ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    May 16, 1974
    CARSON INTERNATIONAL, INC.
    )
    V.
    )
    PCB 73—498
    )
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    )
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Dr. Odell)
    On November 27, 1973, Carson International, Inc. (Carson)
    filed a petition for variance from the effluent standard require-
    ments of Rule 404(f) of Chapter Three: Illinois Water Pollution
    Regulations (Chapter Three). Petitioner requested a variance
    until June 30, 1974, for its on-site sewage treatment facility.
    Petitioner owns and operates the Indian Lakes Country
    Club in the City of Bloomingdale, Du Page County, Illinois. The
    club has two 18-hole golf courses and a club house containing a
    lounge and restaurant. After on-site treatment, flows averaging
    5500 gpd discharge into Spring Brook Creek, a tributary of Salt
    Creek. Recent effluent tests by Carson indicate levels consider-
    ably above the 4 mg/i BOD and 5 mg/i suspended solids limitation
    required by December 31, 1973, under Rule 404(f) of Chapter Three:
    Date
    BOD (mg/i). Suspended
    Solids (mg/i)
    11.10.1973
    22
    22
    11.21.1973
    26
    18
    Levels would probably be higher during the golfing season
    in May and June of this year. Analyses of samples collected by
    the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on September 20, 1973,
    supports this conclusion. BOD measured 46 mg/i and suspended
    solids measured 33 mg/i on that date.
    Petitioner premised unreasonable hardship on two factors.
    First, upgrading the on-site treatment facility would cost $100,000.
    Data supporting this figure were not supplied by Carson. Second,
    the Village of Bloomingdale is in the process of expanding its
    sewage treatment plant and Petitioner anticipated connecting into
    a new sanitary trunk sewer r!as soon as approval is granted by the
    Village to do so”. Based on these facts, Petitioner argued it
    would be unreasonable to undertake on-site improvements because
    the sizeable expenditures necessary for on—site upgrading would be
    totally lost when this facility is abandoned following hook-up to
    the municipal treatment plant, targeted for Petitioner’s use by
    June, 1974. Petitioner alleged that the adverse environmental
    12—275
    impact resulting from the variance would be minimal. No data
    were offered to support this conclusion. Rather, Petitioner stated
    that plant effluent presently discharges into a field tile before
    emptying into Spring Brook Creek, and that the downstream Roselle
    treatment plant adds dilution flows to the Creek.
    The EPA, in its December 19, 1973, Recommendation, ad-
    vocated that the variance be granted. The EPA felt that the
    connection with the Village sewer system was the best long—range
    solution to local waste water treatment problems and “that to
    recommend denial in this matter would be inconsistent with Agency
    support for regionalization concepts as an efficient and cost~
    effective means of waste treatment.”
    In the Interim Order of January 31, 1974, the Board
    directed th... e Petitioner to supply reasonable assurance that the
    Village would, in fact, allow Carson to connect into its new sewer
    trunk line by the end of June, 1974. On February 20, 1974,
    Petitioner waived the 90-day requirement of Section 38 of the
    Environmental Protection Act (Act). On April 12 Carson filed
    an addendum to its variance petition
    —
    a letter from the Village
    of Bioomingdale indicating that the trunk line would be available
    to Petitioner sometime in June, 1974. EPA filed an amended Recommend-
    atiob on May 10, 1974, favoring the grant of a variance but condition-
    ing it on limiting the effluent discharge to 20 mg/I of BUD5 and 25
    mg/i. of suspended solids.
    It is established Board policy that economic hardship,
    standing alone, may not support the grant of a variance, More
    than economic hardship is involved here, It would be an unreason-
    able resource utilization to demand the installation of expensive
    new equipment which will fall into disuse a few months later.
    Furthermore, a regionalization a~proach to sewage treatment is
    favored by the Board, The adverse environmental impact is signi-
    ficant but not long-lived.
    We are not unmindful, however, that t..he grant of this
    variance will have some adverse environmental consequence.
    Section
    36(a) of the Act states, “In granting a variance the Board may
    impose such conditions as the policies of this Act may zequire.”
    Section (2) (b) of the Act states, “it is the purpose of this Act
    to restore, protect and enhance the quality of the environm
    vent, and to assu.re that a4verse effects
    ~.
    upon the ~environMent
    are
    fully considered and borne by thost~who ctuse them.” Carson
    should take all zeasonable care to imprdve their effluent and
    minimize environmental harm until use of its on—site treatment
    facility
    is discontinued .and their sewage is diverted to Bloom-
    ingdale for treatment.
    After hooleup to the Bloomingdale sewage
    upeatirert c1a~u, Carver s~veli ~ave reasonavee efforts to restore
    and enhance. the qpality of water in Spring I rook Creek.
    —3—
    ORDER
    Carson International, Inc. is hereby granted a variance
    from Rule 404(f) of Chapter Three, Water Pollution Regulations,
    to operate the subject on—site treatment facility from January 1,
    1974, until June
    30, 1974,
    IT IS SO
    ORDERED,
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board,
    hereby certify
    that the above Opinion and Order was adopted
    on the j~,~dayof
    ,
    1974,
    by a vote of ~ to
    ~.
    Chrstan L.
    Mo tt
    *
    277

    Back to top