ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March 13, 1975
CARTHAGE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
)
CORPORATION AND CITY OF CARTHAGE,
Petitioners,
v.
)
PCB 75—48
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
Mr. John R. Glidden, attorney for City of-Carthage.
Mr. Joseph E. Svoboda, attorney for Environmental Protection
Agency.
INTERIM OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Dr. Odell)
Petitioners, Carthage Industrial Development Corporation
(Corporation), a not for profit corporation, and the City of
Carthage (City), a municipal corporation, filed a Petition for
Variance with the Illinois Pollution Control Board (Board) on
February 3, 1975. Petitioners seek relief from an Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) prohibition of con-
struction and operation of a sanitary sewer extension, tributary
to the City’s overloaded sewage treatment plant. This Agency
prohibition was made pursuant to Section 39 of the Environ-
mental Protection Act (Act). (Ill. Rev. Stat., 1971, Ch. ill 1/2,
Sec. 1039) and Rule 962 of Chapter 3, Water Pollution Regulations
(Chapter 3)
.
Petitioners seek such relief to extend a sanitary
sewer to a new industry which proposes to locate in the City.
The Corporation is duly organized under the laws of
Illinois to promote employment opportunities and to encourage
industrial and economic growth in the City, which is located in
Hancock County, Illinois (Pet. Ex. A). As a result of cooperative
efforts of the Petitioners, a commitment has been received from an
industry desiring to locate a manufacturing facility in the City.
The industry proposed to construct a manufacturing plant of 20,000
square feet, which will initially employ 50 to 75 persons and may
possibly employ up to 200 people within two years. The manu-
facturing plant would have wastes from restroom and toilet
facilities, but no industrial wastes.
Petitioners allege that problems found by the Agency to
exist in the City’s present sewage treatment plant require a
new treatment plant, which is currently beyond the capability
of the Petitioners. On November 10, 1970, citizens of the City
successfully voted to issue general obligation bonds in the
amount of $200,000 to be used to acquire real estate for the
location of a new sewage treatment plant, construction of the
16— 163
—2—
treatment plant, and for associated engineering and legal
expenses (Pet. Ex. B). The desired real estate and related
easements for the new sewage treatment plant were purchased by
the City o~iDecember 2, 1972 (Pet. Ex. C and D). For construct-
ing the new sewage treatment plant, the lowest bid received May
15, 1973, was $527,837.30 (Pet. Ex. E). Although the City has
$200,000 available for construction of the new sewage treatment
plant, this amount is inadequate and must be supplemented by
state and federal funds. The City has applied for such funds.
Efforts are being made to accelerate the solution of community
sewage treatment problems in those municipalities which fulfill
necessary requirements for approval (Pet. Ex. F).
The City alleges.that the problems which exist in their
present sewage treatment plant are caused by infiltration dur-
ing wet periods. Since most of the initial employees of the
proposed industry are expected to be residents of the City,
“there would not be any appreciable additional waste water load
contributed to the present sanitary system.” Petitioners further
allege that since the enrollment of Robert Morris College in the
City has declined from approximately 600 students from 1966
through 1969 to 200 students now, this has resulted in a sub-
stantial decrease in the waste waters transmitted to the City’s
sewage treatment plant.
Petitioners allege that denial of the variance allowing
the proposed industrial facility to connect into the present
City sewage treatment plant would impose an arbitrary and un-
reasonable hardship on Petitioners in that (a) if the new in-
dustry does not locate in Carthage for lack of a sewer connection,
this would be a “severe economic loss” to the City and community,
and (b) it would nullify the efforts of Petitioners to attract
new industries to the City.
On February 13, 1975, the City filed with the Board (a)
a Resolution authorizing the execution and delivery of a Memoran-
dum of Intent between the City and Carthage Precision Electric
Company (Company), a Delaware corporation, providing for the
issuance by the City of $200,000 of revenue bonds, and (b) a copy
of this Memorandum of Intent, which had been signed by the City
officials but not by the Company officials when it was filed
with the Board. These revenue bonds may be obtained under the
Industrial Project Revenue Bond Act of Illinois (Public Act 77
-
1453). This would permit the City to obtain favorable funding
for construction of a manufacturing plant for which the Company
would reimburse the City under a mutially acceptable agreement.
The Recommendation of the Agency was received by the
Board on March 3, 1975. “The City’s sewage treatment facility
is of the trickling filter type and has a design average flow
of 0.36 MGD. Unchlorinated plant effluent is discharged through
separate east and west clarifier outfails to Prairie Creek, an
intermittent stream tributary to the LaMoine and Illinois Rivers.
The May 2, 1973, inspection report of Agency engineer James R.
—3—
Leinicke states that the sewers are about 30 combined and
70 sanitary sewers, and almost any rainfall tends to promote
bypassing of the treatment plant. No flow records are avail-
able as the plant’s recorder has been inoperable for many years.
Average flow is known to exceed 0.36 MGD, as this is the maximum
plant capacity and bypassing occurs on a near daily basis (49
to 79 of the time). Average daily flow is estimated to be
0.5 MGD (0.375 MGD average daily water usage plus infiltration).
Bypass overflow occurs immediately after the bar screen and, in
addition, the report states that no maintenance had been given
to the Imhoff tank scum vents in many years, as the iron trap
doors to them had been corroded shut. It is not known what, if
any, maintenance is given to the Imhoff tank. Also, the trickling
filter with fixed nozzles operates inefficiently, as ponding is
very common in this filter, and the media is composed of smooth
oval stones of very small size which apparently clog easily.
The anaerobic digester tank from which the~tophas corroded
serves to store sludge until it can be wet hauled to agricultural
land.
“Since August 1966, proposed sewer extensions within the
city’s sanitary sewer system have been subject to critical re-
view by the Agency’s predecessor, the Sanitary Water Board (SWB)
and by the Agency. On June 26, 1970, the SWB notified the City
that future extensions to the sanitary sewer would be restricted
until progress toward providing adequate treatment facilities is
well advanced. The draft NPDES permit for the City of Carthage
was forwarded to USEPA on June 20, 1974. Final issuance had not
occurred as of the date of this Recommendation. The interim
effluent standards until June 30, 1975 were 40 mg/i of BOD and
40 mg/l suspended solids on grab samples. A condition of that
permit, Part 111(b), sets forth the requirement that:
Permittee must provide optimum operation and main-
tenance of the existing waste treatment facility
and the maximum practical flow shall be conveyed to
the treatment facility to produce as high quality
of effluent as reasonably possible.
“Recent effluent data for the City of Carthage’s sewage
treatment plant, as determined from Agency grab samples, are
listed below:
Fecal
Ammonia
Date
BOD SS Coliform
as N
October 9, 1974 (E)
23 17 304,000
12.0
(W)
14 20 221,000
9.8
November 19, 1974 (E)
12 21
98,000
4.6
(W)
8 25 164,000
4.5
December 16, 1974 (E)
53 42
6,900
2.8
“ “
43 42
51,000
2.5
January 13, 1975 (E) 123 64
30,000
8.1
hl
~ (W)
73
54 260,000
7.9
(E)
=
Samples of effluent from East clarifier.
(W)
=
Samples of effluent from West clarifier.
16
—
165
—4—
“Agency biologist William Tucker conducted a biological
survey of the receiving stream, Prairie Creek, on February 11,
1975. He classified two sampling stations, the first being 100
yards downstream of point of the City’s discharge, as polluted,
and the second sampling station 3 1/2 miles downstream at High-
way 70 south of Carthage, as semi-polluted.” Unfortunately, no
data are given for samples upstream from the City’s discharge
to provide a comparison with those downstream and thereby evaluate
the impact of the City’s discharge.
“Chlorination has not been provided for the plant’s effluent
and without c1~lorinationthe City violates the Chapter 3 Rule 405
standard of 400/100 ml fecal coliform. This lack of chlorination
can constitute a health hazard for anyone using Prairie Creek.”
The City has two kinds of problems concerning their sewage
treatment. First, the management of their present sewage treat-
ment is inadequate, and they have done much less than they could
to correct these difficulties. The City has worked diligently
on the second problem, financing a new sewage treatment plant,
but additional cooperative effort is needed by local, state,
and federal authorities.
The Agency advised the City by letters of April 10, 1974,
and October 18, 1974, concerning detailed steps that the City
should take to i4rove the operation and maintenance of their
sewage treatment plant. At the time of the Agency Recommendation
in this case, they had received no response to the 18 detailed
suggestions in their letter of October 18, 1974, to the City.
Although the college student population and associated waste
waters are less than several years ago, the present sewage treat-
ment plant is regularly overloaded and is not operated so as to
treat the average daily flow to acceptable levels. The industry
which the Petitioners are seeking to add to the City system
would add more sewage and aggravate the current treatment problem.
No sewer extension which increases the loading of the treatment
plant is warranted until improvements in operation, such as those
suggested in the Agency’s previous letters, are implemented.
The Petition for Variance states that the City “would be
able to bring its sanitary treatment facility into compliance
with the requirements of the Agency at such time as state or
federal funds become available to the City to supplement the funds
that the City currently has on hand for this project.” The Agency
states, however, that “after a grant offer is made (in the next
few weeks) the City will have to submit revised plans and speci-
fications and let the project out to bid. Before the new plant
is on line a considerable amount of time, perhaps 18 months, will
be taken up.” Although the proposed industry is desirable and
would be of economic value, its waste water should not he added
to a persistently overloaded sewage system in which the City has
not done what it can and should reasonably do to reduce pollution
from its sewage treatment plant.
—5—
Therefore, the Board will give Petitioners a limited
period to develop,in consultation with the Agency~aninterim
compliance plan of improved practices which they will imple-
ment at their present sewage treatment plant in line with
suggestions in the Agency’s letter of October 18, 1974, to
the City. The Agency will then be given a brief period to
respond to the Board concerning the improved practices which
will be implemented at the City’s present sewage treatment
plant.
The Board also requests Petitioners to comment on the
possible use of interim adequate sanitary treatment facilities
(e.g. septic tank and tile seepage field, portable sanitary
units, or portable waste treatment facilities) to treat the
limited amount of wastes anticipated from the proposed new
industry until they can be adequately treated by the City’s
sewage treatment plant.
ORDER
IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:
1. Petitioners, Carthage Industrial Development Cor-
poration and the City of Carthage, submit to the Board and
Agency by April 1, 1975, an interim compliance plan to improve
the operation of the City’s present sewage treatment plant in
line with suggestions in the Agency’s letter of October 18,
1974, to the City.
2. The Agency shall comment to the Board by April 8, 1975,
concerning the adequacy of the City’s interim compliance plan sub-
mitted in accordance with Order 1 above.
3. Failure of Petitioners to submit their interim com-
pliance plan to the Board and the Agency by April 1, 1975, will
subject the Petition for Variance to possible denial.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the abov Opinion and Order was
adopted on the
/31~~
day of
_____________,
1975, by a vote of
4) ~
~an~fett
16
—
167