ILLINOIS
POF4LUTIONI CONTROL
BOA1~D
November 19, 1981
CITY OF PERTJ,
Petitioner,
PCB 81—129
t14LI~OIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent~
OPINION AND ORDER OE
THE BOARD (by J~O. Dumelle):
On August 12,
1981 the City of Peru
(City) filed a petition
for
variance from
Rule 1201 of Chapter 3:
Water Pollution, to
allow the
operation of its Class ~A” treatment
facility without
the
required Class
“1’~ operator, An amended
petition was filed
on
September 2, 1981,
curing certain
defects
in the original
petition.
An
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
(Agency)
recor~unendationto
grant variance was filed
on November 18, 1981
along with a motion
to file instanter, That
motion is hereby
granted.
Hearing
was wained
and
none was
held.
The City
contracts with Sanitary Engineering
Laboratories
Inc.
to
provide
the necessary staff and
expertise to operate
its wastewater
treatment facilities which is
located in LaSalle
County.
Mr.
Loren Leach, an employee of Sanitary
Engineering,
was
the operator
responsible for the facility,
Mr. Leach,
however, terminated
his employment. Although
twelve applicants
cesponded to
advertisements to fill his position,
none of the
a~)plicants
was properly
certified in wastewater
treatment.
Mr. Tim Perra, who
holds a grade III wastewater
certificate,
was hired, and the
City is requesting a one
year variance to
allow him to operate
the City~s facility while
working toward
Class I certification,
The City
alleges that Sanitary Engineering
will make every
effort to have Mr,
Perra complete the needed
126 educational
credit~3 for obtaining
the appropriate certification. He
already
has
the necessary experience under current
rules. The Agency
notes, however,
that under current: Agency
rules
Mr. Perra may
well not he
able to obtain the necessary
credits during the
requested variance
period. On the other
hand, the Agency
eurther points out
that these rules may he
amended during
that
period and
that under the proposed rules Mr.
Perra may well he
able to complete
the necessary requirements.
44~103
The City also alleges that Sanitary
Engineering has the
expertise available to insure efficient operation of the plant
during the period of variance, although no
support is given for
the allegation.
The Agency, however, points out that Sanitary
Engineering is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and
that
Mr. Perra supervises
the
local office.
Thus, on—site assistance
will be dtfficult~ On
the other hand,
DMR’s show an improved
effluent quality since Nr, Perra took over as operator.
The City~s
facility consists
of a hand raked
bar
screen,
.ierated grit chamber, activated sludge, secondary settling,
reacration, anaerobic
digestion,
chlorine contact, sludge
storage lagoon, flow metering, pumps and other miscellaneous
apparatus. Design average flow is 3 MGD with peak capacity o~
5 MGI). The City alleges
that
Mr. Perra has over five years
experience with a similar facility in the Village of DePue
and that his work
history has
shown him to be a “concerned,
competent manager.” Thus,
he
should he able to operate
the
facility so as to
maintain the required
effluent quality and
there should he no
adverse
environmental impact,
Alternative
methods of
compliance include further
advertisement to obtain a ?rOperly certified operator or
the
hiring of a part
time operator of
record for the facility.
The
City contends that
these options are
not practical
in
that:
1.
Sanitary
Engineering has
the resources to insure
proper
operation;
2.
The State
has a short:age
of Class “I” operators;
and
3.
The expense
wouid take
funds from other areas .ind
result
in a negative net
impact
on
the environment.
The Board finds that denial of
variance would constitute an
arbitrary
and
unreasonable hardship
and that variance
should be
granted. The hiring of a Class I operator would entail some
increased expense (either advertising costs,
payment
of part—time
help, payment
of a higher salary to a Class
I operator or a
combination of these) without any
apparent benefit to the
environment.
The only remaining question
is the length of that variance,
as under current
certification
procedures it
may
be
difficult
for Mr. Perra to
attain Class
I status within one year. None-
theless, the Agency
recommends
a one year variance, as requested
~y
the City.
~s it is
likely
that the proposed rules will he
it effect within
the
requested
variance period, one year should
be
sufficient for
Mr. Perra to
attain Class I status. On the
other hand, should a
variance
extension be required the Board
finds that it would be appropriate to review at that time:
1)
the
operating
efficiency
of the wastewater treatn~ntplant
(WTP) over a longer
period
of time; and 2) the compliance steps
taken by the City during ~ha variance
period.
44—104
—3—
This Opinion
constitutes the Board~s findings of fact and
conclusions of
law in this matter,
ORDER
The City of
Peru is
hereby granted variance from Rule 1201
of
Chapter 3: Water
Pollution, subject
to the following
conditions:
1. This variance shall expire on November 19, 1982
or at such time as Mr. Tim Perra becomes certified
as a Class fIn operator, or upon termination of
Mr. Perras~ employment as operator of the City’s
waste water
treatment
plant (WTP), whichever occurs
first;
2. Mr. Perra
shall
actively pursue all necessary steps
toward
obtaining Class I certification;
and
3.
The City
shall
operate
and maintain its WTP in the
best practicable
manner.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
~oard Member
D, Anderson abstained.
I, Christan
L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
control Board,
hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order
w~sadopted on
the
LLL
day of
____,
1981 by a
vote of
~
Christan L. Moff t
,
lerk
Illinois Pollution
L.
ntrol Board
44— 105