ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

February 22, 1984

SANITARY DISTRICT OF 

BEARDSTOWN,

Petitioner,

)

PCB 83—225

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

)

AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by W. J. Nega):

This matter comes before the Board 

on the petition for

variance of the Sanitary District of l3eardstown 

(SDB) filed on

December 9, 1983. Variance is requested from 

35 Ill. Adm. Code

312.101 

in order to allow the employment 

of a Class 2 operator

instead of a Class 1 operator during a time period 

not to exceed

one year. On January 12, 1984, the Agency 

filed its Recommendation

that variance be denied. Hearing was waived 

and none has been

held.

The Petitioner owns and operates a wastewater 

treatment

plant (WTP) in the City of Beardstown, Cass 

County, Illinois

which is designed for a BOD and suspended solids 

load of 8,760

population equivalents and, according to Illinois 

Environmental

Protection Agency (Agency) Permit 

#1979-AB—5706, has a design

average 

daily flow (OAF) of 1,13 million gallons per 

day (gpd).

(Pet, 1; Rec~3)~ As a result of this DAF, the Petitioner’s WTP

is

designated as a Group 1 facility which must have a 

Class 1

operator. 

The SDB has indicated that, because the current 

popula—

tion 

of the City of Beardstown is approximately 

6,300 people,

the

actual average daily flow through the WTP 

is substantially less

than 

the 1.13 million gpd capacity and the 

plant has a current

population load of about 6,300 persons. 

(Pet. 1-2).

The SOB’s wastewater treatment 

facilities, which are operated

pursuant 

to NPDES Permit No. 1L0025135, 

include raw sewage pumps;

comminutor; 

grit removal equipment, primary 

clarifiers; rotating

biological contactors; final clarifiers; chlorination 

with a

chlorine contact tank; storm water pumps; storm 

water clarifiers;

sludge vacuum filter; first flush retention basin; aeration

blowers; chemical feeders for line conditioning 

of sludge; flow

meter; 

and a main control building with a 

laboratory. (Pet. 1).

56~235

The Pet1~ionerteceived a ~tep 3 State grant, 

pursuant to

the

Anti—Pollutior i3ond Act of 1970, from the Agency 

in 1979

(Grant Project No C170858 for tbe construction 

of additions to

its

WTP, The construction project began in 1979 

and the 

upgrad-

ing of the treat ~er~works ~as coRleted during the 

fall of 1981.

(Pet, 2~-3; Rec. 2). Cn Jaruary 

1982, the 

Agency adopted

revised procedures for the certif cation of operators 

of waste—

water treatment ~io.k ~fich reclassified the Petitioner’s 

WTP

from a Group 2 facility requiring a Class 2 

operator to a Group 1

facility requiring a certified Class 1 operator. 

Although the

Agency S~flL 

Ou~ie~

c~. Lh~i~evi~eur~t.~SLa all registered 

certi-

fied operators in January of 1982, the Petitioner 

has asserted

that the SDB and the current operator ‘~received

written notifica-

tion of the classification requirements in September, 

1983”.

(Pet. 2).

The Petitioner~s present WTP operator is 

Mr. Elmer William

Bell who was hired by the SOB on October 1, 1967 

as chief plant

operator. Mr. B~ I received his Class 2 operator 

certification

from the Agency ir 1979 (1 e 

well before the 

WTP

was reclassi-

fied as a Group I facility requiring a Class 1 

operator). Under

the provisions of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 308,502(b), treatment 

works

which had a properly certified operator prior to 

the adoption of

the

revised Agency rules, but which are now required 

to have an

operator with a ~igher certification as a result of 

reclassifica-

tion, are alloqc$ yerts f  CNnuary 

27,

1982 to 

retain an

operator at the proper level of certification, 

(Rec. 2).

According to t~e .gcncy’s (o ra~or Certification Regula-

tions, a Clas~ I ~eratr must have a high school 

education or

equivalent 

crdor to bc eltpbl3 

take the Class 1 

test.

Although Mr. Bell has an elementar~rschool education 

and 2 years

of

high school, Mr Bell s experience has been deemed to 

satisfy

the requirements conce~ringar 1equivalent” high school 

education

under a December, 1983 policy dec,°ionby the Agency’s 

Operator

Certification Unit, Rec, 4),

The Petitioner has ~tate1 that Mr. Bell “will 

take the

Agency’s Clasr I wa~tewatertreatnent plant examination 

as soon

as work conditions and persnal health permits”, (Pet, 

3). The

SDB has p intec o~tt a~’ durirg 983, Mr. Bell “has 

had to

devote considerab e tim~a~deffrt to maintain the 

satisfactory

operation of th~was~ewatert eat ivi’ facilities due 

to problems

caused by the pro onged flcoding of the Illinois 

River at Beards—

town”, (Ie~, 

The ~    

iiu~d to by the Petitioner

include: (1) extensive wet wea~ber flows due to the high ground

water table’ and (2) sever main failures within the 

City of

Beardstown which have resulted in excessive amounts 

of sand

entering the WTP (necessitating periodic draining 

and cleaning of

the

WTP’s tanks), (Pet, 3~4), Additionally, Mr. 

Bell has had

lower lumbar back surgery in October of 1983 for the 

removal of

three vertebrae disks and will probably require 

further medical

56~-236

—3—

treatment ~.r.$ett s c.rrert Inotth problems, when combined

with the addi am 1 ‘nrk regui.e~urtsbrought about as a result

of river flcoc,ni ~avs ro#, according to the Petitioner, allowed

him adequate 

F.n

~

rrera 

e

or a.d take, the Class 1 test.

(Pet. 4).

The Petitiore”- tas a&serte~that the cost of obtaining a

temporary 

full -t 

e

c..ass 1 ope 

rr ~s an additional employee

until Mr. Bell receives nis Clacs 1 certification would be an

unreasor 

able 

..~oip 

Gri

the 8DB a 

id its customers who

ultimately

must bear the

COSt 

(luring the cuLcerl uncertain economic period

in the locality. (Pet. 4). The 8DB points out that, due to a

substantial reduction in wages paid by the local Oscar Mayer

plant (a major 

comnunity 

employer) and the present economic

downturn, it cannot afford estimated additional costs of $20,000.00

to $25,000.00 for one year’s salary and required fringe benefit

costs for a Class I operator. (Pet. 4).

Moreover, the Petitioner las stated that 

Ui~

flows experi-

enced during tow ~ter table con4it’ons range from 650,000 

gpd

to

700,000 gp’, tnt emphasized t.a: the design of the recent addi-

tions to the W’P 

VeO

oversized in anticipation of estimated 

wet

weather flcws, so that the 1.13 million 

gpd

capacity is far more

than needed or utilized for the current service area population.

(Pet. 4—5). 

?‘i’.~ 

tha Pe’ ttorer has implied that the Group 1

classificatac. 

i~’

fa~lt; 

doet not take this overcapacity

situation tnto frV 

acco

in:

aria that a Class 1 operator during a

short interim timi peraoa 

not s~~ctlynecessary in the partic-

ular extenua’ina crcumsta ces of ttis case. (Pet. 4).

As an 3d0

a.

fac. r

.,.

..0idered in its hardship

claim, the

Peti-sncr 

‘toted 

that the 5DB would like to re-

ceive its Pina~qtate grant payment for Project No. C170858

without waiting for Mr. Belt to ‘atatn his Class 1 certificate.

(Pet. 5). In resj,t~t‘0 tirs situation, the Agency has indicated

that 99.6 of tnf urrant a 

ant. 

hab seen paid out, but that the

grant cannot be ‘~o’~doat urtl tie “etitioner resolves its

operator cert..~t

‘03 pr l’i-. IRec 4).

The Agency a knowledged tiat prior to Agency action in

December,

..983

Bed

caa ‘tot consLdered to

have

the

educa-

tional 

qualitv~

itt..

Uiaible for the Class 1 exam. The

Agency noted, ‘~.wivc

t.at 

*13 Petii.soner did not explain why

Mr. Bell

did

nc~

~..cnp.e.e hto ~ducational

requirements.

(Rec.

3). The Agency staten taac ‘a. âeil took the exam on January 3,

1984 but

did not pass” (Rec 3).

In consLd~n.g atternatin. r~ciods of compliance, the Agency

has

indicatee that the 8DB presently employs another operator,

Mr. Kenneth Capps, who passed his

Class 2 exam on January 6, 1981

and, because he has a high scho& education and 10 years experi-

ence, has been iligible to take the Class 1 exam for the past 

two

56-237

years~ (Rec, 3)~ Additionally, the Agency estimated 

that a

contract operator to supervise other operators 

would cost

approx-

imately $150,00 to $2OO~OOa month~ Thus, the Agency believes

that the Petitioner’s estimated cost of compliance 

did not take

into consideration the possibility of hiring a part—time, 

rather

than a full—time, Class I operator for plant supervision. (Rec.

4), Accordingly, the Agency has recommended that the 

Board deny

the requested variances

The Agency has acknowledged that granting a 

variance should

have no adverse effect on the quality of treatment provided.

Discharge monitoring reports for 1982 and 1983 

report no BOD or

TSS violations~ The Agency stated that 

~Mr, Bell operates the

treatment facility well and maintains it in 

good working order

Mr~Bell is a good operator and the plant is well—run.

(Rec. 4—5),

In such a situation, the Board believes that hiring an

outside operator to come in on a part~~~timebasis to 

supervise an

already experienced operator would not be cost—effective or 

add

to efficiency. Given the lack of any 

environmental injury, the

small size of the City of Beardstown and its Sanitary 

District,

the downturn in the local economy, the need for financial re-

straint in expenditures of public tax monies, and the desirabil-

ity of closing out state grant funding, plus the 

fact that Mr.

Bell is apparently a capable and competent operator 

despite his

lack 

of a high school diploma and initial failure 

to pass an exam

shortly after undergoing major surgery, the Board 

feels that Mr.

Bell should be allowed adequate time to sufficiently 

prepare for

the requisite Class 1 test,

However, the Board will require the Sanitary District of

Beardstown to obtain a properly certified Class 1 

operator by

August 22, 1984. Both of the Petitioner~sClass 

2 operators will

have an adequate opportunity to take the necessary 

Class 1 exam

within the next six months. The Board notes that the 

Class 1

exam is given by the Agency every 2 months in 

Springfield (i.e.,

tests are currently scheduled for March 6, 1984; May 1, 1984;

July 3, 1984; September 4, 1984, etc.) and every 2 alternate

months in Peoria (i.e., on April 3, 1984; June 5, 

1984; August 7,

1984, etc.), Moreover, the six month time period of the 

variance

will provide the Petitioner with sufficient time and 

opportunity

to look around for, and find, a qualified Class 1 operator 

who

will he able to supervise wastewater treatment plant 

operations

and work for Beardstown on a part—time, contractual basis in case

the Petitioner’s current operators are unable to 

pass the Class 1

test.

Accordingly, the Board finds that denial of variance would

impose an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship upon the Petitioner

and will grant the requested relief, subject to the 

conditions

delineated in the Order,

56-238

ORDER

The Petitioner, the Sanitary District of Beardstown, 

is

hereby granted a variance from 35 Iii, Adm. Code 312.101 in order

to allow the employment of a Class 2 operator to operate its

wastewater treatment facility, subject to the following condi-

tions:

1,  This variance shall expire on August 22, 1984.

2,

The Petitioner~s wastewater treatment 

plant shall

continue to be operated and maintained in full

compliance with the requirements of NPDES Permit No. IL

0025135 and in compliance with all applicable rules and

regulations to assure the proper protection of the

environment.

3.  The present Class 2 operators shall take all necessary

and reasonable steps to obtain the requisite 

Class 1

certification before the expiration date of this variance,

including the submission of the necessary test 

applica-

tion

forms to the Agency and the taking of the appropri-

ate Class 1 examinations before August 

22, 1984.

4.  The Petitioner shall have a properly certified 

Class 1

operator for its wastewater treatment plant by august

22, 1984.

5.  Within 45 days of the date of this Order, the

Petitioner shall execute and forward to the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Water

Pollution Control, Compliance Assurance Section, 2200

Churchill Road, Springfield, Illinois 62706, a

Certificate of Acceptance and Agreement to be bound to

all terms and conditions of this variance, This 45 day

period shall he held in abeyance for any period this

matter is being appealed. The form of the certificate

shall he as follows:

CERTIFICATE

I, (We),   

____

having read the Order of the

Illinois Pollution Control Board in PCB 83—225 dated February 22,

1984, understand and accept the said Order, realizing that such

acceptance renders all terms and conditions thereto binding and

enforceable.

56-239

—6—

S~nitary~

By: Authorized ~gent

Title

Date

IT IS SO ORDERED,

I, Christan L, Moffett, 

Clerk of the 

Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and,

Order was adopted on the 

~

day of 

___________

1984

by a vote of        

____

Christan L. Moffett, erk

Illinois Pollution Co trol Board

56-240