ILLINOIS
    POLLUTION
    CONTROL
    BOARD
    May
    1,
    1980
    CITY
    OF PINCKNEYV~LLE,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 80-8
    tr~LINoIs
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Mr. Dumelle):
    On
    January
    10,
    1980
    Petitioner
    filed
    petition
    for
    a
    variance
    from the limitations for suspended solids contained
    in
    Rule
    404(c)
    of
    Chapter
    3:
    Water Pollution
    and from Rule
    902(i)(1)(iii)
    of
    Chapter
    3,
    which would allow the Illinois
    Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)
    to issue
    a modified
    NPDES
    permit.
    On
    February
    25,
    1980,
    Petitioner
    filed
    an
    Amended Petition.
    The
    Agency,
    in its Amended Recommendation
    filed
    April
    3,
    1980,
    finds
    the
    granting
    of
    the
    variance
    inappropriate
    and
    recommends
    a
    denial
    of
    the
    petition.
    Hearing
    was
    waived.
    Petitioner
    owns
    and
    operates
    a water
    treatment
    plant
    which
    supplies water
    for approximately
    5,200 people.
    Waste
    streams
    from
    the treatment
    process result
    from backwash of
    the
    filters
    and
    from
    discharges
    of
    settling
    tanks.
    The
    concentration of
    SS there exceeds
    the limits of
    15 mg/i set
    forth
    in Petitioner’s NPDES Permit No. 1L0050822.
    The plant
    presently
    discharges
    to
    Beaucoup
    Creek,
    a
    general
    use
    stream,
    which
    is
    upstream
    from the Big Muddy River and the
    Mississippi
    River.
    Petitioner
    has
    no
    present
    facilities
    for
    controlling
    the
    wastewater
    discharges
    from
    the
    water
    trtment;
    plant.
    Peti~ioner
    instituted
    a
    project
    Lo
    achieve
    compliance
    with
    its
    NPDES
    Permit’s
    daily
    maximum
    suspended
    solids
    concentration
    limitations
    of
    15
    mg/i
    by
    July
    1,
    1977.
    The
    project
    was
    not
    implemented
    because
    of
    lack
    of
    funding.
    Petitioner
    is currently in the Step
    1 phase of
    its
    Municipal
    Wastewater
    Treatment
    Works
    Construction
    Grants
    program
    for
    upgrading
    its
    sewage
    plant
    and
    system
    hut
    has
    failed
    to
    submit
    a
    Facilities
    Plan
    or
    a
    Sewer
    System
    Evaluation
    Survey.
    It
    is
    estimated
    that grant monies
    for upgrading of
    Petitioner’s
    sewage
    plant
    and
    sewer
    system
    will
    not
    be
    available
    for
    several
    years.
    Petitioner’s
    grants
    project
    priority number
    is
    1,185
    for
    FY 1980.
    —2—
    Petitioner
    contends
    that
    a
    $40,000
    to
    $50,000 savings
    would
    he
    realized by
    incorporating cost of improvements
    of
    the
    water
    treatment
    plant into
    a combined water and sewage
    treatment
    plant
    bond
    issue.
    Petitioner
    does not,
    however,
    demonstrate
    how
    these
    alleged
    savings
    will
    he
    realized
    through granting of the variance.
    Petitioner
    claimed
    in
    its
    Amended
    Petition
    that
    development
    of
    a
    compliance
    plan
    for
    the
    water
    treatment
    plant
    was
    delayed
    because
    results
    from
    the
    Sewer
    System
    Evaluation
    Survey
    and
    the
    Facilities
    Plan
    had
    not
    been
    obtained.
    These
    Step
    1
    procedures
    will
    not
    be
    completed
    until
    Summer
    of
    1980.
    Yet
    Petitioner
    states
    it
    will
    immediately initiate
    a design of the facilities as indicated
    in the Petition’s
    Time Schedule for Compliance without these
    final
    plans.
    Petitioner’s
    current
    ability
    to proceed with
    the
    design
    of
    the
    facilities
    without
    finalized
    plans
    indicates
    that
    the
    design
    could
    have
    been
    initiated
    at an earlier date.
    Petitioner
    had
    made
    no
    effort
    to
    achieve
    compliance
    until
    renewal
    of its NPDES
    Permit was denied by
    the Agency
    on
    November
    30,
    1979.
    Petitioner’s
    construction
    permit,
    obtained in March,
    1977,
    expired
    in March,
    1978.
    Claims of
    attempts
    to finance
    the facility have not been substantiated.
    Furthermore,
    given
    Petitioner’s
    delay,
    expenditures
    by
    Petitioner
    to come
    into compliance
    with
    the total
    suspended
    solids
    limitations
    of
    its
    permit
    may
    not
    be
    deemed
    a
    hardship.
    The
    Board
    concurs
    with
    the
    Agency
    Recommendation
    in
    this
    matter
    and
    denies
    the
    variance.
    Petitioner
    has
    advanced
    no new arguments or issues in the Amended Petition.
    The Agency’s motion to
    file its Amended Recommendation
    instanter is granted.
    This
    Opinion
    constitutes
    the Board’s
    findings of
    fact
    and conclusions of law
    in this matter.
    ORD E P
    It
    is
    the
    Order
    of
    the
    Pollution
    Control
    Board
    that
    Petitioner’s request
    for a variance from the limitations
    for
    suspended
    solids
    contained
    in
    Rule
    404(c)
    of
    Chapter
    3:
    Water
    Pollution,
    and
    from
    Rule
    902(i)(1)(iii)
    allowing
    the
    Agency to reissue
    a modified permit,
    he denied.
    —3—
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order were
    adopted on the j~day
    of&)O~
    ,
    1980 by
    a vote of
    ~
    Illinois Pal
    :ontrol Board

    Back to top