ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
January
24,
1985
CITY OF
TUSCOLA,
)
Petitioner,
)
PCB
84—146
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
)
OPINION
AND
ORDER
OF
BOARD
(by J~ Theodore
Meyer):
This
matter comes before the Pollution Control
Board
(Board)
upon the
Amended
Petition
of
the
City
of
Tuscola
(City)
requesting
extension
of
a previous variance granted by the
Board on May 29,
1984 and
terminating August 31,
1984 (PCB 83—77).
The instant
variance
petition was filed August 31,
1984 and
amended
on October
26,
1984,
The City seeks extension
of its
variance to January
7,
1985
from
the requirements of 35
Ill, Adm,
Code 304.120(c)
(deoxy’-
genating
waste and aispended solids),
304.105
as
it relates to
302.205
(phosphorus), and 302.212 (ammonia
nitrogen
and
un~-ionized
ammonia)
and 306.305
(treatment plant bypasses).
The Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)
filed its
recommendation
on
November 29,
1984 that the extension
be denied,
The City
waived
hearing
and
none
has been held,
The
Agency and the City
have
joined
in
stipulating
to
incorporation
of the
record
from
PCB 83-77
into
this
current
proceeding.
Tuscola is located
in Douglas County,
Illinois,
and has a
population
of approximately
4600,
The City owns and operates
two
sewage
treatment plants.
The South Plant is 20 years old and
employs
primary sedimentation and conventional
activated sludge
treatment.
It is designed to handle
approximately 0,56
million
gallons per day (MGD) but receives only 0,2 MGD.
This creates
an
organic
underload resulting
in poor settling of solids,
Discharge
monitoring reports indicate that the plant exceeded its interim
effluent limitations for biochemical
oxygen demand
(BOD)of
20
mg/i
in
April
and March of 1984.
Discharge from the South Plant
is
to
Scattering
Fork
Creek,
which
feeds
into
the
Embarras
River,
Downstream,
water
from the Embarras is
pumped
into
a
side
channel
reservoir
by the City of Charleston,
Charleston
uses
this
reser-
voir
as
a
public water supply and for recreational
purposes.
The
North
Plant was beilt
in 1938 with a design capacity
of
0.28
MGD.
It
employs secondary treatment consisting
of
an
Imhoff
tank,
trickling filter and sedimentation tank with
sludge
drying
62~411
—2—
beds.
During excess wet weather flows,
however,
the Imhoff tank
is
overloaded,
sludge
solids
cannot
be
properly
handled
and
flow
bypasses this plant.
Discharge
is to the Hayes
Branch,
to
the
Hackett Branch,
to Scattering Fork Creek 3,2 miles
downstream
from the South Plant outfall,
and finally to the Embarras
River.
The City requests an extension
of its variance to
allow
it
to review the information developed
in
an
engineering
report
outlining
four
wastewater
alternatives.
The
City
contends
that
it
will
suffer
great
hardship
if
required
to
select
an
alterna-
tive
without
additional
time to review the
information
generated
by
its engineers.
The Agency contends that any
hardship suffered
by
Tuscola
is self~iinposedand cannot serve
as
the
basis
for
granting
a
varianee~
The City has been
in the Construction Grants Program
for
upgrading
its wastenater treatment plants
since
1974.
Its~origj—
nal
compliance plan eas to close the North Plant,
rer~te its
wastewater to the South Plant and to employ tertiary treatment,
nitrification and phosphorus removal there,
It was estimated
that
these improvements would cost the City approximately
six
million dqllars.
Tuscola proposed a site”specific
rule
change
(R83-23),
however,
to allow construction
of a lower
cost alter-
native
adequate to protect public health and the
environment.
Concurrently,
the
City
petitioned
for
a
variance
from
effluent
limitations,
Following hearings
in both
proceedings, the site-
specific proceeding was stayed
(by Board order
on April
5,
1984)
to
allow
the
City
and
the
Agency
to
determine
whether
there
existed
an
affordable treatment alternative which would
also
comply
with
effluent
limitations,
Identification of such
an
alternative would obviate the need for site-specific relief.
In
the interim,
the Board granted a short—term variance to
allow for
this i~’e-evaIuationwith the express requirement that
a
final
compliance plan be
submitted on August 31,
1984,
The stay
in
the
site-specific proceeding expired on August
6,
1984 and the
va~i—
ance
terminated
on August 31,
1984.
The City failed to submit a compliance plan by the
August 31,
1984
deadlines
No specific reasons for this failure were
given.
The
Agency
apparently
received
an
engineering
report
on
October
24,
1984
outlining
four
wastewater
treatment
alternatives
for
the
City.
In
an accompanying cover letter,
the City~s
mayor
purported
to
commit
the
City
to
the
least
expensive
alternative
which
involves
closing the North Plant,
pumping its
wastewater
to
the
South
Plant and employing secondary treatment by activated
sludge
at
the
South
Plant,
The
mayor~s commitment,
however,
was
expressly
contingent on receipt of 55
grant funding,
This funding
is no
longer
available to the City,
according to the
Agency, because of
limited appropriations for wastewater
facility construction
grants.
As noted in
the Board’s opinion in PCB 83-77,
the
City1s
failure
to proceed
in
a timely fashion disqualified it for
75
federal
grant funding and was directly related to the prior
City
administration’s opposition to the passage of
two bond
referenda.
It now appears that further delay has resulted in the loss
of
funding at 55
levels,
Nevertheless,
the City admittedly
intends
to proceed only if funded and demonstrates no intent to
achieve
timely compliance should the grant funding
fail
to
materialize,
~urthermore, the City~sprefered option
is inadequate
in
that
it requires a grant of
site-specific relief.
Reliance on
the grant of site-specific relief
is wholly speculative
and as
previously stated by the Board ~a
compliance
plan cannot be
based solely upon the assumption that the regulations
will change.
~~aue~~nd
the City of East St._Louisv.
IEPA,
41 PCB
255,
256,
PCB 80—176
(April
16,
1981).
If site—specific
relief
is
denied,
the
City has
not
provided any means or
time schedule
for achieving full
compliance
with
the Act and regulations,
Ev~en
if
such relief were warranted,
the City has failed
to
go
forward
with the regulatory proceeding in
a timely fashion,
The
stay in
the
site-specific proceeding expired on August
6,
1984 and
no
further action has been taken,
The Board
finds that the City has significantly delayed
compliance without adequate explanation and that
any hardship
suffered
is self-imposed.
Although Tuscola contends that
its
present discharge does not significantly impact the
receiving
stream or downstream water,
the Board notes that
no
data
were
submitted
in connection with the instant petition and
very
lim-
ited data were submitted in connection with the
original
petition.
In
the original
PCB 83-77 proceeding,
data were
presented
from
only
one
sampling date for the receiving stream
of
the
South
Treatment
Plant
and
no
data
were
set
forth
for
the
receiving
stream of the North Treatment Plant,
In
the original
proceeding
the Board
found
a lack of additional environmental
impact
re~er*
ring
only to the short period of the variance,
At that
time,
there was
a stated need
for
design re-evaluation
so as
to
justify
granting
a variance.
The City has now apparently identified
four
design alternatives and their capital
costs,
but the
mayor’s
contingent commitment is wholly inadequate to ensure the
timely
compliance called for by the Act and regulations.
The Board therefore denies the City’s request for
an
exten~
sion
of its variance from 35
Ill,
Adm, Code 304,120(c),
304.~.O5
as
it relates to 302.205 and 302,212,
and 306,305,
This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and
conclu-
sions
of law of the Board in this matter,
ORDER
The
City
of
Tuscola
is
hereby
denied
a
variance
for
its
North
and South treatment plants from 35
Ill, Adm. Code
304.120(c),
304.105
as
it
relates
to 302.205 and 302,212,
and 306,305.
IT
IS SO ORDERED,
Chairman J.
D, Dumelle concurred,
62~413
—4..
I,
~orcthy
M.
Gunn,
Clerk
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
hereb
certify
that
th
above Order
was
adopted
on
the
______
of
~
,
1985
by
a
vote
of
..
:L
/
727.
~
Dorothy
ft.
Gunn,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board