ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May 8,

1975

CELOTEX CORPORATION,

Petitioner

)

v.

)

PCB 75-61

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr.

Zeitlin)

The petition in this matter requests an extension of

a

Variance granted by the Pollution Control Board

(Board)

on

February

7,

1974 in PCB 73-445. The Petition for Extension

of Variance was filed on February 11,

1975,

and on the same

date

a Motion was filed

by

Petitioner

to grant the extension

without a hearing,

as authorized by Board Procedural Rule

405(b) (2)

On March

18,

1975,

the Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency)

filed a Recommendation to grant the Petition, with

certain conditions.

On April

10,

1975, Petitioner filed a

Response to Agency Recommendation.

In granting the prior Variance under PCB 73—445,

the

Board found that Petitioner Celotex Corporation

(Celotex)

was entitled to

a Variance from Rules 404(a) (i)

and 404(b) (i)

of the Water Regulations because it had committed itself to

meet the standards of Rule 404(b) (i) of the Water Regulations

by May 1,

1975.

The Board found this to be

a good solution

to an environmental problem that had persisted for an extended

period of time.

Celotex Corp.

v. EPA, PCB 73—445,

11 PCB

185, 187

(1974).

Rather than recite all the factors which

led the Board to that determination, we refer the reader to

the Board~sOpinion in that matter.

It is enough here to

state that the compliance program which was approved at that

time called for achievement of the BOD and SS standards of

Rule 404(b) (i)

by May 1,

1975, although the Variance granted

was only until October 21,

1974.

According to the Agency’s Recommendation in the instant

case, Celotex has complied with all the conditions of the

prior Order, and has produced an effluent which has substantially

exceeded the quality permitted by the Variance

(Ag.

Rec.

5).

16—607

---

—2—

Petitioner has revised the compliance date from May

1,

1975 to July

1,

1975, citing numerous delays

in equipment

deliveries and site preparation delays caused by inclement

weather

(Pet.

4 and 5).

We

concur with the Agency~sRecommendation

(Ag. Rec 7)

that Petitioner~srequest for a Variance

Extension should be

granted as it pertains

to

that

part

of

Sec.

12(a)

of

the

Act

which prohibits

“the discharge of

any

contaminants

so

as

to

violate

regulations

or standards adopted by the Pollution

Control

Board”,

from

that

part

of

Rule

203(a)

of Chapter

3

which

requires

that

waters

of

the

stal:e he free from “unnatural

sludge

or

bottom

depossts,

floating

dehris~~visible

oil,

odor,

unnatural

plant

or

algae

growth,

and

unnatural

color

or

turbidity”,

and

from

Rules

404 (a)

(I)

and

404 (h)

Ki)

of

Chapter

3.

Petitioner

has

demonstrated

commendable

:progress

towards

achieving compliance

with

the

appi .icable

rules

We

noted

“with

satisfaction”

in

our

prio.r

Opinion

that

Cesotex

had

committed

itself

to

a

program

of

compleance

which

would

result:. in the elimination of

a substantial

:Load of wastewater

a

~i3uenL

w~

~

~ond~Ls~

~ ~

dG~

t~

th~

Misslssip:L

Rever.,

Ou.r

satestaction

with

thai:

compliance.

program

has

not changed.

It

should

be

noted

that

while

this

Variance

Extension

is couched in terms of

an

eight

month

period,

the

actual

extension of time on the original compliance plan

is

in

fact

only two months,

The Board in its prior Order understood

that it would require at least until Nay

1,

1975 to

complete the installation of the pollution control facilities.

We find no fault with Petitioner for the two month delay,

which apparently results from factors beyond its control.

The only contended issue in this matter is the frequency

of reporting requested by the Agency in its Recommendation.

In a Response to the Agency’s Recommendation,

the Petitioner

has requested that

it

be

required to report on BOD and

SS

sampling semi~week1y,on

a quarterly basis as required

by its NPDES permit.

The Agency had recommended daily

sampling and monthly reporting.

Insofar as Petitioner has

shown a commendable history of complying with the prior

Board Order, and a good faith effort to minimize the pollutant

content of its effluent, we see no need to saddle it with an

additional administrative burden. Petitioner has demonstrated

that more regular reports are quite likely not necessary to

ensure compliance with the conditions

of our Order.

---

—3—

Petitioner in its Response to the Agency Recommendation

has agreed to the remainder of the conditions requested by

the Agency. We feel that this also demonstrates a willingness

to achieve compliance in accordance with the Board’s directives.

No hearing was held in this matter.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and

conclusions of law of the Board in this matter,

IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that

Petitiotier Celotex Corporation is granted

a Variance from

October 22,

1974 to July

1,

1975 from that part of Sec.

12(a)

of the Environmental Protection Act which prohibits

“the discharge of any contaminants so as to violate regulations

or standards adopted by the Pollution Control. Board”, from

that part of Rule 203(a)

of Chapter

3 which requires that

waters of the State be free from “unnatural sludge or bottom

deposits, floating debris, visible oil, odor,

unnatural

plant or algae growth, unnatural color or turbidity”, and

from Rules 404(a) (i)

and 404(b) (i)

of Chapter

3,

subject to

the following conditions:

a)

The performance bond submitted by Petitioner in

compliance with the Board Order in PCB 73~445be continued

in force and extended for the period of time of this Variance

extension;

b)

That discharges from Petitioner’s facility not

exceed the following:

Daily Average

BOD5

150 mg/i

300 mg/l

Suspended Solids

100 mg/I

200 mg/i

c)

That the partial Variance from Section 12(a)

of

the Act apply only to BOD and Suspended Solids;

d)

That Petitioner continue to submit

monthly

progress

and operating reports to the Environmental Protection Agency;

and,

e)

That Petitioner should sample his discharges twice

weekly and report the results quarterly to the Agency.

I, Christan L, Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby c~rtifythe above Opinion and Order

were adopted on the ~~~day

of

_____________________,

1975

byavoteof

~

to~.

~nL.Mo~,er

Illinois

Pollution ‘G~b~htrolBoard

16—609