ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March 14, 1974
HOLIDAY INN OF EDWARDSVILLE, ILLINOIS
)
I
)
v.
)
PCB 73-394
)
)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
)
)
MR. IRVIN C. SLATE, JR., LUEDERS,ROBERTSON ~ KONZEN, appeared
on behalf of Holiday Inn of Edwardsville, Illinois
MR. DALE TURNER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, appeared on behalf
of the Environmental Protection Agency
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Dumelle):
Holiday Inn of Edwardsville, Illinois (Holiday Inn) filed
a Petition for Variance on September 19, 1973. The Pollution Control
Board (Board) required Holiday Inn to submit an Amended Variance
Petition by February 25, 1974
in.
an Order dated September 20, 1973.
On October 26, 1973 Holiday Inn submitted an Amended Petition which
sought a variance from Rule 404(f) of the Water Pollution Regulations
(Water Regulations). The Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)
f:iled a Recommendation to deny the variance on November 16, 1973,
The hearing was held on February 11, 1974.
Holiday Inn owns and operates a motel and a restaurant facility
located near Bdwardsville, Illinois. Holiday Inn treats the waste
generated in the motel and restaurant facility and the waste dis-
charge
from lt~
nearby apartments which
are
operated by
the Bluff
Road. Developr~:at Company of Clayton,
Missouri into a waste stabiliza-
tion iagoon~ This
1.5
acre single-cell lagoon was installed pursuant
to Sanitary Water Board Permit 1962-G-393. Unchlorinated lagoon
overflow enters an unnamed intermittent drainage channel, tributary
to
the Cahokia Creek, which ultimately flows to the Mississippi
River (R. 20
).
The area surrounding this unnamed
drainage channel
and the lagoon discharge point is uninhabited and removed from
public access (R.23
).
The record shows that horses are grazed
on
part of the area which borders this channel (R. 23). During
dry
weather periods all lagoon effluent percolates into the receiving
drainage channel., thereby precluding
its
entry into the Cahokia
creek
(P. 29
).
Holiday
Inn
purchased the motel in August, 1969
(R, l?~L,
-2-
The Joseph H. Vatterott Management Company (Vatterott) managed
the motel facility for Holiday Inn from February, 1970 to January,
1973 (R. 11). Vatterott hired a consulting engineer in February,
1971, to design a pollution treatment plant for the facility (R. 12,
17). The preliminary engineering design was sent to the Agency
on March 17, 1972 (R. 32). On March 28, 1972 the Agency approved
the preliminary design computations (R. 32). The final plans were
completed on February 5, 1973 (R. 33). On February 13, 1973, the
engineer hired by Vatterott was informed that he would be designing
a treatment plant for a possibly expanded Holiday Inn facility
and would be working for Holiday Inn (R. 34). The engineer proceeded
to re-design the treatment facility on a basis of 960 population
equivalent (P.E.) and completed the new design in September, 1973
(R. 35). The Agency issued a construction permit on September 21,
1973 (R. 35). Bids for construction of the facility were received
by November 13, 1973, The low bid for the construction of a treat-
ment facility totalled $263,734 which was approximately $110,000
above the engineering estimate (R. 33). Holiday Inn and its
engineer proceeded to redesign the treatment facility to continue
using the existing lagoon as a polishing lagoon with the addition
of a package treatment, submerged rock filter, and a chlorination
facility (R. 40). On February 5, 1974 Holiday Inn received a
construction permit to construct a interim chlorination facility
(R. 40). Holiday Inn’s engineer estimates that the interim
chlorination facility will be constructed and in operation sometime
in June, 1974 (R. 45). He further estimates that the additional
equipment should be in operation by the end of 1974 (R. 47).
Holiday Inn seeks a variance from Rule 404(f) of the Water
Regulations which require that dischargers whose dilution ratio
is less than 1 shall not exceed a 4 mg/l BOD or a 5 mg/I suspended
solid standard by December 31, 1973 except that those (such as
Holiday Inn) which employ a third-stage treatment lagoon shall be
exempt provided they comply with the conditions of Rule 404(c) (iii).
This so-called lagoon exception would apply to Holiday Inn (R. 46
).
Holiday Inn has not sought a variance from Rule 405 of the Water
Regulations which require that dischargers not exceed a 400 fecal
coliform per 100 ml concentration by July 31, 1972. When asked
why Holiday Inn had not previously constructed an interim chlorination
facility, Holiday Inn’s engineer answered, “For the reason that we
knew that we were going to construct the additional facilities at
the plant” (R. 42). He further testified that if the chlorination
facility had been built in 1972 that Holiday Inn could have possibly
still used the facility in its newly design treatment facility (R. 43)
In addition, Holiday Inn has not sought a variance from Rule 404(a)
of the Water Regulations which requires that all effluents con-
taining de-oxygenating wastes shall not exceed 30 mg/I of BOD or
37 mg/I of suspended solids which became effective July 1, l972~
Ii
~578
-3-
Holiday Inn has failed to provide treatment which complied with
Rule 404(a) and 405 (R. 55, 53, Agency Exhibit 1., 2, 3a, 4a, Sa, and 6a)
Grab samples taken by the Agency show BOD values of 40 to 65 mg/i, sus-
pended solids of 55 ~o 60 mg/l, and fecal coliforin count.~of 4,100 to
49,000 per 100 ml.
Holiday Inn,in seeking a variance from Rule 404(f) of the Water
Regulations ,seeks a shield from prosecution for violations of the
Water Regulations. Holiday Inn has failed to present sufficient
evidence to show that it is entitled to a variance. The Board
rejects the argument that the absence of~ apparent public hazard
entitles Petitioner to a variance (R. 72
).
Section 35 of the
Environmental Protection Act (Act) states that variances may
be granted upon presentation of adequate proof that “compliance
with any rule.. .would impose an.arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.”
Holiday Inn has failed to present evidence that would warrant
grant of a variance in light of failure to comply with Rule 404(a)
and 405 of the Water Regulations which became effective July, 1972.
While a management decision to expand a facility might constitute
sufficient grounds for the granting of a variance, in the present
case this only explains six months of the delay in compliance with
Rule 405.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
ORDER
The Illinois Pollution Control Board hereby denies Holiday
Inn’s request for variance from Rule 404 (f).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify the above Opinion a d Order were adopted on the
~
day of March,
1974 by a vote of
—o
Illinois Pollution ntrol Board
fl