ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

February

4,

1982

CORPORATE

WEST,

INC.,

)

)

Petitioner,

)

v.

)

PCB 81—174

)

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

)

AGENCY, THE

COUNTY

OF DUPAGE,

)

AND

VILLAGE OF LISLE,

)

)

Respondent.

3

OPINIOU OP

THE

BOARD

(by J.D.

Dumelle):

This Opinion supports the January 21, 1982 Order of the Board

in this matter.

On November

4,

1981 Corporate West,

Inc.

filed a

petition for variance from Rules 203 and 405

of

Chapter

3:

Water

Pollution,

for the duration of R77—12

(Docket D):

Effluent

Disinfection, plus sixty days.

On December 24, 1981, the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed a recommendation

to qrant the requested relief, and on December 31, 1981 Corpocate

West filed a response alleging certain inaccuracies therein which

ar

üot of substantial importance

to

the Board’s decision in this

matter

(and

which

are unsworn in any case).

Bearing was properly

waived, and none was held.

On August 7, 1980 the Board in PCU 80—96, granted Corporate

west, et al., a variance to allow the construction of a

temporary wastewater treatment plant in DuPage County.

This

plant will serve in addition to Corporate West,

Ace Hardware

Corporation and Western Electric, and will off load 32,000

gallons

per

day

of

sewage

from

the

DuPage

County

sewage

treatment

system

(this

figure

is

alleged

in

the

Agency’ s

recommendation,

hut

based upon other figures,

it is probably 320,000 gallons

per

day).

This

temporary

plant

ts

designed

to

treat

an

average

flow

of

0.325

MCD

(million

gallons

per

day).

design

P.E.

of

3,250,

and

a

maximum

flow

of

0.65

MGD.

The

treatment

plant consists of

2 lift

stations and duplicate package plants each of

which

contain

an

extended aeration process, second stage clarification, high rate

sand filters, and aerobic digestion.

The effluent from this plant

will be discharged to Rott Creek, a tributary of the East Branch

of

the DuPage River.

This facility has been completed except for

the

disinfection equipment that Corporate West has

ielayed

installing pending the outcome of the proposed regulatory change

irt

fl7—12 (Docket D).

45—285

---

Corporate

West

was

issuc~dNPDES

Permit

No, 1L006227

on

rlay

1.7,

1981.,

which expires

on

~uqust

7,

1984.

~.ccordinq

to

this

permit

fecal

coliform levels are not to exceed 400/100 ml.

Pursuant

to

Condition C of the Board~s ~ugust

7,

1981

Order the facility must be

transferred to the DuPage County

Department of Public Works

(DCDPW).

However,

Corporate West has

been advised by DCDPW that DCDPW will not accept transfer of

ownership of its interim treatment facility,

nor subcontract

its

operation under Condit:Lon D of the Board~sOrder, because

the

interim treatment facility does not have the exact chlorination

treatment specified in the Construction Permit and

the design

spectfications.

7~sa result, Corporate West’s

interim treatment

facility

is completed and ready to operate,

but. cannot he

operated nor its ownership transferred to PCDPW

in compliance

with Conditions C

& D of the Board~sOrder without DCDPW’s

cooperation.

Thus,

in order for Corporate West

to comply with the ~\ugust

7

()rder~

it

must either install disinfection equipment or obtain the

variance

relief

requested,

Corporate

West

al leqes

that

permanent

disinfection

facilities

will

cost

$30,000 and that expenditure

of

those

funds

constitutes

an

arbitrary

and

unreasonable

hardship

in

that

a

decision

to

adopt

the

proposed

rule

in

R77—12

will

make

that

expenditure

unnecessary.

The

agency’s

sole

disagreement

with

these

allegations

is

that.

according

to

U.S.

Ceological

Survey

topographic

maps,

there

is

a

body

of

water,

approximately

one

acre

in

size,

three

miles

downstream

of

Corporate

Westts

point

of discharqe

to T~ott

Creek.

Thus,

the

7\gency

argues

that

Corporate

West

may

he

required

to

disinfect

its

effluent

under

proposed

Section

304.121(d).

~owever,

the

exact;

nature

of that body

of

water

is

not

known,

and the Roan

has

not

defined

the

meaninq

of

“lak&’

as

opposed to other

lentic

habitats.

Thus,

the

~gency

concludes

that

variance

should

be

granted

in

light

of

the

minimal

environmental

impact

the

discharge

will,

have.

This

assessment

of

the environmental,

impact

is bas~

upon

the

Aqency?s

testimony

in

P77—12.

While the record does not disclose the cost of interim

disinfection facilities,

any such expense nay be rendered

unnecessary under the Board~sfinal Order in P77—12

(Docket

I)).

In

thi3 situation,

where facilities

are not in place

to meet Boar~i

rules and a decision on the rule,

which may exempt Corporate West

from compliance

with that rule,

is expected within a reasonably

short period of time subsequent

to the filing of the variance

petition, the Board

finds that denial of variance would constitute

an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship.

This situation

is to he

distinguished from that of

Ci~y~

of

LaSalle

v.

IEPA,

PCB 81—152

(January 21,

1982) where complying chlorination facilities

weru

already

in place,

and where the hardship alleged did not result

From

the

rule under consideration.

45—286

---

—3—

However,

the Board will impose a potentially

stricter time

limitation upon the variance than was requested.

If the variance

has not otherwise expired,

it shall expire,

since it

will be

unnecessary, upon Corporate West’s

connection

to the Woociridge-

Green Valley wastewater treatment plant

(which is ultimately

required under the Board’s August

7 Order).

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact

and

conclusions of law in this matter.

Mr. Anderson dissented.

I, Christan L.

Moffett, Clerk

of the Illinois

Pollution

Control Bp~ard,hereby c rtify that the above Opinion was adopted

on the

if?’

day of

__________

,

1982 by a vote of

Illinois Polluti

tro.

Board