ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    March
    15,
    1973
    )
    CITY OF NASHVILLE
    )
    )
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 72-275
    )
    )
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    )
    )
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Mr.
    Dumelle)
    This
    is a petition for variance from Rule 405 of the Illinois
    Water Pollution Regulations which requires that no effluent shall
    exceed 400 fecal
    coliforms per 100 ml after July
    31,
    1972.
    Hearing
    was held on September
    15,
    1972.
    The existing treatment facility at Nashville consists of
    a single
    stage stabilization pond with a design capacity of
    3,600 population
    equivalents.
    The facility treats wastes from residents and commer-
    cial businesses
    in the City.
    It processes
    approximately 300,000
    gallons of waste water per day.
    The City estimates
    that the treat-
    ment process has
    a 75
    efficiency and that the effluent discharged
    is
    151 pounds per day of suspended solids and 128 pounds per day
    of BOD.
    The effluent is discharged directly to Nashville Creek,
    tributary to Crooked Creek.
    At
    times Nashville Creek
    is reported
    to have no flow.
    (R.43).
    On December
    9,
    1971,
    samples
    of the effluent taken by the
    Agency showed 92 mg/i
    BOl),
    44 mg/l suspended solids and 800,000/100 ml
    fecal coliform.
    On February
    15,
    1972,
    samples showed 130 mg/i BOD,
    37 mg/i suspended solids and 120,000/100 ml
    fecal coliform.
    On
    June
    16,
    1972,
    samples showed
    55 mg/i
    BOD,
    150 mg/i suspended solids
    and 26,000/100
    ml fecal
    coliform.
    On July 14,
    1972,
    samples showed
    75 mg/i
    1301),
    160 mg/i suspended solids and 60,000/100 ml fecal
    coliform.
    The Agency inspector who took the samples
    testified that
    the fecal coliform levels were higher than from most treatment
    facilities.
    The engineering consultant for the City testified that
    the levels measured by
    the Agency would create
    a potential for
    disease producing organisms
    to be
    in
    the waters.
    (R.64).
    The
    Lity
    is planning
    to upgrade
    its facility by adding two
    additional
    s~ng1ecell stabilization ponds
    to be connected in series
    to the present pond.
    The system will
    also include
    a permanent
    ChIOTi
    n;~t
    ion
    faci
    ii ty for effluent disenfect ion.
    The
    expected
    completion date for the project
    is December,
    1973
    -2-
    Some of
    the delay has been caused by the City’s inability
    to purchase the land needed for the proposed facility.
    Negotiations
    for a certain tract of land began in October,
    1970.
    The negotiations
    proved unsuccessful and finally in August,
    1972
    the City Council
    voted
    to file
    a condemnation suit
    for the desired property.
    We
    do
    not know anything further about the status of that case.
    Also in
    August,
    1972
    the City Council directed the City Attorney to prepare
    a revenue bond issue for $450,000.
    The City has
    applied for both
    State and Federal
    grant funds
    for the project but will be able
    to
    finance the project on its own if necessary
    (R.34-S).
    The main issue
    in
    this
    case
    is whether the City should be
    excused
    from the installation of temporary chlorination facilities.
    The evidence is clear that such facilities can technically be
    accomplished within the present City system.
    Engineering data
    indicate that the temporary facility could be constructed in the
    present stabilization pond.
    It would have
    to be protected from
    flooding but it certainly could be done.
    Most of the temporary
    facility would be salvageable upon completion
    of the permanent
    facility.
    The chlorination unit itself would not have to be
    relocated,
    only the detention tank.
    The net loss
    on the temporary
    facility would be only ~7,000.
    The facility would take six months
    to complete.
    We do not
    find
    the
    evidence
    adequate
    to
    support
    a variance.
    The
    City
    has not shown in any significant way that the $7,000 loss would
    impose an unreasonable hardship on itself.
    The fecal coliform
    levels are high and do not justify
    the prevention
    of
    a $7,000 loss.
    Furthermore,
    at this point
    it seems unrealistic that
    the expected
    December,
    1973 completion date for the permanent installation will
    be met.
    As
    far as we know,
    neither
    the land purchase nor the
    local
    financing
    has
    been
    completed
    as
    of
    this
    time.
    In addition,
    the Board takes
    judicial notice of
    a proceeding
    filed before it on March
    7,
    1973 by
    the Director of the Environmental
    Protection Agency
    (R.73-4).
    This proceeding states that federally-
    funded projects will be delayed for approximately one year because
    regulations and guidelines have not been published.
    Since
    the
    Director’s
    letter also states that the start of construction without
    a grant would render the municipality ineligible for reimbursement
    from Federal funds
    it would appear that Nashville would not want
    to
    finance the entire $120,000 cost of the lagoon system itself lest
    it lose $90,000
    (75)
    in Federal funds.
    A delay
    seems reasonable
    beyond December 1973 and 1)ecember 1974 would become
    a more likely
    completion date.
    Another issue here
    is
    that of the City’s diligence after the
    hearing was conducted.
    The City did not submit the 91-page
    transcript
    to the Board until January
    10,
    1973,
    four months after
    the hearing.
    We
    feel that such delay was unreasonable under the
    7
    2~O
    -3-
    circumstances.
    If we would have been able
    to decide this
    case
    in October or November,
    1972 there would have been around fourteen
    months between this and the expected completion date of December,
    1973 for the permanent facility.
    Figuring the six-month period
    necessary
    to complete the temporary chlorination facility, it
    could have been
    in operation by May,
    1973
    at
    the latest.
    From May 1973
    to December 1974
    is
    19 months.
    The $7,000
    cost,
    even though appearing high,
    is
    low when spread over
    this period.
    We are bothered by the lack of information from Nashville
    on the bacterial levels
    in Nashville Creek.
    While bacterial
    dieoff does occur
    in the lagoon,
    the levels
    of fecal coliform
    as discharged are far above the standard.
    Do people swim, wade
    or canoe
    in Nashville Creek or North Creek?
    We do not know on
    this record.
    Nor do we know the bacterial levels resulting in
    these creeks after mixing.
    Nashville with
    a population
    of 3,027
    cannot be expected to put on
    a sophisticated case but
    it could
    have
    done more.
    We would also urge Nashville
    to review the
    testimony in
    a related case with regard
    to installing temporary
    chlorination facilities
    in very short time periods.
    (City of
    Granite City
    v.
    EPA, PCB 72-184,
    371, February 27,1973).
    We deny
    the variance without prejudice to a new proceeding
    if more adequate
    proofs are available.
    This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings
    of fact and
    conclusions
    of law.
    ORDER
    The petition for variance
    is denied without prejudice.
    I, Christan
    L. Moffett,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board,hereby~certify the above Opinion and Order were
    adopted on the
    j
    day
    of March,l973 by
    a vote of
    ~‘—o
    ~(~
    ~LC
    ~
    71)
    ~
    Christan
    L. Moffett/~lerk
    Illinois Pollution ~ntrol
    Board
    7
    —
    281

    Back to top