ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    March- 7,
    1974
    ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY
    (WOOD RIVER)
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 73—483
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    )
    OPINION
    AND
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Dr. Odell)
    On November 14,
    1973,
    Illinois Power Company
    (IP) filed
    with the Illinois Pollution Control Board
    (Board)
    a petition
    for variance from Rule 408
    (suspended and total dissolved solids)
    of Chapter
    3: Water Pollution Regulations, from January
    1 through
    June 30, 1974.
    Petitioner alleged suppliers’ delays in shipment
    of material and equipment as the impediment
    to their compliance
    by December 31, 1973.
    The Board’s interim Order of January 1O~
    1974, gave IP 21 days to supply necessary information to enable
    the Board to make
    a proper decision. The Board also requested
    a
    waiver of
    30 days to the 90—day requirement specified in Section
    38 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act.
    Petitioner
    submitted additional information on February 19, 1974,
    A 30—
    day waiver was received on January 16,
    1974.
    On February 15,
    1974,
    the Environmental Protection Agency
    (EPA)
    filed its
    Recommendation.
    Petitioner currently owns and operates a coal—fired electric
    power generating station, known as the Wood River
    Station, near
    the town of East Alton, Madison County, Illinois.
    In April, 1972,
    Petitioner contacted consulting engineers to determine what steps
    would be necessary to comply with the newly adopted Water Pollution
    Regulations which stated that compliance with Rule 408 had to be
    achieved by December 31, 1973.
    By July,
    1972,
    it was decided
    that repipirig and sump pumps would have to be installed in order
    to direct effluents to an ash lagoon for final treatment, thereby
    satisfying Rule 408
    (suspended and total dissolved solids).
    Petitioner decided at that time to incorporate these ideas into
    its EPA permit application.
    However, Petitioner did not apply
    for its permit until May,
    1973; permits were issued by the EPA
    in August,
    1973.
    IP ordered pumps in June,
    1973, and awarded
    the piping contract in mid-August,
    1973.
    A manufacturer’s strike
    delayed the pipe shipment; 95
    of the order was not received until
    February 14,
    1974.
    Design changes in the sump pumps delayed
    delivery to Petitioner.
    Two
    sets of duplex pumps were received
    on February 8,
    1974;
    and the third set of duplex pumps was expect-
    ed to be shipped on February 18, 1974.
    —2—
    The EPA recommended that the six-month variance be granted.
    The EPA stated in its Recommendation of February
    15’,
    1974:
    “5. The Agency notes that though delay in filing a permit
    application until May of 1973 appears unusually long, Petitioner
    apparently believed at the time
    of
    this submittal that timely
    compliance was possible.”
    “6.
    The Agency believes that Petitioner reasonably
    anticipated that timely compliance could be met if contracts
    were awarded by September 1, 1973.”
    “7.
    The Agency believes that the facts as presented by
    Petitioner, indicate that the delays encountered were substant-
    ially beyond its control and that the Petitioner took reason-
    able measures to avoid delay.
    Thus the Agency believes that to
    require timely compliance would impose an arbitrary or unreason-
    able hardship.”
    The determination of whether a hardship has been self-
    imposed turns on the facts and circumstances of each case.
    The
    test of unreasonable hardship is not satisfied when a petitioner
    negligently but in good faith fails to comply with the Act,
    rules, or regulations.
    A hardship is self—imposed
    if
    a reason-
    able, prudent man in the same or similar circumstances would
    not have acted the same way.
    Measured against this test,
    we
    believe Petitioner’s variance should be granted.
    While looking
    with a jaundiced eye on Petitioner’s delay in applying for its
    permit, Petitioner’s diligence in undertaking studies in April,
    1972, convinces us that more probably than not IP’s actions were
    reasonable and that the hardship is not self-imposed.
    This constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of
    law of the Board.
    ORDER
    IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:
    1.
    Petitioner be given a variance from Rule 408
    (suspended
    and total dissolved solids)
    of Chapter Three: Water Pollution
    Regulations,
    from January 1 through June
    30,
    1974.
    2.
    Petitioner submit monthly reports to the EPA setting
    out its progress toward compliance with Rule 408.
    These
    reports should be sent to:
    Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    Division of Water Pollution Control
    2200
    Churchill Road
    Springfield, Illinois 62706
    11
    —464
    —3—
    I, Christan
    L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that the a ove Opinion and Order was
    adopted on the
    ‘7”¼day of
    m
    ,
    1974, by a vote of
    ~
    to~
    __
    441s1tt
    Christan L. ~~9rett,
    Clerk

    Back to top