would follow the procedures
in Technical
Policy Statement WPC—1 which the Agency has been using for
granting Pfeffer and lagoon exemptions
under Rules 404(f)(ii)
and 404(c)(iii) of Chapter
3: Water Pollution.
If these
procedures prove inadequate,
Petitioner proposes undertaking
additional monitoring and evaluating available alternatives
including additional treatment,
instream aeration, artificially
induced dispersion or elimination of the discharge.
This
entire program is drawn from the justification posed by the
Agency
in support of the proposed rule change
in R77-12.
The Agency has recommended that
a variance be granted
for two years subject
to certain conditions.
The Agency
feels that effluent concentrations
of BOD and phosphorus
should be limited to those levels proposed in R77—12 and
R76~1. These are
10 mg/i
as
a monthly average and 10 mg/i
as a maximum respectively.
The Agency
is asking that Petitioner
be required to comply with the conditions of R76—1. and
R77-12 when the Board takes
final action in these proceedings.
The Agency feels that the procedures
in Technical Policy
Statement WPC—1 are inappropriate in this case since Petitioner’s
discharge does not enter a free—flowing stream.
Instead the
Agency
is proposing that Petitioner proceed immediately to
an evaluation of alternatives which would result in elimination
of the discharge.
If the Board
finds that all available
alternatives are technically infeasible or economically
unreasonable, the Agency recommends
that Petitioner be
required to conduct an approved biological and chemical
monitoring program to determine the impact of the combined
cooling water and storm water discharge on the receiving
waters,
Petitioner has accepted the Agency’s Recommendation
with the understanding that the variance would run from the
33—408
—3—
date of issuance of Petitioner’s present NPDES permit
(November
21,
1978).
The Board concludes that denial
of
a variance in this
instance would constitute arbitrary or unreasonable hardship
upon Petitioner. Petitioner
is faced with no immediate
practicable alternative
to its present noncompliance.
Petitioner’s
cooling water discharge would have to be eliminated
to comply with the present NPDES permit.
Petitioner would
be forced to suffer significant economic hardship through
disruption of its manufacturing operations with no significant
environmental improvement.
The Board agrees with the Agency’s
recommended interim effluent limitations since they are
presently achievable.
There is no reason to base effluent
limitations in this instance on treatability
since no treatment
will he required during the term of the variance.
The Board
agrees that no useful purpose would be
served by a demonstration
pursuant to Technical Policy Statement WPC-1.
It would be
inappropriate to require Petitioner to undertake
an evaluation
of alternatives to its present discharge
at this time.
Requiring such an evaluation would constitute prejudgment of
R77—12 and would require continuing Board jurisdiction over
a matter whose outcome will be greatly affected by R77—12.
This
is not the appropriate time to require Petitioner to
embark
on an involved evaluation and monitoring program
which may be unnecessary. A two year term for the variance
should give the Board enough time to make its decision in
R77—12 and Petitioner enough time to evaluate whatever
action it will be required to take.
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 the requirements
of Rule 203(c) of Chapter
3: Water Pollution until
November
21, 1980 or until the Board takes
final
action
in R76-1, whichever occurs first,
subject to the condition
that the concentration of phosphorus in Petitioner’s
effluent be limited to 1.0 mg/i
as
a maximum.
2)
Petitioner
is hereby granted a variance from the requirements
of Rule 404(f) of Chapter
3: Water Pollution as
it
pertains to DOD until November 21, 1980 or until the
Board takes
final
action in R77—12,
Docket
C, whichever
occurs first subject
to the condition that the concentration
of BOD in Petitioner’s effluent be limited to 10 mg/i
as a monthly average.
3)
The Agency
is hereby authorized to modify NPDES Permit
No. IL0002381 in a matter consistent with the terms of
this Order.
33—409
—4—
4)
Within 45 days of the date of this Order Petitioner
shall
execute
a Certification of Acceptance and
Agreement to be bound by the terms and conditions of
this variance.
The Certification shall
be forwarded
to
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Division
of Water Pollution Control,
2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield,
Illinois 62706.
This
45 day period shall
be held
in abeyance during any period this matter
is
appealed.
The form of the Certification shall read
as
follows:
CERTIFICATION
I
(We),
,
having
read and fully understanding the Order
in PCB 78-308,
hereby
accept that Order and agree to be bound by all
of its terms
and conditions.
SIGNED ________________________
TITLE ________________________
DATE ___________________________
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan
L.
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board,
hereby cp~tify the above Opinion
a, d Order
were adopted on the
c~(o~
day of
________________
l979byavoteof
4/.-o
Christan
L. Moff~J
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
33—410