ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
August 3, 1978
ABMAK COMPANY,
Petitioner,
PCB 77—180
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
OPINION OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Dumelle):
On July 20, 1978, the Board granteda variance to Petitioner
from Rule 404(f) (ii) of Chapter 3: Water Pollution until
December 31, 1978. Petitioner was also granted a variance
from Rule 962, Chapter 3, in order to obtain a construction
permit to complete its program outlined in Exhibit H of its
Second Amended Petition for Variance. The Agency was directed,
pursuant to Rule 914 of Chapter 3, to modify Petitioner’s NPDES
Permit No. 1L0026069 to be consistent with the conditions set
forth in that Order.
The intent of the water pollution regulations is to provide
that degree of protection which is necessary to restore, maintain,
and enhance the waters of this State in order to protect health,
welfare, property and the quality of life, and to assure that
no contaminants are discharged into the waters without being
given the degree of treatment or control necessary to prevent
pollution. The purpose of a variance is not to permit an
arbitrary and continuing violation of the law, but rather to
grant a period of time during which the Petitioner can take
reasonable steps to bring his operation into compliance with
the law in protecting the health, welfare, property and quality
of life.
Section 35 of the Act prohibits the Board from granting
variances inconsistent with the Clean Water Act (CWA) Amendments;
however, the standards of the CWA are less stringent than Rule
404 (f)
.
It has been shown that Petitioner is in compliance
with CWA requirements, and it is the opinion of the Board
that to deny Petitioner the variance it requests would prohibit
Petitioner from at least furthering its efforts to comply with
Board Rules and Regulations. The potential for environmental
31—159
—2—
improvement certainly outweighs any temporary adverse effects
which might exist while the system is being brought up to
operational standards. The Board believes that Petitioner has
consistently attempted to improve its effluent levels, and is
authorized to grant variances from NPDES permit provisions
only when the relief is in compliance with applicable provisions
of the CWA as amended.
Petitioner proposes to expand its wastewater treatment
facilities. This expansion will include a new 64-acre spray irri-
gation field. The existing 16-acre spray field will be utilized
primarily in the winter. Winter storage on the field will accum-
ulate to approximately 1.5 feet of water. A new recycle pump
will apply this accumulated water to the new spray field in the
spring, and the 16-acre field will serve as a back-up field for
the remainder of the year. A new 64—acre center—pivot spray
irrigation system will be constructed to the west of the plant
which will result in conservative hydraulic and organic loadings,
and no underdrains will be installed. The underdrain flow rate
periodically exceeds 100,000 gallons per day. Petitioner claims
that this expansion will result in compliance with Board Rules
and Regulations by December 31,1978.
The Agency alleges that Petitioner has not conclusively proven
that the proposed system will have a substantial likelihood of
achieving compliance with applicable effluent limits and water
quality standards. As a result of considerable negotiations with
the Agency on this matter, Petitioner has agreed to monitor dis-
solved oxygen upstream and downstream of its discharge on each
day of discharge and each day after a discharge with each sample
to indicate date and time of sampling. Petitioner’s discharge
shall not cause dissolved oxygen in Aux Sable Creek to fall
below 5.0 mg/l unless the upstream dissolvedoxygen is less
than 5.0 mg/l in which case Petitioner’s discharge shall not
deplete the downstream level by more than .5 mg/l. The Agency
recommends that if during the term of this variance Petitioner
discovers that its compliance program will not be successful,
Petitioner shall submit a modified permit application to the
Agency indicating an alternative compliance program. Under
these conditions, the Agency believes a variance is warranted.
The Board agreed and so ordered.
In addition, the Board ordered that the BOD and TSS discharged
shall be limited to the amounts set forth in Exhibit L which
is attached to Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition for Variance.
In that document, the daily maximum for BOD should be no greater
than 126 lbs/day and 22 lbs/day for TSS between March and April.
For the period May through February, the daily maximum for BOD
should not exceed 63 lbs/day and 11 lbs/day for TSS. Petitioner
31—ioU
—3—
has shown that these levels are achievable and it should be noted
that these standards are more stringent than the Federal standards
for BOD and TSS.
Petitioner alleges that denial of a variance would result
in the closing of Armak’s facilities and layoff of approximately
85 employees. The Board has made clear in other cases that
a variance denial is not a shut down order. Therefore, Petitioner’s
reasons for unreasonable or arbitrary hardship are insufficient.
Despite this insufficiency, and the fact that Petitioner
has not clarified the urgent necessity for a variance until
December 31, 1978, the Board feels that the variance should be
granted because such a short period of time is involved, and
since it was shown that the grant of this variance would not
cause injury or environmental harm to the public or the Aux
Sable Creek. It would be unreasonable to require Petitioner
to discharge effluent which conforms to Board standards while
construction is going on since no threat to public health
is present and since no feasible alternative method now exists.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
of law of the Board in the matter.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Contrc~1Board, hereby certify the above Opinion was adopted on
__________
day of
,
1978 by a vote of
Christan L. Moff
,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution ontrol Board
31—161