ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

April 16, 1981

THE VILLAGE OF SAUGET

AND THE CITY OF EAST ST. LOUIS,  

)

Petitioners,

v.

)

PCB 80—176

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

)

AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J.D. Dumelle):

On September 30, 1980, Petitioners filed a variance

petition requesting relief from Rule 602(c)(1) and (2) of Chapter

3: Water Pollution. On October 31, 1980, the Environmental

Protection Agency (Agency) filed a recommendation that the

variance be granted subject to certain conditions. Hearing

was waived and none was held.

Petitioners are Illinois municipal corporations situated

in St. Clair County, Illinois, on the east bank of the Mississiopt

River. All wastewater within the East St. Louis sewer systeri

is currently transported to the East St. Louis wastewater

treatment plant. During periods of increased flow due to

rainfall, wastewater is discharged directly to the Mississippi

River.

In September, 1977, the Village of Sauget was designated

as lead agency for the design, construction and operation

of a Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility to provide primary

and secondary treatment of the wastewater from the Cities of

East St. Louis, Centreville, and the Villages of Sauget,

Cahokia, Brooklyn, Allorton and National City.

Part of Sauget’s responsibilities under the Step I

Facilities Plan were to conduct a first flush analysis of the

East St. Louis combined sewer system. According to Agency

determinations any rainfall—related flows in a combined sewer

system with levels of contaminants in excess of those concen-

trations expected on an average daily basis are deemed to be

first flush flow. These flows normally have high concentrations

of pollutants, (BOD5, suspended solids, metals, etc.) Which

have accumulated in the system at times of dry weather. When

resuspended from increased flow to the sewer system, the

first flush is required under 602(c)(1) to receive the same

degree of treatment as dry weather flow. Compliance with

Rule 602(c) (2) requires a minimum of primary treatment for

4 1—255

—2—

not less than ten times the average dry weather flow. Theso

f lows are alleged to consist of approximately 20.9 million

gallons, and 87 million gallons, respectively (see “East St.

Louis’ First Flush Analysis for the American Bottoms Regional

Treatment Wastewater Facility” conducted by Russell and Axon,

Inc., and submitted with the petition).

The Russell study concluded that the most cost—effective

means of treating first flush flows would be to construct a 21

million gallon equalization basin to store the first flush

and to provide subsequent transportation to the treatment

facility. Total capital cost is estimated at $9.2 million

and annual operating costs at $249,000.

The study further determined that primary treatment and

disinfection of “10 times” average dry weather flow would

require a facility with the capability of treating 87 million

gallons. The most cost—effective approach was found to be

the construction of a settling basin with a 21.8 million gallon

capacity to provide one hour detention time for peak flow rates.

Total capital cost is estimated at $6.6 million and annual

operating costs at $312,000.

It is alleged that these costs are unreasonable in light

of the minimal environmental damage that will result from a

granting of this variance. Due to the large assimilative

capacity of the Mississippi River, even at low river flow the

concentration of BODç is estimated to increase to 10.0 mg/i

from 9.9 mg/i while total suspended solids (TSS) should actually

decrease from 359.0 mg/i to 358.7 mg/l. Petitioners, therefore,

allege that for all practical purposes no detectable environr!vmtzti

impact would result.

The Agency recommends a variance grant to eliminate

unnecessary delays in the design or construction of the American

Bottoms Regional Wastewater Treatment Faciiities (ABRWTF),

while Petitioners expeditiously pursue a permanent regulatory

change. It asserts that such a delay would impose an arbitrary

or unreasonable hardship upon the petitioners and the communities

expecting to discharge to ABRWTF. If the variance is not

granted, the Agency contends that present plans could not receive

Agency approval until the regulatory proceeding has been decided.

The Agency states that denial will cause “unnecessary

delays,” but the delay will have been unnecessary only if the

Board adopts the proposed site—specific regulation (R81—12).

If the proposal is denied, a granting of the variance would,

apparently, cause delay in that the approved plans would not

have included design and construction of the basins. Further,

without such inclusion, there is no showing of a compliance

plan other than the hope that the regulatory proceeding will

be decided in favor of Sauget. In other words, the granting

of variance requires a plan which will lead to compliance

with existing regulations within a five—year period. A compliance

plan cannot be based solely upon the assumption that the regula-

tions will change.

4 1—256

—3—

To decide a variance, as the Agency appears to recommend,

based solely on a pending regulation serves to encourage vari-mce

petitioners to file rulemaking proceedings before the Board

in order to bootstrap their way to a favorable variance decision.

Setting aside the consideration of the regulatory proceeding,

the petition is inadequate to warrant a variance grant in

three respects. First, the environmental impact computations

cited are deceiving. The water quality standards of the Board

deal with pollutant concentrations outside of the mixing zone.

The theoretically derived concentrations using the entire volume

of the Mississippi River as a mixing zone are not of primary

interest. A mixing zone of that size is impermissible under

Rule 201(b) of Chapter 3: Water Pollution. The “mixing zones

must be quite small if the water quality standards are to have

any meaning” (Rule 201(a)). The record is silent as to pollutant

concentrations immediately outside of a mixing zone of acceptable

size.

Second, the record is silent as to contaminants other than

BOD5 and TSS. Certainly these are not the only contaminants

involved. Heavy metals and organics, among others, should

also have been evaluated.

Third, wastewater from combined sewers will by definition

carry objects of sewage origin. These are repugnant to the

eye. In addition they carry bacterial and viral contamination.

No statement is made about these environmental impacts.

Finally, even the economic hardship figures are deceptive.

Much of the funding may well come from external sources. Further,

if the regulatory proposal is adopted, the construction costs

will be avoided. Only the unavoidable costs, most notably

design fees for which no costs are given, constitute certain

hardship. These figures should have been presented, as should

costs of a shorter detention—time facility.

For these reasons, the Board will dismiss this petition

as insufficient but will grant leave to refile.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact

and conclusions of law in this matter.

ORDER

Proceedings in PCB 80—176 are hereby dismissed without

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I. Goodman concurs.

4 1—2 57

—4—

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 ~        

1981 by

a vote of 

5_p .

Christan

L. Moffett,

C~k

Illinois Pollution Control Board

41—258