ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July 11, 1986
CITY OF MENDOTA
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 85—182
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
MICHAEL S GUILFOYLE, ATTORNEY AT LAW, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE
CITY OF MENDOTA.
THOMAS DAVIS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY..
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by R.
C. Flemal):
This matter comes before
the Board upon
a Petition for
Variance
(“Pet.”) filed December 10,
1985 by the City of Mendota
(“Mendota”).
Mendota seeks variance for a period of two years
from 35
Ill. Adm. Code 306.304
so that it may continue to operate
various bypasses.
On December 20,
1985 the Board ordered Mendota to submit
additional information.
Mendota filed an Addendum to its
variance petition on February
6, 1986.
The Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
(“Agency”) filed
its
Recommendation (“Rec.”)
in this case on March 11,
1986,
recommending that Mendota’s request for variance relief be
denied.
Hearing was held
in this matter on April
22, 1986 in
Mendota,
Illinois.
For the reasons developed below,
the Board
finds
it cannot
grant the variance relief requested by Mendota and must therefore
deny the requested relief.
BACKGROUND
Mendota owns and operates a wastewater treatment plant
and
sanitary sewer system which serve approximately 7,000 persons.
The plant’discharges to Mendota Creek, which flows
into the
Little Vermillion River.
The plant has a design maximum flow of
2.8 mgd, and can provide tertiary treatment for 1.8 ingd
(R.
at
98).
Two excess flow lagoons are also located at the plant.
Excess
flows to the plant are bypassed to the “west”
lagoon,
then
to the “east” lagoon
(R.
at 50).
The effluent from the ponds
discharges to the Little Vermillion River
(without chlorination)
and average
20 mg/l of five day biochemical oxygen demand
(“BODç”) and total suspended solids (“TSS”),
rarely exceeding 30
rng/l ~or either parameter
(Rec.
at 2).
71-12
—2—
Mendota upgraded
its system in 1977 for
the intended purpose
of reducing infiltration and eliminating sewage bypassing (Pet.,
par.
1).
Bypassing continues
to occur, however, at seven
locations (described below).
Mendota contends
that the
engineering firm utilized by Petitioner
for
the prior project
severely underestimated the volume of infiltration into the
system
(R.
at 18).
More specifically, Mr.
G.
Richard Spencer,
one of Mendota’s present engineers,
testified that his
calculations show that
for
a five—year storm, 11,389,000 gallons
per day are delivered
to the plant
(R.
at
84).
The prior
engineers estimated the expected flow to the plant during
a five—
year storm to be 5.3 mgd, and allegedly made inadequate
modifications
to
the system based on that estimate.
Petitioner
alleges
that without the bypasses operating, sewage backs up into
the basements of approximately 75 residences eight
to ten times
per year during precipitation events
(R.
at 88—90).
Mendota was given
a prior variance from 35
Ill. Adm. Code
306.304 by the Board on June
30,
1983.
That variance expired on
September
30, 1984,
and no effort was made by Mendota
to extend
or renew
the earlier variance.
DESCRIPTION OF THE BYPASSES
Bypasses occur
at seven locations
in Mendota’s system.
Outfall
001 is located at the sewage treatment plant and
discharges
to Mendota Creek.
Outfall 002 is located at East
Sixth Street
in the city, and
is an automatic bypass which
discharges directly to the Little Verinillion River.
Outfall 003
is a manually operated bypass located at the east pump station,
and
it also discharges directly to the Little Verrnillion River.
Outfall 004 is a gravity discharge located at First Avenue and
Ninth Street, and discharges
to First Avenue Creek,
a small
tributary
to the Little Verniillion River.
Outfall 005
is another
gravity discharge and is
located at Oak Court.
It discharges
to
Mendota Creek.
Outfall 006
is a 12—inch pipe which extends from
the east lagoon to the Little Verrnillion River.
Outfall 007
is
a
bypass discharge that occurs to the Little Vermillion River as a
consequence
of flow across the top of the dikes located
at the
west lagoon.
R.
at 118.
PROPOSE
D
IMPROVEMENTS
TO SYSTEM
Mendota has indicated several changes
it has recently made,
or
intends to make
in the near future,
to
its system.
These
improvements are expected to effect a slight improvement
in the
operation of the system, but are expected to neither
eliminate
the perceived need for the bypasses nor reduce
the magnitude of
the bypasses
in a significant way.
Mendota states that on April
21, 1986,
it
installed a
recirculation line running from the east lagoon to the plant’s
tertiary treatment equipment.
The recirculation line acts to
keep the lagoon at a low depth
in dry weather
in order
to enable
71-13
—3—
the lagoon
to handle higher volume
in wet conditions
(Pet., par.
7).
The line had formerly run from the lagoon
to the head of
the
plant.
The prior
set—up of the line caused some difficulties
related
to overloading of the activated sludge system, thus the
line was rerouted
as water
coming from the east lagoon
is
believed
to be of sufficiently high quality to require only
tertiary treatment and chlorination
(R.
at 97).
Petitioner also intends to install a motorized gate valve at
the head of the plant.
This valve would replace the manually
operated one currently
in place, and would function to control
flows into the plant during periods when an operator
is not on
duty.
Such control
is necessary
to prevent the biological
processes at the plant from being
“flooded”,
and thereby rendered
ineffective, during periods of rain.
Installation of the
motorized gate valve
is expected to cost $30,000
(R.
at 99—100).
Testimony given by both Arthur Fry, Head
of Operations at
the Mendota plant,
and Mr. Spencer indicates that Mendota
is
going
to correct problems of infiltration in a few small areas
(R.
at
70).
This work will not be sufficient to remove
Petitioner’s need
to bypass
(R. at 121).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Mendota has submitted some data indicating the amounts
of
various parameters contained
in effluent discharged during bypass
events between May, 1985 and March,
1986.
This data
is contained
in Exhibit E,
and shows
the following:
Outfall 001
(NO DATA)
Outfall 002
D.O.
SS
BOD
November
11,
1985
8.6
7.7
18
15
November
19, 1985
8.6
7.6
15
25
November 20,
1985
Bypass occurred, but no sampling done
November 21, 1985
“
“
“
November 22,
1985
“
December
1, 1985
8.8
7.2
13
21
December
2, 1985
Bypass occured, but no sampling done
December
3,
1985
“
“
“
December
4, 1985
“
71-14
—4—
October 21, 1985
November 19, 1985
November 20, 1985
November
21,
1985
November 22, 1985
December
1, 1985
December
2, 1985
December
3, 1985
December
4, 1985
December
5, 1985
December
6, 1985
February 4, 1986
Outfall 004
D.O.
SS
___
November
19, 1985
7.5
November
20, 1985
Bypass occurred,
but
December
1, 1985
9.4
7.6
23
P.O.
!~.
___
7.8
7.6
34
24
8.7
7.5
10
4
9.0
7.1
9
7
9.9
7.7
11
9
8.1
7.4
8
14
10.4
7.4
10
20
10.2
6.9
12
10
9.6
7.5
13
6
13.6
7.6
13
16
11.2
7.8
28
12
13.0
7.4
10
9
Mendota has submitted no flow data, however,
for any of the
bypasses, nor for Mendota Creek and the Little Verinillion
River.
Such data
is critical
to the determination of the degree
of environmental impact caused by any given discharge(s).
Since
such data
is not present here,
the Board
finds it difficult to
BOD
‘I
ft
8.8
N
7.2
31
23
ft
‘I
ft
9.6
Outfall 003
P.O.
21!.
4.8
7.6
24
37
8.2
7.3
29
28
Bypass occurred, but no sampling done
ft
ft
ft
I,
Bypass occurred,
but no sampling
no sampling
done
done
I,
ft
N
7.5
I,
ft
ft
ft
ft
24
26
BOD
10
30
8.1
31
SS
BOD
12
28
Outfall 005
P.O.
21!.
9.7
7.6
Outfall 006
December
1, 1985
May 16, 1985
October 21,
1985
November
1, 1985
November
10, 1985
November
18, 1985
December
1, 1985
December 13, 1985
February 4, 1986
March
5, 1986
March 18,
1986
April
1, 1986
71-15
—5—
determine the environmental impact to the receiving streams of
the Petitioner’s bypasses.
HARDSHI P
Mendota contends that denial
of the variance relief
it
requests would constitute an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship
to the city.
Petitioner has presented a good deal of information
detailing the seriousness of
its financial condition.
For
example, Exhibit B
is
a comparison of Mendota’s sewer
rates with
the average rates of a surveyed group of 36 Illinois
communities.
In every
rate category,
the rate charged by Mendota
exceeded
the
survey average.
In addition,
due
to the loss of
revenue sharing Petitioner anticipates a budget deficit of
$90,000 over the next 3—4 years*
(IL at 6).
Moreover, Mendota
already has the fifth highest tax rate in LaSalle County, yet
is
ranked 34th among
37 LaSalle County communities on the basis of
per capita income
(R.
at 6—7).
Mendota’s engineers have proposed
a $1.6 million plan to
upgrade the system, but implementation of that plan would not
eliminate bypassing within the system
(R. at 88) although
it
would reduce the frequency of bypassing
to 2—3 times per year
(Id.).
To eliminate bypassing entirely, Mendota contends the
sewer system would have to be completely replaced,
at a cost in
excess of $14
million.
The city believes that the rates
for
sewer service would increase by 67
if the $1.6 million upgrade
was undertaken, while the $14 million plan,
if adopted, would
cause
rates
to increase by 670.
COMPLIANCE PLAN
Mendota asserts that
it cannot come into compliance as
a
consequence of any action undertaken during the pendency of the
proposed
variance
(B.
at 121—2).
Rather, Mendota proposes to use
the period of the variance
to prepare a proposal for site—
specific relief
(R. at 122).
The Board has previously held
that
contemplation of a proposal for regulatory relief does not
constitute
a compliance program (Citizens Utilities Com~an~of
Illinois
v.EPA,
PCB 85—95, Apri1~1I~TT~uc~i7Mendota
ha~noE~proposeda compliance plan of any sort,
although such a
plan is required by 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.121(f).
CONCLUSiON
The Board
finds that the Petition for Variance filed by
Mendota in this matter must be denied.
The Board certainly
understands
the financial difficulties currently being
~Tt~is
not clear
from the transcript whether this amount refers
to
an annual deficit over
the next 3—4 years, or
a cumulative
deficit
for that period~.
71-16
—6—
experienced by the Petitioner, and empathizes with
the worries
and frustrations that must result as a consequence of the
situation.
The Board
is not able to grant variance relief
in
this case, where the relief is not conditioned upon
identification of and committment to a compliance plan.
The Board has,
in certain instances, granted short term
variances so that information necessary to formulate and schedule
a compliance plan can be gathered.
The Board does suggest that
Mendota might wish
to continue to explore efforts,
short of
complete sewer replacement, which might allow for the reduction
or elimination of surcharging in its sanitary sewer system.
These could include, but need not necessarily be limited
to,
disconnection from the sanitary sewer
of downspouts
and sump
pumps, repair of leaky manholes,
and grouting or lining of
existing sewers.
In the event that Meridota determines
that it
wishes
to consider this course, Mendota would
be free to refile
for variance for the term necessary to complete the compliance
program information gathering.
If Mendota believes that the circumstances regarding its
sewer system are such that compliance with Board regulations
simply cannot be achieved,
the Board suggests that Petitioner
continue
to consider
filing a proposal for site—specific
regulatory relief.
The Board
notes
that
in making this
suggestion it gives no assurances regarding the possible outcome
of such
a proceeding.
The Board
is simply indicating that the
site—specific process
is designed for situations where compliance
cannot be achieved
in an economically reasonable manner.
ORDER
The December 10, 1985 Petition for Variance filed by the
City of Mendota
is hereby denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Board Member Jacob D. Dumelle dissented.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was
adopted on the
//~
__________
day of
____________,
1986,
by
a vote of
-
~‘
-7
/1
‘-~-~=~Z
~
_____
Dorothy M. ~dnn,
CI~erk
-_________
Illinois Pollution Control Board
71.17