ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July 21, 1982
CITY OF CARMI,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
v.
)
PCB 81—59
)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
DAVID
L. STANLEY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER;
STEPHEN C. EWART APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J. Anderson):
This matter comes before the Board on the petition for
variance filed April 17,
1981 as amended May
21, 1981 by the City
of Carmi
(City).
The City seeks variance from Rule 602(a) and
602(c) of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution
(since codified as
Ill. Adm.
Code Title 35, Subtitle
C, Chapter 1,
Sections 306.103(a—c)
as
they relate to 5 specified sanitary and combined sewer overflows
along the City’s sewer system.
In its Recommendation of August
4,
1981 and its Amended Recommendation of October 13,
1982 the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)
stated its
belief that variance should be denied,
although, alternatively,
various conditions were proposed should the Board determine to
grant variance.
Pursuant to timely filed citizen objection to
the City’s request, public hearings were held on October
14 and
December
9,
1981*,
at which the objector presented testimony.
The City of Carmi, population 6,200,
is located in White
County.
The City owns and operates a trickling filter sewage
treatment plant constructed in 1951 which discharges its
effluent into the adjacent Little Wabash River.
The sewage
collection system tributary to the plant was originally
designed
(at some unknown time prior to 1945) to be used only
as a sanitary sewer,
although at some point subsequently 10
stormwater catch basins were connected to the system.
*As the transcripts for these hearings were not consecutively
numbered, references to the October transcript will be cited as
“(R.)”,
and to the December transcript as “(2R.)”
47-395
2
The City’s petition,
as well as its Sewer System Evaluation
Survey
(SSES) which has been submitted for approval as part of
its Step
1 work under the federal construction grants program,
identifies
5 bypasses and/or overflow points causing discharge
to the Little Wabash River:
1.
A bypass servicing the East Carmi Lift Station,
a
dry—wet well station located on the river’s east bank equipped
with
2 150 gpm centrifugal pumps of which only one was operable at
the time of filing of the Agency~sOctober, 1981 Recommendation;
2.
An overflow structure south of the City’s sewage
treatment plant
(STP)
located on an 18—inch sewer line on the
river’s west side.
As of October,
1981 an improperly maintained
flap gate remained open when covered by river water during high
river stages,
which inflow the Agency believes impedes flows
to
the STP;
3.
A pump station bypass on the west side of the river
at
the STP itself;
4.
A “continuously discharging’s overflow which results
from a broken manhole on the rivers~west side,
located on the
northern most side of the City’s north interceptor line.
5.
A “continuously discharging~built—in overflow from
a manhole located on the river’s west side.
The City states that all outfalls are active during a 1.44
inch per hour rain,
and contribute a total of 7,464 million
gallons per day of wastewater to the Little Wabash River.
BOD
concentrations of the overflows are estimated at a peak of
170 mg/l and at an average of 109 mg/i,
and suspended solids
concentrations are estimated at a peak of 334 mg/i and an
average of 213 mg/i.
Compliance,
it is alleged, could be achieved by construction
of approximately 10,000 linear feet of relief interceptor lines
and construction of completely new treatment facilities estimated
to cost $5,000,000
--
approximately $1,700 per household.
The
City asserts that to require immediate compliance would impose an
arbitrary or unreasonable hardship, as the City
‘does not have the
funding resources to comply”.
The
City states that as
a result
of the SSES work done since its receipt of a Step
1 grant in
September,
1975,
as amended May 1978,
it received recommendations
for various sewer rehabilitation projects,
as well as recom-
mendations for wastewater treatment plant expansion, construction
costs for which would total $3,880,000.
With Step
2 construction
grants funding, the City estimates that its costs would amount to
$1,090,500, or $360 per household,
As of April,
1981 the City
projected that it would submit a revised SSES and facilities plan
to the Agency by May,
1981,
complete various design phases by
March, 1982, award contracts by October,
1982 and complete
construction by December,
1983.
47-396
3
Without
much
elaboration,
‘be
(fly
c’cncluded
that
the
discharge
from
these
outfa
lc
does
rot
create
any
detrimental
impact
on
the
Little
Wabash
Rner’
based
on
the
River’ s
average
dilution
ratio
•
Based
on
thi s
cor& usioa.
its
participation
in
the
grants
program,
and
a
ror
m’tmcrt
to
el
nnn?tte
all
private
inflow
sources
by
October.
‘981
the
City
recsuest&
the
Board
to
grant variance for sufficient time to allow for completion of
grant-funded rehabilitat4on work.
In its October, 198i. Amended Recommendation, the
Agency
advised that
Step
2 grant
futdc
C.ald be avilable to the City.
However, it recommended dcr~.alof
iciaa’e
M~
tco
grounds:
adverse
environmental
impact,
aid the City’s
poor
performance
both in maintaining its ay~tt.Band ;n pursuing rehabilitation
through the grants system.
The Agency stated tha’
tie
‘i-v had failed to consider the
impact
on
the
river
of
rytip.1ou,
try neadter discharges.
The
Agency noted that a U.S
‘3e-ogical
Si.trvey maintains a sampling
and
gauging station approximately 2 miles downstream of the
City’s STP.
Biological data takc’t or eight sampling days between
October 1978 and October .L079 ind~catedthat pollution tolerant
algae genera were present ir d
~
:
r
~nt (greater than 15)
numbers.
High concentrations of indicators of fecal contamination were
also found, the average fecal colifnm count
per
100 ml. being
3,127,
and
for fecal streptococci being 3,630.
The Agency
was
firthe~
of ti
r~
ir~icn that the City
had
been slow in completiag ita BLS~ ‘ork
ihe
city submitted its
first 5388 in August, 1979, and hac sdbsequently submitted two
amendments, the last having been subnitted to the Agency
August 16
1981.
Earlier 8385 were not approved by the Agency
because all overflows and bypasses had not
been
eliminated;
the last was not approvahae
bcr4u~csa
cujtable
location for
an upgraded STP
had
not been sccar 4.
Finally, the Agency noted that the last revised SESS had
identified
some
five
ways in which lnfiltration/inflow sources,
and therefore discharge from overflow points, could be
eliminated or minimized, by
e.ç,
~c~airof ax existing pump,
maintenance of a flap ga’ e, and maintenasa of
pump
alarms
•
It
faulted the City for failure
t3
tzYe these steps,
which
could be
taken at relatively minimal
expense.
While continuing in its
belief
that
variance should be Jened, the Agency requested that
should the Board grant variance, that variance be conditioned on
completion of such low—cost irinimization steps, and on
the
City’s
adherence to the grant completion schedtle and private inflow
elimination program contained in its petition.
At hearing, the City presented testimony updating its April,
1981 petition.
In response to the Agency’s amended Recommendation,
the City stated
that
certa~rof the listed remedial steps had been
taken——replacement of a
pump
and repair of a flapgate-—and that
47 397
others
were being
t~
J
providing multip
p
eliminating illegai
attested to
t’i~
f
Council had rasse~ ~
of downspoute
fror~
two
sub~sta4~io
The City further s
t
to the timetable
foUr
jrant ‘~r~tals
petitions
The City ~z
six more months
o c
r
t
s~t
original timetable, ~
~nj
t
t
j
timetable was
~
~‘
~c
various require3. o ~in
b
it.
Gary Snedd ~
f
N
consulting engineers
Woodruff,
testi,fiei
C
submittals under
Fe
o
responses since Fcbru ry
made by Agency pe
n
1’
parts of the sewer
sy
testimony on the~e
~i
~.
of the City~sdisc’ha ~
•
reviewing the City’s c’’in
su~
i
Charles Brutlag, both
t
F
tributary sewer sys en
a
I
at
il~ms operative,
•ti as
and
t
Frances Graves,
I.
i~tingthe City
1~
the disconnection
~
ved rebuilding
of
y
9
10)..
it
Fad not adhered
ed in its original
e giving it roughly
tea
o
istcd in its
L lity to neet this revised
~y
A~’eiv’y tpproval of
~36).
the City’s
n~orintendant, David
tIe i~y’~activities and
i~rt
p cgram,
and of the City~s
~u~oi
requests and suggestions
a tel t~
STP
and various
a
‘~n F
errployees presented
ftc environmental impact
,
o h~:been in charge of
s~.nce1
19,
Dwight Hill and
ethed the City’s STP and
Concerning its p
u~j
t~
nt program, it
is the
City~sposition that
r
-1
f
L
clay
tt.ributable to the time
taken
by the Agency for ~evie
of sutmittals
(R
22-23),
and
the
Agency~s
insistence as
a canditton fo~~
final approval of its
SSES
that
the City locate
id
~-cur
L.ite
upon which an expanded
STP
could
be located
It
in t
a
i
ts unreasonable
until
a final facil~ttci
n
~ eted
ocuause
a)
it could
involve expendit rcs
f
1
t~
iv
or purchases for a site
which could later pr we t
Is
ra p~pr~-ite anc b) this site
selection requireTent
1
u
t
~o
Jy
c~Et
of
an
~
submittal
or
review
(R,
28-2)),
On behalf of the ~) ivy
~i
r
~t.ad
that he had been
in monthly contact qii
ti’s (th~,
by te’ephone
if not by
letter,
since the submittal o~the c~
ral ~SES
and that he had made
internal reviews of
t e SS~’ erd
ari
requested supplemental
information in September
9~
,
Ipri
and August,
1980,
and
February,
1981
CR..
116
118)..
Confeiences were had concerning
the City~sSTP and sever p~bJen~~
August and December, 1980
(Resp~ Ex,
10)..
Mr.. Kahn stated thet th~Agency had considered
expediting release af constructior funds for rehabilitation of the
northern interceptor sewer, but in January,
1981 had determined
not to do so,
in order t
avoi.
r~achtnga resolution to that
particular sewer prob~errwhich vould no~be cost—effective in
terms
of
the
problc~
R.
12O~-122)~
Gi~ver
‘-a’
the opinion of
I
has insuffici~t
a
and problems o~
from the ex~sti1g
identificat.ion
f
for final approval
Mr. Kahn addi~onally
variance
would nt
a
f
:.
City~s
project0
‘
v
r.
~
the Agency~sp0
it:.
t
upon
the Agericy~s~
~
a
(R. 124)~
Dwight
Hill.
t~
City~splant
in 1~8
of an
emergency
qi
nL
a
in
March,
1980,
o: t:e ~x
as the result of
aitize~i
c
into the Little vat
SSES,
Mr0 Hill &omm r~
was
lack
of
kno~~le
northern
interceptot
tn~I
I
proposed
upgraded
plant.
i~
Charles
Btutlaa r~
environmental
irar
fied that he had
a c
p
the Carmi vicinity
or
from the broken maniol.
i
was described as runnin
‘lov~
overflow events0
D
in
t
like bottom depo~i~
a
October
visit,
Mr~
t.l~q
r
itself
that fanned
)U~
-:ro
approximately one f~t
r
in December, Mr
B1-~l~
(2R,
35,
38).
Discharge fron the
described
as “running
t
river”
(sic).
Sewacu
do~
and paper
producta
wa
e
ct~
-
inspection
dates,
and
bottr
October
(2R. 35~36, ~8)
which had been reported
t.
as of December
(2R, 35~38
at,
~n
a~
opinion,
denial
of
oraut
funds
for
the
-
i~
number,
it was
r-~
i)d be available
~t
an~
facility plan
a
e
five
visits to the
--~
3
z
of
the
Agency’s
award
i
Agency~s
discovery,
iechatge
Points No.
4 and 5,
a
~
ra~usewage
discharges
‘erring
the City’s
~s
ut~tarding
deficiencies
I
0~eplant
from the
p
city
concerning
~i
l~cat.ion
(2R,
22—23).
rcerning
the
r
~
Mi.
Brutlag
testi—
t-~le
Wabash
River
in
iP~—:
3,
1981.
Discharge
~iver
bank
(point
no.
4)
j~-t0othe
river
during
c
dorous
“black
sludge—
h
~n
itself.
During
the
v~-~a
deposits
in
the
river
coint
which
measured
:o
h
height
of
the
river
P3
t
•down
to
the
river
edge
ripe
(point
no,
5)
was
le~J
ng
10
yards
into
the
itc?-~ike
bottom
deposits,
a
ar
th-
~e
itself
on
both
ej
at~
~e a
~-een
in
the
river
in
s~.
~ r~nhol~cover
near
this
point
~
ctober
had
been replaced
Jack Emery, Carm~aesi
b
-
r ob~ectorto the petition,
testified that he toe had ~e~ti c~~ge
idge deposits near the
sewage treatment plact,
and two
~l~s c-c
tetream in the river
Ie~p.
EX.
11,
12,
tc
lim, including
at
a
xisting
STP site
i
axpanded facilities,
~3 across a
ravine
Pahn
s belief that
~fiable condition
(
13
Resp.
Ex.
5),
6
(R.
107—108, 110).
Mr. Emery also testified generally as to the
poor condition of various Carmi sewers over the course of years,
and expressed his belief that Carmi has not paid sufficient
attention to correcting its sewer problems in response to citizen
complaints.
(It should be noted that Mr.
Emery’s request for a
hearing in this matter was by way of a petition signed by 200
citizens).
Mr. Emery did not specifically state that he opposed
grant of variance,
Rather his interest was “to make darn sure
that
(sewer and STP rehabilitation
is done right, according to
the way it is supposed to be done”
(R.
113).
Dale McLaren, Executive Director of the Great Wabash Regional
Planning Commission,
spoke in support of the variance request.
Mr. McLaren’s main point was that construction should not be
required to proceed on a non—cost effective “piecemeal basis”,
and indicated the willingness of his Agency to seek community
development project grant funds for the City to further reduce
its costs
(2R.
25—26).
In reviewing this record, the Board finds ample evidence that
the City’s discharges are causing environmental harm.
The City
has demonstrated that it would be more cost—effective for it to
proceed to address all of its problems, with the aid of grant
funds, at a cost of $360 per household, than to proceed only to
address the problems posed by the identified outfalls and bypasses,
without grant funds, at a cost of $1700 per household.
The Agency
had demonstrated that grant, or denial,
of variance will not
affect the availability of grant funds for the project as
a whole.
However, the Board finds that the City has not adequately
explained why it did not meet the proposed compliance timetable
contained in its original variance petition,
or the reasons for
its earlier delay in completing the specified SSES work.
The
City, through its attorney, stated its interpretation of this
variance as being “a trade—off situation”, in which the City
“would get insulation from violation of the regulations of the
Pollution Control Board in exchange for meeting
a
schedule of
compliance...to...rehab the sewers and upgrade the sewage treat-
ment”
(R.
113).
However, as the City itself noted at hearing, it
has already received one variance conditioned upon adherence to a
compliance schedule in White County’s Evergreen Acres,
Inc. and
City of Carmi
V.
IEPA,
PCB 80-37, May
1,
1980 (variance from
restricted status),
At that time, the Agency and the Board felt
that the City was making “adequate” progress in the grants program,
and “good faith attempts at bringing its discharge into compliance”
38 PCB 198-199.
The City was ordered to “minimize bypassing of
the STP,” and “to actively pursue grant funds,” and “to take
timely
steps towards bringing its discharge into compliance.”
Of the two compliance dates there contemplated,——the first,
for completion of sewer rehabilitation by November 1,
1981 has
long passed; the second,
for completion of STP rehabilitation by
February 1, 1983 is clearly infeasible.
47-400
7
Based on the record before it, the Board finds that the City
has failed ~to prove that denial of variance would impose an
arbitrary or unreasonable hardship,
In the light of the proven
environmental harm, the Board sees no reason to shield the City
from any potential enforcement actions resulting from its failures
to comply with compliance timetables which the City itself has
suggested.
Variance is hereby denied.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
Petitioner, the City of Carmi,
is hereby denied variance from
Sections 306,103(a—c)
of Ill.
Adm. Code,
Title 35, Subtitle
C,
Chapter 1.
IT IS SO ORDERED,
Board Member
I.
Goodman dissented.
I, Christan L,
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Bçard, hereby certify that the above Order was adopted on
the
~
J~
day of
________________,
1982 by a vote of
~/—/
cL~—
1.
~z/~~1
/
Christan
L.
Moffett,~lerk
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
47-401