ILL

IWOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

April

5,

1984

CIT’S O~MENDOTA,

Petitioner,

PCB 83~i52

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION

AGENCY,

Respondent~.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by W.

J~

Nega):

This matter comes before the

Board on the petition for

variance

of the

City of

Mendota

(Mendota)

filed on October

14,

1983..

The Petitioner has requested

a variance from

35 IlL Adm~

Code 312~lOi

in order

to operate

its ~astewater treatment plant

without

the

required Class

I operator

for a period of

2 years~

On October

19,

1983,

the Board

entered

a More Information Order

and the Petitioner

filed an

amended variance petition on December

1,

1983.

On. December

15,

1983,

the Board entered a second More

Information

Order

and Mendota

filed

a second amended variance

pet itien

on

January

27,

1984.

On

February

29,

:L984,

the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency (Agency)

filed its Recommendation

that variance be denied

~cr failure to

allege

and orove

any

hardship~

Hearing

was

waived

and none

has

been

held~

The City of Mendota presently owns and operates a

wastewater

treatment plant

(Wc~TP)which includes

an aerated grit chamber,

comminutors,

bar screen, intermediate

and

final

clarifiers,

con-

ventional

mode

activated sludge,

a

trickling

filter

for

nitrifica—

tion, mult.imedi~filters, aerobic

and

anaerobic

digestion,

and

chlorinatiort.

Mendota’c sewer system

contains

fourwet-

weather

bypasses and the city also has

excess

flow

facilities

with

auto-

matic

feedback

which

are capable of

treating

1~5

million

gallons

per day (MGD).

The Petit.ionerts wastewater treatment facilities

have a design average

flow of 1,4 MCD

and

a

design

maximum

flow

of

2. 8 MCD

(Rec

2)

The Board previously entered an

Opinion

and

Order

in

ç4tofMendotav,EPA,

PCB 80—94,

39

PCB

294

(August

7,

1980)

in

which the Petitioner was granted a

variance

from

Rule

1201

of

Chapter

3:

Water

Pollution Control Regulations

(now

35 Ill. Adm~

---

Code

312~IO:L)

until

July ~30,

198:1

to

allow the city

addtionai

time to secure

the

services

of

a

Class

I

operator

for

its

WWTP,

Hendota

has

indicated

that it

hired

a

Class

1

operator

shortly

after the

Board

granted

it

a

variance

in

PCB

80—94

and

that

this

operator

later

became

11

and

died

on

March

18,

1983.

(2nd

Amend-

ed Pet.,

p.1).

Discharge monitoring reports

submitted

by

the

Petitioner

pursuant

to its NPDES Permit during the months of January,

1983

through

December,

1983

indicated

that

five—day

biochemical

oxygen

a

,q

(p

ru~

__

4-

—

4

4

r~

,-.

,-t

in ri

/ 1

,

4-

~

~1

.

~

~

mg/i;

and

ammonia nitrogen levels

have

averaged 0.83

mg/i—all

well

below

the

respective limits of

10

mg/i for BOD5,

12 mg/l for TSS, and

1,5

mg/i for ammonia

nitrogen.

(Rec.

3).

Thus,

Mendotats efflu-

ent

quality

has been excellent

in

1983 and previous discharge

monitoring

reports

for 1982 reflect

similar

high

effluent quality.

However,

the

Agency

has

emphasized

that

such maintenance of

excellent

effluent

quality

may

be partially related to Mendotas

bypassing

of

raw

sewage

during

some

wet

weather

periods.

(Rec.

3).

According

to

the

Agency~s records,

the

Petitioner

currently

employs

5

different

operators.

Two

of

these

operators

are

uncerti—

ied,

while

the

third

operator,

Mr.

Charles

McLaughlin,

is

approx—

iniately

4½

years

away

from

eligibility

to

take

the

Class

1

examina-

tion.

(Rec,

5),

However, the Petitioner

also

employes

a

certified

Class

2

operator,

Mr.

Bernard

Biliington,

who

has

over

17

years

of

practical

e~rperience

and

has

been

eligible

to

take

the

Class

1

exam since 1974.

Mr. Billington, who

has

worked

for

Mendota

sInce

No~~e~her

15,

1966,

plans

on

retiring

in

May of

1985.

Nonethe1ess~

he has

indicated

that

he

would

he

willing

to

stay

on

after

his

retirement

date

on

a

part~time,

contractual

basis until

Mr.

Arthur

Frey,

who

passed

his

Class

5

examination

on

January

3,

1984,

has

obtained

the

requisite

Class

I

certificate.

Mr.

Frey,

uho

has

worked

for

the

?ehIt:Loner

since

June

26,

1978,

could be

eligible

to

take

the

Class

2

exam

on,

or

after,

March

16,

1984

if

be

successfully

completes

various

courses

that

he

is enrolled

in,

If

Mr.

Frey

continues

working

and

passes

the necessary courses,

he

cou:Ld take the Class

I

test

on,

or

even

before,

March,

1985.

(Rec,

4—~6)

The City of Mendota has claimed

that

a

hardship

exists

because

of

the

death

of

their

prior

Class

1

operator

on

March

18,

1983

and

has

alleged

that

the

cost

of

providing

a

new

Class

I

operator

would

constitute

a

financial

hardship,

The

Petitioner

has

stated

that

itthe costs

of

hiring

a

full

time

Class

I

operator

would

be

in

excess

of

$20,000.00

per

year

and

that

hiring

one

in

an

advisory

capacity

would

be

in

excess

of

$20.00

per

hour,.~

(2nd

Amended

Pet,,

p.

3).

57-338

---

—3.-

However, the Agency has contended

that

“any

claim of hard-

ship i~unfounded” because:

(1) the Petitioner could comply with

35 lii. Mm. Code 312.101 immediately at little or no cost if Mr.

Billington took

and

passed the Class 1 exam;

(2) Mr. Billington’s

pending retirement in

May,

1985 doesn’t provide a justification

for his not taking the Class

I test;

(3) Mr. Frey could be quali-

fied to take the Class 1 exam before Mr. Billington’s scheduled

retirement date;

(4) Mr. Billington is willing to work on a

part-time basis

beyond

his retirement date until Mr. Frey becomes

properly certified;

and

(5) the deceased Class 1 operator’s

salary, or a portion thereof, should have already been budgeted

or at least be available to cover any further costs in hiring a

full—time or

part—time

Class 1 operator.

(Rec. 5—6).

The Agency

has

also noted that the Petitioner

has

not:

(1)

submitted any detailed financial data supporting its “conclusionary

assertion of financial hardship’;

(2) provided salary figures for

its previous Class 1 operator;

(3) stated where the money presumably

budgeted for the salary of the Class

1 operator went after his

death;

(4) taken any action to obtain the services of a Class 1

operator from March 18,

1983 until October of 1983 (when the

Agency sent a letter pertaining to the necessity for a properly

certified operator).

(Rec.

6—7).

The Agency has also stated

that it “has knowledge that a Class 1 operator

has

applied for a

position with Petitioner” and that another Group 1 wastewater

treatment plant in the area has hired a part—time contractual

Class

I operator for $312 a month.

(Rec.

6—7).

Moreover, the

Agency has pointed out that the City of Mendota “was well aware

of the need for a properly certified operator, as evidenced by

the previous variance”,

yet

did little to achieve compliance.

Thus, although the Agency believes that the granting of the

requested relief would have a negligible environmental impact, it

feels that the Petitioner has not shown any hardship sufficient

to justify the granting of the variance.

(Rec.

7),

The Board agrees with the Agency and believes that the

granting of the requested relief is inappropriate given the facts

of this case.

Denial of the variance will

not

cause any

arbitrary or unreasonable har4ship because the Petitioner has

many economically reasonable and viable alternatives including:

(1) having its present Class 2 operator immediately take the

Class 1 test;

(2) upgrading the certification of its other experi-

enced operator;

(3) hiring a part—time Class

1 operator at a

reasonable cost; or

(4) hiring a full—time Class 1 operator with

already budgeted monies for a short period of time until the

present Class

2 operator can be properly certified,

etc.

Thus,

the

Board

believes that the Petitioner has failed to meet its

burden of proof regarding the alleged financial hardship which

it

has

claimed.

Accordingly, the Board will deny the Petitioner’s requested

variance from 35 Ill.

Adjn. Code 312.101.

57-339

---

This

Opinion

constitutes

the

Board~s

findings of fact and

conclusions

of law in this matter~

ORDER

The City of Mendota~srequested variance from 35 Il1~Acim.

Code 312,101

in

order

to operate its wastewater treatment plant

without

the

required

Class

i

operator

is

hereby

denied.

IT

IS

SO

ORDERED.

I,

Christan

L.

Moffett,

Clerk

of

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board,

hereby

certify

that

the

above Opinion and Ord,pr

was

edopt.ed. on the~~day of~~

,

1984 by a vote of

c~

Chr~stanL, Mof~t~?’~,

Clerk

Illinois

Pollutioh~ControlBoard

57-340