ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May
22, 1986
VILLAGE OF STILLMAN VALLEY,
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 86—30
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
)
AGENCY,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by 3. Marlin):
This matter comes before
the Board upon the filing on
February 28,
1986 by the Village of Stiliman Valley (Village)
of
a petition for variance from the wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP)
operator certification regulations, specifically
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 380.501.
The request for variance should more properly
be
from the Board regulation, Section 312.101,
rather
than the
Agency regulation,
Section 380.501 and the Board will
so construe
the Petition.
The Agency
filed
its recommendation to deny the
variance on April
14,
1986.
Hearing was waived and none was
held.
No public comments were received.
The Village holds NPDES permit
# 1L0031275.
It owns and
operates
a
0.2 million gallons per day
(MGD) design average flow
(DAF) WWTP consisting of bar
screens, comminutor,
a Clow Aer—O—
Flow contact stabilization activated sludge unit,
flow
measurement,
a polishing pond and disinfection.
The sludge
is
aerobically digested and either dried on sludge drying
beds or
wet hauled
for land application.
Discharge is to Stillrnan Creek
and thence
to
the Rock River.
Section 312.101 provides as follows:
no
person shall cause
or allow the
use or operation
of any treatment works for which
a permit is required
by
Part
309
unless
the
operation
of
such
treatment
works
is
under
the
direct
and
active
field
supervision
of a person who has been certified
by the
Agency
as
being
competent
to
operate
the
particular
type
or
size
of
treatment
works
being
used
or
operated.
The applicable Agency regulation
is Section 380.501.
The WWTP of
the Village
is classified as
a Group
2 facility requiring
a
certified Class
2 operator or
an operator certified
at
a higher
level.
35
Ill. Adm. Code 380.501.
The Village currently employs
70-24
2
a contract certified Class
1 operator,
Mr. Janes, and
a full time
Class
4 WWTP operator, Mr. Glendenning who has been employed
in
that position since February of
1984.
The Village requests that Mr. Glendenning be allowed
to
supervise
its Class
2 WWTP for
the period of time necessary for
him
to complete the six years of wastewater operator experience
required
in Agency regulation Section 380.703
(Class
2),
prior
to
qualifying
for the Class
2 examination
(Petition at 3).
The
Village asserts that he would
be eligible for the Class
2
examination
in August, 1988 and therefore requests
a variance
for
a
21/2year period (Petition at 6).
The Agency counters that Mr. Glendenning
has only 30 months
experience toward a Class
2 certificate
and needs
42 additional
months in order
to take the written examination.
He would not be
able to take the Class
2 examination until October, 1989.
If Mr.
Glendenning successfully completes three 3—credit courses related
to sewage
treatment,
then he would only need 33 additional months
of experience.
He then could
take the examination
in January,
1989.
In any event,
the Village’s estimate of August 1988
is too
optimistic
(Agency Rec.
at
2,3).
Regarding environmental
impact, the Village has furnished
discharge monitoring report
(DMR) data showing that the
WWTP has
complied with its permit conditions
for 1985
(Petition at 4).
The Village also mentions various educational programs Mr.
Glendenning has been involved
in.
The inference is that with his
present experience
and the 1985 operation record of the WWTP,
the
WWTP will
be operated properly and with minimal adverse
impact.
The Agency, however,
states that the plant has a history of
poor operational practices since beginning operation in May 1976
(Agency Rec.
at 2).
While
the WWTP performance improved during
the time the Village participated
in the Agency’s operator
assistance program, Village participation ended
in December 1985.
Id.
The Village asserts that it has many ongoing water
and sewer
plant system improvements such as a new water
tower, upgrading
sewer plant process control, new laboratory equipment,
and
lagoon
pumping and lining which have strained the Village budget.
(Pet.
at 5).
More improvements are planned.
Id.
The Village states
that “the average cost of the village’s 400 services is $28.00
per month.
Raising these rates would be impossible.”
Id.
The
Village states that to ease any budget strain as well
as to
increase the wages and benefits
to Mr. Glendenning,
it could
eliminate the contract certified operator position.
Id.
The Agency asserts
that one of the purposes of the Village
in terminating
the employment of the contract operator “is
to
increase
the wages and benefits of Mr. Glendenning.
Thus, there
70-25
3
would
be no savings
to
the Village or the users of the system.”
(Agency
Rec. at 4).
The Agency attributes the lagoon pumping and
laboratory equipment costs
to
the previous inattention of the
Village
to
its WWTP.
Id.
The Agency notes that the $28.00 per
month user
fee
is
for both water
and sewer
and that there
is no
indication that the users cannot afford
the fee
(Agency Rec at
4,5).
The Village does not allege that immediate compliance with
Section 312.101 would
cause an arbitrary or unreasonable
hardship.
At best
it could be said that the Village
is asserting
some degree of economic hardship.
This assertion by itself is
insufficient
to justify the grant of variance.
The Board has granted variances from Section 312.101 under
certain circumstances.
These
include situations where
a long-
time, competent plant operator was nearing retirement, Village of
Franklin Grove
v.
IEPA,
39 PCB 167
(PCB 80—106, July 24,
1980);
where plant upgrades or rule changes require changed
certifications, Village of Ashton v.
IEPA 39 PCB
591
(PCB 80—135,
October
17,
1980);
and
where current employees need
a rather
short
time to qualify for the required certification.
Variances
were granted
for nine months in City of Herrin
v.
IEPA,
39 PCB
557
(PCB 80—145, October
2,
1980)
and
in City
of Marion v.
IEPA,
45 PCB 153,
(PCB 81—169, January 21,
1982);
and seven months
in
Village of Crossville v. IEPA,
45 ?CB
57
(PCB 81—156, January 7,
1982).
In some of the above cases,
the plant had
a history of good
operation,
in others, problems were beyond
the control of the
operator
to whom the variance would apply.
In Sanitary District
of Beardstown v.
IEPA,
56 PCB 235
(PCB 83—225,
February 22,
1984),
aff’d at
57 PCB 199
(March
21, 1984),
a
six month variance
was granted
to enable
an experienced
Class
2 operator
to prepare
for and
to take the Class
1 examination.
The Beardstown WWTP had
been characterized by the Agency as well run.
56 PCB 238.
In
another case, Villa~eof
German Valley
v.
IEPA,
47 PCB 537
(PCB
82—75, August
8, 1982)
a Class
3 operator needed 32 months
additional experience to qualify for
the Class
2 examination.
The Board granted
a one year variance during which time his
performance was further evaluated.
Subsequently the Board
granted another variance based upon satisfactory performance.
58 PCB 469
(PCB 84—27,
June 29,
1984). While German Valley’s WWTP
had some operational problems
(47 PCB 538), most were corrected
during
the prior variance period.
The Agency noted
the
satisfactory performance of the WWTP and its operator during the
period of the prior variance.
58 PCB 470.
In the instant case,
there
is a history of poor operation of
the WWTP.
The Agency has recommended denial.
In addition, an
unusually long variance period of between 33 and 42 months would
be required depending upon the operator’s completion of
70-26
4
classes.
Mr. Glendenning
is not
a long—term employee caught by
a
rule change or upgrading.
The Board does not believe that
terminating
the Class
I supervisor
at this time would serve the
interest of environmental protection.
The Village
is, of course,
free to
file another variance request when Mr. Glendenning has
more experience and
is closer
to completing the requirements for
Class
2 certification.
The Board hereby denies variance from 35
Ill. Adm. Code
312.101.
This Opinion constitutes
the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law
in this matter.
ORDER
The request by the Village of Stillman Valley for variance
relief, construed by the Board
as being
from 35
Ill.
Adm. Code
312.101,
is hereby denied.
IT
IS
SO ORDERED.
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 ___________________________
~
/~/
Dorothy M.
dunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
70-27