ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April 20,
1995
GLENBARD WASTEWATER AUTHORITY,
Petitioner,
V.
)
PCB 95—49
(Variance
—
Water, NPDES)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by E.
Dunham):
This matter comes before the Board on Glenbard Wastewater
Authority’s
(Glenbard)
February 9,
1995 petition for variance.
Glenbard seeks a variance from the effluent limit for total
suspended solids
(TSS).
The limit for TSS is found at 35 Ill.
Adin. Code
304.124.
A limit for TSS is also contained in the
NPDES permit issued to Glenbard.
Glenbard requests a six-month
variance to allow reconstruction of the wastewater filter system.
On March 20,
1995, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency) filed its recommendation,
recommending that the
requested variance be granted with conditions.
Glenbard waived
hearing and none was held.
The Board’s responsibility in this matter arises from the
Environmental Protection Act
(Act)
(415 ILCS 5/1 et seq.
(1992)).
The Board is charged therein with the responsibility to “grant
individual variances beyond the limitations prescribed in this
Act, whenever it is found upon presentation of adequate proof,
that compliance with any rule or regulation, requirement or order
of the Board would impose an arbitrary or unreasonable hardshipt1.
(415 ILCS 5/35(a)
(1992).)
More generally,
the Board’s
responsibility in this matter is based on the system of checks
and balances integral to Illinois environmental governance: the
Board is charged with the rulemaking and principal adjudicatory
functions,
and the Agency is responsible for carrying out the
principal administrative duties.
The Board finds that Glenbard has presented adequate proof
that immediate compliance with the regulation involved would
result in the imposition of an arbitrary or unreasonable
hardship.
Therefore, the variance
is granted, subject to the
conditions set forth in the order below.
BACKGROUND
Glenbard is a joint agency of the Villages of Glen Ellyn and
Lombard in Du Page County,
Illinois.
(Pet.
at 2.)
Glenbard
operates a sewage treatment plant for the treatment of domestic
and industrial wastewater.
(Pet.
at 2.)
The plant
is located in
2
Glen Ellyn and employs 33 people.
(Pet.
at 2.)
The plant has
operated continuously since December 10,
1974.
(Pet. at 2.)
The
plant has a design average flow of 16.02 MGD and a design maximum
flow of 47.0 MGD.
(Pet.
at
2..)
The plant currently discharges
approximately 12 MGD into the East Branch of the Du Page River.
(Pet. at 2.)
The plant uses sand filters and an underlying clear well for
filtration of effluent to attain pertinent NPDES permit limits
for suspended solids.
(Pet.
at 2.)
The sand filters consist of
ten 18 ft. x 37
ft. x 10
ft. deep steel structures with 10 inches
of sand media.
(Pet.at 4.)
Glenbard’s NPDES permit contains the
following limits for TSS:
LOAD LIMITS lbs/day
CONCENTRATION
DAF
(DMF)
LIMITS MG/i
PARAMETER
MONTHLY
DAILY
MONTHLY
DAILY
AVG.
MAX
AVG.
MAX
TSS
1,603
3,206
12
24
(4,704)
(9,407)
The limits of the NPDES permit are more restrictive than those
specified in Section 304.124.
(Pet.
at 2.)
The sand filters at
the plant are beginning to fail and are in need of extensive
reconstruction or replacement.
(Pet.
at 2.)
Glenbard has
determined that the most cost effective means of repair is to
replace the existing filters housed in steel with new filters
housed in concrete.
(Pet. at 2.)
Under this plan the existing
clear well would be abandoned and its function replaced with a
newly installed ultraviolet light disinfection chamber.
(Pet.
at
2.)
During the removal and replacement of the sand filters, the
plant’s effluent would not be filtered.
(Pet.
at 3.)
Petitioner
anticipates that the filtration system would be bypassed for up
to six months.
(Pet.
at 3.)
COMPLIANCE PLAN
A variance is a temporary reprieve from compliance with the
Board’s regulations.
Compliance is to be sought regardless of
the hardship which the task of eventual compliance presents an
individual polluter.
(Monsanto Co.
v.
IPCB
(1977),
67 Iil.2d 276,
367 N.E.2d 684.)
Accordingly, except in certain special
circumstances,
a variance petitioner is required, as a condition
to grant of variance, to commit to a plan which is reasonably
calculated to achieve compliance within the term of the variance.
During the proposed removal and replacement of the sand
filters, the numerical standard for suspended solids will not be
3
met consistently.
(Pet. at 6.)
Glenbard will attempt to meet the
suspended solid standard during the reconstruction period by
adding polymer to the clarifier.
(Pet. at 6.)
However,
compliance during this period with the suspended solids standard
cannot be assured even with the addition of polymers.
(Pet. at
6.)
Glenbard has included interim suspended solids discharge
limitations which can be achieved during the bypass period in the
petition.
(Pet.
at 9.)
The Agency has included these interim
limits in the recommendation.
(Ag. Rec.
3.)
After the completion
of the replacement of the filters, the effluent from the plant
will meet the suspended solids limitation found
in Glenbard’s
NPDES permit.
HARDSHIP
In determining whether any variance is to be granted, the
Act requires the Board to determine whether a petitioner has
presented adequate proof that immediate compliance with the Board
regulations at issue would impose an arbitrary or unreasonable
hardship.
(415 ILCS 5/35(a)
(1992).)
Furthermore, the burden is
upon the petitioner to show that its claimed hardship outweighs
the public interest in attaining compliance with regulations
designed to protect the public.
(Willowbrook Motel
v.
IPCB
(1985),
135 Ill. App.3d 343,
481 N.E.2d 1032.)
Only with such a
showing can the claimed hardship rise to the level of arbitrary
or unreasonable hardship.
Further deterioration of the sand filters at Glenbard will
hinder the ability of Glenbard to meet the TSS limits in its
NPDES permit.
(Ag. Rec. at 2.)
The sand filters need to be
repaired or replaced to prevent further deterioration.
(Ag. Rec.
at 2.)
One way to comply with the applicable suspended solid
limits during renovation of the sand filters is to construct a
new filter system separate from the existing system.
(Pet. at 9.)
This method would allow Glenbard to remain in compliance with the
TSS limit.
(Pet.
at 9.)
The petitioner estimates the cost of
this option at $4,791,144 which
is more than double the cost of
the option preferred by Glenbard.
(Pet.
at 9.)
The other
construction options studied by Glenbard include retrofitting the
filter components and bypassing the filters during a portion of
the reconstruction period.
(Pet. at
9..)
The two options differ
as to the type of components used in the filters.
One option
retrofits the filters with Hydroclear Components while the other
option uses General Filter Components.
(Table 33 of Pet.)
Petitioner claims that none of the options would result in an
adverse environmental impact.
(Pet.. at 9.)
Glenbard
states that the proposed method of retrofitting
the filters with General Filter Components and bypassing the
filtration process is the preferred option because this option is
the most cost effective.
(Pet. at 9.)
The bypass of the
filtration system would occur four months after the start of
4
construction and last for a period of six months.
(Pet.
at 4.)
Glenbard will attempt to meet suspended solid standards during
the bypass period by adding polymer to the final clarifier.
(Pet.
at 6.)
Glenbard intends to begin construction in September of
1995.
(Fig.
1 of Pet.)
However, approval of Glenbard’s loan
application and construction permit are pending.
(Pet.
at 8.)
The Agency agrees that this
is the best option available.
(Ag.
Rec. at 2.)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The suspended solids in the plant’s wastewater flow consist
primarily of non-volatile, non-biodegradable ash which has no
biological impact on the receiving waters.
(Pet.
at 7.)
Petitioner claims that an increase in the suspended solids during
the bypass period will have no significant impact on the quality
of the receiving water and will not violate the Board’s water
quality standards during the bypass period.
(Pet. at 7.)
The
Agency agrees that the environmental impact will be minimal.
(Ag.
Rec. at 3.)
CONSISTENCY WITH FEDERAL
LAW
Both the Agency and Glenbard state that a grant of the
requested relief is consistent with federal law.
(Pet.
at 10; Ag.
Rec. at
3..)
CONCLUSION
Based upon the record, the Board finds that immediate
compliance with the standard for TSS would impose an arbitrary or
unreasonable hardship on Glenbard.
The Board finds that the
granting of the variance from the TSS limit for a six month
period will not result in an adverse environmental impact on the
receiving water.
In addition, Clenbard will be able to return to
compliance with the TSS limit upon the completion of the
replacement of the filter housings.
This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
ORDER
Glenbard Wastewater Authority is hereby granted a variance
for its Glen Ellyn wastewater treatment plant from 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 304.124 and the total suspended solid limit contained in its
NPDES permit subject to the following conditions:
a.
This variance shall begin when the sand filters are removed
from service and shall continue until the sand filters are
returned to service or for a period of six months, whichever
5
occurs first but no later than September 1,
1996
b.
During the variance period, the effluent discharged shall
meet the following TSS limits:
LOAD LIMITS lbs/day
CONCENTRATION
DAF
(DMF)
LIMITS MG/i
PARAMETER
MONTHLY
DAILY
MONTHLY
DAILY
AVG.
MAX
AVG.
MAX
TSS
2,672
6,012
20
45
(7,840)
(17,639)
c.
During
the variance period, Glenbard shall operate its
wastewater treatment facility in such a manner that it will
produce the best effluent practicable.
Additionally,
Glenbard shall perform the necessary repair work on the sand
filters as expeditiously as possible to minimize the period
of time that the filters need to be out of service.
d.
Glenbard shall notify Maureen Brehmer of the Agency’s
Maywood office via telephone at
(708)
338-7900 when the
construction phase begins and ends.
In addition, written
confirmation of each notification shall be sent within five
(5) days to the following address:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
BOW,
Compliance Assurance Section
2200 Churchill Road,
P.
0. Box 19276
Springfield,
Ii
62794—9276
Attention:
Dan Ray
Within forty-five
(45) days of the date of the Board’s final
order, Glenbard shall execute the certificate of acceptance and
agreement to be bound to all of the terms and conditions of the
variance
(see attached).
This executed agreement shall be
forwarded to:
Margaret P. Howard
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Legal Counsel
2200 Churchill Road
~
Post Office Box 19276
Springfield, IL
62794—9276
The forty-five
(45) day period shall be held in abeyance during
any period that this matter is being appealed.
Failure to
execute and forward this certificate in a timely fashion shall
render the variance null and void.
6
CERTIFICATION
I
(We),
,
hereby
accept and agree to be bound by all terms and conditions of the
Pollution Control Board’s April 20,
1995 order
in PCB 95-49.
Petitioner
Authorized Agent
Title
Date
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act,
(415 ILCS
5/41
(1992)), provides for appeal of final orders of the Board
within 35 days of the date of service of this order.
The Rules
of the Supreme Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.
(See also
35 Ill. Adm.
Code 101.246, Motion for Reconsideration.)
I, Dorothy N.
Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above opinion~andoider was
adopted on the
‘~
day of____________________
1995,
by a vote of
7—C
~
~:,
t
-~
Dorothy M. pilnn,
Clerk
Illinois Pojiution Control Board