ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March
26, 1975
ALTON BOX BOARD COMPANY,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 74—491
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
MR. KARL K. HOAGLAND,
JR., Attorney of Record for Petitioner;
MR. HENRY
J. HANDZEL,
JR., Attorney of Record for Respondent.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Dumelle):
Aiton Box Board Company
(Alton)
filed
a request for an
extens:Lon of a previously granted variance on December 31,
1974 relating to discharges from its Alton paper mill.
The
Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
filed a request for
hearing and a recommendation on February
6,
1975.
On February
27,
1975
the
Pollution Control Board
(Board)
entered an
order denying the Agency’s request for hearing but allowing
the parties
10 days to submit additional
information with
respect to the variance extension and allowing an additional
five
days for the filing of rebuttal statements by March 14,
1975.
Aiton filed a response to points raised
in
the Agency
recommendation on March
7,
1975.
The Agency filed a rebuttal
statement on March 17,
1975.
Alton seeks to extend the variance granted by the Board
in Alton Box Board Company
v.
EPA,
PCB
73-140,
9 PCB 15
(August
9,
1973)
,
as extended by the Board pursuant to the
order in Alton Box Board Company v.
EPA, PCB 74-5,
13 PCB 63
(July
18,
1974).
The extension Alton seeks
is a one-year
extension to and including April
6,
1976.
The extension
granted in PCB 74-5 was the result of
a stipulation and an
agreement between the Agency and Alton with respect to the
variance proceedings and two separate enforcement actions
(PCB
73—61,
74—51, and 74-15)
.
Alton stipulated that the
Board could take official notice of the prior proceeding and
the petition for variance in PCB 73-140 and the petition for
extension of variance in PCB 74-5.
Alton alleges that it
fully and timely complied with all the Board requirements
and conditions set forth in the Board order in the two
previous variance actions.
Alton further alleged that to
deny the variance extension would impose an arbitrary and
unreasonable hardship.
16—227
—2—
The Agency,
in its recommendation to deny the variance
extension, denied that Alton was in complete compliance with
the conditions
of the previous Board orders.
The Agency
raised a series of points of the prior Board order, on a
paragraph by paragraph basis, which it believed Alton had
failed to comply with.
Based upon this analysis, the Agency
recommended that the Board deny the variance petition until
Alton submitted adequate proof that it had complied with the
prior Board order or that failure to comply with the conditions
were due to circumstances beyond the control of Alton.
The
Agency further recommended that if the variance be granted
that certain specific conditions be attached.
The Response To The Point Raised In The Agency’s Recommenda-
tion filed by Alton on March
7,
1975 answered many of the
points raised by the Agency’s recommendation.
The Agency
noted,
in its rebuttal to Alton’s response, that Alton had
shown that
59 working days were lost between June
4,
1974
and February 14,
1975 due to labor problems, mechanical
breakdowns of equipment and inclement weather.
Alton further
provided data indicating that it incurred expenses of $6,391.19
in order to keep the impoundment area at a low water level.
Based upon the information provided by Alton
in the March
response,
the Agency stated it believed that “Alton had
substantially complied with the requirements of paragraph
1,
3,
4a,
4b,
4c,
4d,
4e, and
6 of the Board’s order in PCB 74-
51”.
The Agency,
however,
stated that it still felt that
Alton had failed to provide sufficient data to justify non-
compliance with paragraph
2,
4f, and
5 of the Board’s order
in PCB 74-51.
The Board agrees with several questions submitted by
the Agency.
Paragraph
3 of the order in PCB 74-51 required
that Alton “immediately construct and operate a means to
divert Alton mill effluent directly to the Mississippi
River.. .by July 30, 1974”.
Alton has stated that it did not
achieve compliance with paragraph
3 until March
6,
1975.
It
should be pointed out that the Board granted the extension
in PCB 74-51 as part of an overall settlement of the variance
and enforcement cases.
One enforcement case dealt with a
very grave hydrogen sulfide
(H2S)
emission problem resulting
from the impoundment of Alton’s high BOD and sulfate effluent.
The parties agreed, and the Board ordered,
that Alton discharge
its effluent directly to the Mississippi River no later than
July 30,
1974.
Alton in its response stated that
“it would
be
a fair statement to say that it was a well-known fact
that the original dates specified in the stipulation could
not possibly be met at the time the stipulation was approved
by the Board”.
The Agency disputes this “well-known fact”
and stated that “the Agency did indeed expect these dates to
16—228
—3—
be adhered to
in accordance with the conditions of the
stipulation”.
The Board agrees with the Agency.
A date
contained in
a Pollution Control Board order
is to be complied
with.
Alton should need no reminder that it has filed a
substantial bond to insure compliance with the terms and
conditions of
the original variance and the order extending
the original variance.
This order required installation of
the pipeline by July
30,
1974.
If Alton could not comply
with this provision of the suggested order, then Alton
should not have agreed and so submitted that provision.
If
Alton cannot comply with a date or provision of a Board
order, then Alton should seek to modify that order through
an appropriate variance proceeding
(or,
if timely,
a motion
to modify pursuant to Procedural Rule 334)
.
The installation
of the pipeline was an integral part to the prior Board
order.
The Board further agrees with the Agency that Alton has
failed to adequately comply with paragraph
2 of the order in
PCB 74-51.
This paragraph required Alton to neutralize,
treat or remove any odor—producing sludge which had accumulated
in the impoundment area on a one—time basis so as to prevent
future emission of offensive odors to the atmosphere which
could result from said sludge.
While paragraph
2 required
that Alton take these steps once Alton had constructed and
operated a means to divert its effluent directly to the
Mississippi River,
as discussed in the prior paragraph,
this
pipeline was to have been constructed no later than July
30,
1974.
Alton in its response stated that it had undertaken
some action and that a report from its consultant was expected
within a month.
The Agency stated any variance extension
should be conditioned upon the submittal of an acceptable
program for accomplishing the prior requirement of paragraph
2 of the previous Board order.
The Board agrees with this
Agency recommendation and will so condition the grant of
this variance extension.
Paragraph 4f of the prior variance extension required
Alton to “dispose of any sludge removed from the sludge
lagoon or clarifier in a manner acceptable to the Agency”.
Alton has removed an accumulation of sludge from the lagoon
and stock piled it adjacent to the lagoon.
Although Alton
states that it has “not disposed”
of the sludge as of yet,
Alton has clearly
“removed” such sludge from the lagoon.
The Board will condition an extension of this variance upon
requirement that Alton submit a report setting forth an
engineering program acceptable to the Agency for disposal of
the sludge removed from the sludge lagoons or clarifier.
16—229
—4—
Paragraph
5 of the previous order required Alton to
“prepare and implement an Agency-approved water pollution
control abatement program for effluent to the ditch on
the northside of the Alton mill property”.
Alton correctly
states that no time limit was imposed for the preparation of
an Agency-approved water pollution abatement program for
this effluent.
Alton states that it has undertaken an
engineering program to identify and locate sources of effluent
within its plants during September through November of
1974.
The Agency states that compliance with the requirement for
this effluent was necessary by December 31,
1974.
Therefore,
the Agency recommends
that before Alton should be granted a
variance for this effluent, that Alton should submit a
preliminary plan for abatement of this discharge within 45
days
of the date of the Board order or in the alternative
the Agency recommends that a variance be denied for this
discharge.
Rather than deny the variance the Board will
condition the variance extension upon a submittal of
a
preliminary plan within 45 days.
The Agency recommends that any grant of
a variance
extension be conditioned upon the imposition of numerical
limitations on Alton’s discharge.
Alton states that the
Agency recommendations for numerical limitations, which are
found in Table
I of Agency Exhibit
2, which accompanied the
Agency Recommendation, and were based on
a single test and
may not be representative of those contaminants under any
and all conditions~ Alton further states,
however, that,
it
would have no objection to the imposition of these numerical
limits so long as the basic intention of the parties to
provide a sufficient and complete variance from these effluent
limits is not violated.
Because of the long Board policy in
imposing upper numerical limitations on variances whenever
possible, the Board will condition the variance extension
from Rule 408 upon such limitations.
Should Alton not
maintain its effluent within such limitations it can take
appropriate action.
The Board finds with the exception of those portions of
the Board order previously discussed,
that Alton has established
substantial compliance with the previous Board order and
that to deny such variance extension would
impose an arbitrary
and unreasonable hardship.
For these reasons the Board will
extend the previously granted variance subject to those
conditions which have been previously discussed.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact
and conclusions of law.
ORDER
The Pollution Control Board hereby extends the variance
16—230
—5—
previously granted in PCB 74-5 to Alton Box Board Company from
April
6,
1974 until April
6,
1976 subject
to
the following
conditions:
(1)
That this variance shall be limited to Rules 402,
403,
404(b)
and 408(a)
as to Iron
(total),
Iron
(dissolved),
Lead
(total), Manganese
(total), Oil
(Hexane solubles or
equivalent), Phenols,
and Total Dissolved Solids and 408(b),
408(c), and 962 of Chapter
3, and a limited variance from
Section 12(a)
of the Act.
The variance from Section 12(a)
is to be limited to the discharge of BOD~,
Total Suspended
Solids,
Total Dissolved Solids and the c~ntaminantsspecified
under Rule 408(a) above.
(2)
That the variance from Rule 408(a)
shall be limited
to the following:
Iron
(total)
4.0 mg/i
Iron
(dissolved)
2.0 mg/i
Lead
(total)
1.0 mg/i
Manganese
(total)
1.5 mg/i
Oil
(Hexane Solubles
or equivalent)
40.0 mg/l
Phenols
1.0 mg/i
Total Dissolved Solids
5,000
mg/i
(3)
That Alton shall comply with the following schedule:
(a)
Until August 31,
1975, Alton’s discharges
shall not exceed 130 mg/i of suspended solids as a
monthly average nor 260 mg/l of suspended solids as
a daily maximum based on a 24—hour composite sample
at any time.
(b)
Completion of conversion to 100
secondary
fiber shall be attained by June 30,
1975.
Cc)
Interim effluent limitations of 20,000 lbs
of BOO5 as
a daily average and 40,000 lbs of BOD5
as a daily maximum, and 4,200 lbs of suspended solids
daily average and 8,400 lbs of suspended solids as
a daily maximum shall be attained by August 31,
1975.
(d)
Progress reports on Stages
3 and 4 shall be
submitted on February 28,
1976 to the Agency.
(e)
Preliminary wastewater treatment plant plans
and specifications shall be submitted by March
31,
1976 to the Agency.
(f)
Completion
of Stage
4 and compliance with the
standards of
20 mg/i of BOD5 and 25 mg/i of suspended
solids shall be attained by June 30,
1978.
16—231
—6—
(g)
Attainment of all the requirements
for Rule
408 shall be made by June
30,
1978.
(4)
That Alton collect samples for all parameters set
forth in Table
1 contained in Agency Exhibit
2 at least once
every six months.
That the company collect samples and
report analysis for all parameters included within paragraph
1 of this order on a monthly basis to the Agency.
(5)
That Alton submit a report within 30 days detailing
the steps which it has taken and intends to take to neutralize
or treat the sludge remaining in the impoundment area.
(6)
That Alton submit within 60 days a report setting
forth an engineering program acceptable to the Agency for
disposal of sludge removed from the sludge lagoons or clarifier.
(7)
That the pipe and pump station for diverting its
effluent directly to the river is kept operating during this
variance extension.
(8)
That Aiton continue to provide monthly progress
reports on items yet to be completed as required in the
prior Board orders PCB 73—140, August 9,
1973,
and PCB 74—5,
August 29,
1974.
(9)
That Alton procure all permits necessary for
implementation of its abatement program.
(10) That the performance bond posted in PCB 73-140
remain in full force and effect and be so modified as to
assure performance of the conditions of this variance.
(11) That Alton file a statement with the Board and the
Agency accepting all the terms and conditions of any variance
extension within
35 days from the date of the Board order.
(12) That Alton submit to the Agency an acceptable
abatement program for discharges
from the water treatment
facility to the ditch on the north side of Aiton mill property
within 45 days of the date of the Board’s order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby cer1~ifythe above Opinion and Order
weçe adopted on the
~
day of March, 1975 by a vote of
L1-O
Illinois Pollution Control Board
16—232