ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September 15,
1982
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD,
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 82—113
PROVISIONAL VARIANCE
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
CONCURRING OPINION (by J. Anderson and J.D. Dumelle):
We concur in this matter because the situation for which
variance was granted appears to have been predictable and
forseeable.
The
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Recommendation
points out that the surge lagoon “sludge was building faster than
anticipated.”
It also mentioned previous diversions
to Lake
Springfield in May 1980 and May 1981
(Rec.
p.2, No.
5) in order
to clean this lagoon.
Thus it appears that the Petitioner could reasonably have
foreseen that another diversion would be needed in 1982 and have
applied through the conventional variance procedure.
Had it done
so the public would have been on notice and might have commented
on the merits of allowing the diversion as against incurring the
estimated expense of $5,640.
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency seems not to
explicitly have considered the effects of bottom deposits,
if any.
Using 225 mg/i as the total suspended solids
level and a discharge
of 3,000,000 gallons per day, the weight of the solids discharged
would be 5,631
lbs. per day.
For the 5—day period of the
variance’, some 28,155 lbs. would be released.
What is the effect
of this 14—ton discharge upon bottom—dwelling organisms?
The
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Recommendation is silent.
The instant variance seems borderline so far as meeting the
intent of the General Assembly in adopting the provisional variance
statute.
Its need was certainly predictable, and it should better
have been processed with the particip
n of the public.
Joan Anderson
(~fl~2~
g~ma~ Dumel.e
Board
48-195
2
I, Christan L.
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, here~certify that the
above
Concurring Opinion
was filed on the
/~~-
day of
_____________________,
1982.
Christan L.
of ett,
rk
Illinois Pollution
rol Board
48-196