ILLINCIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
October
1,
1967
CITY OF ROCK ISLAND,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 85—118
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
MR.
ROY HI~RSCHAPPEARED ON BI~HALFOF PETITIONER.
MR.
E. ~QILLIAM HUTTON APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by
R.
C.
Flemal):
This matter comes before the Board upon the August
13,
1985,
filing
by the City of
Rock Island,
Department of Public works,
(“Rock Island”)
of
a Petition
for Variance.
The Petition
identifies
three courses
of possible variance relief which Rock
Island çequested that the Board consider
in the alternative.
At
hearirig~held 3uly
15, l9~7, in Rock Island,
Rock Island and
the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(“Agency”) presented
a
common recommendation
that
the Board consider only one
of the
original alternatives,
and that
in modified
form
(R.
at
6—8).
It
is
this modified alternative which
is before
the Board today.
Specifically,
Rock Island requests,
and the Agency
recommends,
that Rock Island
be granted variance
from 35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 304.106 and from 304.124(a)
as
it pertains
to total
suspended solids,
iron,
and manganese discharges
to Black Hawk
Creek.
Variance
is requested to expire on December
1,
1991,
and
to
be subject
to
certain additional
agreed—upon conditions.
For the reason discussed
below,
the requested relief will
be
granted.
Having
so
said,
the Board
notes
that
the parties have
left the record
in the instant matter
in
a deplorable
state.
The
Board
finds the
record
to
be extraordinarily confusing and
1 A substantial number
of procedural actions occurred during
the
period subsequent
to the original filing
and prior
to the
hearing.
These included conferences between
the parties
and
a
variety of filings
before the Board
by both parties.
Except as
noted
herein,
these actions, among much other material
in
the
record,
are no longer germane
to the matter
as it now stands,
and
accordingly will not
be reviewed here.
82—05
—
thereby
to have required
an excessive amount
of the Board’s time
to sift
and sort
through.
Rock
Island,
in particular, has
developed
a record which
is largely designed
to support
a
petition for
a site—specific exemption,
rather
than focus on
the
variance matter which
is
at hand.
Moreover, when Rock Island
at
hearing
switched its attention to
a bona fide variance
request,
it both failed
to correlate
the preceding
record with its new
position and continued
to use the hearing
in this matter
to
advocate
its position respecting
the hypothetical
site—specific
exemption.
The Agency,
for its part, presented nothing
at
hearing and
in
its very brief Amended Recommendation presents
only very minimal guidance on such
a critical matter as the
environmental
impact.
Both parties
also declined
to
submit post—
hearing briefs,
thus leaving the record without
any summation and
little apparent direction.
Under
these circumstances the Board must properly ask itself
whether
it should return this matter
to the parties
for amendment
of
the record,
or proceed
to
a decision
in the best manner
that
the record allows.
The Board believes that the latter course
of
action
is
the least objectionable.
The matter
is already over
two years old,
in spite
of the fact
that the Environmental
Protection Act contemplates
that timely decisions
on variances be
reached
in no more than 120 days.
The Board
can not see that
sending
this matter back
to
the parties would do anything but
continue
to prolong
an already over—prolonged proceeding.
PRIOR PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BOARD
The instant matter
is closely related
to two prior
proceedings before the Board,
both of which dealt with the Rock
Island
water supply system.
They are R84—l8
(In the Matter
of:,
Petition of City
of Rock
Island
for
a Site—Specific Exemption
from
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 304.106
for Sludge Discharge
to the
Mississippi
River)
and PCB 87—13
(City of Rock
Island
v.
IEPA,
Nay 14,
1987).
In R84—18 Rock Island
proposed
a site—specific
exemption for
its sludge discharges.
The site—specific relief
would have allowed Rock Island
to discharge
all
of
its sludges
directly
to
the Mississippi
River without applying any treatment
to the sludges.
The Board dismissed
this proposal
on November
21,
1984, noting that “Rock Island’s proposal
is
far
too vague
for
the Board
to act on”
(61 PCB 245).
Among specific
deficiencies noted
by the Board were failure
to identify the
location of
tne proposed discharge point
and failure
to provide
any information
on the environmental
impact of
the proposal.
In PCB 87—13
the Board granted Rock Island
variance from the
trihalomethane standard of
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 604.202
and
6U4.203(d) until May,
1989, conditioned upon Rock Island’s
construction of facilities necessary
to bring
the Rock
Island
water
supply into compliance with
the trihalomethanes standard.
82—06
—3—
The production
of
trihalomethanes
in the Rock Island water
treatment system is
in part related
to the manner
in which
sludges
are handled
(see
following).
BACKGROUND
Rock Island owns and operates
a potable water treatment
facility which provides clarified,
tiltered, and disinfected
water
to approximately 47,000 residents and 1,000 businesses
in
the city.
water treatment
facilities
include
a raw water pumping
station,
a
treatment plant,
six elevated
towers,
and
a
distribution system consisting
of cast iron,
steel, and ductile
iron mains.
The water
treatment facilities
have
a current
capacity of approximately 16 million gallons per day,
with all
raw water
being
taken from the Mississippi
River.
Average
pumping
rate currently
is approximately
6 million gallons per day
(R.
at
22).
Primary clarification
is achieved through rapid—mix,
flocculation,
and sedimentation,
aided
by the addition
of alum
and lime.
Clarified water
from the sedimentation basins passes
through gravity filters
for filtration of remaining
suspended
solids.
Finished water
flows
to
“clear
lakes”
(finished water
reservoirs)
after chlorine disinfection and fluoridation.
It is
then routed either
into on—site storage
or pumped
into
the
distribution system.
Chemicals added
to
the water
as
part of the treatment
process consist of the following
(Petition
at
5):
Chemical
Average
Dose
Function
Alum
6.4 mg/l
Clarification
Lime
29.6 mg/i
pH Adjustment
Fluoride
1.35 mg/i
Fluoridation
Chlorine
11.87 mg/i
Disinfection
Sludge (settled
solids)
accumulates
in the flocculation and
sedimentation basins
at
a rate
of approximately 4,600
lbs/day.
Forty—nine percent
of the solids are composed
of suspended
particles present
in
the original
raw river water.
Twenty—three
percent
is compose~of aluminum hydrate
and twenty—seven percent
is calcium hydrate
Sludge handling facilities
include
a backwash recovery
basin,
a sludge thickener,
and basket centrifuges
for dewatering
2 These
data
are provided
in
a Motion
to Correct
Record filed
by
Petitioner
on September
28, 1987.
The Motion
is granted.
82—07
—‘~
-
of
the sludge.
Flocculated
raw water
solids settle
in
the
sedimentation basins,
and some of the settled
solids are routed
to
the
sludge thickener.
Filter
backwash waste
is routed
to the
backwash recovery basins and then into the sludge thickener.
Dewatered solids,
which consist
of approximately nineteen percent
of
the total
accumulated solids
(Sept.
28 Motion
at
2), are
hauled
to
and disposed
in
a regional landfill.
The remaining
solids are presently flushed twice each year into
a storm sewer,
which
in turn discharges
into Black Hawk Creek
(R.
at
l5)
Each
flushing event last five days and the
solids discharge
at
a rate
of approximately 144,000 lbs/day
(Sept.
28 Motion
at
2).
Black
Hawk Creek, which
heads
at
the storm sewer,
is tributary
to the
Rock River
at
a point approximately 3~8miles upstream from the
latter’s confluence
with
the Mississippi
River
(R.a
t
59).
Rock Island characterizes the need
to discharge solids
to
Black
Hawk Creek as
follows
(Petition at
4—5):
The centrifuges are capable
of handling all
of the
sludge removed by the four
65—foot diameter circular
sludge rake mechanisms
in the two sedimentation
basins.
As these circular sludge collectors were
installed
in rectangular
basins,
not all
of
the sludge
is removed.
These accumulated solids must periodically
be removed
before they reduce the effluent quality
and
capacity of the system.
Effluent quality deteriorates
in
two ways.
First,
as the solids accumulate
to the
point that velocities become too high,
the turbidity of
the finished water will
increase.
Second,
the organics
in
the sludge undergo gradual anaerobic decomposition.
The products
of this decomposition are believed to
be
precursors
to trihalomethane
(THM)
formation.
*
*
*
*
*
To
avoid
the above problems,
each sedimentation basin,
as well
as each
of
the flocculating basins,
is taken
out
of service every three
to six months to flush
the solids
out.
Fire hoses are used
to push
the accumulated
solids
to the drain which
is connected
to the
storm sewer.
The sludge flushed
out
of the basins enters
a storm
sewer
that actually forms
the headwaters
of Black Hawk
Creek.
Black Hawk Creek
flows
in
a southerly direction
a total
of 2.2 stream miles, where
it joins
the Rock
River.
Solids are typically discharged four
times
per
year when the accumulated solids
are flushed
from the
basins.
Black
hawk
Creek has received water treatment
plant solids
since 1910.
82—08
—5--
REQUESTED RELIEF
It
is apparently conceded
by the parties that the sludge
discharges
to Black Hawk Creek do not meet certain effluent
standards
of
35
Iii. Adm.
Code
304.124(a).
however,
it
is
unclear from the record which standards
are being exceeded and
how these correlate with
the relief requested.
For
the sake of
bringing some focus
to this proceeding,
the Board will accept
that the parameters
for which relief
is specifically requested
are the only parameters
of
interest.
These
are total
suspended
solids,
iron, and manganese.
Accordingly,
the matter
of
relief
will
be directed only
to these three parameters.
Nevertheless, the Board
can not help noting that data
supplied by Rock Island
in its original filing
(Petition,
Ex.
la)
implies that wet base concentrations
of other
parameters
identified
in
35
Ill.
Adm. Code
304.124(a)
also exceed the
established standards.
Among
these
are
a concentration of barium
at 8.8 mg/i versus
a standard of
2.0 mg/i,
copper
at 11.4 mg/i
versus
a standard
of 0.5 mg/i,
and lead at 1.2 mg/l versus a
standard
of 0.2 mg/i.
The parties must be aware that granting
of
relief
as requested does not provide relief from compliance with
other than the three specified standards.
The parties also request relief
from 35
Ill.
Adrn.
Code
304.106, which reads:
Section 304.106
Offensive Discharges
In addition
to
the other
requirements
of
this Part,
no
effluent shaii
contain settleable solids,
floating
debris,
visible oil, grease,
scum or siudge solids.
Color, odor and turbidity must
be reduced
to below
obvious levels.
There
is
no discussion
in the record
of most
of the
pollutants mentioned
in 304.106,
even though relief
is apparently
being
requested from the entire
list.
COMPLIANCE CONSIDERATIONS
Rock Island has investigated
a number of options
to rectify
the Black Hawk Creek situation,
including:
1)
Discharging sludges
to the Rock
Island sewage treatment
plant;
2)
Relocating
its discharge
to
the Mississippi River;
3)
Maintaining the status quo
and
82—09
—6—
4)
Installing control equipment
to eliminate
all
discharges.
Discharging sludges
to the municipal sewage treatment plant
is not considered feasible because
the sewage treatment plant
currently exceeds
its solids capacity
and
is near
its hydraulic
capacity
(R.
at
19).
Accordingly,
it
is believed that the sewage
treatment plant would
not handle
the added
load without
large--
scale additions
for facilities
(R. at 18).
Neither
the second nor
third option would
eliminate
violations of the standards in question.
Accordingly, Rock
Island has considered
requesting site—specific exception
if
either
of
these two options were
to be
followed.
Rock
Island has
further conjectured
that site—specific relief would
be more
defensible
if the discharge were
to the large Mississippi River
than
if
it were
to remain
to
the
small Black Hawk Creek
(Petition
at
12).
For this reason,
Rock Island has rejected permanent
maintainance
of the status
quo (Id.).
The solution that Rock
Island would apparently prefer
is
to
relocate
all of
its discharges
to the Mississippi River.
It. was
to this end that Rock Island proposed the aborted plan of
R84--
l8~. Subsequently Rock Island has attempted
to rectify
the
deficiences
in the R84—l8 proposal
(Petition at 6—7)
and has
contended
that
it will
file
a new site--specificprop~sa. premised
on diverting
all discharges
to the Mississippi River
.
To this
extent, Rock Island has not abandoned
the relocation option.
However, Rock Island
is apparently aware of
the long-
standing holding
that mere
speculation
that
a site--specific
proposal may be filed, yet alone that the site--specificproposal
might
be acted
upon
in
a manner favorable
to the proponent,
is an
insufficient basis
for the granting of
a variance.
See Modine
Manufacturing
v.
IEPA,
PCB 79--112, August
18,
1982;
Modine
Manufacturing
v.
IEPA, PCB
85—59,
May 16,
1985;
Borden Chemical
v.
IEPA, PCB 82—82, December
5, 1985;
City of Mendota
V.
IEPA,
~ Additionally,
in one
of
the alternatives posed
in the original
Petition
in the instant matter,
Rock Island proposed
to relocate
the discharge point
to
the Mississippi River during the term of
the variance
(Petition
at
1), and
to
use the record thus
developed
as
a basis
for seeking site--specificrelief.
This
alternative has been withdrawn,
and Rock Island currently intends
to maintain
the Black
Hawk Creek discharge during the full
course
of the variance.
The Board notes
that this proposal was filed
on September
29,
1987,
and
is docketed by the Board
in separate action taken this
date,
October
1,
1987.
82—10
PCB 85—182,
July
11,
1986;
Schrock/A Tappan Division
v.
IEPA,
PCB 66—205,
March
5,
1967.
In so holding,
the Board has affirmed
that
a variance
is properly
a temporary compliance exemption
granted
under
the circumstance where petitioner would suffer an
arbitrary
or
unreasonable hardship not justified
by the
environmental impact
if required
to come into immediate
compliance.
Explicit
is
that petitioner
commits
to achieving
timely compliance
through
a specifically identified compliance
program.
Accordingly,
Rock
Island
at hearing
(R.
at
6—8) and
on the
apparent recommendation
of the Agency has agreed
to a specific
compliance program which contains,
inter
alia,
the following
elements:
1)
Submission
to the Agency by December
1,
1989,
of
a
plan describing the facilities necessary
for
bringing
the discharges
into compliance
with Board
regulations;
2)
A date—specific construction
schedule
for
the
facilities
identified
in
(1),
with construction
to
be completed and
full
operational status achieved
by December
1,
1991;
3)
Specification that conditions
of
tne variance would
be suspended upon the date of
any Board Order
exempting Rock Island from any treatment
or
storage
requirements
for
its sludges;
and
4)
Specification that pendency
of any rulemaking
concerning the Rock Island discharges shall
not
excuse any delay or
failure to meet conditions of
the variance.
It
is
to
be noted
that Rock Island does not now identify the
specific facilities
it will construct
to come into compliance.
Rather,
it requests that
it have until December
1,
1989,
approximately two years,
to make this determination.
This
notwithstanding,
Rock Island has investigated several
possibilities.
Among
these
are
a recommendation by Rock Island’s
consulting engineerings
that Rock Island construct
three circular
clarifiers
to replace the existing sludge basins
(R. at
32).
Other options
including adding sludge drying
beds, which appears
to be Rock Island preferred alternative
at this time
(R. at 48).
HARDSHIP
Rock Island presents
three
areas
of hardship which
it
contends are sufficient
to warrant grant of the requested
relief.
First,
it
asserts
that
treatment of
any kind presents
a
82—Il
—b
—
financial hardship,
based
on
the combined premises that treatment
is costly and
that
treatment
is not necessary for environmental
protection.
Second,
it asserts
that elimination
of all
discharges would require prohibitively high capital
expenditures.
Third,
it
contends that valuable recreational and
park
land would
be lost concomitant with
installation of control
equipment.
The Board believes that Rock Island has not yet made the
demonstration sufficient
to conclude that
no treatment is
necessary.
For this reason,
the
Board
can
not conclude that Rock
Island’s
first contention
of hardship has merit.
However,
the Board
does agree
that Rock Island would
incur
substantial financial hardship
if required to immediately
eliminate
all sludge discharges.
The required new flocculation
and sedimentation basins are estimated
to cost $2.5 million
(R.
at
17).
If
other
costs
are also factored
in, elimination
of all
discharges
to Black
Hawk Creek
are alleged cost
$4 million
(R.
at
16)
Rock Island contends that
it would
have
to
finance any large
improvements
to
the water system via
a bond issue.
However, Rock
Island
currently has no bonn rating due
to
an approximately $1.5
million deficit
in the city’s general
fund
(R.
at
28),
and thus
Rock Island
believes that selling
of
the bonds could
be
accomplished only under conditions of
“a pretty severe interest
penalty”
(R.
at
30).
Additionally,
Rock
Island points
out that
its current water
rates
are the highest
~.nthe Quad Cities area
and will
rise
10
again
in April
1988
as part of
a scheduled
rate
increase designed
to
eliminate
a current deficit
(R.
at
24—31).
Installation
of new facilities
at
the current water
treatment plant would require utilizing
land from the adjacent
Reservoir
Park.
Rock Island points
out that over
26,500
participants uses this 8.6 acre park annually for
a variety
of
recreational
and organized sports activities
(Petition
at 15—16;
Ex.
4).
Rock Island further contends that expansion of the water
treatment facilities
would
require
taking
a minimum of three
acres of
the park out of recreational
use, with the possibility
that
all
of
the park
land
would
be required
(R.
at
34—7).
Mr.
Jack Fogel,
Director of Parks
and Recreation
for Rock
Island,
testified
that the park
is highly valued
in
the local community
and
that
it would
not be
readily replacable
(R.
at 50—5).
The Agency submits that while each area of hardship
is not
substantial,
“the cumulative effect creates a hardship sufficient
to allow the granting of
a variance”
(Amended Rec.
at
12).
The
Board
agrees.
82—12
—9—
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
Rock
Island characterizes Black
Hawk Creek and the impact
that its sludge discharges have on the Creek as
follows
(Petition
at
5—6):
Black Hawk Creek starts
0.4 miles
south
of the water
treatment plant,
in
a densely wooded ravine.
The ravine
is bordered by
residences and several commercial
establishments
in its northern reaches.
It also flows
past
the County Sanitarium and
a school
before entering
Black
Hawk State Park
for approximately the last stream
mile before
the confluence with
the Rock River.
Access
to the ravine
is restricted
in much
of the
residential area
by the steeply sloping
sides
of the
ravine.
The heavy, dense vegetation shields
the stream
from view except at several
road crossings.
Dumping
of
branches,
grass clippings and other materials into the
ravine
is common
in
the residential area.
During discharge of the water treatment sludge
to Black
Hawk Creek,
the Creek becomes
a milky
color due to the
high solids discharge.
However,
this discoloration does
not appear
at
the mouth because
of the high turbidity
in
the Rock River.
Once the water treatment plant ceases
the discharge,
the Creek soon returns
to
its natural
condition.
Given
the steep drop in the Creek’s
elevation,
90 feet over~2.2 miles, limited sludge
accumulation occurs
in Black
Hawk Creek.
Sludge
accumulation
is present
in
the
wider areas of
the Creek,
mostly
in the upstream reaches.
However, the vast
majority of Black Hawk Creek has
a sand/gravel base.
As Black
Hawk Creek
is an intermittent stream, with
shallow depths because
of
the steep elevation change,
the only fish that
inhabit the Creek
are minnows.
Near
the confluence
of Black
Hawk Creek with the Rock River,
the Creek widens and deepens
and this 100 yard stretch
would
be expected
to
be similar
to the Rock River
in its
fish population and diversity.
In addition
to the water
treatment plant discharge,
Black Hawk
Creek receives
stormwater discharges,
and one sanitary sewer
relief
point near
the mouth
of the river.
Rock Island also presented two witnesses,
Messrs.
Gerald
Roach
and James
E.
Huff, both of Huff
& Huff,
Incorporated, who
testified
to the present character
of Black
Hawk Creek and the
impact of the sludge discharges on
it.
Mr. Roach’s
field
investigations, which were based
on sampling
of benthic
organisms,
indicate
that Black
Hawk Creek has poor water
quality
(R.
at
65; Ex.
6).
Specifically, Mr. Roach calculated
the
82—13
—10-
Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index
(“MBI”)
at various sites
in the
Black
Hawk Creek Drainage Basin.
He found
that eighteen of
nineteen MEl values ranged between 6.2 and
11.0, where
any value
between
6.0
and 11.0
is considered indicative
of poor water
quality
(R.
at
60; Ex.
6,
attach.
3 and 4).
Nevertheless,
Mr.
Roach concludes that elimination of the sludge discharges would
not improve the MEl values.
This conclusion
is based
on analysis
of the substrate of Black Hawk Creek, which suggests “that some
other environmental
factor, other
than accumulated water
treatment plant sludge,
is limiting the biological quality”
(R.
at 62).
It
is further
based
on comparison
of
the MEl values
of
Black
Hawk Creek with the values of two tributaries
of Black Hawk
Creek and
of
a similar nearby creek which does not receive
a
water treatment plant discharge;
in
all cases
the MBI’s
are
similar
(R.
at
63).
Mr.
Huff
testified that there
is
no long—term accumulation
of sludge deposits within Black
Hawk Creek
(R. at
71),
although
some sludge does temporarily accumulate
during
low flow
conditions
and
is flushed out during high flow periods
(R.
at
72)
Mr. Huff also testified
that
he observed the Creek during
a
flushing
event,
and
that
no odors could
be detected
(Id.).
The Agency conclunes
that “grant
of
a variance will
result
in an environmental
impact,
as periodic discharges
to Black Hawk
Creek will continue”
(Amended Rec.
at
14).
Nevertheless,
the
Agency concludes that “on balance,
the hardship to Petitioner
outweighs any adverse environmental
impact”
(Id.).
As mitigating
factors
in the environmental impact, the Agency notes that water
quality standards applicable
to Black
Hawk Creek will remain
in
effect,
and that
Rock
Island will continue
to operate
its
existing facilities during
the period
of the variance
(Id. at 14—
5).
“NO TREATMENT”
ALTERNATiVE
Rock island
and the Agency5 have posed
to
the Board
the
question of whether
the Board would refuse
to grant
a proposed
site—specific
rule
on
the sole ground
that the actual
impact of
a
“no treatment”
alternative had not been studied
(Amended Rec. at
8;
R.
at
7).
This question arises
in
the context
of Rock
Island’s contemplated request
for
a site—specific rule which
would allow Rock Island
to discharge
its sludges directly
to
the
Mississippi River without providing
any treatment
to them.
The Agency emphasizes
that
in posing
this question
it
is not
endorsing Rock Island’s speculative “no treatment”
site—specific
proposal.
To
the contrary,
the Agency notes
that based
upon its
present knowledge
it would oppose such
a rulemaking
(Amended Rec.
at 9).
&~.-
14
—11—
Additionally,
both Rock Island and
tfle Agency note
that the Board
denied similar relief
in
a recent proceeding
(In the Matter of:
Petition for
Site Specific Exception
to Effluent Standards
for
tne Illinois—American ~ater
Company,
East
St.
Louis Treatment
Plant,
R51—ll,
September
25,
1986)
based
in part on
that
proposal’s
failure
to provide
for any treatment of sludge
effluent.
This
is
a question which
the Board
can not answer without
greater specifity of Rock
Island’s intent.
However, some
guidance may be provided
by noting that
it
is incumbent
upon the
proponent of any site—specific rule
to show that promulgation
of
the
rule would not
cause
an undue environmental harm.
Tnus,
should Rock
Island wish to propose
a site—specific rule premised
upon discharging
its sludges directly
to
the environment without
providing treatment of any type,
demonstration of
no
(or
at least
minimal) environmental harm would certainly
be
an essential
element
in making that proposal successful.
Under
these
circumstances,
if
Rock Island were unable
to make
the
demonstration because
it had not studied
the matter,
the Board
would
be likely to deny the site—specific relief.
Conversely,
should Rock
Island propose
a site—specific rule
involving some treatment
to its sludges,
it
is not apparent that
failure
to study the no—treatment alternative would be
of
significance.
The obligation
would
then
be
to show that
the
partially treated sludges would
not cause an undue environmental
harm.
In posing this question,
Rock Island
is seemingly also
probing
for
an answer
to
the question of how
it might assess
environmental impact of
a discharge which at this time remains
only hypothetical.
Rock
Island opines that “no detailed impact
on
the Mississippi
River
can
be made without
the actual discharge
being directed there”
(Petition
at 11—A),
however,
the Board
notes
that Rock
lsland’s situation
is not
at all uncommon.
Large
numbers of examples exist where
it is necessary
to predict an
environmental
impact before undertaking
an action.
Indeed,
in
most cases
it would be irresponsible
to undertake an action
without
first determining that
the action
is not environmentally
harmful.
The solution is that there are various devices such
as
modeling,
analogy,
and analysis
of detrimental
components which
can be successfully used
to assess environmental impact of even
hypothetical discharges.
CONCLUSION
Given
the entirety of
the circumstances
in this matter,
the
Board
finds that Petitioner
would suffer an
arbitrary or
unreasonable hardship not justified
by the environmental impact
if required to come
into immediate compliance.
For this reason
the requested variance will
be granted, subject
to conditions
as
stipulated
to
by the parties
(R.
at
6—6,
39).
82—15
—11—
Unfortunately,
the abundant speculation
about
a site—
specific rulemaking
in the record of the instant matter obscures
the fundamental
issue at hand.
The possibility
that Rock
Island’s site—specific proposal may or may not be decided
favorably from Rock Island’s perspective
is irrevelant
to the
instant matter.
The fundamental issue
is that hardship exists,
and that Rock Island commits
to achieving compliance
by
a date
certain.
This Opinion constitutes
the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of
law
in this matter.
ORDER
Petitioner,
the City
of Rock Island,
is hereby granted
variance from 35
Ill.
Adm,.
Code 304.106 and from 304.124(a)
(as
it applies
to
total dissolved
solids,
iron,
and manganese)
for
discharges
from Petitioner’s potable water
treatment works to
Black
Hawk
Creek,
subject
to
the following conditions:
a)
Variance expires
on December
1,
1991,
upon the
completion
of treatment
facilities necessary
to achieve
compliance,
or upon the date of
a Board Order exempting
Petitioner
from any treatment
or
storage requirements
for
its sludges, whichever occurs earlier.
b)
Petitioner
shall
apply
for
a NPDES permit authorizing
present discharges of sludges on or before February
1,
1967.
c)
Petitioner
shall continue
to operate
its existing sludge
treatment facilities during the variance period,
and
shall
operate these
facilities
so
as
to minimize the
discharge
of sludges to the environment.
d)
Petitioner
shall monitor
its discharges during
each
basin
flushing event,
and shall provide
the following
information
to IEPA/D~PC/CAS on
or before
the last
business day of the month following the month of the
basin
flushing:
duration of discharge,
quantity of
sludge discharged,
quantity
of flush water discharged,
and
the range
of effluent concentration of
total
suspended
solids.
e)
Petitioner
shall
submit
a compliance plan
to the
IEPA/DWPC/CAS on of before December
1,
1989,
unless
prior
to that date
a Board
site
specific rule change
exempts
it from any treatment
or storage requirements
for
its sludges.
This plan will describe the
construction of facilities necessary
to achieve
compliance
with Board
regulations of general
82—16
—Ii--
applicability or
as modified specific
to these
discharges.
f)
Petitioner
shall construct the above facilities
in
accordance
with the following schedule:
Item
Completion Date
Submit permit application(s)
1/15/90
Obtain permits
5/1/90
Commence construction
8/1/90
Complete construction
and
12/1/91
obtain full operational status
g)
The pendency
of any rulemaking
concerning
these
discharges
shall
not excuse any delay or
failure
to meet
conditions
e)
and f), above.
S~ithinforty—five days of the date of this Order,
Petitioner
shall execute and forward
to I~ayne L. Wiemerslage, hnforcement
Programs,
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
2200
Churchill Road,
Springfield,
Illinois 62706,
a Certificate
of
Acceptance and Agreement
to be found
by all terms
and conditions
of this variance.
This forty—five day period shall
be held
in
abeyance
for any period
this matter
is being appealed.
The form
of said Certification shall
be
as follows:
CERTIFICATION
I,
(~e),_____________________________,
having
read the
Order
of the Illinois Pollution Control Board,
in PCB 85—118,
dated October
1,
1987,
understand
and accept the said Order,
realizing that such acceptance renders
all terms
and conditions
thereto binding and enforceable.
Peti tioner
By:
Authorized Agent
Title
Date
82—17
—14—
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
Board Member
B.
Forcade dissented;
Board Member
M.
Nardulli
abstained.
I,
Dorothy
M.
Gunn,
Clerk
of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was
adopted on
the
/A~
day of
~ce~i
,
1967,
by
a vote
of
5—/
~
Dorothy
H.
unn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
82—18
