ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

June

9,

1977

SANITARY DISTRICT OF ROCKFORD,

a municipal corporation,

Petitioner,

v.

)

 PCB 77—95

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF

THE

BOARD

(by

Mr.

 Zeitlin):

This matter

 is before

the

Board on a Petition for Variance

filed by the Sanitary District of Rockford

 (District)

on

March

28,

1977.

 The District seeks a Variance from the cyanide effluent

limitations

 in Rule 408(a)

 of Chapter

 3: Water Pollution,

for

discharges

 from the District’s sewage treatment plant

 (STP)

 into

the Rock River.

 Ill.

 PCB Regs.,

Ch.

3,

 §408(a) (1976).

Pursuant to

a

 formal Objection filed on March

31,

 1977,

by

Respondent Environmental Protection Agency, the Board,

 on April

14,

1977, authorized

 a hearing in the matter.

 Pursuant to a motion

subsequently filed by the Agency,

 the Board entered an Interim

Order on May 12,

 1977, granting the Agency leave to withdraw its

Objection and setting the case for decision without hearing.

 Accordingly,

no hearing was held in this matter.

The principal basis of the District’s Petition

 is the pendency

of various proposals to amend the existing 0.025 mg/l effluent

standard for cyanide.

 Although the District cites the Illinois

Effluent Standards Advisory Group’s

 (IBSAG)

 recent proposal,

 R76—2l,

the Aqency’s Recommendzition,

 filed April

29,

 1977,

 cites an addi-

tional proceedix~j,l~74—l5

•

—16,

 ‘~Cyanidc,”

iii

which

 iieurin’~shave

already

 been concluded on both the merits and economic

 impact.

Both the Agency and the District claim that failure

 to grant

the requested Variance would result

 in arbitrary and unreasonable

hardship

 in two ways:

1.

 The District would be required to substantially expand

its existing and proposed

 sewage treatment capacity to provide for

attainment of the 0.025 mg/i standard;

 such expenditures, amounting

to at least $3,315,650, would be unwarranted when the Board has

pending before it proposals which would loosen the existing cyanide

effluent standard.

—

—2—

2.

 Under the strictures of Rule

 702 of Chapter

3,

 the District’s

 current inability to meet the existing cyanide standard would require

that all cyanide discharges

 to the District’s system would themselves

be required to meet the 0.025

 mg,/l standard;

 in light of the proposed

changes

 to the cyanide effluent standard,

 a requirement that sewer

dischargers

 to the District meet that same standard would constitute

an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship.

 (Were the District able to

meet the effluent standard requested

 in its Variance,

 it could upon

application

 to the Aqency, pursuant

 to Rule 703(b), allow discharges

to its sewers of

up

to

 2.0 mg/i

 “readily releaseable”

 cyanide, and

10 mg/i total cyanide.)

floth

the

 District and the Agency note that no water quality

standards violations

 have been caused in the Rock River as a result

of the Districts

 discharges.

 It is therefore argued that the grant

of the requested Variance would not cause environmental damage.

The District’s cyanide effluents have been reduced markedly

during the last

 15 years, prior to which the District admits that

its cyanide concentrations were excessive,

 (Ex.

 D to Petition)

Recent sampling by the Agency indicates relatively low cyanide

concentrations

 in the District’s effluent,

 ranging from 0.01 mg/I

to 0.11 mg/i,

 (Rec.,

 ¶7).

 Sampling

by

the District indicates similar

results,

 (Ex.

 I to Petition).

Although the Board has held that lack of environmental damage

alone will not justify the grant of a Variance,

it

 is also held

that where the likelihood of environmental damage is slight,

 there

need be correspondingly

 little hardship shown.

 Interpace

 Corp.

v.

EPA, PCB 75-495,

 22 PCB

 (1976).

 We have held,

 likewise,

 that

~

 pendency of

 a Regulatory proceeding concerning the Regulation

from which Variance is sought may provide

 an adequate compliance

plan in support of a Variance,

 Commonwealth Edison v.

 EPA, PCB

73—245,

 —248

 (consol.),

 13 PCB 69,

80,

81

 (1974);

 In Re:

 Cooling

Lakes,

 R75—2,

 18 PCB 681,

685

 (1975).

 See also,

 Illinois Power

V.

EPA,

 PCB 75—31,

 18 PCB 241,

254

 (1975)

~hou t

 rc~ich

i.fl(J

~ny

(~O~U

1

ii:;

i

to

 H’ mer

i

t

S

 dfly

various

 )rOpOSilJ

 s pendinj

 Uofoi’o

(:he

Board

rc’clard

cyanide,

we

find

 Lhc’~t

the

pendcr~cy

of

the

 RejuIat~ons

 when

 tewed

in

light

 the District’s past efforts toward compliance and the present

absence of water quality standards violations, will support a

Variance.

 Although the District has requested the standards pro-

posed in R76-2l,

 our Variance grant may not be seen as favoring

that proposal over either the existing standard or any of the other

standards proposed in R74-15,

 -16.

 (The standard proposed by IESAG

in R76-2l was also proposed by it

in

hearings on R74—l5,—l6.)

—

752

—3—

The interim standards set

this

Variance

will

closely

parallel

existing performance by the District.

 It will make allowance for

measurement variation between grab,

 24—hour composite, and 30-day

averaging,

 as proposed to the Board in R74-15,

 -16, and R76-21.

We shall also condition

this

Variance

 upon compliance with

whatever standard is adopted by the Board

 in R74—15,

 -16.

 To that

end, we shall provide that the Variance will end upon final action

of the Board

 in that matter.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Board in this matter.

ORDER

IT

 IS THE ORDER OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD that Petitioner

Sanitary

District

Rockford

granted

Variance

from

the

cyanide

effluent limitation

 in Rule 408(a)

 of Chapter

3:

 Water Pollution,

for a period of one year from the date of this Order or until final

action by the Board in R74-15,

 -16,

 “Cyanide,” whichever occurs

first,

 such Variance conditioned upon compliance with the following:

1.

 Petitioner’s effluent shall not exceed the following

cyanide limitation during the term of the Variance:

(a)

 any instantaneous

 (grab)

 sample:

 0.5 mg/i

(b)

 any 24-hour composite sample:

 0.2 mg/i

(c)

 any 30-day average sample:

 0.1 mg/i

2.

 Petitioner’s cyanide effluent discharges

 shall not cause

a violation of the 0.025 mg/i total cyanide water quality standard

in Rule 203(f)

 of Chapter

 3: Water Pollution, during the term of

the Variance.

3.

 Petitioner

shall,

 within thirty

 (30)

 days of the date of

this Order,

 execute and forward

 to the Environmental Protection

Agency, Control Program Coordinator,

 2200 Churchill Road,

 Springfield,

Illinois 62706,

 a Certificate of Acceptance

 in the format shown as

follows:

—

—4—

CERTIFICATE

 01’ ACCEJ~TANCE

I,

 (We)

___________________________

 having read

the

Order

of

the Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

in

case No. PCB 77—95, understand and accept said Order,

realizing

that

such

acceptance

renders

all

terms

and

conditions

 thereto binding and enforceable.

SIGNED

TITLE

DATE

I,

Christan

Moffet:t,

Clerk

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

 Board, hereby certify

 the above Opini on

and

Order

were

ildopt(’(1

On

 tlio

~

 d~yof

977

by

Vote

Christan

 L. Moff~4, Clerk

Illinois Po1luti~1Control Board

—

754