ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April
4,
1985
CITY OF CARLYLE,
Petitioner,
v,
)
PCB 84—171
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
)
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by 3.
Marlin):
This matter comes before the Board upon
a petition for
variance extension filed by the City of Carlyle
(City) on
November
19,
1984 and amended on January
9,
1985
in response to a
November
21,
1984 Board Order.
The City requests
a variance from
the
15 mg/i total suspended solids
(TSS)
effluent standard of
35
Ill. Adm. Code 304.124(a)
for its drinking water treatment plant
(WTP)
discharge
to the Kaskaskia River.
The present variance
expires October
1,
1985.
The Agency filed
its recommendation
on
February
7,
1985.
The Agency objected to grant of variance.
The
objection was not timely pursuant to Section 37 of
the
Environmental Protection Act
(Act) and
35
Ill. Adm.
Code
104.141.
The City waived hearing and none was held.
A more
thorough,
factual and historical background of the case is
contained
in the prior Opinion and Order
in PCB 82—35,
47 PCB 265
(June 10,
1982) which,
along with the record,
is incorporated
into this proceeding.
The City’s proposed structural solution to
its sludge
disposal problem was to construct sludge lagoons,
a lift station
and force main.
The site
it chose
is
a park with three ponds.
Under the plan,
two ponds will be drained and modified
to act
as
sludge lagoons.
The total project cost
is cited
as $246,000
(Am.
Pet,
at
4).
The capital cost averaged over ten years at eleven
percent interest,
is $41,800
(Am. Pet.
at
5).
Operation and
maintenance costs are estimated at $15,000 annually.
The
facility will cost the average user $2.50 per month
(Id.)
According to the City’s figures,
the City discharges
a
maximum flow of 14,550 gallons per day of backwash water and
190,000 gallons per month of settling tank sludge with solids
concentrations
of
378 mg/i and 1100 mg/i,
respectively
(Am.
Pet.
at
6).
The low flow
in the river
is 41 cubic feet per second.
The dilution ratio
is
16 to
1
(Id.).
83-291
2
During the term of
the prior variance,
the capacity of the
water treatment plant was expanded
from one million gallons per
day
(MGD) to 1.5 MGD to provide water
to the homes
in the Hoffman
District where wells had excessive total coliform and nitrates.
The variance was conditioned on the ability of the City to meet a
two phase plan.
The first phase included construction of a water
distribution system for the District, which was financed by the
Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) for $1,660,000,
The second
phase provided for sludge treatment at the WTP by the end of the
variance period.
On or about September
23, 1983,
the City submitted the
identification of
a sludge control site
(a park with three
existing ponds),
the results of
a soils investigation of the site
and the preliminary costs of the proposed project.
The City
spoke
to the Agency
in March 1984 about the possibility of site—
specific relief.
The City had a specific compliance timetable
to meet
in
PCB 82—35.
Contracts were to be let by December 31, 1984 and
construction
to begin by February 1,
1985.
The Cityes proposed
timetable in its amended petition has contract letting on
November
30, 1986 and construction beginning on December
15,
1986.
Apparently,
the City has determined
to study
the
environmental impact
of sludge discharge
to the Kaskaskia before
it complies with the timetable ordered by the Board in PCB 82—
35.
This decision was reached more than one year after
the
September
21, 1983 date when the PCB 82—35 project should have
proceeded pursuant
to Board Order.
This year delay
is reflected
in the timetable presented to the Board
in the amended petition
(Am. Pet,
at 8).
No reason
for this significant delay was
presented by the
City..
After
its meeting with the Agency in
March 1984 regarding the
feasibility of
filing for site—specific
relief,
the City should have known that it would need an
environmental study.
Instead of taking timely action, the City
waited
an additional eight months to file for variance extension,
claiming that
it needed fifteen more months
to study the impact
on
the riveririe environment, prior
to filing
for site—specific
relief.
If the City had taken prompt action,
the study would
have been well underway by the end of 1984.
The City asserts
that an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship
would exist
if
it had
to comply with
the TSS effluent standard
after September 30,
1985.
It cites
the economic impact study
(EcIS,
Doc. No,
83/03)
in the Alton site—specific regulatory
proceeding, R82—3
(See 54 PCB 185, 56 PCB 47)
as support for its
hardship claim:
mainly,
that the cost to comply imposes a
hardship when compared
to the “...probable nonexistent detriment
to the environment of
the Kaskaskia River..,by allowing the
continuation of present sludge disposal methods,”
(Am. Pet, at
7).
83-292
3
The Board notes that the Alton case was unique on its
facts.
Among other things,
the Board notes
that the dilution
ratio
in
the Kaskaskia
is substantially less than that of the
Mississippi River.
The City provides
little information to support
its
contention that treating the discharge would
be an economic
hardship.
The proposed project
is technically feasible and will
cost about
$2.50 per user per month.
The approximate
costs of
compliance was known when the City agreed to the original two
phase project.
The
City has failed to provide the Board with any
compelling
reascn why the expenditures that were agreed
to
in PCB
82—35 should no~~e considered
as constituting
an arbitrary or
unreasonable hardship.
Indeed,
any hardship incurred due
to
rising costs or changing conditions
is self—imposed
in so far as
the Ci~yhas delayed phase
two without explanation.
Data on the environmental impact of the grant of variance
is
sorely lacking
in the petition as
it was
in the PCB 82—35
petition.
The City concludes that there would be
a “nonexistent
detriment
to the environment”
if the variance were granted yet
asks for time “to conduct a study to determine the impact of
its
discharge on the River.”
(Am. Pet
at
7).
The Agency states that
TSS poses a threat to fish by impairing their respiration,
feeding, growth and reproduction; and impairs photosynthesis and
respiration of other aquatic biota
(Ag. Rec. at 4,5).
The
extension of this variance cannot
be justified by conciusory
allegations of no environmental detriment.
No environmental data
were submitted by the City
in connection with the instant
petition and no data were submitted
in connection with the
original petition.
The Board
finds that the City has failed
to justify
its
request for variance extension or to show that an aribitrary or
unreasonable hardship would result
if
it complied with the
standard.
Therefore,
the Board denies the City’s request
for an
extension of
its variance from the TSS effluent standard of
35
Ill, Adm. Code 304.124(a).
This Opinion constitutes
the Board’s findings
of fact and
conclusions
of law in this matter.
ORDER
The City of Carlyle
is hereby denied
a variance for
its
water treatment plant from the TSS effluent standard of
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 304.124(a).
IT IS SO oRDERED.
63-293
4
I,
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was
adopted on the
‘~/~-
day of
____________________,
1985
byavoteof
____________
Dorothy M. Gunn,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
63-294