ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

January

21,

1982

CITY

OF LA SALLE,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 81—152

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by JD.

Durnelie):

On October

5,

1981 the City of LaSalle

(City)

filed a

petition for variance which fails to specifically indicate

the Chapter

3:

Water Pollution Rules

from which variance

is

sought.

The

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency)

in its recommendation filed on

November 12,

1981, construes the

petition as seeking

relief

from Rules

405,

and 501 and modification

of the Village’s NPDES Permit pursuant to Rule

914 as they

relate to the fecal coliform limitation,

fecal coliform monitoring,

and chlorine residual effluent limitations in the City’s ~PDES

permit,

respectively.

The recommendation was that variance be

denied and was accompanied by a motion for leave

to file instanter,

which motLin

is hereby granted.

On December 7,

1981 the City filed

a response

to that recommendation which apparently requests a

short

term variance to allow the cessation of chlorination during the

pendency of this action,

Hearing was properly waived, and none

was held.

The City owns and operates the LaSaile Wastewater Treatment

Plant

(Plant)

located in LaSalle County.

The Plant serves

approximately 12,000 persons plus several industrial

facilities.

It

consists

of

a

mechanical

bar

screen,

grit

removal,

preaeration,

primary

clarification,

drying beds,

anaerobic digester, activated

sludge,

secondary clarifiers,

aerobic digester,

sludge lagoons

and chlorination.

Its current NPDES Permit #1L0029424 contains

the following 30—day average effluent limitations:

BOD

(biochemical oxygen demand)

20

mg/i

TSS

(total suspended solids)

25 mg/i

Feca.

Coliform

400 colonies/lOU ni

Chlorine

Residual

0.75 mg/i

Discharge data from monitoring reports (November,

1977—

August,

1981)

indicate general compliance with

BOD5 and TSS

limitations.

However, average chlorine residual

levels have

exceeded the

0.75 mg/i limitation for 19 of the last

26 reported

months

with

maximum levels as high

as

4.0 mg/i.

Further,

for

I.

~_1

i.

~

---

—2—

7 of the last 20 months the fecal coliform levels have been

indicated as “TNTC”

which

the Board assumes means

“too

numerous

to count”.

The City alleges that the high chlorine residual levels

are a result of an oversized chlorine feeding system which

was incorrectly supplied to the City.

This feeding system has

a minimum setting of 50 lbs./day, 25—30 lbs./day in excess of

the level the City alleges to be necessary to meet the 0.75 mg/l

tinitation.

The Agency states that the overly high levels over

the

years

are due to a decrease in flows in addition to the

oversized feeding system.

The City further alleges that only three alternatives for

compliance exist:

obtaining a variance,

suing the firm that

upgraded the plant, or paying another

firm

to correct the problem.

The latter

two,

the City argues, would constitute an arbitrary

or unreasonable hardship.

The Board must reject the obtaining of variance as a possible

compliance plan, since the Board cannot grant permanent variance.

A variance excuses compliance with otherwise applicable regulations

for a specific

period

of time not greater than

five

years.

Therefore, the City must plan to remedy the problem either on

its

own

or as a result of court action.

The c~stof remedying the chlorination problem is alleged

to include the following:

Cathodic

protection

of

booster

pump

copper

line

$3,000

Downsizing chlorinators

$1,500

Reworking dock area

$1,200

Total

$5,700

Since these compliance costs comprise the only hardship

alleged, they must be examined in light of the relief requests

to

determine

whether

they

constitute

arbitrary

and

unreasonable

hardship.

The

Board

construes

the

petition

as

requesting relief

from

Rules

405

and

501

and

from

its

NPDES

permit

limitation

pursuant to Rule 914 of Chapter

3.

This

is

confirmed

by

the

City’s

December

7th

response

to the Agency’s recommendations.

The

City

requests

modification

pursuant

to

Rule

914

of

Chapter

3

of

a

condition

to

its

NPDES

permit

$1L0029424

which

imposes a 0.75 mg/l chlorine residual concentration limitation.

tn

the

past

the

Board

has

ordered

NPDES

chlorine

residual

limitations stricken where compliance with that condition would

cause a violation of Board rules

(see Stepan Chemical v.

IEPA,

PCB 79-161,

November

19, 1981).

45—146

---

-.3—

mg/i

chlorine

residual

limitation

apparently

causes

violations

of

Rule

405

of chapter 3

which

sets

a

400/100

ml

fecal

coliform

limitation.

The

city

may,

therefore,

obtain

the

requested

relief

upon

application to the Agency for a permit modification.

The request for variance

from

Rule

405

gives

rise

to

a

different set of issues.

In this context the Board clearly

has the

power

to grant variance if arbitrary or unreasonable

hardship

has

been

shown.

The

only hardship alleged is the $5,700 indicated earlier

which would be required to be expended

to

meet the chlorine

residual

limitation.

Since

that

condition

is

unenforceable,

there

is

in

fact

no hardship in that the chlorine feed system

need not

be

downsized.

Therefore,

the

Board

finds

that

the

city

has

failed to prove an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship

as is required by Procedural Rules 401(c) and

(g) and 407(f),

and variance from Rule 405 in denied.

Since the city must continue to disinfect and is required

to meet the fecal coliform limitation of that rule, the variance

request from Rule 501 wilt also be denied in that the petition,

if anything, demonstrates greater than usual necessity for such

monitoring.

The

Board

final ly

notes

that

the

disinfection

rule

from

which

variance

is

requested

is

currently

before

the

Board

for

possible

amendatory

change

in

R77-12

(Docket

D),

but

the

proposed rule would

not exempt

the

city

from

the

chlorination

requirement.

However, a proposed rule is not a final, adopted

rule,

and

should

not

be

considered

as

such.

The

Agency

has,

however,

based

its

recommendation

of

denial

solely

upon

the

fact

that

the

proposed

rule

would

not

exempt

the

city.

This

Opinion

constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

ORDER

The petition for variance filed by the

city

of Lasalle in this

matter is hereby denied.

IT

IS

SO

ORDERED.

I,

christan

L.

Moffett,

clerk

of

the

Illinois

Pollution

control

Board,

hereby

~ertify

that

the

above

Opinion

and

Order

was

roPted

on

the

~

day

of

___________,

1982

by

a

vote

ii?antioffe’jcl~k

-

-

-

Illinois Pollution ebntrol Board

sc—i