ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 16, 1974
CARSON INTERNATIONAL, INC.
)
V.
)
PCB 73—498
)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
)
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Dr. Odell)
On November 27, 1973, Carson International, Inc. (Carson)
filed a petition for variance from the effluent standard require-
ments of Rule 404(f) of Chapter Three: Illinois Water Pollution
Regulations (Chapter Three). Petitioner requested a variance
until June 30, 1974, for its on-site sewage treatment facility.
Petitioner owns and operates the Indian Lakes Country
Club in the City of Bloomingdale, Du Page County, Illinois. The
club has two 18-hole golf courses and a club house containing a
lounge and restaurant. After on-site treatment, flows averaging
5500 gpd discharge into Spring Brook Creek, a tributary of Salt
Creek. Recent effluent tests by Carson indicate levels consider-
ably above the 4 mg/i BOD and 5 mg/i suspended solids limitation
required by December 31, 1973, under Rule 404(f) of Chapter Three:
Date
BOD (mg/i). Suspended
Solids (mg/i)
11.10.1973
22
22
11.21.1973
26
18
Levels would probably be higher during the golfing season
in May and June of this year. Analyses of samples collected by
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on September 20, 1973,
supports this conclusion. BOD measured 46 mg/i and suspended
solids measured 33 mg/i on that date.
Petitioner premised unreasonable hardship on two factors.
First, upgrading the on-site treatment facility would cost $100,000.
Data supporting this figure were not supplied by Carson. Second,
the Village of Bloomingdale is in the process of expanding its
sewage treatment plant and Petitioner anticipated connecting into
a new sanitary trunk sewer r!as soon as approval is granted by the
Village to do so”. Based on these facts, Petitioner argued it
would be unreasonable to undertake on-site improvements because
the sizeable expenditures necessary for on—site upgrading would be
totally lost when this facility is abandoned following hook-up to
the municipal treatment plant, targeted for Petitioner’s use by
June, 1974. Petitioner alleged that the adverse environmental
12—275
impact resulting from the variance would be minimal. No data
were offered to support this conclusion. Rather, Petitioner stated
that plant effluent presently discharges into a field tile before
emptying into Spring Brook Creek, and that the downstream Roselle
treatment plant adds dilution flows to the Creek.
The EPA, in its December 19, 1973, Recommendation, ad-
vocated that the variance be granted. The EPA felt that the
connection with the Village sewer system was the best long—range
solution to local waste water treatment problems and “that to
recommend denial in this matter would be inconsistent with Agency
support for regionalization concepts as an efficient and cost~
effective means of waste treatment.”
In the Interim Order of January 31, 1974, the Board
directed th... e Petitioner to supply reasonable assurance that the
Village would, in fact, allow Carson to connect into its new sewer
trunk line by the end of June, 1974. On February 20, 1974,
Petitioner waived the 90-day requirement of Section 38 of the
Environmental Protection Act (Act). On April 12 Carson filed
an addendum to its variance petition
—
a letter from the Village
of Bioomingdale indicating that the trunk line would be available
to Petitioner sometime in June, 1974. EPA filed an amended Recommend-
atiob on May 10, 1974, favoring the grant of a variance but condition-
ing it on limiting the effluent discharge to 20 mg/I of BUD5 and 25
mg/i. of suspended solids.
It is established Board policy that economic hardship,
standing alone, may not support the grant of a variance, More
than economic hardship is involved here, It would be an unreason-
able resource utilization to demand the installation of expensive
new equipment which will fall into disuse a few months later.
Furthermore, a regionalization a~proach to sewage treatment is
favored by the Board, The adverse environmental impact is signi-
ficant but not long-lived.
We are not unmindful, however, that t..he grant of this
variance will have some adverse environmental consequence.
Section
36(a) of the Act states, “In granting a variance the Board may
impose such conditions as the policies of this Act may zequire.”
Section (2) (b) of the Act states, “it is the purpose of this Act
to restore, protect and enhance the quality of the environm
vent, and to assu.re that a4verse effects
~.
upon the ~environMent
are
fully considered and borne by thost~who ctuse them.” Carson
should take all zeasonable care to imprdve their effluent and
minimize environmental harm until use of its on—site treatment
facility
is discontinued .and their sewage is diverted to Bloom-
ingdale for treatment.
After hooleup to the Bloomingdale sewage
upeatirert c1a~u, Carver s~veli ~ave reasonavee efforts to restore
and enhance. the qpality of water in Spring I rook Creek.
—3—
ORDER
Carson International, Inc. is hereby granted a variance
from Rule 404(f) of Chapter Three, Water Pollution Regulations,
to operate the subject on—site treatment facility from January 1,
1974, until June
30, 1974,
IT IS SO
ORDERED,
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby certify
that the above Opinion and Order was adopted
on the j~,~dayof
,
1974,
by a vote of ~ to
~.
Chrstan L.
Mo tt
*
277